Ghost captured on camera phone? (1 Viewer)

[teapot2001]

I see dead people...

*Throws tomato at Carlo*

~T

 

[Shawn Solar]

Most ghostly photos I see that are determined to be real untouched photos don't have an actual image of a person just more like a bright streak or wierd light in the background of the photo or even an outline or shadow. Never seen a ghost pose for a photo. While I believe in ghostly spirits and such some part of me just can't believe the pictures. Its just too easy to fake. And why is it the photos are never clear. Just like bigfoot and ufo footage? always blurry

 

[Steve_Tk]

Although I can't explain what it is, it isn't a ghost. Ghost don't exist.

 

[Seth--L]

Looks like someone owns Adobe Photoshop. Yawn.

 

[John_Berger]

Hardly. And, anyway, emanating from a solid object that can be seen and felt (at least the warmth).

No, not hardly, assuming that the type of camera that Kevin is referring to is electronic, like the photo in question. He's very correct that electronic cameras can capture infrared wavelengths depending on how the circuity in the camera is designed.

My Sony 8mm camcorder easily picks up infrared signals and converts the signal to a bright light. If I take a remote control and make the LED visible to the camcorder (meaning that I don't need to be pointing the remote directly at it), whenever I press any of the buttons, the LED flashes a bright white on the viewscreen and the final recording. I obviously can't see the infrared beam and it certainly doesn't produce any noticeable heat, but the camcorder picks it up clearly.

Even if he was referring to conventional film, where is it written that the chemical composition of 35mm film is restricted to the wavelengths that only our eyes can see? Just because an image is not within our visible spectrum doesn't mean that the film in the camera will not have any kind of reaction to it. Even if the film is designed to stay in our spectrum, bad batches can happen that might have effects different than what were intended.

As to the picture in question, the only thing that makes me think twice about dismissing it is the arm of the supposed spectre. It's far too solid as far as I'm concerned to be a movement image.

As for the comments about a reflection, I don't buy it for a second. The hand of the "ghost" is perfectly placed on the upper arm of the girl on the right. The curvature of the fingers is also too perfect to happen to be that of a reflection. If that was a real hand, there would be no doubt that the finger placements are consistent with that of holding someone's arm. A reflection would also have at least one of the person's hand's up at his face, but most people hold even the smallest camera with both hands for stability. That is clearly not the case in this image.

I'm not going to say that I believe it. But there are far too many interesting aspects about this picture that make me believe that the people who are dismissing it are doing so just for the sake of doing so.

 

[John_Berger]

Although I can't explain what it is, it isn't a ghost. Ghost don't exist.

Gee, thanks. You've convinced me. :rolleyes

 

[Zen Butler]

How come ghosts are always so out of focus? They seem to flail around a bit too. The pic in question though, the ghost was nice enough to stop by for a photo, despite all his haunting duties and stuff.
If I was a ghost, I'd be showing up in pornos, high security banks, the Pentagon, NASA, Britney Spears videos and repeat episodes of T.J. Hooker. Not at a mall in the Phillipines, posing with teenage girls.

 

[John_Berger]

If I was a ghost, I'd be showing up in pornos, high security banks, the Pentagon, NASA, Britney Spears videos and repeat episodes of T.J. Hooker.

 

[Ricardo C]

If I were a ghost, I could easily be found: I'd hang out at Katie Holmes' shower 24/7 :p)

 

[John_Berger]

At least split it up among the various babes in the world, of which she would be one of them.

 

[Seth--L]

But why is it that no one can seem to capture a high resolution, non-shaky, properly exposed picture of ghost, flying saucers and big-foot? The easiest way to hide a photoshoped picture is by dropping the resolution.

Photoshop is a very powerful program, check out some of the work people do on www.fark.com and www.somethingawful.com .

 

[Ricardo C]

If a hi-res, well-focused picture of any of the world's most popular paranormal phenomena DID show up somewhere, skeptics would still call it fake, saying it was "too perfect" to be real

 

[Steve_Tk]

That's because ghost don't exist. If they did eventually one would show up in some situation where it made people believe. Funny how that has never happened.

 

[Max Leung]

Maybe ghosts don't like cameras? Of course, that begs the question: How does a 300 year-old ghost know what a camera does? (And why do they run away from skeptics whenever one visits a 'haunted' house?)

And why is it that in many cases the photographer can't see the ghost but the camera can? The eye has several times the dynamic range of any camera sensor or film! Excepting infrared of course (nevermind the fact that many lenses cannot pass infrared to the film or sensor unless specificly designed to do so)...but then some exceptional people can see beyond red and into some infrared, and some into near ultra-violet ranges. But they don't report ghosts!

Now, can anyone point me to a link that says how experts determine if a digital picture has been altered by photoshop? Apparently any significant digital alteration can be detected simply by looking at a "fingerprint" left by the digital tool. I'd like to know more about it.

 

[Edwin-S]

Man! How the mighty have fallen! You lose the BLACK PEARL and the next thing you know you're reduced to copping cheap feels.Barbossa, you oughta be ashamed of yourself. Shit, man, you're supposed to be a pirate! The least you could do is grab her butt! You're a disgrace to ghostly pirates everywhere.

 

[Seth--L]

Now, can anyone point me to a link that says how experts determine if a digital picture has been altered by photoshop? Apparently any significant digital alteration can be detected simply by looking at a "fingerprint" left by the digital tool. I'd like to know more about it.

As I said before, the easiest way to hide that a picture has been photoshoped is to drop the resolution.

Another question to ask, is how do we even know what ghosts look like? Why do we assume that they're just faded human bodies?

 

[John_Berger]

That's because ghost don't exist. If they did eventually one would show up in some situation where it made people believe. Funny how that has never happened.

A lot of people (billions, in fact) firmly believe in things that have never physically manifested themselves on any recorded medium that has then proven to be authentic - yet they continue to believe. I will not go any further on that one as it will do nothing more than have this thread shut down PRONTO, but it's still something to think about.

Just because these apparent ghosts don't match your expectations on how they should be manifesting themselves doesn't mean that they don't exist. But just because they appear in questionable photos doesn't mean that they do exist.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Billions of people? Really? Billions.....as in more than 1? I have a hard time believing almost half the planet believes in ghost.

 

[Ricardo C]

Billions of people? Really? Billions.....as in more than 1? I have a hard time believing almost half the planet believes in ghost.

He said "A lot of people (billions, in fact) firmly believe in things that have never physically manifested themselves on any recorded medium that has then proven to be authentic". Which is true, as literally billions of people have religious/spiritual beliefs of some sort.

 

[John_Berger]

On the nose, Ricardo. You also understand why I didn't wish to elaborate further. Major potential for thread hijacking and subsequent closure.