Outline of young girl and boy?

[jgisafishin]

No one said anything about it being fake. They just pointed out it was a poor picture of a picture. Phones do not take good pictures to begin with and there is now no exif info to look at to make sure it wasn't tampered with. Try scanning the photo and see it it comes out better.

[Gizmo]

(03-18-2013 11:34 PM)jgisafishin Wrote:  No one said anything about it being fake. They just pointed out it was a poor picture of a picture. Phones do not take good pictures to begin with and there is now no exif info to look at to make sure it wasn't tampered with. Try scanning the photo and see it it comes out better.

He can't. It was a screen snap from a friend's computer monitor to his phone.

WelcomeToTheStrange, if you check back to this thread, I want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing anyone of faking this shot. If you felt in my zeal to figure it out that this was at the back of my mind, I'm sorry. I sometimes do get enthusiastic about debunking photographic evidence, and that might come off as being a total skeptic. I'm not. Okay, almost, but not 100%.

Since this was snapped into a mirror, it does become slightly more interesting. You didn't elaborate before. Or I missed it.

I am clinging to the belief (still) that in order for any image to register on either a CCD or film, there must be something there that either reflects or emits light. Cameras are light measuring and recording devices. It's all they do. Period. They are not like little magic things.

So, psychic impressions don't fit into the set of things measured by cameras. Psychic impressions ARE one way that people can sense spirits. Psychic "seeing" isn't the same as visual "seeing."

Cameras measure light within the approximate range of human vision. (regular cameras, not IR or full spectrum)

So, in order for me to think that these things were pictured (as they obviously were) I must assume that they were manifesting within the range of visual light; reflective enough and solid enough to bounce light; or glowing. That being the case, since we see them in the picture, they were there. I'm assuming they would be visible to the naked eye if they were captured this way.

WHAT they are is open to discussion. I have never seen convincing evidence of ghosts in photographs and I've looked at hundreds. This doesn't mean I can not have my opinion changed. I'd love to find a picture or pictures that did that. I've seen images of black swirling masses, videos of light anomalies that defy the "bug" explanation, and some very compelling video of moving masses...but no human looking spirits. Ever.

I can only speak for myself. But i certainly DO know ghosts are real. Visual evidence is just thin for full bodied apparitions.

[jgisafishin]

First thread says picture of a picture.