Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Photo Mystery

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
....i got a headache




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Interesting. I don't know a ton about these old pictures, but if the picture was laying on another picture for many years could they 'bleed' on to each other? Granted even then this is quite the coincidence.

The thing that keeps hitting me is how under-dressed the 'man' is, if he was attending this wedding. Does or did your brother own those clothes at all? Is it possible he was in those clothes in his house miles away that day thinking of her so badly somehow his 'spirit' made a trip?

If I were you I would take it to be looked at to make sure it's legit, then get a few people who can back all this up, and call your local news and try and get this thing in front of as many eyes as you can, because you either need help finding out what happened or people need to know how crazy this is.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by davethebear


Anyway, in the Black Country area there is a weekly paper called The Black Country Bugle. The Black Country Bugle is a weekly paper that looks at years gone by in history from around the local area. Every week there are old black and white photographs that people send into the paper to be published along with a particular story to run alongside it. On this particular week in about 1986 there was a photo published on the front cover of the BCB that was taken in 1919. The photo was of a cricket match that was taken alongside a band stand where a band were sitting with their brass instruments and people standing around watching the game of cricket.

Is there any chance of someone being able to do a search on the internet (paper archives?) for this photo?
(I'm no good at that!!)
Cool story tho




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Great photo and fascinating thread. I'm going to go with double exposure - even though it's seamless and Brion looks like he's standing right behind Cindy. My reason: Jeff (hope I'm getting all the names right) was the best man at this wedding, right? Jeff also had the original of this photo in his belongings? So Jeff probably owned this camera and roll of film.

Cheap disposable cameras are notorious for creating double exposures, because the film slips on the winder and you end up snapping the next photo over exposed film. So, Jeff takes a photo of Brion sometime (probably against a dark background) and then forgets about it. Then he takes the camera to the wedding and snaps a pic of Cindy over the top.

I'm also thinking that the bright object in the middle was part of Brion's photo, maybe ask him if he recognizes the shape from somewhere Jeff might have been...



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


35mm camera and they got a double exposure from not forwarding the film or the camera operating wrongly. Two pictures in one would be my guess.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I don't know if this has been asked but who took this picture and why did your younger brother have it?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Hey NorEaster, I've followed this thread from the very beginning and i have read every post to find an explanation to this remarkable photo, i agree with Jeremy and getting this in a paper could help. I'd be so disappointed if this was a hoax because its really took me in! Hope you solve the mystery!

Btw this has the makings of a good movie



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I like this thread.

However, am interested in other's views of his positioning and have seen no discussion about this yet.

The camera appears to be held quite high - imagine you were taking the photo.

Cindy is low down in the shot...however, Brion is at waist height on her shoulder. Given the angle of the floor, this looks weird to me - like he's there, but not there....

To me his placement looks odd. Like if he was there physically, he would be on a platform or a chair.

Does anyone else get what I mean...it's like he's there but floating....

Anyone else see what I mean?

I do believe you OP. Very much enjoying the journey with you.
edit on 13-7-2011 by stellify because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stellify
 


Yes the perspective seems to be wrong. The ladies looks like they have been inserted.

You know what Photoshop could do these days. I am looking at the possibility of manipulation.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
This is probably about my 3rd or 4th post on this thread now, but still interesting....

Does anybody else think that the girl on the right (Cindy) seems to stand out and seem quite bright, especially the way in which her hand seems to come out the photo towards you, as if in nearly 3D? Or is it just me? That is something I noticed when I looked at the picture the very first time of viewing it..........

Still intrigued...........



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Great photo and fascinating thread. I'm going to go with double exposure - even though it's seamless and Brion looks like he's standing right behind Cindy. My reason: Jeff (hope I'm getting all the names right) was the best man at this wedding, right? Jeff also had the original of this photo in his belongings? So Jeff probably owned this camera and roll of film.

Cheap disposable cameras are notorious for creating double exposures, because the film slips on the winder and you end up snapping the next photo over exposed film. So, Jeff takes a photo of Brion sometime (probably against a dark background) and then forgets about it. Then he takes the camera to the wedding and snaps a pic of Cindy over the top.

I'm also thinking that the bright object in the middle was part of Brion's photo, maybe ask him if he recognizes the shape from somewhere Jeff might have been...




I agree. This is a simple case of a double exposure.

One from a funeral as explained earlier: (explains the lamp and backround lighting)



The room is an old function room within the VFW. It's not the best room for a reception, but it rents cheap. I only know about the window situation because less than a month ago, my older brother rented it out for attendees at my youngest brother's funeral to meet afterward and have a plate of food. I hadn't been in that room in decades, and I noticed that it seemed odd that there were no windows in that function room. That terrible paneling is still there too. My hometown is pretty small, and not much changes.


Then somehow the camera got reused on this particular wedding day.

Also explains why you're brother was not noticed by anyone - because the two sets of pictures were taken from different timelines/events.

Here are some examples of double or multiple exposure:

www.google.com... i=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=804

t



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Hey NorEaster, once again - sorry for your loss.


When I saw this comparison photo of your brother on p3 I got quite an immediate shock. It's pretty obvious to me that's it's the same person.



The double exposure idea is a possibility though I have to say, it's pretty sharp and clear, not to mention super coincidental.

Another possibility, it could be a case of accidental double printing on the negative (in the darkroom stage).

The only way to confirm either of these is to find the other photo of Brion in his flannel shirt, which in the former case, would either be on the same roll of film, or the latter, a roll of film that was pretty close to the timeline of these events (one would think).

Even if it turns out to be the non-paranormal explanation then you surely have serendipity at work here.
Especially due to all the circumstances you have described.

Excellent thread. Loving it!


P.S. Also, the weird light in the middle of the picture of the OP kinda reminds me of a side view of a lit-up piano ...
Would that ring any bells with your brother?

edit on 13/7/2011 by Netties Hermit because: it's getting late ...



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannotz
If you look at the waving girl and look at the space under her arm and armpit you'll see a leg? is that suppose to be the mans leg? It looks very fake, and the proportions aren't right...somethings...off.


She's clutching her purse under her arm which blocks the view of the guys legs, but you're right, something is very off. The more I look at this photo the more I'm convinced it's a hoax. The resolution of the man does not match the overall resolution of the photo. He is far less grainy than anything else. And again, the chandelier is not natural in it's place.

IMO, this photo was created (in photoshop or similar program), printed out, scanned in, re edited, printed and scaned again for final upload. Again, there is nothing super natural about this.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
*Update*

Okay, as much as I hate this, I have to announce that I've become suspicious of the account attached to this photograph. I love my brother, but I have reason to doubt the veracity of the information I received from him and his friends concerning the circumstances of that wedding reception. At this time, I'm going to have to admit that I can't defend the story that Brion wasn't at this event, and until I can definitely determine that he was, in fact, NOT in attendance, I'm going to drop this examination.

Like I stated, I wasn't there, and I've been working from the assertions of him and those others who've offered their accounts, but I've begun to suspect that certain inconsistencies (which I'll keep to myself) are suggesting that there may be a motivation for steering me toward solving an anomalous circumstance that did not actually occur. As I stated, my brother is an Evangelical, and to say that I'm not an Evangelical is to be subtle in the description of the philosophical divide that exists between us. I love him, and I know he wishes the best for me and my "soul", but I also know that this photo mystery thing (if a true anomaly) would settle a debate that he and I have had for years now, concerning the validity of divinely-staged miraculous occurrences.

So, while I appreciate the enthusiasm we all shared for this potential mystery, I have to back away from it at this time, and offer my apologies for bringing it to the board. Especially since it may have served to bolster other claims that may or may not be authentic as yet another example of a magical world that may or may not exist as real. I love a god mystery, but only if I can be sure of its mysterious nature. At this moment, I'm not able to defend the mysterious nature of this mystery.

Well...except for whatever the hell that light thingy is. That, I can't explain, and am not even in the mood to deal with right now. Whatever it is, there it is.

This sucks.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Great photo and fascinating thread. I'm going to go with double exposure - even though it's seamless and Brion looks like he's standing right behind Cindy. My reason: Jeff (hope I'm getting all the names right) was the best man at this wedding, right? Jeff also had the original of this photo in his belongings? So Jeff probably owned this camera and roll of film.


Assuming everything the op has stated is true then this can't be a double exposure. He said the camera was a Kodak 110. This is not a disposable camera and it uses a a special 110mm cartridge film which cannot be rewound unless you break into the case and manually rewind it. Also, the op stated that John, the groom, has the negatives in his possesion, but Jeff had the photo. So for some reason, John gave Jeff the photo????



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I know I called this a hoax, but I want to make it clear, I do not think you are the creator of it. You are being hoaxed just as we all are. If all of the circumstances in this story and your life are true, then I am truly sorry for the lose of your brother. I hope this mystery has a good ending and you can all find peace.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I know I called this a hoax, but I want to make it clear, I do not think you are the creator of it. You are being hoaxed just as we all are. If all of the circumstances in this story and your life are true, then I am truly sorry for the lose of your brother. I hope this mystery has a good ending and you can all find peace.


Thanks.

I'm a researcher, and this thing would've been quite a redirection of that research. I still have to establish whether my concerns are well founded, but at this point, I'm uncertain about the core aspects and I need to be up front about that uncertainty, since it's become an examination that made its way onto a public forum. Again, I apologize for this if it does end up being a ballbust on me. It's pretty embarrassing, to say the least.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I know I called this a hoax, but I want to make it clear, I do not think you are the creator of it. You are being hoaxed just as we all are. If all of the circumstances in this story and your life are true, then I am truly sorry for the lose of your brother. I hope this mystery has a good ending and you can all find peace.


Thanks.

I'm a researcher, and this thing would've been quite a redirection of that research. I still have to establish whether my concerns are well founded, but at this point, I'm uncertain about the core aspects and I need to be up front about that uncertainty, since it's become an examination that made its way onto a public forum. Again, I apologize for this if it does end up being a ballbust on me. It's pretty embarrassing, to say the least.


Well, if your brother set you up deliberately just to pull your chain and make his own point, I'd disown him. LOL! This has been an interesting thread, and you're not to be blamed for trusting in what people you've known your whole life have told you they thought was true.
That light anomaly is still pretty interesting, though. If you squint, it almost looks like a huge birthday candle superimposed over the harder-edged block of light in the background.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I think double-exposure can be completely ruled out. His tee-shirt would definitely bleed into the blue of her dress and make it lighter. The wall would also cause his image to be very faded and off-color. You can also see just a faint part of his blue shirt through the edges of her hair, but the hair itself (if you look in zoom) is not tinted by the blue shirt, but shines through the thin edges of her hair.

Also, the sunlight on the wall is so bright that if it were there before the exposure of the women, then nothing could register over it as in the woman on the left.

He is standing about midway between the wall and the girl, so the placement of the image in perspective seems correct as well.

The whole picture seems one exposure and authentic.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I starred you for your honesty!

The staff should applaud you for this thread!





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join