Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Child photographed with ghostly figure

erin potter virgin mary

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#16    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 27 May 2013 - 09:19 PM

I definitely see a human figure, but my guess would be it's a real one.

So sorry for their child and what the parents are going through.

As has been stated if it helps the family or the child feel safer, stronger, give hope, they can tell themselves whatever they want.


#17    Godofcats

Godofcats

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 28 May 2013 - 01:45 AM

That does look cool but I do believe it is just blurs from the sparklers. I seen it tons of times. People mistaking "something " for blured light.


#18    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:28 AM

Sparklers would not cause that it could be hoaxed .


#19    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,214 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:54 AM

View Postcoolguy, on 28 May 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

Sparklers would not cause that it could be hoaxed .

Please explain how they would not do that, when myself, and others have seen almost identical pictures, with sparklers, light sticks, etc....By the way, it is not the sparkler, it is the exposure doing it.

I posted a few similar pics.....

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#20    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:57 AM

I think a virgin mary statue or recreation using a live human is a possibility too. It looks like it with what appears to me to be draped clothing.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 28 May 2013 - 10:00 AM.


#21    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,125 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:28 AM

Xfelix, may I suggest that *before* you get all sarcastic, you need to have a very firm grasp of the topic...

View PostxFelix, on 27 May 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

Yea lens flare, shutter speed, motion blur... but none of the three explain the full apparition, and no other anomaly.
I beg to differ.  And {wallace voice} photogrammetry is my speciality.. {/wallace voice}

Quote

Motion Blur: (Can't be motion blur because the apparition is taller then what the little girl can swing the sparkler. She is simply not swinging that high, so there are parts that cannot be a blur of what she is swinging.)
Wrong.  Motion blur ISN'T just about the subject's movement!!!!   It is also about CAMERA movement.  In this case that high sparkler trail is a telltale clue that at some point the camera has been tilted downwards and what's more, given there is a blurred blob (the 'apparition') that is about the same added height, a tilted camera during the exposure (or a big jump, as BT said) is a MUCH more parsimonious explanation.  KISS, as they say.

Quote

Long Exposure: (Take note that everything has a certain blur and shadow where the picure looks like a 3d movie without glasses.)
Wrong.  You have selectively and deliberately chosen a tripod mounted shot where the camera cannot move, as well as one where the movement is steady and unchanging.  That is nothing like the shot being analysed and a terribly inappropriate attempt at an analogy.

Quote

Lens flare: (Why would anyone have even suggested this?)
Wrong.  Again you have chosen just one very specific type of lens flare, in a shot with no camera or subject movement and no out-of-focus blur.  I wonder why..  There are many, many types of 'lens flares' and one or more of them could be contributing to this image, although I don't initially think so.  Without seeing the full-resolution original it is very hard to tell.


BTW, I'm happy to back all that up with examples and deeper explanations if anyone disagrees.  In the meantime, Sakari's excellent examples show pretty much everything I said above..

Quote

Yeah, all these things make total sense as to why a person is standing behind a child in a picture but not in person.
Like I said, that sort of sarcasm was not warranted, given the three wrongs...

In the case of this image, as I said - the height of the 'apparition' when combined with the righthand sparkler trail is a strong indication of camera movement.  The image is obviously a very long exposure, hence the trails, but it also includes a flash being fired (either from this camera or another nearby (need exif data to check that) which has illuminated the close range objects and foreground and overexposed important areas, thus making it a bit more complex to analyse.  The 'apparition' appears to have happened either before or after that flash went off, while the camera shutter was open.  My guess is that at that time, the camera was either tilted downwards or the child jumped which created the tall blurred after-image...  Images before or after this one might be usable to identify the colours being worn, to verify or eliminate that wild-a$$ guess.

But I'll lay odds we never see other photos, or the full-res image.  If they surface, someone please wake me and I'll happily continue with the analysis...
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong...

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#22    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,578 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 28 May 2013 - 03:01 PM

View PostSakari, on 27 May 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Yes, they are all perfect reasons. Cameras capture light in diferent ways. ( I am no expert, but have seen plenty like this, and better ).

The " figure " is the boys figure. Look at his left hand, the sparkler goes much higher then he could reach in the pic.

I am sure some will post great explanations, with more detail then me.



We know cameras do this, and that is fact....

So, saying it is a spirit makes much more sense.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

I need a greyhound that fast the next time I'm at the puppy races.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#23    Perfection

Perfection

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Oz

Posted 28 May 2013 - 06:07 PM

It looks like lens flare created by the sparklers, & the human mind sees it as a human figure. The colour of the being is the same as the sparkler lens flare on the left. It sure looks like a person to me!

Those hound dog pictures are priceless

Edited by Perfection, 28 May 2013 - 06:13 PM.


#24    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 28 May 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Xfelix, may I suggest that *before* you get all sarcastic, you need to have a very firm grasp of the topic...


I beg to differ.  And {wallace voice} photogrammetry is my speciality.. {/wallace voice}


Wrong.  Motion blur ISN'T just about the subject's movement!!!!   It is also about CAMERA movement.  In this case that high sparkler trail is a telltale clue that at some point the camera has been tilted downwards and what's more, given there is a blurred blob (the 'apparition') that is about the same added height, a tilted camera during the exposure (or a big jump, as BT said) is a MUCH more parsimonious explanation.  KISS, as they say.


Wrong.  You have selectively and deliberately chosen a tripod mounted shot where the camera cannot move, as well as one where the movement is steady and unchanging.  That is nothing like the shot being analysed and a terribly inappropriate attempt at an analogy.


Wrong.  Again you have chosen just one very specific type of lens flare, in a shot with no camera or subject movement and no out-of-focus blur.  I wonder why..  There are many, many types of 'lens flares' and one or more of them could be contributing to this image, although I don't initially think so.  Without seeing the full-resolution original it is very hard to tell.


BTW, I'm happy to back all that up with examples and deeper explanations if anyone disagrees.  In the meantime, Sakari's excellent examples show pretty much everything I said above..


Like I said, that sort of sarcasm was not warranted, given the three wrongs...

In the case of this image, as I said - the height of the 'apparition' when combined with the righthand sparkler trail is a strong indication of camera movement.  The image is obviously a very long exposure, hence the trails, but it also includes a flash being fired (either from this camera or another nearby (need exif data to check that) which has illuminated the close range objects and foreground and overexposed important areas, thus making it a bit more complex to analyse.  The 'apparition' appears to have happened either before or after that flash went off, while the camera shutter was open.  My guess is that at that time, the camera was either tilted downwards or the child jumped which created the tall blurred after-image...  Images before or after this one might be usable to identify the colours being worn, to verify or eliminate that wild-a$$ guess.

But I'll lay odds we never see other photos, or the full-res image.  If they surface, someone please wake me and I'll happily continue with the analysis...
I'll be delighted to be proven wrong...

Did you really claim that I purposely picked what images to display as opposed to just going and googling all the stuff others were claiming?
As for my sarcasm, it was entirely warranted. When i google what someone is talking about and it makes no sense.. Yeah warrant signed.
(By the way, referring to google when people do not even show what they are talking about on furms... That is common practice)

So how about, we decide to not jump into threads make accusations as to people "selectively and deliberately" doing things which is exactly what we're doing?
You did after all, "selectively and deliberately" accuse me of unwarranted sarcasm. ;)

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#25    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,125 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 28 May 2013 - 11:01 PM

View PostxFelix, on 28 May 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

Did you really claim that I purposely picked what images to display as opposed to just going and googling all the stuff others were claiming?
Yes.  If you had properly Googled these topics, you would have seen many, many images involving hand held cameras and erratic subject movement and out of focus images.  Yet you picked ones with none of those characteristics.  It was either deliberate or from a lack of observation/knowledge.

If it was the latter, then I apologise - but then if you genuinely didn't realise that your examples weren't relevant/analagous ... the issue of unwarranted sarcasm has to apply.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#26    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:39 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 28 May 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Yes.  If you had properly Googled these topics, you would have seen many, many images involving hand held cameras and erratic subject movement and out of focus images.  Yet you picked ones with none of those characteristics.  It was either deliberate or from a lack of observation/knowledge.

If it was the latter, then I apologise - but then if you genuinely didn't realise that your examples weren't relevant/analagous ... the issue of unwarranted sarcasm has to apply.

I wasn't the one making the claims, others were.. It was on them to show what they're talking about(Like Sakari did, he didn't just say blah, he said blah and showed it).. Otherwise random Joe Blow is just going to pick whatever he first sees as I did...

Even though I wasn't looking at what others' were referring to, saying that the sarcasm was unwarranted is a bias conclusion. They said x, I searched for x, x made no sense, I sarcastically pointed it out... You understand that is just about the most perfect situation in which sarcasm is used right? (Something doesn't make sense, so you drop a sarcastic remark)

Edited by xFelix, 29 May 2013 - 12:39 AM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#27    Pod99966

Pod99966

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sarasota, Floriduh

  • I had rather be shut up in a very modest cottage, with my books, my family, and a few old friends, dining on simple bacon,
    THOMAS JEFFERSON

Posted 29 May 2013 - 02:35 AM

I think it was a person standing behind the child... wait for it..

With an invisibility cloak on. And what you saw was an unexpected glare of the sparkler off the invisibility cloak.

What was the family's name again?

Edited by Pod99966, 29 May 2013 - 02:35 AM.


#28    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 7,311 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 29 May 2013 - 06:50 AM

look ... regardless of what it is ... that it turned out the way it did is good enough for a bit of the 'mystery' that is life
even if you can dissect the probabilities of what made the image the way it is you'll be hard press to 'recreate' it ... its just what is is ...
over scrutinizing it just makes no sense ...

its like one of those 'moments' that makes photography so satisfying ... a moment never to be relived or recaptured again ...
as much the same as those photos of ....



Quote

70 Strange Photos That Are Not Photoshopped

Here we are learning Photoshop as amazing results are always possible with photo-manipulation. However there are also many photographers that like to take original pictures that look extremely unreal. Let’s check them out now! Click on each image for their sources.


link



~edit : missing adjective

.

Edited by third_eye, 29 May 2013 - 06:51 AM.

Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#29    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,020 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:38 PM

I dunno what exactly caused this particular oddity, but I do know that motion blur caused by either camera or subject movement combined with a flash being used can lead to all sorts of odd ghosting of subjects. I don't think that would explained the ghost being much bigger than the child though.

Also, examiner.com is one of those "news" sites where anyone can sign up for an account and publish their own articles. There's no editor and no guarantee of journalistic integrity.  As a result, you get a lot of stories of dubious authenticity from sites like this.  

For all I know there was an actual person standing beside the girl and they simply lied about it when they found it looked ghostly looking.  Not saying that's what happened but we've seen enough articles published in actual newspapers (if the Daily Mail qualifies as a newspaper) that were quickly shown to have been hoaxed using ghost apps.  People do lie about this kind of stuff whether it's for money or publicity or just for the lulz.

Edited by Archimedes, 30 May 2013 - 04:39 PM.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#30    BlueBomber

BlueBomber

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:43 PM

View PostBrian Topp, on 27 May 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

I agree, Lens flare or slowing shutter speed.
I don't think it's a slow shutter speed, the child isn't really blurry and the arm on the left hand side of the picture has a clear defined shadow. More likely lens flare, but also possibly the spirit of Elvis.

A skeptical believer.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users