Ghost photobombs
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
"That's abusive!" :coffee:
Here is a much higher resolution photo.
https://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2016/10/is_chilling_photo_of_alabama_w.html
You have to click on the small high res picture on the first page to get to a better picture.
It just looks like a young girl wanted to be in the photo and jumped into the background. It looks like a small tree is in front of her and a larger tree is behind her.
That seems like the most likely explanation based on the higher resolution.
https://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2016/10/is_chilling_photo_of_alabama_w.html
You have to click on the small high res picture on the first page to get to a better picture.
It just looks like a young girl wanted to be in the photo and jumped into the background. It looks like a small tree is in front of her and a larger tree is behind her.
That seems like the most likely explanation based on the higher resolution.
Ya right
People do that all the time to be in photos
Jump through those trees. Don't bother going in front of the trees
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
See Origin's post #643. The linked article vouches for the photo.
Last edited:
And shows that it is just a mundane photo with nothing supernatural. By the way Michael 345 was facetious.
What? Where's this "vouching" you talk about? The linked article doesn't even claim to have the original photo, but instead quotes another source - a site that appears to be closed down.
Also, is this the best you have on this photo? No high-res scan of the original photo? The highest resolution on that page is less than 500 x 500 pixels.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It's enough to show the photo isn't fake as you ignorantly claimed it was. It's the real deal, like most all the other compelling ghost photos posted in this thread.
It's the real deal, like most all the other compelling ghost photos posted in this thread.
Ummmm THERE it is "most" my highlight
Have you time to review all the ghost photos you posted and weed out those not in the most group?
I would put this in the not most group but would be interested to see what percentage from your many postings you, in your words, find to be "real deal" and "compelling"
My guess your percentage would be in the 90 to 100 percent
Other posters ummm 0 percent
Over to you
Wait perhaps repost those you now think are NOT real deal or compelling and what now about the photo(s) took them out of the most group
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I just checked all those photos. They're still there, totally undebunked. If you feel you can suddenly debunk them now, be my guest. I'm not reposting shit for you.
Why would a ghost say "cheese" like that anyway?
What happened to the most?
Oh THERE it is, now MR thinks ALL the photos are shit as in
I'm not reposting shit for you
First, I don't know what claim of mine you're referring to. As I recall, I claimed the opposite - that the photo is not necessarily tampered with.
Second, what exactly do you think is sufficient to show it isn't faked? The existence of a 500 x 500 pixelated image on the internet?
What do you mean by the "real deal"? Do you mean you think it actually shows a ghost, rather than, say, a girl in a white dress standing behind a tree? How do you reach that conclusion? What do you have, other than a 500x500 pixelated image?
What other information are you relying on?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Then you deny posting this?
That link Origin posted posted 5 successive cropped magnifications of the image in that photo. That's enough to prove it is part of the original photo and not something added in.
Well, we know ghosts do show up in photos quite often, as depicted in the dozens of photos I've posted already in this thread. So does it look like a ghost? Yes. Does it look like a girl jumping thru a tree? No. And that's a stupid explanation to begin with. Random girls in nightgowns don't jump thru trees.
See above.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
I also don't believe you have ever managed to establish, even on a balance of probabilities, that any ghost has ever shown up in any photograph, so your claim that ghosts often show up in photos seems quite spurious. An assumption rather than an observation.
----
Of course, I hold no expectation that you have any answers to my questions better than "It looks like a ghost to me". I suspect that you know no less about this photograph than I do by now, as usual, and you're just making an assumption consistent with your self-identity as a gullible woo-believer.
No, of course not. But there's no claim in that from me that the photo is faked.
Is that what we're looking at there? A 500x500 pixel photo has been repeatedly magnified, so that the last photo in the series of 5 has a similar pixel count the first in the series, and yet it seems to lack the pixelation that should be there if it was a simple magnification. (compare Kittamaru's post #640). I therefore dispute your claim that a simple magnification has occurred. There must be interpolation. Or else, perhaps a higher-resolution version of the original photo (i.e. more than 500x500 pixels) was magnified repeatedly. If that's the case, I want to see the original source photograph.
Not yet, since it is obvious that the photos are not a series of magnifications of the first image. There has either been additional manipulation, or the source was a different photo.
I see. So you're saying you're prone to jumping to the conclusion that anybody you see in a photo is a ghost, unless there's some hint that they are not. Probably you're even more likely to draw that conclusion if somebody primes you in advance to see a ghost rather than real person (e.g. by posting the photo on a website dedicated to ghosts and putting it in an article claiming there is a ghost in the photo).
I also don't believe you have ever managed to establish, even on a balance of probabilities, that any ghost has ever shown up in any photograph, so your claim that ghosts often show up in photos seems quite spurious. An assumption rather than an observation.
I don't know. What should a ghost look like? It sounds like you have some pre-conceived ideas.
It looks like a girl standing behind a a tree, to me (on one leg, perhaps). At any rate, she appears to be standing on the ground behind the small tree.
You've identified her clothing as a nightgown, have you? What's your evidence for that? Ghosts usually wear nightgowns in photos? (LOL.) This is a wedding photograph, right? How did you establish that she wasn't dressed up for the wedding?
----
Of course, I hold no expectation that you have any answers to my questions better than "It looks like a ghost to me". I suspect that you know no less about this photograph than I do by now, as usual, and you're just making an assumption consistent with your self-identity as a gullible woo-believer.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Good. So I won't disappoint you. I was clear in my answers to your questions and am not about to play an unending game of you feigning confusion just to argue more and more ad nauseum. I gave you my answers and my conclusions. That's just the way it is. Deal with it.
But I added a number of new questions that you haven't responded to. See post #656.
I assure you, I'm not at all confused, except about how you managed to reach the firm conclusion that this photograph shows a ghost and is the "real deal". Well, to tell the truth, I don't think there's much confusion about that, given your history on this forum. It safe to assume that your conclusion was formed spontaneously as soon as you became aware of the existence of the photo (probably when you were browsing the ghost forums or other woo sites). Your conclusion, as usual, has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with what you so desperately want/need to believe.
Are we done with this photo, then?
Were you hoping this would be another drive-by post by you that you could slink away from when you got bored of it, to devote your oh-so-short attention span to the next shiny shell?
It's quite amazing that you're so consistent and dogged in posting such flimsy nothings in support of your beliefs. I am in awe at what must have happened in your life for you to end up like this. I'd honestly love to know.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Ah, then we at last have proof of the existence of ghosts and therefore of life after death. Who gets the Nobel?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yep..Like I said, the article showed that the photo is genuine, and since the explanation of a girl in a nightgown jumping thru a tree isn't plausible, it must be a real ghost photo. Case closed.
Nothing more than the unbiased examination of good evidence obtained from viewing hundreds of paranormal investigations, photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts over a period of about 15 years.
Last edited: