It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you see in this picture?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Hi,

Recently my nan passed and my mum was going through old photo's from her childhood and came and at the time my niece was looking at pictures and said to my mum "there's a ghost in this picture" and my mum looked and couldn't believe what she was seeing. This is not Photoshopped in anyway except my screen name has been added for authenticity purposes so no one uses it without my permission in the future, it is scanned from the original photo. i have an open mind about paranormal thing's and try to explain thing's i cant with a scientific mind as others on the forum but knowing the fact's and seeing the picture KNOWING it hasn't been tampered with digitally kind of freaks me out, the picture was taken in Australia early in the 60's either at Melbourne zoo or a park in Heidelberg Melbourne my mum is unsure of the location. in the picture is her brother and at the time their was no one in view.



what i make out is a little girl in a dress, if you look carefully you can even see arms and leg's! any thought's on this are appreciated, Ive never come across anything like this personally. If anyone has similar pictures post them.




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Really? its a little girl running across a photo being taken at slow shutter speed...

How have you not seen this before?


edit on 11-10-2011 by homeslice because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by camouflaged
 


It's an interesting photo. However, when you say:



the picture was taken in Australia early in the 60's either at Melbourne zoo or a park in Heidelberg Melbourne


do you not think, considering that the location being a place where children would be taken to play, that the blurred little girl was simply running past when the photo was taken? Is that not a possibility, despite your mother not remebering anyone else in the shot (and, after all, why would she)?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Old cam, sister running around in the background....

NEXT



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Definitely looks like a little girl in a dress to me. Could possibly be a double exposure, but if not it's fascinating. Do you have the negatives from this roll of film?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
If there is no one else in view why does there seem to be two adults in the top right corner in the distance and a small boy next to them looking straight at the camera, kind of creepy!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
Really? its a little girl running across a photo being taken at slow shutter speed...

How have you not seen this before?


edit on 11-10-2011 by homeslice because: (no reason given)


If it was a girl running, it appears that she was running through the see saw my uncle is on as her dress overlaps his leg.


Originally posted by Beamish
reply to post by camouflaged
 


It's an interesting photo. However, when you say:



the picture was taken in Australia early in the 60's either at Melbourne zoo or a park in Heidelberg Melbourne


do you not think, considering that the location being a place where children would be taken to play, that the blurred little girl was simply running past when the photo was taken? Is that not a possibility, despite your mother not remebering anyone else in the shot (and, after all, why would she)?



Its possible other children where their that day being what appears to a park, but to me the legs and the arms of the girl appear to be facing front on which would mean she would have to be running towards the camera which wouldn't it? Their were other pictures taken that day and their is no one in that type of dress.


Originally posted by IamAbeliever
Definitely looks like a little girl in a dress to me. Could possibly be a double exposure, but if not it's fascinating. Do you have the negatives from this roll of film?


im not denying it could be a double exposure, its just strange because of the clarity of what appears to be a girl in a dress. Wouldn't the girl have to be moving at a really fast speed for double exposure to occur? im not an expert in this type of thing. i just cant explain why it appears that the girl is facing towards the camera. i don't think their is any negatives and im not sure what type of camera it was taken on either.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
the kid and the man in the backround just right of the tree look a little strange and ethereal to me as well. who knows, it could be a trick of the camera, it could be something.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Simple, maybe she wasn't running past...
she was facing the camera and then turned and walked away, or stepped sideways - or did any number of natural human maneuvers during the time it took to take this photo.

Cameras were not lighting fast in those days...



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
If there is no one else in view why does there seem to be two adults in the top right corner in the distance and a small boy next to them looking straight at the camera, kind of creepy!



Originally posted by gunshooter
the kid and the man in the backround just right of the tree look a little strange and ethereal to me as well. who knows, it could be a trick of the camera, it could be something.


Thanks for pointing this out, i never noticed that, i only see two adult looking figures in the tree behind the girl in the dress's head. its like two shadow people. Good find guys. it makes it even more creepy,



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
Simple, maybe she wasn't running past...
she was facing the camera and then turned and walked away, or stepped sideways - or did any number of natural human maneuvers during the time it took to take this photo.

Cameras were not lighting fast in those days...


Understandable that your a little skeptic, i would be too if someone posted this picture if i didn't, but have an open mind to think that what if it wasn't a "double exposure" or "lighting trick" and their actually was something their that shouldn't be. your input is most welcome, im like you too trying to explain this, you might be right, but i also have to agree that you might be wrong and id expect you should have that equal equation to my opinion's.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Once again i can't see anything. Although the picture does look strange



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by camouflaged
 


Well not really - this was a photo taken in the 60s on an old, slow camera in a public place that is almost guaranteed to have many other kids running around. There are also other people in the photo who are also blurred and partially transparent. I don't see how you could see it as anything else.

I am also open to all things paranormal, but I think you are just too eager actually see something in this photo that your common sense may have gone out the window.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
There are photos of ME in the 60's with blury kids running about in the background. This is definatley just a kid going by, I have seen it so many times.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I am so sorry - as hard as I try, I cannot see anything in this photo.

Can someone point it out outline it?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by camouflaged
 


I took your picture, and ran it through some sharpening. The people in the background are real, they seem to be around a picnic table or something. The reason they're so blurred is because you are viewing them through the little girl's head, if that makes any sense.

As for the little girl, it looks like she is in an old-fashioned dress with a wide white ribbon along the seam of the dress reaching to just below knees to middle shin area. Also, the flow of the dress doesn't flow like a dress of that length would, were she running. Rather, in the sharpened image, you can see her left arm looking as if it's in mid reach towards your uncle. She's standing half facing the camera half facing your uncle not looking at the camera, she seems to be looking at your uncle.

So the image is not blurred because of a running motion. As for exposure, the ribbon, as I understand how exposure works, the ribbon along the seam looks like it might have been white, Shouldn't that then be the worst exposure present? In the sharpened image, it's the least blurred part. Also the little girl, if this is double exposure, is the only part that's exposed, shouldn't you have double exposure all round?

In my opinion, the little girl is ethereal in nature. Ok, you can have your pic back now
I also, just to see what would happen if I messed with saturation etc, she was not added later, she is completely part of the picure.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stellify
 


Are you viewing the full image? I also didn't see anything at first, until I used that scroll thingy at the bottom to see the other half of the picture. The little girl is a white see-through "person", standing right next to the OP's uncle. Her head would be at his shoulder level.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


man, you beat me to it. ;D

argfh!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pixie777
 


Very interesting. I thought i would be the only person to notice the people in the back,right. In all fairness i thought that is what the OP was about.

Is it possible for you to run the sharpness thing again and upload the pictures as it would be good to see what you're talking about when you say she looks ethereal



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pixie777
reply to post by stellify
 


Are you viewing the full image? I also didn't see anything at first, until I used that scroll thingy at the bottom to see the other half of the picture. The little girl is a white see-through "person", standing right next to the OP's uncle. Her head would be at his shoulder level.


No scroll on iPad I am afraid!



new topics




 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join