The other day my friend James showed me this picture. It was taken at an
overlook on the blueridge parkway (The star). In the middle is my friends
girl, the other 2 people are some of her friends.
Anyways there was nobody else at the overlook that night, they were alone.
She gets home and uploads the picture and check out what is in the right
side.....
Now at first I thought my friend was playing a joke on me... but I cant find
any explination for it.... its a digital camera and defiently not a double
exposure.
so here ya go, this is resized... the origional full size is the link below
the image
So I messed around with it in photoshop... and I got these. What do you
think she is holding?? it looks like she is reading a book or something.
Can ANYBODY tell me what this could be? I can not think of a logical
explination for it. Its so bizare how she is seethrough. and Judging by
the lights in the background, the camera took a pic with the flash, then
kept the shuder open for a split longer, cause of the blur... it would
almost seem like only the flash picked up on the "ghost" is my only guess.
If you notice she also seems to have a shadow?
wow dats crzy. now i have 2 sleep with my dog 4 a week thnx alot
hcmomof4
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 | 10:34 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 | 01:33 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 | 02:35 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 | 03:14 AM
It's easy to superimpose an image w/ another image...
Grammar Professional
in USA
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 | 04:58 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 | 09:56 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 | 11:10 AM
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 | 12:27 PM
Who the heck cares about logic when you have an extrememly good ghost picture? Or, apparently, even if you don't...
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 Member
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 | 09:01 AM
Thanks for the info Wally....I like your site too.
Lord Lucan
in a hot place
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 04:43 AM
What y'got in the safe, Wally?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 05:04 AM
DUH...he keeps his ghost in there.
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 06:45 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 | 07:27 AM
I suppose there *is* a rational explanation, but it’s so far out on the edges of likelihood I hesitate to voice it.
Assuming it wasn’t just faked up on a PC somewhere (told you it was an unlikely explanation). This was taken on a digital camera. Digital cameras use flash memory to store their pictures. Flash memory is erased and rewritten when old pictures scratched and new ones taken. Flash memory also wears out with repeated re-use (it no longer erases properly). So bits of an old image might show through on cheap or old flashcards.
The problems with this hypothesis are:-
Flashcards tend to have lots of clever circuitry to prevent the same blocks of flash memory being used again and again, hence wearing out blocks at the ‘start’ of the card without even using blocks at the ‘end’ (it’s called ‘levelling’). CSI-Miami had an episode where the ‘overwritten’ images off a memory stick were recovered, leading the team to the murderer. I had a hard time convincing a colleague at work that this was even possible even though we were both electronic engineers.
Digital cameras tend to encode their images to save space (commonly as JPEGs). It is unlikely in the extreme that any ‘residual bits’ from another image would decode in another image in any recognisable form. Of course, the camera owner might routinely use a ‘raw’ format with no compression.
Almost all flash memory I know of, you must erase each cell (to all ‘0’s or all ‘1’s) before the new value can be written in. When programming embedded circuits I never took it for granted that the erase had worked, I always checked. I really doubt that any flashcard’s longevity code would not detect failed erase operations and mark the blocks in question as bad.
So an old, cheap, dumb flashcard in a camera habitually used in raw mode *might* make a picture like this. Personally I think it’s as likely as my daily fart count revealing next weeks’ lottery numbers!
P.S. And if you *are* superstitious that way; 7, 24 (curry!), and 9 so far!
P.P.S. And for English Teacher, each of the above posts contains a deliberate mistake for you to spot.
P.P.P.S. And quite a few non-deliberate ones too, I should imagine.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 | 09:09 AM
David B. - English Teacher and Sceptic/Skeptic are all the same author.
