46 replies to this topic

[TheLastLazyGun]

Atlantia, on 24 October 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

See for yourself.
Proof of the afterlife or marketting ploy to promote the theatre?

http://www.huffingto..._n_2007995.html

Without having looked at the rest of the tread, I reckon it'll not belong before someone say's its photoshopped or a ghost app. That's how predictable this forum has become.

Personally there's only one explanation that I'm prepared to give: it's a ghost.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 25 October 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Sakari]

TheLastLazyGun, on 25 October 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Without having looked at the rest of the tread, I reckon it'll not belong before someone say's its photoshopped or a ghost app. That's how predictable this forum has become.

Personally there's only one explanation that I'm prepared to give: it's a ghost.

No, that is how predictable these claims have been....

By the way, I said it was real, so there.

[coldethyl]

TheLastLazyGun, on 25 October 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Without having looked at the rest of the tread, I reckon it'll not belong before someone say's its photoshopped or a ghost app. That's how predictable this forum has become.

Personally there's only one explanation that I'm prepared to give: it's a ghost.

Wow you're right.  The realism is astounding.  It could be nothing else but a ghost.  I can't believe I didn't see it at first.

Wonder if the haunting is a residual one?  Wish Ghosthunters would go there and do a 2 hour special.

[DancingCorpse]

The problem is that even if it were somehow real then it wouldn't matter as it's all down to personal perception and we'll never know the actual truth anyway, it LOOKS like a poor photoshop effort but then again there are compelling pics floating about that look like the correct presence of a ghost but the majority of them are bound to be fake.

[Brian Topp]

Let's just face it, ghosts are photo bombing us.

[Archimedes]

Why are people so eager to denounced it as some sort of obvious Photoshop fakery?  It doesn't look obviously faked to me.

I don't think it's a ghost, but I don't get the kneejerk reaction of people on these forums to declare that it is an obvious fakery when I can see anything obvious about it.

[Sakari]

Archimedes, on 26 October 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Why are people so eager to denounced it as some sort of obvious Photoshop fakery?  It doesn't look obviously faked to me.

I don't think it's a ghost, but I don't get the kneejerk reaction of people on these forums to declare that it is an obvious fakery when I can see anything obvious about it.

Because not one " ghost " has ever been proven to be real, not even close.

Picture altering has, since the beginning of photography. We have plenty ( more then plenty ) of proven hoaxes to look at, and learn from. We do not have any for a real ghost.

" if it smells like a rat, it must be a rat "


Occam's Razor

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

[Archimedes]

Sakari, on 26 October 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Because not one " ghost " has ever been proven to be real, not even close.

That in itself does not justify concluding that a claimed picture of a ghost is a Photoshop fake.  In this case, to me it just looks like a person behind the couple.

I don't see the obviousness of the supposed Photoshop faking.

Quote

Picture altering has, since the beginning of photography. We have plenty ( more then plenty ) of proven hoaxes to look at, and learn from. We do not have any for a real ghost.

But how does that lead anyone to conclude the picture has been edited in something like Photoshop as opposed to simply being a setup on location?

Quote

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

I'm familiar with Occam's razor, and it is a useful tool to not believe ghost photos are real unless they've got something else very compelling to add to the picture.  Occam's razor can't be used to tell whether or not a photo has been edited in a photo manipulation package like Photoshop. Some familiarity with Photoshop is necessary to try and detect something like that.

I'm not questioning the conclusion that it's probably a fake.  I'm questioning the supposed analysis of "LOL! It's clearly a Photoshop.  I can tell because of the pixels and having seen some Photoshops in my day".

If it's a Photoshop, then it's a relatively good one as they have even gone to the trouble of accurately recreating the noisy effect on the "ghost" the rest of the photo shows, indicative of probably been taken with a small sensored camera indoors like a typical phone camera (and without flash).

My opinion is it's much more likely to be a simple set-up, or random capture of someone behind the couple, than a photoshop.

[scowl]

Archimedes, on 26 October 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Why are people so eager to denounced it as some sort of obvious Photoshop fakery?  It doesn't look obviously faked to me.

I played around with the image and haven't found any flaws that show Photoshop fakery yet. It's hard to tell because the image has been recompressed so all the tell-tale signs of two separate composed images have been smeared together making it look really good. The blacks in the foreground are slightly purple as is the "ghost" so that's a good match. The only thing I can see that's slightly suspicious is that the light areas of the "ghost" are noisier than similar light areas of the the rest of the image but it's pretty close. So if it's a fake, someone either did a good job or just did a low-tech job of holding a picture of a ghost behind them. There does appear to be something like a shadow behind the woman's shoulder.

[JGirl]

i think it could be an actual picture behind them, like a poster for a horror movie type thing.
i don't know much about photoshop other than when the image is obviously done, but this just looks too fake to be anything but fake. lol

[JGirl]

coldethyl, on 25 October 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Wow you're right.  The realism is astounding.  It could be nothing else but a ghost.  I can't believe I didn't see it at first.

Wonder if the haunting is a residual one?  Wish Ghosthunters would go there and do a 2 hour special.

orrrrrr
maybe they'll even do a whole new series based around it!

[scowl]

JGirl, on 26 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

i think it could be an actual picture behind them, like a poster for a horror movie type thing.

It's awfully convenient that the couple is posed so all edges of a poster behind them would be blocked. The ghost also doesn't have the traditional transparency we've seen in other ghost pictures.

[JGirl]

scowl, on 26 October 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

It's awfully convenient that the couple is posed so all edges of a poster behind them would be blocked. The ghost also doesn't have the traditional transparency we've seen in other ghost pictures.

yes i agree, i'm suggesting they took the pic knowing it was there and placed themselves deliberately for the effect
the ghost is too solid and too different in 'texture' as well. i don't mean in pixels - it's something i can't really explain but i know it when i see it

[Realm]

I'd say it was a girl in white makeup behind them before I'd jump on the ghost bandwagon. People hoax things all the time, so I'd say this girl was
in on the hoax, and of course they swear no one was behind them, just them in the theatre,  blah  bla  bla  bla  etc..

[Jackofalltrades]

JGirl, on 26 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

i think it could be an actual picture behind them, like a poster for a horror movie type thing.
i don't know much about photoshop other than when the image is obviously done, but this just looks too fake to be anything but fake. lol

That is exactly what I think it is also... A poster/picture of some sort behind the couple...