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 4
Still Waters

Child photographed with ghostly figure

60 posts in this topic

A family in Kirtland, Ohio is shocked this weekend after they noticed a strange figure in a photograph with their daughter. Erin Potter is seen in the photo with a ghostly apparition beside her. Cleveland's 19 Action News interviewed the Potter family on Friday regarding their experience.

At the time of the photograph, Erin was battling leukemia. In the photo, Erin is pictured running through the yard with sprinklers. Next to her is a red figure that some people believe is the Virgin Mary. The Potter family also thinks the figure is the Virgin Mary.

http://www.examiner....-ghostly-figure

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the virgin Mary, looks more like a Buddhist monk.

But also notice the lights on the left, same colour. I think this is a one of those strange things which happens when taking a photo of moving lights. Unusual but nothing spiritual, but if the family believe it is and it helps them, then thats fine by me.,

Its like the thread about clouds, some things can be explained although they are unusual to see and quite spectacular.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is running through the yard with "sparklers ", not "sprinklers". It looks like motion blur from a long exposure (taken at night). No ghost or Virgin Mary here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm with freetoroam on this one, regardless of what "it" is, if it makes the family happy and gives them hope, power to them and their Mary.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think that has something to do with glare from the sparklers. Nothing supernatural there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not too sure about the 'ghostly figure' being the Virgin Mary, though I wouldn't rule her out. It certainly appears to be an entity of sorts. I wouldn't be so quick as to call it motion blur; take a look at the size of said figure, in comparison to the little girl.

Edited by Evening Star
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the child was sick maybe it was a spirit watching over him. Who knows really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Lens flare or slowing shutter speed.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm,did more "ghostly" figures appear in photos when they were still developed chemically ,instead of being digitalized ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good show ... wonders big or small is not necessarily a bad thing

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm,did more "ghostly" figures appear in photos when they were still developed chemically ,instead of being digitalized ?

Yes, especially long exposure such as this one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What if this is just the child's astral body? Sometime kids live half in, half out of their bodies.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea lens flare, shutter speed, motion blur... but none of the three explain the full apparition, and no other anomaly.

Motion Blur: (Can't be motion blur because the apparition is taller then what the little girl can swing the sparkler. She is simply not swinging that high, so there are parts that cannot be a blur of what she is swinging.)

Figure-Animation2.gif

Long Exposure: (Take note that everything has a certain blur and shadow where the picure looks like a 3d movie without glasses.)

800px-Trailing_stars_above_Paranal.jpg

Lens flare: (Why would anyone have even suggested this?)

800px-Lens_Flare_picture.jpg

Yeah, all these things make total sense as to why a person is standing behind a child in a picture but not in person.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yea lens flare, shutter speed, motion blur... but none of the three explain the full apparition, and no other anomaly.

Motion Blur: (Can't be motion blur because the apparition is taller then what the little girl can swing the sparkler. She is simply not swinging that high, so there are parts that cannot be a blur of what she is swinging.)

Long Exposure: (Take note that everything has a certain blur and shadow where the picure looks like a 3d movie without glasses.)

Lens flare: (Why would anyone have even suggested this?)

Yeah, all these things make total sense as to why a person is standing behind a child in a picture but not in person.

Yes, they are all perfect reasons. Cameras capture light in diferent ways. ( I am no expert, but have seen plenty like this, and better ).

The " figure " is the boys figure. Look at his left hand, the sparkler goes much higher then he could reach in the pic.

I am sure some will post great explanations, with more detail then me.

We know cameras do this, and that is fact....

So, saying it is a spirit makes much more sense.

6867278352_8b0ea23db5_z.jpg

6867279226_70c66f8c3f_z.jpg

7013388873_c793002d8e_z.jpg

cemetery2-1024x768.jpg

Edited by Sakari
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wonder if no one considered the kid maybe, Oh i don't know, Jumped?

Edited by Brian Topp
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely see a human figure, but my guess would be it's a real one.

So sorry for their child and what the parents are going through.

As has been stated if it helps the family or the child feel safer, stronger, give hope, they can tell themselves whatever they want.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does look cool but I do believe it is just blurs from the sparklers. I seen it tons of times. People mistaking "something " for blured light.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparklers would not cause that it could be hoaxed .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sparklers would not cause that it could be hoaxed .

Please explain how they would not do that, when myself, and others have seen almost identical pictures, with sparklers, light sticks, etc....By the way, it is not the sparkler, it is the exposure doing it.

I posted a few similar pics.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think a virgin mary statue or recreation using a live human is a possibility too. It looks like it with what appears to me to be draped clothing.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xfelix, may I suggest that *before* you get all sarcastic, you need to have a very firm grasp of the topic...

Yea lens flare, shutter speed, motion blur... but none of the three explain the full apparition, and no other anomaly.

I beg to differ. And {wallace voice} photogrammetry is my speciality.. {/wallace voice}

Motion Blur: (Can't be motion blur because the apparition is taller then what the little girl can swing the sparkler. She is simply not swinging that high, so there are parts that cannot be a blur of what she is swinging.)

Wrong. Motion blur ISN'T just about the subject's movement!!!! It is also about CAMERA movement. In this case that high sparkler trail is a telltale clue that at some point the camera has been tilted downwards and what's more, given there is a blurred blob (the 'apparition') that is about the same added height, a tilted camera during the exposure (or a big jump, as BT said) is a MUCH more parsimonious explanation. KISS, as they say.

Long Exposure: (Take note that everything has a certain blur and shadow where the picure looks like a 3d movie without glasses.)

Wrong. You have selectively and deliberately chosen a tripod mounted shot where the camera cannot move, as well as one where the movement is steady and unchanging. That is nothing like the shot being analysed and a terribly inappropriate attempt at an analogy.

Lens flare: (Why would anyone have even suggested this?)

Wrong. Again you have chosen just one very specific type of lens flare, in a shot with no camera or subject movement and no out-of-focus blur. I wonder why.. There are many, many types of 'lens flares' and one or more of them could be contributing to this image, although I don't initially think so. Without seeing the full-resolution original it is very hard to tell.

BTW, I'm happy to back all that up with examples and deeper explanations if anyone disagrees. In the meantime, Sakari's excellent examples show pretty much everything I said above..

Yeah, all these things make total sense as to why a person is standing behind a child in a picture but not in person.

Like I said, that sort of sarcasm was not warranted, given the three wrongs...

In the case of this image, as I said - the height of the 'apparition' when combined with the righthand sparkler trail is a strong indication of camera movement. The image is obviously a very long exposure, hence the trails, but it also includes a flash being fired (either from this camera or another nearby (need exif data to check that) which has illuminated the close range objects and foreground and overexposed important areas, thus making it a bit more complex to analyse. The 'apparition' appears to have happened either before or after that flash went off, while the camera shutter was open. My guess is that at that time, the camera was either tilted downwards or the child jumped which created the tall blurred after-image... Images before or after this one might be usable to identify the colours being worn, to verify or eliminate that wild-a$$ guess.

But I'll lay odds we never see other photos, or the full-res image. If they surface, someone please wake me and I'll happily continue with the analysis...

I'll be delighted to be proven wrong...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are all perfect reasons. Cameras capture light in diferent ways. ( I am no expert, but have seen plenty like this, and better ).

The " figure " is the boys figure. Look at his left hand, the sparkler goes much higher then he could reach in the pic.

I am sure some will post great explanations, with more detail then me.

We know cameras do this, and that is fact....

So, saying it is a spirit makes much more sense.

6867278352_8b0ea23db5_z.jpg

6867279226_70c66f8c3f_z.jpg

7013388873_c793002d8e_z.jpg

cemetery2-1024x768.jpg

I need a greyhound that fast the next time I'm at the puppy races.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It looks like lens flare created by the sparklers, & the human mind sees it as a human figure. The colour of the being is the same as the sparkler lens flare on the left. It sure looks like a person to me!

Those hound dog pictures are priceless

Edited by Perfection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xfelix, may I suggest that *before* you get all sarcastic, you need to have a very firm grasp of the topic...

I beg to differ. And {wallace voice} photogrammetry is my speciality.. {/wallace voice}

Wrong. Motion blur ISN'T just about the subject's movement!!!! It is also about CAMERA movement. In this case that high sparkler trail is a telltale clue that at some point the camera has been tilted downwards and what's more, given there is a blurred blob (the 'apparition') that is about the same added height, a tilted camera during the exposure (or a big jump, as BT said) is a MUCH more parsimonious explanation. KISS, as they say.

Wrong. You have selectively and deliberately chosen a tripod mounted shot where the camera cannot move, as well as one where the movement is steady and unchanging. That is nothing like the shot being analysed and a terribly inappropriate attempt at an analogy.

Wrong. Again you have chosen just one very specific type of lens flare, in a shot with no camera or subject movement and no out-of-focus blur. I wonder why.. There are many, many types of 'lens flares' and one or more of them could be contributing to this image, although I don't initially think so. Without seeing the full-resolution original it is very hard to tell.

BTW, I'm happy to back all that up with examples and deeper explanations if anyone disagrees. In the meantime, Sakari's excellent examples show pretty much everything I said above..

Like I said, that sort of sarcasm was not warranted, given the three wrongs...

In the case of this image, as I said - the height of the 'apparition' when combined with the righthand sparkler trail is a strong indication of camera movement. The image is obviously a very long exposure, hence the trails, but it also includes a flash being fired (either from this camera or another nearby (need exif data to check that) which has illuminated the close range objects and foreground and overexposed important areas, thus making it a bit more complex to analyse. The 'apparition' appears to have happened either before or after that flash went off, while the camera shutter was open. My guess is that at that time, the camera was either tilted downwards or the child jumped which created the tall blurred after-image... Images before or after this one might be usable to identify the colours being worn, to verify or eliminate that wild-a$$ guess.

But I'll lay odds we never see other photos, or the full-res image. If they surface, someone please wake me and I'll happily continue with the analysis...

I'll be delighted to be proven wrong...

Did you really claim that I purposely picked what images to display as opposed to just going and googling all the stuff others were claiming?

As for my sarcasm, it was entirely warranted. When i google what someone is talking about and it makes no sense.. Yeah warrant signed.

(By the way, referring to google when people do not even show what they are talking about on furms... That is common practice)

So how about, we decide to not jump into threads make accusations as to people "selectively and deliberately" doing things which is exactly what we're doing?

You did after all, "selectively and deliberately" accuse me of unwarranted sarcasm. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you really claim that I purposely picked what images to display as opposed to just going and googling all the stuff others were claiming?

Yes. If you had properly Googled these topics, you would have seen many, many images involving hand held cameras and erratic subject movement and out of focus images. Yet you picked ones with none of those characteristics. It was either deliberate or from a lack of observation/knowledge.

If it was the latter, then I apologise - but then if you genuinely didn't realise that your examples weren't relevant/analagous ... the issue of unwarranted sarcasm has to apply.

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.