Ghosts

[Mark of the Cross]

[img]http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss282/mho_owen/ghost.jpg[/img]

Photo was taken with a simple box camera 60 years ago. It is not a double exposure!

Edited November 3, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='03 November 2009 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1257291736' post='1995869']
[img]http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss282/mho_owen/ghost.jpg[/img]

Photo was taken with a simple box camera 60 years ago. It is not a double exposure!
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that someone just ran in front of the camera while the picture was being taken.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 November 2009 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1257303047' post='1995924']
I'm pretty sure that someone just ran in front of the camera while the picture was being taken.
[/quote]
There is a wall to the right of the apparition. The person taking the photo would have been standing in the doorway to the room, so there was no space for someone to 'run through' The person is apparently standing, observing my sister & friend. The lower part of her body and other extremities fades to nothing. There was no one in the house at the time fitting that description. Note the dress does not match the style of that period as per my sister & friend. I take it that your readiness to dismiss it as a natural photo means that angels or ghosts does not fit in with your beliefs? Having said all this, of course you could be correct maybe there is some unknown explanation, it's just that no one in 60 years has been able to offer a plausible one. And I would question how a ghost could be dressed. One should be naked unless there are ghost clothes or the ghost should appear as a formless mist I would expect. On a visit to Port Arthur in Tasmania, the site of extreme cruelty to our 'convict' ancestors and also the site of one of Oz worst mass murders there were numerous photo's on display of 'ghosts' most were explainable reflections of the flash etc but one or two were not able to be explained away.

[Theoketos]

It depends what you mean by Ghosts.

1 Samuel 28 The which of Endor calls up a Ghost pretending to the Samuel.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 November 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1257303047' post='1995924']
I'm pretty sure that someone just ran in front of the camera while the picture was being taken.
[/quote]

I need more positive points.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='03 November 2009 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1257308609' post='1995963']
There is a wall to the right of the apparition. The person taking the photo would have been standing in the doorway to the room, so there was no space for someone to 'run through' The person is apparently standing, observing my sister & friend. The lower part of her body and other extremities fades to nothing. There was no one in the house at the time fitting that description. Note the dress does not match the style of that period as per my sister & friend. I take it that your readiness to dismiss it as a natural photo means that angels or ghosts does not fit in with your beliefs? Having said all this, of course you could be correct maybe there is some unknown explanation, it's just that no one in 60 years has been able to offer a plausible one. And I would question how a ghost could be dressed. One should be naked unless there are ghost clothes or the ghost should appear as a formless mist I would expect. On a visit to Port Arthur in Tasmania, the site of extreme cruelty to our 'convict' ancestors and also the site of one of Oz worst mass murders there were numerous photo's on display of 'ghosts' most were explainable reflections of the flash etc but one or two were not able to be explained away.
[/quote]
Don't be too harsh. I know for a fact that Rexi believes in angels. Ghosts however, aren't a matter of faith.

[HollyDolly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 November 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1257310740' post='1995985']
Don't be too harsh. I know for a fact that Rexi believes in angels. Ghosts however, aren't a matter of faith.
[/quote]
Well I believe in them,they are mentioned in the bible. Also i enjoy watching shows like
Ghost Hunters,Ghost Hunters International and other such tv shows about the suject.

[dominicansoul]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58522

Now, would you call this apparition a "ghost" or a "demon?" Or, "photoshopped?"

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 November 2009 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1257303047' post='1995924']
I'm pretty sure that someone just ran in front of the camera while the picture was being taken.
[/quote]
Actually if you look at the pic, the girls are staring at the photographer, if the girl had been walking into the room their gaze would have shifted to her.

[cmotherofpirl]

Does anyone remember the demon face in the smoke of the twin towers on 9-11?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='04 November 2009 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1257376416' post='1996273']
Actually if you look at the pic, the girls are staring at the photographer, if the girl had been walking into the room their gaze would have shifted to her.
[/quote]

That's a good point. And the way the figure is faded/blurred a little bit it would seem that it would have to be moving fairly quickly. I'm not saying the image isn't photoshopped or edited in some way, but combine this with the poster saying that there wasn't any door/space for the image to come from (and again at a fairly quick pace) I don't think that explanation really works. There very well may be another natural explanation for it however. I'm not one to dismiss either possibility out of hand.

[elizabeth09]

That could be just how the smoke was at that point. There is
Ghost Faces of 9 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Noo6zDLk0
This youtube is full of it.

[jeffpugh]

I thought the demon-face in the smoke of the twin towers was a photoshop done by a reporter at my local newspaper office or something. I remember it being released almost a month after the incident. I guess it was someone at a more famous newspaper who did that

As for the photo, doesn't that sort of camera require a long time for the picture to take? I've seem lots of old photos of streets with "ghosts" of men walking here and there. Strange it didn't blur across the photo, but I guess it happened because the men stopped for a moments then moved on. The main subjects were unaffected though. They either knew to keep still or their reactions were to quick to be blurred into the photo.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='06 November 2009 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1257487619' post='1996985']
As for the photo, doesn't that sort of camera require a long time for the picture to take? I've seem lots of old photos of streets with "ghosts" of men walking here and there. Strange it didn't blur across the photo, but I guess it happened because the men stopped for a moments then moved on. The main subjects were unaffected though. They either knew to keep still or their reactions were to quick to be blurred into the photo.
[/quote]

He said it was a box camera. It was supposedly taken 60 years ago, so it was probably a Kodak Brownie. They don't require a very long exposure time, like the kind they used in the 1890's. Double exposures are easy to do on a Brownie.

Mark of the Cross, how do you know it was not a double exposure? Is it not possible that someone photographed that girl in the same exact spot after the first shot was taken, showed it to everyone, and never told them it was a gag?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sternhauser

[elizabeth09]

IfIf they took a then they have to be using their comutpers and/or laptops about doing it, so it seems to have ghost.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='07 November 2009 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1257518353' post='1997062']
He said it was a box camera. It was supposedly taken 60 years ago, so it was probably a Kodak Brownie. They don't require a very long exposure time, like the kind they used in the 1890's. Double exposures are easy to do on a Brownie.

Mark of the Cross, how do you know it was not a double exposure? Is it not possible that someone photographed that girl in the same exact spot after the first shot was taken, showed it to everyone, and never told them it was a gag?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

If someone takes another foto without moving the film on, the result is over exposure, the print will be very white and will have multiple objects over it's entire field. If the film was not moved on quite far enough a line would be visible where the edge of the double exposure ends. Once again where the double exposure occurred the print will be very washed out with multiple objects. The image of the 'girl' fades out below her butt yet she does not appear to be moving which would need to be to produce a motion blur. She is also the only foreign object so I think double exposure is not plausible.
There is a window to her right through which the sun is streaming in. If she was standing outside then possibly some refractive effect of the window glass and the camera lens could cast her image onto the photographic paper, but even this seems highly unlikely as one would expect some severe distortion or blurring of the entire image. And there was no one fitting that description in or outside of the house at that time and she is dressed oddly for that time period.
I am reasonably competant with Photo-shop and could probably produce such a photo but it would be difficult to obtain the fade of opacity to reveal the background. The photo was taken before I was born and I am 61 so no one would have had the resources to make it for a joke.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='06 November 2009 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1257565865' post='1997541']
If someone takes another foto without moving the film on, the result is over exposure, the print will be very white and will have multiple objects over it's entire field.[/quote]

It depends how much the film was exposed each time. It could have been underexposed the first time.

[quote] If the film was not moved on quite far enough a line would be visible where the edge of the double exposure ends. Once again where the double exposure occurred the print will be very washed out with multiple objects. [/quote]

I've had some success in [i]not[/i] doing that with a Pentax K-1000.

[quote]The image of the 'girl' fades out below her butt yet she does not appear to be moving which would need to be to produce a motion blur. She is also the only foreign object so I think double exposure is not plausible.[/quote]

Dark material could have been put there, or the sun could not have been at the angle to properly illuminate that part of her for such brief exposure.

She could easily be the only "foreign" object if the camera were in the same exact spot in that room for the second exposure.

[quote]There is a window to her right through which the sun is streaming in.[/quote]

And you can see that it lights her accordingly. Bright to the right, shaded to the left. Whatever it is, it's reflecting ambient light.

[quote]And there was no one fitting that description in or outside of the house at that time and she is dressed oddly for that time period.[/quote]

While it does not look like the typical mid-30's casual clothing, there were nonetheless many styles of dress, and who is to say the second exposure had to have been taken "at that time?"

~Sternhauser

Edited November 7, 2009 by Sternhauser

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='06 November 2009 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1257565865' post='1997541']
If someone takes another foto without moving the film on, the result is over exposure, the print will be very white and will have multiple objects over it's entire field. If the film was not moved on quite far enough a line would be visible where the edge of the double exposure ends. Once again where the double exposure occurred the print will be very washed out with multiple objects. The image of the 'girl' fades out below her butt yet she does not appear to be moving which would need to be to produce a motion blur. She is also the only foreign object so I think double exposure is not plausible.
There is a window to her right through which the sun is streaming in. If she was standing outside then possibly some refractive effect of the window glass and the camera lens could cast her image onto the photographic paper, but even this seems highly unlikely as one would expect some severe distortion or blurring of the entire image. And there was no one fitting that description in or outside of the house at that time and she is dressed oddly for that time period.
I am reasonably competant with Photo-shop and could probably produce such a photo but it would be difficult to obtain the fade of opacity to reveal the background. The photo was taken before I was born and I am 61 so no one would have had the resources to make it for a joke.
[/quote]

good analysis. I agree.

[elizabeth09]

Here is a ghost that is a girl who goes on the news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0_vpkPFbuU

CNN NEWS-Ghost caught in NBA game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=945UVJGUOgs&NR=1

[Billbo]

Personally I never had any encounters with ghosts/spirits (least not any that I can say for sure) but I do believe in supernatural beings that can manifest some of their characteristics in the world in which we live. My brother and a good co-worker of mine have confided in me about their encounters which have bolstered the views I hold. I do believe that spirits can have temperments. The temperments I have been told about reflected malice or ill-intent at the least. Since G-d is in controll always I believe that he allows for this to go on but also that there are benevolent spirits (the Holy Ghost comes to mind along with stories about dead family members making themselves known to living family members). We dont hear as much about the benevolent ones as we do about evil ones because hauntings and the such appeal to mainstream pop culture more. From where these spirits come from I do not know but I think that they can be drawn to our world.