Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[Bells]

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?

No one is saying that the white thing in the front seat is a double exposure. What is clearly a double exposure are the lines of light in that image, as well as the figures in the other image taken from outside the car that not only has the lines, but other floating figures and shapes.

Both of those photos show things that should not be there. But there is no evidence of anything supernatural or paranormal.

As for point 2, the white thing at the front is most probably an airbag, but ghost sites that first broke this story are claiming it is the body and the lines from the double exposure they are claiming is the spirit of the deceased. Does this not raise any questions for you?

The site I linked got the image, supposedly directly from the source, which they claim is the clairvoyant the police officer took the images to. They broke this so called story. What they fail to account for is the fact that the image of the whole car, taken from outside and with the image of the overtly large male floating above the car, also has other figures floating in it, behind the car and they and the lines of light clearly show that the photo suffered from double exposure.

If you look at accidental double exposure, like the ones I link, showed the same effect of ghost like apparitions appearing in these images and it is clear they are double exposure that happened accidentally and we know this because the people who took the photos all explained what they were. But I could have posted those images here and claimed they are ghosts of deceased relatives and you'd have believed that they were.

 

[Magical Realist]

No one is saying that the white thing in the front seat is a double exposure. What is clearly a double exposure are the lines of light in that image, as well as the figures in the other image taken from outside the car that not only has the lines, but other floating figures and shapes.

Both of those photos show things that should not be there. But there is no evidence of anything supernatural or paranormal.

As for point 2, the white thing at the front is most probably an airbag, but ghost sites that first broke this story are claiming it is the body and the lines from the double exposure they are claiming is the spirit of the deceased. Does this not raise any questions for you?

The site I linked got the image, supposedly directly from the source, which they claim is the clairvoyant the police officer took the images to. They broke this so called story. What they fail to account for is the fact that the image of the whole car, taken from outside and with the image of the overtly large male floating above the car, also has other figures floating in it, behind the car and they and the lines of light clearly show that the photo suffered from double exposure.

If you look at accidental double exposure, like the ones I link, showed the same effect of ghost like apparitions appearing in these images and it is clear they are double exposure that happened accidentally and we know this because the people who took the photos all explained what they were. But I could have posted those images here and claimed they are ghosts of deceased relatives and you'd have believed that they were.

No..I don't see other images in the photo. And a photo of a young man screaming would not be among the accident police photos. It makes no sense. There is no evidence of double exposure going on here at all.

 

[zgmc]

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:

Is there a different term?

 

[Magical Realist]

Is there a different term?

Long exposure..But that presupposes a light source that is moving. What could the light source be?

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1093&bih=514&q=long exposure&oq=long exposure&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2062.6280.0.6788.13.7.0.6.6.0.221.1189.0j6j1.7.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.13.1221.aUs70rkJ1Cc

 

[zgmc]

Long exposure. I don't know what the light source is. Police lights, flashlights reflecting off something in the trees?

 

[Kittamaru]

No..I don't see other images in the photo. And a photo of a young man screaming would not be among the accident police photos. It makes no sense. There is no evidence of double exposure going on here at all.

What doesn't make sense are claims of the paranormal without the extraordinary evidence to support them... yet you expect us to simply take them at your word all the time

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

For MR's elucidation, it is not a double exposure. Not in the usual sense.

It is called slow sync flash.

Google it for a wealth of examples.

As I alluded to, a lens open for a long faction of a second with a flash will result in a pic that has subjects frozen and well-lit along with lights and reflections that blur across the field of view when the camera is moved.

It is common. Even pros do it. A photographer may have the flash on but the shutter speed set to, say 1/8 of a second. They take the shot, flash fires, but the inevitable movement of the camera over 1/8 of a second leaves both trails of light and cloudy patches.

Note the characteristic cloudy areas that occur (in front of and across the drummer).

This is commonly mistaken by enthusiastic ghost hunters with active imaginations to be apparitions.

 

[Magical Realist]

For MR's elucidation, it is not a double exposure. Not in the usual sense.

It is called slow sync flash.

Google it for a wealth of examples.

As I alluded to, a lens open for a long faction of a second with a flash will result in a pic that has subjects frozen and well-lit along with lights and reflections that blur across the field of view when the camera is moved.

It is common. Even pros do it. A photographer may have the flash on but the shutter speed set to, say 1/8 of a second. They take the shot, flash fires, but the inevitable movement of the camera over 1/8 of a second leaves both trails of light and cloudy patches.

Note the characteristic cloudy areas that occur (in front of and across the drummer).

This is commonly mistaken by enthusiastic ghost hunters with active imaginations to be apparitions.

Nice try but there is nothing for this image to be reflected off of.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nice try but there is nothing for this image to be reflected off of.

See the above pics. Hazy clouds hovering in mid-air.

You have ventured into an area about which I am quite familiar.
These aberrations in photos are as common as dirt.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sometimes reality goes beyond all rationality:

 

[Magical Realist]

See the above pics. Hazy clouds hovering in mid-air.

Nope. Hazy clouds don't reflect light like that. Next?

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope. Hazy clouds don't reflect light like that. Next?

The expression you're looking for is nuh-uh!

It has been established that no amount of evidence will convince you of any alternate explanations. I'm not here to do that (though it is still here for your elucidation - you can't claim you haven't been made aware).

This is posted for the benefit of readers who are open to plausible explanations.

 

[Magical Realist]

The expression you're looking for is nuh-uh!

It has been established that no amount of evidence will convince you of any alternate explanations. I'm not here to do that (though it is still here for your elucidation - you can't claim you haven't been made aware).

This is posted for the benefit of readers who are open to plausible explanations.

Right. A bright reflection off of night mist. Makes perfect sense. You have explained it all Einstein. lol!

 

[DaveC426913]

Right. A bright reflection off of night mist. Makes perfect sense. You have explained it all Einstein. lol!

To be strict, I don't claim it is. I hypothesized what the cloud might initially be, but it does not matter because the explanation stands regardless of whatever is reflecting light. As notable in other examples, the haziness is itself an artifact of light/camera interaction. (Note other examples)

There is a preponderance of camera/light artifacts in that pic. That is undeniable. The artifacts are consistent with a long exposure using flash. It is enough to posit an explanation orders of magnitude more plausible than a ghostly apparition that is dependent upon an as-yet utterly-undescribed mechanism. Photography, on the other hand, is very well understood.

Nonetheless, as you say, it makes sense to you finally. And that is a good thing.

 

[Daecon]

Sometimes reality goes beyond all rationality:

I can do that by turning the camera upside down and having someone wave their hands in the air like they just don't care.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sometimes reality goes beyond all rationality:

If you took an indoor picture (longish exposure) of a curtain blowing gently in a breeze from an open patio door, you would get almost exactly this shot.
I have seen a zillion of these.

I'm not saying what this pic is of, I am simply saying that it requires no more conditions than that available in a typical non-haunted dining room in a house.

 

[Magical Realist]

The artifacts are consistent with a long exposure using flash

Light reflections off of transparent air now! This is getting better by the moment.

 

[Magical Realist]

Oops..nevermind about that infamous Cooper family photo. It appears to have been the result of 2009 horror art project. See how objective I can be?

http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/falling_body_photo

 

[James R]

Does anybody notice a pattern in Magical Realist's responses here?

As soon as anybody starts to analyse one of his videos of photos in-depth, MR suddenly loses interest in that video/photo and introduces a completely new one.

It is clear that he doesn't want anybody examining any of these things properly, or for very long. The risk is that they'll come up with plausible mundane explanations - something we have seen here for almost all of the photos and videos posted by MR.

This closing MR's eyes to any contrary explanation is fundamentally dishonest, or self-deluding at best.

 

[Magical Realist]

Does anybody notice a pattern in Magical Realist's responses here?

As soon as anybody starts to analyse one of his videos of photos in-depth, MR suddenly loses interest in that video/photo and introduces a completely new one.

It is clear that he doesn't want anybody examining any of these things properly, or for very long. The risk is that they'll come up with plausible mundane explanations - something we have seen here for almost all of the photos and videos posted by MR.

This closing MR's eyes to any contrary explanation is fundamentally dishonest, or self-deluding at best.

None of the explanations offered have fit the facts yet. How long am supposed to wait around while you guys make up new stories about magical reflecting light, overexposures at night, and double exposed screaming teens? I've got a thousand different things I'm always checking out. Excuse me for getting bored with your belabored excuses for denying the paranormal.