Friday, March 6, 2015   |   5,736 users online
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos  ·  Chat
Find: in
  Angel and ghosts greet the new arrival
Angel and ghosts greet the new arrival
Image credit: © eco4patrick

Uploader comment: In this picture you will notice several ghosts and what appears to be an Angel with wings. In the head area of the "Angel" you will notice that in one way it looks like an old lady in a bonnet in another angel it looks like a skull. Some arms attach to... no one and there is what appears to be a boy sitting on the right edge of the picture, who's arm matterializes to flesh at the lower arm and he holds my son in law's hand. There has been many other weird things happening in this house.


<< Previous image in this category
 Mystery Extra
Comments on this image:
Comment icon #83 Posted by ColoradoParanormal on 4 February, 2011, 3:00
Double Exposure.
Comment icon #82 Posted by ellejay on 24 July, 2010, 2:07
too many colors
Comment icon #81 Posted by mfposgbcs on 4 September, 2009, 15:58
I hate to break it to you guys, but while others are gonna say that this picture is a result of lighting, or double, or triple exposure, I must say that I agree with both, but what makes me believe that this is unreal is this..... It's a fact that Angels (real ones) do NOT have wings! Any supposed being, or huminoid with wings, I would not consider to be from the kingdom of Heaven. Many people have seen the video of the supposed demon in the forest, and before they found him, they found wings from some type of animal, and accused it of being a fallen angel (demon), because of those wings...
Comment icon #80 Posted by sarhii on 10 August, 2009, 2:55
I've worked in a photo lab for 3 years and I've studied photography for several more. To me this looks like light got to the film before it was developed as well as double exposure. It could also be an error when the film was developed.
Comment icon #79 Posted by empathic_clairvoyant on 14 July, 2009, 15:53
I have taken a few photos like this myself and I have a high end camera (digital) I know my camera very well and it is hard to 'capture' anything of the sort if you are a plain jane/joe taking the image. What I am saying is you would have to know what to do to get this effect. Now days with digital it takes alot to screw the pics up. I can jump and snap a pic and it is fine. I can move in the car and take a pic and it is fine. I can even have my mate use a sander on a table and take a photo and one can clearly see the movement of the sander but nothing like this. Why judge? No one know...
Comment icon #78 Posted by jerseygirl1974 on 26 April, 2009, 4:22
all I can think of asking about the validity is - do you or any person in your house know who the child is? Not speaking of the baby but the child on the right side of the picture.
Comment icon #77 Posted by monalisa1185 on 27 June, 2008, 6:32
I am very experienced in photography and while the picture is not photoshopped as suggested, it is not real. There are numerous things that have to happen in order to get the effect in the above photo: two-three shots were taken on the same frame and due to the different brightnesses of light for each separate shot, exposure time, and apperture time, it is blurry and very colorful. I suppose to someone who does not know about photography, this may look paranormal. I don't think it is a deliberate fake only a photography mishap. By the way, to an experienced eye, you can tell this photo...
Comment icon #76 Posted by cruz1923 on 31 March, 2008, 17:22
weird but looking like mistify screensaver
Comment icon #75 Posted by wickedwendigo on 19 March, 2008, 16:19
hey im natasha myers of the chicago research paranormal team....crpt...well this pick im sorry to say is a fake...we have seen many pics like this one and well its a devlopment error ...people who are looking for abnormalities often see things in picutres....sorry to disappoint any one later ;)
Comment icon #74 Posted by pooh_piglet75 on 12 December, 2007, 0:46
that is so freaky looking
Comment icon #73 Posted by s.t.u. on 10 December, 2007, 2:45
Hello, congrats on the new bundle of joy. Was this photo taken with a digital camera, 110 or 35mm? All I can do is ask questions for right now. Interesting photo. Don't be offended at some of the comments for they know not what they do. Have a wonderful day.
Comment icon #72 Posted by shadowmalerenamon on 2 November, 2007, 13:54
Bad film or fake. There is too much color, and the placements of the "angels" are odd. My verdict is bad film
Comment icon #71 Posted by necrochildk on 29 August, 2007, 10:44
Just looks simply like the same bit of photopaper exposed to more than one negative. That's no apparitions, just poor photography. Let me guess, the negative was the last one on the reel?
Comment icon #70 Posted by offamychain on 7 August, 2007, 4:05
The picture is odd, no doubt. But what ruins it's authenticity for me is that there is too MUCH happening. Skulls, angels, phantoms, disembodied hands, spirits......just too much different stuff going on at once to appear real. So, regrettably, I'll have to call fake.
Comment icon #69 Posted by goalienan on 4 May, 2007, 20:03
the picture is weird, but to me, it looks like the hand of the angel, touching the baby is a human hand..looks nothing like the angel itself..
Comment icon #68 Posted by thozzman on 13 March, 2007, 11:55
The fact is, nobody knows what's going on with this pic. A great portion of the people who post would have you believe "they" have the answer, that it's a hoax or a double or triple exposure, but in reality they could be just as wrong as the people who know for a fact that it's a real spirit photo. It's an interesting photo, and it's interesting to contimplate. Could be real...certainly the only one's who knows that is the photographer and God.
Comment icon #67 Posted by kraphtieone on 1 March, 2007, 7:37
most of you people are just plain rude..i doubt this person set out to try and fake everyone out..they asked honestly what peoples opinions were..not to be completely dogged people suck!
Comment icon #66 Posted by seamonkeychar on 18 December, 2006, 4:20
The only creepy thing in this picture is the guy holding the baby.
Comment icon #65 Posted by tricia16 on 25 November, 2006, 10:26
What kind of camera was it? If it was not digital nor polaroid, then when you got the film developed it probably got mixed with other pictures of yours or someone else's, when film is developed there is a plane of glass in the machine and images can cling to the glass and then show up on other pictures..... sorry, but I don't think there is any ghost.
Comment icon #64 Posted by eclipsed14 on 13 October, 2006, 2:39
This looks fake, but its quite interesting. It looks kinda like the spirits are coming out of the children. maybe ones angel like and the others satan like? LOL time will tell. ahah .
Comment icon #63 Posted by subhuman on 5 October, 2006, 4:14
Oh this is unbeleivable. Take a look at the section with 'the ghost boy'. Notice that there is a HAND right in the middle of him. Simple, this is absolutly simple. To be honest, I think it is more than 3 images, maybe 4 or 5. But given the same base images, I bet I could make something the same, if not damn near the same to this image.
Comment icon #62 Posted by the 1st sin on 4 September, 2006, 4:47
I love this picture.I believe in angels and sure they have big ass wings.Its like Sylvia Browne said
Comment icon #61 Posted by outtie on 21 August, 2006, 23:56
It looks like the man has his arm around the little boy. Just bad picture exposure in my opinion. *shrugs*
Comment icon #60 Posted by dark_blood07 on 18 August, 2006, 18:26
awwww!! noooo dont hurt the poor baby!! no hurting!! :P hmmm right now i just dont know what to a catholic and i belive in GOD and all those things but this? i dunno.....
Comment icon #59 Posted by american chupacabra on 5 July, 2006, 19:45
Haha, evil baby and good baby. The image of the boy is not a ghost. It is a real boy. Follow his right arm and you will see that it changes to real color.
Comment icon #58 Posted by cpt lars on 3 July, 2006, 2:17
With out even looking at this picture I can tell you one problem. The origional "angels" of the Bible do not have wings. I can not remember when this was added. It is a common misconception and that right there tells me that this picture is a fake. When ever anyone claims to have a picture of an angel use that nice peice of information. Now looking at the picture it does look like several exposures were done.
Comment icon #57 Posted by samael on 1 July, 2006, 22:36
Easy to fake. Very easy. I made an 'old photo of a ghost' on PowerPoint(!) by overlaying pictures. It wasn't too shabby either.
Comment icon #56 Posted by artemisthehunter on 21 June, 2006, 2:27
Notice the sharp edges where the individual items were cut out from other pics and then pasted into this collage? Notice the extremely badly executed blurring of the edges in some parts, like on the "angel", meant to make the separate items appear to be in the same room? It doesn't even look like a double or triple exposure. It looks like a crappy fake.
Comment icon #55 Posted by keira on 17 June, 2006, 19:20
All this picture is is a very bad attempt at a blend using Photoshop. Seriously, this is what the first blend i ever made looked liked. This is obviously a fake.
Comment icon #54 Posted by truthsekker31 on 21 May, 2006, 2:47
oh give me a break this photo is so screwed up why would anyone say oh look ghosts? plz try using a clear photo first,u cant say theres anything in this photo cause its to poor
Comment icon #53 Posted by lindsay on 28 April, 2006, 6:56
i belive in the angels i see what you seen all angels appear to bless a childs birth and that's when they are chosen as a gaurdian.when my son was born 17 months ago in trhe hospital room i called the nurse to bring jayden in so i could spend time with him after i got some rest . he was sleeping and i was just laying there watching him when all of a sudden the light dimmed off slowly i jumped out of bed and took a pictue with my disposable camera and i got a picture of a man with a cloak on or what could of been wings he was placing his skelatoral hand on jayden head. i asked if someone is...
Comment icon #52 Posted by maj0r on 19 April, 2006, 17:25
They are everywhere!
Comment icon #51 Posted by foxgirl on 15 April, 2006, 0:17
my eyes HURT!!! Too many colors! It looks like multi-exposure or a negative. _ Great, i just went to the eye doctors a few days ago and now i might have to go again!
Comment icon #50 Posted by dansalem on 25 March, 2006, 11:12
WOW i dont know how many pics i throw away b/c of the same "ghost" oh well to bad i threw them in the trash.
Comment icon #49 Posted by silvestro on 17 March, 2006, 7:04
I do not see an angel I see a table to the left with a cover on it possibly? I see what looks to me to be 2 or more photos in one due to double exposure I do not think this is any form of spirits or ghost captured in a photo. sorry
Comment icon #48 Posted by gx111 on 23 February, 2006, 22:35
with imagination or faith people will decide
Comment icon #47 Posted by bebi on 29 January, 2006, 15:53
The boy on the right in my opinion is real. You can see his right arm resting on the adult's left shoulder. You can also see the adult's left arm where she (looks female to me) has put it round the toddler and is holding his leg. To me this is a pose of an adult, a baby and an older child that has been accidentally(?) over exposed with another photo.
Comment icon #46 Posted by open_mind on 28 January, 2006, 10:20
Looks like the type of photo I've thrown out 'cos of poor photography. Sorry, not convinced.
Comment icon #45 Posted by voodoodaddy on 26 January, 2006, 2:11
Multi-exposures happen all the time, katiekane. I'm no photo expert, so I cannot explain why this would happen with anyone, let alone a newborn, but I'm sure anyone versed in the field of photography could easily explain it. I've seen all kinds of paranormal stuff occur, including things that showed up in photographs, and I think I can say with all certainty that this is not anything supernatural.
Comment icon #44 Posted by krystal kaite on 18 January, 2006, 11:16
If this isn't intentional, What about the fact that the double or triple exposure happened to occurr in the picture of the new baby. Non-earthly entities, like angels, reveal their messages in ways that humans can understand. ok, so the picture can be explained. But, can you explain why? Why that particular picture was affected & why the effect appeared in such a manner.
Comment icon #43 Posted by genevieve on 3 January, 2006, 23:55
Double exposure. Cute baby.
Comment icon #42 Posted by voodoodaddy on 4 December, 2005, 9:20
This looks like multi-exposure to me. Any snapshot that looks like this with the claim that it's a spirit photograph does not impress me. I'm inclined to believe that it's fabricated.
Comment icon #41 Posted by crissangelslave on 29 November, 2005, 6:20
ive veiwed tons of pictures online but for a future paranormal investagater this is very insulting and sad that someone whould send something like this in.Its just a blend of probabley a picture of a church, think about it.
Comment icon #40 Posted by valkyrievoice on 21 November, 2005, 14:40
Yeah, I have to agree with the majority of the panel here and say that it looks as though several exposures happened and they just blended together creating the one photograph. If it were real? I'd move out of that house like yesterday!
Comment icon #39 Posted by vertigoflow on 7 November, 2005, 22:58
This reminds me of the time I left my film next to the heater for months and "ghosts" came down to insert themselves into all the images. ;p
Comment icon #38 Posted by srbulger on 1 November, 2005, 9:40
Hi. Professional photographer here. Cameras are my life. There is about a 90% percent chance this is a multi-exposure, with the extra exposure having a slow shutter speed, causing the brighter image and the camera shake. Easy hoax.
Comment icon #37 Posted by crisi on 17 October, 2005, 22:25
I think the "head" of the angel is an overexposure of someone's head overlapping one of those woven throw blankets. Also, the man/woman in the pic is holding TWO babies. One infant, and one toddler. This is not real guys. I agree looks like a quad exposure.
Comment icon #36 Posted by eternal light on 24 September, 2005, 7:37
It's definitely an over-exposure. If you look carefully at the 'angel' full pic scan, you can clearly see shoulders wearing a striped shirt or dress with white lapels; the 'head' of the 'angel' could be a medalion. Major camera mismanagement
Comment icon #35 Posted by hassell4 on 17 September, 2005, 2:52
I agree with afterlife, definitely a quadruple exposure.
Comment icon #34 Posted by after_life_solja on 7 September, 2005, 4:10
its a quadruple exposure its doen on purpose thats why the colour goes like that
Comment icon #33 Posted by sharon_k-35151 on 13 August, 2005, 11:31
Oh my God! I believe the picture is auhtentic. When I was 6 years old, my baby sister was born, and shortly after,I remember taking pictures.My sister was propped up in a recliner for her picture to be taken. She was sitting by herself, but when the pictures were developed,we could see the form of an old man in the recliner with her, it was very detailed. There was no way it was a family member, being that my father was in the Marines, and we lived very far away from any relatives. And my parents were ve...
Comment icon #32 Posted by mrs.oldham4 on 12 August, 2005, 10:16
I like it. It looks like the angel is looking down at the baby. It could be technical problem , but I like the idea of the angel watching over the baby.
Comment icon #31 Posted by krypticsamurai on 8 July, 2005, 15:25
it looks like freaking slipknot!!! you can clearly see the clown.
Comment icon #30 Posted by phantomfreak on 26 June, 2005, 0:14
This picture gives me a headache. Too many colors!!! I like the thing that the person holding the baby is sitting on. Looks comfortable.
Comment icon #29 Posted by possession on 17 June, 2005, 6:57
Sorry, I gotta call BS on this one. I can blend pictures in Photoshop just like that.
Comment icon #28 Posted by murba on 30 May, 2005, 8:12
eewww look like to the left touching the womans head it looks like a scary skull thingy with a bonnet on giving her an evil look, wooooo :o
Comment icon #27 Posted by mdhgl70 on 27 May, 2005, 22:08
This is a very "busy" picture, and yes.. mave to saw over exposure. Who is supposed to be a ghost, and who real anyway!? lol
Comment icon #26 Posted by nme_locus on 11 May, 2005, 2:14
Looks like over exposure to me too.
Comment icon #25 Posted by fallenangel on 17 March, 2005, 3:17
hmm might those other "weird things" happening in your house involve a new photo manipulation program? i sure hope so.
Comment icon #24 Posted by crisi on 8 March, 2005, 0:55
The little boy, is not there, That is the man's hand holding onto the baby's leg. The "angel wing effect" is an overexposure of someone in a white tshirt.
Comment icon #23 Posted by mtswf4lf on 2 March, 2005, 9:24
like arm. sorry for the long post
Comment icon #22 Posted by mtswf4lf on 2 March, 2005, 9:22
To me it looks like an over developed picture. I see the same little boy or girl in what I belive to be three different pics. The first being the one where the man is holding a baby and the little child. The second to be on the right where you can see the arm on the childs shoulder, but if you look closer you can see an arm and head as if the child were slumped over someones shoulder asleep. And the third on the left were it looks like the child is dressed up in a bonnet. You can also see the same child ...
Comment icon #21 Posted by marine-bio on 24 February, 2005, 6:45
i see a wierd skelaton face and then blobs and then a baby but some1 seems to be pulling away the baby
Comment icon #20 Posted by marine-bio on 24 February, 2005, 6:43
I agree with the ditzy_blonde420 or wuteva person. I mean i have a picture that has a face-like mist on it! Really! And in all the other "ghost" photos, where the picture is just of the "ghost", dont u think its wierd how they just seemed to take a picture of like...nothing? Who wastes their flim or batteries (digital camera) to take pictures of nothing? and then there just happen to be a "ghost"? IT would be more realistic if it was a picture of something worth takin...
Comment icon #19 Posted by guinevere on 14 February, 2005, 22:04
This is so clearly double even maybe triple exposure..
Comment icon #18 Posted by dragonden on 14 February, 2005, 18:16
I dont see anything but a man holding a couple of children. The rest I can get on any digital cam. I have done so many times just from moving it or the subject moving. I took a pic of my son yesterday and it looked like he was coming out of a wall. I like film.
Comment icon #17 Posted by doubtingthomas on 1 February, 2005, 23:15
Now now, let's not be rude. This is simply a case of a mutliple exposure. Creepy indeed, but not paranormal.
Comment icon #16 Posted by horrification on 1 February, 2005, 5:37
f.u.c.k.i.n.g garbage
Comment icon #15 Posted by kerkido on 30 January, 2005, 14:10
Alright, before evaluating the apparition, the man holding the baby: Why the hell do you look angry for? Is it because you wished your girlfriend had an abortion instead? That in it itself doesnt make sense, based on that everything else doesn't make sense either. Fake.
Comment icon #14 Posted by jacques terreur on 24 January, 2005, 3:17
come on...., I have a cheap plastic camera here that simply refuses to transport the film properly, and it brought me a drawerful of double-exposed pics like that...or I am one hell of a lucky ghost-photographer;)
Comment icon #13 Posted by shinya_terachi on 24 January, 2005, 1:54
It's a fake, it's just a double exposure which gives the effect of two pictures in one. Who do you expect to actually believe this?
Comment icon #12 Posted by fadinginnocence on 18 January, 2005, 22:27
definatly a fake it almost looks like the blended a picture of a statue from one of thoes grave markes over the person
Comment icon #11 Posted by madeyepixie on 23 December, 2004, 8:41
Obvious fake.
Comment icon #10 Posted by captainzaggis on 4 December, 2004, 4:05
i see: a baby, a man/woman, a red blur/ and a white thing
Comment icon #9 Posted by gargyrl on 7 November, 2004, 2:41
In the old days we would have just considered this over developed, undeveloped, or just plain film that should have been thrown away cause it was too old, imagine that!
Comment icon #8 Posted by saragun on 3 November, 2004, 9:25
Comment icon #7 Posted by reaper on 19 October, 2004, 18:33
It does look like a collage of pics. But then again who are we to judge so quickly. 2 secnteces doesn't explain enough wither its fake or not
Comment icon #6 Posted by kanyesouth on 10 October, 2004, 2:25
I must say this person Really thought they had something but in the explanation of it I saw nothing that they were talking about.
Comment icon #5 Posted by ditzy_blonde420 on 6 October, 2004, 19:15
I have tons of pictures like this. It's just because there are many exposures pressed together to make this. Everyone has some pictures like this. You just accidently take more pictures than your suppose to. That's all.
Comment icon #4 Posted by nadia on 1 October, 2004, 13:49
i belive in everyone having a soul and guardian angel but this is insulting
Comment icon #3 Posted by azraelschroeder on 15 September, 2004, 20:11
it looks like a blending of several pictures to me.
Comment icon #2 Posted by cynamyngirl on 5 September, 2004, 0:14
This looks animated to me, but that is just my personal opinion.
Comment icon #1 Posted by david_cubero on 29 July, 2004, 21:27
Although I am NOT a trained Photographic Analyst, I am in fact educated and experienced in the fields of Videography, Cinematography and Still Photography. Having stated this, I must say that to my non-expert eyes, this photo appears to be the results of a double or even a triple exposure. As eerie as this scene is, I would have to credit it to the phenomenon of bad photography or to an elaborate, but lame attempt to pull off a hoax, instead of a ghostly or angelic visitation or invasion, as the case may...
Please Login or Register to post a comment.
Image information
February 12, 2004, 5:07 pm
File size:
Upload an image
Recent news stories
Earliest human ancestor unearthed in Ethiopia
Posted 3-5-2015 | 11 comments
The discovery has pushed back the emergence of the earliest humans by up to 400,000 years.
Hiker records footage of Bigfoot in Utah
Posted 3-5-2015 | 25 comments
A terrified hiker managed to record several seconds of footage before legging it from the scene.
'Fairy doors' out of control in Wayford Woods
Posted 3-5-2015 | 14 comments
An appeal has been launched asking visitors not to screw small wooden doors in to the bottom of trees.
Airman wins payout over Rendlesham UFO
Posted 3-4-2015 | 48 comments
An American airman has received compensation after suffering radiation poisoning during the encounter.
Insurance firm now covers death by Dalek
Posted 3-4-2015 | 13 comments
Virgin Money is offering a variety of bizarre insurance policies covering a range of unlikely scenarios.
Did dogs help us outsmart the Neanderthals ?
Posted 3-4-2015 | 7 comments
The early domestication of wolves by modern humans may have tipped the balance in our favor.
Explorers discover lost city in Honduras
Posted 3-3-2015 | 13 comments
The ancient ruins were found during an expedition to locate the fabled 'City of the Monkey God'.
What is the Pentagon's $55 billion plane ?
Posted 3-3-2015 | 19 comments
The bleeding edge bomber remains shrouded in secrecy and its costs may be spiraling out of control.
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.6 2001-2015
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ