Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ghostly Image of Young Oklahoma Tornado Victim In Photo

page: 1
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

A Moore tornado family is finding comfort in a picture. Their son died in Plaza Towers when the storm hit, but they believe they've seen him since his death and they are not alone.


News Story

The picture in question shows Madison, Nicolas’ cousin, playing with a lighted sparkler on July 4 — nearly two months after the boy’s death. Upon closer examination, it looks as though a second child is standing behind her.




Video


edit on 24-11-2013 by MrLimpet because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrLimpet
 


What a nice way to take solace in a horrible event. I'm glad they captured this.


+11 more 
posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

MrLimpet
Upon closer examination, it looks as though a second child is standing behind her.


Upon closer examination, it looks like movement in a long exposure photo. Long exposure lit by the sparkler, with a "freeze" provided by the flash.
Seriously, doesnt ANYONE know anything about photography anymore in this digital age? More people need to spend time with film, and in darkrooms.

edit on pmSundayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


+21 more 
posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

I'm guessing you haven't lost a child. Do you crap on children too when they believe in Santa?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrLimpet
 


The resemblance between the "2nd child" in the photo and the photo of the boy that died posted right below it is amazing.

Normally I'd believe it was a double exposure type thing as a previous poster pointed out, but the 2 children in the photo do not look like the same person, but the 2nd child definitely looks like the pic of the child that died in the storm.

Based on those photos, this is one where I'd be willing to suspend disbelief.

If it also gives some comfort to the parents, so much the better.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
i was going to post this one myself. this is fantastic! our loved ones never leave us.

i feel sorry for people that have to dissect just about everything to satisfy themselves.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Signs are meant for those that can see them. Obviously they received great comfort from this and I am glad they did. Who's to say that it is or isn't a sign even if it is the fault of "long exposure".

I am glad the parents and family saw this and received what they were meant to from it. Everything doesn't always need to be one way or the other. We find comfort where we can and I can't begrudge a grieving parent comfort regardless of where it comes from or what form it takes.
edit on 11/24/2013 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Kangaruex4Ewe
Signs are meant for those that can see them. Obviously they received great comfort from this and I am glad they did.


My thoughts exactly



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Wow, are you kidding me? Alfa hit the nail on the head with his explanation.

I wasn't going to say anything because it's a lovely idea, until I saw your obtuse reply.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Auricom
reply to post by superman2012
 


Wow, are you kidding me? Alfa hit the nail on the head with his explanation.

I wasn't going to say anything because it's a lovely idea, until I saw your obtuse reply.


Agreed, That reply was un needed, and anyone who thinks that this photo is an exposure artifact should in NO WAY be accused of not caring about kids or the not having a "heart"

Reported. Grow the hell up.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrLimpet
 


The photo is indeed heart warming, but the little girl, looks kind of demonic and creepy.
edit on V382013Sundaypm30America/ChicagoSun, 24 Nov 2013 16:38:46 -06001 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Auricom
reply to post by superman2012
 


Wow, are you kidding me? Alfa hit the nail on the head with his explanation.

I wasn't going to say anything because it's a lovely idea, until I saw your obtuse reply.

There was nothing "obtuse" about my reply. Look the word up.
I'm sure most people who don't believe in ghosts or spirits will see this as an artifact as stated below your post (and then reported? LOL). These people chose to see it for what made them happy. You'll notice my
emoticon after my last sentence? You two need to grow up.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Exploiting children? Shame on you. No 2nd line required.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

alfa1

MrLimpet
Upon closer examination, it looks as though a second child is standing behind her.


Upon closer examination, it looks like movement in a long exposure photo. Long exposure lit by the sparkler, with a "freeze" provided by the flash.
Seriously, doesnt ANYONE know anything about photography anymore in this digital age? More people need to spend time with film, and in darkrooms.

edit on pmSundayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Well, there are those who know too much science and on the opposite those who know too less.
In both cases, the result is depressing.

You kind of claim there is not a lot of people informed about photography anymore, something I agree on, but I also ask, doesn't anyone know anything about life and its mysteries anymore in this modern age?

I see people everywhere immediately claiming scientific facts for everything they see nowadays, not letting any space for spirituality. Truth is, life is full of surnatural. You just have to be patient and faithful to observe and experience it.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

alfa1

Upon closer examination, it looks like movement in a long exposure photo. Long exposure lit by the sparkler, with a "freeze" provided by the flash.

edit on pmSundayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

I'll admit I know nothing of photography.

So my questions are:

Does this account for the noticeably darker skin tone of the child in the back?

Why wouldn't the child's shoulders be bare, since she's wearing a tank top? The neck shows, so why not the shoulders?
edit on 24-11-2013 by zillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

superman2012
reply to post by alfa1
 

I'm guessing you haven't lost a child. Do you crap on children too when they believe in Santa?



Thank you!

I also agree that the child in the background looks nothing like the child in the foreground. It could not be due to the flash "freeze". Alfa 1, you say we don't know anything about photography, however in your haste to debunk, you did little to thoroughly examine the photo yourself.

As a side note, maybe you should practice a little compassion and not be in such a rush to tell people they're wrong when you're convinced you're right.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

alfa1

MrLimpet
Upon closer examination, it looks as though a second child is standing behind her.


Upon closer examination, it looks like movement in a long exposure photo. Long exposure lit by the sparkler, with a "freeze" provided by the flash.
Seriously, doesnt ANYONE know anything about photography anymore in this digital age? More people need to spend time with film, and in darkrooms.

edit on pmSundayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Thank you! Crazy what people believe, I cannot stress how fickle the human mind is.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MrLimpet
 


When I first saw this on another news site, I thought, oh here we go, it's going to be one of those light exposure ones or something...

But the second child and the picture of the deceased child... now that's uncanny!

Whilst there can be a scientific explanation for this, I believe that if it's a comfort to the family and friends, so be it.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

alfa1

MrLimpet
Upon closer examination, it looks as though a second child is standing behind her.


Upon closer examination, it looks like movement in a long exposure photo. Long exposure lit by the sparkler, with a "freeze" provided by the flash.
Seriously, doesnt ANYONE know anything about photography anymore in this digital age? More people need to spend time with film, and in darkrooms.

edit on pmSundayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


That's a bit of a knee-jerk response, considering the very specific aspects of the situation surrounding this claim, and the fact that the 2nd "child" isn't a double of the 1st child by any stretch. I don't know what it is, or how it was produced, but your explanation fails. I shoot rock shows for a national musician DIY magazine, and sometimes I end up with the kind of distortions that you're suggesting here, because of how dark some clubs are with their stage lighting. I've never seen anything even remotely resembling this mash-up with two very different people unless there were already two people in the photo I was trying to take. This is digital photography, so forget the double-exposure explanation too. The photo was poorly shot, and it would've been distorted in the same manner due to whatever that sparkler thingy was, but the 2nd kid (and there's a 2nd kid there) couldn't have been conjured up as a digital artifact with that much detail and separate "identity" from the 1st kid as a result of that flash.

A failure of a "common sense" explanation doesn't mean that the photo is paranormal either, but at least take the time and effort to try to figure out what's up there before hosing all over everyone who's still keeping their own minds open. I mean, why even bother commenting if you're not even interested enough to actually look into the question being posed?

*added* I just noticed that the "2nd kid" has a crew neck t-shirt, and not the tank-top that the 1st kid has. That'd be hard to explain as being a double exposure (or whatever the artifact is supposed to be, since this is a cell phone photo) since the "cut off" between the "2nd kid's" neckline and the dark beneath it is very abrupt and properly positioned to suggest the crew neck pattern of a t-shirt (which the 1st kid isn't wearing). I don't know what the truth is, but it's a pretty interesting photo.
edit on 11/25/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The ghost kid looks like he has a red shirt on.
The school picture looks like he has a red shirt on.
Both look like they have the same expression.
I'm wondering if it's faked ... the school picture imposed on the sparkler picture ...
Sorry .. but that's what I'm wondering ...









 
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join