GHOST PICTURES
merlin
I don't know about ghosts as I am more interested in Witches.
About witches there is a famous book with witches captured in it (just like
flowers).
Concerning me I had be able to take only on picture of a witch in a natural
park in wales. she was having a rest with her animal (a goat) near a lake.
If you have experiences , please tell me
ThreeE
Elizabeth Chambers
Thr...@aol.com
Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear.
Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will.
Joan Cusack - Working Girl
Ivan Wine
merlin wrote:
A book with witches captured in it, you mean like Lady something or others book
of pressed fairies?
-Ivan
--
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in
rain...Time to die.
Kelly
I'm sorry, could it be "Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book" you're
thinking of?
Forgive me if I'm wrong :)
Kelly
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, merlin wrote:
> Date: Tue, 9 MAR 1999 22:00:10 +0100
> From: merlin <Philippe...@wanadoo.fr>
> Newgroups: alt.folklore.ghost-stories
> Subject: GHOST PICTURES
Elizabeth McKeeman
to my place and I'll let you photograph me doing lots of stuff! I have
dishes to be done, a big pile of laundry, customers to call, friends to see!
You can document it all and make a book of it.
Elizabeth McKeeman
who is really confused as to why it would be difficult to photograph witches
merlin wrote in message <7c6arl$4pj$1...@platane.wanadoo.fr>...
Samantha Perry
and washing, dishes, cooking, reading. Come on over...
We're not ghosts that come and go - we're real people with real lives and
loves and families and houses and jobs..
--
sam
*As confused as Elizabeth about why witches are hard to photograph....*
Porch Cheerleader
s...@removeavspecialist.co.za
www.avspecialist.co.za
~Be yourself, no-one can ever tell you you're doing it wrong - James Leo
Herlihy~
Elizabeth McKeeman wrote in message <7c7dcr$6p4$1...@remarQ.com>...
Kali
film developed is a different thing - most of my local developers are
pretty particular that everyone in the picture be 'decently' clothed .
. .
Samantha Perry
robes, especially today and as many of us live in cities - can you imagine
being caught performing a ritual in the local park (among the vagrants and
winos) skyclad LOL oh dear.....
--
sam
Porch Cheerleader
s...@removeavspecialist.co.za
www.avspecialist.co.za
~Be yourself, no-one can ever tell you you're doing it wrong - James Leo
Herlihy~
Kali wrote in message <36e7ebb5...@news.tamu.edu>...
Peter B
> film developed is a different thing - most of my local developers are
> pretty particular that everyone in the picture be 'decently' clothed .
Excuse me ??? They are watching your films and pictures ????
My god, and that's what you call democracy and USA. Shia ...
P.B.
r.p.m.
another for many years, I can tell you that those labs who say nothing
about the state of clothing of their customers are sure to have a
"rogue's" gallery, usually in the men's bathroom of the processing
place. I mean--the WHOLE wall, plastered with those photos hubby
talked you into taking on your anniversary after a bottle of
bubbly...those "clothes optional" beach shots...etc, etc...now THAT'S
free enterprise for you!
Elizabeth
for something along these lines? Before she became well-known, she had taken
photos of her naked toddler and baby awash in a sea of flowers. The film
developer saw these and reported her to the police. She proceeded on a long
and messy journey to clear the charges. It is quite unbelievable, and I'm
not sure what the law is protecting anymore, especially since digital
photography is becoming more accessible.
-Elizabeth
Soulkiss wrote:
> You know what? They do that same thing in Cali...I had taken some
> pics of my oldest son after he was born, you know the classic naked
> ones on a blanket, and they wouldn't develop them...I got back every
> other picture in the roll except those taken of my son naked..I know
> they refused to develop them because i got the negatives back of those
> very same pics but no pics...This happened once more when me and my
> husband at the time decided to take some rather personal ones...We got
> not a one back...When my husband questioned them about it..He was told
> we don't expose indecent pics....Needless to say I invested in a
> polariod, and now a digital camera......
> >Excuse me ??? They are watching your films and pictures ????
> >
> >My god, and that's what you call democracy and USA. Shia ...
> >
> >P.B.
>
> Soulkiss
Soulkiss
wrote:
>> Well, it may not be difficult to photograph witches, but getting the
>> film developed is a different thing - most of my local developers are
>> pretty particular that everyone in the picture be 'decently' clothed .
>
>Excuse me ??? They are watching your films and pictures ????
>
>My god, and that's what you call democracy and USA. Shia ...
>
>P.B.
>
>
You know what? They do that same thing in Cali...I had taken some
pics of my oldest son after he was born, you know the classic naked
ones on a blanket, and they wouldn't develop them...I got back every
other picture in the roll except those taken of my son naked..I know
they refused to develop them because i got the negatives back of those
very same pics but no pics...This happened once more when me and my
husband at the time decided to take some rather personal ones...We got
not a one back...When my husband questioned them about it..He was told
we don't expose indecent pics....Needless to say I invested in a
polariod, and now a digital camera......
Soulkiss
Soulkiss
wrote:
>Oh, it gets better. Being in the photography bidnes in one form or
>another for many years, I can tell you that those labs who say nothing
>about the state of clothing of their customers are sure to have a
>"rogue's" gallery, usually in the men's bathroom of the processing
>place. I mean--the WHOLE wall, plastered with those photos hubby
>talked you into taking on your anniversary after a bottle of
>bubbly...those "clothes optional" beach shots...etc, etc...now THAT'S
>free enterprise for you!
>
>Peter B wrote:
>>
I wouldn't doubt that...My pics taken by my husband probably graced
one of the mens stalls....
Soulkiss
Down in the gutter for the day
A,C,and E Jenkins
babies you must be a paedophile" crap. I think naked babies are soooo
cute! (Mind you, I think they are gorgeous in gro-suits too! My Mom
told me when my daughter was born "God made babies' butts so cute so
Moms wouldn't mind changing them" :-). Anyone who thinks someone might
get off on a picture of a naked baby is one sick puppy, IMO.
Colleen J
honi soit qui mal y pense
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> Didn't the famous baby photographer Anne Geddes do some jail time in the '80s
> for something along these lines? Before she became well-known, she had taken
> photos of her naked toddler and baby awash in a sea of flowers. The film
> developer saw these and reported her to the police. She proceeded on a long
> and messy journey to clear the charges. It is quite unbelievable, and I'm
> not sure what the law is protecting anymore, especially since digital
> photography is becoming more accessible.
>
> -Elizabeth
>
> Soulkiss wrote:
>
> > You know what? They do that same thing in Cali...I had taken some
> > pics of my oldest son after he was born, you know the classic naked
> > ones on a blanket, and they wouldn't develop them...I got back every
> > other picture in the roll except those taken of my son naked..I know
> > they refused to develop them because i got the negatives back of those
> > very same pics but no pics...This happened once more when me and my
> > husband at the time decided to take some rather personal ones...We got
> > not a one back...When my husband questioned them about it..He was told
> > we don't expose indecent pics....Needless to say I invested in a
> > polariod, and now a digital camera......
>
> > >Excuse me ??? They are watching your films and pictures ????
> > >
> > >My god, and that's what you call democracy and USA. Shia ...
> > >
> > >P.B.
> >
> > Soulkiss
Lee Taylor
> I get so pissed off with this attitude of "if you like seeing naked
> babies you must be a paedophile" crap. I think naked babies are soooo
> cute! (Mind you, I think they are gorgeous in gro-suits too! My Mom
> told me when my daughter was born "God made babies' butts so cute so
> Moms wouldn't mind changing them" :-). Anyone who thinks someone might
> get off on a picture of a naked baby is one sick puppy, IMO.
:) Your mother and mine would agree on that. The early shots of me
as a kid (yes, with my dinosaur, hehe) and my great white moon dancing
through the sprinkler on the front lawn were always favorites when the
family pics came out.
Kids are always cute (I think it's a natural law -- like gravity or
something) and a nude body can be an artform. Unfortunately I have to
admit that there are some sick pukes out there, but I never understood
why everyone has to be picked on because of the few real weirdos.
It'd be neater and easier if we just shot the sickos and left everyone
else alone.
--- Lee Taylor
Independence Hall http://www.tgka.com/
In support of Liberty, Freedom, and Independence through self reliance and education.
(Reply addy spamblocked. Change user name to "lee".)
There is no such thing as a personal problem which cannot be solved
by a suitable application of high explosives.
Drag the Joneses down to your level. It's cheaper.
Kali
developed, but not your generic back-in-3-days shop. We went to a
clothing optional resort in Jamaica for our honeymoon, and got a
picture of a rather rude Toga Party costume (not featuring and
*genuine* flesh, just latex), and did not get a print for that shot,
but *did* get a nasty note from the devloper that they do not devlop
such pictures. Ironically, we also had some shots of a body painting
contest, one of which featured full frontal painted nudity on another
woman, and that one *did* get printed - I guess the painting made it
more difficult to tell that she was nude.
This is in Texas, and I don't know how it is other places. Where are
you from, Peter, that you've got an .si extension?
On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:48:28 +0100, Peter B <peter...@uni-lj.si>
wrote:
>> Well, it may not be difficult to photograph witches, but getting the
>> film developed is a different thing - most of my local developers are
>> pretty particular that everyone in the picture be 'decently' clothed .
>
A,C,and E Jenkins
>
> "A,C,and E Jenkins" <a...@agn.removethis.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I get so pissed off with this attitude of "if you like seeing naked
> > babies you must be a paedophile" crap. I think naked babies are soooo
> > cute! (Mind you, I think they are gorgeous in gro-suits too! My Mom
> > told me when my daughter was born "God made babies' butts so cute so
> > Moms wouldn't mind changing them" :-). Anyone who thinks someone might
> > get off on a picture of a naked baby is one sick puppy, IMO.
>
> :) Your mother and mine would agree on that. The early shots of me
> as a kid (yes, with my dinosaur, hehe) and my great white moon dancing
> through the sprinkler on the front lawn were always favorites when the
> family pics came out.
>
> Kids are always cute (I think it's a natural law -- like gravity or
> something) and a nude body can be an artform. Unfortunately I have to
> admit that there are some sick pukes out there, but I never understood
> why everyone has to be picked on because of the few real weirdos.
>
> It'd be neater and easier if we just shot the sickos and left everyone
> else alone.
>
> --- Lee Taylor
Now *there's* a good idea!
Colleen J
Gene Holt
Anyone that would harm a child should be removed
from the face of the earth as soon as possible.
It's a crying shame that childern must be taught to fear
strangers because of a few sicko's who shouldn't be allowed
to walk free anyway.
Gene
A,C,and E Jenkins wrote: