What do you think of this? Affectionate ghost?

Affectionate ghost?,

True story ..... growing up, my neighbors lived in what had been an old funeral home/ undertakers house. It was a small town (6,000 people) and the house was probably 150 years old (give or take). The undertakers ghost roamed the house and would 'bother' the ladies at night. He'd sit on their beds and breath very heavy. Seems the dead undertaker was a dirty old man. (gotta' wonder what he did with the dead bodies that came to him, eh?)

... not an 'affectionate' ghost .. but a creepy dirty old man ghost.

Anyways .. your picture .. pretty neat.

Dunno about it ...

Not sure what it is. Optical illusion or something. At first glance it appeared he was simply smoking a cigarette and the camera picked up the smoke. Closer look revealed there was no cigarette. I have no explanation for the anomaly in the photo. Could be a trick of the camera, could be a fake, or could be paranormal. Only God knows the truth

Upon further examination I recant this statement.

I tell you that any of you out there who doubt this....I had this occur in my photographs once as well.

My home is occupied by spirits....I wouldn't call it haunted but we have had a long history of ghostly activity in and around our home.

Apparently where I live near a River there were many indian wars for the location...

I have seen apparitions, shadow figures, hooded figures I have even seen a glowing orb float past me...and my dogs follow things that we cannot necessarily see around the room.

We even heard a womans voice call out the other night in what sounded like a greeting...my wife and I both heard this and we were in opposite sides of the house !

But back to my experience with photographs.

I had installed some new Foglights in my Jeep and began taking pictures of the front of the vehicle with the lights On first with the old ones and then with the newly installed ones...

My pictures a couple of them had this fog or smoke like haze in them very similar to what we see here as well and I am certain that it wasn't the camera., smoke or fog.

I don't doubt this photo....it is very similar to what I experienced as well...

I say to the naysayers, get off your duff and ATS and go out and try it yourself by shooting some night photos....and you will see and experience this phenomenon as I did.

Peace

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
reply to post by DrJay1975

 

What the hell? I WAS there when the photo was taken... I didn't say I wasn't...

Also, the photo has been saved to my Photobucket account since it was taken, along with hundreds of other photos from years ago.

Please show me an example of this '100% ghost app match' and I'll accept you think I'm lying.

I think it's hilarious you think everyone on this forum is out to lie to others, I have nothing to gain by lying or making it up.

EDIT: I have contacted the photographer to ask whether he still has the article and also began searching for the article online. I shall try to contact the paper too.

This is the EXIF data, if that helps. If it had been edited, it usually loses some of its values.
EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 770 bytes (0.8k)
Image Description Minolta DSC
Make Minolta Co., Ltd.
Camera Model Name DiMAGE 7Hi
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Software Ver.1.00e
Modify Date 2004:07:12 19:28:20
7 years, 5 months, 30 days, 13 hours, 19 minutes, 34 seconds ago
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered
Exposure Time 1/45
F Number 2.80
Exposure Program Program AE
ISO 200
Exif Version 0220
Date/Time Original 2004:07:12 19:28:20
7 years, 5 months, 30 days, 13 hours, 19 minutes, 34 seconds ago
Create Date 2004:07:12 19:28:20
7 years, 5 months, 30 days, 13 hours, 19 minutes, 34 seconds ago
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Brightness Value -6
Exif Image Size 1,920 × 2,560
Exposure Compensation 0
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Flash On, Fired
Focal Length 8.5 mm
Subject Area 1280 960 2560 1920
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Interoperability Index Unknown (%01%02%01%09)
Interoperability Version (1 bytes binary data)
Custom Rendered Custom
Exposure Mode Auto
White Balance Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio 0
Focal Length In 35mm Format 33 mm
Scene Capture Type Standard
Gain Control Low gain up
Contrast Normal
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Subject Distance Range Distant
APP0
Ocad Revision 14,797
JFIF
JFIF Version 1.02
Resolution 1 pixels/None
File — basic information derived from the file.
File Type JPEG
MIME Type image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order Little-endian (Intel, II)
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
File Size 178 kB
Image Size 810 × 1,080
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)

Aperture 2.80
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent 3.9
Shutter Speed 1/45
Circle Of Confusion 0.008 mm
Field Of View 57.2 deg
Focal Length 8.5 mm (35 mm equivalent: 33.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance 3.32 m
Light Value 7.5

Please feel free to use any EXIF data checker online and with the URL of the photo and see for yourself

edit on 12-1-2012 by Lulzaroonie because: (no reason given)

EXIF data has been changed. Just not the camera data, which means manipulated photo. Look towards the bottom, information stored doesn't macth the camera said to have taken the photo.

JPEGsnoop 1.5.2 by Calvin Hass
www.impulseadventure.com...
-------------------------------------

Filename: [C:\Documents and Settings\Krist\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\SUG99QLZ\Gothic_Promo_Pics_091[1].jpg]
Filesize: [181881] Bytes

Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000

*** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
length = 16
identifier = [JFIF]
version = [1.2]
density = 1 x 1 (aspect ratio)
thumbnail = 0 x 0

*** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000014
length = 28
identifier = [Ocad$Rev: 14797 $]
Not known APP0 type. Skipping remainder.

*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000032
length = 778
Identifier = [Exif]
Identifier TIFF = 0x[49492A00 08000000]
Endian = Intel (little)
TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A

EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000044
Dir Length = 0x000B
[ImageDescription ] = "Minolta DSC"
[Make ] = "Minolta Co., Ltd."
[Model ] = "DiMAGE 7Hi"
[Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 72/1
[YResolution ] = 72/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = "Ver.1.00e"
[DateTime ] = "2004:07:12 19:28:20"
[YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x0092
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000

EXIF SubIFD @ Absolute 0x000000CE
Dir Length = 0x0020
[ExposureTime ] = 1/45 s
[FNumber ] = F2.8
[ExposureProgram ] = Normal program
[ISOSpeedRatings ] = 200
[ExifVersion

Sorry, ATS cut my post so re posting the relevant section of the analysis.

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01BCE1003956951B537EEF12CA84E913
Signature (Rotated): 0153962B37B6285C125761398BCEFAA0
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: OK [Minolta Co., Ltd.] [DiMAGE 7Hi]
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: OK [Ver.1.00e]

Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------

Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 2 - Image has high probability of being processed/edited

Damn, I was going to share a "smoke ghost" shot that an ex-girlfriend of mine shot back in 2004 (it's pretty cool in that it completely outlines the face of the dog we had, who'd recently died before the shot was taken) but with the effed up environment lately here - people calling people liars and frauds without any proof to substantiate such aggressive accusations - I'll pass. This isn't the only paranormal forum on the web, and recently it's not even a very good one. That's too bad. Smug self-anointed truth-dispensers can be found anywhere. Mostly in bars. This forum can and should be better than that, since the field of paranormal research is very very young, and nothing's been settled by anyone yet.

I realize that no one should be denied their opinion, but bullying shouldn't be encouraged or ignored. It'll end up that no one will post here about anything they've discovered. And why would they if they know they'll face such a hostile reception regardless of what it is they've captured on film or audio.

Looks like smoke from something that was just lit, but not from a cigarette its a little thicker than that, probably weed. And some of the ugliest boots i ever seen...

reply to post by Wolfie0827


I appreciate you've taken the time to examine the photo but I am having trouble finding what you describe as something being changed. Would you mind pointing it out a bit more clearly for me please? I'm not tech savvy when it comes to photography terms etc
It's not that I am disagreeing with you, but I have believed this is a spooky photo for more than 7 years now, and would hate to find that the photographer was a sneaky jerk lol

reply to post by Lulzaroonie

This part here says what camera was used.

EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000044
Dir Length = 0x000B
[ImageDescription ] = "Minolta DSC"
[Make ] = "Minolta Co., Ltd."
[Model ] = "DiMAGE 7Hi"
[Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 72/1
[YResolution ] = 72/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = "Ver.1.00e"
[DateTime ] = "2004:07:12 19:28:20"
[YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x0092
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000

This next part says the cmos(processor) information does not match the camera or any known software (The apple app is not in the programs database yet).

*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 01BCE1003956951B537EEF12CA84E913
Signature (Rotated): 0153962B37B6285C125761398BCEFAA0
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: OK [Minolta Co., Ltd.] [DiMAGE 7Hi]
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: OK [Ver.1.00e]

Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
(if the cmos matched, camera model would be here)
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 2 - Image has high probability of being processed/edited

ghost or no ghost, there is nothing to really get hyped on.
Sometimes a persons breath can make a fog which we can't see but do to a flash and camera it can catch it on the picture.

For example here is a picture I took, what some may think is one thing like two skeleton angles/demons fighting and then what I know what it really was, it is just my breath when I was taking a picture of the moon which is the white little dot in the picture
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e0de8f58e8f.jpg[/atsimg]

Speaking of affectionate ghosts...I have caught a few evp's that say "I love you"...I've been uploading some of my EVP's on youtube that I have taped in my home...when I get this one posted I'll add the link...

reply to post by Wolfie0827


Thanks for your reply. That's a shame. I guess it shall just remain a mystery, though it is looking likely now that it might be fake. The photographer still hasn't got back to me about the photo specifics, though I have spoken to him.

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
reply to post by Wolfie0827

 

Thanks for your reply. That's a shame. I guess it shall just remain a mystery, though it is looking likely now that it might be fake. The photographer still hasn't got back to me about the photo specifics, though I have spoken to him.

Someone here mentioned how many seem to be armchair 'experts' bent on debunking evidence put up, but I think a healthy skepticism is the correct stance.

And i think the OP deserves an honest feedback, no matter where that leads.

In this instance, it does appear that this photograph is not paranormal. But this doesn't rule out paranormal stuff being captured by certain cameras in certain circumstances. It just means in this case there were normal explanations for the effect captured here.

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway


I agree, I would love for it to have been real, but the evidence doesn't support it being real.

I'm not a debunker perse, I'm an investigator with a scientific background, I believe in ghosts and other paranormal events, I just don't like all the hoaxes trying to present themselves as "real".

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
reply to post by Wolfie0827

 

Thanks for your reply. That's a shame. I guess it shall just remain a mystery, though it is looking likely now that it might be fake. The photographer still hasn't got back to me about the photo specifics, though I have spoken to him.

If you get a copy of the original, I'll run it through the program again and see if we get the same results. I use this program because it looks at all the data, such as cmos signature and the algorithyms used to compress the photo which are unique to each cmos/program.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Damn, I was going to share a "smoke ghost" shot that an ex-girlfriend of mine shot back in 2004 (it's pretty cool in that it completely outlines the face of the dog we had, who'd recently died before the shot was taken) but with the effed up environment lately here - people calling people liars and frauds without any proof to substantiate such aggressive accusations - I'll pass. This isn't the only paranormal forum on the web, and recently it's not even a very good one. That's too bad. Smug self-anointed truth-dispensers can be found anywhere. Mostly in bars. This forum can and should be better than that, since the field of paranormal research is very very young, and nothing's been settled by anyone yet.

I realize that no one should be denied their opinion, but bullying shouldn't be encouraged or ignored. It'll end up that no one will post here about anything they've discovered. And why would they if they know they'll face such a hostile reception regardless of what it is they've captured on film or audio.

My thoughts also, NorEaster. I have a few really cool genuine pics but am afraid of the hostile reception I would probably receive on ATS. For some reason this site is not very receptive to paranormal possibilities.

reply to post by Wolfie0827


Thanks, I'll be sure to pester the photographer again. The photo I have posted here is taken off a disk I got after the shoot, which unfortunately I have since lost. It was taken 7 years ago, so the chances he still has it, I reckon are slim, but it's worth a try

reply to post by NorEaster


Wow. You said that much better than I could have. I come off as a bit of an ass when I try to point that kind of stuff out. You did it very well.