Where did he come from?

[Ichihara]

Gilberd concluded: "We think the semi-silhouetted figure is definitely a human figure, not something caused by pareidolia or any combination of photographic anomalies.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10365637/Haunting-image-left-for-capital-sleuths-to-probe

[Crabby Kitten]

It's a strange looking figure.

[+and-then]

IF they exist, can you imagine the frustration of seeing the world around them changing and being unable to interact with it? It would be a kind of hell all it's own.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It's a Silent!

[EnderOTD]

A low resolution photo that contains a ghostly apparition that the photographer is adamant wasn't present at the time the photo was taken? Well this is new! The lead paranormal researcher is either being dishonest for the sake confirmation bias or just a poor photographer by trade to not call this photo for what it is. Surely in the tens of thousands of images he has taken he has encountered this numerous times?

[+DieChecker]

From OP Link:

While deleting some photos, she found a picture of what she believed was a ghostly soldier figure.

Don't look like a soldier to me. Looks like a woman looking down at the kid running toward the other two kids.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Is there a way to make sure that a photo hasn't been photo shopped? I have used photo shop for various reasons, so I know how one can do it, and probably see certain aspects of it if you look at a picture well enough, but if you can tell that a picture hasn't been photo shopped is then it is not a photo shopped picture? So on that note, the individual in question in the picture looks a bit off to the rest of the people in it. I often wonder, if this is true, why is that? On a different level of sight or something?

[drpaxton]

Here it is even larger.

*snip*

Edited August 11, 2014 by Saru
Removed image due to copyright

[coolguy]

He looks like he has a mask on like docs wear could be a civil war doctor.

[Skep B]

or could be someone with a cold not wanting to get the kids sick

one or the other

[Coralie]

Well, they did say that they ruled out Photoshop. The photographer and the man next to her, swear no one was there in that spot when the picture was taken, plus the little fellow running towards the other two children didn't seem to notice the figure either.

[Peter Gomes]

there can be camera problem because the photo is not clear...

[Scandal]

It looks like a ghostly sexual predator.

[Oppono Astos]

In an age when camera and phone manufacturers are forever ramping up sensor resolution, we have a photo that has the image quality of Etch-a-Sketch

[Bendy Demon]

plus the little fellow running towards the other two children didn't seem to notice the figure either.

Umm..kids are rather notorious for "not noticing" lots of things especially that which is right in front of them.

However when I look at this "mystery" figure it does look photoshopped to me. Looking at the edges, especially near the face, I can see a poor job was done with the lasso tool as lots of pixels were left behind while cutting.

Furthermore the image of the "mystery figure" is of a vastly different resolution than the rest of the photo.

Not merely blurry but just a low resolution.

Actually the whole photo looks fake; the only object that is very clear is the woman in the chair while the rest of the image is pixelated and just poor in quality. Looks more like the woman is sitting in front of a large printed image or something.

[BlueBomber]

Cool picture.

[Bendy Demon]

Cool picture.

..............cool? How so, may I ask?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, they did say that they ruled out Photoshop.

I'm just curious as to how they ruled it out. Can you prove something is not photoshopped by certain evidence? What if something else can be done, that leaves no evidence? I may not be making sense here, I do that.

Umm..kids are rather notorious for "not noticing" lots of things especially that which is right in front of them.

Even if they only can see it, due to their innocent age, right?

However when I look at this "mystery" figure it does look photoshopped to me. Looking at the edges, especially near the face, I can see a poor job was done with the lasso tool as lots of pixels were left behind while cutting.

Furthermore the image of the "mystery figure" is of a vastly different resolution than the rest of the photo.

Not merely blurry but just a low resolution.

Actually the whole photo looks fake; the only object that is very clear is the woman in the chair while the rest of the image is pixelated and just poor in quality. Looks more like the woman is sitting in front of a large printed image or something.

You know, I wonder at that. Yeah, I have seen plenty of photos, and a lot of the 'figures' tend to be a different look, that could be said, cause they weren't seen while the picture was being taken, and that explains they are 'other worldly'. Although, I am reminded of the photo of the security camera that took a picture of an individual at one of England's palaces and they look like they are really there. Their face and hands look a little white, but other than that, they seem flush with the rest of the environment of the photo.

[Conrad Clough]

A couple of thoughts...

The figure looks weird for several reasons, but the one that most caught my eye is the improper perspective, although the figure appears to be in front of the man in the chair, assuming the figure has normal human proporions its feat should hit the ground approximately in the same place as chair mans.

At first I though the figure was standing with its back partially to the camera looking at the powerpole, but the more i look at it the more I think it is actually partially facing the camera looking down at the child closest to it.

Although the article says that somebody 'verified' that it wasn't made with photoshop, honselty to me, looking at it in photoshop, it looks like something I could make if I put my mind to it. With that said, I am not going to cry Hoax and point fingers, because just because something could have been created with photoshop doesn't mean that it was.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Conrad Clough

[Rafterman]

Gilberd concluded: "We think the semi-silhouetted figure is definitely a human figure, not something caused by pareidolia or any combination of photographic anomalies.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10365637/Haunting-image-left-for-capital-sleuths-to-probe

In my experience, a lot of things "stump" ghost busters.

Things like dust, wind, squirrels, etc.

[BlueBomber]

or could be someone with a cold not wanting to get the kids sick

one or the other

I work in medicine and see people with colds all the time, and let me tell you: they don't give two effing turds about exposing anyone else to their germs.

[Coralie]

In my experience, a lot of things "stump" ghost busters.

Things like dust, wind, squirrels, etc.

And mice, bats, dolls.

As far as the Photoshop, there was a guy on YouTube a few years back who had a tutorial up on how you could make your own ghost photos just using the regular paint program on your computer. And now there are tutorials for just about anything under the sun, so who knows what might have been done to this photo, if anything at all.

It could just be really crappy camera quality, unsteady hands manning the camera, etc. That and this woman has someone going along with the story, just like with Bigfoot and some UFO/alien sightings.

[StRoostifer]

Wow, there sure are a lot of over opinionated experts in this thread that cannot prove a thing one way or another ( maybe their own ignorance) and yet are quick to cry "fake" without evidence of their own.

[Rafterman]

Wow, there sure are a lot of over opinionated experts in this thread that cannot prove a thing one way or another ( maybe their own ignorance) and yet are quick to cry "fake" without evidence of their own.

No, I'm pretty sure that's a real photograph.

[+DieChecker]

Wow, there sure are a lot of over opinionated experts in this thread that cannot prove a thing one way or another ( maybe their own ignorance) and yet are quick to cry "fake" without evidence of their own.

So given there being zero good evidence of ghosts... You're going to Not risk an opinion on an Anonymous internet forum?

Or you believe the only opinions that should be posted online should have proof behind them?