My visitor with pictures.

Have you noticed that the second green thing looks an awful lot like a stapler?

Jemison

I did notice, but saw little relevance. Looks like cropping and resizing went a bit arye.

If "Killcreek" is faking, he doesn't need to photoshop anything, there is quite obviously someone standing in the door frame, whats to photoshop?

If this image is to be taken at face value, it's got to be the best image of an aporition I have ever seen...!!

It's to good to be accepted without further scrutiny.

Its fake, heres why.
1. the photo of the room(with flash on) is very sharp, if the flash was off it would STILL have sharp edges and deffinition,albiet darker.Test out your own Digi cams and you'll see.
2.The girl photo is very blurry,and for no reason.as the rest are sharp.
3.the lighting on the girl is consistent with the light in the room, do Ghosts cast shadows?
4.turn out your lights, now take a pic of any electronic device with a green light on it(a ps2, or computer).note you now have a pic of a floating green orb.....ohhhhhhh,ahhhhhhh.
5.I can do all these photos with or without the use of photoshop.
6.If the pics did copy over off the card wrong they would have digital fragmentation,not like what is seen in the girl pic(showing the pic layered over the same image).

make a better hoax next time.

1. Actually, he said it was with the lights on, which means the camera will have a far easier time focusing, as opposed to when there is insufficient light to focus.
2. See answer above. Otherwise what sharp images are you talking about?
3. Unless you know what a ghost is, and I have never come across a feasible explaination, this statement is pointless.
4. Agreed, this was my thought.
5. I could do all these without photoshop, so whats your point?
6. I'll have to check what was said about the layer versus defragmentation. If it was down to an error on the card I would agree, I can't see how it would produce an enlargement of the centre area and layer it behind the main image.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Koka]

1+2. Just wondering, but since the original pictures of the girl were in the dark, after such an enhancement that makes the background visible, aren't you guaranteed to loose quality (the blurriness), in the absence of the flash which defines a picture in dark places? Hence why the one with lights on is clearer.

3. Who said it was a ghost, that's just a speculation/asumption.

The second picture however could prove this all to be fake as it has mysteriously double framed, overlapped the same picture twice over, the foremost smaller in size. Possibly fake, yes, impossibly, not quite I'd say.

Cameras do not lose sharpness in low light, as I said, try it with your own digital camera.Also if there was NO LIGHTS at all as stated there would be no definable image at all even under enhancement, not to mention the fact that thier are shadows and light sources in the pic,that are not present in the green light pics.The girl pic looks to be from an evening or close to sundown pic.I know because I have commercial art training, and use image enhancement software(photoshop),and have lots of experience in it.I can do a pic of my own and post it sometime, or better yet do a whole thread on how pics can be hoaxed and doctored.

An expert! Just who we've been waiting for

Well I suppose now we just have to wait for killcreeks response to these accusations. I was also curious as to why the green bulb takes had distorted backgrounds. Hopefully we will get a decent reply, I'm very interested in hearing this unfold all the way.

Depending on the quality of the CCD within the camera, quality can vary dramatically from camera to camera.

I myself have a fair bit of experience in both Photoshop and Digital Photography.

With some Gamma correction you can even make out some other furniture in the "Green Orb" shots. Not very good detail though.



I don't think this is a case of proving how the shots were taken, just a case of whether "Killcreek" is lying or telling the truth. As mentioned before, if this is genuine, in as much as there was no-one in the room other than the person taking the shot, this has to be one of the best photos of an aporition ever taken, or it's a very poor hoax.

Personally, my first thoughts are that it is a hoax.

If I had taken a photo in the same conditions and given the same results, I'm not sure I'd be able to contain myself, certainly, not in the manner that Killcreek is.


[edit on 11-10-2004 by Koka]

this guys taking us for a ride. Please, if you are not serious about this don't post and actually try and contribute to ATS in a constructive manner. It's obvious that lifeform in the door is corporeal and human. and that green light is probably off his stereo in the dark.

thanks,
drfunk

the only unexplained paranormal pics I've ever seen could be reproduced with all types of cameras taken by different people, at that given paranormal place,ALL THE TIME.

So, by your logic, then we shouldn't even bother taking pictures of something paranormal?

Come on, man...try to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

No need to by upset by this "visitor"....she looks kinky, and dressed for some playtime!

not wrong i wish she haunted my room

I got it figured out. The top layer overlays a "zoom in background" of the same items.


At the bottom below my yellow line you see her two legs with a white piece of material just above the left thigh. Just beyond the left thigh you can see a bit of the chair.

At the top above my yellow line, You can see the doorframe.

At the right of my vertical yellow line, you can see a set of shelves.

Either a bad shop chop, or perhaps double-exposed film.

Dot.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by dotgov101]

Come on dotgov101 read the thread, this has already been mentioned, and proves very little.

I'm still unsure as to how Killcreek explains this particular anomoly.

I agree. I've seen some pictures that were almost impossible to fake, and these aren't any of them. And I do agree about the stereo light. In taking pictures into the dark, the camera takes a bit longer to make the photo and because of muscle twitch, you get a little "jitter" in the image.

I was ArcSofting the photo as the others were "mentioning it." It wasn't until I had uploaded the pic to my server that I saw the others, so calm down.

What anomoly??? If there's anything to be unsure about, it's the fact that the photo is real. It's a chick wearing a vaudeville costume coming out of a closet or kitchen. If you're so adamant about reading threads, why don't you become a little more adamant about looking at the evidence, instead of the posts.

Dot.

So he got to take the stripper home with him from the club. This is nothing unusual. I do it all the time. Only difference is that she let him take pictures.

All kidding aside.

Is this the original picture or did you crop this to zoom from the original.
I know you said you don't have photo shop but thats hard for me to believe as you already cropped and zoomed the breen light.

Sorry but then how did you crop and zoom the image?

Sorry Mods! I meant to edit this into my last post but clicked reply by accident.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by evecasino]

You can crop and zoom with Microsoft Photo Editor, which comes standard with the Office suite.

Where is Killcreek now? I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say about the strange background of the picture of the girl in the door.