Ghostly Image of Young Oklahoma Tornado Victim In Photo

Where is the ATS gusto gone? Does any one care to comment
on my question regarding the white dots in the eyes? Flying Fan?
What are the chances of this happening naturally? This leads to even
more disturbing possibilities that a ghost at a fire, i.m.o..

So everybody just ignores the creepy skeleton face in the smoke, I guess. Well, people focus on what they want.

Okay, I am on the side of the fence that says "Long-exposure". Even though the story is tragic and touching, and I extend my deepest sympathy to the family, anyone with experience with a camera will tell you the same thing.

Cameras open its shutters to record light. Usually this happens so quickly you cant even notice it, but you can slow this down for whats known as a long exposure. If you were to flash a light during a long exposure, you can create two or more exposures in one picture. check this out:



Now, this can be done easily with any camera, some light, some skill, and NO photoshop. You wouldn't go saying all of the dancers except the originals are ghosts too would you?

When modern cameras detect low light pictures they automatically open the shutter for a longer time to capture more light. To correct for red eye, an initial flash goes off at the start of the picture to constrict your pupil, then a second flash. The reason the two faces look different is because the camera obvious moved around distorting things.

The "ghost" is exposed by the initial flash, the girl is being exposed by the light from the sparkler and the second flash. NOT proof, sadly.

credit: people.rit.edu...

DeadSnow

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.

reply to post by Attentionwandered


I would accept the double exposure answer if the child in the back did not look so much like the guys son. It is an obvious camera mess up, but the fact that the boy in the background is not the same person as the front, no matter how much distortion took place, the uncanny resemblance to his son makes me believe it to be verification that his son is ok on the other side, people can believe these things or not,
but it is what it is, right there on the photo.

IMO

As there are two sources of light (sparkler and flash), a moving subject (child), and a slow shutter (cell phones don't have fast flash sync speeds), there is almost no way to avoid a ghosting effect.

The difference in skin tone and color of shirt can be attributed to what's known as "white balance" or "color temperature." www.cambridgeincolour.com...
For example, the sparkler will emit a warmer temperature of light and the flash will emit a cooler one. It's a neat effect but it's not a ghost, IMO.

OneFreeMan
Where is the ATS gusto gone? Does any one care to comment
on my question regarding the white dots in the eyes? Flying Fan?
What are the chances of this happening naturally? This leads to even
more disturbing possibilities that a ghost at a fire, i.m.o..

I wasn't sure if you were serious, but I guess I'll respond to your concern about the matching white dots in the photos of the boy.

The two photos in question were school pictures. The set up for school pics is pretty standard. I would guess the school photographer has a stool, a background, and two lights set up. They herd the kids in, and then one-by-one they sit on the stool and get their picture taken. The same set up happens, year after year... so seeing those same two white lights reflected in his eyes in both pictures is not surprising... Am I understanding your concern correctly? Sorry if I was responding to a the wrong point here.


Back to the OP...

My knee-jerk reaction to this picture (after the feeling of sadness for the terrible loss this family has suffered) was that the image was merely the girl. There is a lot of motion in the picture. I have two young kids and I've taken a LOT of crazy pictures of them in motion. On closer inspection, though, I do have to admit the image DOES look like the boy.

I am open to it being possible... however, I would really hope that children do not linger earthside after death. I always feel it strange/questionable when people claim to hear babies crying and other signs of children "haunting".

I also believe that this picture was meant for the parents. I hope that is helps them heal from their unimaginable loss. Even if we can "explain it".... it doesn't mean that there weren't (for lack of a better word) supernatural forces at work to ensure this image appeared.

Thanks for posting this story. Very touching.