Full bodied apparition or something else???

reply to post by Extralien


Hey there Extralien ... I've been away for a few days and am fashionably late to the party again

Anhoo, the photograph ... I have two possible suggestions ... 1 = real / 1 = fake ...

When I very first glanced at the picture the first thing that came to mind was a 'crucifixion' apparition (see first image for comparrison of body position);


1/ Crucifixion of Jesus Christ - note body position compard to original photograph;



If this is the case then my gut tells me the apparition could very well be real ... what appears to be red hair could be blood in the hair from the crown of thorns ... whilst the 'goat head' in the chest/stomache area could represent the devil / beelzeebub / satan either mocking or possessing Jesus at the point of death (just typing out loud folks ... what do I know I'm a Pagan) ... whilst the blue twirly cord could be like the vortex / umbilical that links to the otherside ... similar to the silver cord during AP to keep your ethreal body linked to your physical body.


Once I studied the photograph in a little more detail another possibility came to mind that would mean it was fake ... what if it was a scarecrow purpose built to have a little fun with the camera and us ? (see pictures two & three for comparison of body position);


2/ Scarecrow On A Frame - again note the body position and the loin cloth compared to the original and especially the crucifixion pictures.




However, there is one glaring differance between the crucifixion and scarecrow pictures with the original photograph ... in the original there were no outstretched arms therefore the the apparition could not be nailed to a cross and the scarecrow also had outstretched arms where it was attached to the frame to keep it upright.

Then I remembered that not all scarecrows are attached to a frame ... some are attached to a single pole at the back (see the third picture for comparison);


3/ Scarecrow On A Pole - with the single pole we see the same slightly slumped body position ... the drooping head and dopped arms ...



With the single pole the arms are no longer outstretched and we can assume the possibility that the goat-head was nothing more than a trick of the light ... as for the blue vortex effect this can easily be achieved by simple rope lights.

Now I'm not saying this is a hoax and neither am I saying it's the real deal ... I'm just offering a couple of possibilities to be considered ... if I'm asked for my personal opinion ... I would love it to be real but I have a little niggle in my gut that says it's not ... this is one of those times I want to be proven wrong because if this is real then it's an amazing catch.

And thanks for always keeping us in the loop Extralien we all appreciate it.

Woody

Given that most photos now can be reworked, might paranormal societies use a poloroid instead? Yes, these modern cameras are better technologically but they are worse when it comes to believable evidence. It is very hard to trust any ghost or ufo photograph taken nowadays.

Also, that photo seems like a pastiche of many things. The face is statuesque (too much so). Had I seen that image anywhere I would have said it was a work of post-modern art. I know spirits are not uniform in projection but the image seems like Dali meets 18th graveyard statues.

reply to post by Extralien


How reliable is your forum friend?

reply to post by dashdespatch


Reliability is not something that can be measured.
No matter how much I thought someone to be reliable, it takes only one mistake by them to prove me wrong.
how many promises have been broken?
how easily do we give respect?
What does it take for us to come to a decision?

I take this picture to be exactly what it is.. a picture of something yet to be explained.
If he says they are genuine, i have to believe him.
It is up to us to prove it one way or another.

If it is 100% genuine, then it has to be one of the best photos ever..
if it is a fake then it's a clever one. One that took thought and planning.

reply to post by woodwytch


Hiya woody..

thank you so much for your post.
Outstanding

i'd never have made that connection of the crucifiction.. but now you mention it.. kinda sums the pic up nicely.
As for the electrical charge, I agree with you on that one.
I'm sure you've seen the static I caught on video at bodmin jail...

reply to post by Extralien


Hey there Extralien and thank-you ... I remember the Bodmin clip very well.

I agree with the poster who said that technology these days has made it much easier to fake pictures of Paranormal Activity and UFO's etc and that's a shame ... but as you said if this is a fake it took some effort.

I shall be following this to see what comes about.

Woody

This is a blatant hoax. That photo is easily replicated by having a very slow shutter speed and having someone turn on a light source while standing in position, moving the source from one side to center. holding it for a while then moving it to the other side and turning it off. the light source would be a directionall light like an oblong mechanics beacon with a metal backing on one side so the light illuminated the pants only and not the face.

After looking at the pic of the people involved my guess is the fellow on the end with the flashlight is our subject of the photo.

Extra you are my friend for a long time I would be happy to have the hubby try to reproduce this type of pic. We did something like this by accident once when he was messing around with his camera on my daughters birthday and we ended up with some crazy shots that as a serious researcher I would NEVER repost and try to pass off as real.
Weeding out the bad eggs is how we keep our field respected am I right?

reply to post by NephraTari


Neph!!!

good to see you

As you know and can see, I'm open to all possibilities.
I'd love you to post any of your experimental pictures in order to reproduce this.

It would be great if you could do it as close as possible..

you've got an 8 second window with iso 100 ... 8.40 in the evening .
No blurring of the main person.. over reaching wobbly light to the right and a shorter but thinner wobbly light to the left.. lit up floor and lit up body

Any one else wish to attempt the same is more than welcome to post their results.. heck, dress up how you feel the person is dressed if it helps

The photographer has said that, and I quote,

I and my 3 friends will remember this forever and at the end of the day we know it's real.
Hand on heart.

But, one thing we must remember... as much as we might be able to recreate the image, it does not mean it is debunked, it just means we were able to duplicate it (even though that tends to lean the evidence towards the negative)

I'm all for getting to the truth.
The photographer was happy for me to post this here, he has not asked for anything. As far as I know the pic has only been posted in two places.. this forum and the forum of the investigative team I am a member of.

reply to post by NephraTari
Thats no hoax...
I should know as i was there.I took it.

Originally posted by NephraTari
This is a blatant hoax. That photo is easily replicated by having a very slow shutter speed and having someone turn on a light source while standing in position, moving the source from one side to center. holding it for a while then moving it to the other side and turning it off. the light source would be a directionall light like an oblong mechanics beacon with a metal backing on one side so the light illuminated the pants only and not the face.

After looking at the pic of the people involved my guess is the fellow on the end with the flashlight is our subject of the photo.

Extra you are my friend for a long time I would be happy to have the hubby try to reproduce this type of pic. We did something like this by accident once when he was messing around with his camera on my daughters birthday and we ended up with some crazy shots that as a serious researcher I would NEVER repost and try to pass off as real.
Weeding out the bad eggs is how we keep our field respected am I right?

edit on 20-9-2012 by NephraTari because: (no reason given)

I look forward to seeing your reproduction of a genuine photo that wasnt faked i really do.

Originally posted by Nightwhistler
reply to post by NephraTari

 

Thats no hoax...
I should know as i was there.I took it.

I would think that this is NOT a hoax. Hoaxes imply deliberate deception, and I don't see that here.

But if I had to guess, I'm leaning toward a long exposure and a person walking around with a flashlight, perhaps turning it on and quickly off? If the shutter was open, this would be recorded as streaks of light, following the movement of the flashlight. Also, if it was directed down, it would create that pool of light we see as well as the spot focus on the jeans.

At the time of the photograph, it might be possible to actually not know how long that shutter remained open, or tie the other guy's activity to the shot. I mean, people were there, wandering around in the pitch darkness. I suspect occasionally, someone might have flicked on a flashlight to see where they were going?

I'd be spooked when I first saw it, myself. But I gotta say, I think it has a non-paranormal explanation.

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway

There was nobody infront of me when this photo was taken.
My friends were to the right of me.bill claims he was behind me to the left.I only know there was nobody infront of us.
My mate Steve had his tripod to the right of me and my mate Ben with the long hair was next to me on my right.
He was the 1st person to see that as as soon as I seen LCD light up I seen it on there.
That is what it is.
I also have another photo that seems to show someone in the window on top floor?
I have posted it but not on this website.

This is genuine.It's no hoax and nobody was infront of us.
If that is somebody with a flash then they must of been invisible to 4 people who were looking forwards at that ruin.
Also there torch must of been as well as there was no light infront of us.

I can vouch aswel as my friends can that at this time nobody was infront.
I'm sorry guys but you are incorrect.
If you want to say camera malfunction that's fair enough but no way was there me or my friends or anybody else infront of us?
Impossible sorry guys.

Originally posted by Nightwhistler
reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway

 

There was nobody infront of me when this photo was taken.
My friends were to the right of me.bill claims he was behind me to the left.I only know there was nobody infront of us.
My mate Steve had his tripod to the right of me and my mate Ben with the long hair was next to me on my right.
He was the 1st person to see that as as soon as I seen LCD light up I seen it on there.
That is what it is.
I also have another photo that seems to show someone in the window on top floor?
I have posted it but not on this website.

This is genuine.It's no hoax and nobody was infront of us.
If that is somebody with a flash then they must of been invisible to 4 people who were looking forwards at that ruin.
Also there torch must of been as well as there was no light infront of us.

So, the two of you looking right in this direction saw no light? How do you suppose a mechanical camera that records light within the visible spectrum recorded this? It doesn't make sense. A camera can only record what visible light is there, correct?

I'm not saying that you are not being truthful, because I think you are. I am just pointing out the problems with this theory. The lit up figure is, in my opinion, exactly what I would expect from a guy snapping on his flashlight (torch) and waving it quickly around . It might have only been a second, but in the pitch blackness, it would record on the camera's CCD during this long exposure. Movement of the light would paint light streaks much like we see here.

I wasn't there, but I used to teach photography, and have seen similar light streaks in night shots from moving lights many times. Also, the pool of light and the relative focus of the legs suggests the light was directed there a bit longer before or after being swung back and forth.

JMO based on the image.

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway


I can only wish you was there.
Yes, that Is correct , nobody seen no lights.Is it possible we blinked? Could an image be caught on camera within that mili second? It has to be able to as wrong didn't see it.

I know there was nobody infront of us and here's why.
We set up them tripods and l left my Sony cam there and Steve left his.
I took my lumix and carried on taking photos.All 4 of us were around that ruin.
When I left the DVR recording by the ruin I told the lads to head back to tripods to help prevent contamination.

Upon doing so I couldn't figure out how to use my Sony a200 at night.I've never used it for this.
It was a birthday present ya see.
So I took my camera off my mate Ben as he wanted to take some.I thought I would use my Sony one.
So I placed it on tripod and put it on one of the settings.
All 3 of my friends were behind me but to be side.This is how I'm 101% certainl nobody was infront of us.
Heck ..even when I took it and that LCD lit up I told the lads I've got something here.
They all looked! Not just one..my mate Ben looked 1st and Steve being Steve wanted to get a better one but caught nothing!

You maybe a professional photographers but I'm telling this and that's hand on heart on the lives of my children (and I love them dearly!) We seen nothing...nobody seen nothing.nobody was infront of us and that photo just is what it is.
People may want to hear it's fake..someone with a torch was there infront? I'd love to say they were! But they wasn't.
I have photos that people have thought were ghosts.I took them and I told them they wernt and shown them why.
I couldn't tell you what That is but I can tell you it wasn't us and nobody else was there.

I'm still waiting for the photos from those in this thread who said they had similar or could replicate the same image.

Either they have not been able to do so, or are still in the process of trying to replicate it.

We've all done a lot of bone picking here, yet none of us are really any closer to an answer..

Originally posted by Extralien
I'm still waiting for the photos from those in this thread who said they had similar or could replicate the same image.

Either they have not been able to do so, or are still in the process of trying to replicate it.

We've all done a lot of bone picking here, yet none of us are really any closer to an answer..

I was thinking the same thing ... trouble is there are a lot of people on ATS who love to pick fault without testing the potential ... looks like this is the case here ... one or two people writing cheques their mouths can't cash me'thinks

Woody

reply to post by Sublimecraft


Could be anything, but more than likely matrixing.

In other words, your brain is programmed to recognise facial features, so what appears to be a face could actually be a mixture of other items..

reply to post by Extralien


Cheers mate - appreciate the feedback.

Bloody brain - gets me in all sorts of trouble all the time!

I'm very interested in this sort of thing so will continue to monitor accordingly.