I love the "blob" pictures - mostly indistinguishable mists where people claim to see things that may or may not exist. This mist blog appears to contain a hand on a banister. See for yourself:
Remove a bit of the lighter colors and the hand becomes more visible:
The Sun, with the powerful reputation of truth and research they posses, claim the picture was taken by a boy with a digital camera. Normally I don't think much of pictures like this, especially ones from interlaced cameras, and there is no way to determine what type of camera took the pictures. Anyway, take away what you will and form your own opinions.
Next up is Ghost Boy!
This photo claims to have been taken using a film camera (the article makes mention of the "boy" being present on the film negatives). Film cameras are susceptible to light exposure, double exposures, and countless other maladies. In addition you had to pay to have the film processed into pictures AND you had to wait until a roll was fully used before you could see the pictures? I mean, really, can you imagine going back to film?
True, nothing looks like a 35mm slide or a real film picture from the hands of a professional. Wait, I'm getting off the tracks here. Back to the kid.
Here is Ghost Boy as he appeared in the article (cropped for your viewing pleasure):
Yeah, he looks freaky enough. Half transparent, half kind of not, extremely sharp lines and boundaries. Plenty weird. Even his right eyeball appears in great detail.
Here's the boy in black and white. Look at the line between his left ear and jaw. You can see the jawline on that side but not the other making it appear he is standing with the fence pole going through his head. Very odd.
With the colors reversed the detail really starts to come out:
Notice the right jawline is now visible, though only just. Also the rest of his body appears to be behind any other post.
Explanation? None here. I'm leaning towards double-exposure. But who would dress a child like that? Again form your own opinions.
1 comment:
The first one might be legitimate. I've seen a few "ghost" photos that have similar features. One Raleigh photographer took a similar shot outside of the N.C. Capitol building last year that was pretty convincing.
The second one is most likely fake. The lighting on the boy appears to be indoor light rather than outdoor light.
Its also convenient that the "ghost's" face is obscured by the gate, and that the left side of the gate is in dark shadow (where the "ghost" is), though the right side is plainly visible.
Post a Comment