Walhalla Ghost

[longqi]

Examples please?

And, we're not narrow minded (the non-believers) we're just after evidence!

thats the problem

in West Africa I will always believe I saw a witchdoctor turn into a hyena
I deliberately neither ate nor drank anything that was offered to me and they area was not smokey

I watched a very old elder walk into waist deep water with two assistants and sit a huge crocs head across his lap while he sang to it
Afterwards it simply swam away

With the older Dayaks I have seen a few things that involved animals and people doing things that normally would be considered not in the nature of either one

I hunted with bushmen in the Kalahari Desert and watched them 'pray' an animal to come and describe it perfectly the day before we saw its tracks and the next morning this very elusive animal was perfectly placed for a kill within 100metres of our camp

In Northern Canada I watched the Innuit [eskimos] do a very similar thing with Artic Foxes

I firmly believe that I know what I saw and felt
But that belief is not scientific evidence and I am in no way suggesting it is

 

[slim6y]

This morning, I was watching snooker, I placed a bet on Mathew Stevens to win a frame... He was doing well, but then all of a sudden, for no apparent reason what so ever, he missed an easy shot... My money wasn't safe... Barry Hawkins took the table, 59 points down.. It seemed impossible but he carefully took every shot... I couldn't believe it... I kept willing him to miss a shot or make a foul so I could win some money... But he kept on successfully potting the balls over and over....

Do you know what - he needed the pink and the black to win the frame.... He sunk the pink and the black was on its spot and all he had to do was sink the black to win the frame... I wanted that money pretty badly...

I willed him harder and harder to miss an easy shot - this is a professional snooker player... We're not talking someone who comes in for a day and wins then goes back to work as a forklift driver and Dunder Mifflin Paper Supplies...

This is a shot even I could take... But I summons all the power of the TAB and I said 'MISS THE SHOT' out loud... I must have said it loud enough, because Barry Hawkins missed - I guess you could see the replay if you don't believe me...

He missed - what would seem to be the easiest shot...

So Stevens took to the frame again - 59 all... Black needed....

But unfortunately he missed and Barry Hawkins got the frame and I lost my money.... Oh well.. I guess there's nothing mystical there at all!

 

[Asharee133]

:lol: :lol:

:facepalm:

 

[moosenoose]

I posted it, and I'm still laughing about it ....... I'm easy to amuse!

 

[Kc_read]

Just putting it out there that there is an app that embbeds a ghostly girl figure into a photo much like that photo at the start of this thread, my step mum had me beleiving it was real for so long...

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Barney found a ghost
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Red_LaCN]

My son did not know it was even there. It was only when a friend on facebook commented on it that he freaked out.

 

[Australis]

would be funny if it was all a hoax though

 

[Red_LaCN]

would be funny if it was all a hoax though

I would kick his ****!! But its no hoax,he seriously freaked out when it was pointed out to him.

 

[slim6y]

I would kick his ****!! But its no hoax,he seriously freaked out when it was pointed out to him.

How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up?

Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar.

You can prove this by taking a photo of a rainbow or refraction/dispersion off of a CD when you shine it into the sun. The camera picks up ALL of the visible wavelengths of light and does not show you light you 'can not' see.

So - I ask you - how can this be anything other than a hoax?

 

[Kam333]

How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up?

Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar.

You can prove this by taking a photo of a rainbow or refraction/dispersion off of a CD when you shine it into the sun. The camera picks up ALL of the visible wavelengths of light and does not show you light you 'can not' see.

So - I ask you - how can this be anything other than a hoax?

Look up orbs, they have been scientifically studied for a few years. They are only visible under certain light wavelengths including a camera flash and can be seen by both the human eye and the camera.
There has been a lot of theories but no conclusions have been proven but what is known is they are free moving and can appear individually or a group and can be proven to exist. . . . but we dont know what they are. . . . like ghosts

 

[waruikazi]

Look up orbs, they have been scientifically studied for a few years. They are only visible under certain light wavelengths including a camera flash and can be seen by both the human eye and the camera.
There has been a lot of theories but no conclusions have been proven but what is known is they are free moving and can appear individually or a group and can be proven to exist. . . . but we dont know what they are. . . . like ghosts

We certainly do know what orbs are. They are light that is reflecting off dust particles in the air that aren't quite visible to the naked eye. Very natural and don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain them.

 

[Red_LaCN]

I know my son,and i know he took the photo,and i also know that he was unaware of what was on it when he posted his night time ghost hunting activity pics in his facebook. I trust him.

 

[Red-Ink]

How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up?

Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar.

You can prove this by taking a photo of a rainbow or refraction/dispersion off of a CD when you shine it into the sun. The camera picks up ALL of the visible wavelengths of light and does not show you light you 'can not' see.

So - I ask you - how can this be anything other than a hoax?

CCDs and CMOS chips are sensitive to IR Slimy, they put IR filters in front of the sensors on Digicams. From my studies, on paper Sensors should not be sensitive to UV as they are silicon based and silicon naturally blocks out UV but would'nt you know it... They do pick up UV as well (though in minute levels).

The anomally in the image could be due to interpolation as well, the camera trying to make sense of data it is only partially capturing and the algorithms going.. meh close enough

 

[Kam333]

We certainly do know what orbs are. They are light that is reflecting off dust particles in the air that aren't quite visible to the naked eye. Very natural and don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain them.

Did that take a whole 3 secs to gain that info, cause then we can go into describe all the obvious descriptions of said orbs. . . and who said they were supernatural?
If you look a little further and dodge the Fairy worshiping sites you will discover that there has been a phenomenon being studied for a long time with a lot of theories but no solid proof. Some places are known for high activity in all elemental conditions. The basic belief is that they are something akin to a plasma ball. Some really interesting info available worth reading, regardless of how you might feel about ghosts.

 

[slim6y]

CCDs and CMOS chips are sensitive to IR Slimy, they put IR filters in front of the sensors on Digicams. From my studies on paper Sensors should not be sensitive to UV as they are silicon based and silicon naturally blocks out UV but would'nt you know it... They do pick up UV as well (though in minute levels).

The anomally in the image could be fue to interpolation as well, the camera trying to make sense of data it is only partially capturing and the algorithms going.. meh close enough

Yes, I am very aware they pick up IR - hence why I know people who remove the filter to pick up IR - take a photo of a rainbow in IR - it's very very interesting... But we still can NOT see in the IR spectrum - hence, the requirement for the filter.

The UV - in minute levels doesn't change the overall appearance of the photo - I have taken 100s of photos with and without UV filters (tho, I am never 100% convinced about UV filters - because glass itself is a UV filter without the magnesium coating). Anyway... Noise (in a photo) is also the inability of a camera to make sense of the date it is processing. Just like the human eye - the thing is, this 'girl' or 'apparition' behind the tree was not picked up by a camera flash - though the foreground looks like it has been lit by a flash.

The 'girl' behind the tree, to me, appears to be nothing more than a slightly delayed exposure (maybe 1/10 of a second or more) - and any opbject able to move and reflect the limited amount of light will show up on the camera as a blur - it is certainly that or as pointed out - an app for an iPhone... It wouldn't matter if I was wrong, because, the overall outcome will be the same - it is merely a trick of the camera and not of the eye!

 

[waruikazi]

Did that take a whole 3 secs to gain that info, cause then we can go into describe all the obvious descriptions of said orbs. . . and who said they were supernatural?
If you look a little further and dodge the Fairy worshiping sites you will discover that there has been a phenomenon being studied for a long time with a lot of theories but no solid proof. Some places are known for high activity in all elemental conditions. The basic belief is that they are something akin to a plasma ball. Some really interesting info available worth reading, regardless of how you might feel about ghosts.

Orbs as in the round light white coloured balls that we see in photographs and video footage? Plasma? Reference please!

 

[Red-Ink]

Yes, I am very aware they pick up IR - hence why I know people who remove the filter to pick up IR - take a photo of a rainbow in IR - it's very very interesting... But we still can NOT see in the IR spectrum - hence, the requirement for the filter.

The UV - in minute levels doesn't change the overall appearance of the photo - I have taken 100s of photos with and without UV filters (tho, I am never 100% convinced about UV filters - because glass itself is a UV filter without the magnesium coating). Anyway... Noise (in a photo) is also the inability of a camera to make sense of the date it is processing. Just like the human eye - the thing is, this 'girl' or 'apparition' behind the tree was not picked up by a camera flash - though the foreground looks like it has been lit by a flash.

The 'girl' behind the tree, to me, appears to be nothing more than a slightly delayed exposure (maybe 1/10 of a second or more) - and any opbject able to move and reflect the limited amount of light will show up on the camera as a blur - it is certainly that or as pointed out - an app for an iPhone... It wouldn't matter if I was wrong, because, the overall outcome will be the same - it is merely a trick of the camera and not of the eye!

Agreed

On a side note Slimy... if your interested in UV photography I may be able to help you out with a list of equipment that will let more UV into your images. It was my main point of interest while I was at Uni...

Speaking of the unseen...

Not supernatural or a ghost just the part's of the UV spectrum captured by a camera.

 

[slim6y]

That's SWEET!!!

I have tried taking good photos of rainbows - but only with the allowable spectrum the camera permits...

Have you ever taken a photo of a rainbow with the filter you used above? That would be so cool! I love IR photos of rainbows... There was a perfect one here yesterday - even with the double rainbow - I wished I had an IR camera and one to allow UV too so I could compare... But it was such a clear rainbow - just at sunset against super dark clouds!

What was the light source on above?

I always find it incredible what we're actually missing out there - I am teaching light and waves to my year 12s at the moment and even just seeing the tiniest part of the EM spectrum that we can see, and then pointing out the other 10s of 1,000,000s of wavelengths we don't!

 

[Red-Ink]

typos and more typos

That's SWEET!!!

I have tried taking good photos of rainbows - but only with the allowable spectrum the camera permits...

Have you ever taken a photo of a rainbow with the filter you used above? That would be so cool! I love IR photos of rainbows... There was a perfect one here yesterday - even with the double rainbow - I wished I had an IR camera and one to allow UV too so I could compare... But it was such a clear rainbow - just at sunset against super dark clouds!

What was the light source on above?

I always find it incredible what we're actually missing out there - I am teaching light and waves to my year 12s at the moment and even just seeing the tiniest part of the EM spectrum that we can see, and then pointing out the other 10s of 1,000,000s of wavelengths we don't!

The light source is a Reptilglo 10.0 (Thank youuuu... reptile hobby lol)

I ran the light through a condenser to get it uniformed, then a concave mirror to focus it to a fine point which i then broke up with a flourite prism to get the spectrum. I projected that spectrum onto a peice of paper to get a focus point. I then focused the camera on the peice of paper being the visible part of the spectrum, took the paper away (effectively focused in mid air) and took the photo. There were several shots taken at multiple exposure times to get the UV part to show up.

The first bright bar (spike) is around 550nm - green, the second bar is 410-390 - deep blue/indigo (to give you an indication on where they are on the rainbow). Past that at the last double bar is 364-365nm as indicated by the known spike in the light source... The spectrum goes beyond that to what looks like 330nm but without a known spike I can't confirm it with just the image.

There was no filter on the camera for that just a very very dark room and that was the only light source.

I was actually researching the UV imaging capabilities of a "marketed" UV forensic camera. My research showed it can image into the UV spectrum but only when used in specific parameters.

 

[slim6y]

The light source is a Reptilglo 10.0 (Thank youuuu... reptile hobby lol)

I ran the light through a condenser to get it uniformed, then a concave mirror to focus it to a fine point which i then broke up with a flourite prism to get the spectrum. I projected that spectrum onto a peice of paper to get a focus point. I then focused the camera on the peice of paper veing the visible part of the spectrum, took the paper away (effectively focused in mid air) and took the photo. There were several shots taken at multiple exposure times to get the UV patrt to show up.

The first bright bar (spike) is around 550nm - green, the second bar is 410-390 - deep blue/indigo (to give you an indication on where they are on the rainbow). Past that at the last double bar is 364-365nm as indicated by the known spike in the light source... The spectrum goes beyond that to what looks like 330nm but without a known spike I can't confirm it with just the image.

There was no filter on the camera for that just a very very dark room and that was the only light source.

I was actually researching the UV imaging capabilities of a "marketed" UV forensic camera. My research showed it can image into the UV spectrum but only when used in specific parameters.

Sorry to take up the ghost thread for this - but this is deeply interesting and (loosely) fits the bill of photographic representations...

I am colour blind (not fully, but I do miss some colours in the spectrum - but it gives me real good night vision instead) so forgive me if I am wrong here - but where is the red side of the spectrum from that?

Or do reptile lamps not put out anything in the red spectrum? (which does make some sense to me).

Or is it the camera unable to pick up the red?

I can see a pinky tinge on there, but I assumed (because it was on the blue side) it was just heading into the indigo part of the spectrum and the red should be on the left side of the photo - which I can't see... But red is one of the colours I miss frequently.