Posted 01 May 2008 - 10:52 AM
Posted 01 May 2008 - 12:23 PM
to me, it does not look like a man, but a woman looking at the camera with her hands in her pocket, kind of slouched, standing so her left side is facing the camera...with a dress/skirt and bare legs.
Anyway, what do I know?
I am curious though, with low lit photos, why is it "questionable" what it may be, when you can lighten them up so much digitally? (like Dem and Juarez did?). When you are lightening them up afterward on the computer, it isn't trustworthy?
Edited to add: A lot of people died in Virgina City, NV. Does it have to be someone famous? Just curious, because I notice a lot of people, in general, attribute activity to someone famous as opposed to it just being Josie the local seamstress....
I agree it does not need to be a famous person but in this case there are alot of vendors in Virginia City who have mentioned Henry. There are stories that Henry Comstock haunts Virginia City. It's a natural assumption that I have captured him. No one knows for sure. But I am having tons of fun doing research and learning more of the towns history and characters.
Posted 01 May 2008 - 12:51 PM
Edited by Snowlord, 01 May 2008 - 12:52 PM.
Posted 01 May 2008 - 04:47 PM
Re; Virginia City. It is a grrreat place to learn about, I am sure. I have sort of done the "obsession" thing with Bodie, down the road in California. It is one of the best Ghost Towns I have ever experienced, and I love the preservation, remoteness and feel of the town. I have bought all the books, read as much as I could find on it. And visiting it is just something else!
As for what and who is in the photo, I am no expert.
But I get the allure of learning about the past in an area like that!
Posted 01 May 2008 - 07:24 PM
It's a low light image yes, but it's clear and large to show detail. If my intention were to deceive I would have submitted smaller images to make it difficult to see any manipulation. The image was posted not to deceive but to enjoy a unique capture of a spirit.
Posted 01 May 2008 - 09:18 PM
Sure this is a possibly large, dark, dense looking object. But it is definitely blurred by a slow exposure. I'm saying that ordinary, non-paranormal, things can show up like this in low light pictures. There aren't even any real human proportions, or facial details to this "figure", other than what pareidolia is giving us. If you look at the extremely brightened pictures in the posts above, you can see that it doesn't even extend below the level of the chair seat. I see no reason to believe that this is a paranormal figure just because it is clearly visible.
Posted 01 May 2008 - 11:10 PM
Did your daughter sleep OK in that room?
Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul
Posted 02 May 2008 - 05:02 AM
I'm not trying to question anyone or are my intentions insulting.My respect goes to all these GREAT members..always.
So we come to the great question "How will we ever know what a true picture of Ghost will look like?"
I'm standing out and quoting because this gets me so frustrated.To the point that EVEN if we ever capture a real Ghost picture,there will ALWAYS be ways to debunk it.I,in my own small mind,think that there are no standards of what a ghost should look like.Yes with our beautiful and expensive digital cameras and our great and expensive programs we can create ANYTHING we want to a photo.So that eventually leaves us to the posters story and that a photo wasn't altered in any way.That's ALL we will ever have.........If he/she says that there was no one in the room,then there was no one in the room...He/she can swear to God Almighty but that would not be enough.....My opinion.
Who made and makes these criteria?
If a persons statement is not enough because the person is going to make a statement,it's his/her photo,then what is?
What information is needed to qualify a Ghost picture as being authentic?
So does a "Shadow Ghost" have facial or human proportions,details?I mean it is a shadow.....
What are the criteria that a "Shadow Ghost" has to have to make it authentic?
Snowlord,I'm quoting your replies because I really don't understand them.No offense.As I mentioned,I respect ALL members here.
2.I'm saying that ordinary, non-paranormal, things can show up like this in low light pictures.
3.I do think there is something really there, but I see no reason to think it is something paranormal.
I cannot think what could be there,reading your replies,that could create a figure like that.What could be there that could be captured?A fake doll,a human being?But the poster told us that there was no one there.So either he is intentionally playing around and lying to us or he is telling the truth.So it sums up to this, I will never understand why make such an effort to find solutions and answers to all ghost photos......Why the effort in posting them?It kinda makes me sad,in a way.These souls take so much effort to show themselves to us and what do we do?We debunk every single one of them because we simply have the technology and the means to do it....
My girl came back from London yesterday.I told her to take pictures of all the graveyards she could find and she told me she captured a little boy's ghost in one of them.Even if it is a true Ghost,I want to post it but I probably wont.It WILL get debunked,one way or the other and it will make me lose the "rush" and the "content" of capturing my first ghost photo in my life!
After all,it is a digital photograph...
Greeting from Greece to everyone!!!
Sorry for the longest reply....
Posted 02 May 2008 - 05:13 AM
All the enhancement stuff led me to believe that there really is a shadow ghost and a face there. I was skeptical at first. The last enhanced picture as good as showed me that the face didn't line up right with the curtain to be part of it.
Watching the night come in from the window
It'll all collapse tonight, the full moon is here again.
Posted 02 May 2008 - 05:20 AM
Posted 02 May 2008 - 05:24 AM
EDIT: Just noticed the zoomed in picture in the first post I miraclously missed, the one that circles it. In that picture there's no sign of a face. Hello there, Mr. Paredolia.
Edited by FullMoon, 02 May 2008 - 05:25 AM.
Watching the night come in from the window
It'll all collapse tonight, the full moon is here again.
Posted 02 May 2008 - 08:35 AM
Posted 02 May 2008 - 11:30 AM
Did your daughter sleep OK in that room?
Yes my daughter slept fine all night.
Posted 05 May 2008 - 08:20 PM
1 ... Who made and makes these criteria?
Reality itself makes these criteria. And it is "reality" that we must answer to. Thinking about something or saying something will never be enough by itself. Only repeatable, testable evidence can indicate the reality of something. And if more than one thing fits the evidence, you must use reliable testing methods to eliminate all but the one thing that is real. There are many ways this picture could have happened, with or without the knowledge of the photographer. To prove that it is paranormal all these other ways must first be proven to be wrong. Unless there is more evidence than just the picture itself that can be submitted.
2 ... If a persons statement is not enough because the person is going to make a statement,it's his/her photo,then what is?
See the answer above.
3 ... What information is needed to qualify a Ghost picture as being authentic?
Substantial, repeatable, physical evidence other than the picture itself.
4 ... So does a "Shadow Ghost" have facial or human proportions,details?I mean it is a shadow....
Lack of human details makes it more difficult to accept as being a human spirit, and more easy to accept as being something else.
5 ... What are the criteria that a "Shadow Ghost" has to have to make it authentic?
See first answer above.
6 ... I cannot think what could be there,reading your replies,that could create a figure like that.
Thats ok. If you are not familiar with this area of photography then you will not realize how easy it is for this to happen. But please don't let your inability to think of a reason for it to happen be enough to convince you of its reality. That can lead to many mistaken beliefs.
7 ... I will never understand why make such an effort to find solutions and answers to all ghost photos.
Thats easy. Because I think its wrong to let people believe in something that has no reliable basis to it. Since most people are not well educated in the physical processes of photography, they don't have enough background to understand why photography can't actually prove anything all by itself. If we can set this straight then people interested in the paranormal can stop wasting their time on pictures and spend it in other areas that might have a chance of showing some reliable results. Not that I know what these areas might be, but it can't hurt to get rid of the "dead ends" of this research and look for something better.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 03:10 AM
What else fits the evidence? I think we all believe there is something there. WHAT we think is there is what is in question. The OP states that his family was not in the room and is the only "witness". I find him reliable and consistent. He's given his "hypothesis" on what is in the room with him. What is yours?
The OP's not trying to prove the paranormal he's simply showing us a pic that he (as well as alot of others, myself included) thinks is a spirit. I, for one, do see human details in the pic that leads me to believe it is a human spirit.
Ok.. we know you are an expert photographer and that is a good thing. I am glad you're here - I've already learned alot about the intricacies of photography from you. That being said, can YOU recreate this pic using your knowledge of photography? It would be interesting to see your results if you're interested.
I tend to agree with you. But again, I don't think it was the OP's intention that this would "prove" anything.
Pictures are not a waste of time. They have their place. They are one form of "evidence" albeit not "proof".
Posted 06 May 2008 - 04:50 AM
Edited by colleenlvlc, 06 May 2008 - 04:52 AM.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 06:39 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, even if the holy grail of ghost photos comes across this board or others, people will try to disprove it. No matter what.
Posted 06 May 2008 - 07:14 AM
Well personally,I don't have to answer to anything or anyone.You see,this is the trap.We have grown up in a society that makes us "go with crowds".This is the thing.Even IF we can repeat it and IF we manage to exclude the possibility of being something natural,even THEN we will find something else to "debunk" it.
It's in our blood.It's in our mind.It's what humans have in them,like a disease...
Then it wouldn't be a shadow ghost,would it?
-Accounts of shadow people typically describe them as being black humanoid silhouettes with no discernible mouths, noses, or facial expressions
Wikipedia - Shadow people
So WHY on earth would I believe THESE are TRUE photographs:
and THESE not to be TRUE:
Why should I believe that THIS is true:
when you can see a man on the moon and a CAT on the lower left corner...
Give me a break...I know the moon looks like it does because of the photos...Have I ever been there?
EVERYTHING can be Photoshoped.
So it's NOT the photo that's in question,it's the PHOTOGRAPHER.
Cameras capture what they see,it's humans that can alter or alter the picture.So the question is,did the person who took the photograph,alter the picture in any way?That's the question.If not,then it's up to the "dis-believer" to PROVE it's not paranormal or fake.
On is innocent,till proven guilty...so are photos......
So until then or whenever,this is a shadow ghost (and one of the best photos) I have seen until someone that doubts it,can recreate the SAME picture with physical means.So it's easy to use words and common language of photography but the hard part is to PROVE what you are saying.
I'm not talking about dust as "orbs" and "smoke" as mists,I'm talking about the hard ones.
So why are you a photographer?Photographs are a waste of time.I can create a great photo using Photoshop.Why would I go and buy an expensive camera?Is it because it has to do with the paranormal?Are photos a waste of time,only then but if I take a photo of something else,it isn't?
Should I be a physic?Should I use the ouji board?
No,I don't think so.I 'll get my expensive camera,my EVP recorder, my EMF reader,my infrared camera and my knowledge to discover and I'll go and get the best evidence I can get my hands on!So until then photos are real,just question the photographer.....
Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:15 PM
"There are many ways this picture could have happened, with or without the knowledge of the photographer." Give some examples not just a general statement.
"Substantial, repeatable, physical evidence other than the picture itself"
That's setting the bar pretty high since we are discussing ghosts. Pretty tough to get physical evidence I would think. An image may not be "proof" but can be pretty covincing after all normal things have been ruled out.
"Lack of human details makes it more difficult to accept as being a human spirit, and more easy to accept as being something else."
Since you are a skeptic you are not an authority on what a "human spirit" would look like. Can't have it both ways and again if you are to accept it as something else, what?
You are a pro photgrapher, you would be the best to answer this question; Can an image be authenticated as original and untouched?
Posted 06 May 2008 - 07:58 PM
Malestrom ... I can tell by your replies to my comments that you are not understanding the points I am trying to make. I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.
Dem0000 ... I disagree with you. The OP "is" trying to prove the paranormal with this picture. He says, quote, " This is a genuine spirit/soul". He has gone far beyond a hypothesis.
Can I re-create this picture? You said it yourself up above ... pictures are one-of -a- kind. I don't have the same camera, the same room with the same lighting conditions, and whatever may have made the shadow figure. Can I make shadow people? ... yes. Will they look exactly like the posted picture? ... no. Will they convince anyone here? ... probably not. But they will show that these pictures can be made from normal things. I will post some for you. All my pictures are straight out of the camera, no photoshop or additions made. Some adjustment of brightness is all.
colleenlvlc ... you say people will always believe in things that can not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". I agree, and don't wish to challenge anything in this area. I just happen to believe that ghost photography doesn't qualify as being beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there is enough evidence to throw all these photos into a very doubtful area. And just because a lot of people say something, does "not" guarantee that there must be some truth to it. If you wish to discuss these kinds of photos here thats fine, I just feel that it should remain hypothetical. When someone claims that a photo has to be real, as in this one, I think it is a good thing to try and show that it "doesn't" have to be real, that there are other options to explain it.
RJuarez ... As I said above, don't worry about piling on. I don't mind. And please don't take this as a personal attack. Criticizing pictures is just what I do. I agree that an image can be convincing if all normal things have been ruled out, but they haven't been in this case. Of course I am not an authority on what spirits look like ... are there actually any authorities, anywhere? I'm not quite a "pro" photographer, just a very dedicated amateur. I don't know for sure if there is a reliable way to authenticate a photo being "untouched", but that wouldn't matter, as the pictures I have posted below are un-retouched, and they would pass any expert analysis.
As I have already said, it is very unlikely that I can reproduce this picture exactly, nor could anyone even if they were at the same room with the same lighting. This does not in any way mean that the picture has to be paranormal. But I will post some of my attempts, and some other pictures that I feel may be related.
My attempts at this specific picture ... no photoshop ...
Some others that I feel are related ...
Edited by Snowlord, 06 May 2008 - 08:02 PM.