The Ghostie Boy photo thread

General Discussion About Anything Amityville And Other Paranormal Topics
Victoria Principles
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 2916

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Victoria Principles » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:02 am

Tim wrote:Has the police report ever turned up regarding the front door incident? Is it possible to hunt this down?
If there was a police report, it probably lined someone's birdcage at one time (pure accident of course). It probably went to the same place as the Amityville Historical Society documents on the house or the Native Americans in the area. They disappeared or "never" existed.

Blackbic50
Amityville Member
Posts: 22

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Blackbic50 » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:04 am

OK I did my "Search" and I read and skimmed this thread as much as I possibly could to see if any one else had said/asked or suggested this, and I didn't find any exact matches, so here goes.....
Last night I was on the photographs board here, and saw, as well as commented on, the Defoe children picture, it was the 1st time I had ever seen that pic. There were comments about one of the children sitting on the couch in the pic, the boy in the orange shirt to be exact. He appears to be making a funny pose for the camera....anyway, as I said this was the first time I had saw this particular picture, but I have seen a picture of the defoe family either as a group or individuals, so it was no surprise that I found the boy in the orange shirt a familar face....The thing is, Now I am not sure the familarity I felt was from seeing previous Defoe pictures......Put a pair of black framed glasses on the boy in the orange shirt.....then look at the Ghostie boy pic...MMmhuh.....Don't know, But ........

User avatar
Shawn
Been there, Done that
Posts: 2123

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Shawn » Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:45 pm

BillyCigars wrote:
Shawn wrote:*ETA Italics are not working. jfyi.
Actually they are but the poster didn't "close" the italics tag properly which is why it showed up as words. ;)


no, in my own post I tried to use italics (and tried to edit/fix it) and it did not work. :think:
Any and all comments made by the poster "Shawn" are purely his opinion and do not reflect the opinions of the board owners, administrators or moderators. Also, all postings done by the member "Shawn" are property of "Shawn" and cannot be reproduced in any way shape or form without written permission from the poster known here(@http://www.amityvillefaq.com) as "Shawn". TIA.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:16 pm

That's due to the open BBCode commands in the text you quoted. The italic code opens with [i] and closes with [/i]. The code was opened in the quotes, but never closed. That affect the new text you typed later, and the code you tried to implement.

As an experiment, go back to that post you made and click the "reply" button. Then edit out the quotes from Max and Bobbo and hit "Preview." You'll notice the code now works and your word is now italic.

User avatar
Shawn
Been there, Done that
Posts: 2123

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Shawn » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:43 pm

Ah, yes Dan, that is it. Thanks!
Any and all comments made by the poster "Shawn" are purely his opinion and do not reflect the opinions of the board owners, administrators or moderators. Also, all postings done by the member "Shawn" are property of "Shawn" and cannot be reproduced in any way shape or form without written permission from the poster known here(@http://www.amityvillefaq.com) as "Shawn". TIA.

praline
Amityville Member
Posts: 68

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by praline » Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:05 pm

Being a hobby photographer I will admit this photo did interest me. I do not think its edited. The means and technical skill to "photoshop" this kind of photo was only in the hands of very advance few photographers. In this day and age I could reproduce that photo with Satan looking at you within 30 minutes and make it look very realistic using layers in photoshop. In the 70s the average person did not have this type of equipment nor was this a digital photo.

Has the negative ever been published?


This does not mean I think its a ghost by any means. There are several photos that have thought to be of haunted ghost and it ended up being something innocent or purposely placed. The most famous example off the top of my head would be the famed ghost of "Three men and a baby". There was a very popular story to go with that footage of a child dying in the house and blah blah blah.. you can look up the whole legend if interested. The fact was it was a cardboard cut out of Ted accidentally placed there. No ghost. The still shots are creepy in the extreme and will give anyone a chill down the spine in the same way this photo does.

There are too many variables to consider with this photo. The infared photo technique will make any eyes look like that. You can play with your own photos if you have a half decent photo editing program. It can create some extremely creepy images from normal photos of people. I took one a few years back of my dog and everyone creeped out and thought he looked like the hound from hell. :lol:
This photo technique usually doesn't show a favorable shot of a person. The cheeks can be withdrawn and give a skeleton look. This type of technique is like looking at a photo negative ~ those things can be creepy lol
Infrared black and white can produce some beautiful shots of nature or still life but usually only used for "creepy factor" on living creatures.

I am going to see if I can post photos on here (still new to the site) sorry if they don't work

Here is a photo I took with the same technique several years ago. It gives a artistic flare to the mundane.
Image

I do not have any living creature photos in infrared uploaded up if you google "creepy infrared photo" you will find many. I don't want to link them due to them not being my own work.

I have seen this photo technique used many times in explaining ghost. I question its use in ghost researchers as it simply is a purposely done creepy technique used in order to make the normal look eery.

This black and white photo technique is very different from the electromagnetic radiation "infrared" type footage we seen today. These are colored and show the heat being given off of the subject.

Anyone who has photo editing software can play around with these tools and get same really strange effects out of normal mundane photos.


Is this a doctored photo? I don't see anything that says it is. If it is, its a really really really good one and techniques such as that weren't available in the 70s for normal folks. Is this a ghost? I think there are way too many variables to honestly give it serious thought. Lighting, camera, film, developing procedures, negative along with the basic staging and trick of the eye physical manipulations that could occur in between shots.

It is an interesting photo as it does seem to be a 3 dimensional figure. What that figure is however is up for too great of debate to take it as proof.

That's my opinion :lol:

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

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Howard64 » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:03 pm

interesting thing about the ghostie boy photo, the
Photoshop program didn't exist back then. Some here
think it was one of the photographers. I disagree but
hey, it's okay to disagree:)

Like you, I would like to see the negative. I would also
like to know what type of film was used, brand, the paper
it was developed on. As well as the F-Stop, distance from
the doorway, the type of camera used, the lenses and so
forth.

I took photography in college and found it fascinating! I only
worked with black and white, never had the chance to work
with color. I am told that there has to be complete darkness
when working with color developing is this true? I know you can
have a red light on while working with black and white.
" 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."

praline
Amityville Member
Posts: 68

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by praline » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:17 pm

The film is much more sensitive to light then regular black and white. It has been many many many years since I braved a dark room however lol

I am not familiar with the speeds and effects of the speeds on this type of film and the developing it correctly.

Give me digital any day of the week HA HA The smell of a dark room? The Lutz have nothing on odor until they step into one of those rooms! :lol:

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:15 pm

praline wrote:The infared photo technique will make any eyes look like that.
Sounds like you're looking at a low-res copy of this photograph. That makes the eyes look like they are glowing. But when a higher resolution copy is viewed, you can clearly see the figure is wearing glasses, and the glow (which is far less noticeable) is simply a reflection off his glasses.
praline wrote:Is this a doctored photo? I don't see anything that says it is.
Frankly there would be no need to doctor this photo. If someone wanted to fake this photo, they would simply have somebody crouch down in the doorway and snap the pic. There's really nothing "otherworldly" about it. No glowing eyes, no semi-transparent body, nothing floating in the air, nothing. It's all about the identity of the figure rather than anything else.

The only thing "odd" about this photo is that it appears to be a boy (and there were no children in the house when this photo was taken). But as we all know, appearances can be deceiving.
praline wrote:What that figure is however is up for too great of debate to take it as proof.
Personally, I think the answer can be found in this very thread. Have a peek at page 36...

praline
Amityville Member
Posts: 68

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by praline » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:48 pm

AHHH it all makes sense now! I will admit, I did not read all 39 pages. I got to page 10 of "its real/its fake" and didn't read the whole thread.

Seeing the video that is linked on page 36 does indeed look like glasses and not a reflection (at the 4.44 mark) it also is clear someone is crouching as is stated. The email really confirmed it.

It doesn't look like it was on purpose however. It looks more like a crouch and wait for the click and then run down the stairs so as not to interfere with the camera investigation. "Wait for it.. wait for it.. <click> GO GO GO" kind of deal.

Innocent mistake blown out of the water.


It might be worth while in making a sticky post about Debunking ghost boy and use the video and the email and article. For those noobies like me, it would help a great deal not to wade through all of the muck to find a reasonable answer :)

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:14 am

Yeah, good point. We had a bunch of different "ghost boy photo" threads, and we merged them together to make it easier for people to find info on it. But the threads do tend to get massive this way, and I can imagine it's hard for a new arrival to sit down and read all 39 pages, not knowing where the best info will turn up. The post by Max (msmart112) kinda got buried and I think a lot of people overlooked it.

I do feel this is Paul Bartz, the one-time assistant of the Warrens, captured accidentally by the automatic camera as he was wandering around the house. And I agree that it looks accidental -- not staged.

Now if Paul was wearing a sheet over his head, I might think it was staged. ;)

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 863
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:08 am

Was sick for a day or so so no writing got done on the blog...so I had to come back with something I know people want to read about lol.

Nothing new here for you guys, but the theory of Paul Bartz does get linked to this thread!
http://newsfromthespiritworld.wordpress ... ghost-boy/

User avatar
DC Fan
Amityville Addict
Posts: 344

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by DC Fan » Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:54 am

tomspy77 wrote:Was sick for a day or so so no writing got done on the blog...so I had to come back with something I know people want to read about lol.

Nothing new here for you guys, but the theory of Paul Bartz does get linked to this thread!
http://newsfromthespiritworld.wordpress ... ghost-boy/
Thanx for the link Tom.

I did notice that they missed one very important issue. The length of the shirt and the arm seems to indicate that this is a photo of a seated adult rather than a standing child.

I once toyed with the idea in my mind that it might even be Allison wearing some kind of nightshirt and leaning out of her bedroom ( IMO it resembles her more than any other DeFeo ). However what I will call the seated-adult evidence seems too strong and I end up accepting the view of Max, Dan and others that it is Paul Blartz in the photo.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 863
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:00 pm

DC Fan wrote:
tomspy77 wrote:Was sick for a day or so so no writing got done on the blog...so I had to come back with something I know people want to read about lol.

Nothing new here for you guys, but the theory of Paul Bartz does get linked to this thread!
http://newsfromthespiritworld.wordpress ... ghost-boy/
Thanx for the link Tom.

I did notice that they missed one very important issue. The length of the shirt and the arm seems to indicate that this is a photo of a seated adult rather than a standing child.

I once toyed with the idea in my mind that it might even be Allison wearing some kind of nightshirt and leaning out of her bedroom ( IMO it resembles her more than any other DeFeo ). However what I will call the seated-adult evidence seems too strong and I end up accepting the view of Max, Dan and others that it is Paul Blartz in the photo.
They=me! ;-)

I wrote it and I did have a line in there about the arm when it first went 'live' but later removed it as it was clunky and not very well explained.

It nagged at me but I was lazy and just omitted it...I revise my posts all the time for new information and clarity/errors, so I'll pop in a paragraph on it in the future as quite rightly it is a important part of the theory.

User avatar
DC Fan
Amityville Addict
Posts: 344

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by DC Fan » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:12 pm

tomspy77 wrote:They=me! ;-)
Ooops. I thought it was you in the comment section, but not necessarily the authour of the article itself. At any rate it was good to prompt debate elsewhere.

Victoria Principles
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 2916

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Victoria Principles » Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:36 am

Sometimes it's a good thing if something is left unexplain.

Until one of the investigators say "Yes, Ghost Boy is me" and provide photos showing them in the same clothing, that Ghost Boy photo will spark debates.

Though I never saw a ghost wearing eye glasses before.

User avatar
Rokiisun
I am the year 1989
Posts: 1135
Location: Scotland

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Rokiisun » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:50 am

I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that one of the
investigators verified who the 'ghost boy' was that night... :think:

Either that or I read some theories a while back in this thread
which compares photographs of one of the investigators with
the ghost boy photograph.
It is better to return a borrowed pot with a little something you last cooked in it.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:04 pm

Looks like someone is reading your blog: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/04/who-was ... ghost-boy/

Victoria Principles
Amityville Maniac
Posts: 2916

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Victoria Principles » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:27 pm

Dan the Damned wrote:Looks like someone is reading your blog: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/04/who-was ... ghost-boy/
One post there suggested it could be John Zaffis who is a nephew of the Warrens.

I never seen a ghost photo where the spirit was wearing glasses that reflect light. Most spirits are translucent when photographed.

User avatar
Dan the Damned
Lost Soul
Posts: 11566

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by Dan the Damned » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:44 pm

Misinformation. Zaffis never said he was there during the investigation. His connection to the case was having Ed Warren play him various tapes of interviews he did with the Lutzes.

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 863
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Ghostie Boy photo thread

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:25 am

Dan the Damned wrote:Looks like someone is reading your blog: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/04/who-was ... ghost-boy/
Several actually...I was not going to mention it but the ghost boy post went viral.

About.com placed it in the paranormal news section of About on the 10th as well as a couple of other sites including Skeptic.

One thing I do not like is that some sites are saying that my article debunks it 100%.

That is not how I worded it and you can easily tell when reading the orginal posting.

Sorry if I started another Amity rumor, I never presented it as fact, just speculation...

But hey, this and the Titanic 'Iceberg Photo' got me more then 1k in hits yesterday, so not bad for a blog a little over a month old...deffo worth the effort and could be something with enough work.

Post Reply