A treasure trove of "ghost" photos.

[Psiload]

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

Orbs, blobs, smears, streaks, smoke, etc...

Pages and pages of them:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/photo.html

It's like a shrine to photographic incompetence.

Right on the front page:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/dg1.jpg

A picture of a shaking dog taken at an incorrect shutter speed becomes something which, "exists within a mortal world one which seems unseen... except by those whose eyes penetrate the veil."

:rolleyes:

[Soapy Sam]

At times, it's embarassing to be human.

[Azrael 5]

Alsatian dogs like the one in that pic are scary without being attributed to ghosts!The site doesnt have anything to do with Loulee from supernaturalworld forum does it? :D

[MoonDragn]

I always find it hard to believe that something that only shows up on film to be something supernatural. I can understand films that can specially capture bandwidths beyond the human eye but most of these pictures are just regular cameras who operate in the visible spectrum. If the person can't see it, then its just an error on the part of the film/camera or some other explainable phenomenon.

I have personally seen something that may have looked like a ghost. I also think I could have been halucinating, Who knows. As a kid I saw alot of thin mists out of the corner of my eye, and once I even saw a blue halo around an inanimate object and a voice that spoke in my mind. Who knows if it was real or imagined?

[jimlintott]

Unbelievable.

These people take mundane, frequently poor, photographs and then over-process them and see 'things' in a bit of light or a processing artifact.

Yikes. I think they need help.

I worked for nearly ten years in a custom photo lab and we had a name for much of what you see here; 'rejects'. If these people ever went through the garbage cans of a photo lab they would find all kinds of paranormal.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Yeah_Right]

If you scroll down further you'll see a terribly scary image. They're asking for donations!!!!!. I think you'd have to be frighteningly stupid send them money.

[Chimpy]

Well they've got to have an excuse for bad photos no?

Btw isn't it amazing how willing "ghosts" are to pose for photos?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
At times, it's embarassing to be human.

Not if you disown these people.

[Anti_Hypeman]

In many of those photos I cant tell whats supposed to be special about it I just see nothing.

[Beleth]

Ever notice how ghosts look one way when taken with a film camera and another way (orbs) when taken with a digital camera?

Ever wonder why there's not a single picture of a "rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology/rods)" taken with a film camera?

[c4ts]

I faked some great ghost pictures with a genuine analog black & white camera, developed them in the photo lab today. Unfortunately I put them on photopaper which is too large to scan. If I take the negatives to a one-hour developing shop, I can get them small enough to scan.

There are several photos of me in my room, where I would wind the film back one space, change positions, and take another picture. Not all of them came out right, but in one I look like a bullet-dodging Agent from the Matrix, and there isn't a "blurred room" effect. It came out a little darker than I'd anticipated, but I can take more later and compensate by setting the F-stop lower (or is it higher?).

In a few others, I experimented with the same technique, only this time over a graveyard, with a friend of mine in a black cloak Halloween costume from Wal-Mart. I'd take a shot of the empty field, rewind the film, and shoot him standing out in the middle of the field. I'll work on perfecting this technique the next roll of film. It was a good idea but it doesn't seem to work as well as the room shots.

Another thing I'll try is creating "rods" by shining a flashlight around in low shutter speed in a dark room with the F-stop set to 0. I may try to fake some flying saucer photos, too. All I need are those paper plates that lock together and fishing wire. Or maybe just a frisbee.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I send them an email:
Folks,

I'm confused about the first photo at your Web site:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

It is a blurry photo of a dog shaking off water, yet it is juxtaposed with an unattributed poem that makes it sound supernatural. Did you mean to post a different photo?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Beleth said:
Ever wonder why there's not a single picture of a "rod" taken with a film camera?
It's just motion blur, right? So why wouldn't it happen with a film camera?

~~ Paul

[jimlintott]

It came out a little darker than I'd anticipated, but I can take more later and compensate by setting the F-stop lower (or is it higher?).

If the prints are too dark it's because the negatives are underexposed or underdeveloped. Either way the negs are too thin. You have to use a larger aperature opening indicated by a smaller f number. ETA- (Of course the negs could be fine and your prints are just overexposed.)

A change of one f-stop is a factor of two. One f-stop lower allows twice as much light and an f-stop higher is half as much light. You can exploit this for your double exposure experiments. If you know the exposure for your scene that would result in a normal single exposure you can easily compensate for two exposures. One f-stop less exposure (higher number) or half the time, exposed twice will result in a normal base scene. Of course your ghost will only be half exposed which makes them more ghostly.

Double exposures are next to impossible on newer cameras but many older cameras (really old) had film advance and shutter cock as two seperate functions. Easy to forget to advance the film then cock the shutter and get double exposures.

Oh yeah, I'll bet that your B&W camera could shoot colour film just fine. :D

[Dubium]

Oh Lord. The big round thing behind the trees looks like a tennis ball.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It's just motion blur, right? So why wouldn't it happen with a film camera?From what I understand, it's not just motion blur. It has to be taken from an area of shade, and it has to be of an area in direct sunlight. So they're usually taken from under the fascias of houses.

Somehow this situation freaks out some digital cameras, and they end up leaving their shutter open for way too long.

I suppose you could duplicate this effect with a film camera, but you would have to knowingly go out of your way to set the shutter to be open for that long... so when it happens, it's not that surprising to you.

It's surprising to digital camera users who don't realize that the shutter was open for as long as it was.

http://www.ufotheatre.com/rods/rods.htm

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ah, okay, it's difficult to take by accident with a film camera. Got it.

Is it me, or has the lore about photographic defects faded from the world psyche, like a meme past its last use date? Perhaps it's just that every damn person and their sisters have a camera now.

~~ Paul

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Oh yeah, I'll bet that your B&W camera could shoot colour film just fine. :D

Not while I'm using Kodak T-max it can't!

But yeah, semantic error on my part. Thanks for the advice, BTW.

[Teetop]

Take a look at their video called "Winter Anomaly"--
They say they've received many requests for information on that one!
It's proof positive that one can film flying debris.

[Winslow Leach]

The scariest thing of all on their website is if you scroll down, you will see a guy that looks exactly like Tor Johnson from the movie plan 9 from outer space! Now that's paranormal!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The response from the Rochester folks:
Study the photo more...

My reply:
Yup, it's a dog. Why do you have a blurry photo of a dog at your site, claiming that it's some sort of ghost photo?

~~ Paul

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Winslow Leach
The scariest thing of all on their website is if you scroll down, you will see a guy that looks exactly like Tor Johnson from the movie plan 9 from outer space! Now that's paranormal! That's Lord Archaues aka Joe... or "Archie" to those of us who know and love him.

He's registered here, and he's sent some rambling emails to Randi in the past, but I don't believe he's worked up the motivation and/or courage to post anything here yet.

He's actually a pretty good guy. He registers about an 8 on the Fruitcake Nut-O-Meter, but he's a decent guy nonetheless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Their further reply:
Of course its a dog. Never said it wasn't.
The point of focus are the additional images which are seen superimposed over the actual image.

I continue:
What additional images? It's a blurry photo of a dog making fast body movements. Please describe the additional images.

~~ Paul

[tsg]

Originally posted by c4ts
In a few others, I experimented with the same technique, only this time over a graveyard, with a friend of mine in a black cloak Halloween costume from Wal-Mart. I'd take a shot of the empty field, rewind the film, and shoot him standing out in the middle of the field. I'll work on perfecting this technique the next roll of film. It was a good idea but it doesn't seem to work as well as the room shots.

It will work better if he's wearing light colored clothes instead of black. The black clothes don't affect the film nearly as much as light clothes do so his ghost image is being washed out by the shot of the empty field.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Their further reply:


I continue:


~~ Paul A 'clarification' has been posted:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

Brought things right into... focus?

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/dg2.jpg

This website deals with providing evidence which may or may not prove anything conclusive. As ultimately what is seen or not seen is entirely dependent upon a viewers level or lack there of visual acuity.

And besides, its a free site where we provide evidence at no cost to the viewer Well... we're certainly getting our money's worth.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Psiload
http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/dg1.jpg

A picture of a shaking dog taken at an incorrect shutter speed becomes something which, "exists within a mortal world one which seems unseen... except by those whose eyes penetrate the veil."

:rolleyes: Okay, I can explain this: The local store was having a 10/$10 sale on 2 liter bottles of Dr Pepper, and I didn't realize they were trying to cover up that it was actually a simple 1/$1 sale, so naturally, I bought 10 bottles. I drank them all, since it was a hot day, and I don't have sweat glands.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I continue:

I see you have posted a clarification:

"This website deals with providing evidence which may or may not prove anything conclusive. As ultimately what is seen or not seen is entirely dependent upon a viewers level or lack there of visual acuity."

So now you insult the visitor if he sees nothing but a dog. Why not add a paragraph where you explain what you're seeing in the photo, so we can judge whether it's your visual acuity or your imagination run wild?

~~ Paul

[Winslow Leach]

Don't let up on him Paul!

[Mid]

Originally posted by Psiload
A 'clarification' has been posted:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

Brought things right into... focus?

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/dg2.jpg

Well... we're certainly getting our money's worth.

Isn't that a close up of their dogs back side? Are they claiming that their dog has a haunted bottom?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

His latest reply:
Dispense with the hostility.
I just sent a communication requesting information regarding my original account on Randi's forum.
Hopefully you will soon find me offered as sacrifice within the midst of many ravaging wolves of skepticism.

Till then may you salivate profusely in anticipation.

Director J. Burkhart
and my response:
>Dispense with the hostility.

You're the one questioning people's ability to see whatever it is you see but won't describe. If it's just an exercise for the imagination, why not say that right up front?

>I just sent a communication requesting information regarding my >original account on Randi's forum.
>Hopefully you will soon find me offered as sacrifice within the >midst of many ravaging wolves of skepticism.
>Till then may you salivate profusely in anticipation.

I await your explanation.

~~ Paul

[Archaeus]

Which I suppose would make me the "Avatar Of Bad Photography"!
Well my mother had always hoped I would amount to something...

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
His latest reply:

and my response:


~~ Paul Oooooooh, you're in for it now!

You're going to get "the rant". I got it awhile back when I questioned his claims.

Here's a snippet:

You seem to typify the present mentality of many of the theological societies who wage their covert operatives against anyone not presently absorbed into the pews of "their" established religion.

Condemn the gays and lesbians. Abolish those who are Pagan. Systematically correct the thinking logic of anyone who would ever dare to believe in anything contrarily different with regards to their own personal experience of the paranormal as it may give rise to question and ultimately threaten the very established control of the masses who serve their country far better as complacent minded sheep, as the environment continues to be assaulted while the coffers of those who control the wealth become richer still.

He sure fixed my little red wagon. This is what I got for suggesting that just maybe he wasn't in any danger of real physical harm during the course of this particular "investigation":

http://farshores.org/pghos159.htm

It's not too late... run away! Save yourself! :D

[Archaeus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
His latest reply:

and my response:


~~ Paul

Damn, I just sign in and now must leave for even weirdo's must make a living.
But tomorrow I shall return once more in dodging truth and spawning new lore.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Archaeus
Which I suppose would make me the "Avatar Of Bad Photography"!
Well my mother had always hoped I would amount to something... Welcome, Arch. Glad you could make it.

Sorry... you've got to earn your avatar here. Fifty posts if I remember correctly.

[eri]

In college, I took a photography class with a bunch of other nerds. We made a lot of 'ghost' pictures by taking photos by the light of a full moon - needs about an 8 min exposure, if I remember correctly. So we'd have one person behind the camera with a piece of cardboard, and we'd all sit in the field of view for 4 min - have them cover the lens while we quickly shifted positions - and hold them for another 4 min. Result - two transparent versions of ourselves! It was great, and really confused a lot of people. Wish I knew what happened to those - but I suppose I can always just take more, if I buy my old Olympus a new lens.

[LTC8K6]

With my Canon EOS I can do 9 exposures of one frame. :D

I did a double exposure with it shortly after I got it. It was of a basket of flowers on a table.

It came out perfect. Two identical baskets of flowers on the table. The background was perfect, the table and the room were perfectly in focus, as were the 2 flower baskets.

I was amazed at how easy it was to do.

I did 2 full moons later on.

[Chaosium]

Originally posted by Psiload
You're going to get "the rant". I got it awhile back when I questioned his claims.Combatting ignorance is the same as bigotry, apparently. :v:

They make it sound as if wiping out the new-agers would be a bad thing.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Archaeus
Damn, I just sign in and now must leave for even weirdo's must make a living.
But tomorrow I shall return once more in dodging truth and spawning new lore. A week later and still nothing...I guess they measure time differently within the mortal world which seems unseen.

Anyway... he's still at it. Check out the latest pictures of "entities":

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

[Psiload]

The latest:

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/

There is absolutely no rational explanation for what caused the shadow like aberration within the next two photos.
It was not caused by a camera strap nor had there been any other physical obstructions between myself or the individual.

Truly a classic example of an unknown presence.

http://www.rochester-paranormal.com/strange1.jpg

[MoonDragn]

Remember the whole "Rods" Business? They would only show up on film and yet could not be seen by the naked eye. It took a while for people to finally debunk that one.

[vbloke]

that site has made me laugh more than I have in a while.
fuzzy, out of focus shadows, smoke and light are all attributed to "ghosts"

Rochester Paranormal
We Know Ghosts...

but We sure as hell don't know jack about Photography...

this made me laugh:

Now with such compelling evidence you would think there would exist more respect for us and interest shown in our unusual side line of interest. But instead we find ourselves constantly ignored and competed against by groups more interested in hooking peoples interest in their narrated exploits instead of providing any real tangible proof like perhaps something better than an orb photo.

"The hunt for most paranormal encounters can easily be obtained through patience and discipline provided your willing to remain stationary in any particular location for vast periods of time."

I wonder how many dogging/whatever-you-kids-call-hanging-out-in-parks-close-to-the-lavatories-in-the-hope-of-dirty-sodomy requests they get a night.