Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Ghost Picture - Who is haunting St. Martins cave?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Thanks for the photo TKDRL. I saw that one when I did a Google Image search on the caves. There was another cave shown in many photos that had a wider opening. Are you sure the photo you posted is the cave the op photo was taken in?




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


I am not 100% positive, but the shape looks the same. I think that the cellphone camera was tilted a tiny bit, but it is hard to tell for sure, no clear horizon markers.
edit on Tue, 17 May 2011 07:43:13 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
This is the best I could do with this, you can almost make out a hairline and obviously clothes.. not sure on this one

Eye's can also be made out



edit on 17-5-2011 by aeionu because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2011 by aeionu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
It looks very much like the chap who claims to have taken the photo to me.... in shorts and a windcheater rainmac type thing...

in fact it loks like the coat he has on as they 'usually' have a vent flap at the back..


edit on 17-5-2011 by yzzyUK because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2011 by yzzyUK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by aeionu
 


I also tried some image adjustments on PS, but no big details come out. The only thing I notice is that this man may be bald.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
saw this the other day myself, my opinion:

Over exposure, bright flash, dude wearing reflective wind breaker type track suit. end of case.

but whatever, seeing as it's not that far from me (I'm in Fredericton, NB) the wife and I might take a trip out this summer, if only to see the cave.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Ok, did some research the problem with it being flash blow out, the camera phone he used dosnt have a flash..
on this page
timestranscript.canadaeast.com...
the second photo of him holding the phone shows its a motorola cliq
(click the arrow above the photo to see him)
, if you do a search for it you will see its the same phone.

The Motorola Cliq lacks a file manager, a camera flash, and some basic organizer features

reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/motorola-cliq-titanium-t/4505-6452_7-33770768.html
But it could be that he used some editing software like photoshop to add lens flare and such to a composed image to make the glow.. its not hard to edit and put the photo back into the camera.
But its not flash blow out.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sprocket2cog
 


Nice research there. I guess natural camera flash washout is ruled out then.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I live in NB as well and my girlfriend is a photographer. I want to go out at take pictures on Canada day weekend (July 1st), but we're already planning on going to a music festival in Gagetown called Folly Fest (That One Guy is playing).

Someone I know has a similar picture their friend took in front of an allegedly haunted house, except it's just the legs of the 'person' that are visible. I set the gears in motion to acquire a digital copy of the image and I will post it as soon as it's in my possession.

Don't know what exactly to think about 'ghosts', but I keep an open mind. With all the seemingly bizarre dynamics of quantum mechanics, it's plausible to think it could be some form of entanglement, or something completely different... Possibly even the holographic impression of someone's being who suffered a traumatic death that lingers on and appears when conditions are 'conducive' to such and event.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
OK, so I just received the picture(s) I was talking about.

Here's the house without the anomaly:



...and here's the picture with it:




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Here's conjecture: It's just a light artifact or some odd kind of lens flare.

or...

something more?

Some background:

Apparently it's a house in Quebec know colloquially as the Addam's Family house because it was supposed to resemble it somewhat. A friend of mine's mother and her friend were on a bus tour and they were told that if was a pretty unique house, so they got out to take a few pictures. My friend was the one that uploaded the pictures from their trip onto a computer, and she said that the her mother's friend who took the picture is technologically challenged and thus would be unable to pull off any sort of photo manipulation. The house isn't known to be haunted. Apparently it was abandoned at the time the picture was taken in 2007. It was taken with a Sony digital camera, so it's not due to picture bleed because of film.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


that photo looks to good to be true it would be very easy to create it in photoshop



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by aeionu
 


c'mon people! we're all so quick to notice the square and corners and pixels on pics of UFOs and aliens, who's not seeing those huge blocks of white squares on the alleged ghost? i scream PHOTOSHOP!



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 


What do you mean? Pixelation that happens any time you magnify a low resolution picture?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   


Common guys, I'm not going to pull something like that. This is NOT photoshop!

I didn't post this to waste my time, or yours. Take it seriously. This is either some kind of light artifact of mundane origin, or something else. I don't have any preconceived beliefs, other than the fact that THIS IS NOT A DOCTORED PHOTO. So throw in some better conclusions than calling it fake.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Even Bigger

Here I blew it up. It doesn't seem to be casting a shadow, whatever it is.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
photoshooped,

learnd2HOAXdotjpegdotwhydoghostsneedclothingdotcom



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by i am just saying
 


Lame answer, you could have at least called it a light artifact, or a digital glitch.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
The cave photo anomaly seems to be a little to solid to me, the person who is claiming the ghost may actually not recollect that photo. Even in the article it mentions how he just seems to forget what he's saying. I think the anomaly looks to much like the photographer, perhaps, someone else took the photo that he's unaware of or Does that brand of phone have an autotimer? I don't think he's trying to hoax anyone, he doesn't seem to know enough about photography, but then again who knows til you actually talk to the guy?...who takes just a cell phone to take pictures, . ..Usually people have atleast a point and shoot.

As far as the second set of photos posted with the same anomaly. I have a question for the photographers out there.

If you take two shots of the same house at the same time, but zoom out the second shot to get some of the foreground in. Would the shadows on the house be identical or would the change of focus change the shadows slightly?

Also, would the angle of the house be slightly different after zooming out?
edit on 19-5-2011 by Iseladore because: because I can't think and type at the same time



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


I agree.

I tried to enhance the contrast here:



Even facial features can be made out. I think it's a fake.






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join