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
Sakari

You tell me ( pic )

46 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Have to make this quick. Need to go to bed.

Most know me, and know how I feel about these things. At my work, Morenci...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Morenci_Mine

Very old place with many stories.

When equipment breaks down, pictures are taken. This one at around 2 AM. Most people take a few random pics to make sure the camera is working. A supervisor at work saw this, and shared it to a few.

You tell me......No original, just this.

post-92206-0-40699600-1408763762_thumb.j

Edited by Sakari
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a long time advocate of shelving ghost baby souls in old AZ mines.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just sharing it. I have nothing to do with it. I know I would be one to play a joke here, but not this. I have my ideas.

I do know it was taken with an older digital camera. Company camera. I know where it was taken, by the B9 belt, at around 2AM. That is all I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's light and shadow done with a nice effect.

But I am not sure why human souls would be sequestered in hot Arizona mines.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's light and shadow done with a nice effect.

But I am not sure why human souls would be sequestered in hot Arizona mines.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a ghost baby playing with a skull. Is there supposed to be something odd too?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's light and shadow done with a nice effect.

But I am not sure why human souls would be sequestered in hot Arizona mines.

Herbert Eugene Bolton, the noted authority on Coronado’s 1540 entrada into Arizona, believed the Conquistador's true trail from the Gila River to angle off toward Fort Apache, thence toward McNary and St. Johns. Others, with convincing reference to plausible landmarks, still hold out for Clifton and the Rio San Francisco. While the final truth may remain unknown, the split opinion brings to mind the remarks of Pedro de Casteneda, chronicleer of the expedition: “Granted, he did not find the treasure of Cibola, he found the treasure lay in his footsteps”.

In any event, more than three hundred years passed by before the Clifton treasure house was opened. Remoteness, hostile Apache bands, as well as legal questions, unresolved until the Gadsden Purchase all contributed, in one way or another, to the wait. Then in 1864, Henry Clifton, Recorder of the Hassayampa Mining District, and for whom the city of Clifton is thought to be named, learned of placer mining in the area and journeyed overland. There, among the cliffs and canyons where Chase Creek joins the San Francisco, he found signs of copper, but gold and silver were still the metals sought, and the copper went undeveloped. The placers were there, but they produced very little, they were run by a handful of Mexican Nationals and remnants of Carelton's men from the California column.

link...Has History...Like Virginia City.

http://www.co.greenlee.az.us/historyclifton.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like mist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of rocks the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a long time advocate of shelving ghost baby souls in old AZ mines.

That is too much neatly parted hair to be a baby soul.

It reminds me of Ralphie's little brother in A Christmas Story:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a chubby kid in the left hand corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't make out anything of interest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell what this is supposed to be a picture of. Is the camera pointed at the ground?

I have to wonder there was smoke or fog in the air. To be honest, I had to stare at the screen for about 10 seconds to see it. I think the streaks of mist are interesting; they account for some that time. The size and position of the baby is odd if the camera was pointed at the ground. As close to the camera as it appears to be and its orientation, it would have be flying. I guess one could say that the streaks might have been spirits flying about and would make it so that the baby's position is more logical.

Now, why would there possibly be a spirit of a baby at the location at which the picture was taken? I don't think it makes any sense given the context. In the end, I imagine if there was other shots to use as reference they would show that there is some kind of mist/fog/smoke in the air and this just a case a matrixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT baby? I see no baby ...... I see nothing that I could put a name to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake as Jordans breasts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way back when... if a camera we would call it a double exposure; if a video (videcon tube or orthocon tube) we would call it burn-in--like old computer monitors when left on. It would surprise me if CCDs have any kind of burn-in! But what do I know about the new stuff? Others will have to answer if that is possible from CCDs.

I reproduced the large photo with alterations, hopefully improvements and it looks like this (click thumbnail):

post-145966-0-45346100-1408811733_thumb.

Note that the left-most image is of a 3 or 4 year old dressed appropriately for the 1920's.

(I grew up in a home with a picture of Dad like that.) Likewise the next image to the righ...

a 2 or 3 year old girl (white laced "bib" is the give-away)

Between that second image and the third one appears to be adults sitting on a couch-not sure about that one...

then a third image more to the right that looks like a Mr. Peppermint (use google) era advertisement.

Then next are people in a semi-circle from the right edge to behind the third image.

Above the third image are what appears to be dolls on a shelf. In fact they all appear to be dolls!

Some areas look like there was edge enhancement (a modern camera trick) and others don't.

I would guess the image is the result of a picture of a doll collection or panorama at a doll museum somehow ending up imprinted on the original dark pic. The thing doing the imposing would necessarily have to have persistence unless it is a "negative" of a photo.

Oh, one more thing, the greenish-yellow smudges at the bottom of the photo are identical to what I get with when I scan in antique photos that were handled without gloves, i.e. mold growth! Perhaps the scanner has persistence!!!

That's my opinion of as much as I can interpret.

Edited by MyOtherAccount

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the left-most image is of a 3 or 4 year old dressed appropriately for the 1920's.

(I grew up in a home with a picture of Dad like that.) Likewise the next image to the righ...

a 2 or 3 year old girl (white laced "bib" is the give-away)

Between that second image and the third one appears to be adults sitting on a couch-not sure about that one...

then a third image more to the right that looks like a Mr. Peppermint (use google) era advertisement.

Then next are people in a semi-circle from the right edge to behind the third image.

Above the third image are what appears to be dolls on a shelf. In fact they all appear to be dolls!

Ye gods! And I thought I had a good imagination! I can see
absolutely
none
of the people/items that you mention(except the one you've drawn in!). Talk about the Emperor's new clothes!!!! Are you and Sakiri in cahoots?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/indent]

Ye gods! And I thought I had a good imagination! I can see
absolutely
none
of the people/items that you mention(except the one you've drawn in!). Talk about the Emperor's new clothes!!!! Are you and Sakiri in cahoots?

As I stated, I have nothing to do with this. I wanted input here from people. I thought I recognized it from the ghost app, but can not find that pic.

I know it is a work camera, digital. None of our computers have photoshop on them.

I was not present when the pic was taken, only going off of the ail I saw, and the discussion from the supervisor who took it.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby Buda. And not the Happy Buda either because this little guy is frowning! :lol:

The image seems to have an old man's scrunched face. Can even see little ears on that chubby head. But I'm sure that it's all just pareidolia or patternicity and a good representation of it as well! It's just not clear enough for me to believe otherwise.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT baby? I see no baby ...... I see nothing that I could put a name to.

ouija...are you sure you can't see an image of what looks like to be a small chubby child (looks to be a small boy) on the left hand side.

If you look hard enough...you can make out his facial features....and it looks like he has his hair parted.

If you own a pair of specs...put em! on... :geek:

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way back when... if a camera we would call it a double exposure; if a video (videcon tube or orthocon tube) we would call it burn-in--like old computer monitors when left on. It would surprise me if CCDs have any kind of burn-in! But what do I know about the new stuff? Others will have to answer if that is possible from CCDs.

I reproduced the large photo with alterations, hopefully improvements and it looks like this (click thumbnail):

post-145966-0-45346100-1408811733_thumb.

Note that the left-most image is of a 3 or 4 year old dressed appropriately for the 1920's.

Even in the alteration....I can still only make out a small child onto the left.

As far as other dolls etc go that you can see...sorry I can't see that.

Btw, good job with the pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 30 years of looking at ghost pictures in books and on the internet I can confidently state that I have learned far more about photography than I have about ghosts, makes you think.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-145966-0-79494600-1408869628_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone beat me to the Baby Buddah sighting. Why would Baby Buddah be in an Arizona mine?

I have always have to think about seeing a picture and wondering half the time, it could be doctored or that the something in the processing of the photo be it in the developing or in the camera that leaves aftereffects in the picture that makes me matrix a baby buddah. I'm not saying it's definately doctored or that it's definately a ghost baby buddah, I'm just saying I can't tell from the get go on a photo. I'm not getting the creeps viewing it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you own a pair of specs...put em! on... :geek:

:P

What a cheeky little madam you are! Of course I have/had my specs on.

(Although possibly not the right ones :blush: )

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.