# Is This A Ghost?



## 007 (Jan 24, 2006)

Sunday a couple friends and I went up to Virginia City to the Bucket of Blood Saloon to listen to David John and the Comstock Cowboy's. (I missed ya arch...) During one of the bands breaks we went outside to take a pic. I always like to take two pictures just so I can pick the best of the two. Well... there's something of a big cloud in front of us in the second picture, and it's a mystery to me what it is. My camera is a Canon S50 Power Shot, digital, and it's never done this before. I was looking right at my friend taking the picture, and he did a good job. 

There are lots of stories about haunted Virginia City. So... is this a ghost?


----------



## archangel (Jan 24, 2006)

If it was I sure hope it was a girl...considering where it was hoovering!


----------



## Nienna (Jan 24, 2006)

Looks like a flash reflection to me.


----------



## archangel (Jan 24, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Looks like a flash reflection to me.





reflection off the pocket watch at a downward angle!


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

Would you kindly attach the image, or host with another site, such as imagehostingsite.com - I can't see the pic, and am VERY curious.


----------



## 007 (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Would you kindly attach the image, or host with another site, such as imagehostingsite.com - I can't see the pic, and am VERY curious.



I can't BELIEVE you can't SEE it. I use http://www.walagata.com/ Do you have firewall preventing you from viewing?


----------



## 007 (Jan 24, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> Looks like a flash reflection to me.



Off what? Why isn't there a flash reflection in the FIRST picture then?


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I can't BELIEVE you can't SEE it. I use http://www.walagata.com/ Do you have firewall preventing you from viewing?




Yes.  Work Network Nazis have that site blocked for some reason.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 24, 2006)

Lens flare from the flash or the overhead lighting.


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Lens flare from the flash or the overhead lighting.




Would you email that pic to me?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 24, 2006)

Don't do it! Watch him squirm! Watch him squirm!!!


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Don't do it! Watch him squirm! Watch him squirm!!!


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)




----------



## misterblu (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Would you email that pic to me?



What picture?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

>


I got your banned right here, toolbox.      :finger:     :bat:  :chains:  :fu2:


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> *The ClayTaurus  *
> Banned


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 24, 2006)

No ghost, flash.

Pic #1 is less exposed than #2.
Camera position is different in #2: note the white square over yer pals left shoulder and the 76 in the window in #1, the light just above his hat, and compare to #2.

My guess is the change in camera position caused the flash reflection.
I agree with Mom.

***TWO great pics, D****


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> My guess is the change in camera position caused the flash reflection.




I'd say, and I wonder if Misterblu agrees - A latent finger print/smudge coupled with reflected light.  Notice the guys are not 'in' the mist - the mist is clearly on top of the image.  If there was mist beside, thru, etc, their legs it'd be more suspicious.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I'd say, and I wonder if Misterblu agrees - A latent finger print/smudge coupled with reflected light.  Notice the guys are not 'in' the mist - the mist is clearly on top of the image.  If there was mist beside, thru, etc, their legs it'd be more suspicious.


But it's so much MORE fun to think it's ghosts. I say fuck reasonable explanations; it's a ghost.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I'd say, and I wonder if Misterblu agrees - A latent finger print/smudge coupled with reflected light.  Notice the guys are not 'in' the mist - the mist is clearly on top of the image.  If there was mist beside, thru, etc, their legs it'd be more suspicious.



I concur.


----------



## dmp (Jan 24, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I concur.




That setttles it.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 24, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> That setttles it.


Earthquake strike as you typed that?


----------



## misterblu (Jan 24, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Earthquake strike as you typed that?



He can't help it if h-h-he st-st-stuttters.  Don't be mean.   :halo: 


He's dyslexic too!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 24, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> He can't help it if h-h-he st-st-stuttters.  Don't be mean.   :halo:
> 
> 
> He's dyslexic too!


Good thing he's not agnostic and an insomniac too.

Then he'd stay up all night w-w-w-w-ondering if there was a d-d-d-d-d-dog.


----------



## 007 (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, the camera was on automatic flash, so it's possible it set the exposure different in each picture. However, the picture taker never moved. I was looking directly at him standing mabye seven feet away. He took both pictures without doing one thing different.

Now the twist. The main street in Virginia City, Nevada is C street. Story has it that a little girl had been run down and killed by a wagon back in the Comstock Mining days. Virginia City was a bussling metropolis of around 20,000, and wild and dangerous as hell. I printed the picture and showed it to my friend today at work, and he said such apparitions in pictures taken on C street are not uncommon. When another friend saw the pictures, he said he had one like it, but you could make out more clearly the outline of a little girl.

The flash was not reflecting off anything. If it did, both pictures would look the same. My lens I keep compulsively clean. I have been into photography for years, and I'm very particular about keeping my camera's in top shape.

Bottom line is, the cloudiness in the second picture has no GOOD explanation... other than... possibly the ghost of the little girl. Of course first of all you need to believe in such things. If you don't, you'll never buy the ghost possibility. That's cool. But me... I know both pictures should be identicle. I stood right there and watched as this person didn't as much as move his feet, but rather just pushed the button on my camera, twice. Big difference in pictures though.

I take it you could finaly see the pictures D. I thought you might, out of everyone, been quite interested, being the picture buff you are.


----------



## archangel (Jan 25, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well, the camera was on automatic flash, so it's possible it set the exposure different in each picture. However, the picture taker never moved. I was looking directly at him standing mabye seven feet away. He took both pictures without doing one thing different.
> 
> Now the twist. The main street in Virginia City, Nevada is C street. Story has it that a little girl had been run down and killed by a wagon back in the Comstock Mining days. Virginia City was a bussling metropolis of around 20,000, and wild and dangerous as hell. I printed the picture and showed it to my friend today at work, and he said such apparitions in pictures taken on C street are not uncommon. When another friend saw the pictures, he said he had one like it, but you could make out more clearly the outline of a little girl.
> 
> ...




about seven years ago the priest from St.Mary's was killed adjacent to the "Bucket of Blood" right about where the old hearse is displayed at the corner of the Bucket front door and the 'Delta' parking lot! He was struck by if I remember right a auto driven by the younger McBride brother who lost control in a patch of ice... could have been another prominent member of VC though...also this brother was found dead alongside the road near UNLV last spring...he did not show up for classes and a search found him...cause of death was unknown, suicide was suspected...just food for thought to continue speculation over the ghost vs flash theory!...and yes many ghost stories abound in VC!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 25, 2006)

Welcome to how urban legends begin.


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Welcome to how urban legends begin.


Yep, a close look at the background shows the camera "was" moved, even if it was slight.


----------



## archangel (Jan 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Welcome to how urban legends begin.




have some truth attached...where the imagination takes it is another story!


----------



## dmp (Jan 25, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> (All Urban Legends) have some truth attached...where the imagination takes it is another story!




No - Not 'all'.  Some are flat-out lies.


----------



## archangel (Jan 25, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> No - Not 'all'.  Some are flat-out lies.




I said all legends...but 'Urban' Legends you would be correct.... :tng:


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 25, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> I said all legends...but 'Urban' Legends you would be correct.... :tng:


If you said "all legends," that includes any type of legend, urban included.


----------



## dmp (Jan 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If you said "all legends," that includes any type of legend, urban included.



URBAN legends are only good for high altitudes or drag racing.  Mostly are gimmicks.


----------



## archangel (Jan 25, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> URBAN legends are only good for high altitudes or drag racing.  Mostly are gimmicks.



move on ya beat that comment to death...come up with something new!


----------



## archangel (Jan 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If you said "all legends," that includes any type of legend, urban included.




there are legends and then ya have 'Urban' which is akin to fables...and some do have truth attached...but not all... I conceded that already!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 25, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> there are legends and then ya have 'Urban' which is akin to fables...and some do have truth attached...but not all... I conceded that already!


 ok


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 25, 2006)

Hey guys, I have this video  of me driving in the countryside a couple years back, and after rewatching it, I think there might be a ghost present. Do you see the sort of misty white cloud that's following my car?


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 25, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Hey guys, I have this video  of me driving in the countryside a couple years back, and after rewatching it, I think there might be a ghost present. Do you see the sort of misty white cloud that's following my car?


No doubt that's a ghost!!!


----------



## Semper Fi (Jan 25, 2006)

Silly me, I actually jumped when I saw that.

ANd Pale Rider, that's definately a ghost!


----------



## Said1 (Jan 25, 2006)

I couldn't view the video. However, I have a feeling I've seen this before.  :gross2:


----------



## 007 (Jan 25, 2006)

Well... I guess I should have known that some would have interest in this, and others would eventually turn it into a fucking circus. And it's always the same ones...


----------



## 007 (Jan 25, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> about seven years ago the priest from St.Mary's was killed adjacent to the "Bucket of Blood" right about where the old hearse is displayed at the corner of the Bucket front door and the 'Delta' parking lot! He was struck by if I remember right a auto driven by the younger McBride brother who lost control in a patch of ice... could have been another prominent member of VC though...also this brother was found dead alongside the road near UNLV last spring...he did not show up for classes and a search found him...cause of death was unknown, suicide was suspected...just food for thought to continue speculation over the ghost vs flash theory!...and yes many ghost stories abound in VC!



Thanks arch, for at least keeping civil, and not degenerating this any further than the peanut gallery already had.

No more pictures for this crowd. They get bored with them, and then start trying to make you look stupid. Childish.

And people wonder... why I sometimes have such a short fuze.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 25, 2006)

No offense Pale, but you asked if we thought it was a ghost or not, and then when multiple people said it most likely was not, you defiantly thumbed your nose at our theories as to what could have caused that white spot. I guess we could have just all started flaming each other, but instead we just got goofy.

The fact is, if you study both pictures, they are not identical. The angle of the picture is slightly different between the two. If you don't agree, that's fine, but that's what many of us believe. You _did_ ask us if we thought it was a ghost or not.

I certainly wasn't trying to make you look stupid in the slightest. Perhaps you're being a bit hypersensitive in this regard. If you want to think it's a ghost, that's fine; I'm not trying to shit on your parade. What do you want us to do when you dismiss anything anyone says other than "yeah I think it's a ghost!" Argue with you?


----------



## 007 (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> No offense Pale, but you asked if we thought it was a ghost or not, and then when multiple people said it most likely was not, you defiantly thumbed your nose at our theories as to what could have caused that white spot. I guess we could have just all started flaming each other, but instead we just got goofy.
> 
> The fact is, if you study both pictures, they are not identical. The angle of the picture is slightly different between the two. If you don't agree, that's fine, but that's what many of us believe. You _did_ ask us if we thought it was a ghost or not.
> 
> I certainly wasn't trying to make you look stupid in the slightest. Perhaps you're being a bit hypersensitive in this regard. If you want to think it's a ghost, that's fine; I'm not trying to shit on your parade. What do you want us to do when you dismiss anything anyone says other than "yeah I think it's a ghost!" Argue with you?



Well Clay, first off, I did NOT "defiantly thumb my nose" at anyone. I mearly tried to "candidly" point out the circumstances surrounding how the pictures had been taken, (after all.. I WAS there), and then tell what I thought was a thought provoking story. But instead, it's more like YOU people "thumbed your nose at me", and then made fun of the whole thing as if I was some sort of idiot, and that always makes a person feel good. Know what I mean?

So that's all fine and dandy. You can do that to the next person brave enough to post pictures. It won't be me again. I'm not here to simply amuse others when my intentions are anything but.


----------



## Said1 (Jan 26, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well Clay, first off, I did NOT "defiantly thumb my nose" at anyone. I mearly tried to "candidly" point out the circumstances surrounding how the pictures had been taken, (after all.. I WAS there), and then tell what I thought was a thought provoking story. But instead, it's more like YOU people "thumbed your nose at me", and then made fun of the whole thing as if I was some sort of idiot, and that always makes a person feel good. Know what I mean?
> 
> So that's all fine and dandy. You can do that to the next person brave enough to post pictures. It won't be me again. I'm not here to simply amuse others when my intentions are anything but.



Ever heard of the Warrens, Pale? Here is a link to some photos they have at their site. There is one taken at a grave yard that is pretty creepy and others that have images present similar to the photo you posted. http://www.warrens.net/main.htm


----------



## Nienna (Jan 26, 2006)

Pale, I apologize if you thought I was making fun of you. I wasn't. And, since I'm a Christian, I certainly believe in spirits, and a spiritual world all around us. It's just that, to me, the second photo looked like a flash glare. But I was not trying to disparage your theory.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well Clay, first off, I did NOT "defiantly thumb my nose" at anyone. I mearly tried to "candidly" point out the circumstances surrounding how the pictures had been taken, (after all.. I WAS there), and then tell what I thought was a thought provoking story. But instead, it's more like YOU people "thumbed your nose at me", and then made fun of the whole thing as if I was some sort of idiot, and that always makes a person feel good. Know what I mean?
> 
> So that's all fine and dandy. You can do that to the next person brave enough to post pictures. It won't be me again. I'm not here to simply amuse others when my intentions are anything but.



OK Pale. Sorry I offended you with my goofiness. I had no intention of making you look like an idiot, whether you choose to believe it or not. I love a good ghost story as much as the next person; this just appeared as though you wondered what could cause a camera to do that, not share a ghost story. My mistake.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well, the camera was on automatic flash, so it's possible it set the exposure different in each picture. However, the picture taker never moved. I was looking directly at him standing mabye seven feet away. He took both pictures without doing one thing different.



Looking at the two pictures, it's obvious that your friend tilted the camera up a few degrees higher for the second one.  The composition is slightly different.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> The flash was not reflecting off anything. If it did, both pictures would look the same.



Not if the angle that the camera was held at was different.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> My lens I keep compulsively clean. I have been into photography for years, and I'm very particular about keeping my camera's in top shape.
> 
> Bottom line is, the cloudiness in the second picture has no GOOD explanation...



The lens doesn't have to be dirty for 'lens flare' or 'ghosting' to occur.  The lens on your camera is composed of several individual lenses.  When the light from an external source (or reflected from the flash) hits these lenses at the right angle you can get internal reflections between them.  This can create 'flares' in your pictures that often take on the shape of the aperture (pentagonal, hexagonal, or nearly circular (with really good lenses)).  'Flares' can manifest themselves as bright shapes, or less commonly as 'ghosts' wherein the image loses its tone and contrast in the affected areas.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I know both pictures should be identicle. I stood right there and watched as this person didn't as much as move his feet, but rather just pushed the button on my camera, twice. Big difference in pictures though.



Maybe they should be, but they aren't.  You wouldn't have had to see his feet move and I'm not surprised that you didn't notice a few degrees of extra altitude in the angle of the camera lens when he snapped your picture.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

Often, the simple act of depressing the shutter release can cause a camera a degree or more of movement.


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 26, 2006)

Geeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz, Pale. CHILL!
<img src="http://www.imagehostingsite.com/is.php?i=1245&img=ghost_buster.jp.jpg" border="0">


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> Often, the simple act of depressing the shutter release can cause a camera a degree or more of movement.



Exactly.


----------



## Shattered (Jan 26, 2006)

Not to change the subject or anything, but why's D playing in Blu's avatar?


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Not to change the subject or anything, but why's D playing in Blu's avatar?






			
				Drinky McDrinkster said:
			
		

> +  :alco: +    =


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 26, 2006)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Not to change the subject or anything, but why's D playing in Blu's avatar?


Noted..


----------



## Shattered (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

>



You got'm drunk and took advantage of him??  I always knew he was easy, but not <i>that</i> easy...


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 26, 2006)

? I thought it might be kung fu. You know, D trying to show he's REALLY not so gay. Guess not, dance on princes.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

It's the robot dance!


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> ? I thought it might be kung fu. You know, D trying to show he's REALLY not so gay. Guess not, dance on princes.




misterblu has that affect on me.  He makes me giggle.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> misterblu has that affect on me.  He makes me giggle.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

If you two played basketball against each other, it'd look something like this.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If you two played basketball against each other, it'd look something like this.




Nope.  Looks more like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2076186099811337018&q=white+men+can't+jump


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

I used to be able to dunk.   40lbs ago.


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> misterblu has that affect on me.  He makes me giggle.


*Tickles **yer fancy*, huh?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Nope.  Looks more like this:
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2076186099811337018&q=white+men+can't+jump


ACCESS DENIED!


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I used to be able to dunk.   40lbs ago.


How tall are you?


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> *Tickles **yer fancy*, huh?



He doesn't so much 'tickle' my fancy, as 'tease' my fancy.

I just like him coming


around because his wife is pretty.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> How tall are you?



73"


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> 73"


How much did you weigh when you could dunk? I'm 6-2 and I can just grab rim, can't get the ball in...


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> ACCESS DENIED!



It's a video of a naked Salma Hayek making cupcakes for a naked Jessica Alba.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> It's a video of a naked Salma Hayek making cupcakes for a naked Jessica Alba.


Oh, well then I've already seen it. No biggie.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> How much did you weigh when you could dunk? I'm 6-2 and I can just grab rim, can't get the ball in...



190. I had trouble palming the ball...probably still would.  Back then, I could stand on two feet below the rim, and jump up and hang from it.  When I learned how to jump, on the run, off one foot, I got the extra few inches in vertical required to dunk.  I used to play basketball a lot.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Oh, well then I've already seen it. No biggie.




[foodtv humor follows. warning!]

Gives a WHOLE new meaning to the show 'Good Eats', eh?

[/foodtv]


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> How much did you weigh when you could dunk? I'm 6-2 and I can just grab rim, can't get the ball in...



I'm 1770 mm tall and when I weighed 70,307 gms I could just hit the rim with my wrist/ upper forearm.  Had I been able to palm the ball, I could have dunked.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> 190. I had trouble palming the ball...probably still would.  Back then, I could stand on two feet below the rim, and jump up and hang from it.  When I learned how to jump, on the run, off one foot, I got the extra few inches in vertical required to dunk.  I used to play basketball a lot.


I've been trying to get my legs to get the extra two inches I need, as I can't quite palm the ball either, but 225 lbs is a lot of meat to fling airborne. I'm hoping with weight training in the thighs and calves, and maybe drop 5-10 lbs, I might have a shot.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I'm 1770 mm tall and when I weighed 70,307 gms I could just hit the rim with my wrist/ upper forearm.  Had I been able to palm the ball, I could have dunked.


If I weighed 160 lbs, I could jump on top of the backboard.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I just like him coming
> 
> 
> around because his wife is pretty.




I KNEW IT!

  :chains:


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I'm 1770 mm tall and when I weighed 70,307 gms I could just hit the rim with my wrist/ upper forearm.  Had I been able to palm the ball, I could have dunked.




I could have sworn you were at least 1784mm tall. Weird.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I've been trying to get my legs to get the extra two inches I need, as I can't quite palm the ball either, but 225 lbs is a lot of meat to fling airborne. I'm hoping with weight training in the thighs and calves, and maybe drop 5-10 lbs, I might have a shot.




Indeed...work calves...lots of work there.  And stretch.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If I weighed 160 lbs, I could jump on top of the backboard.



Well, if you could jump to the top of the backboard, I suppose you wouldn't have a problem being 4.5" shorter either.   :funnyface


----------



## Mr. P (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If I weighed 160 lbs, I could jump on top of the backboard.


BS, everyone knows, WHITE MEN CAN'T JUMP! :teeth:


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I could have sworn you were at least 1784mm tall. Weird.




I am on my drivers license... you must round up.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If I weighed 160 lbs, I could jump on top of the backboard.




...if you had the muscle mass to do so.  160lbs and 74" = Manute Bol.

but shorter.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I KNEW IT!
> 
> :chains:




...and you should SEE some of the pics I've taken of her...Museum of GlASS.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> ...and you should SEE some of the pics I've taken of her...Museum of GlASS.




You know I have.  You never did give me the one of her...Museum of glASS.  Hrm.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> You know I have.  You never did give me the one of her...Museum of glASS.  Hrm.




I don't remember having it - She told me she still does, somewhere.  She treasures it.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I don't remember having it - She told me she still does, somewhere.  She treasures it.
> 
> :wank:




Oh, I see...   

Maybe I should start a thread with some of those pictures... what would be a good topic?  Hrm.  

Seriously though, some of those pictures are excellent.  She does treasure them.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Oh, I see...
> 
> Maybe I should start a thread with some of those pictures... what would be a good topic?  Hrm.
> 
> Seriously though, some of those pictures are excellent.  She does treasure them.


Its time for these photos. Post 'em.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> Oh, I see...
> 
> Maybe I should start a thread with some of those pictures... what would be a good topic?  Hrm.
> 
> Seriously though, some of those pictures are excellent.  She does treasure them.




'twas a pretty good way to get to know somebody...


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Its time for these photos. Post 'em.




I should probably check with my wife first.     :whip3:


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

misterblu said:
			
		

> I should probably check with my wife first.     :whip3:




I just found my local copy. I called your mrs. and she said she's fine with it.  

http://www.imagehostingsite.com/is.php?i=1246&img=museumofglASS.j.jpg


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I just found my local copy. I called your mrs. and she said she's fine with it.
> 
> http://www.imagehostingsite.com/is.php?i=1246&img=museumofglASS.j.jpg


Nice rack.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> I just found my local copy. I called your mrs. and she said she's fine with it.
> 
> http://www.imagehostingsite.com/is.php?i=1246&img=museumofglASS.j.jpg




Definately not cool.     :finger:


----------



## archangel (Jan 26, 2006)

posts 52-92 not just off topic but off the page...Good Golly Ms.Molly give pale a break...he submitted something other than the usual Gay/Homo threads that seem to go on forever...and now y'all have taken over his thread with all this I can jump higher than you and 'oh my nice rack' nonsense!
Back on topic ...

Pale I have personally never seen a ghost...however that does not mean they do not exist...if people are truly religious as they spout off in here then they also would be a little more open to this discussion...Christians and others believe in a after life...so maybe ghosts are those caught in pergatory...some people may be more sensitive and therfore see them...I suppose I am too clinical by nature and therefore the ghosts avoid me....


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Jan 26, 2006)

Well we all certainly got told. And by the king of staying on topic, too.


----------



## misterblu (Jan 26, 2006)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=380320#post380320


----------



## 007 (Jan 26, 2006)

archangel said:
			
		

> posts 52-92 not just off topic but off the page...Good Golly Ms.Molly give pale a break...he submitted something other than the usual Gay/Homo threads that seem to go on forever...and now y'all have taken over his thread with all this I can jump higher than you and 'oh my nice rack' nonsense!
> Back on topic ...
> 
> Pale I have personally never seen a ghost...however that does not mean they do not exist...if people are truly religious as they spout off in here then they also would be a little more open to this discussion...Christians and others believe in a after life...so maybe ghosts are those caught in pergatory...some people may be more sensitive and therfore see them...I suppose I am too clinical by nature and therefore the ghosts avoid me....



I'm not convinced myself whether or not ghosts exist arch. That's partly why I posted the pictures, and I had heard the stories about the people who had been killed in the close proximity. I was also wanting to know if anyone else had ever had that happen in a photo. I've seen plenty of these examples on TV, and they do purport that an apartition can be seen as a "white cloud" or "mist" in photo's, but not with the eyes. Like I say, I'm not sure. But I do know, I've been a photography buff for many, many years. I like Canon's. My first nice camera was a Canon AE-1, 35mm, and the camera I took those pictures with was my newest camera, a Canon S50, 5.2 mega pixel, digital. I was trying to use simple logic looking at the pictures. If "flash glare" is what caused the large cloud, then why didn't it happen in BOTH pictures, when the person taking the pictures didn't even move his feet. Sure he might have pointed the camera a tiny fraction either up or down, but it was at the same height, the same distance, and the same side to side. So to me, it just seems like, that if something caused flash glare in one picture, it would have happened in both.

I can't explain what happened, and I'm not going to completely rule out it could be an apparition. To me, it just couldn't be flash glare.

I guess I'll leave it at that.


----------



## dmp (Jan 26, 2006)

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I was trying to use simple logic looking at the pictures. If "flash glare" is what caused the large cloud, then why didn't it happen in BOTH pictures, when the person taking the pictures didn't even move his feet. Sure he might have pointed the camera a tiny fraction either up or down, but it was at the same height, the same distance, and the same side to side. So to me, it just seems like, that if something caused flash glare in one picture, it would have happened in both.




It didn't happen in both for the reasons outlined by MisterBlu and others.  It's not a cloud that was around the subjects, but something which entered the lens before the light reflected off the subjects...it's 'smeared' over them - not surrounding them.


----------



## 007 (Jan 26, 2006)

dmp said:
			
		

> It didn't happen in both for the reasons outlined by MisterBlu and others.  It's not a cloud that was around the subjects, but something which entered the lens before the light reflected off the subjects...it's 'smeared' over them - not surrounding them.



Right... a ghost.


----------



## 007 (Jan 26, 2006)

Of course these examples are more pronounced,  but the phenomenon in these pictures is the same, and there are virtually hundreds of thousands of examples. Many, "unexplainable". 

In all three of these examples, the pictures were taken at or very near where someone had died. Just like the picture I showed.


----------

