Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[zgmc]

"In 1984, a teenager was a victim of a fatal car accident. A photograph that was taken shortly after the incident includes an unexpected image that still affects the man who took it and provides further evidence of a force or existence beyond what is considered rational.

The unfortunate teenager died shortly after the accident involving his black vehicle. It only took the local police minutes to reach the crash scene that evening. As a matter of procedure, one of the police officers took photos of the accident with a 35mm film camera for the record.

When the pictures were developed, the police were both puzzled and shocked by what they saw in one of the frames.

Clearly visible above the open driver's side door is what appears to be the head and shoulders of a young man. The face of the young man is contorted in an open-mouthed scream.

Is it the spirit of the young man re-experiencing the last moments of his life?

Or could it be a powerful psychic impression left on the scene by the terrified mind of the teenager in his last moments?

Most everyone who views this photograph agrees that it is at the very least interesting, and at the most hard evidence of spirit or psychic phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The police officer who took the photo has reported that he is still shaken by seeing the picture.

Note that the photo, taken in 1984, was taken well before the Photoshop era, which made it easy for nearly anyone to alter images.

And If it is just a trick of light, as some skeptics might suggest, it is indeed a remarkable one."

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphot...-Ghost.htm

Note the red checkered shirt. I wonder if that is what the teen was wearing when he died?

One thing that stands out about that picture is that all the light sources have trails. Looks like an over exposure. It certainly looks like a face, but it's possible that it's also just coincidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

One thing that stands out about that picture is that all the light sources have trails. Looks like an over exposure. It certainly looks like a face, but it's possible that it's also just coincidence.

Yup. Looking at the whole uncropped picture, the blurred-lights effect is more apparent:

Whatever that cloud is, maybe the breath of an officer on the other side of the car, the light has caught it and made it resemble a human face.

Another excellent example of pareidolia.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's a question: why are paranormal experts ignoring a huge treasure trove of compelling ghostly evidence in the sky? There are thousands of examples of ghosts being seen and photographed there, yet they seem to go without comment.

Am I to the first (or perhaps, only) ghost hunter to turn my eyes skyward??

 

[Magical Realist]

Yup. Looking at the whole uncropped picture, the blurred-lights effect is more apparent:

Whatever that cloud is, maybe the breath of an officer on the other side of the car, the light has caught it and made it resemble a human face.

Another excellent example of pareidolia.

Breath of an officer on the other side of the car. lol! Hey maybe he was smoking a cigarette too! I see you attended the James R School of Debunking: just make up some bullshit story, and it's debunked.

 

[Daecon]

I find it hard to believe that that single photo was the only one ever took of that particular incident. What about the other photos - ones that don't look like the photographer was shaking the camera? What do they show?

 

[DaveC426913]

Breath of an officer on the other side of the car. lol! Hey maybe he was smoking a cigarette too! I see you attended the James R School of Debunking: just make up some bullshit story, and it's debunked.

What do you think of my accounts of ghosts in the sky?

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

What do you think of my accounts of ghosts in the sky?

I think the only value to the comments you leave for people is that your message counter goes up one tick, and you're closer to getting to that pie in the sky, being a certified scifi forum BFF with Deacon and Dwyddr, Origin and all those other.

 

[Bells]

Breath of an officer on the other side of the car. lol! Hey maybe he was smoking a cigarette too! I see you attended the James R School of Debunking: just make up some bullshit story, and it's debunked.

Have you ever heard of double exposure in photography?

And you can tell it's a double exposure by the other figures that appear behind the car. Like the dude in the overalls and the white cap.

Not to mention that the head of the guy looks too big to even fit into the car..

Honestly, there's a word for this.. Yes.. Gullible.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the only value to the comments you leave for people is that your message counter goes up one tick

Then you haven't been following along.

I was the first responder to this thread and have engaged the OP over more than three hundred posts, addressing the issues with care and detail time and time again.

I've overlooked repeated fallacies, ad hominems, red herrings and attempts to put words into my mouth, instead preferring to address the primary issue. I've been more on-topic than the OP has been.

My case gets a full head of steam on page 2 if you're interested. But beware, it may consume more than 10 seconds of your time.

Consider starting nearer the beginning, rather than almost 400 posts in, when passing judgement.

 

[sideshowbob]

That takes a very deliberate and self-serving denialism on the part of people who just don't want to believe in the paranormal.

I have no problem with accepting the paranormal. The problem is that you can't have normal evidence of the paranormal. The normal evidence that you present can only be evidence of something normal, even if we don't know what it is. The intellectual dishonesty is by those of you who make the leap from normal evidence to "spirits" or "space aliens". By the way, how do you know your evidence of "spirits" is not evidence of space aliens?

 

[DaveC426913]

Breath of an officer on the other side of the car. lol! Hey maybe he was smoking a cigarette too! I see you attended the James R School of Debunking: just make up some bullshit story, and it's debunked.

I'm not debunking it. I'm simply not ruling out a mundane explanation. Extraordinary explanations are the last resort, after more plausible explanations have been eliminated. And you still haven't explained any of this. Calling it paranormal is not an explanation.

Having spent decades in the photography industry, I have analyzed countless photos. The photo has the characteristics of one taken with a flash but with an exposure longer than necessary- maybe around 1/8th of a second. (Flash shots default to 1/60th s)

So, we've got a picture well-exposed with flash light, but bright spots of light in the image continue to get exposed over the 1/8th s, while the camera was moving. I see this all the time.

Closer objects, such as the snow in the foreground are bluer, lit by the blue short range flash, whereas more distant objects, such as the haze and the trees in the background are lit by yellower long range lights.

The cloud over the car, is certainly a haze, lit by the yellower lights that are lighting the entire scene, not by the flash. This also means that the cloud is part of the long blurred exposure.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's make something clear:

1] 'Paranormal' is not an explanation; it is a categorization. It does not explain an event (eg. spirits from the afterlife, hoax - These are attempts at explanations), it simply broadly labels the type of event.

2] The categorization is a general one. Ghosts fit into the category of paranormal. Then again, so does magic, God and aliens. Being labeled paranormal does not actually directly indicate ghosts.

3] The categorization is a default one i.e. by process of elimination. An event can only get placed here when it doesn't seem to fall into any of the other categories. This is directly related to the fact that there is no explanation offered. (We cannot deliberately put it in a category unless and until we can come up with a possible explanation by which to categorize it.)

Paranormal is a label that means no more than 'does not seem to fit into any known categories of explanation'. It does not point to a specific explanation.

Have I missed any clarification?

 

[Magical Realist]

Have you ever heard of double exposure in photography?

And you can tell it's a double exposure by the other figures that appear behind the car. Like the dude in the overalls and the white cap.

Sure it is dear. A double exposure of a kid in a red plaid shirt screaming. I see those all the time.

Not to mention that the head of the guy looks too big to even fit into the car.

It's an image. How can you tell how big it is?.

Honestly, there's a word for this.. Yes.. Gullible.

Ahh..but enough to warrant you swooping in with ad hoc rationalizations.

 

[Magical Realist]

I have no problem with accepting the paranormal. The problem is that you can't have normal evidence of the paranormal. The normal evidence that you present can only be evidence of something normal, even if we don't know what it is. The intellectual dishonesty is by those of you who make the leap from normal evidence to "spirits" or "space aliens". By the way, how do you know your evidence of "spirits" is not evidence of space aliens?

That doesn't follow at all. There's plenty of abnormal things we have normal evidence for. A murder suicide isn't normal but evidence for it is. The Big Bang wasn't normal but the evidence for it sure is. Black holes aren't normal but there is plenty of normal evidence for them. You commit another logical fallacy here in that you define paranormal as beyond normal. It is not. Go to any haunted location and spend a few nights there. I guarantee you you will experience something paranormal. Normalcy is a matter of location and timing. Be there at the right time and at the right place and it's pretty normal--even expected.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm not debunking it. I'm simply not ruling out a mundane explanation. Extraordinary explanations are the last resort, after more plausible explanations have been eliminated. And you still haven't explained any of this. Calling it paranormal is not an explanation.

Paranormal is a label that means no more than 'does not seem to fit into any known categories of explanation'. It does not point to a specific explanation.

Hey, you're the one "pareidoliaing" the face and shoulders of this kid into some cloud that is floating over the car. That's not an explanation. That's seeing what you want to see. I see a face. I don't want to see a face. I just do. Whose doing the wishful thinking here? And paranormal IS an explanation. It is invoking a specific cause and rationale for the appearance of a human face and shoulders on a photograph. It has a logic to it, it describes a physical phenomenon with specific properties and characteristics, and it is backed up by the experiences of thousands, perhaps millions of people. It is not equivalent to "I don't know."

 

[Magical Realist]

I've overlooked repeated fallacies, ad hominems, red herrings and attempts to put words into my mouth, instead preferring to address the primary issue. I've been more on-topic than the OP has been.

Another lie on top of the three other lies about me and what I've posted here. All you do is lie and distort what I've said to somehow trap me into something petty and irrelevant. It shows me that what I've posted here is disturbing people enough to have to think about these things for a change instead of regurgitating pat and cliche answers. And that's a good thing. Although most people here don't seem very good at thinking for themselves.

 

[Magical Realist]

One thing that stands out about that picture is that all the light sources have trails. Looks like an over exposure. It certainly looks like a face, but it's possible that it's also just coincidence.

I'm open to that. But I thought it intriguing nonetheless.

 

[Bells]

Sure it is dear. A double exposure of a kid in a red plaid shirt screaming. I see those all the time.

My parents have double exposure photos from back in the day of disembodied heads of family and there's even one of me running up the beach naked as a child, floating behind a photo of them having dinner for their wedding anniversary.

It's an image. How can you tell how big it is?.

Because when you look at the whole image, it is clear that you are wrong. For a variety of reasons.

1) There are several people floating in that image, behind the car which clearly points to double exposure.
2) There are no photos of the "teenager" who died to compare it to.
3) A search of the photo itself reveals something even more disturbing. ​

One winter evening, four teenagers went for a car ride through the Minnesota woods. At one point, a boy in the back of the car moved to the front passenger seat and the boy who was in the front repositioned himself in a back seat. Before the boy who moved to the front could buckle his seatbelt, the vehicle veered off the road and struck a tree.

The boy in the passenger seat was killed, while the other three teenagers were unharmed. A Minnesota State Trooper came upon the scene, examined the boy in the passenger seat and realized that he was dead. The trooper radioed headquarters and requested assistance. As he was waiting for backup to arrive, the trooper started taking photographs to document the accident. He turned in the camera to the police lab.

A police lab technician came to the state trooper and told him that the photographs of the accident contained very unusual elements, in that it appeared that the spirit of the deceased boy could be seen above the vehicle. The police lab technician gave the photographs to the state trooper, as the technician didn't know what to do with them.

The state trooper also was unsure what to do with these supernatural images. On the advice of friends, the trooper contacted Echo Bodine, who he was told was a reputable clairvoyant in the Minneapolis area.

The trooper made an appointment with Echo and showed her the images. He gave the photographs to Echo, telling her to preserve them and do what she thought would be best with them. Echo has kept these images in confidence for years. We are grateful to her for allowing these images to be posted on the IISIS website.​

That website contains a photo it claims is of the body in the front seat. The body is not wearing a red plaid shirt, but a white top. Clear double exposure there is also touted of being evidence of a spirit.

Another disturbing aspect of this is that a police officer took evidence from what is allegedly a fatal crash and gave it to a clairvoyant for safe keeping.

Does this sound credible to you?

I mean, did his "spirit" decide to change clothes for the photo? Did the white jacket make him look too puffy, so he changed into a red shirt?

Is it usual for police officers to steal evidence and photos from accident scenes they respond to and give them to clairvoyants? Have the family of the boy confirmed that it is him in the photo?

Ahh..but enough to warrant you swooping in with ad hoc rationalizations.

Hey, you post what is clearly dodgy stuff, people will respond to it.

You could try and post less dodgy stuff.. We live in eternal hope for you.

 

[Magical Realist]

My parents have double exposure photos from back in the day of disembodied heads of family and there's even one of me running up the beach naked as a child, floating behind a photo of them having dinner for their wedding anniversary.

Right..Because in with the police photos of the crime scene there just happened to be a photo of a male teen screaming his head off that got double exposed on another. No..I'm not buying that for one minute. Also a double exposed image isn't contorted and twisted like we see in that photo. The image is the same as what the photo of it is. Here's an example:

That website contains a photo it claims is of the body in the front seat. The body is not wearing a red plaid shirt, but a white top. Clear double exposure there is also touted of being evidence of a spirit.

I don't see a body in the front seat at all. Show us this photo you saw. Surely you can post it. There were some claims that this photo also contained an image of the dog in his car. I'm chalking that up to pareidolia. I don't see that at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hey, you're the one "pareidoliaing" the face and shoulders of this kid into some cloud that is floating over the car.

So wait. Now it is the kid. Even the article doesn't make that claim.

I see a face. I don't want to see a face. I just do.

Correct.

Only took, like, 400 posts to get that out of you.

|And paranormal IS an explanation.

No, it really isn't.
All you've done is categorize it as outside the circle of normal, but you have not said where outside.

What exactly is the explanation? How does 'ghostly presence at an accident' operate? Why does it not always occur? Where are these ghostly people communicating from? Why can the camera see them but the people cannot? What physics explains it?

You may have accepted that paranormal activity occurs, but you are silent when it comes to how.

It is invoking a specific cause and rationale for the appearance of a human face and shoulders on a photograph.

What cause and rationale?

Magic? God? Aliens? Ghosts? They all qualify as paranormal.