Pianist photographs ghostly woman in theater

[the13bats]

oh wow its undeniable proof there is an afterlife ghosts are real can take human form and come haunt around and get pictures taken

i bet even some blind faith true believers think that sounds looney

[XenoFish]

40 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

No they didn't. They just want time stamps. Doesn't matter. If the time stamps were produced, the pics would still be shot down. There will never be enough proof for U.M's more ardent skeptics.

Gee, you'd figure that if there was a time stamp that confirmed that the photos were taken rapidly the believers would want it as well. 

[Hankenhunter]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Gee, you'd figure that if there was a time stamp that confirmed that the photos were taken rapidly the believers would want it as well. 

Still doesn't dismiss the fact that the time stamp would still be dismissed as not evidence. 

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Still doesn't dismiss the fact that the time stamp would still be dismissed as not evidence. 

What do you really care for anyway?

[Hankenhunter]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

What do you really care for anyway?

That's a pretty broad question. Could you distill it down a bit or I'll be here all day trying to answer you.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Hankenhunter said:

That's a pretty broad question. Could you distill it down a bit or I'll be here all day trying to answer you.

Why do you care if people are skeptical of any and all paranormal/supernatural claims? 

[Hankenhunter]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Why do you care if people are skeptical of any and all paranormal/supernatural claims? 

I care because of the way skeptics automatically jump down the throats of anyone who dares to post anything that doesn't fit their definition of "real". Many times, someone posts a link to a article and gets attacked just for posting even though the poster hasn't said whether they believe or not. Skeptics here are just to damm eager to gang up and ridicule. What ever happened to polite reasoned discourse without the insults? Stop driving away potential new members. That's why I care. 

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

I care because of the way skeptics automatically jump down the throats of anyone who dares to post anything that doesn't fit their definition of "real". Many times, someone posts a link to a article and gets attacked just for posting even though the poster hasn't said whether they believe or not. Skeptics here are just to damm eager to gang up and ridicule. What ever happened to polite reasoned discourse without the insults? Stop driving away potential new members. That's why I care. 

You think it's only one sided? No, I've had a few good discussions with people who have talked about their experiences, though few and far between. But the believers can be just as bad and on occasion, worse. I'm not here telling people what % paranormal something is, I'm not defending obvious hoaxes. 

In the case of this thread I'd love a time stamp on those photos. As it would help me understand the time frame better. 

In defensive of the other sceptics. I have seen a few threads start off good, then one believer shows up and it goes to hell. 

This isn't one sided. 

[Jon the frog]

6 hours ago, acute said:

There's no pleasing the skeptics!

It's either "not clear enough to make out" or "too clear to be a ghost".

I have seen vivid persons, horses and other stuff on high fever. They were looking real enough that i let pass a Victorian lady before going to the bathroom the last time i was bloody sick. They were not ghost and they were certainly impossible to take picture of. I think a lot of ghost sighting come from this kind of Hypnagogia, or dreaming when awake.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Jon the frog

[Tom1200]

There - with time stamps, as requested.  Are you all happy now?

[XenoFish]

Just now, Tom1200 said:

There - with time stamps, as requested.  Are you all happy now?

Nice

[Jon the frog]

1 minute ago, Tom1200 said:

There - with time stamps, as requested.  Are you all happy now?

Damn she's there on the third picture too, didn't see it before, just walking to the left of the entrance

 

[XenoFish]

13 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

Damn she's there on the third picture too, didn't see it before, just walking to the left of the entrance

 

If you look at the second picture. To the left of the woman, it looks like someone sitting in one of the chairs. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

If you look at the second picture. To the left of the woman, it looks like someone sitting in one of the chairs. 

Good catch. There might be two discernable ghosts in the second picture. And dissolved to mist by the third.

[XenoFish]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Good catch. There might be two discernable ghosts in the second picture. And dissolved to mist by the third.

I can not assume what it is and neither should you. But I can say it does look like someone sitting there. There is absolutely no way for me to yes/no that. It's just something. Remember, balance George. Stop jumping to "ghost", and just look at what you see. Plus in those photos there seems to be a fog or lighting artifact going on, so that figure is also up in the air as to what it really is. 

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I can not assume what it is and neither should you. But I can say it does look like someone sitting there. There is absolutely no way for me to yes/no that. It's just something. Remember, balance George. Stop jumping to "ghost", and just look at what you see. Plus in those photos there seems to be a fog or lighting artifact going on, so that figure is also up in the air as to what it really is. 

I never said it was a ‘ghost. I gave it an 80% chance. Still sounds reasonable.

Are you confusing the Papameter with a crude yes/no device???

Edited September 18, 2019 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

I never said it was a ‘ghost. I gave it an 80% chance. Still sounds reasonable.

No, no, no George. Balance 50/50. Leaning to neither side till all information is present and a reasonable conclusion can be made. It might be something paranormal, though you will need more information to make that assessment. It might not be. Or it just might be something weird and a 'meh, cool' is the best answer. Do you think you can suspend judgement? You want to 'attack' others like myself for being hard-nose skeptics and materialist. I am asking you to shift your gears just a little. Ride the middle gear for a year. Look into the paranormal from both sides thoroughly. I barely read your post, I barely have a reason to. Give me a better reason. That's all I'm asking. No meter, just balance. 

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

No, no, no George. Balance 50/50. Leaning to neither side till all information is present and a reasonable conclusion can be made.  

So, do you give this a 50% chance of being a ghost?

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

 

 It might be something paranormal, though you will need more information to make that assessment. It might not be. Or it just might be something weird and a 'meh, cool' is the best answer. Do you think you can suspend judgement? You want to 'attack' others like myself for being hard-nose skeptics and materialist. I am asking you to shift your gears just a little. Ride the middle gear for a year. Look into the paranormal from both sides thoroughly. I barely read your post, I barely have a reason to. Give me a better reason. That's all I'm asking. No meter, just balance. 

All cases do not seem 50/50 to me. Some are  stronger and some weaker. That’s what I gage.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So, do you give this a 50% chance of being a ghost?

All cases do not seem 50/50 to me. Some are  stronger and some weaker. That’s what I gage.

As it currently stands 'meh, that's weird'. It's probably nothing. 

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

It was probably a member of staff they didn't realise was present in the building.

No mystery there.

Edited September 19, 2019 by A rather obscure Bassoon

[SecretSanta]

I doubt he was the only person in the building. If he’s doing a sound check that means he’s preparing for a show. That means that there will be other workers like ushers, bartenders and other people on the tech crew.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, SecretSanta said:

I doubt he was the only person in the building. If he’s doing a sound check that means he’s preparing for a show. That means that there will be other workers like ushers, bartenders and other people on the tech crew.

as a former club owner and promoter of shows, no, he wasnt alone.

he likely thinks the idea of spookies will sell extra tickets

[ChrLzs]

8 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Still doesn't dismiss the fact that the time stamp would still be dismissed as not evidence. 

No, actually, that is rather silly.  In fact, could you point to an example where that has happened?  The critical thing here is that IF any of these generally daft images got to the point where it was taken seriously, the owner could simply present the original media to a real photographic forensic analyst, who can in fact then verify the time stamp on the unedited original.  It's not difficult to do, given access to the original media.  But NONE of these videos/frames have made it even beyond general laughter....

I claim to have a reasonable level of expertise (feel free to question that), and frankly, I don't give a rat's about the time stamps.  It's not very useful info at this point - the frames show some people on a stairway in a theatre (and then shows them again, apparently in another image).  Do you need arrows to point out that there is more than one figure in the frames?

So, Whoop de doo.  What the heck is there to explain?  If you want me to go further I could go through what clues I can see that this is a mundane (but very poor quality) set of frames from a camera that isn't good in low light, and has had to go back to a very slowwwwww shutter speed, with all the blurring and lens flares that invites.

But why would I waste my time - can you point out anything unexplainable, hankenhunter? 

Edited September 19, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Hankenhunter]

8 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

No, actually, that is rather silly.  In fact, could you point to an example where that has happened?  The critical thing here is that IF any of these generally daft images got to the point where it was taken seriously, the owner could simply present the original media to a real photographic forensic analyst, who can in fact then verify the time stamp on the unedited original.  It's not difficult to do, given access to the original media.  But NONE of these videos/frames have made it even beyond general laughter....

I claim to have a reasonable level of expertise (feel free to question that), and frankly, I don't give a rat's about the time stamps.  It's not very useful info at this point - the frames show some people on a stairway in a theatre (and then shows them again, apparently in another image).  Do you need arrows to point out that there is more than one figure in the frames?

So, Whoop de doo.  What the heck is there to explain?  If you want me to go further I could go through what clues I can see that this is a mundane (but very poor quality) set of frames from a camera that isn't good in low light, and has had to go back to a very slowwwwww shutter speed, with all the blurring and lens flares that invites.

But why would I waste my time - can you point out anything unexplainable, hankenhunter? 

I wasn't criticizing the proof or no proof, I was criticizing the lack of respect, the unwarranted, and unnecessary rudeness displayed towards other posters. The moderators have to constantly step in to restore order. I see one long time member constantly ridiculed because of his beliefs. He's very good natured about it, but it's still has to bother him. All I'm saying is, lighten up Francises.

[Chewie1990]

Hi all, long time lurker first time poster, just had to add my 2 cents..

Not sure how familiar you guys are with Chad Lawson but he is probably best known for providing the soundtrack and touring with the paranormal podcast Lore - in fact the show in question appears to be from a live show on September 15th (https://www.lorepodcast.com/tour)

Edit: first post, first mistake, this is already covered in the linked article so not really much of a bombshell, still it's worth keeping in mind..

Not sure if it really means anything but I thought it was curious.. I'm a fan of the show and I dont want to call anyone out for fakery without evidence but the publicity certainly wouldn't hurt ticket sales..

Other than that:

- As others have said a time stamp for the photos would help a lot - I guess the definition of quick-tap is a little loose but whether we are talking instant or a handful of seconds would make all the difference as far as fakery goes

- Speaking of, I can understand taking the photo but I'm curious why you would take 3 photos in a row like this anyway? Ok you take multiple photos in case one doesn't turn out so it's not truly suspicious, but it's a tiny red flag to me..

- As for the figure itself it appears fully corporeal and appears to cast a shadow - the problem with ghosts and the flood of 'evidence' out there is it's impossible to know if a ghost were to exist whether it would appear this way or not, or even if it would show up at all! Therefore I'm not sure the debate about its appearance is too relevant, other than to say Occam's razer suggests it's probably just a person

- The shape of the figure could be distorted by a number of factors but both posture and apparent attire would suggest to me guy in a costume looking sinister as opposed to cleaning lady, but based on the quality of the photo it's really impossible to tell

- Finally, there is definitely what appears to be a guy in trousers and t-shirt to the left of the stairs not visible in photo 1, seated in 2 and taking a photo in 3 (2 & 3 could be different people, hard to tell) - this obviously proves the place wasnt empty and you'd think they'd have seen something, but most of all this suggests the gap between photos was much larger than we're told - that or this place is just riddled with ghosts..

Based on that last point I'd lean towards this not being a deliberate fake (or a bad one!) but there's clearly signs of inconsistency/deception in the reporting (at least going on the story as written on this site, full disclosure - not had time to read the linked article yet) - on balance I'm going to go with a hefty dose of pareidolia and a desire to spin it into a story..

Anyway, back to off-topic sniping at each other I guess!

Edited September 19, 2019 by Chewie1990