Poltergeist caught on digital camera..

http://picasaweb.google.com/vtcapo/NewAlbum814071042AM

The three digital photos were taken seconds apart using a Kodak
Easyshare CX7430. Does anyone have an explanation for the anonmaly
that is developing in the first two prints and cluminates into a
wispy apparition in the third close up. Click on the last three
photos. They are of higher resolution.

Any imput would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
RT

On Aug 17, 9:48 am, wrote:
http://picasaweb.google.com/vtcapo/NewAlbum814071042AM

The three digital photos were taken seconds apart using a Kodak
Easyshare CX7430. Does anyone have an explanation for the anonmaly
that is developing in the first two prints and cluminates into a
wispy apparition in the third close up. Click on the last three
photos. They are of higher resolution.

Any imput would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
RT

You're kidding, right?

Well in case you're not, you shot the picture with a flash and you had
a WAY too long shutter speed. You then moved the camera before the
shutter closed. The flash lit up the dark areas and stopped all
motion because of the strobing effect, but the bright areas continued
to be exposed and therefore show the movement.

For the last picture, it was a sweeping motion.

For the second-to-last it was a downward motion. Look at the bright
reflection of the tire and you can trace the motion.

(Pat) wrote in
ups.com:

You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places, under
two different IDs.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote roups.com:

You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places, under
two different IDs.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that. The the naysayers on Sci.astro are at
a loss for explaining this anomally. Can anyone in this group
determine if the photos were tampered with?
Or is this going to be approached the same way as in Sci.astro?
Dismiss it outright while being unable to refute the claim that this
is a paranormal event caught on digital.

RT

On Aug 17, 10:14 am, Pat wrote:
On Aug 17, 9:48 am, wrote:

http://picasaweb.google.com/vtcapo/NewAlbum814071042AM

The three digital photos were taken seconds apart using a Kodak
Easyshare CX7430. Does anyone have an explanation for the anonmaly
that is developing in the first two prints and cluminates into a
wispy apparition in the third close up. Click on the last three
photos. They are of higher resolution.

Any imput would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
RT

You're kidding, right?

Well in case you're not, you shot the picture with a flash and you had
a WAY too long shutter speed. You then moved the camera before the
shutter closed. The flash lit up the dark areas and stopped all
motion because of the strobing effect, but the bright areas continued
to be exposed and therefore show the movement.

For the last picture, it was a sweeping motion.

For the second-to-last it was a downward motion. Look at the bright
reflection of the tire and you can trace the motion.

I did not take the photos, my niece did. If you know anything about
the camera, its point and shoot fully automatic.

For the last picture you say it was a sweeping motion? The photos
were not taken using a tripod so there can be some movement associated
with the photos but nothing to accont for the image revealed in the
third photo. Please explain to me the light spliting at the top and
the varing intensity of the wispy image. Light does not bend. You
responded within second of my post. You obviously need a second look.

RT

PS If that is your explanation can you reproduce the same effect?

() wrote in
ps.com:

On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote
roups.com:

You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places,
under two different IDs.

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that.

Among lots of other things, apparently.

Good luck.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote
You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places, under
two different IDs.

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that. The the naysayers on Sci.astro are at
a loss for explaining this anomally. Can anyone in this group
determine if the photos were tampered with?
Or is this going to be approached the same way as in Sci.astro?
Dismiss it outright while being unable to refute the claim that this
is a paranormal event caught on digital.

Nothing to do with paranormal but rather with poor photography skills. Pat
explained it quite nicely.

For further discussion at the very least post the original photo without any
PS-ing or down sizing to a ridiculous 336x448 pixels such that we can look
at the original EXIF data, in particular camera data, shutter speed, and
flash data.

jue

On Aug 17, 10:54 am, "Jürgen Exner" wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote
You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places, under
two different IDs.

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that. The the naysayers on Sci.astro are at
a loss for explaining this anomally. Can anyone in this group
determine if the photos were tampered with?
Or is this going to be approached the same way as in Sci.astro?
Dismiss it outright while being unable to refute the claim that this
is a paranormal event caught on digital.

Nothing to do with paranormal but rather with poor photography skills. Pat
explained it quite nicely.

For further discussion at the very least post the original photo without any
PS-ing or down sizing to a ridiculous 336x448 pixels such that we can look
at the original EXIF data, in particular camera data, shutter speed, and
flash data.

jue

The orignal data was transferred to computer and then e-mailed to me.
It is no longer in the camera's memory. Does this put us at an
impass? I suspect that if you know your stuff you should be able to
tell if the images have been tampered with. Yes/No or once again,
not enough data.

RT

On Aug 17, 10:54 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
() wrote oups.com:

On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote
roups.com:

You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places,
under two different IDs.

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that.

Among lots of other things, apparently.

Good luck.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Aug 17, 11:07 am, wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:54 am, Bert Hyman wrote:

() wrote oups.com:

On Aug 17, 10:25 am, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Pat) wrote
roups.com:

You're kidding, right?

Most likely, especially the part about "Any imput [sic] would be
greatly appreciated."

He's been pushing the same crap in "sci.astro" of all places,
under two different IDs.

Two ID's? I'm unaware of that.

Among lots of other things, apparently.

Good luck.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert you have nothing to ad, so I suggest you take your Hyman back to
Sci.astro. They need you there.

RT