A few days ago I received this photo apparently containing a ghost. The person wrote (I have paraphrased this a bit):
“This photo was taken at my home. My daughter was standing. We were playing “Pin the tail on the donkey”. I had just spun her. I was standing in front of her taking the photo, my sister is in the background sitting on the other couch and our dog is standing next to my daughter. There was no one sitting there (on the couch). You will see the image of my deceased boyfriend clearly sitting on the sofa and later surrounding my daughter. Please let me know what you think.”
Any ideas?
Richard Wiseman 
Bad memory? (Of the neural kind, not the digital one.)
Seriously, I don’t see any face whatsoever to identify who that person getting up from the sofa (a later surrounding the girl) was. Of course, it goes without my saying that, for a party photo, it’s a longer-than-normal exposure taken with unsteady hands, and in such circumstances all things tend to appear ghostly.
hey,,, I do not see any ghost in the picture. Probably, the picture clearly has bee a little confused bit. It just shows the previous motion of the girl which is now standing!!!! Deja Vu….
As Navneeth and Name have said, the picture clearly shows the same girl, first sitting and then standing (and having waved her arms in the process). The jeans and shirt are the same in the girl and the “ghost”. Watch out those long exposures or you’ll wear out the ghostbusters’ phone!
Actually, the colour of their shirts seem different to me — the one getting up is wearing grey, while the girl’s is black. It was probably some other person who got bored and decided to go somewhere else. 🙂
Probably photographer played with the shutter speed…
I don’t understand this “surrounding the girl” thing — it just looks to me like the girl moved her arms. You can see her hat off to one side as well. I agree with earlier commenters who said that the person sitting looks like it could be the girl as well — similar clothing, though more translucent and harder to tell color precisely — and I certainly see nothing like a face that could be used to identify it as the boyfriend.
The shirt lengths are different – it’s not the same person.
It’s just a long exposure that ends with a flash. The ghost is just the girl moving during the long exposure. Nothing to see here, move along.
Well, I don’t think it’s the same person, but otherwise, yes. The photographer just didn’t remember (to be polite) the person getting up from the sofa. This is the worst of all the “ghost” photos.
The description makes no sense. Why is there no “donkey” to be seen, nor seemingly any wall high enough nearby to hold such a thing? Why are there no other pictures of the event/area to go along with this solitary sample? Are we expected to believe that the three people mentioned are the only three people at this party? We don’t even have a reference image of the mentioned boyfriend to compare to with the offered “clearly” assumption.
And why is the *entire* image so blurry? I mean, what *isn’t* ghosting itself given such a long exposure? It even looks like the woman’s thigh is *behind* the knee of the guy on the couch. Is there any chance a similar picture was taken of the boyfriend, and this is just a glitch with the camera’s memory card? There just aren’t enough pieces of the puzzle being supplied, just every other crappy “ghost” picture we get around here.
Another idiot who doesn’t know how to use their camera!
totally a waste of time
I agree! Is this person claiming it’s a ghost picture serious or joking? Obviously double or more exposures-note her party hat “ghost” for example!
Girl spins, loses balance, sits down briefly, gets up again, moves hat, takes arms back down. All captured in one photo.
I for one am disappointed in all of you! The poor girl has no friends and the only ones there are the ones that could not find a reason to not be gone some where else….there can’t be a donkey…one word why PETA…so they are using an invisible donkey {this is where they stole the invisible monkey for the car TV ad soon to launch}. The boy friend ghost lost his head….therefore no face and leaking ectoplasm all around the girl. The arms are of the girls guardian angel who is doing her best to make the girl look good by getting her hat straight for the photo and direct her to the invisible donkey’s butt….she has to win it’s her birthday after all…..it is a shame even the boy friend ghost couldn’t even find an excuse to get out of the house…….any questions?
good points.
thank you …he he he…
Very funny .Thanks, needed a good laugh today! 🙂
I think the girl’s Aura indicates that she has great trials to face in her life….. Clearly that’s what’s showing in the photo
🙂
Hmmm…have to say I’m not entirely convinced! If you look at other images in the photo – the candles stands, wall pictures, party cups etc are all effected by an un-steady camera hand! That said, I can see the image of the ‘person getting up from the couch’ who seems to be a male – I really explain this! The only logical conclusion I can come up with would be that the settings on the camera have been adjusted…Perhaps there were spirits in the house that night – Jack Daniels and maybe even Gordons!! 🙂
I often take similar photographs.
The technique I use is using a flash along with a long opening of the shutter and a nearly closed iris.
The clue is in the words “I had just spun her”.
My god, there are 32 obvious errors in this picture! Will YOU be the first to spot all 32?
LOL…… :}
“A few days ago..”
This photo was taken in Sep 2008.
The ‘ghosting’ or ‘blurring’ is caused by the photographer using a 1/4second exposure, any movement continues to be recorded for that duration. (Including her spinning, the woman on the sofa, and boyfriend on the sofa)
It was taken using a Canon PowerShot SD500, low-end point-and-shoot camera.
So, this is either a hoax attempt, or a severely ill person who believes they have just taken this photograph.
“A few days ago” was Professor Wiseman’s comment regarding the date he received the photo – nowhere does it say the picture was taken recently.
From the EXIF data-
DateTime – 2008:09:09 19:01:21
ExposureTime – 1/4 seconds
Flash – Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, red-eye reduction mode
Why do people never send the high resolution version!? To see the details below you will need to zoom in:
The long exposure time allows for some movement and blurring – as seen around the static objects on the right of the image. The flash finally catches a more ‘solid’ appearing image of the girl.
The blurry arms around her head are the girl’s own arms – the blurry arm on her right is wearing the same bracelet as her, same white painted fingernails (as seen on her left hand) and has a whiter blur from the ‘tail’ she is holding.
The figure on the sofa is not the girl – The flash would come last so she finished standing and she seems to have a steady stance at that point. The focus is also roughly on the girl, so she must have been standing during focussing which would be at the start of the exposure. 1/4 second is also probably not enough time for her to get up from the sofa.
The figure on the sofa has a top with sleeves that appear to reach their elbow on the right arm – the girl’s sleeves are much shorter.
Between the girl’s legs, just above her right knee is a black blob – maybe consistent with a shoe of a seated person.
The person on the sofa appears to lean forward to get up while the photo is taken – their lower half is clearer than their top half – this movment has made them less clear than say the person seated at the back. When the flash is fired their head appears to be behind the girl.
In my opinion – there is another (living) person on the sofa and the long exposure time allowing for movement could well explain everything. Why the photographer ‘forgot’ there was someone else? Either because it was taken 2 years ago – or a case of the porkies . . .
Analysis seems spot on to me. Crucially, no one in orange needed for this image to be 100% explained. I feel sorry for the photographer who clearly wants this to be evidence of a persistent spirit – sometimes it’s better to not ask for “proof” when a belief is cherished and flawed.
there’s a small demon in the lower right of the picture.
long exposure
Long exposure, unless candles have ghosts too?
I took this photo with a Digital Camera 2 yrs ago, Sept. 2008, only 2 months after my boyfriend passed. You cannot see the donkey on the wall because it was behind me. I spun my daughter with my arms, I was not spinning. Has anyone ever played that game? The person pinning the tail gets spun. When I backed away from my daughter to take her photo, thats when this shot happened. There are many other photos of my party. No one was wearing orange nor two tone jeans. I did provide the Richard with another photograph of my boyfriend wearing the same orange hoodie taken a year prior to his death. There was no one sitting on that sofa. My daughter was standing ready to play the game. I thought this was a serious blog and was wondering if someone could confirm or just explain, but clearly it was a mistake. I wouldnt have put him nor my child out there to be made fun of. Lots of other things had been happening in my home to beleive it was him. Thanks for your your time Richard and everyone for your comments.
“orange hoodie” as in grey top, yeah?
Can you post some more of the party photos somewhere for us to see? – preferably the photo before and the photo after this one, and any other from the same sort of angle, or showing other people at the party?
Are there other photos you have which you think show the same thing?
Understand, Chloespetx, that the warm, fuzzy term “scientific consensus” is often reached by the process of trial-by-fire. People are just bluntly going on what they know, and the less they know the less willing they are to jump to the same conclusion you have.
It makes no sense for you to say the person sitting is wearing anything orange or two-tone. As has been pointed out many times, this photo was obviously a long exposure that captured a *lot* of movement, which is going to show as semi-transparent “ghostly” effects. Provide us with photos of all the other people at the event and it should be trivial to spot the person who is sitting in this picture.
@Chloespetx, please accept my deepest sympathy for your loss even if it has been several years makes the loss of a loved one no less. I am sure your daughter is just lovely and has many friends and celebrating so soon after your loss must have been difficult. I have no credentials in photography or advanced sciences….so I’m the one around here that usually goes in the opposite direction and towards comedy….. so far out there, too stupid to even consider….but understand an open forum like this brings in many from all walks of life and back grounds and life experiences, so you will see many types of response….some serious some not, some that will believe and agree and that will not…. just prepare yourself….. take what you will and forget or ignore the rest….but don’t let it hurt your feelings. You as a person are an unknown to those here and so you as a person are NOT being attacked…. on the other side it then is very easy to forget that there is a person with feelings attached. Just don’t give other people the power to hurt your feelings. Hang in there.
Was there anyone in the party wearing a gray shirt and ordinary jeans? Because that’s what the person on the sofa is wearing. The orange you are seeing in the photo is the afterimage of your daughter’s hands moving, not a person in an orange hoodie. I’m not sure any blog can rightly be called serious, but I’m not sure where you got the idea that Richard or those who follow his blog took ghost sightings seriously as paranormal events. We are mostly skeptics, and we look for examples that do not require unproven supernatural phenomena. The obvious explanation here is that this picture is perfectly ordinary, which it appears to be, but that your memory is faulty (as all of our memories are) and/or your interpretation of what you are seeing is faulty due to the overwhelming emotion involved for you.
Yeah. Let’ s all make fun of the grieving woman who who took a dodgy photo. Nice one.
Re the colour difference, I would have thought it’s due to the distortion caused by the movement.
Oh PLEASE!!! If ever there was a clear case of a long exposure, it’s this one. You’d have to be incredibly naive to think it could be anything else. If anyone is seriously claiming this is a ghost photo then it’s a clear hoax…
@monkey: lol @ “there’s a small demon in the lower right of the picture” 🙂
The photographer identifies the shirt as orange. I see the figure she’s talking about (an orange figure leaning towards the camera), but it’s slightly disproportionate. Instead, I see a grey shirted individual leaning forward as if to get up off the couch. The orange shirted figure could be attributable to the orange(ish) couch and one of the cushions filling out the shape of the torso and the head.
It seems clear to me the jeans don’t belong to the daughter in the photo. The person on the couch could be someone who walked off mid-photo(e.g., from a flash and a long exposure time; the blur lines from the daughter and the flash in the glass behind her seem to support this hypothesis). Because of memory’s reconstructive nature, it seems possible that someone may have been sitting on the couch, despite the photographer’s best attempts at recollecting the day accurately.
The ‘ghost’ does appear to have some mass judging by it’s position on the sofa. What does a ghost weigh?
Why is it we are asked to explain this “ghost photo”
You are assuming that there is a ghost and somehow we have to disprove it?
Why would you shift the burden of proof on to the skeptic?
Never mind the ghost, what about the clear evidence of ball lightning to the right of the girl’s ear?
I don’t think the figure on the sofa is the girl before she was standing. the girl is wearing a T-shirt with very short sleeves, whereas the figure on the sofa has sleeves rolled up to the elbows. However, the figure on the sofa doesn’t seem any more ghostly than the girl herself. If this is a genuine picture, it’s just a bad photo…an overly long exposure with people moving while it was taken. I suggest the figure on the sofa is a real person who happened to move as the picture was taken.
Of course, we don’t have any access to any of the real facts, but the long history of such photos gives us no reason to bother with any expressions of emotional outrage on this blog by the person who sent the photo. Indeed, I would question why someone would even send a picture to a blog run by a skeptic and read by other skeptics, and then express outrage that people are skeptical about the photo.
As someone else has pointed out, the so-called ghost appears to have mass. Why would a ghost even need to sit down? To rest his tired back perhaps? Note also that the “ghost” is using his hands and arms to help lever his body forwards, perhaps prior to standing up.
File under hoax.
Well to my eyes, it appears this person is the same person standing up. And the reason the shirt is lighter sitting down is because the shutter captured it and anything captured before the final shot is going to be lighter and lighter… Not to say that supernatural stuff can’t happen, just to say that this isn’t one of them.
Whatever it is, it’s definitely not a ghost.
You can tell because the dog in the picture isn’t barking at it and, as we all know, dogs can see ghosts.
Further to my previous post, the person on the sofa may well be easing themself backwards rather than easing themself forwards. Either way, it begs the question of why a massless entity would need to lever themself in any direction. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that this is a real person.
The plate of food and the red cup in the far left corner of the room appear to be closer to the ghost than they are to the girl sitting on the sofa!
There’s no orange hoodie in the shot. It’s just her arms. They are lit by a flash that emits white light for maybe 1/1000 of e second, then for the remaining exposure time by incandescent light with a much warmer colour. Her right arm (picture left) is also lit by the window; that explains the difference in colour between her to “ghost arms”.
God, I hate skeptics. Even if it isn’t a ghost photo (which it probably isn’t, but I’m rational enough not to dismit it immediately), doesn’t mean that ghosts and other related paranormal phenomena don’t exist. Skeptics always try to find reasons why some things can’t be instead of opening their minds to possibilities. Some things cannot be explained.
And many things *can* be explained. And many of the things that can’t be explained *now* will eventually be understood. All it requires is using your brain instead of jumping to conclusion that something is fantastical because you don’t have all the facts. What is more likely, a magician can teleport a lion or he tricked you into *thinking* he did? What is more likely, a non-specific after-life hypothesis or a bad photo?
I have seen ghost photo’s before on this site, so I know I should first whatch the photo before reading the redicules story. What I see is a photo with a too long shutter, so movement is shown. To me it looks like the girl held her arms up first and was slightly to the left. She moved to the right and put her arms down. In the meantime somebody threw a pillow on the couch. What does the girl have in her hand anyway?
I think it is the tail she is trying to pin on the donkey.
Long exposure. That’s done with a slow shooter. You can try this at home.
(What it does, it keeps the throttler opened while you take the picture, so any move you make will be registered by the film) Maybe the next one could be a real ghost, but not this one.
Apply Occam’s razor. Which is simpler, & therefore more likely- camera abberation or the spirit of a dead loved one returning during a party game to wave his hands around? No contest!
Occam’s Razor will always look for the simplest explanation, though some things are not as they at first appear and therefore not the simplest explanation. Take a look at certain optical illusions which trick the eyes into believing that a picture is moving. The simplest explanation, at first glance, would probably be that the image is indeed moving.
I remain unconvinced by this photo, but am not stupid enough to dismiss it instantaneously. Do ghosts exist – maybe. Do we have any evidence – not enough to convince a skeptic. If there were 10 skeptics in a black, darkened room, how many would have the idea of either turning on the light or pulling the curtains back? None – because the room is too dark for them to see anything, and if they cannot see anything, then the light switch or the curtain cannot really exist. Even if the light switch or curtains were pointed out to them, they would deny that they didn’t really exist and were just the eyes playing tricks on them again. Wake up and smell the coffee – but coffee doesn’t smell of anything until you take the lid off the jar.
LOL
Actually, the 10 skeptics, if they were scientifically minded, would begin to examine the room, using protocols designed to provide objective evidence. At some point the objective information would result in the discovery of the light switch or the curtain, I am sure.
Your straw man example is ludicrous. It was skeptical thinking that led to the discovery all of the things not readily apparent to the human senses (like oxygen, germs, the atom) that in many cases had been attributed by non-skeptics to supernatural forces.
Richard,
the 10 skeptics would not have searched for the light switch or the curtains as they had no proof that they had even existed. They might have eventually found the light by analysing the darkness, though this would have probably been the first time that a skeptic had ever seen the light (not a biblical euphemism by the way).
Not all non-skeptics attribute things they do not understand to ‘supernatural forces’. The inexplicable is not the unexplainable. Non-skeptics are generally open-minded and tend to look for alternative explanations, realising that God (another force which cannot possibly exist because the impossible cannot be measured) does not play dice. Was it not skeptics who openly mocked people who maintained they had seen what we now know today as mountain gorillas, calling them delusional! In the 1930s, when mountain gorillas were ‘scientifically proven’ to exist, did the skeptics admit that they were wrong? Did they apologise? Did they apologise to those they openly mocked about another creature that couldn’t possible exist – the duck-billed platypus?
The skeptics role in life is to debunk everything that they don’t understand, can’t test, or are afraid of. Skeptics don’t like speculative thinking, and indeed, speculative thinking has contributed to virtually all of the greatest discoveries.
I honestly believe that, generally speaking, because of the closed mindset and blindness of the skeptic and their inability, or refusal, to ‘think out of the box’, along wih their general smugness, that skeptics do not usually make life-changing scientific discoveries.
Lastly, by searching for supernatural explanations (or other things not readily apparent to the human senses or closed minds), instead of ignoring them or attempting to explain them away, such searching could indeed lead to discoveries – especially by people who have the ability to rationally think laterally.
Mot —
Thanks for your reply. I always appreciate any attempt to break the record for number of logical fallacies in a comment. Yours is clearly in the running.
As as skeptic, I base my conclusions upon objective evidence, which is evidence resulting from a protocol that gives the same result to all observers regardless of their personal beliefs. This process is the foundation of all scientific thought.
I am skeptical of all conclusions based upon personal, subjective observation, as they are have been shown through history to be unreliable measure of reality.
Because my conclusions represent the collective consensus of all, you consider me close-minded. As an alternative, you define an open-mind as one that agrees with your personal opinion, regardless of the objective evidence available.
You ask the skeptic to consider all possibilities. I agree, but unlike you, I “consider” them by testing them against the objective knowledge of science. These tests inform me that there a low probability that the highly verified laws of physics are wrong and ghosts exist. There are an infinite number of very low probability possibilities as explanations. None of us worry much about them, unless motivated to do so by a personal prejudice. This attitude is the true definition of a closed mind — one that rejects fact in order to maintain a fantasy.
Again, thank you for your reply.
Richard,
Thanks for the reply. I think that you misunderstand me, or that you do not respect the opinions of non-skeptics like myself. I generally agree with the scientific method of study (I have 2 science degrees – a BSc. & an MSc.) and accept that science has revealed some marvellous wonders. However, science cannot explain everything and just because some ‘thing’ is proven, or not proven, by science does not mean that it does not exist. I do not know whether ghosts exist or not, but am open-minded enough to consider the possibility. If such things do exist then what they might be is open to speculation. They may, after all, merely be some kind of replay recording on an atmosphere or surroundings facilitated by certain environmental circumstances (like a tape recording), and this scenario may indeed be replicated some day by physical science if such circumstances could be replicated. Physics may reveal that ‘time’ as we know it (being a physical property) may allow, in certain circumstances or situations, for a different time zone to become a temporary perceiveable reality. Again, just because something is not understood under current (or perhaps undiscovered) laws, does not mean that is does not exist. It is the ardened skeptic who will try to explain away anything which doesn’t fit into the current findings of science, however limited they may be, or is influenced by their own beliefs or prejudices.
People have seen strange lights in the sky. Are they beings from an advanced civilisation, tests of military prototypes, atmospheric anomolies? I do not know, but people have a lot of fun speculating and providing their own theories of such things. I think it is wrong for skeptics to ruin the fun, adventure and thought-provoking specualtion of such mysterious occurences.
Those seeking speculation of paranormal (‘beyond normal’) phenomena have different perspectives from skeptics. The speculators ask ‘how’ and ‘why’ and look to such phenomena as a mystery which is fun to solve (even though it may never be proven); the skeptics dismiss anything they don’t currently understand as outright impossible. Paranormalists welcome the views of skeptics, as it adds another dimension to the debate in the seeking of possible explanations, or even truth; the skeptics like the sound of their own voices, dismiss anything they don’t understand as bunkum, whilst in the process offer inadequate (and mostly scientifically unproven) explanations as to why such scientific anomolies cannot possibly exist.
My mind remains open to possibilities. I am proud to say I am not a skeptic.
Mot —
Thanks again for the reply.
You bring to mind the oft famous phrase: “It is ok to be open-minded — it is not ok to be so opened minded your brains fall out!”
You suggest one leave themselves open to the possibility that ghosts exists. Or that strange lights in the sky represent visitors from another part of the universe. Or that time-travel is possible.
The skeptic does leave themselves open to such possibilities — when the objective evidence presents itself. But your position is in reality much different — you desire such things to be true, and reject all objective evidence to the contrary.
In advance of your objection to this let me note — every, and I mean every supernatural and paranormal experience describe by human beings is always a reflection of the time, place and cultural they live in. Religious people see angels, post-Victorians see ghosts, 20-century humans borne into the air and space age see UFO’s. Modern physics brings us time travel. Brain science and modern magic brings us telepathy.
First comes the fantasy, then comes the search for evidence. This is not how a skeptic works. He or she realizes that every non-skeptic rejects the supernatural of the past, but embraces the supernatural of the present. Do you believe in dragons? Many used to! Why not?
I would like to offer one direct disagreement with what you have said: paranormalists welcome the views of skeptics. This is not true. As founder of a skeptics group, and one who communicates with other groups, as a rule those engaging in paranormal research reject all skepticism.
Case in point: I have never met a paranormal research willing to calibrate their equipment, something I demand in any research. In other words, if your experimental protocol detects ghosts, telepathy, whatever, first show me that it correctly rejects non-ghosts, non-telepathy, etc.
It has never happened because it cannot happen, because none of things exist. You cannot claim to detect something if you cannot prove that you can show its absence.
Again, thanks for your reply.
Richard,
Thanks again for your reply. Again you leave me utterly bemused that you dismiss everything as an irrational belief which cannot be proved by science. Let me first of all assure you that I am not so open-minded that my ‘brains have fallen out’, nor do I suggest that you are so closed-minded that one half of your brain has still yet to scientifically prove that the other actually exists.
You are correct in your assertion that many paranormal experiences are a reflection of the time. Many, not all. Yes we had sightings of airships before we had airships and planes before we had planes; their were abductions by fairies way before there were abductions by alien beings, etc. It should be noted though that flying discs were witnessed by Columbus, cave paintings displaying flying discs were drawn thousands of years ago by stone-age man, as well as the many biblical (whoops, sorry) and historical references. I am not stating these as evidence for their existence; they may have been nothing more than evidence of an active imagination which open-minded thinkers then brought into reality – or they may have been flying objects which defied the current laws of this planet – such as has been witnessed by astronauts, military personell, caught on radar, chased by planes. This, of course, is not proof of their existence, but you will probably agree that if some of these multiple sightings were merely shared hallucinations, then such shared-brain activity would be unacceptable to the accepted laws of science and therefore totally ignored and filtered out by skeptics. Religious people still see angels today, post-victorians still see ghosts. Telepathy, clairvoyance, ESP, psychokinesis, etc.?: again, I do not know, but I still find it fascinating enough to postulate my own theories of their existence, or lack of it. Some of it might be serendipity or trickery, but I still find it darned interesting. If I had a closed mind I would totally reject such ideas because either I didn’t understand them, didn’t want to understand them, or my mentality would forbid me to investigate them because such phenomenon did not fit into my current schema (you of all people should relate to this).
Humans – maybe other animals too, it’s possible – have a mental function known as the ‘screen of prejudice’ which you may be familiar with. The screen of prejudice allows the mind to edit out information which does not fit into currently held beliefs (the politician, for example, may see how many crimes are being solved by the police, but their mind will automatically filter out the increasing number of crimes being committed). So (and this applies equally to skeptics and non-skeptics) the screen of prejudice will automatically edit out any evidence of analgous phenomena inconsistent with one’s beliefs, whilst reinforcing any data consistent with beliefs. This would also apply equally to the ardent believer in the Loch Ness Monster (for example) whose mind will filter out any evidence which does not support their argument (such as the loch being scanned by sonar regularly, being filmed most of the time without Nessie raising an eyebrow above the water-line), yet highlight information which supports their belief that a living relic lives in the loch (such as the numerous sightings so far this year and other anecdotal ‘evidence’).
Do I desire such things to be true? That is an unfounded supposition you make which you project incorrectly onto my psyche. You do me a great disservice. I am interested in mysteries, I like to solve puzzles, I find the subject fascinating – this is not a desire for such things to be true, nor is it a rejection of all objective evidence to the contrary; indeed it is the total opposite. I would suggest that this is the reverse projection of your reality, projected onto me, that you desire such things which you do not agree with to be false. The problem with skeptics is that they are totally convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong, case closed, minds closed. My stance is that I am interested and would like to find out the truth – though have no vested interest, one way or the other. I welcome debates from skeptics as it allows other trains of thought which I had not previously considered. It is easier for the skeptic to sweep such things under the carpet.
Do I believe in dragons? Of course I do; don’t you? I could take you to Indonesia to meet one. Be warned though, komodo dragons don’t smell very nice, and they’ve got a bit of a temper! There may also be a dragon in the loch or undiscovered dragons living in the sea: I don’t know, it’s possible I suppose. New species and newly-discovered-previously-thought-extinct species are turning up on a fairly regular basis. Just because science had declared the ceolocanth as having been extinct for the last 70 million years or so (before being unexpectedly caught in somebody’s net) didn’t mean that it had been extinct, as science had previously presumed. Science has been wrong before and will be wrong again. But at least some scientists have the balls to look into discrepencies and try to join the pieces of the jigsaw instead of putting them back into the box and hiding them in the attic.
By the way, I do believe time travel to be possible, and I’m not alone; have you ever read any of Stephen Hawking’s work? He hasn’t proved it’s possible to time travel, but at least he has the imagination to postulate such a theory. It may some day turn out that the calculations within the laws of physics and relativity are very slightly wrong, or that such laws may even be shifting or slowly evolving (an idea which is currently being studied very seriously by scientists), and that it will, perhaps, be possible to travel in time. I find this idea fascinating. You find it impossible to comprehend. You will dismiss the possibility until it is scientifically proven to your satisfaction.
By the way, you can’t disprove a negative; nor can you test laws which are not yet fully known or recognised. Let me repeat something which somebody (a skeptic) had once written ” It has never happened because it cannot happen, because none of [these] things exist. You cannot claim to detect something if you cannot prove that you can show its absence.” Enough said. I would say ‘point proven’ but nothing is as it seems – until it is fully understood.
By the way, I respect and understand your opinions. We’re all programmed to function in different ways. Life would be so predictable without differences of opinion. I should be writing a report for my university instead of debating on a unrelated subject. Still, thank you once again for your valued opinions. You have certainly given me some food for thought.
Some people just have too much time.
Modern science is limited to the parameters that we consider logical and true, something which is considered a phenomenon today may be perfectly justified in the future. Today, scientists have managed to teleport protons and astronauts have time travelled a fifth of a second forward in space. How do we know this? Because its been proved with tests. How do we know the tests are calibrated properly? We don’t. It is possible to get a perfect score but on an imperfect test, nothing apart from maths can be proven true.
Science and scientific theories have been rejected throughout time as people do not like change, even if there is more evidence supporting the newer theory than the old. A good example would be Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
As for the light switch, could the scientists have a theory that, as they are in a room there is a light switch, and then search the room to find the evidence supporting that theory. Or would they approach the scenario neutrally, looking for evidence to support or disprove the theory. A scientist would look at the results based from the evidence and then create a conclusion based solely on the results, excluding all personal beliefs, which would then lead to a non bias conclusion.
Applying the non bias method to this instance would mean that the scientists would take pictures or people in rooms with different variables such as light, temperature, time of day, sound etc and then look at the pictures and relate them to the conditions they were taken in and then base a conclusion on the results. A solid conclusion may or may not be ambiguous as they could be evidence supporting both outcomes.
Nothing can be proven not to exist, only proven to exist. Just because I do not have an orange in my room it does not mean that there isn’t one in my kitchen. I believe in aliens even though there is no scientific evidence supporting, the reason being is because the universe is so vast, it is illogical to believe that planet earth is the only planet with living creatures.
So, until proven otherwise every belief must be considered true, although they could be evidence supporting the belief to be false, compared to the universe, the tests that we undertake are so small that they is no way that they could produce accurate evidence supporting any theory that is outside maths, even still science cannot explain everything as we are limited to a logical axis. Therefore to extend the parameters of our understanding of our universe and its contents, it is necessary to be illogical and irrational.
As for this photo, it’s probable a long exposure shot.
Really? What a waste of a post.
I thought camera manufacturers were just trying to make cameras with more megapixels for us. I didn’t realise they now had the added function of capturing things invisible to the naked eye. They should advertise that more…
Why sir, are you wasting time and netspace on such fakes?
I think your boyfriend has an inappropriate relationship with your daughter. And the shutter speed was way off.
my camera will produce a similar effect when I put it in “twilight portrait” mode. It exposes the scene for 5+ seconds and captures all movement in the frame, including unwanted vibrations on the part of the photographer. Perhaps the mother in this post just had her camera set to a mode she did not intend. How does the mother know it is the boyfriend? There is no face visible. Plus, the “ghost” is clearly wearing the same t-shirt, jeans, and nail polish that the daughter is wearing. Take a look at the ghostly fingers surrounding her head…white nail polish. This would be caused if the girl stumbled and moved her hands during the exposure of the photograph, as would happen if one were spun blindfolded. The camera simply captured her movements.
i declare this myth…busted
just read previous posts….maybe i overexaggerated exposure time…don’t crucify me over it.
i see other have come to the same conclusions…excellent…i stroke my beard with pleasure
Wishful thinking, sorry.
I’d say that this picture was double-exposed. This is especially likely if taken with a disposable camera. A picture was taken with the person on the couch sitting on the couch, then another with the person in the blindfold. The two are combined. I’ve done this quite a bit on purpose with similar results.
I had no idea my photo would have this thread. I didnt mess with the shutter. I pushed the buttona and that’s what it took. And for the person that thinks and posted that my boyfriend has/had an innapropriate relationship w/my daughter, shame on you. She is a minor. I posted this photo for some real answers and I appreciate the honesty. The jokes I do not. We loved him and still miss him. Skeptics or not, at least respect that. Richard, if you can, delete my photo. I didnt know it would be critized or mocked like this. All I wanted was your opinion on it. Thanks.
I wouldn’t mock you. You must realise though, that there are certain people, they’re called skeptics; they will try to find reasons why things cannot be. If they cannot find a reason they will turn their comments to mocking,l ridicicule and abuse. If I was you, I would feel sorry for them.
It’s definitely not the same person sat on the settee as stood up – it’s clearly not a female. However the top is not orange is it? It looks grey to me. I’d love to see is the pic of your boyf in the same top – can Richard post this please?
I am curious as to why a ghost would need the remote control for the telly
the film of the camera is not fully set up, so two different poses are exposed on the some shot..
this is not a digital camera, isnt it
Long exposure shot. Can be done with SLR’s and most compact cameras. expose the shot for a long period of time leave a trial of movement from the subject, search for star trails.
You have a great site here. I really enjoyed it.
wow…..so beautiful….!!!
obviously a long exposure followed by flash. I mean, the “boyfriend” has the same clothes on as the girl. pretty dumb.
Its just a photographic technique….
Adjusting the shutter speed would lead to this image..
it loooks fake
the sofa is sinked in and somebody was really there there wasn’t no ghost .
SERIOUSLY MA, ther’s sumthing wrong or creepy in d foto.. and shoudnt b ignord…
hes wearing a gray hans t shirt and jeans his head is by the womans stomach his nose is kinda pointy and his eyes are dark brown his hands are behind his back hes wearing a pair of black boots he looks hispanic to me his eyes are lookin by the tv well thats what i see hope that helps and i see sprits 2 so dont feel scared there like us except there dead
Alot of people dont belive the picture cause they never experience it.i was a non belever till i moved with a friend in compton.each time he took a picture there was always a sprit in every picture.once i kept seeing sprits everyday it got more weird i started hearing footsteps and voices
Don’t listen to any of them. I think this is a great oppertunity for you to communicate to your boyfriend. This is very spiritual and it will help you a lot. It may make you scared or emotional .
Ok I jus need someone that can help me I think I have a ghost a few months ago I took a selfie an when I checked it there was a ghost there I took another one another ghost then the other nite I was watching tv an this thin pale white thing went in front of my face when I went ta swat it it jus disappeared could someone help I have the photos if the ghosts
I got couple questions I took these photo
One was red shadow the next photo
There a circle and around circle more little one. Last photo blue line look like 15
He’s her protector 🙂 that’s what that means
I have one on my couch too
I have a ghost picture I took two to make sure,
What does it mean when my daughter took a picture of herself in her room and other face appears in the picture on her shirt other then herself