Eerie photography: Candles blowing in opposite directions

Safe-Keeper · 12th October 2009, 11:37 AM

OK, so Norway, like all other countries, have famous psychics, and in our case the most commonly known specimen is a certain Anna Elisabeth Westerlund, who [confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and post hoc spin] aided police in solving many a case back in the day [/confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and post hoc spin]. Now, for some reason my town's paper has picked up on her again, and their latest stunt is an article on her funeral. The article is spearheaded by this photography:
http://images.bt.no/btno/multimedia/...23_604487c.jpg
Caption (translated): INEXPLICABLE: Who took this photo from Westerlund's funeral? The photographer, Tom Egil Jensen, states that the camera went off without him touching it. When he developed the film, this picture set itself apart from the others. The candles blew upward and outward - in opposite directions.

Source.

Now, obviously the "I didn't touch the camera" part can be explained as ad hoc milking of the mystery, but the photo itself is interesting. The only thing I can say is that the candles don't appear to burn outwards at all; rather, there is a kind of motion blur effect that makes it appear they do. This is odd, seeing as to how there's no blur in the rest of the photo. Could it be doctored?

ETA: for those who are wondering, the article itself is what you'd expect of mainstream media - unquestioning acceptance of her abilities, confirmation bias, etc. For those with mastery of Scandinavian languages, however, there is this sceptical response to another article on her 'abilities' that I highly recommend.

Ladewig · 12th October 2009, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

The only thing I can say is that the candles don't appear to burn outwards at all; rather, there is a kind of motion blur effect that makes it appear they do. This is odd, seeing as to how there's no blur in the rest of the photo. Could it be doctored?

Wouldn't a centered downward draft be the simplest explanation?

ETA:
I want to change my answer because it looks to me like streaks of light rather than candle flames. If I were trying to reproduce the image, I would use a small aperture to limit the light, use a long exposure to turn the flames into steaks while zooming in on the center, and finish with a flash to fill in all the details.

Ladewig · 12th October 2009, 11:55 AM

If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory.

LTC8K6 · 12th October 2009, 12:31 PM

An overhead air vent would do that.

Starthinker · 12th October 2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory.

Not only that but look on both sides of the podium. There are 4 (2 on each side) white squares that look like pamplets or something, they are also blurred in a similar fashion. It's especially noticable where the black candlestick passes behind on the right side.

Lanzy · 12th October 2009, 01:29 PM

Maybe there is a fan under the podium to help with thigh sweat?

Ladewig · 12th October 2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

An overhead air vent would do that.

I think there is too much symmetry to attribute the effect to a draft. Also, the lights are far too long to be flames under a draft. Still, I could be wrong about that.

SezMe · 12th October 2009, 02:07 PM

The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop?

AgeGap · 12th October 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop?

My guess is that it is a fault of the lens or sensor. The flames look very long. Flames look about an inch high but the aberration makes them look about four inches in length. (In praise of the Imperial System)

Skeptic Ginger · 12th October 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop?

Why is it photos like these are always grainy? [snicker snicker]

It looks so fake. But if it weren't then any number of possible breeze sources could account for it.

LTC8K6 · 12th October 2009, 02:17 PM

It's a low light situation, so the longer exposure is perfectly normal. Anything that moves, like the flames or her face, looks a little odd, which is normal.

It's a combo of the longish exposure and a draft from an open door or something, imo.

dasmiller · 12th October 2009, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory.

Actually, you missed a candle. There's one on the lower-left of the image, and although it's a little more difficult to make out the flame, I believe that it, too, projects neatly through an aimpoint near the top of the podium.

An overhead vent would cause the inboard candle flames to flare outward more than the outboard flames, which is not what we observe.

Zooming the lens during the exposure would cause the flames to look long like this. If the camera was hand-held, that the aiming point would move during the exposure, and we'd also get artifacts like the little arc next to the speaker's right (our left) forearm.

Plus - if I were a ghost who could witness human events and interact to some limited extent with the physcal world, and I wanted to communicate with the living, I like to think that I'd be able to come up with something better than "I know! I'll make the candle flames tilt funny, then take a picture of it! There's no way they could misinterpret that!"

Careyp74 · 12th October 2009, 02:23 PM

I agree with Ladewig. It is definitely a low aperture effect. Not only are the flames streaked, but also the reflections on the candelabras. I couldn't figure out how one side was going in a different direction until reading his post. A zoom is most likely the culprit. That is using your brain!

Peter i · 12th October 2009, 02:27 PM

you do have quite a bit of woo up there in ~~Norwoo~~ Norway.

rjh01 · 12th October 2009, 04:09 PM

If there was any zoom during the exposure then you would get a different effect from this. I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly. The photo has been edited if only to compress the photo and remove the information in the photo.

Edit. Just read a translation of the original article. It appears to have been taken many years ago by a film camera.

dasmiller · 12th October 2009, 04:33 PM

[quote=rjh01;5197233]If there was any zoom during the exposure then you would get a different effect from this. I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly./QUOTE]

Actually, I've zoomed the camera during a long exposure with several light sources and gotten a generally similar effect - if you zoom and pause, then the light sources all show up as streaks and the rest of the image looks more-or-less normally focused.

If I'm feeling energetic, I'll see if I can recreate it tonight.

jasonpatterson · 12th October 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly.

If you look at the candles in a zoomed in version of the image, you can clearly see small, well behaved flames topped by parallelograms of light that all extend in the directions indicated by the thumbnail posted earlier. If the smears were produced by the flames moving, you'd expect them to be in various directions and to be of various heights. As it is, they are remarkably uniform in both direction and length. Additionally, a 4 inch candle flame is pretty unusual.

I'm no photo buff, so this could be wrong, but wouldn't the candles be the best place to see the zoom effect suggested by Ladewig? The pamphlets and lectern edge show it next most clearly because they are fairly brightly illuminated by the candles and are nice and straight.

Ladewig · 12th October 2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Actually, you missed a candle. There's one on the lower-left of the image, and although it's a little more difficult to make out the flame, I believe that it, too, projects neatly through an aimpoint near the top of the podium.

Yes. The top edge of that "flame" is a straight line that leads directly back to the convergence point.

steve s · 12th October 2009, 08:47 PM

And at the lower left, the bright spot on the base of the candle holder is streaked. I agree it's a bit of zooming during a long exposure.

Steve S.

arthwollipot · 12th October 2009, 08:49 PM

It's ghosts. It has to be. There's no other explanation.

dasmiller · 12th October 2009, 10:59 PM

Okay, I have a theory about how they took a picture with over-long diverging candle flames . . . .

Audible Click · 12th October 2009, 11:01 PM

And your theory is?

arthwollipot · 12th October 2009, 11:04 PM

I don't know the technical term for it, but judging by dasmiller's photo, it has something to do with long exposures and flash...

rjh01 · 13th October 2009, 12:05 AM

Yes, now that I have looked at the photo, it is obvious you are right. It IS zoom. You can see the original flame is vertical and the bit at an angle is due to the zoom effect.

Amazing what I do not know, even though I know more than most people on the subject.

Edit. All the flames should converge towards the centre of the photo. If they converge anywhere else the photo would have been cropped.

athon · 13th October 2009, 12:09 AM

Damn, others beat me to it.

First thing I noticed was that the streaks are not the flames themselves, but distortions. The flames are all pointing straight up.

Athon

bluesjnr · 13th October 2009, 12:40 AM

Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. If you look at the jpg on the site as posted in the OP and zoom in you will see some movement artifact on the base of the candle holders on the left hand candle stand at candles 2 & 3 (counting from the left). This indicates movement, probably due to the exposure time. To correct the photographers fundamental photo faux pax (alliteration anyone) somebody has cleaned up the artifact and shopped the candles over to the other side but in doing so has created a classic woo moment.

SezMe · 13th October 2009, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory.

But they don't converge on a single point, even in your own photo. So I don't see support for your theory.

Whiplash · 13th October 2009, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image.

I think it's sad that someone thought this was a brilliant photoshop move. I mean, I saw the picture and immediately thought it was simply a centralized source of airflow, as others suggested. It didn't spook me in the slightest. How they thought that this would be seen as proof of anything really boggles me.

SezMe · 13th October 2009, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

I think it's sad that someone thought this was a brilliant photoshop move.

There you go again, Whip. Can you point to a post where anyone thought this was a "brilliant" photoshop move?

Whiplash · 13th October 2009, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

There you go again, Whip. Can you point to a post where anyone thought this was a "brilliant" photoshop move?

There I go again, eh? What?

Maybe you misunderstood my meaning? Maybe I chose poor wording? I assume the person who did the actual photoshopping thought it was a brilliant move. Otherwise, why would they have even done it?

This assumes, of course, that it was actually photoshopped. I'm suggesting that, if it was, the person responsible was silly for thinking it was going to be a picture that made anyone go "woah! supernatural activity!".

It reminds me of some of the stupid things truthers made up in the previous years, that showed they didn't even understand what they were creating. Like the Barbara Olson arrested in Europe thing, that showed remarkable ignorance on many subjects.

I was not speaking of anyone here. I was speaking of the potential photoshop author.

bluesjnr · 13th October 2009, 01:53 AM

To be honest, I think the shopping took place back at the studio. I think this is a pro photo and as you are probably all well aware, more and more often the pro's or their assistants employ photoshop and it's dubious benefits.

This website shows just how often the so called experts get it sooooo wrong.

Whether or not it was done to create the woo or that was a by product we will never know. Unless the photographer turns up.

Whiplash · 13th October 2009, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

To be honest, I think the shopping took place back at the studio. I think this is a pro photo and as you are probably all well aware, more and more often the pro's or their assistants employ photoshop and it's dubious benefits.

This website shows just how often the so called experts get it sooooo wrong.

Whether or not it was done to create the woo or that was a by product we will never know. Unless the photographer turns up.

Fair enough, I admit I hadn't considered this possibility. It seemed it must be deliberate.

Some of those pictures are indeed a bit odd!

A.A.Alfie · 13th October 2009, 02:07 AM

I think she farted.

athon · 13th October 2009, 02:52 AM

I'm not sure where people get the idea that the candles are identical. Looking closely, there are a number of pixels that are unique to each, as well as the absence of light smears from several of the candelabra's cups. I really don't think photoshop is necessary to explain why the light is smeared in two directions from the flames.

Athon

bluesjnr · 13th October 2009, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by athon

I'm not sure where people get the idea that the candles are identical. Looking closely, there are a number of pixels that are unique to each, as well as the absence of light smears from several of the candelabra's cups. I really don't think photoshop is necessary to explain why the light is smeared in two directions from the flames.

Actually, on closer inspection you might have a point Athon. Here is a comparative composite for others opinions. Left set of candle appears on the bottom and has been flipped. You might want to save and use your own zoom function.

Ladewig · 13th October 2009, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

But they don't converge on a single point, even in your own photo. So I don't see support for your theory.

As I was drawing the lines, I focused on more matching the angel of each streak and did it rather freehandedly. If I were to zoom in and be more precise, I think there would be a single point.

Ladewig · 13th October 2009, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. If you look at the jpg on the site as posted in the OP and zoom in you will see some movement artifact on the base of the candle holders on the left hand candle stand at candles 2 & 3 (counting from the left). This indicates movement, probably due to the exposure time. To correct the photographers fundamental photo faux pax (alliteration anyone) somebody has cleaned up the artifact and shopped the candles over to the other side but in doing so has created a classic woo moment.

Yes, but as Athon pointed out, the streaks that you describe on the left-side candles do not appear on the right side. Furthermore, if it were simple streaking due to movement, then the candle next to the coffin would have a similar streak, but it does not.

dasmiller · 13th October 2009, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't know the technical term for it, but judging by dasmiller's photo, it has something to do with long exposures and flash...

Yep. Zoomed during a long exposure, with a fill-in flash. The only editing was to convert to grayscale and resize it.

BTW - it was dark in the room, so the picture seemed much brighter to me at the time. I didn't realize how dark it was until I saw my post a moment ago.

bluesjnr · 13th October 2009, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Yes, but as Athon pointed out, the streaks that you describe on the left-side candles do not appear on the right side. Furthermore, if it were simple streaking due to movement, then the candle next to the coffin would have a similar streak, but it does not.

Hmm, yes. You could look two posts above yours and read this if you like.

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Actually, on closer inspection you might have a point Athon. Here is a comparative composite for others opinions. Left set of candle appears on the bottom and has been flipped. You might want to save and use your own zoom function.

If that doesn't suit you might want to attempt to comprehend the emboldened section in my original post below

Originally Posted by My original post

Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. If you look at the jpg on the site as posted in the OP and zoom in you will see some movement artifact on the base of the candle holders on the left hand candle stand at candles 2 & 3 (counting from the left). This indicates movement, probably due to the exposure time. To correct the photographers fundamental photo faux pax (alliteration anyone) somebody has cleaned up the artifact and shopped the candles over to the other side but in doing so has created a classic woo moment.

So?

Careyp74 · 14th October 2009, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Yes, but as Athon pointed out, the streaks that you describe on the left-side candles do not appear on the right side.

look closer, they do. hard to see though. There are a couple of bright spots on the candle holders that streak.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Furthermore, if it were simple streaking due to movement, then the candle next to the coffin would have a similar streak, but it does not.

It does, the flame itself, which points directly to the center of the picture. Not as dramatic, but also that particular candle is in the foreground, while the rest are in the background. Maybe distance has something to do with what gets affected and how much?

12th October 2009, 11:37 AM	#1
Safe-Keeper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 4,372	Eerie photography: Candles blowing in opposite directions OK, so Norway, like all other countries, have famous psychics, and in our case the most commonly known specimen is a certain Anna Elisabeth Westerlund, who [confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and post hoc spin] aided police in solving many a case back in the day [/confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and post hoc spin]. Now, for some reason my town's paper has picked up on her again, and their latest stunt is an article on her funeral. The article is spearheaded by this photography: http://images.bt.no/btno/multimedia/...23_604487c.jpg Caption (translated): INEXPLICABLE: Who took this photo from Westerlund's funeral? The photographer, Tom Egil Jensen, states that the camera went off without him touching it. When he developed the film, this picture set itself apart from the others. The candles blew upward and outward - in opposite directions. Source. Now, obviously the "I didn't touch the camera" part can be explained as ad hoc milking of the mystery, but the photo itself is interesting. The only thing I can say is that the candles don't appear to burn outwards at all; rather, there is a kind of motion blur effect that makes it appear they do. This is odd, seeing as to how there's no blur in the rest of the photo. Could it be doctored? ETA: for those who are wondering, the article itself is what you'd expect of mainstream media - unquestioning acceptance of her abilities, confirmation bias, etc. For those with mastery of Scandinavian languages, however, there is this sceptical response to another article on her 'abilities' that I highly recommend.
	__________________ "Then my war dogs joined the fray. I have to say I'm a bit afraid of them. One of the bitches actually gave birth while she was attacking, and her puppies joined in on the carnage." --the awesomeness that is Boatmurdered Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 12th October 2009 at 11:42 AM.

12th October 2009, 11:42 AM	#2
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper The only thing I can say is that the candles don't appear to burn outwards at all; rather, there is a kind of motion blur effect that makes it appear they do. This is odd, seeing as to how there's no blur in the rest of the photo. Could it be doctored? Wouldn't a centered downward draft be the simplest explanation? ETA: I want to change my answer because it looks to me like streaks of light rather than candle flames. If I were trying to reproduce the image, I would use a small aperture to limit the light, use a long exposure to turn the flames into steaks while zooming in on the center, and finish with a flash to fill in all the details.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?" Last edited by Ladewig; 12th October 2009 at 11:57 AM.

12th October 2009, 12:31 PM	#4
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	An overhead air vent would do that.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

12th October 2009, 12:35 PM	#5
Starthinker Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 3,834	Originally Posted by Ladewig If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory. Not only that but look on both sides of the podium. There are 4 (2 on each side) white squares that look like pamplets or something, they are also blurred in a similar fashion. It's especially noticable where the black candlestick passes behind on the right side.
	__________________ Naked People Running on Treadmills \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ • Does the blue line only run on Saturday? He who doubts victory has already lost the battle.

12th October 2009, 02:02 PM	#7
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 An overhead air vent would do that. I think there is too much symmetry to attribute the effect to a draft. Also, the lights are far too long to be flames under a draft. Still, I could be wrong about that.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

12th October 2009, 01:29 PM	#6
Lanzy Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Reading, PA Posts: 695	Maybe there is a fan under the podium to help with thigh sweat?

12th October 2009, 02:07 PM	#8
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop?

12th October 2009, 02:12 PM	#9
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,803	Originally Posted by SezMe The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop? My guess is that it is a fault of the lens or sensor. The flames look very long. Flames look about an inch high but the aberration makes them look about four inches in length. (In praise of the Imperial System)
AgeGap Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,803	__________________ Cool Uri Geller site by Steve Knight Last edited by AgeGap; 12th October 2009 at 02:16 PM.

12th October 2009, 02:14 PM	#10
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by SezMe The flames look too similar to me. Photoshop? Why is it photos like these are always grainy? [snicker snicker] It looks so fake. But if it weren't then any number of possible breeze sources could account for it.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

12th October 2009, 02:17 PM	#11
LTC8K6 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 6,976	It's a low light situation, so the longer exposure is perfectly normal. Anything that moves, like the flames or her face, looks a little odd, which is normal. It's a combo of the longish exposure and a draft from an open door or something, imo.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

12th October 2009, 02:22 PM	#12
dasmiller Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by Ladewig If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory. Actually, you missed a candle. There's one on the lower-left of the image, and although it's a little more difficult to make out the flame, I believe that it, too, projects neatly through an aimpoint near the top of the podium. An overhead vent would cause the inboard candle flames to flare outward more than the outboard flames, which is not what we observe. Zooming the lens during the exposure would cause the flames to look long like this. If the camera was hand-held, that the aiming point would move during the exposure, and we'd also get artifacts like the little arc next to the speaker's right (our left) forearm. Plus - if I were a ghost who could witness human events and interact to some limited extent with the physcal world, and I wanted to communicate with the living, I like to think that I'd be able to come up with something better than "I know! I'll make the candle flames tilt funny, then take a picture of it! There's no way they could misinterpret that!"
	__________________ "I know lots of people are smarter than me. But I have this philosophy: So what?" Julie Brown - "'Cause I'm A Blonde"

12th October 2009, 02:23 PM	#13
Careyp74 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 1,656	I agree with Ladewig. It is definitely a low aperture effect. Not only are the flames streaked, but also the reflections on the candelabras. I couldn't figure out how one side was going in a different direction until reading his post. A zoom is most likely the culprit. That is using your brain!

12th October 2009, 02:27 PM	#14
Peter i Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Barbaricum Posts: 98	you do have quite a bit of woo up there in ~~Norwoo~~ Norway.

12th October 2009, 04:09 PM	#15
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 9,810	If there was any zoom during the exposure then you would get a different effect from this. I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly. The photo has been edited if only to compress the photo and remove the information in the photo. Edit. Just read a translation of the original article. It appears to have been taken many years ago by a film camera.
	Last edited by rjh01; 12th October 2009 at 04:14 PM.

12th October 2009, 04:33 PM	#16
dasmiller Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 425	[quote=rjh01;5197233]If there was any zoom during the exposure then you would get a different effect from this. I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly./QUOTE] Actually, I've zoomed the camera during a long exposure with several light sources and gotten a generally similar effect - if you zoom and pause, then the light sources all show up as streaks and the rest of the image looks more-or-less normally focused. If I'm feeling energetic, I'll see if I can recreate it tonight.
	__________________ "I know lots of people are smarter than me. But I have this philosophy: So what?" Julie Brown - "'Cause I'm A Blonde"

12th October 2009, 04:36 PM	#17
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Macedonia, OH Posts: 903	Originally Posted by rjh01 I suggest that everything can explained by a long exposure time during which the flames moved slightly. If you look at the candles in a zoomed in version of the image, you can clearly see small, well behaved flames topped by parallelograms of light that all extend in the directions indicated by the thumbnail posted earlier. If the smears were produced by the flames moving, you'd expect them to be in various directions and to be of various heights. As it is, they are remarkably uniform in both direction and length. Additionally, a 4 inch candle flame is pretty unusual. I'm no photo buff, so this could be wrong, but wouldn't the candles be the best place to see the zoom effect suggested by Ladewig? The pamphlets and lectern edge show it next most clearly because they are fairly brightly illuminated by the candles and are nice and straight.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

12th October 2009, 05:08 PM	#18
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	Originally Posted by dasmiller Actually, you missed a candle. There's one on the lower-left of the image, and although it's a little more difficult to make out the flame, I believe that it, too, projects neatly through an aimpoint near the top of the podium. Yes. The top edge of that "flame" is a straight line that leads directly back to the convergence point.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

12th October 2009, 08:47 PM	#19
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	And at the lower left, the bright spot on the base of the candle holder is streaked. I agree it's a bit of zooming during a long exposure. Steve S.
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

12th October 2009, 08:49 PM	#20
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	It's ghosts. It has to be. There's no other explanation.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

12th October 2009, 10:59 PM	#21
dasmiller Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 425	Okay, I have a theory about how they took a picture with over-long diverging candle flames . . . .
	__________________ "I know lots of people are smarter than me. But I have this philosophy: So what?" Julie Brown - "'Cause I'm A Blonde"

12th October 2009, 11:01 PM	#22
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 2,037	And your theory is?
	__________________ A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.-William James. www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com

12th October 2009, 11:04 PM	#23
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	I don't know the technical term for it, but judging by dasmiller's photo, it has something to do with long exposures and flash...
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

13th October 2009, 12:05 AM	#24
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 9,810	Yes, now that I have looked at the photo, it is obvious you are right. It IS zoom. You can see the original flame is vertical and the bit at an angle is due to the zoom effect. Amazing what I do not know, even though I know more than most people on the subject. Edit. All the flames should converge towards the centre of the photo. If they converge anywhere else the photo would have been cropped.
	Last edited by rjh01; 13th October 2009 at 12:07 AM.

13th October 2009, 12:09 AM	#25
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Upside the Inside Posts: 9,182	Damn, others beat me to it. First thing I noticed was that the streaks are not the flames themselves, but distortions. The flames are all pointing straight up. Athon
	__________________ "Whether you're soar-away Sun, or BBC 1, misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction." 'Mass Destruction', Faithless

13th October 2009, 12:40 AM	#26
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 501	Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. If you look at the jpg on the site as posted in the OP and zoom in you will see some movement artifact on the base of the candle holders on the left hand candle stand at candles 2 & 3 (counting from the left). This indicates movement, probably due to the exposure time. To correct the photographers fundamental photo faux pax (alliteration anyone) somebody has cleaned up the artifact and shopped the candles over to the other side but in doing so has created a classic woo moment.
	__________________ Belief is the death of intelligence. - Robert Anton Wilson Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Isaac Asimov He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams Last edited by bluesjnr; 13th October 2009 at 12:43 AM.

13th October 2009, 01:09 AM	#27
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Ladewig If one extends each of the "flames" one sees that they converge on a single point, which would support my theory. But they don't converge on a single point, even in your own photo. So I don't see support for your theory.

13th October 2009, 01:16 AM	#28
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by bluesjnr Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. I think it's sad that someone thought this was a brilliant photoshop move. I mean, I saw the picture and immediately thought it was simply a centralized source of airflow, as others suggested. It didn't spook me in the slightest. How they thought that this would be seen as proof of anything really boggles me.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade

13th October 2009, 01:29 AM	#29
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Whiplash I think it's sad that someone thought this was a brilliant photoshop move. There you go again, Whip. Can you point to a post where anyone thought this was a "brilliant" photoshop move?

13th October 2009, 01:38 AM	#30
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by SezMe There you go again, Whip. Can you point to a post where anyone thought this was a "brilliant" photoshop move? There I go again, eh? What? Maybe you misunderstood my meaning? Maybe I chose poor wording? I assume the person who did the actual photoshopping thought it was a brilliant move. Otherwise, why would they have even done it? This assumes, of course, that it was actually photoshopped. I'm suggesting that, if it was, the person responsible was silly for thinking it was going to be a picture that made anyone go "woah! supernatural activity!". It reminds me of some of the stupid things truthers made up in the previous years, that showed they didn't even understand what they were creating. Like the Barbara Olson arrested in Europe thing, that showed remarkable ignorance on many subjects. I was not speaking of anyone here. I was speaking of the potential photoshop author.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade Last edited by Whiplash; 13th October 2009 at 01:41 AM.

13th October 2009, 01:53 AM	#31
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 501	To be honest, I think the shopping took place back at the studio. I think this is a pro photo and as you are probably all well aware, more and more often the pro's or their assistants employ photoshop and it's dubious benefits. This website shows just how often the so called experts get it sooooo wrong. Whether or not it was done to create the woo or that was a by product we will never know. Unless the photographer turns up.
	__________________ Belief is the death of intelligence. - Robert Anton Wilson Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Isaac Asimov He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams

13th October 2009, 02:02 AM	#32
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,001	Originally Posted by bluesjnr To be honest, I think the shopping took place back at the studio. I think this is a pro photo and as you are probably all well aware, more and more often the pro's or their assistants employ photoshop and it's dubious benefits. This website shows just how often the so called experts get it sooooo wrong. Whether or not it was done to create the woo or that was a by product we will never know. Unless the photographer turns up. Fair enough, I admit I hadn't considered this possibility. It seemed it must be deliberate. Some of those pictures are indeed a bit odd!
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade

13th October 2009, 02:07 AM	#33
A.A.Alfie Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 2,113	I think she farted.
	__________________ “The wolfhound is right and the cannibal is wrong". Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

13th October 2009, 02:52 AM	#34
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Upside the Inside Posts: 9,182	I'm not sure where people get the idea that the candles are identical. Looking closely, there are a number of pixels that are unique to each, as well as the absence of light smears from several of the candelabra's cups. I really don't think photoshop is necessary to explain why the light is smeared in two directions from the flames. Athon
	__________________ "Whether you're soar-away Sun, or BBC 1, misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction." 'Mass Destruction', Faithless

13th October 2009, 07:22 AM	#36
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	Originally Posted by SezMe But they don't converge on a single point, even in your own photo. So I don't see support for your theory. As I was drawing the lines, I focused on more matching the angel of each streak and did it rather freehandedly. If I were to zoom in and be more precise, I think there would be a single point.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

13th October 2009, 07:30 AM	#37
Ladewig Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 8,958	Originally Posted by bluesjnr Folks, look again. The candle stand on the left is the real one. The one on the right is a photoshopped mirror image. If you look at the jpg on the site as posted in the OP and zoom in you will see some movement artifact on the base of the candle holders on the left hand candle stand at candles 2 & 3 (counting from the left). This indicates movement, probably due to the exposure time. To correct the photographers fundamental photo faux pax (alliteration anyone) somebody has cleaned up the artifact and shopped the candles over to the other side but in doing so has created a classic woo moment. Yes, but as Athon pointed out, the streaks that you describe on the left-side candles do not appear on the right side. Furthermore, if it were simple streaking due to movement, then the candle next to the coffin would have a similar streak, but it does not.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?" Last edited by Ladewig; 13th October 2009 at 07:31 AM.