next »

[NLParanormal]

Not sure what forum to put this in so feel free to move it if needed.

This photo was sent to me by my brother. It was taken on his military warship by the ships high resolution, I'm going to call it their high tech spy camera cause I don't know the name and type of the expensive camera he was using. Here is a hosted image of it and I can send the original copy I received directly from him. I want to get a professional/experienced photographer view and from someone who might have the technology to have a real look at the photo.

The weather was bad that night, as you can see from the sea, and being so all crew outside are required to wear proper rough weather gear. There would also be sea spray breaking over the ship that night. The suits are black with orange reflective strips on the back, front and arms. The two glowing lights to the left are his comrade who was outside with him. He was on the deck end and the glow is the camera flash reflecting off his jackets reflectors. My brother and his comrade were the only ones on deck that night as it was their shift.

Original: ok the forum cuts off the original size file so I've made a smaller one. If you like to see the original size pm me and i'll email it to you.


My attempt at lightening:



My brother sent this to me cause he was rattled when they saw the pictures later on a computer.



This guy was not on deck when my brother took the photo. We can't see what is written on the box he is carrying. Also the member is not wearing the proper rough weather gear to be up on deck that night. His face also was not a crew member who was posted to that ship. There is a shadow to his right that looks like a double copy of him however there was no light to the left that would have produced the shadow. The angle of the camera flash would not have caused a shadow to be in that position. He is also missing his upper legs in the photo and is transparent.

Additional information is that apparently there was a crew member who died on the ship about 5 years before my brother was posted to it. Sadly my brother was reposted before he could track down any original crew members to ask if they recognize the man.

I've been scratching my head over the year trying to figure this out. I don't have the programs needed to take the photo apart to determine what is occurring here. The shadows don't make sense since there is no directional light source nor something behind in which the shadow can be on. Maybe it was two entity caught, possible shadow person? Long exposure also does not make sense to me since there are no 'ghost trails' around anything that could be moving. And if my brother moved during a long exposure then the picture would look different than what it does here.

I like to get some professional views of this picture. I think I've included most of the information but if I am missing anything that could help factor in just ask.

[Sharon]

Im thinking double exposer. The reason is that i think this is because i se some ( pardon the pun) ghosting to the left in the back ground as well as the right like a shadow person(but assuming this is also apart from the double exposer).
Cheers 

[NLParanormal]

Can you get double exposures with digital cameras? I'm thinking too if it was a double exposure then the person should have been id as a member of the ship. He was not id as a current member on board that ship and the camera gets a brand new card each time they go out to sea.

Could ghosting be mimicked by fog and sea spray?

I really like some detailed feedback so that I can go out and research myself. I'm all up for hypothesis but I want some concrete technical explanations that are pointed out.

[GOPRSDave.]

One of the questions I have, is this particular photo taken on a Carrier? If so then the particular box depicted in this photo would make a lot of sense. Also the particular dates you mentioned prior to the photo's taking, would also make sense. The particular box with the supply sticker and writing above is in fact a supply and part box for a F-4 Phantom II. As for the writing above the supply sticker, it spells Caspiren with the e being upside down. Oops, I also forgot to mention the upside down e is backwards.

I'm not going to state whether or not this is a photo that depicts genuine paranormal activity, because I was not there, and I cannot view the xif data for the particular photo. Which for me, just puts this photo in the inconclusive section for the time being. However in the photo, there is a refraction in individuals right eye which is closest to the camera of the camera's flash. Thus increasing the possibility of this being a dual exposure, rather than a paranormal phenomena. And Double Exposure is possible on digital cameras.

[CaveRat]

The crucial bit of information here is the camera, The photo does provide some information on the high resolution camera used.  (This assumes the data was not altered)

JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Make : Canon
Model : Canon PowerShot S70
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 180/1
YResolution : 180/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
DateTime : 2006:11:21 22:40:13
YCbCrPositioning : centered
ExifInfoOffset : 196
Sub Information
ExposureTime : 1.00Sec
FNumber : F2.8
ExifVersion : 0220
DateTimeOriginal : 2006:11:21 22:40:13
DateTimeDigitized : 2006:11:21 22:40:13
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 5/1 (bit/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue : 1.00Sec
ApertureValue : F2.8
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.8
MeteringMode : Division
Flash : Fired(Auto/red-eye)
FocalLength : 5.81(mm)
MakerNote : Canon Format : 904Bytes (Offset:942)
UserComment :
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 3072
ExifImageHeight : 2304
ExifInteroperabilityOffset : 1870
FocalPlaneXResolution : 3072000/284
FocalPlaneYResolution : 2304000/213
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit : Meter
SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor
FileSource : DSC
CustomRendered : Normal process
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Auto
DigitalZoomRatio : 3072/3072
SceneCaptureType : Night scene
Vendor Original Information
MacroMode : Off
Self-timer : Off
Quality : Super-Fine
FlashMode : Red-Eye Reducing Auto
Drive Mode : Single-frame
Focus Mode : Single
ImageSize : Large
Easy shooting mode : Night
Digital Zoom : Off
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
CCD Sensitivity : AUTO
MeteringMode : Evaluative
FocusType : Auto
AF point selected  : Unknown (16385)
ExposureProgram : Easy shooting
Focal length of lens : 5.8125-20.6875(mm)
Long Shutter Mode : Off
Photo Effect : Off
White Balance : Auto
Sequence number(Continuous mode) : 0
Flash bias : 0 EV
Image type : IMG:PowerShotS70JPEG
Firmware version : FirmwareVersion1.00
Image Number : 1000094
Owner name : [


Looks like it is a Canon Powershot S70, a 7 mpix digital camera.  While this could be a military version, the basic camera is available for around $400 on the market.

Crucial information related to the picture:

Exposure time: 1 second
Flash fired with autored-eye
Aperature:2.8

From this is possible that the spray could create false imaging due to motion blur since the exposure was 1 full second.  I assume the camera itself was mounted in some way since there is no apparent blur due to camera movement.  Thus any movement would correspond to the movement of the ship preventing blur due to camera shift.

We can also assume that since seas were rough the ship was moving.  The object in question however shows no blur, thus it can be assumed it is fixated with the ship and not free floating.

A second point to consider relates to the shadows to the right of each post.  While not as pronounced as the one near the object in question, they can be seen.  (Confirmed by pixel weight scan)  It was stated that seas were rough, and spray was present.  If a light source were located to the left of the field nof view, that could account for the shadows.

To disniss any possibility that this image might be the result of a shadow / reflection of something tangible from the spry, we would need to know what objects may have been present to either side, yet out of camera field of view.   Without this information it is impossible to say with certainty what the object in question is.   There are simply too many unanswered questions.  But this might give some place to start.

[NLParanormal]

One of the questions I have, is this particular photo taken on a Carrier?

It's not a carrier, its frigates class. That is what I thought it looked like, now if what you say is true then why would they have a part box for a f-4 phantom II on a navel frigate? The only aircraft they would have on the ship is a helicopter (can't remember the type right now).

Which for me, just puts this photo in the inconclusive section for the time being. However in the photo, there is a refraction in individuals right eye which is closest to the camera of the camera's flash. Thus increasing the possibility of this being a dual exposure, rather than a paranormal phenomena. And Double Exposure is possible on digital cameras.

hmm I know it could be double exposure but on digital cameras that is a rare occurrence now no? Someone also suggested it could be a long exposure picture but I'm not seeing the tell tail trails of anything that would have been moving.  

(This assumes the data was not altered)

I don't think it would be altered..I hope not cause I'd be very disappointed in my bro. Unless someone edited it before he saw it...

Thanks for the info CaveRat. I'm defiantly going to rely on your camera wisdom! *bows down* It is possible that it was not one of the more expensive cameras cause I have seen cheaper cameras on my bro's ship last time they visited me here.

To disniss any possibility that this image might be the result of a shadow / reflection of something tangible from the spry, we would need to know what objects may have been present to either side, yet out of camera field of view.   Without this information it is impossible to say with certainty what the object in question is.   There are simply too many unanswered questions.  But this might give some place to start.

I'll have a look through the ships photo my brother has or find a photo of the ship itself. To my current knowledge of that ship design, and last time being on them. There are no fixed lights that are on all the time to the left of the photo. The right side is the very side of the ship, hence the railing. Once I can find something I'll post it here.

Still even if not paranormal in nature this photo is a great learning tool! I do hate not taking the photo myself cause there are too many factors that are unaccounted for or uncontrolled for. But in cases like this I can only work with what I get...and grow my understanding and knowledge on cameras.

[Darren_GRI]

If you'd like another opinion, please send the original pic as taken from the camera.
It may also help if there's any others taken in the area at the time and/or one which shows the same scene during the day.

Regards,
Darren GRI
darren@ghostresearchinternational.com
If the file is overly large you may also use:
http://ghostresearchinternational.com/Formpic/form.php

[NLParanormal]

My brother would have that picture but he is out on tour working for the U.N. Their ship won't get back until late May. I'll send him an email asking if he can send me the original pic taken from the camera when they get back.

[Darren_GRI]

No worries ... subject to seeing the original, here's what I suspect.

No manipulation of the image.

While not a true double exposure, there are essentially "two images" making up the picture. The first is an exposure with the flash (1/1000th of a second) illuminating foreground objects essentially "freezing them", the shutter then remained open for a further 999/1000ths of a second exposing in darkness, bringing out the background. The effect is sometimes done deliberately and is called "flash ghosting" or "dragging the shutter". The night setting on many digital cameras creates the effect quiet accidentally when conditions are right - this setting uses the flash to illuminate the foreground but then keeps the shutter open to try and add background detail, quite often the manual will recommend a tripod be used in this mode. This photo was created using "night mode".

The main figure you see is a person who was there moving while the shot was taken. He was barely in the range of the flash, but enough to illuminate him to some degree on the 1/1000th of sec flash exposure. He kept moving and the area he was in when the flash fired continued to  expose the background - this has made him appear somewhat transparent. At this point he had moved to a position to the right and was no longer illuminated - but blocked out the background, hence the "shadow person" type figure.

The reflective strips to the left don't appear to be part of a persons uniform - the person should be able to be seen - it seems more likely they are on some piece of equipment in that position. I definitely would double check whether this person is actually the only other person thought to be present at the time - as photographically it seems a real person was present.

If there was only two present - the other person (your brother) is accounted for as he was holding the camera at the time, as it is unlikely a tripod was used. This is shown by camera movement evident after the flash exposure (which froze most of the foreground well in 1/1000th of sec) but you can see independent movement of the camera over the balance of the exposure by looking at the "R" "H" and "T's" as the camera moved down to the right while exposing in the dark - dimly exposing the letters using the ambient light.

The "shadows" to the right of the posts would likely be created by the posts themselves - no longer illuminated and moved to a different spot (due to camera movement), and now blocking out the background exposure. Note also the angle and distance from the posts to "shadows" closely match the angle of the letters to their dimmer counterparts, with only a slight difference due to lens characteristics. This confirms they are caused by the same movement while the flash was off and shutter still open.

The figure however does not quite follow the angle and distance ... as he was also moving independently.

Again, just my preliminary guess without examining the original.

Here's a similar pic we had awhile back which was caused by the same effect, note this was a 1/2 second exposure!

[Ann_API]

Impressive assesment.  I concur fully!  The most glaring is the sailor's shadow and not the same exposure time as the rest of the image but inherent picture motion.

[Darren_GRI]

I recently completed a report on this image following Diana submitting it to GRI for review.

We both thought some here may like a read of it and so here's the link to the PDF (1.24Mb)

http://ghostresearchinternational.com/Forumdocs/Atlantic Ocean Analysis.pdf

[CaveRat]

Well done report.  very concise and shows considerable research.

I have a question though regarding the split A / B sequence.  The flash certainly could account for split A as stated. But assuming the man was in constant motion, why is the split be image as well defined as it appears?  I would assume he was walking and would be moving ay a constant rate of speed.  Thus I would have expected to see a  uniform motion blur from his position at split A until the shutter closed 999 msec later.

Secondly, The man appears to be facing the camera and is walking carrying a box.  The lack of legs in the image is due as stated to his motion while walking.  So it is a safe assumption he is carrying the box and walking forward toward the camera.  Over 1 second at a normal pace he would cover about 3 - 4 feet.  Thus the split B image should show his relative size somewhat larger since he was approaching the camera.  When I superimpose split A over B however I see no apparent change in relative size.  Of course the assumption could be wrong and he could be stepping sideways, but that would seem an unlikely scenario all factors considered.

Of course I didn't have the original image to work with so I can't say what additional details I may not have had available so these are simply questions based on what I did see.

Thoughts?

[michaelogr]

I recently completed a report on this image following Diana submitting it to GRI for review.

We both thought some here may like a read of it and so here's the link to the PDF (1.24Mb)

http://ghostresearchinternational.com/Forumdocs/Atlantic Ocean Analysis.pdf

Hey Darren, this is a prime example of when people bring their skills and expertise on certain subjects into 'ghost' research and use them objectivley,. Excellent report mate.

[Darren_GRI]

Fair questions CaveRat and perhaps I should have went into further detail on that in the report as well.
I would suggest that if the movement was due to the ship's rolling it would dip and pause before rolling back. Much like a pendulum swing appears to covers the same point longer at the extreme outer limits. The photographer and indeed the person in shot may have also paused in adjusting for this sway. Thus the movement was more of jerk than steady - the majority of the Split B exposure being in the new position rather than a steady movement. This would allow more light (or less light if background light is being blocked) to impact in a specific area. This is evident in the photo overall:
The letters on the deck show more of a double image than a gradual trail as more light has impacted during the pause.
The white posts have a definite point where they have blocked more background light and allowed a stronger "shadow" effect.
The same is true for the figure itself.
In each case there is a very slight blurring in between but with far less impact.

The man I believe was walking more around the edge rather than toward the camera. There are stairs just behind him to the left where he's came on the deck. Although his head is facing in the direction of the camera, his torso is facing around 45 degrees to the right. This is in line with the steps and roughly where the shadow is. I would say he's actually moved no more than about 3/4 of the distance between him and the "shadow" the other 1/4 is caused by the overall movement which also caused the distance from the post to their "shadows". It does appear it is more of a sideways movement and only slightly forward. If he continued along the direction he's facing (45 degrees) it would appear more sideways than forward from the cameras viewpoint. Maybe it's more standard practice to follow the edge and not go across the deck.

Hope this helps, certainly amazing how long 1 second can be when you break it down!

I have updated the file to reflect the above, added some more info on how the camera design may have contributed to the movement and corrected the spelling/grammar (always leave that 'til last!  )

Thanks for the feedback and comments (you too Michael!), it's only through bouncing these things around amongst peers that we can strive forward.