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