FOAF Phone Ghost Picture

maxwell135

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
4
Likes
1
Points
17
#1
Some family freinds took this picture last week. Look between the legs, if you will, on the left hand side.

spook.jpg


Creepy...
 

norton51

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
130
Likes
5
Points
34
#2
It looks like a simulacrum caused by the pattern on the blinds behind the girls.
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,022
Likes
167
Points
114
#3
If it's not Photoshopped, or faked and it is a simulacrum, then it's an excellent one!

:shock:
 

maxwell135

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
4
Likes
1
Points
17
#4
It's real, I tell you

It isn't photoshopped, or faked. It has come from a phone, onto my phone then onto here. And I don't believe in ghosts!

I have avoided saying that this was the night before the girls grandfather's funeral.
 

maxwell135

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
4
Likes
1
Points
17
#6
Daily Mirror

Quite possibly. We only know one of the girls, so any of the othere could have sent it on to the papers.

What was said in the Daily Mirror?
 

Zilch5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,564
Likes
36
Points
54
#7
The "face" extends way below the curtain, so I think that does rule the simulacrum out. However, the face looks a lot like Bob Dylan on the Street Legal cover, soooo... :roll:

Or maybe it's just a neighbour perving?
 
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,018
Likes
5,262
Points
294
Location
Midwich
#10
Re: It's real, I tell you

maxwell135 said:
It isn't photoshopped, or faked. It has come from a phone, onto my phone then onto here. And I don't believe in ghosts!
Okay - playing devil's adocate here a little bit.

If someone sent you this and said 'look at the ghost' they must have viewed it on another from of hardware as, to my eyes (which are very good - unlike the rest of my body) the face is not noticeable when the picture is reduced to the size it would be, even on the largest phone camera screen, even when you know it's there. If it has been viewed on a PC it has therefore had the opportunity, although I'm not saying that's what has happened - just that the opportunity existed, to be shopped and uploaded again.

(edit - Of course the camera probably has a zoom facility which, depending on its quality, might allow you to pick out the face, but I'd still have to wonder what someone was doing zooming in on a girls knees in the first place - although, to each there own I suppose).

I'm also a little wary because if you shove this in photoshop and then magnify the face there is what appears to be a smudge defining the top of the ghosts head, bleeding into the left knee of the girl on the face's left, which seems to be out of character with the pixels around it. In fact, if you magnify the face and use the smudge tool in photoshop (at around 9 pixels) just above this spot in a right-left direction (as you look at the image) you can repeat the effect almost exactly.

Don't get me wrong. I love ghost photos, even the bullshit ones, and this is great. But I have reservations.
 

maxwell135

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
4
Likes
1
Points
17
#12
Done!

It seems I have been done up like a kipper.

I was shown the photo by my son on a mobile, and told it was taken last week.

It had been passed between a few mobiles at a family event. My son assured me he knows one of the girls (his girlfriends cousin).

But, like all things too good to be true, it is.

Just wait till I get home!
 

TheOrigDesperado

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#13
I don't see any fake. There's no evidence of tampering. The "smudge" over the leg is just the high JPG compression and the small child IS present on the mobile photo*

Nope, no fake, just a few shadows that look vaguely like a human face.

* Edit: To avoid argument on this point you need to understand how JPG compression works. On the photo of the guy holding the mobile, the photo on his phone is (obviously) very small but more to the point the colours are desaturated due to the reflection on the screen.

This means that the photo within the photo is (a) tiny and (b) contains very similar colours. When similar colours sit next to each other, and the resultant image is compressed, they blend into each other far more than if the colours were markedly different. In a small image like this, it can make a big difference.

In this case, it looks like the small child has vanished. He hasn't. It's the same photo as the large one.

In addition, there is some overlay text bottom right in the small photo (likely the photo number or date) which further confuses things. Clearly this isn't present in the downloaded version.
 

ginoide

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 7, 2001
Messages
778
Likes
91
Points
59
#15
the little girl is on the mobile screen, as far as i can tell. you have to look under the young woman's elbow. the black cushion is much more to the right than the small girl.
the fact is, i think the "ghost" is just another child, who appears a little unfocused/blurred/underexposed, but his position would explain that.

has anybody noticed that further on the left, at more or less the same height as the "ghost", there's a simulacrum of ET's skeleton? (parallele lines that look like a rack of ribs)
 

TheOrigDesperado

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#16
Ronson8 said:
Oh come on, the child is clearly not in the mobile picture and no amount of tech speak can change that.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

The child is without question in the small image - I would bet a large amount of money on it. As a digital artist who works with this stuff everyday it would be pretty embarrassing if I was wrong.

(and that's not even considering the obvious question - if you're trying to fake a ghost photo why cut and paste another photo of a child into the image then happily pose with the original for the press?)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,013
Points
284
#18
I'll go with OrigD on this one.

Anyway, that's just a sideshow (literally!) - lets not get diverted from the face amongst the legs.

If that is a fake, you have to give them marks for originality - most alleged ghost faces appear amongst other faces, or at least at a level where a face might be, not down on the floor.

Could be a child crawling around the floor, I suppose, but somehow the lighting doesn't look right.

Is the pic posted at the original size, or has it been reduced? (I know some mobiles now have as many pix as many cameras.) It would be interesting to see the pic (or at least the 'ghost' part) at maximum resolution.
 

TheOrigDesperado

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#19
Ronson8 said:
The child is without question in the small image
You seem to be an expert on the subject so could you post an enlargement of the mobile picture and point out where the child is?
I've compressed the original in a similar manner to the small photo of the mobile, and quickly straightened out the mobile photo.

The child in the small photo is actually clearer than in the compressed original.

<image no longer availble>
 

TheOrigDesperado

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#20
I think the face is just a shadow. There's no overlap and nothing to suggest it's anything else.
 

gyrtrash

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
1,142
Likes
32
Points
69
#21
Re: Ghost Picture

maxwell135 said:
Some family freinds took this picture last week. Look between the legs, if you will, on the left hand side.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh22 ... /spook.jpg

Creepy...

Hi Maxwell135

This same picture was posted on the 16th of Jan on another forum that I'm a member of. And the poster ('Willow' on that message board) said it was taken by one of his sister's friends, at New Year. Which would make it two weeks before the picture was taken by your family friends.

It seems to me that this pic is doing the rounds on the 'net at the moment, and everyone is claiming it to be taken by someone they know... a FOAF-pic!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,013
Points
284
#22
Re: Ghost Picture

gyrtrash said:
It seems to me that this pic is doing the rounds on the 'net at the moment, and everyone is claiming it to be taken by someone they know... a FOAF-pic!
So it's a mystery pic one way or another! 8)

(I take a lot of photos, maybe I took it... :D )
 

norton51

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
130
Likes
5
Points
34
#27
Zilch5 said:
The "face" extends way below the curtain, so I think that does rule the simulacrum out.
I don't see why that rules out a simulacrum. There may simply just happen to be an object on the floor at that point which is 'merging' with the curtain because the photo is rather low resolution. There is certainly an odd dark area below the 'face' which seems to be entirely devoid of detail. This might be a case of low latitude ie. loss of detail in dark areas of digital photos. As it doesn't occur in adjacent areas, that's why I suggested that there was a dark object on the floor there, behind the girls.

If you cover the dark area under the 'face', it looks more like a simple fold in the curtain. The 'face' shape is caused by the chance alignment of the trousers on either side.

I've looked at hundreds of ghost photos over the years and very few are fake. The majority are just misinterpretations of patterns of light.

If you try to enhance the photo it just produces artefacts that weren't there to start with. For that reason, I wouldn't regard it as evidence for anything.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
29,185
Likes
14,887
Points
309
#28
When someone who is actually in the photo owns up to being in it, will anyone believe them? Or is it caught in a cycle of lies and half-truths?!
 

ufonerd

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
87
Likes
2
Points
37
#29
i now that not many people are going to believe this but one of the girls in the photo lives in my village. she is friends with my niece. I was told of this photo by my niece (who knows that i am interested in the paranormal etc) she told me not last week or the week before but about 4months ago. there is ayoung crying girl in the photo she is a sister to one of the girls in the photo. alas i never got the chance to see the photo before it was in the paper last week but when i asked my niece if it was the one she had seen 4 months ago she said yes and told my that it had not been tampered with. The person in the paper who said that he had taken the photo doesnt even know any of the girls their families have made complaints to the paper for printing a photo of them without permission.
 

Kezz2007

Fresh Blood
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
22
Likes
1
Points
19
#30
No offence, but that picture is definatly a fake. It's either a real child, OR they've photoshopped it.
 
Top