Anyone care to debunk this pic?

6th

Congrats lotsapockets, the first one was both simple and very clever. I'd hardly hold it against anyone for not getting it though. Its something I hadnt done for years and even then is was for stuff in college not to hoax.

leddpipe

lotsapockets wrote: »

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

lol

leddpipe

I would have said that the anomaly from the original picture in this thread was composed of various different classes of orbs!
They appear to be fused together by some form of non-corporal substance, most probably ectoplasm!
The anomaly certainly displays signs of intelligence, as it appears to be attempting to manifest itself in the form of a human countenance!
What is the most likely explanation for this is the concentrated and concerted efforts by mediums and psychics who are probably in the vicinity, focusing their mental energies into helping this spirit manifest!
I would like to add that my opinion, while by no means definitive ( but fairly close), has been directed by many years of close work with orbs, psychics and mediums!

lotsapockets

These pictures were not done to hoax, as I stated they were done for training purposes. Yes the first one was very simple with quite a few clues as to its formation, that's the reason I was a little disapointed that no one was able debunk it.

lotsapockets

lotsapockets wrote: »

These pictures were not done to hoax, as I stated they were done for training purposes. Yes the first one was very simple with quite a few clues as to its formation, that's the reason I was a little disapointed that no one was able debunk it.

To be honest i didnt even try . I didnt find anything interesting in it .

leddpipe

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest i didnt even try . I didnt find anything interesting in it .

Dr.Dre/Dray,........ whatever the funk your name is!
Dont get frustrated becoz of your ignorance!
Just keep tryin little chump, youll get it eventually!
And even if you dont, ill walk you through it!
( Ah bless him hes a harmless effort).

:rolleyes:

lotsapockets

Now come on, people let's not start getting like this. I asked if any one care to debunk this, that means it was a request, if a person decides not to try that is their choice, their reasons and not for us to judge. I think we're all grown ups here, lets act like it.

stevenmu

ledpipe banned.

HEHE i must have rubbed him up the wrong way, did he take the photo ?

But really the only thing paranormal about this photo is that it was posted on the paranormal forum. Photo's dont do it for me to be honest . Video and audio are the way to go.

Or a photo backed up by video. Stand alone evidence doesnt really mean anything anymore .

lotsapockets

No I took the photo and the photo of the photo. I have to say that personally I examine all evidence placed before me, that way I can be sure in my own mind that I have covered all the angles. Though no matter what the source one should be cautious about secondhand evidence. Video and Audio can be manipulated too. This is an obvious one, I'm sure some of you may know the Red Room at Charleville;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=elaqEX2iSlw

malico

I think threads like this are a good idea to keep our skills sharp. And for those who's skills are still developing, it is a good way to learn.

Dre, I have to disagree with you on the point of this photo not being material for the Paranormal forum. As Tony pointed out, we do get a large number of photos from clients, and as most groups who receive content from the public, it would be a good 90% photographic anomalies (or, more likely what the client thinks is an anomaly). Although videos are fantastic evidence, the videos we usually get are from camera phones in the very compressed and lossy format of 3GP, making them hard to analyze in any form of clarity. And if photographic analysis as a basis for the gathering of evidence doesn't float your boat, that's your opinion, and as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Stoner

Ok along similar lines

Stoner

and two more, i think a link to the photo forum would yeild a higher viewing result, if i had something i needed explained I'd post it there , and other forums outside boards

malico

malico wrote: »

I think threads like this are a good idea to keep our skills sharp. And for those who's skills are still developing, it is a good way to learn.

Dre, I have to disagree with you on the point of this photo not being material for the Paranormal forum. As Tony pointed out, we do get a large number of photos from clients, and as most groups who receive content from the public, it would be a good 90% photographic anomalies (or, more likely what the client thinks is an anomaly). Although videos are fantastic evidence, the videos we usually get are from camera phones in the very compressed and lossy format of 3GP, making them hard to analyze in any form of clarity. And if photographic analysis as a basis for the gathering of evidence doesn't float your boat, that's your opinion, and as Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

I wasnt saying that the photo was not for the paranormal forum. Well i didnt mean to come across that way. I think the best bit of evidence is a photo backed up by video cam . Same with EVP . If you get an EVP , have that backed up with another recorder and a video cam.

Photo's are what they are .

malico

Hi Stoner!

Some good pictures there.

88 Looks to be a long exposure shot, the light source, if I'm not mistaken, is with a Inova (tm) X5 Micro Flashlight. The high ISO, 1600, tells me it was taken in near dark.

54 Looks very like the focus of the picture, with a distortion with a photoshop Free Transform and a Transparency Layer of circa 60-70% with a little bit of brightening

34, The lighting of the subject is not consistent with the room itself. The photo does seem to be a double exposure, as there is the reminiscent of the red-filtered light source in the corner of the window. With the all the elements of the photo being in sharp focus with an aperture of 1.8, and a manual focus used, it appears to be a very staged photo.

It's good to have a bit of good discussion!

Emania_Chuck

Hi everyone. I'm Chuck from Emania Paranormal Research. I'm the photographer of the photos Stoner posted (with my permission). I'll wait for a little while longer before revealing the specifics of how each of the photos was created.

I will give a clue that none of the photos was edited. They were taken directly from the camera as you see them.

Stoner

yes it is, to tell you the truth if i got a strange photo that I could not explain (yet to happen) I'd go to chuck in emania, I usually show him any photos that I come across on the web and he created them for the same reasons as you guys, to teach people about dodgy photos, so I thought I'd give you a look at them, it's amazing what can be done , I've learned a bit from chuck, camera settings etc.

It's a good way to teach people, well done.

Sometimes I think that dodgy photos are so hard to prove either way (once the BS has been filtered) that it is a ballgame on it's own trying to figure out what's going on.

edit, chuck I think i gave the game away, it's almost paranormal how we were on at the same time, lol, welcome to boards

Emania_Chuck

Well, since Stoner has given away that they are double exposures (yes, true digital double exposures exist), I'll detail how they were created.

The EXIF data you see in the file is the information for the first exposure in the series. Due to a loophole in the EXIF spec, cameras don't currently have a way to record exposure information for multiple exposures in a single frame. My Nikon D80 has a multiple exposure setting, which I used. Though similar results can be obtained with the 'Image overlay' feature in many digital cameras.

These photos were done as a proof of concept that digital double exposures are possible, and to show that the EXIF data is not reliable when dealing with photos like this.

88 - This photo was composed with no flash and a high ISO to avoid the argument that the 'orb' was caused by flash reflection. The overhead lamp was on to provide light. The shutter speed was fast enough that the motion blur would be strange. The second exposure was shot in the dark with an LED Maglight covered in blue and green craft felt. Exposure time was approximately 15 seconds. I carefully designed the light path to pass behind the chair and in front of the background objects.

54 - This was actually the first photo I did in this series. The first shot was a normal shot of me sitting on the couch. The second exposure was taken in the dark with a small LED flashlight illuminating my head and shoulder. Second exposure was about 5 seconds.

34 - This was an attempt to do a modern day reproduction of the Pink Lady of Greencastle Indiana. It was cold outside, so I didn't consider my settings quite as well on this one. The figure in the window was shot without flash while lit by a red light inside the house. Then a frame was shot with flash to expose the exterior of the house.

Stoner

you would have gotten away with it chuck, we posted within seconds of eachother. I'd the text change in about 30 seconds

Emania_Chuck

Stoner wrote: »

you would have gotten away with it chuck, we posted within seconds of eachother. I'd the text change in about 30 seconds

Possibly, but anyone getting the email notices of updates would have gotten your original text. No fun leaving half the people in the dark while the rest snicker to themselves.

GhostInTheRuins

Sorry for the bump, but I was just wondering; If someone showed you pictures that were taken like the ones Stoner posted, how could you tell if they were double exposures or not, considering you can't completely trust the exif data?

Emania_Chuck

That's the tricky part. If it is done well, it is very difficult to know that it is a double exposure. If it isn't done with a lot of thought, there may be some indicators (such as focus) in the photo that give away that it is a double exposure.

It should be noted that there aren't many digital cameras that are capable of true double exposure, but there are many high end cameras capable of the 'image overlay' function.

The end result for any photo, digital or film, will rest with the reliability of the person who takes it. Always ask yourself what benefit there is to the person if the photo is considered real.

I do hold out some hope that the EXIF spec will be updated at some point to take multiple exposures into account.

LCDeelite

lotsapockets wrote: »

This is a pic of the Long Gallery in King House, Boyle, County Roscommon. Anyone care to debunk this pic?

You're posting this thread in the incorrect forum- debunking is the zealous preserve of those who lurk in 'Skeptics Corner'.

Good luck.

iamhunted

i think this thread is more of an educational nature than of a debunking nature

stevenmu

Agreed. And if anyone does feel that a thread is in the wrong place please use the report a post button to report it rather than posting on thread.