The Daily Mail in the UK recently ran an article about a "mysterious" photo of a "ghost" taken with a cell phone camera. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510155&in_page_id=1770
Thoughts anyone?
curious. could be shadows from the drapes...
I would LOVE to say this is nothing but matrixing, but I don't think so. If it wasn't still on his cell phone I'd say it was photoshopped. I honestly don't have a logical explanation for this one. It might be genuine.
Sorry, don't buy it for a sec! It looks to me like they dressed up a little kid to look 'spooky' then had him peer out from between the legs. It looks like a real kid to me dressed up and set up. You can see how part of his head on the left side (his left) is blocked by one of the legs and it also looks to me like he's sitting on the ground behind them as you can see a dark mass on the floor right where his little body would be sitting. Sorry.
Quote from: PPI Donna on January 24, 2008, 07:55:43 PM
Sorry, don't buy it for a sec! It looks to me like they dressed up a little kid to look 'spooky' then had him peer out from between the legs. It looks like a real kid to me dressed up and set up. You can see how part of his head on the left side (his left) is blocked by one of the legs and it also looks to me like he's sitting on the ground behind them as you can see a dark mass on the floor right where his little body would be sitting. Sorry.
No need to be sorry at all. I don't agree with you, but I'm not sorry :) That's what the forums are all about.
It looks like a real face to me, but I see a strong resemblance between the "ghost face" and the girl crying in the foreground--enough to make me think there might be some explanation related to the operation of the camera phone itself.
I have a hard time believing that this was set up. I tried to see if the drapes might cause that, but it seems unlikely also. Don't know what to think about this one.
Quote from: PPI Karl on January 24, 2008, 09:08:58 PM
It looks like a real face to me, but I see a strong resemblance between the "ghost face" and the girl crying in the foreground--enough to make me think there might be some explanation related to the operation of the camera phone itself.
That's a good assumption Karl. I would agree with you. I don't know the advanced camera settings of a cell phone on a sony ericson, but who knows...maybe they have a shutter speed option. I don't see too much a resemblance between the crying squid (I call them squids because they have their hands on everything) and the face in the picture though....they both seem young, however the "ghost" face in question seems to have a small mustache to me.
Quote from: PPI Dave on January 24, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
I don't know the advanced camera settings of a cell phone on a sony ericson, but who knows...maybe they have a shutter speed option.
Here is the spec page on the phone that was used to capture the picture:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/corporate/products/phoneportfolio/specification/k800i
It doesn't seem to have anything that can be manually changed on the camera portion of the phone to adjust your pictures. There is an auto-focus and image stabilizer, but that's about it. It actually takes pretty high resolution pics for a camera phone.
Quote from: Kristen on January 24, 2008, 11:43:27 PM
Quote from: PPI Dave on January 24, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
I don't know the advanced camera settings of a cell phone on a sony ericson, but who knows...maybe they have a shutter speed option.
Here is the spec page on the phone that was used to capture the picture:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/corporate/products/phoneportfolio/specification/k800i
It doesn't seem to have anything that can be manually changed on the camera portion of the phone to adjust your pictures. There is an auto-focus and image stabilizer, but that's about it. It actually takes pretty high resolution pics for a camera phone.
YOU ROCK!!!
That's just what I wanted to see :)
Thanks for that info, Kristen. Excellent!
I know facial pattern recognition is not my strong suit. (Max has told me from day one that there should be some sort of professional study done about how I recognize faces--or, rather, misidentify faces. :-[) So, I can most definitely understand why you might question the similarities, Dave. Here are a couple of things about the face that make me think it's the girl who's crying:
(http://www.grossmont.edu/karl.sherlock/PPI/Evidence_Analysis/GhostChildFace.jpg)
Firstly, I know the face seems solid, but I think it's actually transparent, and that some of the details around the ghost's mouth are actually matrixed out of the the bottom of the curtain behind the group. Furthermore, the ghost's hair is partially superimposed onto the pant leg. To me, the proportions of the face are the same as the crying girl's, especially the chin, the forehead, and the brow ridge; also, both faces seem to lack eyebrows, which is typical of fair-haired children. The partially transparent hair on the ghost face is styled exactly the same as the crying girl's: parted down the middle into wispy, wavy curls, but combed down at the back. If you look closely, you can see the same dark line of the part at the back of the head in both images. I also see the faintest hint of a broad stripe below the ghost face, superimposed on the pant leg--the same stripe on the girl's shirt; however, I wary of that features, as it could just be me matrixing a pattern.
Anyway, that's my tale, and I'm just gonna sit on it. ;D
I don't know. Camera phones. Just don't trust them. 3.2mp is good for a cell phone, but its still 3.2mp.
While this prob isn't the case here, but a big reason I don't like cell phone cameras: were do most people carry their cell phones? In their pockets. What are the chances a finger smudges the lense taking the camera in and out of a pocket?
Karl, I'm not sure we're looking at the same picture....let me explain
(http://www.pacificparanormal.com/images/karlface.jpg)
If you look at my diagram, the face in question clearly shows a beard, and dark colored eyes...and a bald head. Plus it's wearing glasses. You can barely see the glasses, but trust me they are there.
So sit on that Mr. Smartypants!
But seriously, I can see some of the resemblance Karl...for sure, but I think that might be a little too obscure. I just don't think the features are distinguished enough to compare to with the picture on the right. Her face is halfway covered up with her hand, her mouth is wide open and her eyes are closed. The hair that you circled though, she would have to have a conehead for her hair to be that high up on the picture on the left. What say you of this story: Say this little girl had a twin sister that died at birth eh? Pretty good one huh? I bet that's her dead twin sister dude, coming back and making her cry by saying things like "Why did you kick me so much in the womb, you killed me you know!"
Hey, I'm just kidding...don't go run with that story :)
Dave and Karl, I don't have the 'skills' (as Napoleon would say) to put up the photo in my post and show you what I'm talking about, so I'll do my best to break it down in description here.
First, and most telling for me, the kid looks too made up. The hair has been spiked and make up has been put on to look like a typical Halloween ghoul. To me, this is classic stage make-up.
Second, the left side of the child's face (about front of ear back) is clearly obstructed by the girl's right leg (blue jeans). You don't see any details of the draperies or wall through the child's face/head or body. He looks very solid to me, I don't see transparency.
Third, the dark mass just under the face is consistent with what would be the child's body sitting on the floor, again, behind and between the girls' legs. The position of his body's shadow leads me to believe he is on his bum (more toward the right hip of his backside), his legs curled behind him, leaning forward a bit onto his right arm whose hand is flat on the floor. I also think they had him sit deliberately in the shadows of the girls' bodies. This would not be difficult as all the lighting sources for this photo are at the front of the subjects with no light sources coming from the rear. I really believe it is just that simple.
This all comes from crime scene analization & deduction so I'm sorry if I've been a bit monotonous.
In my quest to see what some 'outside folks' thought of this photo I have received 2 responses thus far.
Here's my husband's take:
If you save this picture as a bitmap and zoom in on the area around the 'ghostly image' it helps to accentuate your points. Although it doesn't make it painfully obvious, if you study it long enough, it looks more and more like a hoax than a supernatural occurrence. It doesn't even appear to be translucent when you zoom right in on it - I did not realize anyone believed ghosts could manifest solid matter...which is what this looks like.
Here's a friend and fellow ghost enthusiast's take:
I agree with you ? I think it is fake ? pretty good though. But, I don?t agree with the guy that said it was just a random coincidental arrangement of pixels. That is a little far fetched I think.
Just thought you all might be interested on their takes as well. . .maybe not.
The more takes the better...ALWAYS!
Ghosts can appear to be as solid as you and I though, just for a side note. I don't know when the public thought they were always "see through".
The wonderful thing about this field is all the differences of opinions, some get frustrated by it and some LOVE it. I am one who loves it.
I tend to agree with Donna. The kid DOES look made up. I don't see a transparency either.
What is kind of strange to me is that when you look at the teens in the photo, the "face" down by their legs and then the crying "squid" (as David put it)...it really looks like it was THREE pics spliced into one. I mean look at the light on each of them, the spacing, and the inconsistencies. Maybe the photo was taken somewhere else, sent to the cell phone and they made it appear as if it was taken by that phone itself.
The song, "One of these things is not like the other...one of these things just doesn't belong", comes to mind. (Once you are a parent, Sesame Street is forever burned into your memory). By the way.....my kid is a REFORMED Squid.....most of the time. ;D
When it comes down to it, we can debate it all day, but we really don't know what the hell it is. Yes, it does appear to be a head, but to me is looks like a cross between one of those cherub faces with medusa hair and a chubby kid Einstein without his mustache.
See. . . I didn't know that they could be solid! I had no idea.
Maybe being a prison guard and always having inmates trying to 'run game' is why I'm so hard pressed to buy into this photo. If ghosts can actually present themselves as solid matter than how do you go about disproving a photo like this if there is no 'technical' manipulation or difficulty to cite?
Do you then just call it evidence and let it go at that? What if it keeps knawing at you and you know it's not what it's being introduced as but at the same time don't know how to disprove it? This would drive me BATTY!
Quote from: PPI Donna on January 25, 2008, 02:10:31 PM
See. . . I didn't know that they could be solid! I had no idea.
Maybe being a prison guard and always having inmates trying to 'run game' is why I'm so hard pressed to buy into this photo. If ghosts can actually present themselves as solid matter than how do you go about disproving a photo like this if there is no 'technical' manipulation or difficulty to cite?
Do you then just call it evidence and let it go at that? What if it keeps knawing at you and you know it's not what it's being introduced as but at the same time don't know how to disprove it? This would drive me BATTY!
WELL SAID!!!
The thing is that we didn't take the picture. It's a COMPLETELY different story when you are the one who actually captures something. When you are faced with the challenge of trying to figure out someone elses evidence, it's not so easy. Like I said in my original post, I would love to say this was photoshopped...it really looks too good to be true. Sometimes though, it is real. There are always skeptics, NO MATTER WHAT!!! Us being a few of them, but I consider myself to be a skeptical believer. When I see other peoples evidence I question it full force. There is a program that you can pull up and load a photo into, it will show you what the camera settings were for the photo, and all the "records" of the photo. If the photo does not have this "fingerprint" behind it then it is a hoax right off the bat. Photos Without a fingerprint is a dead giveaway that it was manipulated with a program.
For the record I am not saying this is a ghost. With that said, I'm not saying it's NOT a ghost either.
Hey David - Is it possible to post that photo (both the zoom and original view) I sent you yesterday of door 13 from the Queen Mary? I'd be interested to hear everyone's take on that one as well.
lol ya thats what i was thinking cuz there faces are really close
I find another face under the TV. Not as clear as the little goblin between the girls legs (that sounded wrong). This could be a reflection, but the quality of the photo has my eyes finding many "faces" with-in.
:D yer killin' me Leslie :D
To low. The spirit plain is 3-4 feet above our ground.
Quote from: PPI Dave on January 25, 2008, 01:24:16 AM
Karl, I'm not sure we're looking at the same picture....let me explain
(http://www.pacificparanormal.com/images/karlface.jpg)
If you look at my diagram, the face in question clearly shows a beard, and dark colored eyes...and a bald head. Plus it's wearing glasses. You can barely see the glasses, but trust me they are there.
So sit on that Mr. Smartypants!
Bitch!
:D
hahaha :D
OH and i noticed something i maybe wrong but, look at the pic on his cell can u guys see a face????????i cant but then again it might be to small to see it idk lol
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/ghost3NNP_468x312.jpg)
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/zghost2NNP_468x308.jpg)
This picture is so fake, is isn't even funny. Who says that the pic was even taken with a cell phone. Anybody think that maybe it was photoshopped and then SENT to the guys phone? If you look at the little kid to the right, he doesn't even look like he was in the pic to begin with. The dimension, color, lighting, position, distance, balance......It looks like one of those projects you did as a kid in art class. Cut out pics from a mag and glue then onto construction paper.
I smell third grade all over again.........
lol ya
Hah! I didn't ressurrect this post! I was going to comment on it, but I was bringing up enough old posts already. My theory is that it was photo shopped then sent to the phone, I believe the "face" was added in.
Take a look at the two people who the face appears between. Use yourself as a right or left perspective. The girl on the left is standing with her legs side by side, her shoulders are fairly square. The girl on the right has one leg forward and one leg back, her one shoulder is actually behind the other girls. You can actually "prove" that her leg is back by looking at the way the light hits their legs. So according to their postures and the lighting, the girl on the rights back leg is back further then the legs of the girl on the left.
Now look closely at the "ghost," the face is in front of the WRONG leg. How can it be behind the back leg and in front of the front leg? Looks to me like whoever photoshopped it or whatever messed up.
I could be wrong, it could be real. However this leads me to believe it is fake.
There is , however, a very large spirit between the girl in black and the girl in white.... Looks to be a sauvignon blanc.
or it can be another little kid cuz look at its body its all black and the face it looks photoshopped and all grey to get ur mind off of theres a body to go with it ;D
Quote from: DarkReap3r on March 06, 2008, 08:34:27 PM
or it can be another little kid cuz look at its body its all black and the face it looks photoshopped and all grey to get ur mind off of theres a body to go with it ;D
Yea you can see the body, but I don't think there is anybody there in the origional picture. Think about it, look at that wild and crazy hair, that hair is in front of the forward leg, how could it not be in front of the back leg? Although... if you are going to photoshop it anyway, why not remove the body? Maybe if a real kid is there they could have their head against the back leg, smashing the hair, but I couldn't find a single pixel in front of the rear leg. Karl, you have some good picture viewing stuff right, what do you think?
Well, here's the best I could do with the camera phone image. I think you might be right. Granted, it's hard to tell, but I truly don't see anything in it that I would identify as a facial form--certainly nothing that comes out of the larger photo as comparatively clearer. Could be a forgery. I still hold to my analysis on page 1 of this thread: that the "photoshopped" face is really that of the crying kid (maybe from a picture taken a few minutes earlier), who was prevented from joining in on the group shot with the adults and had a tantrum. Dave offers some reasonable debate points to my analysis, but my gut instinct says it's the same kid.
(http://www.grossmont.edu/karl.sherlock/PPI/Evidence_Analysis/GhostChildFaceCellPhone.jpg)
lol its hard to see anything but karl, damn u get brownie points lol
'High Five'
Hum...it's like the grilled cheese of the Virgin Mary or the Pancake of Jesus.
In grade school we took apples, peeled them, made faces in them & set them
out to dry. They shrunk & turned into funny looking wrinkled faces. Maybe
the curtains where squished just so to make their very own shrunken face.
http://www.cooltoast.com/
oh, Ali Velshi from: www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/velshi.ali.html
appears to have copied Karl's look.
Quote from: jp3white on March 15, 2008, 12:33:08 AMoh, Ali Velshi from: www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/velshi.ali.html appears to have copied Karl's look.
And, that bastard beat me to a face lift! How I have longed for that youthful sparkle to return to my eyes again. :'(
cell phone pic thats all i have to say pics always suck from cell phones
Quote from: PPI Karl on March 15, 2008, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: jp3white on March 15, 2008, 12:33:08 AMoh, Ali Velshi from: www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/velshi.ali.html appears to have copied Karl's look.
And, that bastard beat me to a face lift! How I have longed for that youthful sparkle to return to my eyes again. :'(
Ummm...I have to say that Karl definatley has more fashion sense. And his glasses are way classier.
(This guy's eyebrows are racing to see who can reach the back of his neck first. I wonder how he sleeps at night. Hard to do if you can close your eyes.) :o
Quote from: PPI Tracy on March 21, 2008, 12:35:42 PM
Ummm...I have to say that Karl definatley has more fashion sense.
Thank you, Tracy. I had to do
something to make up for that terrible decade of the '70s. I actually owned--
gulp!--a slate blue pair of pocketless polyester bell-bottoms and a peach Qiana fly-collar shirt. (To be fair, I wore them together only once; pockets have since become a non-negotiable feature.)
I'm not even going to talk about the hair. (Talk about the ghostly face of a child!)
Quote from: PPI Karl on March 21, 2008, 01:59:17 PM
Quote from: PPI Tracy on March 21, 2008, 12:35:42 PM
Ummm...I have to say that Karl definatley has more fashion sense.
Thank you, Tracy. I had to do something to make up for that terrible decade of the '70s. I actually owned--gulp!--a slate blue pair of pocketless polyester bell-bottoms and a peach Qiana fly-collar shirt. (To be fair, I wore them together only once; pockets have since become a non-negotiable feature.)
I'm not even going to talk about the hair. (Talk about the ghostly face of a child!)
OH GOD! I'm going to have nightmares forever!!!
Hey, betcha didn't have a yellow pair of gauchos. Lord.....I looked like a
walking banana. (I think the word ?Gaucho? should only be the name of a Steely Dan album?.never a garment)
No gauchos. But, it wasn't long before I bought into the parachute pants craze in the early '80s. (At least they made sense in a winter clime and actually fit into the tops of my boots. ::))
Quote from: PPI Karl on March 21, 2008, 04:54:44 PM
No gauchos. But, it wasn't long before I bought into the parachute pants craze in the early '80s. (At least they made sense in a winter clime and actually fit into the tops of my boots. ::))
OMG. I totally forgot about that fashion faux pa from hell. Parachute pants. Weren't they the perfect compliment to the Members Only jacket? :P