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

ArchaicDesigns
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Then you should be able to pull this data up from the file I uploaded on to a hosting site earlier.
That's the oldest version I have (2009), nothing was changed except for a few filters, shouldn't the data you need still be there?

The problem is it says it was edited. Period. The "origin" of the file is not the camera, it states that the origin is a program on your computer.

If you can give me the raw,original image, without any filters etc. No Arrows.. Then I'll believe you.

Oh yeah, I wanted to mention that I also found another "ghost" in your picture! I pointed it out with the green arrow! It took me no more than 5 minutes to find him! Maybe we could find more if we look REAL hard!




In all honesty all I did was:

1.Pull an image of google images of an undead and saved his "original" image to my hard drive.
2.Opened them up in GIMP.
3.Cut out the bust of the undead,
4.pasted it as a new layer on the image he provided.
5.Flipped it upside down.
6.Scaled it.
7.Adjusted opacity of the layer to about 8.5.
8.Hit the "Gaussian Blur" filter for the layer.
9.Touched up edges with fanned eraser.
10.Voila.


The image the OP used bares resemblance to the World of Warcraft Undead Characters. Just my observation.

Here is the image I used for my "ghost"

Uhm.."projector theory" aside....would ANYONE doubt that this is a difficult job in paint shop or photo shop?

Someone with experience can add this ghost in 10mins, and the easy and simple explanation is NORMALLY also always the correct one.

As I pointed out on other places (UFO forum)...if there is ANY plausible and potential normal explanation there is no reason to believe the LESS LIKELY and more "esoteric" explanation. Why should I believe it's the "real thing" when all it takes is 10 min photo shop to paint such a ghost?

If you prefer to believe it's a real ghost (despite the fact it CAN be easily faked) you are naive and let your bias cloud your judgement. Blindly believing and being non-critical is NOT benefiting paranormal research, in fact it hurts it.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

As I pointed out on other places (UFO forum)...if there is ANY plausible and potential normal explanation there is no reason to believe the LESS LIKELY and more "esoteric" explanation. Why should I believe it's the "real thing" when all it takes is 10 min photo shop to paint such a ghost?

I think that the simplest way is to demonstrate how simple this is. You can right click on the OP photo, download it to your computer, and show us how to put a ghost in there.

VeniVidi
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

As I pointed out on other places (UFO forum)...if there is ANY plausible and potential normal explanation there is no reason to believe the LESS LIKELY and more "esoteric" explanation. Why should I believe it's the "real thing" when all it takes is 10 min photo shop to paint such a ghost?

I think that the simplest way is to demonstrate how simple this is. You can right click on the OP photo, download it to your computer, and show us how to put a ghost in there.

Already done.. look at my last post.

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


I used to live in Sudbury and had an odd experience at Burwash myself. A work friend invited me along with another fellow to visit the prison one evening. Our equipment was limited to flashlights, small knives and an electronic tape recorder brought by the originator of the trip. He was particularly interested in visiting a certain corner of the basement.

We eventually found the place he was looking for, indeed it was one of the outside corners, deep in the recesses of the building. What he wanted to show us was a large, square opening in the floor. It was rimmed with a low wall, maybe a foot, and descended down to a normal-height chamber that extended in two directions away from the building, suggesting this chamber may be a tunnel of some kind under the grounds. I am aware of tunnels in the area, so that would make sense.

We remarked on the strangeness of the opening, and the cold air coming out of it, and moved onto the next area.

The next day when I arrived at work my friend had a large group of people crowded around his computer, all paying rapt attention to something. Others were arriving on the scene to see what was up at the same time as myself. My friend told me he had copied the digital recordings onto his computer late in the night to review them, and brought a section along to play at work for interested parties.

I could hear our voices quietly talking in a large room, the sound muffled slightly by the fact the recorder was in his shirt pocket. As I listened I heard our remarking about the hole, and the cold air coming from it, and then I heard something else which caused one of the listeners to spontaneously begin sobbing and leave the area immediately.

"It's cold, it's cold, it's so cold down here..."

It was whispered, but louder than anything we had said on the recording, and definitely not an echo. To this day it gives me chills down my spine. I don't have the file with me, but it does exist on an old backup disc somewhere in my house. If anyone is interested please let me know and I will try to find it.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo



I did a quick google image search for WoW undead (since I'm not very familiar with the game and it's "look") and was impressed by how similar they look to the image on this photo.

wow-unite.deviantart.com...

Of course, just because it looks like something else doesn't mean that is the source of the picture... but, like others, I do think it looks more like a drawing than a photo. And it still bothers me that the image *starts* at the base of the wall, leaving no room for an actual 3-D entity to "fit".

I'm torn. I'm thankful for the OP for posting this and empathize when people feel they are put on the defensive about their very personal experiences... Props to the OP for sticking this out. On the other hand, I sure wish we could have something more definitive to say that this (the original anyway) is an unaltered image and possibly the real deal. It's frustrating to not be able to get answers, even if the reasons for not being able to get the original are completely understandable.

reply to post by dangerballs


Thanks for sharing your story! That is definitely an awesome and creepy experience, and I would very much like to hear the audio if you can still track it down. You should make a thread about it.
There is more to Burwash than meets the eye, that's for sure.

I also recall various odd tunnels and passages in the lower levels, definitely the creepiest area of the prison.

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


It amazes me that this thread has garnered so much attention in such short time. Are people that gullible?

As other posters have said, usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.

I don't think the OP was photoshopping it.

I'm thinking the moisture in a water filled room had coated the walls slightly so that it reflected the person just off to the left when the camera's flash went off in this poorly lit room. The flash is a strong light source and the person to the left is positioned (see white line of reflection angle) to receive the full effect of the flash bounced off the moisture particles on the wall. Think of the moisture particles turning the white wall into a low grade mirror. The person on the left would be against a darker background with the flash falloff, so they'd be whiter and the background darker. So, that is why the white wall doesn't show much, but the darker water shows the wall reflection better because it is darker.



I'm hoping the OP will provide us a picture of the person to the left holding the digital camera for comparison to either prove or disprove this theory.

It is understandable that some are skeptical since the picture does look like the joker form the 2008 Dark Knight movie and the last version provided of the image is tagged from 2009.

Who knows. Unless the original shows up, it's inconclusive.

reply to post by thepixelpusher



Wouldn't the flash be coming from behind this person? So wouldn't it cast a shadow on the wall rather than a reflection with the face lit up? And if it was a reflection of a reflection, it would seem we should be able to see some indication of it on the wall itself with color adjustments, but I see none.

Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly... thanks for the visual, though, that does help! Your theory does address and satisfy my concern about the reflection starting at the base of the wall.

Do you know of any examples where this type of reflection has been caught on camera? I seems theoretically possible (if improbable) but I've never heard of it happening.

I agree that knowing what the team looked like would help HUGELY, but I get the feeling that the OP won't be sharing pictures of the folks that were with him. He'd need to get his friend's permission first (etc etc) and I get the feeling that we've been presented with all the information that he is willing and/or able to present right now.

thepixelpusher
I don't think the OP was photoshopping it.

I'm thinking the moisture in a water filled room had coated the walls slightly so that it reflected the person just off to the left when the camera's flash went off in this poorly lit room. The flash is a strong light source and the person to the left is positioned (see white line of reflection angle) to receive the full effect of the flash bounced off the moisture particles on the wall. Think of the moisture particles turning the white wall into a low grade mirror. The person on the left would be against a darker background with the flash falloff, so they'd be whiter and the background darker. So, that is why the white wall doesn't show much, but the darker water shows the wall reflection better because it is darker.

I'm hoping the OP will provide us a picture of the person to the left holding the digital camera for comparison to either prove or disprove this theory.

It is understandable that some are skeptical since the picture does look like the joker form the 2008 Dark Knight movie and the last version provided of the image is tagged from 2009. I think it's just a simple reflection though.

Who knows. Unless the original shows up, it's inconclusive.

edit on 23-9-2013 by thepixelpusher because: typo

This wouldn't account for the person standing right next to them who took the picture, who would also suffer from flash falloff and thus a 2nd reflection should appear. It's a cool theory, and I don't know if its even entirely possible, but it over complicates things anyhow. Being that the reflections of the water ripples off the wall are barely visible in the water, I'd have trouble believing something that isn't as distinguished as the ripple reflections shows up better. It just wouldn't make sense. There isn't even an outline or basic figure discernible on the wall and somehow it creates a reflection better than the more discernible ripple reflections.

It also doesn't account for the flash itself from the camera, which appears to be at a similar height and distance to where the person the the left would have his chest/head positioned. You should be able to see the flash point in the water, as the flash itself would create a much greater reflection than residual exposure of the person on the left.

It's definitely a manipulated image.

VegHead
reply to post by thepixelpusher

 

Wouldn't the flash be coming from behind this person? So wouldn't it cast a shadow on the wall rather than a reflection with the face lit up?

Think of the wall, coated with moisture particles, as a low grade mirror. The flash from the camera travels to the wall and bounces to light the persons front on the left. Because of the flash falloff the person is lit brighter than the background behind them. The wall/low grade mirror reflects the image of the left side person, who seems to be forward of the others in the group (and gets more light). The wall is lighter in color, making it hard to see the image that it is reflecting. However, the darker water shows the reflection better principally because it is darker and darkens what is reflected into it.

No one would have noticed this at the time since this reflection only was apparent for milliseconds when the flash went off. I do photography and graphic design professionally and I have had some weird reflections to battle with when I shoot around reflective objects.

Anyway, that's just my theory. Without another picture of the person standing to the left, it's impossible to verify.

ZiggyMojo

thepixelpusher
I don't think the OP was photoshopping it.

I'm thinking the moisture in a water filled room had coated the walls slightly so that it reflected the person just off to the left when the camera's flash went off in this poorly lit room. The flash is a strong light source and the person to the left is positioned (see white line of reflection angle) to receive the full effect of the flash bounced off the moisture particles on the wall. Think of the moisture particles turning the white wall into a low grade mirror. The person on the left would be against a darker background with the flash falloff, so they'd be whiter and the background darker. So, that is why the white wall doesn't show much, but the darker water shows the wall reflection better because it is darker.

I'm hoping the OP will provide us a picture of the person to the left holding the digital camera for comparison to either prove or disprove this theory.

It is understandable that some are skeptical since the picture does look like the joker form the 2008 Dark Knight movie and the last version provided of the image is tagged from 2009. I think it's just a simple reflection though.

Who knows. Unless the original shows up, it's inconclusive.

edit on 23-9-2013 by thepixelpusher because: typo

This wouldn't account for the person standing right next to them who took the picture, who would also suffer from flash falloff and thus a 2nd reflection should appear. It's a cool theory, and I don't know if its even entirely possible, but it over complicates things anyhow. Being that the reflections of the water ripples off the wall are barely visible in the water, I'd have trouble believing something that isn't as distinguished as the ripple reflections shows up better. It just wouldn't make sense. There isn't even an outline or basic figure discernible on the wall and somehow it creates a reflection better than the more discernible ripple reflections.

It also doesn't account for the flash itself from the camera, which appears to be at a similar height and distance to where the person the the left would have his chest/head positioned. You should be able to see the flash point in the water, as the flash itself would create a much greater reflection than residual exposure of the person on the left.

It's definitely a manipulated image.

edit on 23-9-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)

You have to remember this whole room is covered in moisture from the standing water on the floor. Those water ripples reflected on the wall could be from bounced light off the ceiling. You'd be surprised the weird reflections you get in a flashed shot with a lot of reflective things in the scene. But yes. it's just a theory unless the OP gives us more complete info.

reply to post by Thorneblood


you have an interesting "theory"..which is ALL that anyone of us have,to actually hold onto.speculations,theories,..but no solid answers.i always try to start off my conversations with--"i think",or "i believe"..that way i am not "pushing my ideas onto others as "fact",& that way-everyone will open up more & share their beliefs,experiences,etc..variety IS the spice of life you know--"i think"..lol

reply to post by VindiVin


You could be forgiven for thinking that - though around my manor, much more likely to be a large bird-turd than large bullet-hole!

Did you spot the photo-bombing pooch, though?

That's the real question here!

reply to post by ArchaicDesigns


Super cool story and pics man! Shout out from another Northern Ontario guy! I hope to visit this place some day, maybe next summer.

ZiggyMojo
reply to post by ArchaicDesigns

 

It amazes me that this thread has garnered so much attention in such short time. Are people that gullible?

As other posters have said, usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Interesting word - Usually.. It can mean frequently but another way of looking at it is NOT ALWAYS.

That said my first thoughts on seeing it were photoshop, being a 'shopper myself I could have done something similar in a few minutes as done by you? someone above?

There was a guy who ran filters through it earlier who I disagreed with, I was going to respond to him but someone else came along and said all I was going to say.

Many possibilities.
Pareidolia, Photoshop, projection, genuine reflection, Demon/ghost.

Unless an original copy surfaces it could be any of them.
I noticed one particular 'debunker' jumped from ship to ship earlier in the thread, obviously hellbent on disproving it .

Enjoyed the thread though.

thepixelpusher
I don't think the OP was photoshopping it.

I'm thinking the moisture in a water filled room had coated the walls slightly so that it reflected the person just off to the left when the camera's flash went off in this poorly lit room. The flash is a strong light source and the person to the left is positioned (see white line of reflection angle) to receive the full effect of the flash bounced off the moisture particles on the wall. Think of the moisture particles turning the white wall into a low grade mirror. The person on the left would be against a darker background with the flash falloff, so they'd be whiter and the background darker. So, that is why the white wall doesn't show much, but the darker water shows the wall reflection better because it is darker.

I'm hoping the OP will provide us a picture of the person to the left holding the digital camera for comparison to either prove or disprove this theory.

It is understandable that some are skeptical since the picture does look like the joker form the 2008 Dark Knight movie and the last version provided of the image is tagged from 2009.

Who knows. Unless the original shows up, it's inconclusive.

edit on 23-9-2013 by thepixelpusher because: edited for content

I initially wasn't that skeptical....and could have easily believed in the possibility of what you are saying might have happened.

However, from a psychological perspective....everything about the initial post, the defensiveness, the inability to produce a photo that hasn't been photoshopped/edited, and everything about the photo in question reeks of a hoax.


For a supposed apparition in a photo THAT clear....you would THINK the OP would at least have the original file. Not only that....but he didn't even indicate in the OP that the picture was his, until later. From how i understood the thread (and I just re-read all the posts he made to make sure), it seemed like he was posting the picture the guy had , and then later posted an "older" picture (which is much worse quality than the first) that was his.

I could be wrong, of course - the fact is....this really is a just a fun story with a fun picture, nothing more. I enjoyed it, and thoroughly enjoyed the thread....but there really shouldn't be any debate as to whether or not this is real....it just isn't possible in ANY aspect to consider this photo real. Definitely entertaining though

This is my first ATS post I have created this account after seeing this story on here.

I am the person who was working at the electronics store in this story. Ill start off by saying that there is nothing in this world that leads me to believe in the existence of ghosts except for this picture.

Im not here to argue the existence of ghosts. Im only here to give my side of the story to calm the nerves of any skeptics out there. The reason Archaic Designs wanted to share this story was more on the coincidence that some random guy from The Source had a ghost picture where Archaic was actually present when it was being took. We just met recently and the photo was taken years ago!

So here is what happened that day at The Source:

Nomal weekend shift, slow day helping people figure out how to use cell phones and blu rays. Nearing the end of my shift D.L (who I did not know at the time) came into the store looking like he had spent the day in the bush. He was holding his camera and all he said was "you have to see this". Curious to see what kind of animal he had snapped a shot of we went over to the laptop display to get a closer look.

He handed me the camera and I removed the memory card myself and placed it into the reader. The card was pretty much as full as it can be of just random pictures of the inside of an old run down building. I asked him where it was and he said that he had just returned from Burwash and noticed this photo on the way home from the trip. After a few minutes of searching his face dropped. He said "that's the one" and pointed to a photo on the screen of a water submerged room.

When I first saw the photo I didnt see the figure right away D L had to point it out. What has been seen cannot be unseen. I flipped the image and that's when we realized the figure was curled up in the corner.

"OMG it has a face" is all I remember thinking as we zoomed in for a closer look. Im not sure if D L knew at the time but I copied the picture to my blackberry and sent a copy to my parents through email. I did not know that years later I would be meeting someone who was present at the scene.

I cannot tell the rest of the story after that any better than Archaic did. He stopped me dead in my tracks and then we sat there for an hour in awe

Just as a reminder, the description of the Paranormal Forum:

The Paranormal on ATS:

 This forum is for the general discussion of a wide range of paranormal phenomena that includes remote viewing, ESP, OBE, telepathy, ghosts, spirits, etc. Participants should be aware that this is a highly speculative forum where topics and responses will tend to lean in favor of the existence of these phenomena. Those who would wish to refute these subjects should be aware of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of supporting the free examination of "alternative topics" which includes the paranormal.

The purpose of this forum is not to automatically debunk paranormal activity, it's to discuss it. Sometimes that may lead to disagreement or even debunking but trolling an anti-paranormal agenda or rudely accusing a member repeatedly who has simply shared an experience is not acceptable.