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 0
Brian Topp

Ghost staring at view?

24 posts in this topic

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.uk/news/weird-news/parliament-ghost-picture-jules-annans-2984589#ixzz2pOW2po9k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long exposure.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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'?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Helen_Duncan_fake_ectoplasm.jpg

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ghost is even dressed for cold weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Helen_Duncan_fake_ectoplasm.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Helen_Duncan_fake_ectoplasm.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

He has disabled the comments and ratings for the video.

I suspect he was getting called out and proven wrong (as you did above) and disabled the comments so the gullible people who come across it won't know what's wrong with it.

I can't blame people for disabling comments on videos (if I had a YouTube channel I'd block comments), but why ask for responses and disable the ability to respond?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Cheers Brian, It can be like walking on eggshells when you question beliefs. People invest emotionally and identify with beliefs, leading them to see any questioning as an attack on them rather than questioning the belief. I didn't see any point in getting antagonistic at the response since it was fairly clear SL hadn't read my post but was making a knee jerk response to the picture. Of course in doing so, he was validating my point that everyone is more sophisticated these days when it comes to accepting or rejecting photographic evidence of a paranormal nature...well mostly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

To Duck33: To this day I have yet to hear a skeptic say that what they were really after was a seance and that they did not get one. I can only assume that is not what they are after, so let's be clear on what it is that they really want, and what they think they can get to fuel their own skepticism with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

To Duck33: To this day I have yet to hear a skeptic say that what they wanted was a seance and that they did not get one. I can only assume then that is not what they are after, let's both be absolutely clear then about what they are really after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Duck33: To this day I have yet to hear a skeptic say that what they wanted was a seance and that they did not get one. I can only assume then that is not what they are after, let's both be absolutely clear then about what they are really after.

Well I can't speak for every sceptic but I am generally looking for 'good evidence'. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required. I'd hope that is what everyone is after, rather than validation of belief, which rarely leads to the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested, here's a photo of my brightly lit kitchen taken tonight (night-time outside, but with bright flourescent lights (seen on the top of the photo) brightly lighting up the room and thus with far far more ambient light than available at night outside when taking a cityscape photograph at night) at the same settings he claimed (ISO 400, f/22, 1/25s exposure)

wcwv.jpg

Dark as hell apart from the obvious fluorescent lights despite the room being very brightly lit otherwise by those fluorescent lights. When I put the camera into aperture priority mode it suggests an exposure of 5 seconds for those other settings (ISO 400 and f/22). I think he's deliberately lying about the camera settings and the exposure time was 20+ seconds and he had the camera on a tripod. Even with good indoor lighting and with a decent camera, I can't see anything on a photo taken with those same settings as he did. He's a liar.

Granted, my DSLR is a several years old model but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this case. The camera settings are the same so it's not like he's taking advantage of being able to push the ISO to 25,600 to compensate for the light level.

The photographer is clearly a liar and like a lot of the crap we find on this forum, he merely has found an understandable phenomenon on one of his photographed and hasn't understood why it's there or (in this case) has deliberately lied about it get some publicity or whatever.

Edited by JesseCuster
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG YOU GOT AN LED GHOST!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are interested, here's a photo of my brightly lit kitchen taken tonight (night-time outside, but with bright flourescent lights (seen on the top of the photo) brightly lighting up the room and thus with far far more ambient light than available at night outside when taking a cityscape photograph at night) at the same settings he claimed (ISO 400, f/22, 1/25s exposure)

wcwv.jpg

Dark as hell apart from the obvious fluorescent lights despite the room being very brightly lit otherwise by those fluorescent lights. When I put the camera into aperture priority mode it suggests an exposure of 5 seconds for those other settings (ISO 400 and f/22). I think he's deliberately lying about the camera settings and the exposure time was 20+ seconds and he had the camera on a tripod. Even with good indoor lighting and with a decent camera, I can't see anything on a photo taken with those same settings as he did. He's a liar.

Granted, my DSLR is a several years old model but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this case. The camera settings are the same so it's not like he's taking advantage of being able to push the ISO to 25,600 to compensate for the light level.

The photographer is clearly a liar and like a lot of the crap we find on this forum, he merely has found an understandable phenomenon on one of his photographed and hasn't understood why it's there or (in this case) has deliberately lied about it get some publicity or whatever.

Would you get the same results outdoors in natural light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a ghost, that is all i'm sure of!

1 person likes this

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 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.