Firefighter captures "ghost" on camera

[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!

[6.6.6]

Didnt mean to post twice! Dam android software!

[Thorvir]

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.

You're right. 1995 seems so ancient now. At least to me.

[Hawken]

If you look at the window on the right. One could say that it looks like someone walking by the window with their arms swinging.

But it's just the way the flames are. As the one on the left. Inconclusive. I'm not going to make accusations of photoshop since

I'm not an Optical Physicist or any expert in that field of photography and video.

[rodentraiser]

As to asking why the fireman wasn't running around putting the fire out, people, PLEASE! Fighting fires is a team effort. You don't go flags up fighting a fire your own way just because it's there. You do the basics that have to be done and then you wait for orders from the captain. And the captain doesn't order people to just start fighting a fire. He has to size up the situation first. If everyone was out of the house and it was obvious the structiure was going to burn to the ground, then the priority is to make sure the fire doesn't spread, not running around the house spraying water. Sheesh!

And who knows why the guy took the pic. Maybe he knew the people. Maybe he was going to use the photo in a class. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

And a lot of people have pictures of the disasters that wreck their houses: floods, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, you name it, they have a photo. That's just human nature.

[Sakari]

Simple google on :

Are firefighters allowed to carry cell phones on scenes? ( I thought the answer would be obvious to anyone )

Here are a few quotes from forums and such...

In the past, the carrying and use of cell phones while on duty was prohibited.

Within the last year and a half, with a change in administration, the carrying and use of cell phones is now allowed.

They are not to be used while responding to, or on the scene of a call, unless it is for incident related business. Otherwise, they can now be used while on duty.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but we are in the throws of a mutiny on the subject. How do you rule on the guys caring and using cells while on duty. Right now we are not aloud to carry them while on duty. They have to stay in our bags while on shift. How is anybody else work with these new problems?

We can use ours while we're at the st. but if we go out for any reason they stay at the st. simple as that.

My experiences have been based on common sense. No cell phone usage in the truck or at the scene. Limited usage during "day hours" (till 5pm). Vibrating ringers used during trainings/meetings. We had some that tried to push the day hours uasge (yappin while everyone else trained/cleaned/etc) but they usually heard it from the rest of the crew before admin jumped their ****.

A personal cell phone belongs in your locker or locked in your car. You are at work, and while at work that is what you should be doing.

We have nothing in writing about cell phone use in the station. I have seen, not from my guys, a guy answer a phone during a call. This is not acceptable.

First it is rude, second your mind should be on the call, and lastly you can drop, break, loose or whatever your phone.

Give your wife the station's number, then tell her to use it only in an emergency or after 1700 and before 2100.

If you can't go 30 minutes without talking to your sweetums then get a job working out of your house. It is no different then the guy taking a smoke break every hour, the other guys have to pick up the slack for you while you are off talking to who ever.

Not everyone runs 10 calls a day, we do have some down time, but for the same reason you meet on the floor 1st thing in the AM, you should leave the phone in the locker on vibrate.

Oh, and we meet on the floor first thing in the AM so the officer can see if everyone is alright and we are ready to work. I also think at that time you should have a quick tailboard drill, it gets everyone on the same page and the firefighters know that they are at the firehouse. It isn't another day building houses, or fixing pipes or whatever you do on your day off. Your at the firehouse and part of a team with your brothers there depending on you for their lives.

http://www.firehouse.../forums/t86881/

I do not think a firefighter took those pictures. Nor did he post them on his facebook........Way to much backlash, if not a firing.

Edit :

After even further reading, this is no firefighter.

" Watching my buddies un-ravel the hose ".........Sure, stand and watch, do not help.

And, as posted, no way in Hell a fireman is going to have his own personal cell on a call. Policy or not. Not after what I have read.

Did not look hard for Indiana policies. No need to.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Sakari

[scowl]

Note: 1995 was neither "before computers" or even before Photoshop.

My point was that was possible to create photographic hoaxes before computers, not that this one was. Are you not aware of the many "medium" fake photos from the early 20th century? That's hilarious you thought I was saying computers didn't exist before 1995!

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.

This is not how it was done. O'Rahilly developed the film himself (of course) in his backyard shed which he had turned into a darkroom. He sent the negative roll to the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). They found the roll contained several photos of the fire and this one with what appeared to be a girl in the fire. They claimed they saw no signs of manipulation on the negative. They also declared that the girl was nothing more than pareidolia.

Two experts at the National Museum of Photography, Film, and Television in England disagreed and said they saw horizontal lines on the girl's face as if it had been taken from a television screen. When asked to present a photo of what they had found, they both declined. No one else studying the negative has found these horizontal lines.

It wasn't until someone found the postcard that most of the mystery was solved. Since O'Rahilly was dead by then, the techniques he used to put the postcard girl directly onto the negative were never determined. There were no digital methods to alter a single image in roll and it's unlikely that O'Rahilly had access to drum scanners (the only high resolution scanners at the time) and computers that would have been needed anyway.

The best guess is that he double-exposed the girl onto the negative through a mask for the railing. The pillar to the left of the girl definitely shows signs of double exposure but the railing shows no sign that a second image has been exposed on it. This was difficult work but the sewage worker nearly pulled off a perfect photographic hoax from his own garden shed.

CSICOP has the most detailed article on it:

http://www.csicop.or...wem_ghost_photo

[JesseCuster]

If you look at the window on the right. One could say that it looks like someone walking by the window with their arms swinging.

But it's just the way the flames are. As the one on the left. Inconclusive. I'm not going to make accusations of photoshop since

I'm not an Optical Physicist or any expert in that field of photography and video.

Optical physicist? As in a scientist who specialises in optics / optical physics - the study of the behaviour of light and electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with matter, etc.?

Optical physics is a subfield of atomic, molecular, and optical physics. It is the study of the generation of electromagnetic radiation, the properties of that radiation, and the interaction of that radiation with matter, especially its manipulation and control.

Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behaviour and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behaviour of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.

Surely if you want actual useful opinion, asking someone who either specialises in the forensics of photography analysis or even just a photographer who is intimately familiar with how digital photography and digital tools and their pros and cons and limitations and the tell tale signs of editing. I'm sure several of the members here know a hell of a lot more about photography, how to use Photoshop, how to read EXIF data, etc. than the vast majority of optical physicists.

Asking an optical physicist to examine photos for sign of manipulation and trickery makes about as much sense to me as asking a metallurgist instead of a mechanic to figure out why your car won't start because the engine happens to be made mainly of metal.

[JesseCuster]

My point was that was possible to create photographic hoaxes before computers, not that this one was. Are you not aware of the many "medium" fake photos from the early 20th century? That's hilarious you thought I was saying computers didn't exist before 1995!

It was your wording that made it sound like you were making that claim that the Wem ghost photo "showed that even before computers" it was possible to hoax photos.

I agree with you that reading up on it, it wasn't digitally manipulated, just pointing out that the 1990s weren't the technological dark ages some people seem to think they were. I first got into digital manipulation of photography back in the mid to late 1990s. Photoshop 4 I think it was I had access to. I had a flatbed scanner and was doing a lot of scanning and cleaning up of old photographs which goes to show you that even 20 odd years ago, people could hoax all sorts of things with relatively modern digital tools.

[Hawken]

Optical physicist? As in a scientist who specialises in optics / optical physics - the study of the behaviour of light and electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with matter, etc.?

Surely if you want actual useful opinion, asking someone who either specialises in the forensics of photography analysis or even just a photographer who is intimately familiar with how digital photography and digital tools and their pros and cons and limitations and the tell tale signs of editing. I'm sure several of the members here know a hell of a lot more about photography, how to use Photoshop, how to read EXIF data, etc. than the vast majority of optical physicists.

Asking an optical physicist to examine photos for sign of manipulation and trickery makes about as much sense to me as asking a metallurgist instead of a mechanic to figure out why your car won't start because the engine happens to be made mainly of metal.

Bruce Maccabee holds a degree in that field. He is known to examine ufo photos to determine fakery.

Maybe his degree doesn't apply to the examination of photos.

[scowl]

It was your wording that made it sound like you were making that claim that the Wem ghost photo "showed that even before computers" it was possible to hoax photos.

Yes, not the clearest sentence I've ever written. The Wem photo showed that it is possible to do hoaxes without computers because the fire girl is directly on the negative. Some would claim this couldn't be a fake because digital tools couldn't have done that at the time.

The story also showed that skeptics will sometimes jump to false conclusions when faced with something that's unexplainable. In the Wem photo case we had one organization incorrectly claiming it was pareidolia. Two other "experts" claimed to have seen scan lines in the girl's face but were not able to show these lines to anyone. It's better to just leave things unexplained. Sometimes the mystery will be solved eventually like in this case.

I first got into digital manipulation of photography back in the mid to late 1990s. Photoshop 4 I think it was I had access to. I had a flatbed scanner and was doing a lot of scanning and cleaning up of old photographs which goes to show you that even 20 odd years ago, people could hoax all sorts of things with relatively modern digital tools.

The flatbed scanner I bought new in 1996 only had 600 dpi resolution. It was great for documents but my scanned 35mm negatives had a miserable 570x850 pixel resolution. Professional drum scans gave me 2,000x3,000 pixels but they were expensive and my computer crawled when processing that many pixels. The days of easy Photoshop hoaxes were still a few years away.

[sinewave]

Bruce Maccabee holds a degree in that field. He is known to examine ufo photos to determine fakery.

Maybe his degree doesn't apply to the examination of photos.

He very well may have both skill sets then. What Jesse is saying is photo analysis is a somewhat specialized discipline that requires knowledge of tools and tricks used to produce photo-real illusions. A physicist, though a trained professional, may not be equipped to handle such a task without additional study.

[JesseCuster]

Yes, not the clearest sentence I've ever written. The Wem photo showed that it is possible to do hoaxes without computers because the fire girl is directly on the negative. Some would claim this couldn't be a fake because digital tools couldn't have done that at the time.

The story also showed that skeptics will sometimes jump to false conclusions when faced with something that's unexplainable. In the Wem photo case we had one organization incorrectly claiming it was pareidolia. Two other "experts" claimed to have seen scan lines in the girl's face but were not able to show these lines to anyone. It's better to just leave things unexplained. Sometimes the mystery will be solved eventually like in this case.

A bit of a pet peeve of mine is people on these forums jumping to claims of "Photoshop!" when the evidence isn't there to suggest so and when sometimes there's much simpler explanations that don't need to invoke digital trickery.

The flatbed scanner I bought new in 1996 only had 600 dpi resolution. It was great for documents but my scanned 35mm negatives had a miserable 570x850 pixel resolution. Professional drum scans gave me 2,000x3,000 pixels but they were expensive and my computer crawled when processing that many pixels. The days of easy Photoshop hoaxes were still a few years away.

I couldn't go above 200dpi for colour scans over a certain size as my PC and its magnificent 32Mb RAM struggled to be usable at anything more. But it was more than enough to scan in small photos at 600dpi, clean them up and output them bigger at 300dpi and make a few bob on the side doing photo restorations for much cheaper than the local pros were charging. Edited July 16, 2014 by JesseCuster

[JesseCuster]

He very well may have both skill sets then. What Jesse is saying is photo analysis is a somewhat specialized discipline that requires knowledge of tools and tricks used to produce photo-real illusions. A physicist, though a trained professional, may not be equipped to handle such a task without additional study.

Exactly. Being a specialist in optical physics or metallurgy or climate physics or Martian geology, etc. is fine in and of itself and is the kind of expertise that might be useful if someone wants a genuine expert opinion on those subjects.

And I really don't want to belittle those people as they are experts in their own field and have forgotten more about those subjects that I will ever know.

But having a PhD in a subject does not entitle you to expert opinion on lower level practical subjects that are only tangentially related to your expertise. Bruce Maccabbee might well have a PhD in physics, but what is his actual knowledge and experience of photography and photography manipulation that means that his opinion on UFO photographs is anything other than the opinion of a non-expert whose PhD is being use to add weight to an amateur opinion?

Does Bruce Maccabbee's PhD in Physics or subsequent work in Physics give any sort of relevant experience or knowledge as to how to tell if a digital photo has been manipulated? Can he use Photoshop? Is he familiar with the operation of modern digital cameras? Does he know what EXIF data is, how to read it and how to interpret it, etc.?

Inquiring minds want know. Otherwise he's just another expert with a mere opinion outside of his field of expertise that his followers are trying to elevate by linking it to his unrelated science qualifications.

[Uncle Sam]

It is an actual procedure to take pictures of the fire as they rage, to document the extent of damage and how fast it went out of control. This is an procedure here in Oklahoma, used by some of the fire departments. By the way, that house is run down and is an danger to live in because it could collapse at anytime. They probably was set ablaze by lightning or fire started by squatters. But I never understood why post it on facebook, maybe he was just documenting his journey as a firefighter or something, educating people maybe but it just seems a little strange to me.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Uncle Sam

[Uncle Sam]

Meanwhile

[media=]

[/media]

This is why I admire firefighters, they would take the time to save your pets too, because they know you consider them family. Remarkable indeed.

[95-Nasty]

Remind me of something form a Friday 13th movie! Where the house goes up in flames with Jason vorhees still inside!

[coolguy]

Very creepy it could be a ghost

[Rafterman]

I'm more concerned about the screaming demon in the other window.

[Crabby Kitten]

This is a really good picture. I can see the details of a figure in the window as well as something else in the next window.

[Patient Zero]

Very creepy it could be a ghost

Could be you for all we know.

[DancingCorpse]

It doesn't matter if it's authentic or not, it won't convince folk firmly entrenched either side of the fence if we only have someone's word that it is 'naturally occurring'. Technology has spread either side of the argument very far, I don't know if this is a ghost or not but I do believe in them in a 'stored in the fabric of a place somehow being activated' sense of the process. I file this under intriguing but mere photo evidence, which can be taken with a pinch of salt on both sides of the divide here, will never sway any side. The firefighter aspect does add another narrative of why would they waste time editing this and why would the spirit occur during this moment, what released it, and was it aware of the current situation, if it is in fact a naturally occurring event?

TBH looking more closely, the details are extremely vague if it's a ghost, how opportune that it would approach the window at the exact moment... it's not the greatest piece of evidence I've ever seen but why would a true ghost be the clearest conception anyway I don't know, always hard to call.

Edited July 19, 2014 by DancingCorpse

[Thorvir]

It doesn't matter if it's authentic or not, it won't convince folk firmly entrenched either side of the fence if we only have someone's word that it is 'naturally occurring'. Technology has spread either side of the argument very far, I don't know if this is a ghost or not but I do believe in them in a 'stored in the fabric of a place somehow being activated' sense of the process. I file this under intriguing but mere photo evidence, which can be taken with a pinch of salt on both sides of the divide here, will never sway any side. The firefighter aspect does add another narrative of why would they waste time editing this and why would the spirit occur during this moment, what released it, and was it aware of the current situation, if it is in fact a naturally occurring event?

TBH looking more closely, the details are extremely vague if it's a ghost, how opportune that it would approach the window at the exact moment... it's not the greatest piece of evidence I've ever seen but why would a true ghost be the clearest conception anyway I don't know, always hard to call.

The ghost in question wanted to see why all of the firefighters were just standing around taking pictures instead of putting out the fire.

[Sakari]

This got buried in a bunch of replies real fast.....Trying again.

Simple google on :

Are firefighters allowed to carry cell phones on scenes? ( I thought the answer would be obvious to anyone )

Here are a few quotes from forums and such...

In the past, the carrying and use of cell phones while on duty was prohibited.

Within the last year and a half, with a change in administration, the carrying and use of cell phones is now allowed.

They are not to be used while responding to, or on the scene of a call, unless it is for incident related business. Otherwise, they can now be used while on duty.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but we are in the throws of a mutiny on the subject. How do you rule on the guys caring and using cells while on duty. Right now we are not aloud to carry them while on duty. They have to stay in our bags while on shift. How is anybody else work with these new problems?

We can use ours while we're at the st. but if we go out for any reason they stay at the st. simple as that.

My experiences have been based on common sense. No cell phone usage in the truck or at the scene. Limited usage during "day hours" (till 5pm). Vibrating ringers used during trainings/meetings. We had some that tried to push the day hours uasge (yappin while everyone else trained/cleaned/etc) but they usually heard it from the rest of the crew before admin jumped their ****.

A personal cell phone belongs in your locker or locked in your car. You are at work, and while at work that is what you should be doing.

We have nothing in writing about cell phone use in the station. I have seen, not from my guys, a guy answer a phone during a call. This is not acceptable.

First it is rude, second your mind should be on the call, and lastly you can drop, break, loose or whatever your phone.

Give your wife the station's number, then tell her to use it only in an emergency or after 1700 and before 2100.

If you can't go 30 minutes without talking to your sweetums then get a job working out of your house. It is no different then the guy taking a smoke break every hour, the other guys have to pick up the slack for you while you are off talking to who ever.

Not everyone runs 10 calls a day, we do have some down time, but for the same reason you meet on the floor 1st thing in the AM, you should leave the phone in the locker on vibrate.

Oh, and we meet on the floor first thing in the AM so the officer can see if everyone is alright and we are ready to work. I also think at that time you should have a quick tailboard drill, it gets everyone on the same page and the firefighters know that they are at the firehouse. It isn't another day building houses, or fixing pipes or whatever you do on your day off. Your at the firehouse and part of a team with your brothers there depending on you for their lives.

http://www.firehouse.../forums/t86881/

I do not think a firefighter took those pictures. Nor did he post them on his facebook........Way to much backlash, if not a firing.

Edit :

After even further reading, this is no firefighter.

" Watching my buddies un-ravel the hose ".........Sure, stand and watch, do not help.

And, as posted, no way in Hell a fireman is going to have his own personal cell on a call. Policy or not. Not after what I have read.

Did not look hard for Indiana policies. No need to.

.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Sakari

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Yea, but posting to Facebook? LOL

*FAiL Fireman