What do you see in this picture?

I see a face in the clouds above the boys head all the way up, anyone else see this?

In a blurry picture 100 people can see 100 different things. I see a smiling kid playing outside.

reply to post by ThorsBrother


Would have to get the OP's OK to do that, wouldn't I? It's his pic and I've already deleted it from my system. If the OP is ok with it, I don't mind

I think anybody can do what I did with it though, I'm no expert at messing with pics. I can only do simple stuff mainly with family pics and don't even have photoshop, but if the OP is fine with it, I'll quickly do it again and upload it, no problem


CC: reply to post by camouflaged

Originally posted by Pixie777
reply to post by ThorsBrother

 

Would have to get the OP's OK to do that, wouldn't I? It's his pic and I've already deleted it from my system. If the OP is ok with it, I don't mind

I think anybody can do what I did with it though, I'm no expert at messing with pics. I can only do simple stuff mainly with family pics and don't even have photoshop, but if the OP is fine with it, I'll quickly do it again and upload it, no problem

CC: reply to post by camouflaged

 

hi pixie777,

you have permission to do what you want to try and figure out what is really in the picture, if it helps distinguish if its a blurred person or a ghost or something else, that goes for anyone else who is willing to try and "solve" the mystery of this picture, also for those unable to see what im talking about in the picture




note

*The green outline is what appears to be a girl which is what my original post is based on.
*The red outline is what the posters above noticed what appears to be 2-3 figures in the background.

hope that helps, Ive also made the picture smaller for those who cant scroll.

reply to post by camouflaged


Without any doubt whatsoever this is a girl walking by. Like I said in my last post, I grew up in the late 60's early 70's and have seen - indeed taken - miriad pictures just like this one, with an old fasioned 'instamatic' or similar camera to that which this was almost certainly taken on.

Sorry, but there is no mystery here.

If I was in the UK I could go through mums photo albums and dig out examples. Sorry - I'm not so I can't.

Motion blur. Google it.

If this was motion blur, from the direction of the blur, the little girl would have to be running backwards fast. You can see that from where the first arrow is pointing at her head. She is facing the blur ...

Where the second arrow is, is where I see her arm looking like she is in mid-reach towards the uncle on the see-saw. So she is definitely facing the uncle from the position of the arm and the elbow.

Then take a look at her dress from the waist down, if she had her back to the uncle so that the motion blur by the head corresponds with the direction of running, then the dress below the waistline should be almost flattened vertically indicating she is running that way, it is not, that side is puffed out as it should be for an old-fashioned dress.
Were she running towards the uncle then other side, closest to him should be flattened indicating the direction of running, which it's also not, that side too is puffed out. Then of course, if she were running in that direction then she would be running against the motion blur that you can see at the head.

The last part is the white ribbon along the seam of the dress, I indicated that with an arrow too. If this were over exposure, then that should be the worst exposed part, as it is white, as it stands, of the whole image, it's the least exposed part. Were this double exposure then the entire image should have been affected and not just the little girl.

In the image below, you can see that the only people in the background that's fuzzy, is the man closest to her, walking away from the uncle and the little girl, he is fuzzy because you are seeing him through the little girl's head, also notice he is in mid-step, yet no motion-blur occurred there, he is just fuzzy. She is see-through.

Ok, in the second image I have outlined what I can see as people, or possible people. The fuzzy walking man and the little boy (no fuzz other than bad quality, were it better quality; the others would be clear-clear, and the walking away man still fuzzy), these are definitely people. The little boy is facing the camera seems to be watching the photograph being taken by the see-saw, like he also would rather come and play than to be standing there waiting for lunch, which his parents called him to do and looks like he is wearing dungarees.

Next to him looks like a woman half bending over what could be a table and next to her looks like what could be another person, hands in jacket pocket. The woman also looks like she could be wearing a thick white jacket or thick white jersey with a wide black belt maybe? None of these people appear see-through themselves, except the fuzzy man and I suspect it's because he is being seen through abnormal circumstances, and shouldn't be visible at all, were there a real little girl standing there with no ethereal qualities to her.

The reason I reckon he is real, is coloring, dark pants light shirt, the little girl is just over-all see-through and white. The little boy, other man and woman, are definitely blocking out what's on the other side if them, away from the camera, grown ups blocking out the tree, little boy blocking out what could be picnic table and chairs, but definitely blocking out what's behind him.

There could be another woman, but this one I really couldn't be sure if my eyes are just playing tricks on me She would be on the other side of the woman, her head behind that of the woman, but standing and leaning over from the other side of what seems to be the picnic table. It's a family getting ready to eat, that's what's up with the family in the background. If you live or have lived in a household with more than one person making dinner, setting the table and so forth, the scene is a familiar one

There're spots that look like it's faded and see through, it's the area of the tree branches between the woman and the other person (hands in pocket person) and the woman and the walking fuzzy man. Looking at the over-all picture, I'd say that is over-exposure due to sunlight coming from that direction through the trees, would you agree? You can see it from looking at the shadows being cast all around, the sun is coming from that direction and it would explain the over-all bad quality in that area.

Ok, that's my analyses, hope it helped Now take a look at the whole picture again, keeping in mind everything that I have pointed out, and let me know what you think, OP It's a first time for me analysing a picture like this using the tools I have learned here on ATS from the experts themselves it was fun

Oh something else I just noticed about the pic, averyone seems to be wearing jerseys or something warm, including the uncle, except the little girl ???


reply to post by ThorsBrother

reply to post by camouflaged


Oh I did do more with these images than what I did in my original analyses, to make it easier to point out what I was looking at

reply to post by Pixie777


I only needed to read your first sentance.

Ypu havr it all wrong mate. The girl is moving from left to right accross the picture. The motion blur shows this. That is the fact. Anything which remains is your opinion, based on lack of knowledge or experience or over-immagination.

What you call her arm is just part of the white stripe that passes accross the entire background of the puicture.

The picure is very much over exposed. It is also blurred. It is also faded.

Ask yourself this question: "Why did the original owner and all of the family not think this was a ghostly immage?" Why is this not the famous family spook? Answer - because, like me, the family is used to this old technology and has seen sort of thing before.

It is motion blur. Girl moving left to right accross the frame. I know this because of the way the shutter works on these older camers. The boy in the foreground is less focussed than the tree in the background. So the girl just behind the boy would have also been blurred if she had been stationary. So her motion blur is also, as it goes, blurred.

Have you ever even used an old film camera? IT is very diferent from digital you know.

reply to post by Shamatt


Yea, and your analyses is purely your opinion as well, based on your biase and lack of insight to anything that you don't 'know', thanks for your input, but I humbly disagree with you

Also, the original family, does not believe anything of the sort, if he was so sure, then why ask for our opinions on what we think? I think the OP asked us to help figure this out, hence, he is not so sure of what you are sure he is sure of.

You presume I am a mate, I think my avatar and my profile name indicates I can't be You also presume I am young and only know digital camera's Please don't.

I appreciate your input, and I agree with old film camera quality pictures, nevertheless, in this instance I think it's more than that, and I disagree with you. I am one of those who look at these images skeptically, this one is different, and I disagree with you on the direction she is facing. I could of course be wrong, but so could you ... mate Is this a case of you not wanting this to be something ethereal?

I have just noticed how you are arguing everyone rather vehemently, without even seeming to consider what they are saying, hence I ask . If this is the case, then I'd say it's rather pointless trying to discuss it with you, as you are already biased. It is rather pointless trying to discuss something with someone who believes there is nothing etherial in nature, wouldn't you agree? You are arguing this with everyone to the point of being dismissive of anything anybody says about possibilities, your very first sentence tells me this. Then how can I reason with you on this if you are not prepared to consider what I am saying?

If you are just being skeptical, but do believe in the paranormal, which is healthy, then I regress. If not, then, how am I supposed to reason with you on this? You are only going to dismiss anything and everything I say. Do you suppose you could actually just look at what I am trying to point out, and consider it, before being dismissive? That would be much more conducive to unraveling this mystery, don't you think?

Originally posted by Pixie777
reply to post by Shamatt

 

Yea, and your analyses is purely your opinion as well, based on your biase and lack of insight to anything that you don't 'know', thanks for your input, but I humbly disagree with you

Yes, it is my opinion. I don't deny it. But I happen to beleive it is correct. Calling me biased and telling me I lack insight is only inflamitory, and perhaps shows your frustration.

Originally posted by Pixie777

Also, the original family, does not believe anything of the sort, if he was so sure, then why ask for our opinions on what we think? I think the OP asked us to help figure this out, hence, he is not so sure of what you are sure he is sure of.

I wonder why nan and grandad didn't think there was a ghost in the picture?

Originally posted by Pixie777

You presume I am a mate, I think my avatar and my profile name indicates I can't be

You also presume I am young and only know digital camera's

Please don't.

Don't take it personally - I call everyone mate it is a bad habit. I even get told of by my wife for this! lol

Originally posted by Pixie777

I appreciate your input, and I agree with old film camera quality pictures, nevertheless, in this instance I think it's more than that, and I disagree with you. I am one of those who look at these images skeptically, this one is different, and I disagree with you on the direction she is facing. I could of course be wrong, but so could you ... mate

Is this a case of you not wanting this to be something ethereal?

I autherd a thread in this forum entitled Ghost on a bridge of a "ghost" picture I took myself and presented here for opinion. So I am not at all afraid of this being something etherial.

Here is the pic - I would value your opinion (Honestly. I am not taking the mickey or being rude!)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/04f7b733a9b5.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Pixie777

I have just noticed how you are arguing everyone rather vehemently, without even seeming to consider what they are saying, hence I ask

. If this is the case, then I'd say it's rather pointless trying to discuss it with you, as you are already biased. It is rather pointless trying to discuss something with someone who believes there is nothing etherial in nature, wouldn't you agree? You are arguing this with everyone to the point of being dismissive of anything anybody says about possibilities, your very first sentence tells me this. Then how can I reason with you on this if you are not prepared to consider what I am saying?

If you are just being skeptical, but do believe in the paranormal, which is healthy, then I regress. If not, then, how am I supposed to reason with you on this? You are only going to dismiss anything and everything I say. Do you suppose you could actually just look at what I am trying to point out, and consider it, before being dismissive? That would be much more conducive to unraveling this mystery, don't you think?

edit on 12-10-2011 by Pixie777 because: (no reason given)

I am not "just being skepticle". I do beleive in ghosts. I just honestly am convinced 100% that this is motion blur.

I HAVE Read everything you have typed. I have examined the pictures posted by the OP and by your good self. And after looking at it all again before answering this post I still beleive it to be motion blur.

I don't have my old film cameras here with me (I recently moved from the UK to Australia) I will try to think of a way to proove this to with my DSLR. It won't be easy because of the differences in thechnology - it will look diferent and therefore my "proof" will probably be dismissed. I'll try any way and post if I have some success. In the mean time. I promise you this is motion blir. I am not trying to be overly 'vehement', but I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is motion blur. I have seen it soooo many times before. And it always looks the same.

Happy to agree to disagree with you. Please don't think I dissmissed your points without due consideration. I have looked again, but I have not changed my mind. I would also rather be ally than enemy, so if my forthright tone bothers you I appologise. I don't have great communication skills, but I try my best.

reply to post by Shamatt


i agree with you 100% motion blur... i cant believe this topic has run to 2 pages

saw your ghost photo before didn't you have another frame without the ghost in it?

reply to post by Shamatt


This is true, you got me all frustrated. Please understand, I have come across so many posts that are just plain dismissive, it is frustrating to try to reason with people who are already believing anything outright without question, and if you point out problems that you might have with it, then you're the bad guy. On the other end of the spectrum, trying to reason with anybody that's already bias against believing anything, proves to be just as frustrating. I apologize for biting at you, as I said, if this is just a case of you being healthy skeptical then I regress. From reading your other posts, it just seemed as if you were just simply being like the aforementioned biased and dismissive arguers, so I put my guard up.

Yes, in that first paragraph I was being inflammatory, I admit, but I found you telling me that my opinion is based on an over-active imagination, rather inflammatory too, as I said, I put my guard up. I didn't actually mean to be inflammatory, which is why I said "thanks for your input, but I humbly disagree with you" with a smiley. I was having trouble choosing my words, while feeling my nose out of joint. I felt that I was not trying to see something that wasn't there, I looked at the picture, and I see the little girl facing the uncle, and I see her arm, not just a white stripe, where would the white stripe come from? It would have to be a motion blur from something if it were motion blur, to me it looks like an arm, it doesn't fade out, like what you see at the head in a motion-blurry way, I can clearly see the arm and the bend by the elbow of it. It's not something I want to see, I just see it.

Ok, your picture, is odd, I didn't download it or run it through sharpening or anything like that, I don't see the need to, the picture is not of such a quality that it would be required. I find it odd that the light from the building, the light above the doorway (which seems to be very bright), is not providing light on the figure on the bridge, yet the light it gives, does extend further than the figure. Were you there at the time? Did you take the picture, and was there someone actually standing there? Or did this show up on the photo only and when taking the picture there was no-one there? In which case what prompted you to take the picture?

I honestly don't know, I'll explain why, I have seen ghosts with my eyes, not regularly mind you, but I have, which is why I recognise the little girl in the OP's picture. I have only read of shadow-figures, I've never seen one, hence I have filed them away in file 14 (a file in my mind where I file stuff I'm not ready to throw away, but want to review upon further evidence, if I could explain it that way). I honestly don't know, I'm hesitant to just right out believe that there is a shadow figure that is etherial in nature, at the same time, there's been so many people who say they have seen them, that I'm hesitant to just dismiss it as well.

I'm sorry if I'm of no help at all, I can only comment on the noticeable, which is that the light doesn't seem to be casting light on the figure, yet the light itself extends just further than the figure itself. Kind of almost like I imagine a black-hole would work, it absorbs and crushes even light. It's like a void of light standing there when all around it is sufficient light. It could be an effect caused by the camera as well I guess, in that there was insufficient light around and the camera simply left out that part, and that there is a person standing there physically. Which is why I'm asking, did you notice someone standing there, or did you take the pic because you saw with your eyes a shadow figure standing there?

I do remember this pic from a while back, at the time I was still just a lurker, and even if I wasn't, I wouldn't have offered an opinion, because I have nothing of value to add. I just don't know. Since you are now asking me directly, I can only offer my failing opinion, I don't know, sorry Things might change though, if I see a shadow figure, it might change my thoughts entirely. It's not very likely though, as I have protections around my property to cancel out negative energy. So it would have to happen somewhere away from home. It's an intriguing picture, would you mind if I keep it in my folder 14 on my pc? I promise I wont share it, or try to pawn it off as my own, it's just for me to be able to review it again. I'll even put your name on it

reply to post by Shamatt


I was really just teasing you about the mate part, I know it can become habit, like I say 'lol' a lot I really don't approve of myself for doing that. Or I'll say; dudette absolute habit, I try to make a point of avoiding it

What do you suppose is casting the same shadow effect on the underneath side of the bridge, where it seems light should be too? Slightly more towards the doorway, but on the underneath side of the bridge. There seems to be light coming from both sides underneath the bridge pointing upwards, which would mean that there should be light in that area too. On the other hand, we know with shadows, the tiniest pebble could cast a huge shadow effect, and that effect that I see, could be exactly that, which I think it is.

U.K. to Australia, eh? You must be suffering terribly with the climate change. Good sunscreen and a swimming pool, is your cheapest solution, thereafter, make sure you have some decent quality aircons. Shame, I can just imagine. I've lived in Africa all my life, and the heat still gets to me, can only imagine what it's like for you.

Oh, I completely forgot to reply to the grandparents part, I didn't see anywhere that the OP said, that they didn't think it was something odd, or if they did. He just mentions that his nan recently passed. It could depend on their religion, some religions wouldn't discuss or mention this at all. On the other hand they might have thought nothing of it. I have no idea what they thought, but I think to say that they thought it was nothing, without being able to hear their thoughts on it, is purely speculation. We don't know what they thought of the picture. This is why, because of the impossibility of hearing what they think, I didn't venture to what they may or may not think.

I'd like an ally, I think we can do that and just agree to disagree

I believe in ghosts but that doesn't mean everything is a ghost. First I have to make absolutely sure that there isn't a 'known' explanation for it. So I looked at this photograph [and I am a professional photographer myself] and have to say that yes there is a girl in the picture and yes, she is very blurred.
My first thought would be: a girl running had caused motion blur.

The only time the above might be questioned is:
- If there definitively wasn't a girl there that day, yet you can see one.

This will lead me to my second most plausible explanation, which is that it could be a simulacrum, something that looks like something else. There might not have been a girl but a shape was caused that just ended up looking like a running girl. What exactly could cause such a shape is can't be guessed but I have to assume it was something 'tangible/real'.

Even if the OP feels he is sure about that day, I have to say our memories are actually quite unreliable. Often similar days and situations are mixed up for example.

It could also have been an unknown kid, just running by, never noticed by either photographer or boy. I often have this taking photos, as you concentrate on other things, like composition and waiting for the right moment. Then afterwards you notice all sorts of weird people or objects.

If I could eliminate all of the above explanations 100%, then I would start thinking: "What if..."

I agree with the motion blur explanation.

It also looks like they are on a seesaw in motion - some of the far away objects (like the branches of trees) look like they're repeated in the shot just over by where people see the picnic table.

If the see saw was in part motion the boy would be in reasonably sharp focus because of the relative distance between the lens and the boy being around the same, but other objects would be distorted...not just by motion but by changing depth of field potentially.

reply to post by homeslice


i see a guy in a tuban sitting in a meditation pose floating behind the little kids. I see no girl. I just think it's the background making the image

reply to post by Pixie777


OK. Glad we sorted that out! lol

Yes. This picture is a mistery. Interestin though, especially when we such good debates arrise. I look forwards to debating the next one with you

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Shamatt

 

i agree with you 100% motion blur... i cant believe this topic has run to 2 pages

saw your ghost photo before didn't you have another frame without the ghost in it?

yes, here :www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can understand a running child would be blurred . It would not however be completely transparent. Nor would the figures in the background. Strange picture OP.

Nice work with the photos Pixie. You have pointed out one person i didn't even notice with the 3rd adult. To be honest i am still unsure as the the girl in the photo, both sides speak to me equally, in one way the transparency of both the girl and the background people is noticeable but could be blur, but transparency through transparency i don't think i've seen.

People could be being a bit rash on debunking this straight away but you have to look at both sides, or all three if you take my possibility into account (not that i fully believe this, it is just an option), which is that either the background people OR the girl is ethereal, just not sure which one... But it could also be just a case of motion blur.

Pixie777,

thanks for analyzing and taking out your time to look deeper, but i don't see any of your re-posted pictures in the thread you mentioned arrows pointing, any chance you could re up or fix the post so pictures can be seen?

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by Pixie777

 

I only needed to read your first sentance.

Ypu havr it all wrong mate. The girl is moving from left to right accross the picture. The motion blur shows this. That is the fact. Anything which remains is your opinion, based on lack of knowledge or experience or over-immagination.

What you call her arm is just part of the white stripe that passes accross the entire background of the puicture.

The picure is very much over exposed. It is also blurred. It is also faded.

Ask yourself this question: "Why did the original owner and all of the family not think this was a ghostly immage?" Why is this not the famous family spook? Answer - because, like me, the family is used to this old technology and has seen sort of thing before.

It is motion blur. Girl moving left to right accross the frame. I know this because of the way the shutter works on these older camers. The boy in the foreground is less focussed than the tree in the background. So the girl just behind the boy would have also been blurred if she had been stationary. So her motion blur is also, as it goes, blurred.

Have you ever even used an old film camera? IT is very diferent from digital you know.

That is a good question why my family member's never noticed it... as you can tell from other poster's they didn't see anything originally, maybe my family members never did either at the time or maybe someone looked at the picture once and put it away, my niece who is young found the image and they say kids have a clearer mind then adult's so maybe that's why?

Originally posted by bluemooone2
I can understand a running child would be blurred . It would not however be completely transparent. Nor would the figures in the background. Strange picture OP.

that's the part which puzzles me, why is the image of the "girl" transparent when if the picture was taken while the see-saw was in motion wouldn't that mean that my uncle should be transparent or blurred as well? to the people saying its motion blue if it was a "real" UN-ghostly girl captured then why does she appear transparent, motion blur doesnt explain it as a solid object for me.