DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Is this an image of a person?
Why do ghosts wear human clothes?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It's a rock or hill with half a face features. Can't you tell? You really think it is a real human face?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Is this an image of a person?
It's a cloud. Can't you tell?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To my eye, it is (more plausibly than a ghost) a random pattern in a cloud that looks kind of face-like.
I'm asking if you can tell.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I just answered your question. Are you losing it?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Do you see what might be face-like features in that cloud, and in the feature on Mars?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yes..but it's still a cloud. The camera is recording exactly what is there.
Bells
Staff member
It wasn't a crime scene.
It was the scene of an allegedly tragic accident. And somehow or other, those images have made it to ghost sites online with no corroborating evidence. Worse yet, they point to a police officer taking evidence and giving them to a clairvoyant.
I take it you did not even bother to look at the image you posted. There are other figures 'floating' in the background, not to mention light streaks. Which again clearly points to double exposure or over exposure of some sort.
Not to mention the scale of the screaming head is overtly large, and the clothing does not match that of the body in the car.
Well why would you not?
You are quick to believe these bizarre stories and categorically refuse to believe anything remotely rational.
There is no evidence that is a ghost, and there is no evidence that is the ghost of the person who died in that crash and there is no evidence that it is what you are claiming it is.
You have not provided anything that is even remotely convincing and you have not provided anything that actually matches any description of what you are claiming about this image. The boy who died was wearing a white jacket. The upper body in the photo is wearing something else. Yet you claimed that the red shirt is somehow significant, when the boy who died was wearing a white top. So did his spirit have time to rush home and change clothes? Why are the clothes different?
An artistic example.
Here are normal versions that happen to people often:
Here is a description from the guy who took the photo.
Notice similar streaks on the bottom right hand side of the image. Notice the size differences and how some of the children look abnormally big compared to the others and how there appear to be other figures in the image that aren't there. They aren't ghosts. The person who took the photo clearly stated it is double exposure that happened by accident when he took a photo of the kids at a cookout.
Here is another one:
Accidental double exposure is very common.
Not ghosts.
I actually linked to the page that apparently shows the body in the front seat. In the images posted on this site, you can see a white lump of some sort on the front passenger seat. The site that was discussing and provided so called background to the image you posted, also contained the image of the body clothed in white on the front seat of the car with clear indication of over or double exposure for those two photographs.
Here is the link again: http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=reincarnation-spirit-photos-images
There is no evidence at all that the person floating above the car is the same person as the one that was allegedly dead in the car. For one thing, their clothes are different. Body in the car that crashed is wearing a white jacket. Person in the photo you posted is wearing a red shirt. What is tragic about this is that some twat of a police officer stole images from an accident scene and gave them to a clairvoyant (allegedly) and they used what is clearly over exposure and tried to use that to give some sense of legitimacy to their beliefs. Or evidence from accident scenes are being used to further people's beliefs.
For example, I asked you to please explain the other bodies floating in the image and you have consistently ignored that. Only one person died in the crash. Why is there some dude floating in the background with overalls and a white cap? Again, this points to double exposure or over exposure. The whole thing is a scam and frankly, if I was that kid's family, I'd be suing the pants off them.
You can chalk it up to whatever you want, does not mean you are correct.
You want people to believe that is the spirit of the boy who died in that car? Post a comparison photo of the boy when he was alive. Post the images of the negatives and all the other photos on that roll of film. One photo, with clear evidence of double or over exposure, does not a ghost photo make.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, you agree it's not really a face - it's a cloud with random detail that happens to loosely resemble a face.
As you said, you don't want to see a face, you just do.
You know here I'm going with this.
What do you see here?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Two brief replies:
The double-exposures show no contortion of the image. It doesn't happen. The images are normal and clear.
And 2. That white thing in the front seat is an airbag. It isn't a double-exposure of anyone sitting in the seat. And it certainly isn't a ghost. Try again?
The double-exposures show no contortion of the image. It doesn't happen. The images are normal and clear.
And 2. That white thing in the front seat is an airbag. It isn't a double-exposure of anyone sitting in the seat. And it certainly isn't a ghost. Try again?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I already told you what I see. The apparition of a young man in a red checkered shirt. What do you see? Another face-shaped cloud? lol!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Perfect.
1] When shown a photo of an object on Mars that loosely resembles a face, you see exactly that. You don't want to see a face, you just do. But you know it's not a real person.
2] When shown a photo of an object in the sky that loosely resembles a face, you see exactly that. You don't want to see a face, you just do. But you know it's not a real person.
3] When shown a photo of an object in a car accident that loosely resembles a face, you see a ghost.
The only difference between the first two and the latter, is that you want to see a ghost. So you that is what you conclude.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
What I want or don't want has nothing to do with it. And I'm not the only one who sees the apparition. This photo is world famous. Even those of you who are claiming it is double exposure are admitting it isn't pareidolia. That it is the image of a real person. Isn't that what you're claiming? Or are you sticking to the hidden officer's cloud theory? lol!
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To summarize for posterity.
Quotes only; none of these are my words.
Quotes only; none of these are my words.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To summarize the summary:
1] granted pareidolia.
2] granted pareidolia.
3] granted pareidolia.
4] actual apparition of a person.
1] granted pareidolia.
2] granted pareidolia.
3] granted pareidolia.
4] actual apparition of a person.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Right..no pareidolia of something else in this case. Just an apparition of a young man. Got it?
So are you still claiming it is double exposure? Or are you changing your story now?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Because it's not something else from the apparition of a young man. There is no preexisting blob of light that just happens to look like a young man screaming. It IS an apparition of that. And by saying it is double exposure you are agreeing with me.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Overexposure results in a photo receiving too much light and gives the photos a washed out and pale appearance. Seeing this was taken at night, I doubt that's the case. Here's what overexposed photos look like:
- Status