|
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
Sceptic
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 05:14 PM
Yeah...right |
English Teacher
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 05:16 PM
AHEM!!
that would be Skeptic
not:
sceptic |
Skeptic
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 05:18 PM
WELLLL...EXcuse ME!
 |
vince
in cali
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 05:35 PM
wow dats crzy. now i have 2 sleep with my dog 4 a week thnx alot |
hcmomof4
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 11:34 PM
Fourthly -- it's sentence.
And I see a shadow behind at least the girl on the right side of the picture, which makes me wonder how much Photoshop messing around was done... |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:33 AM
The city lights on the background are clearly blurred due to long exposure. The three "mortal" people are not, because they've only been shortly exposed by the camera flash.
Now the 'ghost' does not look much blurred either.
Suggesting it/she was exposed by a flash too, not by the long exposure itself. Or at least that it/she is the result of a shorter exposure. |
Codmo
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 03:35 AM
This looks to be an example of what is called double exposure. It can happen either intentionally to create a ghost like effect or by accident, usually the fault of the developer. What happens is that either two images are exposed onto the same negative or two negatives are exposed to the same developing paper. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 04:14 AM
It's easy to superimpose an image w/ another image... |
Grammar Professional
in USA
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 05:58 AM
Actually, it should be 'hanged' because hung is the past tense for hang (a picture) and hanged is the past tense for hang (a person) |
UsuallyDark
in Glendale, CA
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 10:56 AM
The "blur" of the "city lights" in the background look to me to be less like a long exposure time, and more like two images superimposed on each other which were taken at slightly different positions. Of course, s/he would have had to do some masking, but, eh... I don't know. |
David
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 12:10 PM
I think I've got a picture of a ghost! I know, I'll post it at museum of hoaxes!
Anybody else see the flaw in the logic? |
hcmomof4
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 01:27 PM
Who the heck cares about logic when you have an extrememly good ghost picture? Or, apparently, even if you don't...  |
Wally
in La La Land
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 02:36 PM
Here's a scary ghost picture that I took with my digital camera in my living room...
There are several reasons that it must be real, I swear that the following statements are true:
1. Digital cameras can't do double exposures, and a lab processing error can be dismissed.
2. You can clearly see background objects through the specter.
3. I did not use Photoshop to create this image, and there is no masking involved.
4. The image is really creepy, eh?
With that said, there are a few reason why you might decide it's a hoax, even though the above statements are factually correct.
1. I don't own Photoshop, but use another program to make fake images.
2. There is no masking involved, but a simple combining of two images shot with a tripod, and setting the ghost image at 50% transparency.
3. The Ghost looks suspiciously like me in my pajamas.
The point here is that even a hoax photo can have statements that are totally true supporting it, but it is still a hoax.
Curt. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 10:01 AM
Thanks for the info Wally....I like your site too. |
Lord Lucan
in a hot place
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:43 AM
What y'got in the safe, Wally? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:04 AM
DUH...he keeps his ghost in there. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 07:45 AM
English Teacher:
My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd. Editon) lists the word as 'sceptic' (from the Latin 'scepticus'). The alternate spelling 'skeptic' is the minor form in England (where English is what is spoke), but popular is America, where, I believe, you speak 'american' (an spell it with a small 'a' as I have).
Interestingly, the Latin 'scepticus' is itself derived from the Greek 'skeptikos', but 'skeptic' appears not to be a return to the word's Greek roots (otherwise it'd be 'skeptik') but a variation on the Latinised spelling.
[By gravy! I'm begining to sound like 'Gharlane of Eddore'! (Begin USENET flashback here...)] |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 08:27 AM
I suppose there *is* a rational explanation, but it |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 10:09 AM
David B. - English Teacher and Sceptic/Skeptic are all the same author. |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 04:31 PM
Yes, but it's still sceptic.  |
|
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
