Ghost pics
Prowler99
a picture of a ghost, either intentionally or accidentally, with a digital
camera?
This based on the assumption that one believes in ghosts, spirits, latent
energy patterns, or whatever. Most authorities attribute "ghost pictures" as
the film capturing some type of energy/ light source.
Is there any evidence that one could do this with a digital camera?
Randy
.
GT40
Jim Waggener
"GT40" <m...@mine.us> wrote in message
news:qjiao0920h7plsk9k...@4ax.com...
> You can't take a photo of something that doesnt exist
If it is not based on light...true. What about black-holes? No one has
ever seen one but scientists say they exist. So be it with "spirits"
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Mike Jacoubowsky
Could you please try and stay on-topic? The discussion was about somebody
wanting to take a picture of one; no question as to whether they're real or
not. :>)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"GT40" <m...@mine.us> wrote in message
news:qjiao0920h7plsk9k...@4ax.com...
Frank ess
>> You can't take a photo of something that doesnt exist
>
> Could you please try and stay on-topic? The discussion was about
> somebody wanting to take a picture of one; no question as to whether
> they're real or not. :>)
>
Eckshuly, it was on-topic until it dismissed the topic, so anything
referring to it after _that_ is off-topic.
--
Frank ess
GT40
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> You can't take a photo of something that doesnt exist
>
>Could you please try and stay on-topic? The discussion was about somebody
>wanting to take a picture of one; no question as to whether they're real or
>not. :>)
That is on topic
Randall Ainsworth
<camco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How would one photograph something that does not exist?
Scott Chapin
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:311020041434558733%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Are you saying they don't exist, simply cause you've never seen one? I have
reason to believe that they very well may!
David Dyer-Bennet
Ghost pictures are done as multiple exposures. None of the digital
cameras I know can perform multiple exposures of a single frame, but
of course it's easy to compose the images in Photoshop later (and more
controllable, too).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
andre
> "GT40" <m...@mine.us> wrote in message
> news:qjiao0920h7plsk9k...@4ax.com...
>
>>You can't take a photo of something that doesnt exist
>
>
> If it is not based on light...true. What about black-holes? No one has
> ever seen one but scientists say they exist. So be it with "spirits"
>
something brighter they bend the light just like a lens would and
hence become visible.
Andre
--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
GT40
Yes I am saying that
Scott Chapin
I wonder what manner of all sorts of things don't exist, simply because you
have not seen them. Does the Kremlin exist? Perhaps you have seen it.
Eric Gill
news:41854...@127.0.0.1:
>
> "GT40" <m...@mine.us> wrote in message
> news:qjiao0920h7plsk9k...@4ax.com...
>> You can't take a photo of something that doesnt exist
>
> If it is not based on light...true. What about black-holes? No one
> has ever seen one but scientists say they exist.
Matter "falling" into a black hole gets the living hell smashed out of
it...releasing powerful streams of X-Rays, which can be detected with good
equipment and a little perseverance.
> So be it with "spirits"
"Spirits" emit X-Rays?
Joe Makowiec
If we accept the OP's premise, that ghosts can be photographed using
photochemical means, then they must be emitting /some/ kind of detectable
electromagnetic radiation. If they are, then there must be some
(electronic) sensor out there capable of detecting it. Question is - are
the ones in current digital cameras capable? If so, then the answer to
the OP's question is yes.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Eric Gill
news:J5OdnbE1N8V...@adelphia.com:
Of course. Pretty much everything (that is, everything that I know of) that
the overly-credulous identify as "ghosts" (or "rods," "cones," UFOs, and
other names) will show up on a digi-cam, including the double-exposure
thing on the cams that support it.
Techniques include dragging the lens whilst moving the camera in a flash
exposure with light sources in the scene, shooting flash into rain at night
(alternately, dust), and not using a lens hood.
Scotty
wrote:
>"Prowler99" <camco...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In the spirit of Halloween, I am going to ask a weird question. Can you take
>> a picture of a ghost, either intentionally or accidentally, with a digital
>> camera?
>> This based on the assumption that one believes in ghosts, spirits, latent
>> energy patterns, or whatever. Most authorities attribute "ghost pictures" as
>> the film capturing some type of energy/ light source.
>> Is there any evidence that one could do this with a digital camera?
>
>Ghost pictures are done as multiple exposures. None of the digital
>cameras I know can perform multiple exposures of a single frame, but
>of course it's easy to compose the images in Photoshop later (and more
>controllable, too).
I was able to take a "ghost" picture of my son in his room for
Halloween with my D70 without using Photoshop.
I set up my D70 on a tripod and set the camera to bulb. I made the
room as dark as possible then used the remote shutter release to open
the shutter. I then switched the lights on for a second, then off
again. My son then walked into the frame and I switched the lights on
and off again, then used the remote to close the shutter.
This was effectively a double exposure, the results show a faint
transparent image of my son is his room...he thought is was really
cool :)
GT40
<rsch...@comcast.net> wrote:
The Kremlin does exisit Ghosts dont.
Tripmonkey (UK)
do exist then I would think that they would be made of some type of
energy and you can photo lightning can't u and other types of energy so
why not?
I'm sure that if they existed and the right equipment was available then
it would be easy enough.
Trip..
Scott Chapin
Robert Barr
the Chicago area.
Prowler99 wrote:
ce.
> Is there any evidence that one could do this with a digital camera?
> Randy
>
I doubt it. Nobody ever got caught yet, even with the feds sniffing it out.
GT40
<rsch...@comcast.net> wrote:
You mean you think it doesnt exisit, get a grip. The Kremlin is a
tangable object. Ghosts are a figment of your imagination.
Jer
I don't think digital will work. My old film camera once took a photo
of the ghost that hides iside the airport x-ray machine, but so far it's
alluded my digital cam. :(
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
I'm Jer and I approved this message.
Paul Bartram
"Prowler99" <camco...@yahoo.com> wrote
> In the spirit of Halloween, I am going to ask a weird question. Can you
take a picture of a ghost, either intentionally or accidentally, with a
digital camera?
Yes, if it's a Nikon Ghoulpix.
Boom boom...
Paul
BJ
Getting the suckers to possess someone is more of an issue.
If you want to make it easy I know of a few women with demonic possession.
"Prowler99" <camco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J5OdnbE1N8V...@adelphia.com...
Martin Brown
Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> writes
By double exposure and a bit of digital post processing. It used to be
much more difficult to photograph ghosts and fairies in the old days
with wet chemistry and slow photographic emulsions.
The only hard bit would be writing a final JPEG file that exactly
mimicked one from the target camera.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown
Gene Palmiter
Bunny, Santa...not the fake one in the mall....Jesus in the Clouds, and GW
Bush during his second term.
"Prowler99" <camco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J5OdnbE1N8V...@adelphia.com...
Tom Nelson
before digital photography. There used to be a portrait photography
studio in the building I lived in, and on Halloween night I found the
spirit of the guy floating around my living room (which had once been
part of his camera room before it was converted to apartments).
I asked the ghost, in the interest of camaraderie with a fellow
photographer, if he'd let me take his picture. Amazingly, he said yes!
But he told me I'd only have one chance to do it.
I loaded my trusty Pentax H3v with Panatomic-X (the only film I had on
hand), charged up my strobe and took a single picture. As soon as the
shutter clicked, he was gone.
I rushed to the darkroom and processed the film. Wouldn't you know it,
in my haste I hadn't let the strobe charge up enough. I'd beeen screwed
by that old problem: the spirit was willing but the flash was weak.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography
In article <J5OdnbE1N8V...@adelphia.com>, Prowler99
<camco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Frank ess
> I once had a chance to photograph a ghost.
<snippage has occurred>
I'd beeen
> screwed
> by that old problem: the spirit was willing but the flash was weak.
>
O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-h-h-h-h-h-h
Alan Meyer
news:H9adnTkyYpR...@comcast.com...
> ...
> Are you saying they don't exist, simply cause you've never seen one? I
have
> reason to believe that they very well may!
Scott,
Don't leave us hanging. Tell us the reason you have for
believing that they very well may?
Alan
Alan Meyer
news:011120041227101960%ludi...@xintegraonline.com.invalid...
> ...
> I rushed to the darkroom and processed the film. Wouldn't you know it,
> in my haste I hadn't let the strobe charge up enough. I'd beeen screwed
> by that old problem: the spirit was willing but the flash was weak.
>
> Tom Nelson
> Tom Nelson Photography
Hear hear!
I challenge anyone to top Tom's answer. I was trying to come up with
one myself but this one put mine to shame and I had to bow out
of the competition before posting it.
Alan
Prowler99
this newsgroup so much, but it gets so SERIOUS in here at times. I hope you
all had a fun Halloween.
Randy
"Tom Nelson" <ludi...@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:011120041227101960%ludi...@xintegraonline.com.invalid...
ka...@sonic.net
<Trip...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Not sayin they do exist, not sayin they don't but lets face it, if they
>do exist then I would think that they would be made of some type of
>energy and you can photo lightning can't u and other types of energy so
>why not?
>I'm sure that if they existed and the right equipment was available then
>it would be easy enough.
And, as has been said, "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your
uncle."
Scott Chapin
I've never seen either, but I have seen pictures of both. As for personal
experiences....well, only if it happens to you I guess.
Scott Chapin
"Alan Meyer" <ame...@yaho0.com> wrote in message
news:69xhd.1780$Ny6....@mencken.net.nih.gov...
OK here goes. Mind you I think I am a very rational person.
When I was dating my wife in 1978, my mother-in-law related a story about a
man who would visit her in her bedroom at night. That was in the 60s and she
hadn't seen him for several years. He was dressed like "death" with a hooded
cloak that hid his face. She said that one night she asked him who he was,
what he wanted, and demanded that he leave. He said he would oblige, but the
next time he returned he would be coming for her.
In 1982 they came up to Ohio from Florida to visit us, but spent the nights
at some friends' house. On a Saturday morning she and my father-in-law came
to our house, and she was pale. My father-in-law said that she had sat bolt
upright in bed that night screaming. She said that she had been visited by
her specter. Of course, she thought he was coming for her. As it turned out,
we got a call from her mother in Boardman telling her that her father had
died that night. I still get the creeps thinking about it. Ghost? I don't
know. Spirit or energy form? I don't know. One thing I do know. I'm not
ready to summarily dismiss the possibility.
Scott
Annika1980
>
>> In the spirit of Halloween, I am going to ask a weird question. Can you
>take a picture of a ghost, either intentionally or accidentally, with a
>digital camera?
Sure!
http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/image/1810599
karl kuykendall
one.....just like the "ghost " photographers do!..
film photography techniques include but are not limited to:
.pinhole in the dark curtain of the camera or the back...or a little light
leak while loading the film....and for the advanced....pre coloring the
light source to create colorful ghosts....or my favorite ....preshooting out
of focus cigarette smoke paterns on the whole roll ,on a black background
,rewinding and then going to the haunt....of all these pre-flashing images
is the most "real".....have fun
Hunt
says...
Is that the spirit of Bobby Jones at Augusta National?
Hunt
PS isn't the OP the one who wanted to photograph dragons and fairlies?
Annika1980
>>http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/image/1810599
>
>Is that the spirit of Bobby Jones at Augusta National?
No, that's Hogan. Bobby's spirit was up in his cabin enjoying some other
spirits.
Hunt
says...
Thanks for the clarification! BTW, which spirits was Jones enjoying, or did he
let on?
Hunt
Alan Meyer
I won't deny that that's an interesting story. Clearly it made a big
impression on your mother-in-law and the rest of the family.
I know this is off topic, but it's a favorite subject of mine. Please
bear with my long comments on it.
There are many people who tell stories like that. Some are ghost stories,
some are stories of alien abduction. Some are interpreted in still other
ways by their tellers.
From what I have read about these kinds of stories, there are a certain
percentage that are lies, but not the bulk of them. Many are apparently
told by people who give every appearance of honestly believing in
what they seem to have seen.
In my personal view, there are a very small number of these kinds
of incidents that have some physical origin, i.e., someone actually
coming into the room and scaring the dickens out of somebody.
I believe the vast majority have a psychological origin. They happen
to people for whom nightmares appear very, very real. Some are
genuine hysterics. But many are people who are in fairly good control
of their consciousness when awake but aren't good at waking up
from sleep - tending to get into hazy, half sleep, half waking states.
Sometimes they are people who have this problem only rarely, but
when they are under stress, the problem manifests itself.
All of us have been subject to this at some time. Almost all
children get nightmares that seem terrifyingly real to them. They
wake up but don't believe that the monsters in the dream were
not real. It's a phenomenon that some adults also experience,
if not all the time, then from time to time.
Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer, published a book about this
phenomenon in 1995, _The Demon Haunted World_. I recommend
it.
Sagan did not believe, and I personally agree with him, that this
phenomenon gives any evidence of ghosts or extra-terrestrials.
Human psychology is complicated. People's behavior is complicated.
A shockingly high percentage of people in the world are given to
irrational behaviors and delusional experiences. When we hear
about these things, if we take them at face value, we'll wind up
believing in some pretty exotic ideas.
In the 18th century, David Hume wrote an essay "On Miracles".
He argued in there that if he saw something happen that he knew
could not happen, for example water running up hill, there were
three possible ways to interpret the experience:
1. He was witnessing an illusion.
2. He was experiencing a delusion, e.g. a hallucination.
3. Water really ran up hill.
The problem with explanation 3 is that there are a huge number
of known scientific principles that would have to be violated for
it to be true. There are a huge number of observations by
millions of observers that would be cast in doubt. There are
a huge number of things we count on (like "what goes up must
come down") that we could no longer count on if it were true.
Therefore, Hume concluded, even if he saw it with his own
eyes, he wouldn't believe it was true. It would be vastly more
likely that he was witnessing an illusion or suffering a
hallucination, than that the most basic laws of physics established
at least since Newton were wrong.
I agree with him. There are huge number of observations
made by millions of people over thousands of years that
would have to be wrong if ghosts existed. I find it much more
likely that your mother-in-law was suffering from a nightmare -
which is an everyday occurrence.
Alan
Christopher Pollard
http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/expansion/10.jpg
All those 'orbs'...
Or are they just dust particles?
--
Chris Pollard
CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Scott Chapin
"Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EYGdneCsxPa...@comcast.com...
Also, what you say regarding dillusions and nightmares is true. In my
opinion this cannot be tucked into that category due to the prediciton, so
to speak. Nothing tangible could have advised her of her father's death in
that fashion. Nothing to do with the five senses anyway. Is that from the
spirit world? I don't know. There is too much reality here for me to
summarily dismiss it.
The Demon Haunted World looks like it would be an interesting read.
Especially since Carl Sagan wrote it.
Scott
Tim
it shows up his bad complexion. My Canon G2 picks him just fine - as
good as my OM10.
ka...@sonic.net
And she still doesn't sleep with a camera under her pillow???
:-)
ka...@sonic.net
wrote:
>In the 18th century, David Hume wrote an essay "On Miracles".
>He argued in there that if he saw something happen that he knew
>could not happen, for example water running up hill, there were
>three possible ways to interpret the experience:
>
>1. He was witnessing an illusion.
>2. He was experiencing a delusion, e.g. a hallucination.
>3. Water really ran up hill.
>
>The problem with explanation 3 is that there are a huge number
>of known scientific principles that would have to be violated for
>it to be true. There are a huge number of observations by
>millions of observers that would be cast in doubt. There are
>a huge number of things we count on (like "what goes up must
>come down") that we could no longer count on if it were true.
4. Different perspective on the environment.
e.g. the Voyager spacecraft ain't coming down any time soon.
Scott Chapin
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:0duio0p6iicpcsmpr...@4ax.com...
Yeah...kinda gets me going. I wanna see the guy!
Alan Meyer
"Christopher Pollard" <xmas...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3ovgo0h077n8ipa49...@4ax.com...
> My internet cafe must be haunted.
> http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/expansion/10.jpg
> All those 'orbs'...
>
> Or are they just dust particles?
Incredibly, I once saw a whole website with photos like
this and a forum devoted to discussion of "ghostly"
causes of the little white circles. It took no more than
five minutes of searching on Google to find a clear
explanation of how a dust particle close to the lens
can reflect flash in that way, but dozens of people
were happy to spend hours contemplating ghosts
rather than five minutes to find the real explanation.
The human race still has a way to go before it
becomes a fully rational species.
Alan
Jer
[....]
> The human race still has a way to go before it
> becomes a fully rational species.
>
I've actually witnessed irrefutable evidence that some people will make
a supreme effort to stay stupid.
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
I'm Jer and I approved this message.
Christopher Pollard
a security camera by my front door, pointed at the gate. It has IR lights, which
don't reach that far so it's usually a dark image.
Last night, as it warmed up and suddenly came on, I saw this:
http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/ghost.jpg
Gave me quite a fright, till I realised what it was.
Blair Witch anyone?
Christopher Pollard
> but dozens of people
>were happy to spend hours contemplating ghosts
>rather than five minutes to find the real explanation.
Well, ghosts are more fun than boring old dust.
I saw a program once where some guy found he had inadvertantly taken photos of
what he called 'rods', moving around some scene. Might have been video, probably
was in fact.
Anyway, these 'rods' looked like short rods, a couple of inches long with what
could only be described as ribbons tied to them at regular intervals, around 5
or 6 of them.
Something like this:
--|---|---|---|---|---
It didn't take much to prove that they were in fact flying insects, the ribbons
were their wings, beating at 5-6 times per frame, and they apeared and
disappeared as they turned towards and away from the light.
Of course the original guy refused to believe they weren't some sort of spirits.
Annika1980
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/ghost.jpg
Christopher Pollard
>Here's another spooky pic:
>
>http://members.aol.com/annika1980/ghost.jpg
Forgot to turn on the flash?
Jer
Michael A. Covington
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:6luio057kqd29emlo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:37:26 -0500, "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In the 18th century, David Hume wrote an essay "On Miracles".
>>He argued in there that if he saw something happen that he knew
>>could not happen, for example water running up hill, there were
>>three possible ways to interpret the experience:
>>
>>1. He was witnessing an illusion.
>>2. He was experiencing a delusion, e.g. a hallucination.
>>3. Water really ran up hill.
>>
>>The problem with explanation 3 is that there are a huge number
>>of known scientific principles that would have to be violated for
>>it to be true. There are a huge number of observations by
>>millions of observers that would be cast in doubt. There are
>>a huge number of things we count on (like "what goes up must
>>come down") that we could no longer count on if it were true.
Hume, though a great philosopher, was, in a certain sense, extremely
closed-minded. He came close to discovering a principle of logic later
articulated by (I think) Quine, which is that you can maintain any belief
(or disbelief), in the face of any evidence, by altering enough of your
other beliefs (auxiliary assumptions). This is why conspiracy theories
survive. If I wanted to believe that New York City didn't exist, I could
spin a web of auxiliary assumptions, some of them rather strange and
implausible, so that nobody could ever convince me that New York City was
real.
In the same way, absolute disbelief in miracles can be maintained, in the
face of any evidence, by manipulating your auxiliary assumptions.
Deification of "scientific principles" is a frequent tactic -- someone
assumes that science, in its current state, is some kind of invincible law,
when it is in fact merely partial knowledge.
Martin Bishop
news:20041104015623...@mb-m04.aol.com...
The spirit was willing, but the flash was weak!