Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UniversalFractal

Ghost Picture (Not a fake)

48 posts in this topic

Unless it was a kid that ran in real quick and got blurred... I wonder what makes a ghost visible for a camera or not, do they have will power over this, do they exert some extra energy that becomes momentarily visible.. I dont know much but it seems like people who see ghosts cant take pictures of them but that also they appear in pictures when nobody in the room knew they were there..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. So many jokers who are skeptic for the sake of it. When they truly can't explain something they usually attack (ie personal, like the 66 year old dude in question, divertry tactics)!

Then there are those who believe a dimly lit room a camera with no flash can take pictures seconds a part, and the anomaly is a result of lighting camera quirks etc. Forgetting the fact that in the pictures taken seconds apart anomaly appears and disappears, if the anomaly was conditional on the conditions and camera quirks it would be logically present in both cameras.

Thirdly, there are those who say little kids moved from area of room to another in a flash like superman and this caused a blur ie the anomaly. I mean seriously that's more out there than a ghost, moving at that sort of speeds. Lmao!!!

Skeptics are skeptical for the sake of it, many jump on a band wagon. I mean clearly there is no clear explanation for the anomaly and it's better to say we genuinely don't know what it is than make up something foolish just to skeptical for the sake of it. That goes for both sides in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like an excited dog that was sitting in the chair and jumped up on the table! I can see a small dog's head, his upper body, and his front legs on the table.

Edit: You can even see the little guy's tail behind the chair.

Edited by scowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another clue: whatever this is, it's casting a shadow on the table. I'm no expert on ghosts but I don't believe they cast shadows.

This was clearly shot with a long shutter speed (the motion blur from the non-ghost shot proves that). The back table is beyond the reach of the flash so anything moving would be blurred like this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EXIF data is recorded in the pics.

The exposure time was 1/15 second for both pictures (the person taking the pic did a better job holding the camera still in one of the photos) and the 2 pictures were taken 10 seconds apart (not a 'split second').

Edited by Archimedes
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/15 of a second is enough to turn a small excitable dog into a blur. Can't you see his tail behind the chair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I was just putting the data out there for those who are interested.

I dont think it's a fake, and scowl's explanation seems perfectly valid. As you can see in one of the pics, 1/15 second can cause noticable blur in people deliberately staying still for a photo, especially as these days people tend to hold their camera out in front of them unlike in the old days where you had to hold the camera up to your head to see through the viewfinder, which forced it to stay much stiller than holding it in front of you at arm's length, which results in much more noticable camera shake. So 1/15 second is enough time for a yappy little mutt to look like a blur like that.

And 10 seconds, not "a split second" as the OP described, is more than enough time for something like a dog to have moved into the picture from outside the frame.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, what's a "shutter feature" that allows photos "taken together in the shutter time"? I don't know what that really means, and the EXIF data clearly tags the photos as having been taken 10 seconds apart - 20:12:58 for the before pic and 20:13:08 for the 'ghost' pic.

Can the OP clarify what he/she means?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of this photo of an alien which was later shown to be a dog on its back legs pulling on a leash. With enough blurriness, small dogs can make good paranormal subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit. Nvm you are right. Archimedes nice, i never knew of exif data. You are right, it's definitely my little cousin. I guess I assumed that the pictures were taken a split second apart since the camera holder did an excellent job of not moving the frame of reference and everything else in the two pictures is damn near in the same place.

I also assumed it was a shutter feature cause if you hold the button down while taking a picture, my dad's phone makes numerous clicks in a row as if it is taking a bunch of pictures in a row together, but I guess that didn't actually do anything.

Edited by UniversalFractal
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for calling your cousin a dog. That sure looks like a tail though! :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit. Nvm you are right. Archimedes nice, i never knew of exif data. You are right, it's definitely my little cousin. I guess I assumed that the pictures were taken a split second apart since the camera holder did an excellent job of not moving the frame of reference and everything else in the two pictures is damn near in the same place.

I also assumed it was a shutter feature cause if you hold the button down while taking a picture, my dad's phone makes numerous clicks in a row as if it is taking a bunch of pictures in a row together, but I guess that didn't actually do anything.

Like I said in post #4 and #21. Thanks Archimedes for the photo forensics! :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXIF data is oft the debunker's friend. When in doubt, go for the things that cannot be faked...like EXIF data. Then reach out from there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

My mother's 45th bday was last night and we were out at a restaurant and this picture was taken on my Dad's phone, which has a shutter picture feature. These two pictures were taken together in the shutter time. Tell me what you think... really creepy. I see two faces, and a hand around the chair with one finger pointing up. Not photoshopped, seriously.

*snip*

Cool capture! It totally looks ghostly!

And now I'm hungry after seeing everyone at dinner.

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
links removed by request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXIF data is oft the debunker's friend. When in doubt, go for the things that cannot be faked...like EXIF data. Then reach out from there.

Thanks to you and Archimedes. EXIF data is something I'd never heard of. I did it, 'old school'. A side by side said there was no way they were taken 'split seconds apart'.

EXIF data actually tells you shutter speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like children rushing to get into the shot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you and Archimedes. EXIF data is something I'd never heard of. I did it, 'old school'. A side by side said there was no way they were taken 'split seconds apart'.

EXIF data actually tells you shutter speed?

EXIF data should tell you all sorts of useful things, yes. The abscence of it usually indicates that the pic has been futzed around with in editing software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EXIF data actually tells you shutter speed?

Camera make and model, shutter speed, aperture, JPEG quality, ISO, white balance, exact date and time picture was taken, etc.

All of these and more are embedded in the photo file in digital cameras. Very useful data.

Edited by Archimedes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camera make and model, shutter speed, aperture, JPEG quality, ISO, white balance, exact date and time picture was taken, etc.

All of these and more are embedded in the photo file in digital cameras. Very useful data.

How does one access such data from a photo?

I see there is a "view image info" when you right click on it, but I can't seem to find the information that you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one access such data from a photo?

I see there is a "view image info" when you right click on it, but I can't seem to find the information that you did.

I'm using a Mac, so if I right-click a photo file and choose "info" I get all sorts of info about the file, same way I would with any type of file, but with JPEGs with EXIF data, that also appears.

You can do the same thing in Windows, right-click on a JPEG file, click "properties" from the menu and then select the "Details" tab which will give all sorts of data about the photograph, basically a complete set of the camera settings when the photo was taken.

I use Picasa for managing and viewing my photos, and there's a panel on the right-hand of the screen which automatically displays EXIF data for any photo I'm looking at. Very handy.

One thing about this data is that if you open a JPEG file and copy and paste the part of all of the picture into a new image (perhaps to resize it for internet use), you lose the EXIF data as you've just copied out image data, not associated metadata, and thus you'll find most photos online don't have such data. Thankfully in this case, the photo posted looks like it was the file that came straight from the camera, so all this data was intact.

Edited by Archimedes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXIF data is oft the debunker's friend. When in doubt, go for the things that cannot be faked...like EXIF data. Then reach out from there.

EXIF data can be faked and edited. There are tools to do this. Most hoaxers don't bother though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using a Mac, so if I right-click a photo file and choose "info" I get all sorts of info about the file, same way I would with any type of file, but with JPEGs with EXIF data, that also appears.

You can do the same thing in Windows, right-click on a JPEG file, click "properties" from the menu and then select the "Details" tab which will give all sorts of data about the photograph, basically a complete set of the camera settings when the photo was taken.

I use Picasa for managing and viewing my photos, and there's a panel on the right-hand of the screen which automatically displays EXIF data for any photo I'm looking at. Very handy.

One thing about this data is that if you open a JPEG file and copy and paste the part of all of the picture into a new image (perhaps to resize it for internet use), you lose the EXIF data as you've just copied out image data, not associated metadata, and thus you'll find most photos online don't have such data. Thankfully in this case, the photo posted looks like it was the file that came straight from the camera, so all this data was intact.

Ah yes, I see it now.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.