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.


* * * - - 1 votes

Firefighter captures "ghost" on camera

ghost paranormal

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#46    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,801 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 12 July 2014 - 05:57 PM

View Postscowl, on 11 July 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

To impress me with a fire ghost, you'll need something better than one of the best hoaxed photos ever, the Wem Town Hall Fire Ghost:

Posted Image

This was faked in 1995, long before Photoshop made it easy. Incredibly fifteen years later someone found an old postcard from the 1920's which had a girl that reminded them of the frowning ghost girl. A comparison showed they were identical.

No one knows what techniques were used to compose the girl into the photo. The guy was an amateur photographer which only showed that even before computers it was possible to hoax a photo that could fool everyone.
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.

Edited by JesseCuster, 12 July 2014 - 05:57 PM.

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

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#47    6.6.6

6.6.6

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2014

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:05 PM

Certainly comes across as a figure!  
But it reeks of hoax!
If firefighters are taking the time to take photos before they start to put the fire out then I dont want to live in this world any more


#48    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,091 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:07 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 12 July 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

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.

It's quite easy with a light projector, you can layer two images in a picture while in the dark room. When you project the image, you can easily alter to light projector to make the second image brighter.

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


#49    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:08 PM

View Post6.6.6, on 12 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Certainly comes across as a figure!  
But it reeks of hoax!
If firefighters are taking the time to take photos before they start to put the fire out then I dont want to live in this world any more

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.


#50    6.6.6

6.6.6

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2014

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:14 PM

View Postsinewave, on 12 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:





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!


#51    6.6.6

6.6.6

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2014

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:15 PM

View Postsinewave, on 12 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:





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!


#52    6.6.6

6.6.6

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Closed
  • PipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2014

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:16 PM

Didnt mean to post twice! Dam android software!


#53    Thorvir Hrothgaard

Thorvir Hrothgaard

    Ulfhednar

  • Member
  • 5,124 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Noblesville, Indiana and proud of it!

  • Europeans have to be allowed to do things before they can do them. Americans have to be prohibited, or they can do anything.

Posted 12 July 2014 - 06:46 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 12 July 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

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.

:)

The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

#54    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • 2,784 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 13 July 2014 - 02:26 AM

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.

   It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve.
But to much skepticism can make you narrow minded to extraordinary possibilities.

#55    rodentraiser

rodentraiser

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 372 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington state

  • "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."

    from Wrong Planet Forums

Posted 13 July 2014 - 02:38 AM

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.

Posted Image


I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And almost always the lesser of two evils is our only choice.

We have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decade upon decade and look where it’s gotten us.     Coleman Luck


#56    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,452 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 16 July 2014 - 05:27 PM

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...

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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 ****.

Quote

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 by Sakari, 16 July 2014 - 05:35 PM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

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


#57    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 July 2014 - 05:54 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 12 July 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

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!  :w00t:

Quote

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


#58    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,801 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 16 July 2014 - 06:36 PM

View PostHawkin, on 13 July 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:

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.?

Wikipedia said:

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.

Wikipedia said:

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.

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

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#59    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,801 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 16 July 2014 - 06:45 PM

View Postscowl, on 16 July 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

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!  :w00t:
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.

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

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#60    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • 2,784 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 16 July 2014 - 07:07 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 16 July 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

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.

   It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve.
But to much skepticism can make you narrow minded to extraordinary possibilities.





Also tagged with ghost, paranormal

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users