• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Camera vs. Eye: Does One 'See' Something the Other Doesn't?

A

Anonymous

Guest
I've often wondered why ghosts, 'space men', UFO's, orbs ect. sometimes turn up on photographs yet are not visible to the eye.
If anyone can enlighten me with there theories I would be most grateful.
 
I suppose there could be several 'reasons' why this happens...

1. Because whatever is shown on the photo wasn't actually there in reality and was added later.

2. The film in the camera is able to 'see' a different range of light to our eyes.

3. The photographer was not looking for the anomaly caught on film, and was more concerned with setting up the shot or asking people to say cheese.

It's impossible to give one explanation for every case of this happening really. It's all down to a combination of all these and more plus lies, hoaxes and misinterpretation...
 
I guess that there are a range of possible explanations.

1) The phenomena isn't observable by the naked eye, either due to the short exposure of a camera (for fast moving events), or that the phenomena doesn't show up in "vsible" radiation. (CCD cameras are sensitive out to the near infrared. Try pointing a TV remote control at a video camera and push some of the remote control buttons.:) )

2) People see things in photo's that the photographer didn't remember when taking the photo because they were not out of the ordinary. For example, the reflection of a light in a window, or a suspended streetlamp that has turned into a UFO because the cable is not visible (out of focus) in the photo. I suspect that this is true of quite a few of these types of images.

3) Camera artifacts. E.G. the classic diamond shaped UFO (more likely to be an image of the cameras aperture stop). Another good one is to photograph a cloudy sky (sun just visible). In this case, you can frequently see a trail from the sun due to camera shake. This class could also include accidental multiple exposures.


4) Development artifacts, such as blemishes and genral cock-ups at the developers.

There are probably other classes of explanation, though I suspect that the majority of cases fall into the 2,3 and/or 4. Its case 1 where things become really interesting though.:)
 
The reason 'orbs' show up is because they are lense flare.
 
There are hundreds of these lens flare pictures on 'ghost picture' sites. "A rare purple orb" my arse, a common or garden optical artefact methinks. People actually believe this pap you know.
 
Just a thought,
If you take a photo, you're capturing something in a split second, something that we just don't see with the naked eye or in any other way I can think of. So if ghosts "live" on a slightly different plane to us and are only visible in certain instances, then what better way to see them than when time stands still, in a photo!
 
I've got a little family of lens flares lving at the bottom of my garden.
 
For anybody interested that owns a web cam start it up turn out the lights and point your remote control for your t.v. or whatever at it and press some buttons, you'll see that the cam can 'see' the infrared light that you can't yourself...........
 
Some people claim that ghosts can 'will' their image onto the film/cassette with electromagnetic forces.

Cameras have an easy time stopping motion at 1/1000 of a second or even less. So anything that could possibly be there one fraction of a second and gone the next would get captured on film but not be seen.

Opposite is also true: motion blur can make objects look transparent.

Light effects often come out different on film than the naked eye perceives them. This is especially true of directed light reflections (ie. distant headlights reflecting off a window or other shiny surface)

Different lenses have different focal lengths, so something that is out of focus (a tiny piece of dust a few inches or feet in front of the lens) can take on entirely new proportions and also appear transparent. These look like orbs, as does a lonely snowflake or a bit of tree/plant junk blowing about. Consider this: given the right lens and conditions, the blur effect can effectively elimate part of the image, say cages in a zoo.

Lastly, the human mind likes to apply patterns where they don't exist. People who photograph in cold weather or who photograph around smokers will often get intersting 'ghosts' resulting from bad photographing habits and a good imagination.
 
A while back, I made a post entitled, "Seeing Things: Is it all in your head?" in which I explained a theory I've heard that some of the fortean things we "see" (cryptids, UFOs, faeries, etc) may just be "pictures in our brain" that our eyes aren't seeing. The main topic of my post was ghosts as I have always seen researchers on "ghost documentaries" using equipment to measure disturbances in electromagnetic fields that are allegedly caused by spirits. It occurred to me that if a ghost can measurably control energy in the environment, perhaps they can do so with precision in a person's brain to make them think they are seeing something that isn't really there. For any skeptics who might not like the sound of this, "all in your head" can also mean psychological rather than paranormal. Of course that happens. The question is does what I mentioned above also happen? If so, I would suspect that there have been reported cases of people trying to take a picture of something bizarre that they thought they saw and then have "it" not show up in the picture after it was developed. Has this phenomenon ever been reported...let alone with sufficient frequency to support the theory I just presented? If not, then there is no reason to believe that people see vivid pictures that have been put into their mind by supernatural forces. Of course people "see things" as part of abnormal psychology, but I doubt it happens often enough for probability to mandate that one of the "seers" would have a camera on hand AND choose to use it.

I've done the best I can not to make this post sound foolish. I'm mainly interested in cryptozoology and can't discuss other fortean topics with the same eloquence.
 
The question is does what I mentioned above also happen? If so, I would suspect that there have been reported cases of people trying to take a picture of something bizarre that they thought they saw and then have "it" not show up in the picture after it was developed. Has this phenomenon ever been reported...let alone with sufficient frequency to support the theory I just presented? If not, then there is no reason to believe that people see vivid pictures that have been put into their mind by supernatural forces.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea, Ken, and you don't sound foolish at all!

I think a major problem would be getting people to admit that they took their photograph of a house/field/whatever because they saw "something odd". Surely, most (sane) people just wouldn't admit it and ignore the total lack of photographic evidence in their hands - probably putting the experience down to "too much sun" or something similar?

I doubt that many paranormal magazines would be interested in perfectly normal pictures whose photograpther swears featured a pixie when he took it.

Of course, if anyone wants to share their experiences (and photos) then please do so (not photos of uninteresting parts of the sea where a huge great whale was there just a second before - I have dozens of those already!)

Jane.
 
I doubt that many paranormal magazines would be interested in perfectly normal pictures whose photograpther swears featured a pixie when he took it.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm. Don't be too quick to discard that nub of an idea. You could treat it as a visualization exercise.

And the overhead costs would be low, low, low! Do you have any idea what a good sea monster picture will fetch these days?!! :p
 
Do you have any idea what a good sea monster picture will fetch these days?!!
Click to expand...

Years of ridicule and a five minute slot on a channel 5 programme about weird things
 
I know there is a theory that frequencies at about 19 hz, about the frequency of an overhead fan, is the natural frequency of your eyeballs. At this frequency, your eyeballs vibrate slightly causing 'ghostly' images etc that our brain automatically processes as human shaped. When fans have been switched off, ghosts have disappeared. Of course a fan would also makes you feel cold..
 
Daftbugger1 said:
I know there is a theory that frequencies at about 19 hz, about the frequency of an overhead fan, is the natural frequency of your eyeballs. At this frequency, your eyeballs vibrate slightly causing 'ghostly' images etc that our brain automatically processes as human shaped. When fans have been switched off, ghosts have disappeared. Of course a fan would also makes you feel cold..
Click to expand...

Yes ... The resonant frequency of the human eyeball is 19hz - just inside the range called "infrasound."

Although it was known that vibrations at this frequency could cause visual effects, engineer / teacher Vic Tandy was the first to link these effects to peripheral hallucinations and (possibly) ghost sightings.

Here's the primary reference on his discovery ...

The Ghost in the Machine
Vic Tandy & Tony Lawrence, Coventry University
Published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol.62, No 851 April 1998

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/ghost-in-machine.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top