Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Boo! It's supposed to be an alien from Queen Mab's home turf.
De la Rosa's greatest role, imho, was as Mousey in Giuliano Carnimeo's Ratman. Little people, while long neglected in the film industry (and, probably, most industries), have managed to create some of the greatest and most memorable film/tv characters ever--from Todd Browning's Freaks to Werner Herzog's Even Dwarves Started Small to Angelo Muscat's unnamed butler character in The Prisoner. Even Michael Dunn's Dr Loveless, in Wild Wild West, was a fantastic character.Ha! Nelson de la Rosa. A bit of trivia - in that role Nelson was the inspiration for Mini Me in the Austin Powers movies.
A friend and I for several years (maybe longer than want to admit) had a weird penchant for little people trivia. I have promised several people I will not mention Colin Farrell quotes concerning little people in the film In Bruges. I really need to check and see if that's still in effect.
Maybe not, but now there's armies of folks all over the world with hi-def cameras in their phones and easy access to any number of online social media sites to upload their content. This is very troubling news for Believers who can only go on pretending so long with outdated grainy photos."The revolution will not be televised."
De la Rosa's greatest role, imho, was as Mousey in Giuliano Carnimeo's Ratman. Little people, while long neglected in the film industry (and, probably, most industries), have managed to create some of the greatest and most memorable film/tv characters ever--from Todd Browning's Freaks to Werner Herzog's Even Dwarves Started Small to Angelo Muscat's unnamed butler character in The Prisoner. Even Michael Dunn's Dr Loveless, in Wild Wild West, was a fantastic character.
It's a long-exposure photo. Clearly, the person in the photograph was in the process of moving, turning around or similar while the shutter was open.Photo of a half-formed apparition at the now abandoned Pennhurst State Asylum notable for being haunted.
Clearly incompetent. The photographer (a) didn't check whether a fellow crew-member was farting around while the picture was being taken, and (b) didn't know how to control the settings on his/her camera.I have no information on the photo other than it was taken by a paranormal investigation crew.
When was this photo taken? Why is the image quality so appalling low? There are photo processing artifacts all over this image.
The date of the Mirror article reporting it was Dec 2012. So probably taken that year. As for photo artifacts, what does that have to do with the apparition of her husband? Do artifacts often show up as translucent images of dead spouses?When was this photo taken? Why is the image quality so appalling low? There are photo processing artifacts all over this image.
Ooh, look! The little girl looks demonic! That can't be an accident. Clearly, she is the devil incarnate.
It's a long-exposure photo. Clearly, the person in the photograph was in the process of moving, turning around or similar while the shutter was open.
Clearly incompetent. The photographer (a) didn't check whether a fellow crew-member was farting around while the picture was being taken, and (b) didn't know how to control the settings on his/her camera.
♫Money makes the world go 'round♫Well, it doesn't make sense that a ghost hunter in a haunted bldg would take a picture of someone physically there.
And probably photoshopped that year.The date of the Mirror article reporting it was Dec 2012. So probably taken that year.
Brain on. Think it through.As for photo artifacts, what does that have to do with the apparition of her husband?
Often? No. Sometimes? Maybe.Do artifacts often show up as translucent images of dead spouses?
But how do you know that the photo contains a translucent image of a dead spouse?
Often? No. Sometimes? Maybe.
Why do you claim the room was empty? Clearly, there's a motion-blurred image of a person right there, along with the photographer. So, at least two people present.Well, it doesn't make sense that a ghost hunter in a haunted bldg would take a picture of someone physically there. Most pictures are taken of empty rooms in the hope of capturing something on camera.
Well, let's face it - people who make money out of participating in "paranormal" TV aren't always paragons of honesty. You're aware of that, right?While your theory seems plausible, it suggests the typical dishonesty attributed to the picture taker by skeptics.
Why do you even bother telling me what you'll buy and what you won't buy? Your personal preferences on such things are entirely irrelevant. Also very boring and repetitive.And I don't buy that.
How do you know that the people who produced this photograph were dedicated, had "conviction" or spend their weekends exploring haunted locations?People with the dedication and conviction to spend their weekends exploring haunted locations for ghosts wouldn't just fabricate some hoaxed evidence.
Where's the photo of him? How does it clearly show that the "apparition" is him?The wife recognizes him, her second husband recognizes him, and there's a photo of him that clearly shows it is him.
Where's the photo of him? How does it clearly show that the "apparition" is him?
Also, why is impossible that the wife or her second husband could be mistaken about the image being him? How do you know they didn't make a mistake?