Good ghost photo

[morrison1976]

I remember seeing this photo a while ago, and i have just come across it again. Looks real to me, but i would like to know the thoughts of other people. I will upload the photo, but if that does not work, then the link is below. Its the photo of the girl in the street with the bottom part of her legs missing. Very strange photo.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=de&am.../language_tools

[LIPI Rob]

I think that one was reported to be a hoax.

I remember seeing this photo a while ago, and i have just come across it again. Looks real to me, but i would like to know the thoughts of other people. I will upload the photo, but if that does not work, then the link is below. Its the photo of the girl in the street with the bottom part of her legs missing. Very strange photo.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=de&am.../language_tools

[morrison1976]

Would like to find more information about it. Maybe it is a hoax, but its a very good one.

[sub_x0ne]

Easily photoshopped and I think that's what it came to the last time this was posted.

Edited December 15, 2007 by sub_x0ne

[morrison1976]

Easily photoshopped.

Well, when i first saw this photo, i was in my early 20's. I am 31 now, so it would be cool to kow when it was taken.

Any ghost photo can be easily photoshopped, does not mean they all are.

[Hazzard]

Any ghost photo can be easily photoshopped, does not mean they all are.

Youre right, this is a REAL ghost, good job murrison.

Edited December 15, 2007 by hazzard

[emberlake]

It could very well be photoshopped.

However the first time I saw this photo, years ago, my first thought was that it was taken when the person was taking a step. The black posts hides part of his/her body and if he/she had their leg bent to take a step when the shutter clicked it would give a look such as this.

Just my opinion...

Edited December 15, 2007 by D is here

[JustNormal]

Sorry, that is one of the classic fakes..JN

[trickyhomunculi]

Yes JN and LIPI are right it's a well known fake.

Edited December 16, 2007 by clover

[morrison1976]

Youre right, this is a REAL ghost, good job murrison.

Hazzard!

I never said it was real, not at all. What i said was if its a fake, then its a good fake because it looks real, that does not mean i believe it to be real. The reason why i wanted to know when it was taken is because that would help in knowing how, or how it could have been faked.

Have you seen this photo before? do you know how it is a fake?, or as always is your mind made up already

As always Hazzard, you dont know what you are chatting about. Always the way with a classic closed minded de-bunker

Edited December 16, 2007 by morrison1976

[morrison1976]

Yes JN and LIPI are right it's a well known fake.

Well thats all well and good, but that does not tell me how it is a fake. Does anyone know when the photo was taken. Or does anyone know of the link that proves that this photo is a fake?

[NoahJaymes]

All you have to do in photoshop or other photo editing program is find a similar picture, notice the poles they are near, they are black, the mass is black...on photoshop you can make the picture your original background, next you are going to add a new layer, find your "person who is not supposed to be here upper torso" apply it to where you want, and name it ghost. After you do that, make a new layer and name it black mass. Take a brush, pixels set to whatever and start to dab in the spot you wish, IE waist up. Make sure it looks like a black mass. Next, you are going to head on up to filters, add glauson blur to the black mass and wahla, you have a black mass with an upper torso.

[morrison1976]

All you have to do in photoshop or other photo editing program is find a similar picture, notice the poles they are near, they are black, the mass is black...on photoshop you can make the picture your original background, next you are going to add a new layer, find your "person who is not supposed to be here upper torso" apply it to where you want, and name it ghost. After you do that, make a new layer and name it black mass. Take a brush, pixels set to whatever and start to dab in the spot you wish, IE waist up. Make sure it looks like a black mass. Next, you are going to head on up to filters, add glauson blur to the black mass and wahla, you have a black mass with an upper torso.

Does anyone understand what i am saying!

Any ghost or ufo photo can be photoshopped, we all know that. But that does not mean that all photos are. What i want to know is when this was taken, and proof that it was photo shopped. You just cant say it was, without backing it up. If thats the case, then you might as well say that all photos are fake. Alot of people seem to be throwing around the "photo shop" explanation, and some dont even know how old this photo is. I know its at least 10 years old.

[NoahJaymes]

The photo is fake. You can not simply google an image without knowing the tags on the image and find it and where it originated from. You said yourself you found it when you were in your early 20's and you are 31 now. How do you expect anyone to find the images origin being that old.

We understand you, I just don't think anyone really wants to prove to you that the image is infact fake when it requires more than 10 minutes of searching.

[morrison1976]

All you have to do in photoshop or other photo editing program is find a similar picture, notice the poles they are near, they are black, the mass is black...on photoshop you can make the picture your original background, next you are going to add a new layer, find your "person who is not supposed to be here upper torso" apply it to where you want, and name it ghost. After you do that, make a new layer and name it black mass. Take a brush, pixels set to whatever and start to dab in the spot you wish, IE waist up. Make sure it looks like a black mass. Next, you are going to head on up to filters, add glauson blur to the black mass and wahla, you have a black mass with an upper torso.

I first saw this photo when i brought a ghost cd rom from a car boot sale. I lost it ages ago, and i came across the photo agin yesterday. If i can find out how old it is, then i could maybe rule out photo shop. I have been searching, but cant find anything else on the photo, and all i hear is people saying its fake, without backing it up at all. I guess i will keep on looking, as this photo interests me for some reason.

[Shalott]

It could very well be photoshopped.

However the first time I saw this photo, years ago, my first thought was that it was taken when the person was taking a step. The black posts hides part of his/her body and if he/she had their leg bent to take a step when the shutter clicked it would give a look such as this.

Just my opinion...

That never actually occured to me. When I first saw this picture awhile ago photoshop was my first impression, simply because a missing leg does not a ghost make IMO, the person looks pretty solid, but now that you mention it I think it's very possible that the persons leg was bent.

[morrison1976]

That never actually occured to me. When I first saw this picture awhile ago photoshop was my first impression, simply because a missing leg does not a ghost make IMO, the person looks pretty solid, but now that you mention it I think it's very possible that the persons leg was bent.

I have made the photo bigger, and the pixels seem to give the impression that the girl was there, and not put in by using photo shop. Other photoshop photos that show fake ufo's or ghost have dodgy pixels around the object. Also depending how old this photo is, could photo shop actually do something like this say, 15 years ago, and make it look so real. The leg being bent, well i dont think its possible, because the way her body is tilted forwards, as if glideing, i dont see how this could be the explanation

[Shalott]

I did look at the way she was tilted, and it could perhaps just be that the very moment the photo was taken she happened to be leaning forward, looking around the pole at the young girl as she hurried forward, and as such was snapped at that angle. I don't believe the lady was put in by photoshop, but I don't believe she's a ghost either, simply because she looks much too solid. Actually, looking closely at the picture, is it just me or does the pole where her legs should be next to look kind of straight, dark, and sharp? (the bit just below the arrow point) it could actually be a case of her leg being photoshopped out

[morrison1976]

I did look at the way she was tilted, and it could perhaps just be that the very moment the photo was taken she happened to be leaning forward, looking around the pole at the young girl as she hurried forward, and as such was snapped at that angle. I don't believe the lady was put in by photoshop, but I don't believe she's a ghost either, simply because she looks much too solid. Actually, looking closely at the picture, is it just me or does the pole where her legs should be next to look kind of straight, dark, and sharp? (the bit just below the arrow point) it could actually be a case of her leg being photoshopped out

That could be just the post, but its possible it could be photo shopped, if you could do thing like that 10+ years ago with photoshop. Wish i could find more about the photo, but i cant, and i have looked everywhere. Would be good to know about the people in the photo, who took the photo, where and when it was taken.

[Shalott]

Well, 10 years ago was only 1997/1998, and photoshop was first developed in like the late 80's/early 90's, with new advancements made pretty much every year. I don't really know anything about photoshop however, just know how to use some parts of it, so I can't really say. It is an interesting picture, and you're right, it'd help to know its origins.

[emberlake]

Back when I first saw this photo, I wasn't very familiar with the capabilities of photo editing programs. So, my first thoughts about it came from my limited knowledge and using common sense as to how a person could appear to be free floating.

Now that I know more about photo editing, I understand how a photo like this could be created.

They could have put the person in the photo or....

Natalie could be right that it could be her leg was photoshopped out.

I wonder how many generations of this photo is on the net. It would be interesting to see the early ones.

I have never thought this was a ghost, apparition, spirit or anything spooky. I still don't.

[morrison1976]

Back when I first saw this photo, I wasn't very familiar with the capabilities of photo editing programs. So, my first thoughts about it came from my limited knowledge and using common sense as to how a person could appear to be free floating.

Now that I know more about photo editing, I understand how a photo like this could be created.

They could have put the person in the photo or....

Natalie could be right that it could be her leg was photoshopped out.

I wonder how many generations of this photo is on the net. It would be interesting to see the early ones.

I have never thought this was a ghost, apparition, spirit or anything spooky. I still don't.

It could be yes. I never thought the whole of her was photoshopped. If anyone has more information about this photo, i would be grateful

[NoahJaymes]

Photoshop was first published in 1990.

Paintshop Pro was first published in early to mid 90's as a shareware program.

So they definately have been around for quite some time.

[Shalott]

For what it's worth, I just sent the photo to a friend of mine who's doing a graphic design course. I don't understand half of what he said, but his opinion (word for word) is,

"its been cloned and smudged, at that size the image is small enough to be almost undetected but if u look at the brown bricks closely theres a repeating pattern which is too squashed to be full sized pavers, if u look as the pavers get closer to the pole they look like a pothole BUT theres no shadow variant - (I asked here what is a shadow variant, cause I'm a dumbass) - in real life, shadows have various light sources so shadows r never crisp edged, u always have layers if the photo wasnt so badly chopped and edited i would just say the lady had her leg up behind her ass, and pardon my etheral ignorance but how the fark is that a ghost? it should b titled amputee if anything. since when were ghosts solid? do u want me to make u a ghost in a picture nat?"

And he is now making fun of me but anyway, he told me to attach the below photo. So yeah, just another tidbit. I'm also browsing ghost sites now to see if I can find its origins.

Edited December 16, 2007 by NatalieK

[morrison1976]

For what it's worth, I just sent the photo to a friend of mine who's doing a graphic design course. I don't understand half of what he said, but his opinion (word for word) is,

"its been cloned and smudged, at that size the image is small enough to be almost undetected but if u look at the brown bricks closely theres a repeating pattern which is too squashed to be full sized pavers, if u look as the pavers get closer to the pole they look like a pothole BUT theres no shadow variant - (I asked here what is a shadow variant, cause I'm a dumbass) - in real life, shadows have various light sources so shadows r never crisp edged, u always have layers if the photo wasnt so badly chopped and edited i would just say the lady had her leg up behind her ass, and pardon my etheral ignorance but how the fark is that a ghost? it should b titled amputee if anything. since when were ghosts solid? do u want me to make u a ghost in a picture nat?"

And he is now making fun of me but anyway, he told me to attach the below photo. So yeah, just another tidbit. I'm also browsing ghost sites now to see if I can find its origins.

Cheers for looking into it. I would be lying if i said i understood what your mate said about the photo. I looked at the photo, and just did not see what he was chatting about, but im no expert