Firefighter captures "ghost" on camera

[Use your brain]

A firefighter would have done his job, fighting the "fire" instead of snapping pictures for Facebook. Regardless if he caught "something" or not, if he was a firefighter, he should have been acting like one. If not, then there shouldn't be a claim that he was one.

Anyway, to the actual point...the flames and smoke looked photoshopped, and I really don't see a figure in the fire.

Please refer to my above two post about talking trash about the fireman.

Yes I agree something seems off about the smoke, but I do see the figure it's just hard to tell if it is genuine.

[Thorvir]

Please refer to my above two post about talking trash about the fireman.

Huh?

1) I did not "talk trash" about the fireman at all. You are completely, 100% wrong on that, unless you can specifically point out exactly where I "talked trash" about the fireman. I merely pointed out that IF he was a real fireman, he should have been doing his job instead of standing around taking pictures.

2) You even admitted that the person may not be a fireman.

You're starting to leak some mighty powerful inconsistency here.

Yes I agree something seems off about the smoke, but I do see the figure it's just hard to tell if it is genuine.

Which is the whole point of this thread.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hida Akechi

[Use your brain]

Huh?

1) I did not "talk trash" about the fireman at all. You are completely, 100% wrong on that, unless you can specifically point out exactly where I "talked trash" about the fireman. I merely pointed out that IF he was a real fireman, he should have been doing his job instead of standing around taking pictures.

2) You even admitted that the person may not be a fireman.

You're starting to leak some mighty powerful inconsistency here.

Which is the whole point of this thread.

"A firefighter would have done his job, fighting the "fire" instead of snapping pictures for Facebook. Regardless if he caught "something" or not, if he was a firefighter, he should have been acting like one. If not, then there shouldn't be a claim that he was one."

This sounds like you were trash talking a little bit, you wouldn't agree? So because he has 10 seconds to snap a few pictures he isn't "doing his job"? You know nothing about the line of work obviously.

Which brings us to our second topic. I'm sorry I was not aware that you could read minds and could tell why I posted this topic better than I can. I posted this topic to be debated over, as I thought this was a place where some people of above average intelligence like to gather and discuss topics, was I wrong on that? So far with my encounters with you I think you just like to pick on people until you realize that you may be matched intellectually and then you start finding things to pick out and twist around, or argue over minute details.

My God man I tried to agree with you and you try to argue over that, can we please keep this focused on the actual topic the thread was about now?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Use your brain

[Scandal]

This is why my house is built out of bricks.

[spud the mackem]

Thank you for showing everyone that you have never been to a house fire. While they are getting the gear ready he would definatly have the 10 seconds it takes to take a few pictures.

And thankyou for pointing this out, I have been to a house fire, IN MY OWN HOUSE, so dont try and preach some one that this has happened to.Dont bother replying as it is obvious that you have run out of sane comments.

[Patient Zero]

Wow. This thread went Amtrak really fast.

Anyway, i see it... m'eh.

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

LOL, agreed, there is no ghost here, if there were, the Ghostbusters would clearly be in shot.

*Obvious fake.

[Peter Gomes]

It looks like a shadow but think it can be just an shape of smoke or may be something else.

[freetoroam]

I doubt he was really trying to "document" the scene, if this is real he probably posted it up and didn't realize the amount of attention that this would draw. So instead of saying that he was just taking pictures to show his friends and family, of course he had to say that he was taking the pictures just to document the call.

Have you actually read the article? here, read this:

Firefighter Douglas Tipold was called to a house fire in Gary, Indiana and when he arrived he took some photos of the property. As Tipold was waiting for his partners to unravel a hose he snapped a few shots of the burning house with the camera on his cell phone to document the scene. Later that night Tipold's wife Donna noticed something strange in one of the photos after he posted it to his Facebook page.

http://www.examiner....se-fire-indiana

It appears he was a firefighter and surely saying he was documenting to the scene is the last thing he should have said.

Also, how many firemen are called to a fire and are then hanging around (taking pics for their facebook page) waiting for the rest of their team to unravel the hose?

Pleeeeease! this is obviously a fake.

Edited July 11, 2014 by freetoroam

[Use your brain]

And thankyou for pointing this out, I have been to a house fire, IN MY OWN HOUSE, so dont try and preach some one that this has happened to.Dont bother replying as it is obvious that you have run out of sane comments.

Yes I am obviously insane for stating the fact that a fireman would have the few seconds it took to take these pictures during a non emergency fire if they knew everyone was safe from the house. You're right this fireman is the worse kind of person, and should be put on trial for his utter negligence. Are you happy now?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Use your brain

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Is it standard policy to document a house fire on your phone? LOL

I'm still waiting for a valid reason as to why he deemed it appropriate to post the images to his FAiLb00k page?

That is highly unprofessional

[Thorvir]

"A firefighter would have done his job, fighting the "fire" instead of snapping pictures for Facebook. Regardless if he caught "something" or not, if he was a firefighter, he should have been acting like one. If not, then there shouldn't be a claim that he was one."

This sounds like you were trash talking a little bit, you wouldn't agree?

No! What the hell is wrong with you? I've seen some poor reading comprehension before, and you're starting show some of the worst.

So because he has 10 seconds to snap a few pictures he isn't "doing his job"?

YES! Put the effing phone down, put that fire out! It's not that hard to grasp at all, I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time understanding what firefighters are supposed to do.

You know nothing about the line of work obviously.

So you're saying that firefighters are supposed to snap pics of fire instead of putting them out. You sure have no effing clue what you're talking about now.

And don't forget that you even claimed the person may not even be a fireman!

Which brings us to our second topic. I'm sorry I was not aware that you could read minds and could tell why I posted this topic better than I can. I posted this topic to be debated over, as I thought this was a place where some people of above average intelligence like to gather and discuss topics, was I wrong on that? So far with my encounters with you I think you just like to pick on people until you realize that you may be matched intellectually and then you start finding things to pick out and twist around, or argue over minute details.

Your inconsistency is glaring. Now I'm "picking on you" because you don't agree with what I'm saying? If that's the best argument you can come up with on your own, you need to rethink your position. I have been polite in this topic up until now and the other one you're referring to. You dropped the ball both times, and started getting angry merely because you got caught posting codswallop and I decided to point it out.

My God man I tried to agree with you and you try to argue over that, can we please keep this focused on the actual topic the thread was about now?

Now you're just lying. You just can't seem to accept anyone having a slightly different opinion than you, and now you're getting all bent out of shape over it. I see it all the time on this forum.

And thankyou for pointing this out, I have been to a house fire, IN MY OWN HOUSE, so dont try and preach some one that this has happened to.Dont bother replying as it is obvious that you have run out of sane comments.

That's the truth. He started out so well, too.

[Sweetpumper]

You guys are arguing about something that didn't happen.

[Patient Zero]

Great, now you went and got Hida's blood pressure up.

Do you have any idea how many pubs i'll have to drag him to till he settles down?

i hope your happy!

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Meanwhile

[Thorvir]

I'm not actually arguing that the fire/ghost was real. I'm convinced that both of those things aren't real.

There was nothing wrong with pointing out why this "fireman" wasn't doing job, though Brain thinks it's trashing talking to do so, even though he admitted that the pic taker may not have been a real fireman at one point.

Great, now you went and got Hida's blood pressure up.

Do you have any idea how many pubs i'll have to drag him to till he settles down?

i hope your happy!

I do not suffer fools calmly at my age, and it's been a long week. Being dragged through a pub or two tonight is exactly what I need.

[scowl]

To impress me with a fire ghost, you'll need something better than one of the best hoaxed photos ever, the Wem Town Hall Fire Ghost:

This was faked in 1995, long before Photoshop made it easy. Incredibly fifteen years later someone found an old postcard from the 1920's which had a girl that reminded them of the frowning ghost girl. A comparison showed they were identical.

No one knows what techniques were used to compose the girl into the photo. The guy was an amateur photographer which only showed that even before computers it was possible to hoax a photo that could fool everyone.

[Thorvir]

To impress me with a fire ghost, you'll need something better than one of the best hoaxed photos ever, the Wem Town Hall Fire Ghost:

This was faked in 1995, long before Photoshop made it easy. Incredibly fifteen years later someone found an old postcard from the 1920's which had a girl that reminded them of the frowning ghost girl. A comparison showed they were identical.

No one knows what techniques were used to compose the girl into the photo. The guy was an amateur photographer which only showed that even before computers it was possible to hoax a photo that could fool everyone.

I have never seen that picture before. That's some fair photo-doctoring skills for the time. Wonder if the person responsible every put them to good(better) use?

[sinewave]

Well I saw this, and I have to say it is quite weird and I thought it would be worth a post. I'm throwing this one to the wolves, let's see what you guys think. This is my first thread on UM so I hope I set everything up right and you guys enjoy it. Also they are just pictures that the site I have linked turned into a video.

http://www.examiner....se-fire-indiana

A firefighter may have captured proof of the paranormal after he took some photos of a burning house. When he posted the images on his Facebook page, his wife noticed a strange shadowy figure engulfed in flames in one of the windows of the home.

I am guessing if he took 10 photos in a row, that shape would only appear in one of them. It is probably just coincidental pareidolia. Cool picture though.

[Didya See That]

Meanwhile

Thanks for the kitten video, made following this thread rewarding.

[JesseCuster]

To impress me with a fire ghost, you'll need something better than one of the best hoaxed photos ever, the Wem Town Hall Fire Ghost:

This was faked in 1995, long before Photoshop made it easy. Incredibly fifteen years later someone found an old postcard from the 1920's which had a girl that reminded them of the frowning ghost girl. A comparison showed they were identical.

No one knows what techniques were used to compose the girl into the photo. The guy was an amateur photographer which only showed that even before computers it was possible to hoax a photo that could fool everyone.

Note: 1995 was neither "before computers" or even before Photoshop. Photoshop was first released in 1990 and had acquired powerful features like layers by 1995. Not saying that's how it was done, but there were definitely digital photo manipulation tools around at the time. Edited July 12, 2014 by JesseCuster

[6.6.6]

Certainly comes across as a figure!

But it reeks of hoax!

If firefighters are taking the time to take photos before they start to put the fire out then I dont want to live in this world any more

[Brian Topp]

Note: 1995 was neither "before computers" or even before Photoshop. Photoshop was first released in 1990 and had acquired powerful features like layers by 1995. Not saying that's how it was done, but there were definitely digital photo manipulation tools around at the time.

It's quite easy with a light projector, you can layer two images in a picture while in the dark room. When you project the image, you can easily alter to light projector to make the second image brighter.

[sinewave]

Certainly comes across as a figure!

But it reeks of hoax!

If firefighters are taking the time to take photos before they start to put the fire out then I dont want to live in this world any more

Or just a coincidence of pareidolia. It would be interesting to see the same picture taken a few seconds later or earlier. I am guessing the shape was not constant.

[6.6.6]

Or just a coincidence of pareidolia. It would be interesting to see the same picture taken a few seconds later or earlier. I am guessing the shape was not constant.

Yes your right! I think multiple photos of supposed paranormal phenomenon would give more credibility to their genuineness!