NEW ZEALAND STRANGE OCCURRENCES SOCIETY
  • Contact
    • Disclaimer & safety issues
    • NZSOS Privacy Policy
    • Encounter check list
    • Ghost Advice
    • FAQs
  • Photos
    • Orbs
    • Orbs explained
    • Flare
    • Mists
    • Pareidolia, apophenia
    • International photos
    • Uncategorised
    • Analogue photos
  • Ectoplasmic Residue Blog
    • Blog index
  • NZSOS
  • Methods
    • Investigation procedure
    • Paranormal investigation equipment
    • Science & pseudoscience
    • Thoughts on ghosts
  • Videos
  • Media
  • Links
    • International links
  • Spooked book
    • Blurb
    • Media & reviews
    • Other NZ paranormal books
  • Paranormal Novel
  • Contact
    • Disclaimer & safety issues
    • NZSOS Privacy Policy
    • Encounter check list
    • Ghost Advice
    • FAQs
  • Photos
    • Orbs
    • Orbs explained
    • Flare
    • Mists
    • Pareidolia, apophenia
    • International photos
    • Uncategorised
    • Analogue photos
  • Ectoplasmic Residue Blog
    • Blog index
  • NZSOS
  • Methods
    • Investigation procedure
    • Paranormal investigation equipment
    • Science & pseudoscience
    • Thoughts on ghosts
  • Videos
  • Media
  • Links
    • International links
  • Spooked book
    • Blurb
    • Media & reviews
    • Other NZ paranormal books
  • Paranormal Novel
Search

Soldier's ghost caught in camera?

30/7/2014

43 Comments

 
soldier's ghost caught in camera?, ghostly soldier in photo, spirit of dead serviceman? paranormal photograph, ghost photo, strange unxeplained figure in photograph, strange occurrences paranormal Wellington New Zealand
Uncropped, original photo as sent in. Click for enlargement
Email received with photograph, July 8th 2014:

" Last Friday evening, we were at the 4th of July fireworks on Fort Stewart, GA. We sat in a parking lot with just a few other people, only a few hundred feet away from Warrior's Walk, which is a place around the parade field that has hundreds of trees, each planted for a fallen soldier. I was snapping pics of my grand daughter playing and running with the 2 young boys of the man in the light blue shirt. The pics came out a little blurry because the kids were running and it was dusk, but when I went through to delete them, I came upon this shot! My daughter-in-law was right next to me watching me delete the shots and saw the figure the same time I did. I cropped it down and immediately shared it with the gentleman in light blue and the few other people with us in the parking lot. There was NO ONE walking past or standing there when I took the shot... How can I find out if this is truly a spirit I captured?"


Next email below, replying to questions: (1) were you outside when taking the photo? (not inside looking through glass - there may have been a reflection, and (2) do you have any other photos taken before and after the one you sent?

"To answer your question, yes, I was outside.  I was sitting in a chair just like the man in the blue shirt, getting ready to watch the fireworks.  All of us sat in a parking lot across the street from the gym.  Unfortunately, I had already deleted the other pictures I took before this one - but I honestly believe "he" was not in those.  I am confident that I would have noticed before deleting.  I am sending you the one I took AFTER I took this shot however.  I took that to see if something would show up again, but as you can see, nothing."
Fort Stewart, GA, Georgia, fallen soldier?
100% original pixel size, cropped to figure and lightened. Click for enlargement
Fort Stewart, Georgia
Next photo taken, later on
Our answer:
"Well, there is definitely a figure of some description in your photo. It's not a photographic anomaly of any kind, and it's not some other object (a tree, or whatever) that has the shape of a human. Most of the photos we receive are either some kind of photographic fault (dust orbs, camera movement, lens flare, etc) or a random pattern that looks like a face or figure (pareidolia, simulacrum). Your photo fits neither category.

"The lack of detail in the figure is probably caused by to the low light level (under-exposure, due to back-lighting) combined with the long-ish shutter speed (not given in the photo file's Exif data, but I would estimate to be in the range of 1/4 to 1/15 of a second) and jpeg file compression applied by the phone-camera.

"The question is then: is this an image of an actual, living human being, or is it a ghost of some kind?

"The natural explanation is that there was a tall man passing through the scene, who appears in the photo but who you did not personally observe.

"Have you ever seen the video of the people passing a basketball and you're asked to count the number of passes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

"You've probably seen it before, but it illustrates perfectly the concept of selective attention. In this case, you might be concentrating to capture your daughter with the camera to a level where you don't notice some other things occurring in the scene at that time: a man wanders in and out but you don't see him because you're not looking for him. This is one of the ways that our brain's processing of visual and other sensory information is unreliable. Lawyers often use this type of argument in court when challenging eyewitness accounts of crimes.

"So, selective attention is a likely natural explanation. A less likely explanation - but not an inconceivable or impossible one - is that you managed to capture a ghost with your camera.

"Skeptics are fond of the argument known as Occam's Razor, which says that when offered multiple explanationss for a thing, we should choose the simplest. (This WIkipedia article explains it better.) It's a strong argument, but it seems to break down when applied to things that are exceptionally complex, things for which no simple explanation exists, for example in quantum mechanics. Explanations for things that are observed in the quantum scale of things are so mind-bogglingly unintuitive and complex that even specialised scientists struggle with them. In other words, Occam's Razor doesn't necessarily apply outside of certain situations or contexts. The same counter-argument might apply to some paranormal phenomena.

"I like the quote from Fred W H Myers; "Whatever else, indeed, a 'ghost' may be, it is probably one of the most complex phenomena in nature."

"Ultimately, this photograph as potential proof of the existence of ghosts would fail because it is dependent on testimony that there was no actual human being present to account for the strange figure. What would be needed to strengthen the case is other documentary evidence, for example a video taken by someone else that covers the same place and time as your photo.

"In a nutshell; there is a probable natural explanation for the figure in the photograph; but we can't be certain of it, so there remains the possibility that the was no living human there and the photo shows someone who has already passed, perhaps indeed a fallen soldier."

Further email received, providing some corroboration that there was no unaccounted-for living human present when the photo was taken:
"Again, thank you very much for giving so much attention to my photo.  After hearing over and over again that there had to be a human standing or walking there, I started wondering if I indeed missed someone standing there or walking past, so I called the wife of the "man in the blue shirt" to ask her about it as well.  I still had her phone number because she had asked me to text her my photo.  When I asked her if she thinks that someone was there and we just missed him, she said, and I quote, "I am a mama bear.  If there was a man walking by or standing near my children, I would have noticed it.  I am positive that no one was there."  So you see, she confirmed my account that there was no one there outside of the children and her husband.  She restored my faith because I truly was beginning to doubt myself, but I once again believe that the figure in the photo was not of this earth and I was lucky to get a shot of him.  I also believe it's a soldier and found it interesting that I caught a shot of him just as the announcer was listing all the foreign wars the U.S. fought in."

"Thank you for that corroborating information. That helps make a good case for your photo being a genuine mystery. Also, thanks for permission [to use the photo on our website]."

In summary, we think that the semi-silhouetted figure in the centre of the photo is definitely a human figure, not something caused by pareidolia or any combination of photographic anomalies. If we accept the corroborated declaration that there was no actual unaccounted-for human present when the photo was taken, then we have a picture of some kind of spirit or ghost - a historical trace of a soldier, perhaps.

We don't think that anyone is lying or has deliberated faked or Photoshopped the image. (If they have they've done an extraordinary, expert job of it! - and that's speaking as a professional photographer with two decades of Photoshop experience). The tone of the email converstaion has been genuine throughout (we've edited out names and some polite chit-chat). So it comes down to the reliability of two eyewitness testimonies. If they are not mistaken, then apparently we have a ghost!

Photo Exif data (main photo, using ExifReader )

ImageWidth : 1611
ImageHeight : 1316
Make : LG Electronics
Model : VS980 4G
DateTime : 2014:07:04 20:56:24
FNumber : 24/10
MeteringMode : Unknown (65535)
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Not fired
FocalLength : 3.97(mm)
WhiteBalance : Auto

What are your thoughts on this?
Please feel free to post relevant comments below.

A semi-relevant link:
http://www.ghostsofamerica.com/3/Georgia_Fort_Stewart_ghost_sightings.html

ADDENDUM - 7th August
Andrew (see comments, pretty far down) has picked me up on my logic, which is fair enough. I need to express my thinking here more clearly and methodically.


So, avoiding an 'either/or' type of logic, there are a number of possible explanations for this photo (and most other photographs that may show a ghost or other paranormal phenomenon). They are:

  1. Photographic anomalies, such as dust orbs, lens flare, camera movement
  2. Random areas in the photo appearing to be a human figure or face (visual pareidolia)
  3. Deliberate faking, Photoshopping
  4. The anomaly is actually a natural rendition of a human (given the limitations of the photographic technology, and the light quality and other physical conditions)
  5. The photo is none of the above, so it could be a ghost.

1. is the reason for most of the purported paranormal photos, but it is in the main part eliminated. However, the lack of clarity of the image is caused by the camera's inadequate ability to automatically compensate for the low light level and backlighting, and the amount of JPEG compression it has applied to the recorded image file, so 1. is a contributing factor. If the image were of better quality, we might not be having this discussion over it because the physical situation would be obvious.
2. is eliminated. The questionable figure in the photo is not a tree or any other object that happens to look a bit like a human figure. (Visual pareidolia is the cause of most of the other purported paranormal photos we see.)
3. is eliminated. The photo shows no evidence of tampering, the photographer says she did not tamper with the photo and I believe her; she did not have the means or motive to do so. Also, if you were going to fake a ghost photo, you would most likely make it a bit more of an obvious-looking ghost than this one. Deliberately faked photos are quite rare these days (at least in the requests we get for photo analysis), because they are just too easy to make. Why bother? People often make the accusation, 'It's Photoshopped' (see comments) but they usually have no basis for their opinion.
4. This is the one we can't discount with certainty. As I've stated repeatedly in the body of the blog, I believe that the photographer and the other witness are being totally honest. But no matter how much people are convinced that events happened in a certain way, countless episodes exist where one witness's testimony does not match up to anothers, or to recorded versions of events. Human perception, memory processes, and recall can all be flawed, or contaminated.
5. While we do not yet know of any mechanism by which an image of a ghost can be recorded, there remains the outside possibility that somehow this has occurred. If we can eliminate 1, 2, 3 and 4 with certainty and can't discover any other normal reason for the anomaly, we have to give 5 some very serious consideration.

I don't think we can eliminate all of these natural explanations with certainty, but this photo is tantalising nonetheless.
  The nearly 30,000 page views so far are testimony to that, and I thank the photographer for sending us the photo, and for her work in replying to the comments below.

ADDENDUM: 8th August 2014
Area-of-interest detail of sent-in 'Fallen Soldier photo, at original resolution. Click on photo for enlargement.
fallen soldier ghost photo detail, Fort Stewart Georgia, Strange Occurrences Paranormal Investigations, Wellington New Zealand
Detail of original, 100%. Click for enlargement
43 Comments
James Gilberd (blog author) link
31/7/2014 04:14:34 pm

Hmmm... when trying to solve a problem it's often a good idea to relook at something we've already discounted.
So, how do we feel about the person in the grey top on the left of the second photo?

Reply
Robin
1/8/2014 08:41:16 am

I do find the figure in the second image troublesome, who are they?...as I suspect they could be the figure in the first image that was suggested to be the Ghost, there just seems to be certain characteristics that correlate between them.

Reply
Petra Brooks
1/8/2014 10:15:44 pm

Hello Robin,

The second pictures shows, once again, the man in the light blue shirt who was sitting in the chair - those are his 2 boys on the left of him - and his wife. In the first picture, his wife was sitting inside the back of their SUV. Some other thought that maybe the figure was her, but she was sitting in the SUV the entire time until I walked over to show them the photo.

James Gilberd link
2/8/2014 04:23:07 am

Thanks, Petra. That info clears up the niggling doubt I had. Another possibility eliminated.

Neil
5/8/2014 09:10:51 pm

I would say the person in the second photo is an actual person. In the main photo as I look at it I would have to say that the person - image - would have to be at least 7 foot tall or "floating" above the ground. This based upon how close the photographer was and the location of the man in the blue shirt to the image. The man in the blue shirt appears in the second pic and looks to be about 6 foot tall perhaps even up to 6'4". The image appears to be just in front of him at a very close distance.

Reply
Robin
2/8/2014 04:24:24 am

My problem is that I noticed that both the figures in question have bare legs and are not wearing shoes. Hence the suspicion its the same person or someone wearing a similar outfit ....not what you would expect a soldier to be wearing.

Reply
Petra Brooks
5/8/2014 08:29:17 pm

Robin, the way the figure is standing, you can't see legs or feet either way because they would be covered by the chair and the man in blue sitting on it. His wife, the one to the left in the second picture, is wearing shoes...

Reply
Melissa Hawn
6/8/2014 09:27:51 am

looks like he is holding a rolled up piece of paper in his hand as well...But it is a lot clearer than the rest of the shot of this person. Thats interesting ?

jennifer
5/8/2014 07:08:52 pm

We visited fort Pulaski a few years ago and I was taking pics of the office quarters and when I got home and was looking at pics on computer one of the pics has a face in it, didn't see it on camera cause I guess it was too small. It creeper me out cause it was beside me.

Reply
claudia
5/8/2014 07:14:41 pm

so..if that was a human figure..where is the legs and foot?..he is tall so we have to see them next to the man in blue...

Reply
Jenn link
5/8/2014 07:20:50 pm

I have to say the first pic is very photoshoped and shows signs of some filters used. The colors are full of 'noise' and there isn't a clean edge anywhere. It truly looks like the Watercolor filter from Photoshop.

Reply
Petra Brooks
5/8/2014 08:27:27 pm

Jenn, please read what the EXPERT had to say about this above before accusing me of photoshopping. I take offense to that because it is insulting to me, as I am a person of high integrity. Once again, I took the photo of my grand daughter, playing with the sons of the man in blue and literally showed him the photo within a couple of minutes of taking it. I was not near a computer, the cameral was a cell phone camera, and I'm unfortunately one of those people who is completely technology challenged - I know nothing about photoshopping, filters, "noise," etc.

Reply
Jennifer S. link
5/8/2014 10:45:56 pm

Has anyone asked the children if they saw anything? I am a firm believer that kids can see spirits.

JD Wohlever
5/8/2014 08:59:30 pm

First of all let me say, I don't think the author is this image had any ill intent or tried to do anything wrong. I truly believe they thought they caught something paranormal.

BUT...

If you look at the second image on that website there is a women (looks like a woman with a ponytail) wearing a grey pullover and shorts. Sorry to say but this is a photo of nothing more than a out of focus and bad lighting of the woman that is in the second photograph.

Look at the woman (or man) in this second photo taken later and tell me these two don't look alike.

Would the "Moma-bear" be so unsettled to notice a young woman near her children as a man? I wouldn't think so.


"When in doubt, throw it out" - Jason Hawes, TAPS

Thank you,
JD Wohlever, PERSoNA Paranormal Investigations

Reply
Petra Brooks
5/8/2014 10:56:54 pm

JD, thank you for your comment; however, that woman you are talking about... IS the "moma-bear." At the time I took the photo, she was sitting in the back (trunk) of their open SUV with her friend, while her husband (the man in blue) was sitting on the chair right next to the open back of the SUV. They, just like us, were basically just sitting around waiting for the fireworks to begin. She did not get out of the back of the SUV until I walked over there to show them the photo. I only took the second picture so people could see that there was no tree or other object/thing in the area where the figure showed up in the first picture.

Reply
Nancy
5/8/2014 08:59:47 pm

It's interesting. According to Sylvia Browne in her book "Phenomenon", the "other side" is right here with us just 3 feet above our own ground level that has a much higher vibrational frequency than ours. She states that is why occasionally we catch glimpses of the "other side". Again, interesting photo.

Reply
Bea
5/8/2014 09:40:58 pm

Yes, I have to agree with post by Jd WoHlever. The true proof would be in the previous photo before ghost shot was taken, but that was unfortunately deleted. I think the ghost is the ponytailed woman in shorts and that is why the ghost doesn't have legs. Maybe the photos were taken too fast for images to upload properly.

Reply
Petra Brooks
5/8/2014 11:00:42 pm

Bea, please see my answer to JD above. Thank you.

Reply
Rachel
5/8/2014 10:09:42 pm

What strikes me, no expert of any kind, BTW, is, in the first picture, the 'figure's' stance.
You have three little kids running and playing right next to him...and the figure is that of a male IMO... you have the guy in blue behind him, looking over his shoulder as if looking/talking to someone. Then you have this 'figure'. He doesn't fit. He's starting off at what looks like nothing. His stance strikes me as...lost...misplaced. He just doesn't fit.
Is it a ghost/spirit/whatever? I don't know...and, really, no one ever will know 100%...but if it's a person, I think, as a parent, *I'd* have noticed him...if he's a person , he's creepy and too closes to the kids. I agree with the kids' mom on that.

Reply
Petra Brooks
5/8/2014 11:04:43 pm

Rachel, thank you for pointing out that it looks as if the man in blue is looking over his shoulder as if he's talking with someone! A lot of people who have seen the 2 photos have said that the woman in the second photo must be that dark figure that showed up in the first photo, but that woman is the wife of the man in blue and she was sitting in the SUV when he was looking and talking with her while I snapped the photo in which the dark figure appeared...

Reply
Kara
5/8/2014 11:31:17 pm

Not to be rude or accuse anyone here but to me who takes photos and does use photoshop as an enhancement I am bothered by the reflective nature towards the bottom of the photo. The man in the chair his left foot has a reflective image of his own shoe right in front, as well as when you scroll up his left ear also has a slight reflection. I used to be a paranormal "hunter" so I do believe in ghosts, spirits, Heaven, etc....but his photo leaves me feeling it is not real.

Reply
kim
5/8/2014 11:43:01 pm

A Spirit will not appear solid. This pic shows a solid mass.. ie: body. I could b wrong however in all my years, I have yet to witness a solid spirit. I love it when pics are looked at and you can see obvious spirits/orbs.

Reply
James Wohlever
6/8/2014 12:34:47 am

Sorry, but after closer inspection the "ghost" even has the fanny pack that the woman in the second picture has. Look at "ghosts" left hand.. travel to the right, see that black area where it mixes with where the leg should show, now look at the second image and where the black fanny pack.

You either got some sort of digital double exposure or you mislabeled when you took the photo.

Reply
James Wohlever
6/8/2014 12:34:58 am

Sorry, but after closer inspection the "ghost" even has the fanny pack that the woman in the second picture has. Look at "ghosts" left hand.. travel to the right, see that black area where it mixes with where the leg should show, now look at the second image and where the black fanny pack.

You either got some sort of digital double exposure or you mislabeled when you took the photo.

Reply
Jeanne Schmitt
6/8/2014 12:42:47 am

Kim

Spirits do indeed appear as solid figures, I have seen them more than once, and in different places.

Reply
Beth
6/8/2014 01:35:02 am

There is something that goes across the entire original uncropped picture. I am not an expert, but I would describe it as depicting movement or a reflection. It distorts the first vehicle on the right and goes across the photo to the bright light coming through the trees on the left. Just curious as to what that might be.

Reply
Cindy link
6/8/2014 02:30:12 am

I agree that the figure appears extraordinarily tall. The woman in the following photo does not. It also appears to be gazing down at the little boy. Too bad the photo before is unavailable, but the one after has a figure way in the distance, up the side walk, near the street lights in the far center of the photo. The clothing pattern appears to be the same, and the person appears to be walking away. Can this section be enhanced or enlarged for comparison?

Reply
Lynanne
6/8/2014 06:06:55 am

If you look from the right side of the pic you see parallel lines that seem to repeat all the way up to the figure and even on the figure. The lines run up and down and are very faint. I believe it is a real person and the shutter was slow enough that it caught the movement from the right side to the left. Google night slow shutter speed pics and you will see how a slow shutter speed can multiple the movement.

Reply
Andrew
7/8/2014 08:25:13 am

While I'm impressed by your analysis of the photo James, I'm less impressed by your logic.
There seems to be an inference in yours and others' arguments that: "If there wasn't anyone there, and there is an image in the photo, then it's worth seriously considering that there was a dead person there".
I don't think the conclusion follows at all from the premises, sorry.
So just confirming the premises, does not in my mind imply anything about ghosts whatsoever.
Is there a known or suggested mechanism whereby a "dead person" can trigger the light sensitive CCD in a digital camera, but not the light sensitive cells in the human eye?
If so, how would video evidence of the same scene help?
Your Occam's Razor argument is flawed too - it's true that the most simple explanation is not always the correct one, but the complex one still needs to be testable and repeatable, and have an explanatory mechanism (which is certainly the case in quantum physics). Accepting that the most obvious explanation may not apply, does not allow accepting any random explanation in its place. The alternative must still be justifiable. What is the reasoning which leads to a "ghost" being a justifiable explanation (other than "it's not a person therefore it must be a ghost" which is demonstrably false).

Reply
James Gilberd
7/8/2014 01:22:59 pm

You're misquoting and misconstruing my argument. I accept the Occam's Razor part of what you say, but the rest of it - read again more carefully.

Reply
Andrew
7/8/2014 01:49:07 pm

To be clear, the only issue I have with your argument is encapulated in the "either or" premise. The rest is exemplary. But the either-or premise is a classic fallacy (I can't remember which on but I'll look it up):
"The question is this then: is this an image of an actual living person, or is it a ghost of some kind"
That's not the question at all - it leads others to the assumption that if they can show it's not a real person, then they have shown it's a ghost.
And while you might argue that you are using "ghost" in the more general sense of person-shaped non-actual-person, you then go on later to refer to "the possibility [that it is a photo of] a person who has passed..." which is a very specific idea unsupported by the evidence.
Under the part "In Summary", you then go on to reinforce the either-or fallacy significantly, with the sentence which starts "If we accept..."
That is the heart of my logical issue with your argument.
Can you also explain the proposed mechanism by which a "ghost" interacts with the light-sensitive CCD but not the light-sensitive eye cells? Or do we only apply our logic and reason to other aspects of the photograph?

James Gilberd
7/8/2014 02:20:25 pm

There doesn't seem to be a Reply box after your reply to me, so doing it here. I'm really tired after a hectic 12 hour working day, and haven't eaten yet, but here it goes anyway.
I don't think I've made an either-or argument (or if I have, I haven't worded things carefully enough, for it was not my intention). Rather, having discounted all of the normal reasons for supposed ghosts in photos, one remains; that the witnesses are at fault. The use of the word 'if' in my summary is important.
That is to say; if we can eliminate all of the ordinary explanations for an occurrence, then what remains is an extraordinary explanation (Sherlock Holmes' logic). However, I am not claiming to have eliminated all of the ordinary explanations. The one that the 'if' refers to remains, and it is sufficient to not foce us to accept the extraordinary explanation; that it is a ghost. The explanation that the image in the photo is of a real, living person cannot be discounted with certainty.

For the second part; I do not think that is possible to photograph a ghost, or at least, no photograph that I have ever seen makes me think that it is possible, including this one. But it is the nearest I have come accross so far because it doesn't involve any of the raft of photographic anomalies that I already know about, I am sure it's not a deliberate fake, and I'm convinced that the photogapher is an honest and genuine person, not an attention-seeker. It comes right down to that last 'if', and I believe my logic is sound on that front.

So, I don't want to attempt to explain how a ghost can register on a CCD sensor because I don't (to date) believe it is possible.

Reply
Cathy
7/8/2014 09:42:02 am

It appears to me as though the spirit is looking down at what looks like the same type of image on the ground in front of the man in the blue shirt. Could this be an imprint of a fallen soldier with his friend looking down at him?

Reply
James Gilberd
7/8/2014 03:21:40 pm

In order to address the logical shortcomings (or lack of clarity) of my original writing, which Andrew has rightly picked me up on, I have just made an addenda to the blog post. I'm not sure if this is the done thing in blogging, but we're getting pretty far downstream now and I wanted to address this issues much nearer to the top!

Reply
Andrew
8/8/2014 05:29:16 am

Thanks James! I always enjoy your commentaries, and your sound and thoughtful reasoning.
I personally would shorten 5. to "The photo is none of the above".
As you point out in your explanation of 5., it could be something natural other than 1 2 or 3. Or it could be something "unnatural" other than a ghost. The weight you put on all these possibilities depends on your preconceptions about the existence of ghosts of course - and preconceptions are the bane of reasoned arguments.
On the evidence, My personal conclusion would be:
4. 98%
5. Other but natural 1.9%
5. Other but "unnatural" 0.1%
5. Ghost rather than some other random "unnatural" explanation 0.01%

Given as percentages to show how I would judge broad relative likelihoods, rather than implying some exact measurement!

So even if I discount 4., then "ghost" is only a tiny fraction of the remaining possibilities. (.5%). Hardly justification for giving it the "serious consideration" you suggest in your conclusion.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one!

Larry D.
8/8/2014 05:16:56 am

I find the image to be what it is...interesting. I have used Photoshop since its inception...and am pretty good at being able to tell a Photoshopped image....and I see nothing that would lead me to believe it has been altered. But...without having the actual image file to look at...it's hard to say. Most cell phones are not equipped with high resolution cameras...and yes...I know there are many exceptions....but a cell phone image that had been altered would usually be easy to spot.

Reply
james Gilberd
8/8/2014 12:11:21 pm

Agree, Larry. The original photo is 1611x1316 pixels. I tried to get this directly into the blog post at original resolution but the site's software reduced it a little. But if you click on the main photo, the resolution is not fatr off the original, at 979x800 pixels. There is not much more to see in the original. I'm going to add another section of the photo at full res. that seems to be of interest.

Reply
Mark
9/8/2014 01:43:19 am

By trade I'm a imagery analyst, satellite and hand held, putting aside the "what is this really" question, I'd say that from the look of it he is wearing tankers padded helmet, goggles and a tankers jacket, maybe WWII vintage. There is a possible arm sleeve insignia, round with what looks lines that make inverted peace or maybe wings symbol in it.

Reply
James Gilberd
9/8/2014 11:18:14 am

Interesting observation by someone with professional skills beyond mine. Thanks for commenting, Mark.

Reply
Petra brooks
9/8/2014 04:38:56 am

Mark, my husband just said that the patch you described could be the 3rd Army patch. Maybe Google it and see what you think.

Reply
James Gilberd
21/8/2017 05:58:22 pm

Petra, could you please contact me by email - j.d.gilberd@gmail.com
It is related to your soldier photo, and is fairly urgent.
Thanks
James

Reply
Olivia Rossiter
11/8/2014 08:19:48 am

Look to the right above the Jeep, there seems to be another one.

Reply
Petra Brooks
11/8/2014 06:26:53 pm

Olivia, some others have mentioned that it appears as if there are other soldiers marching, but it took a lot of imagination for me to see it as that. I think the outline of that figure just sort of "warped" the tree line (palm trees).

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Ectoplasmic Residue

    is a blog by James Gilberd - leader and co-founder of Strange Occurrences. Views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Strange Occurrences team.
    To see blogs sorted by topic, go to BLOG INDEX

    RSS Feed

    Author

    James Gilberd is an amateur paranormalist, writer and musician, and a professional photographer, living in Wellington, New Zealand.

    Archives

    February 2021
    June 2019
    January 2019
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    October 2013
    July 2013
    April 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012

    Categories

    All
    Book Review Paranormal
    Book Review - Paranormal
    General Paranormal

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Contact
    • Disclaimer & safety issues
    • NZSOS Privacy Policy
    • Encounter check list
    • Ghost Advice
    • FAQs
  • Photos
    • Orbs
    • Orbs explained
    • Flare
    • Mists
    • Pareidolia, apophenia
    • International photos
    • Uncategorised
    • Analogue photos
  • Ectoplasmic Residue Blog
    • Blog index
  • NZSOS
  • Methods
    • Investigation procedure
    • Paranormal investigation equipment
    • Science & pseudoscience
    • Thoughts on ghosts
  • Videos
  • Media
  • Links
    • International links
  • Spooked book
    • Blurb
    • Media & reviews
    • Other NZ paranormal books
  • Paranormal Novel