Anyone care to debunk this pic?

lotsapockets

This is a pic of the Long Gallery in King House, Boyle, County Roscommon. Here are environmental obs for 0300hrs;
Temp 62 degrees F
Relative Humidity 47%
Barometric Pressure 1011millibar
EMF no higher than 1.2mg in a sweep of the room
There was no smoking in the building
It was not raining, stars were visible in the sky.



Please don't just jump in with first impressions, check the EXIF data, look at the pic then post.

Thank you.

johnsix

How long was it exposed for?

lotsapockets

For those unable to find it for themselves, here is the EXIF data

johnsix

The expose time was that 1/57th of a second or 1.57 seconds?
Is there only one picture of this?
Who was around the camera at the time?

lotsapockets

The exposure in this image was one fifty seventh of a second as clearly stated in the EXIF data.
There was no one in my imediate vacinity when this particular image was taken.

johnsix

I don't know man, looks suspiciously like a guy walking in front of the camera as the photo is being exsposed

Jimbo

He would want to be walking fairly quickly

monkeyfudge

It is the effect that you get from a long exposure though.

I double checked the EXIF data and it checks out.. but of course these things can be edited.

Here's the camera model here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Praktica-DCZ-7-1-Digital-Camera/dp/B000KP3JO4

I'm not familiar with the location. Is there a history of activity there?

lotsapockets

some more pics from about the same time


Shadow in top left could be from my finger or hand
The first pic taken I believe would be here in the sequence.

lotsapockets

for history of King House check out the ever popular "Haunted" by Paul Fennell. Also is it possible to edit EXIF data to the extent that it doesn't show it has been edited? if so can you show some examples?

CHD

its obvious.its a ghost!

nice pic

6th

lotsapockets wrote: »

Some sort of camera blur, if you look at the lights hanging from the ceiling they appear again in a different position as if they moved. So unless its a ghost and ghost light fittings then its nothing paranormal. Also, does the figure look like any of the members of PRAI? I think it does a bit.

6th

lotsapockets wrote: »

Also is it possible to edit EXIF data to the extent that it doesn't show it has been edited?

There is/was software called EXIF PILOT that can do it.

Superman?

lotsapockets

6th wrote: »

Some sort of camera blur, if you look at the lights hanging from the ceiling they appear again in a different position as if they moved. So unless its a ghost and ghost light fittings then its nothing paranormal. Also, does the figure look like any of the members of PRAI? I think it does a bit.

Agreed the picture is not the sharpest, the lights hanging aren't moving, but there is a shadow of the fittings on the vaulted ceiling, perhaps that's where you are getting confused. I am quite sure that the "figure" does not look like any current or past members of PRAI. Even with EXIF Pilot, if you use EXIF pilot or similar, to read the EXIF data it will show editing. However the EXIF data here is original to the images shown, no editing has taken place. Surely someone can debunk this properly. Yes all these images are fake, I know I faked them. I am putting together some training material. I honestly didn't think I made it that hard. What I'm looking for is someone to state how they are fake. I am a little disappointed that despite the wealth of experience on boards no one has been able to effectively debunk these images.

johnsix

Was I close?
Was it just some guy walking across the camera?

6th

Well If I had to commite to something I would say that the person isnt standing in that position at all, I know it might sound a bit illusionist but is a reflective surface being used?

lotsapockets

I think I'll leave the full reply till this evening, just incase someone hits the nail on the head. Try looking at the image rather than the content of the image Zooming in on areas of contrast may help, ignor the anomaly.

Dingatron

Some sort of reflection off the portrait on the right beside the near door?

Oryx

Was it taken through a glass door that held a reflection?

I no nothing about the data, but simply the brightness of the image would indicate a longer exposure compared to the others?

monkeyfudge

Oryx wrote: »

Was it taken through a glass door that held a reflection?

I no nothing about the data, but simply the brightness of the image would indicate a longer exposure compared to the others?

The exposure time on the photos appears to be variable, but it's pretty much in and around the same on all of them. I don't think a camera of that spec would even give you control over exposure times.

But I have noticed similar effects to this when photos are taken through car windows.

According to the EXIF these photos were all taken within a few seconds of each other, so it would be unlikely that there are any elaborate set ups with panes of glass to make it work.

Oryx

monkeyfudge wrote: »

The exposure time on the photos appears to be variable, but it's pretty much in and around the same on all of them. I don't think a camera of that spec would even give you control over exposure times.

But I have noticed similar effects to this when photos are taken through car windows.

According to the EXIF these photos were all taken within a few seconds of each other, so it would be unlikely that there are any elaborate set ups with panes of glass to make it work.

All youd have to do is shut a glass door.:) But only the op knows for now.

A flash was fired. Was it in the others?

6th

I'd say the flas was surpressed in the other shots. Poor quality photos anyway.

GhostInTheRuins

Yeah, the flash was fired in all of them. I can't understand why, if all the shots were taken one after another, there's such a massive difference in the quality. It would appear as if they were altered but according to the exif data they weren't.

Also there's some other artifacts in the other shots too


But really I don't have a clue.

lotsapockets

OK, Here is a big clue.



What do people make of this when you zoom in on the tool box wheel?

Yes the pictures are not of great quality, but be honest how many alleged ghost pictures are good quality? Now as the AV Analyst for PRAI I have been sent similar photos to these. The first thing I do is look at the picture, not the subject. The subject, in this case the figure, can be a distraction. It's a bit of misdirection the investigator gets concerned with how the anomaly was created, not how the picture was created. There are always clues.

lotsapockets

You will notice that there are vertical lines visible, these lines are there because the picture is that of a VDU displaying an image which in itself was a long exposure. This was deliberately done to try and show that first you look at the image as a whole, not just the anomaly. The anomaly is a misdirection from the real fakery. I have received similar images to this as proof of alleged paranormal activity. I thought I had given enough clues about ignoring the anomaly etc. The EXIF data was true to the image shown here but not true to the picture thee image was of. Movement can be seen but the person would have been travelling at about 85.5meters per second which is around 200mph so a little too quick to be normal. The EXIF data has had no editing and that can be checked on a number of programs such as EXIFER or EXIF Pilot. Without noticing how it was faked you would either have to classify it as paranormal or undecided (which almost sounds like a reply from someone who doesn't want to except the evidence so would possibly add to its' notoriety).
Taking pictures of pictures is as old as photography itself, just because we live in a digital age doesn't mean you can't use the old methods, and some people will. Fakes can be hard to spot and this was a simple one, as I said in the beginning this is an image I intend to use as part of some training I am putting together. Thank you all for participating. It is my hope that with images like this that I will be able to teach my trainees that you can't just call something a fake or genuine, you have to understand what makes it a fake or genuine too. By the way, for anyone who is interested, the figure in the picture is Mick Keane, he is one of our prospective trainees, not yet a member of PRAI.

GhostInTheRuins

lotsapockets wrote: »

You will notice that there are vertical lines visible, these lines are there because the picture is that of a VDU displaying an image which in itself was a long exposure. This was deliberately done to try and show that first you look at the image as a whole, not just the anomaly. The anomaly is a misdirection from the real fakery. I have received similar images to this as proof of alleged paranormal activity. I thought I had given enough clues about ignoring the anomaly etc. The EXIF data was true to the image shown here but not true to the picture thee image was of. Movement can be seen but the person would have been travelling at about 85.5meters per second which is around 200mph so a little too quick to be normal. The EXIF data has had no editing and that can be checked on a number of programs such as EXIFER or EXIF Pilot. Without noticing how it was faked you would either have to classify it as paranormal or undecided (which almost sounds like a reply from someone who doesn't want to except the evidence so would possibly add to its' notoriety).
Taking pictures of pictures is as old as photography itself, just because we live in a digital age doesn't mean you can't use the old methods, and some people will. Fakes can be hard to spot and this was a simple one, as I said in the beginning this is an image I intend to use as part of some training I am putting together. Thank you all for participating. It is my hope that with images like this that I will be able to teach my trainees that you can't just call something a fake or genuine, you have to understand what makes it a fake or genuine too. By the way, for anyone who is interested, the figure in the picture is Mick Keane, he is one of our prospective trainees, not yet a member of PRAI.

Thanks for explaining how you did it. Since I found this thread yesterday I've been looking at it on and off trying to work out how it was done, Obviously I'm far from an expert, but I have to admit that is very clever.

If you've got anymore that you could put up, please do.

lotsapockets

I will post some more up when I get the chance replicate some more. For confidentiality reasons I can not post clients photo's here without permission.
In the mean time have a look at this, I call it "Pareadolia in action!"


This is a simple picture of pipe smoke taken with flash. The EXIF data is not intact in this one as it was restored from a deleted file. I have had varying opinions on it, even though I took a picture of smoke, people have claimed to see spirits within the smoke. They state a theory that says as spirits have a similar density to air, the spirits can use the smoke as a medium to show themselves. I can not prove or disprove this theory though I think it is an unlikely one! How many ghostly type things can you spot?

the_syco

lotsapockets wrote: »

They state a theory that says as spirits have a similar density to air, the spirits can use the smoke as a medium to show themselves. I can not prove or disprove this theory though I think it is an unlikely one! How many ghostly type things can you spot?

I saw a cloud that looked like a bit of cotton wool yesterday...

With items like steam, clouds, etc, people "see" items in them, as the brain tries to make heads or tails of what's it seeing.

DANNY22XX

i think the word your looking for is
matrixing

lotsapockets

The correct term is "pareadolia" hence the title of the pic, matrixing is the "how" the brain converts random patterns in to more recognisable shapes. Basically the brain plays dot to dot with random features, each feature being a dot. Unfortunately the dots aren't numbered so not every one gets the same picture. For a more simple demonstration look to the heavens, the constellations, given familiar shapes by ancient seafarers to teach navigation. One wonders who the first person to twist navigation in to astrology? You can imagine the thought process. Travellers trust stars for navigation and direction, tell them the stars also can tell the direction to go with there life, keep it general and vague enough bits will fit and there might be a few quid in it too! Though I bet even they never envisaged €3 a minute phone lines. OK sorry slight tangent there.