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.


- - - - -

Ghost staring at view?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 2,979 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

  • My youtube channel, Has horror stories and skits.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCreepyCorridor

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:52 AM

Quote

A photographer believes he captured a ghost on camera during the New Year's Eve celebrations in London.
Professional snapper Jules Annan called in paranormal investigators - and they are struggling to explain his spooky image.


Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co...9#ixzz2pOW2po9k



It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route and find out what really happened.


#2    tendo

tendo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:inside your mind!!!

  • Madness is the emergency exit.

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:57 PM

I'm pretty sure it's just a girl texting. If it weren't in modern clothes, with bent head looking at what seems to be a cell phone, wearing Uggs...maybe I'd say it's something. It had to be either done on purpose, or perhaps a long exposure with a smart camera/phone, wherein the camera software edited out the small changes of her walking up or walking by, but when she was at the bridge she was there for too many frames to be fully cut from the data.


#3    LogicalThinker

LogicalThinker

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belfast (North of Ireland)

  • Lets be sensible please

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:06 PM

I'd be more impressed if someone managed to capture the unexplainable image of a 'caveman' ghost.  Funny how no-one ever sees these.


#4    Duck33

Duck33

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2014

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:11 PM

As many point out in the article, it's a long exposure shot and if that isn't the case software like 'Foto Forensic' can check for manipulation in the picture easily enough. I'm guessing this picture will sink from sight like all the others that bob up in the Mail on a slow news day, rather than provide us with the first solid photographic evidence for paranormal activity in 200 years.


#5    acute

acute

    The Hedgeless Hoglet

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,084 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mercia

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:19 PM

Long exposure.
All the time in the world to walk in and out of shot.


#6    JGirl

JGirl

    Pajama Goddess

  • Member
  • 8,875 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:British Columbia Canada

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:41 PM

looks like a female to me first of all. secondly i don't think for one minute it is a ghost. more like a trick of the camera or the way the pic was taken.
and come on please the 'Mirror'?

View PostLogicalThinker, on 04 January 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

I'd be more impressed if someone managed to capture the unexplainable image of a 'caveman' ghost.  Funny how no-one ever sees these.
cavemen had no souls maybe.

Edited by JGirl, 04 January 2014 - 11:40 PM.

JGirl's official tune of the day - hear it here!


Posted Image.. but as for this house of cards you are building..  a butterfly fart would knock it down.


#7    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,858 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:00 AM

This is a really useful image as it shows a number of things:
- the photographer wasn't very observant, and why the heck would he notice someone down there in the darkness.?
- the photographer is a liar - that could not *possibly* have been taken handheld at the claimed f22 and 1/25.  Maybe f22 and 25 seconds, but in that case it sure wasn't hand-held, and 25 seconds is rather obviously a long exposure.  I challenge him/her to post the original inc. exif.  Note the long streak of a car headlight crossing the bridge and the blurred water.  BTW, that aperture setting is a completely ridiculous choice for that image - the 'photographer clearly hasn't got a clue how to use that camera (and nobody abbreviates Aperture to 'APP').
- the paranormal 'investigators' other than Lee Roberts from 'Haunted Events UK' (why not come to UM and join in, Lee?) are lucky to be unnamed as they also haven't got a clue
- that when someone walks into a time exposure and then stands still for a few seconds, this is EXACTLY what you get.

What a load - shame on you Jules Annan.  Not that it counts for anything, but it is worth giggling at noting the fact that even at Youtube - the haven for weirdos, trolls and the gullible - it has 23 DISlikes versus 3 likes...!!  Well deserved derision, if you ask me.

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

#8    Duck33

Duck33

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2014

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:06 AM

If nothing else I would say believers in the paranormal should get annoyed at this sort of stunt being held up as possible evidence when it is nothing more than ignorance of a simple photographic anomaly on the part of the person who took the photo. I understand why the Mail does it (Entertainment purposes) and for the most part people on the whole were not buying it as anything paranormal. However, between this sort of evidence and blurry images of bugs on video cameras constantly being touted as 'possibly paranormal' it's hard not to get cynical. Believers and sceptics deserve a better quality of evidence but for that to happen everyone has to get savvy to the more common mistakes and start applying a critical filter when viewing 'paranormal claims'.'Extrordinary claims,extrordinary evidence' as Carl Sagan said.

We are becoming more sophisticated and demanding in the quality of the evidence we require i.e no-one is particularly taken in by the photos of 'physical mediumship back in the day by the likes of Helen Duncan

Posted Image

But if the digital camera revolution and 'Orb' craze of the last decade taught us anything it should be that as technology advances, so too should our understanding of that technology. Sceptics owe it to rationalisation and believers owe it to the credibility of their chosen medium )no pun intended)

Edited by Duck33, 05 January 2014 - 10:57 AM.


#9    Realm

Realm

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in our spiral galaxy

  • "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."
    Albert Einstein

Posted 06 January 2014 - 04:39 AM

The ghost is even dressed for cold weather.


#10    skydivingstars

skydivingstars

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:15 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 06 January 2014 - 05:04 AM

I love that you make posts like these. Every one I see convinces me even more how many people try so hard to make something look "paranormal", to make it look like a ghost somehow and convince themselves that there is something after this life, whether they have legitimate proof or not.

I'm not saying that an afterlife doesn't exist, because I genuinely have no idea whether it does or not. I think people just need to realize that we aren't going to know for sure until we get there and making something out of nothing doesn't make it true.


#11    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,106 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:37 AM

View PostChrLzs, on 05 January 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

This is a really useful image as it shows a number of things:
- the photographer wasn't very observant, and why the heck would he notice someone down there in the darkness.?
- the photographer is a liar - that could not *possibly* have been taken handheld at the claimed f22 and 1/25.  Maybe f22 and 25 seconds, but in that case it sure wasn't hand-held, and 25 seconds is rather obviously a long exposure.  I challenge him/her to post the original inc. exif.  Note the long streak of a car headlight crossing the bridge and the blurred water.  BTW, that aperture setting is a completely ridiculous choice for that image - the 'photographer clearly hasn't got a clue how to use that camera (and nobody abbreviates Aperture to 'APP').
- the paranormal 'investigators' other than Lee Roberts from 'Haunted Events UK' (why not come to UM and join in, Lee?) are lucky to be unnamed as they also haven't got a clue
- that when someone walks into a time exposure and then stands still for a few seconds, this is EXACTLY what you get.

What a load - shame on you Jules Annan.  Not that it counts for anything, but it is worth giggling at noting the fact that even at Youtube - the haven for weirdos, trolls and the gullible - it has 23 DISlikes versus 3 likes...!!  Well deserved derision, if you ask me.

But he's a "professional snapper" - I love how they say things in the UK.

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

#12    spacelizard667

spacelizard667

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Up here in this tree.

  • What is the more fun, inviting a wolf to dinner or having a tiger by it's tail ?

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:09 PM

View PostDuck33, on 05 January 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

If nothing else I would say believers in the paranormal should get annoyed at this sort of stunt being held up as possible evidence when it is nothing more than ignorance of a simple photographic anomaly on the part of the person who took the photo. I understand why the Mail does it (Entertainment purposes) and for the most part people on the whole were not buying it as anything paranormal. However, between this sort of evidence and blurry images of bugs on video cameras constantly being touted as 'possibly paranormal' it's hard not to get cynical. Believers and sceptics deserve a better quality of evidence but for that to happen everyone has to get savvy to the more common mistakes and start applying a critical filter when viewing 'paranormal claims'.'Extrordinary claims,extrordinary evidence' as Carl Sagan said.

We are becoming more sophisticated and demanding in the quality of the evidence we require i.e no-one is particularly taken in by the photos of 'physical mediumship back in the day by the likes of Helen Duncan

Posted Image

But if the digital camera revolution and 'Orb' craze of the last decade taught us anything it should be that as technology advances, so too should our understanding of that technology. Sceptics owe it to rationalisation and believers owe it to the credibility of their chosen medium )no pun intended)

Duck33:  So finally you have found something cheap and trashy enough to feed your skepticism with; quack  quack  quack.  I always thought skeptics must be hungry but this is so throughly disgusting.


#13    spacelizard667

spacelizard667

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 333 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Up here in this tree.

  • What is the more fun, inviting a wolf to dinner or having a tiger by it's tail ?

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:25 PM

View PostDuck33, on 05 January 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

If nothing else I would say believers in the paranormal should get annoyed at this sort of stunt being held up as possible evidence when it is nothing more than ignorance of a simple photographic anomaly on the part of the person who took the photo. I understand why the Mail does it (Entertainment purposes) and for the most part people on the whole were not buying it as anything paranormal. However, between this sort of evidence and blurry images of bugs on video cameras constantly being touted as 'possibly paranormal' it's hard not to get cynical. Believers and sceptics deserve a better quality of evidence but for that to happen everyone has to get savvy to the more common mistakes and start applying a critical filter when viewing 'paranormal claims'.'Extrordinary claims,extrordinary evidence' as Carl Sagan said.

We are becoming more sophisticated and demanding in the quality of the evidence we require i.e no-one is particularly taken in by the photos of 'physical mediumship back in the day by the likes of Helen Duncan

Posted Image

But if the digital camera revolution and 'Orb' craze of the last decade taught us anything it should be that as technology advances, so too should our understanding of that technology. Sceptics owe it to rationalisation and believers owe it to the credibility of their chosen medium )no pun intended)

So, Duck33  you finally found something cheap and trashy enough to feed your skepticism on, that is so like a dog to the vomit.  Quack  quack quack. I always thought skeptics were hungry people, that would explain their need to prove themselves right about everything.

Edited by spacelizard667, 06 January 2014 - 12:26 PM.


#14    Duck33

Duck33

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2014

Posted 06 January 2014 - 02:31 PM

View Postspacelizard667, on 06 January 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

Duck33:  So finally you have found something cheap and trashy enough to feed your skepticism with; quack  quack  quack.  I always thought skeptics must be hungry but this is so throughly disgusting.

Well I was celebrating the fact that believers (like yourself) have the critical skills these days to question images like the one above. However that wasn't always the case and the above evidence was and occasionally still is presented as good evidence (see Victor Zammit's new book). I would say though that Reverting to name-calling suggests you are defensive and therefore find the objections valid, a reaction for you to explore in more depth, which is good but a more cohesive argument would serve your position better.


#15    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 2,979 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

  • My youtube channel, Has horror stories and skits.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCreepyCorridor

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:46 PM

View PostDuck33, on 06 January 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

Well I was celebrating the fact that believers (like yourself) have the critical skills these days to question images like the one above. However that wasn't always the case and the above evidence was and occasionally still is presented as good evidence (see Victor Zammit's new book). I would say though that Reverting to name-calling suggests you are defensive and therefore find the objections valid, a reaction for you to explore in more depth, which is good but a more cohesive argument would serve your position better.
welcome to um duck33, as you find out there are more classes then believers and skeptics, just to name a few cynics, preachers, fantasy world etc. I have been told I am cold when it comes to peoples posts since I like to dissect things in order to understand or I present more common sense explanation than blaming fictional beings

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route and find out what really happened.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users