Photo of the old Burwash Ghost and One in a Million odds

reply to post by Xquizit


That's awesome! I can't believe you have a shot of the same room from the same point of view, really cool!

When did you and your friends venture out there? Did you have any odd experiences?

Thanks for sharing! I tried walking across the table as well.

Gotta love the adventurous sprit of Sudburians!

reply to post by amraks


"He should be able to find his original file on his computer after 7 years.
if this photo was mine and it had a ghost in the picture I think I would least make a few copies onto a cd.
So if it was so important to the OP why didn't he do this. makes no sense. "


really? because 7 years ago i'm 99.9% sure he didn't predict having to "prove" it's authenticity on a conspiracy site. he's not saying "PROOF GHOSTS ARE REAL! INDISPUTABLE FACT AS PROVEN BY MY PHOTO" which would then scream of a hoax. he's just relating a cool story not trying to cash in on it. i have photos on a computer that i can't get to and didn't make copies of and they are more important than a "ghost" photo. just because someone didn't do something in the exact manner you think they should doesn't mean they are lying.

ArchaicDesigns
reply to post by Xquizit

 

That's awesome! I can't believe you have a shot of the same room from the same point of view, really cool!

When did you and your friends venture out there? Did you have any odd experiences?

Thanks for sharing! I tried walking across the table as well.

Gotta love the adventurous sprit of Sudburians!

edit on 22-9-2013 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)

This was back in 2010. And we took this picture because of you! Lol. Yep, once we saw your ghostly figure back in 2008 or so, we decided to take a second trip and spend more time in the basement.

The first time we went, we weren't as prepared for the abestos/water filled basement, so we made sure to have our rubber boots and flashlights in tow the second time round.

I never got a "feeling" of having anything creepy around us, to be honest but the whole experience was spooky. The wind blowing into all the broken windows making doors sway and debris flying everywhere. Especially in the gym. But the basement topped the cake... Dark rooms, long tunnels, random holes in a cement poured flooring with water up to your knees. I'm sure people have fallen into those, glad I wasn't one of them. Random shackles on the ceiling. Just plain creepy.

Xquizit
Alright everyone, here's a picture my husband took in the exact same area/corner that the OP took his, well not as close up. That's me trying to get across the deep water on an old broken wooden table. It's in the basement with about a foot of water throughout.

No ghost

Anyway, this gives you an idea of the surroundings of the OP's original picture.

I have a possibly technically-naive question regarding Xquizit's remarkable second photo of the exact same location as the OP's photo:

Why would it be that, when I enlarge it on my computer (and the image naturally becomes more pixilated), does there appear to be a perfectly delineated, rectangular, strip-like, patch covering the same area where the 'ghost' image is situated in the OP's photo?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I'm just curious.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Could it have something to do with the water on the floor?

reply to post by ImpactoR



Thanks, when and if we get raw image I will do more tests.

EDIT:
Archaic, if you plan on doing any exploration of any interesting sites anytime soon PM me and I would love to join you, we could hunt ghosts like true pros.

reply to post by Thorneblood

Thanks.
Did you try to enlarge it, as well?

IAMTAT

Xquizit
Alright everyone, here's a picture my husband took in the exact same area/corner that the OP took his, well not as close up. That's me trying to get across the deep water on an old broken wooden table. It's in the basement with about a foot of water throughout.

No ghost

Anyway, this gives you an idea of the surroundings of the OP's original picture.

I have a possibly technically-naive question regarding Xquizit's remarkable second photo of the exact same location as the OP's photo:

Why would it be that, when I enlarge it on my computer (and the image naturally becomes more pixilated), does there appear to be a perfectly delineated, rectangular, strip-like, patch covering the same area where the 'ghost' image is situated in the OP's photo?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I'm just curious.

edit on 22-9-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

Lol, all good. The reason why is because I saved the picture from my Facebook photo album. I didn't post the original because there isn't a ghostly figure in my photo for everyone to pick apart

reply to post by Xquizit

This was back in 2010. And we took this picture because of you! Lol. Yep, once we saw your ghostly figure back in 2008 or so, we decided to take a second trip and spend more time in the basement.

Really? That is beyond awesome! I'm so glad that we inspired you and your second adventure.

I have to ask, where and when did you see our photo? Did one of my friends show it to you?
Initially, we were really stoked about the picture and showed the actual digital photo on the camera to a fair share of people at parties and such.

The basement definately was the creepiest part. Watch out for the holes! Lol
I don't recall anyone falling into those, but a few close calls.

There are things that the original poster needs to do in order to allow a proper evaluation.

1. Provide the original unedited digital camera jpeg images so it can be reviewed (if you need help on hosting the files online ask for help)
2. The model numbers and makes of all the camera's at the scene (could rule in or out the projection capabilities question)
3. Provide all the other original photos from the prison, so we can determine what the black or dark item is below the camera that the person on the left is holding and what other items in the location might be reflecting in the water

If you cannot or will not produce the original images we are only left with supposition or speculation. Everyone here is as interested as you to look into this.

reply to post by IAMTAT


I did. Naturally no demons in the picture but it did leave me to wonder what effect the water would have on any image provided in regards to examination. If, for example, the original picture would have been effected by the presence of water and as such make it harder to determine its legitimacy.

Fantastic image!
Star and flag for the op!

First, thanks for sharing your picture and your story. Threads like this are why I joined ats! Thanks also for responding to critics and concerns the best that you can. I know it's hard to share something so personal and have it questioned and picked apart. Some dislike that aspect if ats, but when done right it is actually very enlightening for all sides.

I have no tech related concerns on the photo, but more an aesthetic one. This appears to be a reflection of a 3-d creature/ghost/demon. The reflection, however, starts at the very base of the wall. If there was really a invisible but 3-d being, as depicted in the reflection, wouldn't it have to be further out from the wall?

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I worded it clearly.

Anyway, that is just one of my concerns that hasn't already been discussed.

I love your story and how it sounds like this picture has become a local legend - and you are only now becoming aware of it! Thanks again for sharing it here and for responding to questions...

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns





Dude, im sorry I know you have seen many comparison pics, and I do believe you but you have got to see the face in this pic. Damn near Identical.
Anyway hope you get some more great pics can't wait to see them.


Peace.

Someone mentioned the Joker but to me that ghost/demon looks an awfully lot like the Crow or someone dressed up as the Crow. The thin lip line is the same and heck even the leather jacket shoulder pads are the same. A quick Google search of images of the Crow and you can see what I mean about the shoulders. Well, maybe the ghost was a fan.

Ok, so I pulled all the photos off my old hard drive and went through them all.

This is the oldest version of the picture that I could find. It was last modified in 2009, I was probably showing someone on my PC and rotated the image, so when I closed the window it saved the file.



I'm sorry I could not produce an older photo, I will try my best but it will be no easy task if even possible.

After reading through the entirety of the topic, I'd like to lend a few notes to the discussions of my own.

Before I contribute, I'd like to clarify that I am very skeptical of many paranormal photo's to a healthy degree. Saying something along the lines of "it's too good to be true" would be unhealthily skeptical, to the point that any good evidence of the subject at hand could be washed away simply because the evidence is "too good". It is as if a person with that position could only accept evidence if it is blurry and undefined, rather that crisp and clear, for that would be "just too good". That in itself is a stubbornly illogical standpoint. Although I too am skeptical of most paranormal photographic evidence, I'd like to argue that this photo is indeed what it is said to be. Confirmation would be fantastic with a raw image that the OP has offered to provide.

I would have to agree with previous commentators that the "projection" solution is incorrect. Ignatio had provided an extensively elegant post in his accusations that the demonic/ghost image was placed there post photograph with a well done breakdown of the photo with separate filters. In turn this also showed that there were no lines in the water or wall that gave credence for a projected image, nor reflective properties we would expect from a light source of any intensity in any of the separate filter perspectives.

Ignatio and I do not agree with his assertion that the image was placed there post photograph, however. Ignatio offered us four separate filters of this original photograph; Color detection, Brightness and contrast anomalies, Pixel Density, and Edge definition. I've worked with Photoshop and its processes for a number of years (Just after Creative Suite came out in 2003), and it appears that Ignatio and I would have relatively similar skills with the program.

We agree with his first filter that there is no differences within the color detection filter.

As for the second (Brightness and contrast anomalies), he points out a specific point within the photo (which would be roughly the forehead of the 'Demonic/Ghost'), however I do not believe this to be a significant difference with any other edge of an object within the photo. Assuming that the person who would paste an object into this photograph had any photo manipulation experience, it's likely that they would not go into such detail on a very specific point on the pasted object, yet cover the rest of the posted image in otherwise perfect symmetry between the original photograph and the additive. Of course, with both Ignatio's and I's photoshop experience, it comes down to personal opinion rather that scientific debate.

Within the third Filter, the 'Pixel Density' filter, Ignatio suggests that the ghostly image has a higher pixel density than the rest of the image. I however do not agree with this either, as any water based reflection within this particular filter also appears to have a higher density. Here is a comparison.



The last Filter (edge definition), once again, I do not agree with Ignatio's analysis. There does not appear to be any irregular definition in the highlighted areas than there is within any other area of the original photograph.

It is my current belief that there is no mischievous intervention with the original photograph that was provided, from a digitally altered perspective. As for the "projector" problem, other than the lack of reflected light from the projector on the water. The darkened object underneath the camera in the photograph is still a mystery. Hopefully the Raw Image that the OP may be able to find will clarify what that really is.

thepixelpusher
There are things that the original poster needs to do in order to allow a proper evaluation.

1. Provide the original unedited digital camera jpeg images so it can be reviewed (if you need help on hosting the files online ask for help)
2. The model numbers and makes of all the camera's at the scene (could rule in or out the projection capabilities question)
3. Provide all the other original photos from the prison, so we can determine what the black or dark item is below the camera that the person on the left is holding and what other items in the location might be reflecting in the water

If you cannot or will not produce the original images we are only left with supposition or speculation. Everyone here is as interested as you to look into this.

edit on 22-9-2013 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)

OP doesn't have to do anything. He posted his pic here for our enjoyment, which i have enjoyed. You can choose whether to believe him or not and that's about it. After reading through this entire post, I for one believe him simply because other folks from his area have been on here making posts in regards to the pic from years ago. I have yet to read anything from you skeptics that leads me to conclude this pic is a hoax or faked.

ArchaicDesigns
Ok, so I pulled all the photos off my old hard drive and went through them all.

This is the oldest version of the picture that I could find. It was last modified in 2009, I was probably showing someone on my PC and rotated the image, so when I closed the window it saved the file.

I'm sorry I could not produce an older photo, I will try my best but it will be no easy task if even possible.

You need to upload the original file, unaltered, to a file share service for us to download and review. This doesn't give us what we need to research this.