It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ectoplasm? caught on camera

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Friend of mine took this picture (BMP And JPG versions below)


My mom, my daughter, and I went out to an area around here called The Devil's Backbone. It is supposed to be extremely haunted. When I took this pic, I did not see any mist, it did not show up in any of the other pics I took within minutes of this pic, and I am not too sure what it is. I sent a copy to someone and they told me it was a wonderful example of ectoplasm. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


homepage.ntlworld.com...
homepage.ntlworld.com...

Beautiful isn't it?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Beautiful yes, paranormal no. Looks like cigarette smoke to me.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Beautiful yes, paranormal no


How do you know?


Looks like cigarette smoke to me.

She doesn't smoke.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
could be a reflection from a glass or ice sculpture near the scene, appearing somewhat out of focus in the picture, or possibly lensflare, since it appears to be coming out of the camera somewhat. That close and detailed of an "ectoplasm" is pretty weird.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
You've got to ask yourself, "Why ectoplasm?" Sure, it's an odd looking artifact. But why jump to the ghostly conclusion? What basis do you have to make that assumption?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
for all you guys know it can be anything

smoke

photoshop

water

ice sculpture

or even ectoplasm



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Many explanations...but paranormal is not one of them.

If it was a film camera (and unedited):

-Shutter banding caused by sticky or damaged shutters

-film fogging or light leaks due to mishandling

-Film defect

If Digital:

-Banding

-Damaged CCD

-PHOTOSHOP

Edit: I just wanted to add smoke as one of them. I know you said she doesn't smoke but it just fits too well (being close to the camera and out of focus

[edit on 25-10-2004 by coronamoz]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I have to dispute all the theories that have thus far been offered as to what the origin of the "ectoplasm" is. I know for fact is not smoke because I have pictures that I have taken where I was literally blowing smoke into the camera lens, and even then it did not come out that detailed.

Second of all, I am an avid user of Adobe Photoshop (I work for a graphics design company out here in addiiton to my Paranormal Studies)
. I have seen no Photoshop texture that could be used to form that pattern, and also something like that would have taken hours to blend perfectly into the background of the photo, and even then it still would not blend perfectly.

The silliest of them all at this point is one of glass and/or ice sculpture. Who the hell puts an ice sculpture in the middle of the woods!? I'm not even going to touch this one.

That should about do it. As far as some theories go (such as the thing about sticky or damaged shutters or banding on a digital camera), they are still open for debate. But those I have mentioned here are indeed impossible. The evidence: experience.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by AgentMothman]



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I used to work in a paranormal research group as a research and applications specialist, the guy that ran the group is a snake so I left the group after a couple of years, but used to examine pics all the time. Digital photgraphy has made it very difficult, but not impossible to detect fakes.
Here's my take on your photograph, for what's it worth...

Smoke was shot indoors and photoshopped into an exterior shot.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Can't believe some of the stupid theories being thrown about here, heh
Ice sculptures? in the woods? oook...................

She has others of the same area because it was a trip, I chose this one because it's the only one with something weird on it, she has a couple more which seems to have very small balls of light, but it doesn't look like much.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Real or not, it's a cool pic! From my look, clearly the little girl was the target in the picture. The apparation seems very close up to the camera. Being something that showed up after developing, one must question who and how it was developed. I love the pattern, very artistic.

Now I'm not up on my Ghostbusters history, but isn't ectoplasm that sticky residue like the slime from Nickelodeon? "WHAT DID YOU DO RAY?!"



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Can you tell us more about where the picture was taken? Any history of ghosts in that area that might want to be noticed?

Very interesting pictures, just curious to know where they were taken.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I thought ectoplasm was a gooey green stuff left by ghosts encounters. I also remember reading about it in a postgraduate quantum physics text book(not paranormal, skeptical or about ectoplasm) about it being some spooky quantum effect, causing energy to materialize. Which lends credence to the ghost theory actually.

Heres a great free e-book on ecoplasm and quantum physics: arxiv.org...

You will also find it interesting that in some UFO encounters, a substance like ectoplasm is left.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Read this thread it relates to them images quite well, make sure you check out all the images some scary stuff!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deimos

Beautiful yes, paranormal no

How do you know?

Looks like cigarette smoke to me.

She doesn't smoke.


It's my opinion that it's cigarette smoke. So someone says they don't smoke, should I believe that or believe my eyes? Just look at the image, no question in my mind, it's from a cigarette.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Real or not, it's a cool pic! From my look, clearly the little girl was the target in the picture. The apparation seems very close up to the camera. Being something that showed up after developing, one must question who and how it was developed. I love the pattern, very artistic.

Now I'm not up on my Ghostbusters history, but isn't ectoplasm that sticky residue like the slime from Nickelodeon? "WHAT DID YOU DO RAY?!"


havent you seen scooby doo? in the first movie they were all trapped in a pot of ectoplasm and ectoplasm themselves?

i think ecto plasm is a soul that you can touch and see



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   



It's my opinion that it's cigarette smoke. So someone says they don't smoke, should I believe that or believe my eyes? Just look at the image, no question in my mind, it's from a cigarette.


Whatever you say



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I guess one way to find out kinglizard, is to try and recreate this picture, by taking a picture of cig smoke. To me it looks more like a digital effect.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I guess one way to find out kinglizard, is to try and recreate this picture, by taking a picture of cig smoke. To me it looks more like a digital effect.


So what you're saying is, if someone could dabble for a few hours in digital effects and create something similiar or the same, that'd make this one picture a fake?
I wonder how many pictures which were truly genuine have been posted here only to be ruled as fake because someone can create a similiar or same copy using an art program.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deimos

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I guess one way to find out kinglizard, is to try and recreate this picture, by taking a picture of cig smoke. To me it looks more like a digital effect.


So what you're saying is, if someone could dabble for a few hours in digital effects and create something similiar or the same, that'd make this one picture a fake?
I wonder how many pictures which were truly genuine have been posted here only to be ruled as fake because someone can create a similiar or same copy using an art program.


That is somewhat right, it does not prove it a fake, it just proves that your picture can be easily reproduced. Which means, that there is a possibility that you have done the same, which is more likely than ruling it as genuine and paranormal.

If you had more evidence that verified your case, then it would become less likely than now, that it is faked. I'm sorry, but we cannot just take your word for it. I don't know you, then, why should I believe you?

Anyway I suggested the reproduction to make it fair on you. Many here are saying it is smoke, so the only way of finding out if smoke can look like this in a photo like yours, is to take a picture of smoke in a setting like yours. If it could not be produced, it becomes more likely your photograph is genuine.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join