The Ghostie Boy photo thread

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
User avatar
Cemetery Man
Amityville Member
Posts: 15
Location: Austin Texas
Contact:

Post by Cemetery Man » Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:01 pm

Im sorry but i just gotback from there web site and that picture is not there, maybe a ghost took it down?

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4017
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:28 am

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the use of Infrared film not need the use of flash??

If i recall my photography classes from college, Infrared does not need any special lighting in order to take pictures in the dark.

Now if this type of film was used in photographing that second story landing...how could the eyes be lit up?

Wado

FairyMagic
Amityville Member
Posts: 9
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Post by FairyMagic » Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:02 am

Cemetary Man:

I clicked a link to their site on the Discussion entitled The Demonologist. It's in the first post. There is an Amityville link at the top. It says "See New Amityville Page" or something to that affect. If you still can't find it let me know.

Victoria Principles
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 2916

Post by Victoria Principles » Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:50 am

That picture is definately creepy.

User avatar
trixy1980
Amityville Member
Posts: 75
Location: London England

Post by trixy1980 » Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:17 am

Hi Everyone!
Im new to all this but I have seen that photograph and I have to agree that it is pretty freaky! I kept thinking about it for days afterwards and Im not easily freaked out.

I have heard that the Warren's never had the pic examined to prove it's authentisity. Does anyone know why that is?

LisaMarie
Amityville Addict
Posts: 320
Location: California

a guess?

Post by LisaMarie » Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:54 am

How about a guess? Because validating the photo won't explain what it's of. So it really doesn't help the case at all.

User avatar
trixy1980
Amityville Member
Posts: 75
Location: London England

Post by trixy1980 » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:15 am

I think you misunderstod me I'm not having a dig.

I mearly meant that when you have an image as compleing as that, that you believed to be a real capture. Having it authenticated would (if no explination could be given) strengthen the belief that there are other things in this world or even the theory of life after death. Surely in the Warren's line of work this would help their casue and obviously it would be benificial to George Lutz to help dispell some of the non believers

I just know that if I had an image like that I would want to get it checked out for my own satisfaction. If there is no explination then great I'd be off to James Randi looking for that $1 million hes offering. If its not real then hey its a great image anyway and still freaky.

But maybe thats just me :D

User avatar
tragicimp
Punk in Drublic
Posts: 337

Post by tragicimp » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:07 pm

trixy1980 wrote:I think you misunderstod me I'm not having a dig.

I mearly meant that when you have an image as compleing as that, that you believed to be a real capture. Having it authenticated would (if no explination could be given) strengthen the belief that there are other things in this world or even the theory of life after death. Surely in the Warren's line of work this would help their casue and obviously it would be benificial to George Lutz to help dispell some of the non believers

I just know that if I had an image like that I would want to get it checked out for my own satisfaction. If there is no explination then great I'd be off to James Randi looking for that $1 million hes offering. If its not real then hey its a great image anyway and still freaky.

But maybe thats just me :D
good point trixy....good point indeed...it does seem a bit suspicious that they didn't get it authenticated...huh...interesting...never thought of that...
[url=http://www.sloganizer.net/en/][img]http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Impy,black,white.png[/img][/url]
[img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/tragic_imp/candy.gif[/img]

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:39 pm

I think the point Lisa was making was that even if it get's verified, the verification won't tell you what it is. It will only tell you if it was tampered with.

Let's follow the possibility for a moment that it gets verified and no tampering is found. That still gives us no proof as to what the image is. It only tells us that the photo wasn't doctored. That would still leave us with the question of, "Is it a ghost/demonic spirit?". Make no mistake, a photographic verification will never answer that question with, "Yep, that's a ghost". There are no tests for such things....

You'd have no Million Dollar Rewards, and you'd probably have even more questions than when you began asking in the first place.
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

Lilmoo
Amityville Member
Posts: 14

Post by Lilmoo » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:30 pm

on one of the older movies of amityville horror the eyes look like pigs eyes or something


and with me being only 12 i believe everything that people tell me but i dont think its a ghost!
Lilmoo!

User avatar
steelefanboy
Just Curious (Yea Right)
Posts: 58

Post by steelefanboy » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:18 am

It will give fodder to skeptics and to beleivers as to what it is because neither will accept whether it is real or faked. We have no test to verify if the image on the photo is an image.
Human logic amuses me.

User avatar
KatyGirl
**ACCOUNT ON HOLD**
Posts: 99

Post by KatyGirl » Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:31 am

The Ghost Boy pic has been poorly edited by someone with limited photoshop experience. Sorry, nothing REAL about that pic.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Post by Dan the Damned » Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:44 am

Yeah, what Billy said. This is not a case for having a photograph tested in some manner. It is a figure in a doorway. The figure is not doing anything strange, or floating in the air or anything - it's just a figure.

An example of a ghost photo that should be tested is a photo of a ghost flying, or doing something extraordinary.

Testing the photo would only work if the photo was faked. If the photo was faked, then that would mean they had this person sit/kneel in the doorway and snap the photo. What would any testing of the photo have to say about that? What could they determine?

Testing is for photos believed to be retouched, or double-exposed, or tampered with in some manner. If they simply had a guy go stand in the doorway, this wouldn't show up in any sort of photographic test.

So all a test would validate is if the person was really there or not. It won't tell us if it was a real person or an apparition.
Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the use of Infrared film not need the use of flash?
I'm no expert, but I do believe infrared photography does need some sort of light source. For seeing "in the dark," the light source, I believe, is in a spectrum that we cannot really see with the naked eye - so it appears dark to us. However, it is not dark to the camera, and should act pretty much like normal light in the photos - casting shadows and reflecting off of glass...

I think the thing that requires absolutely no light are based on heat emissions.

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:16 am

The Ghost Boy pic has been poorly edited by someone with limited photoshop experience. Sorry, nothing REAL about that pic.
Um no.

The REAL picture is crystal clear (not the crappy copy of a copy of a copy of a copy floating around on the internet). I've seen the original and there is nothing "Photoshopped" about it. And yes it's "real". Just as any photograph of anything is "real".

There's never been any question as to whether the photo is "real". What we are debating isn't if the picture itself is real or not, what we're debating is WHAT the figure in the picture is...

Could it be a ghost? Could it be an Investigator? Dunno....
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

beanbagbreath
TOWN DRUNK
Posts: 816
Location: Ashy Larry... Marcy Projects... Marcy son... WHAT!!!
Contact:

Post by beanbagbreath » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:08 pm

BillyCigars wrote:
The Ghost Boy pic has been poorly edited by someone with limited photoshop experience. Sorry, nothing REAL about that pic.
Um no.

The REAL picture is crystal clear (not the crappy copy of a copy of a copy of a copy floating around on the internet). I've seen the original and there is nothing "Photoshopped" about it. And yes it's "real". Just as any photograph of anything is "real".

There's never been any question as to whether the photo is "real". What we are debating isn't if the picture itself is real or not, what we're debating is WHAT the figure in the picture is...

Could it be a ghost? Could it be an Investigator? Dunno....

I have the doc. The pic looks the same on there to me. A copy of a copy of a copy on the internet is entirely different than a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape. the clarity of the image would stay the same.

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:11 pm

There is a huuuuuge difference in the clarity between the one you saw on the Doc (the Original image) and the one floating around on the net.

Having said that, KatyGirl was saying that it looked like a poorly edited picture by someone with limited Photoshop skills (referring to the copy she must have seen on the internet).

And that's my point: When you see the original, you clearly see that it's not edited--its just a figure in a photgraph. For some people, its nothing out of the ordinary, for others it presents a mystery.
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

beanbagbreath
TOWN DRUNK
Posts: 816
Location: Ashy Larry... Marcy Projects... Marcy son... WHAT!!!
Contact:

Post by beanbagbreath » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:19 pm

BillyCigars wrote:There is a huuuuuge difference in the clarity between the one you saw on the Doc (the Original image) and the one floating around on the net.

Having said that, KatyGirl was saying that it looked like a poorly edited picture by someone with limited Photoshop skills (referring to the copy she must have seen on the internet).

And that's my point: When you see the original, you clearly see that it's not edited--its just a figure in a photgraph. For some people, its nothing out of the ordinary, for others it presents a mystery.
So is the image I saw on the Doc, not the original? I will have to look again but it looked IDENTICAL to the pic I saw floating around the net. I will watch it after I down a few more beers and I check out Quan a little more (Nas's new sith apprentice :D )

User avatar
BillyCigars
American Psycho
Posts: 2692
Location: I Have To Return Some Videotapes

Post by BillyCigars » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:27 pm

Yeah its the same basic picture (figure peering out of a doorway) but the clarity is the difference.

If you can't see the difference in clarity between the one on the Internet and the one on the Doc (the clear one), me thinks you are beer goggling the "ghost boy", LOL.
"The old man's still an artist with a Thompson."

beanbagbreath
TOWN DRUNK
Posts: 816
Location: Ashy Larry... Marcy Projects... Marcy son... WHAT!!!
Contact:

Post by beanbagbreath » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:15 pm

BillyCigars wrote:Yeah its the same basic picture (figure peering out of a doorway) but the clarity is the difference.

If you can't see the difference in clarity between the one on the Internet and the one on the Doc (the clear one), me thinks you are beer goggling the "ghost boy", LOL.
lol you 3rd bass fiend, I watched it initially sober. I did not watch it tonight. I will watch it tomorrow. But wait, lol if it is clear and not like the internet copy, what are we discussing again? is there something different in the original?

LisaMarie
Amityville Addict
Posts: 320
Location: California

copy of a copy...

Post by LisaMarie » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:56 pm

Hey Bean Bag! Yes, even the one on the docs is an edit. If I recall, they enlarged it for the camera.

Having sat with Mr. Lutz looking at the original photo - scanned in to his computer - ya get a LOT of odd detail in the photo itself.

Scottie G and I disagree as to what the boy is wearing. He sees a pajama top. I see a cowboy shirt. The kind with pearl buttons. They were REAL popular back then.

The boy's head casts no shadow on the wall. But the banister does.

There is a line of white just beneath the boy. To Scottie, it looks like a colman cooler. You know the old green ones with the white gasket? To me, that's the bottom rail of Missy's white rocker.

Why would a ghost need to haul the white rocker around the bed to the door? And did the ghost put it back when done?

Strange to say the least.

Now... a number of folks who've seen the pic say it looks like the boy is wearing glasses. If you enlarge the original the boy's face begins to take on a skull like quality. That's the part that freaks me out. At a distance, it's just a cute little boy. Enlarge it. Starts looking like a skull. We've all seen those other photos where skulls show up over and over.

Strange huh?

Also, the boy is leaning forward on his arm. The arm is unusually long. It's just odd. If it IS a person, they're deformed...

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4017
Location: Athens, Texas

Post by Howard64 » Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:31 pm

I think the picture is genuine. I have viewed many ghost pics, even some fake ones. IMO..thats a real pic.:)

Howard64
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Post Reply