Ghosts

[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.

[elizabeth09]

Me neither, but I do believe in the Holy Ghost.







Ghost caught on office Security Camera

Edited November 18, 2009 by elizabeth09

[JimR-OCDS]

In the Transfiguration, Peter, James and John saw, Moses and Elijah.

So, God does allow saints and those in purgatory, to appear to people here on earth. However, its for the purpose of conveying a message.

Also, in the book, "The Way of the Pilgrim," he receives a visit from an Abbot who had instructed him, but I don't remember if it was in a dream or an apparition.

I think some of the Saints in their apparitions of the Blessed Mother or Jesus, also saw saints, appear with them.

I believe that St Joan of Arc's apparitions, St. Catherine of Sienna appeared to her.

Jim

[elizabeth09]

Thank you for the information.