Explaining the Ghost Boy in the Back Seat Photo with Occam's Razor
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member.
We must bear in mind that, as a paranormal expert, Mr. Pocha may well have a different definition of "faked" in mind, beyond that of image manipulation we're really talking about here. I say this as he twice states his analysis produced no evidence of photoshopping, the second and most specific in his second review. Obviously, that can't be interpreted as his endorsement of the photo as genuine either (as he seems to get quite animated at the idea).
I think to expect to do a "hard debunk" is to miss Mick's intention when creating this thread. What I'm taking from it is that we can use the evidence available to find the most likely explanation. "Most likely" being the best that can be done with what's known, and very unlikely to be conclusive.
I'm put in mind of the "hanging man" photo thread - there was very strong evidence pointing to it being a fake (deliberate or accidental) but even strong evidence doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is correct. Ultimately it was proved to be a fake by first hand input from one of the people actually in the picture. That was probably the only way it could be conclusively "boxed off" (short of sourcing the original untouched image). I think this case is likely the same.
Personally, I don't feel a "hard debunk" is needed or appropriate anyway. This isn't a "Sandy Hook Hoax!" claim, or some other malicious bunk that actually causes harm. Whatever the true origin of the photo, it's essentially harmless.
Unless it's really a g-g-g-ghooost!
Ray Von
Something I'm trying to do in general is to steer people away from the need to find "the explanation", and instead accept that certainty is often difficult to come by, and that this lack of certainty does not mean we pick the least probable explanation.
"Scientists baffled" often just means "scientists have several plausible explanations, but are not sure which one is the real one"
kasparovitch
Active Member
[...]
Ultimately it was proved to be a fake by first hand input from one of the people actually in the picture.
[...] it's essentially harmless.
Unless it's really a g-g-g-ghooost!
Ray Von
Yes, this is harmless, unless it's really a ghost (brrr). I liked this one.
Last edited:
By them admitting it is fake.
kasparovitch
Active Member
I think this is the point of the situation at this time:
1. These are probably a true pictures, maybe modified somehow but probably not "photoshopped".
2. They weren't taken in July, as claimed and supported by camera settings, but maybe later. The most probable date is August 6, 2016 or some days before or after.
3. The exact location and approximate time of the day were disclosed.
4. There was no fatal accident one year before in the area.
5. There was another person inside the car, as that image is unlikely to be an artifact.
6. The second picture captured a spot the same texture as the child's shirt, perhaps him returning to his seat after showing up by surprise in the girl's picture making some symbol with the fingers. This child might not be using his seat-belt again.
7. Mother and daughter gained publicity, daughter started using a seat-belt at last, and maybe there was some money return from the newspaper.
8. It's unclear if it's acceptable to date the pictures wrongly based on wrong camera settings. If the camera wasn't used for these 2 selfies only, which is unlikely (pics are numbered 178 and 179), there is a sequence of pictures before and after that might help finding a more accurate date.
9. It's unclear how the mother learned about a factitious accident in the area.
10. For ultimately debunk the pictures, the mother had to admit the wrong infos, maybe unlikely, but not impossible (mother, daughter, or child or his parents or someone knowing him or them).
1. These are probably a true pictures, maybe modified somehow but probably not "photoshopped".
2. They weren't taken in July, as claimed and supported by camera settings, but maybe later. The most probable date is August 6, 2016 or some days before or after.
3. The exact location and approximate time of the day were disclosed.
4. There was no fatal accident one year before in the area.
5. There was another person inside the car, as that image is unlikely to be an artifact.
6. The second picture captured a spot the same texture as the child's shirt, perhaps him returning to his seat after showing up by surprise in the girl's picture making some symbol with the fingers. This child might not be using his seat-belt again.
7. Mother and daughter gained publicity, daughter started using a seat-belt at last, and maybe there was some money return from the newspaper.
8. It's unclear if it's acceptable to date the pictures wrongly based on wrong camera settings. If the camera wasn't used for these 2 selfies only, which is unlikely (pics are numbered 178 and 179), there is a sequence of pictures before and after that might help finding a more accurate date.
9. It's unclear how the mother learned about a factitious accident in the area.
10. For ultimately debunk the pictures, the mother had to admit the wrong infos, maybe unlikely, but not impossible (mother, daughter, or child or his parents or someone knowing him or them).
Last edited:
Audrey Castle
New Member
Sounds creepy.
0x90
Closed Account
On this point, I have a D40, and so can state that this Image Comment is put into a User Comment field in the exif data; this field is present, but empty, in both images. Furthermore, besides the fact that it is a pain to set this comment in the camera (I have done it only once, in 2008), instead of appearing in User Comment, the hodori Olympic Tae Kwon Do Team tag actually appears no less than three times in each image, in XP Keywords, Last Keyword XMP, and Subject exif fields, which suggests they were added by Windows. Given the stated timeline, I think it reasonable to assume they were added inadvertently, in the normal course of moving/tagging images.Because the kids from the local Tae Kwon Do Studio wear Christmas hats.
More importantly, the event page for Korean olympic tae kwon do exibition (sic) was set by Melissa Kurtz on Agust 2nd. Her daughter was photographed at this event, held on August 6th.
A short comment "hodori Oympic Tae Kwon Do Team" in the "ghost" photos metadata could have been added to the photos as they were taken. The camera manual (http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D40_noprint.pdf) tells how to do it:
All this suggests that Melissa's camera could have been "programmed" to add this comment to all photos near the time of the martial arts event. If this is true, the "ghost" photos were taken not at the time of the beauty pageant, but at a much later date.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
Thanks for the info. I agree that the comment probably was added by a computer software, as the Comment field displayed on the back of the camera is empty in the OP photos. I guess that the same comment was added to a batch of the new photos during their import from the camera. I am not familiar with photo tagging in Windows. Can it add automatically a common tag to a bunch of new photos? Or do one need to install a software that comes with the camera for this?
0x90
Closed Account
Without firing up a dormant machine, I can only verify for Windows 10, but there, "Tags" is a standard column (i.e. many more are available, but Tags is shown by default) in Explorer's Details view, and phrases entered there are indeed put into the three above-mentioned exif fields. However, this is not strictly conclusive, since any software that wishes to work seamlessly with Windows would also make sure to use these same fields.
kasparovitch
Active Member
Did Greg Pocha analyze the pictures in the camera? It seems so as some OP photos are purportedly subject to his analysis software (whatever it is). If so, why should he then post in his reply pictures tagged by a computer with such odd keywords, automatically or whatever?
kasparovitch
Active Member
Well, I don't have an answer. 0x90's comment is relevant. The point so far was that the comment was inserted in the camera, something painful as it's like inserting a message on a 1970's video game. This way, pictures taken after inserting that message would carry it, according to instructions, and thus the pictures in question would be dated later than August 6, 2016.
If the comments were inserted automatically when transferring pictures to a computer, then "Date Acquired" at XMP is correct, I think, as this was provided by the computer, which is highly unlikely to be inaccurate these days. The "Date Acquired" is August 6, 2016 at 16:59, which means that the picture is dated earlier than Aug. 6 (as claimed by the mother) and not later than Aug. 6 as thought here before.
The pictures time was inaccurate based on SunCalc. The question remains whether the date was accurate or not, as this would easily allow forgetting or not associating someone else in the car on a different occasion. As registration for the Beauties Pageant started at 4 or 5PM, and they were at least 30 min. far from the event at 5-6PM as provided by SunCalc, maybe the date wasn't accurate anyway...
These are some loose thoughts I hope someone will comment to help sharpen them.
If the comments were inserted automatically when transferring pictures to a computer, then "Date Acquired" at XMP is correct, I think, as this was provided by the computer, which is highly unlikely to be inaccurate these days. The "Date Acquired" is August 6, 2016 at 16:59, which means that the picture is dated earlier than Aug. 6 (as claimed by the mother) and not later than Aug. 6 as thought here before.
The pictures time was inaccurate based on SunCalc. The question remains whether the date was accurate or not, as this would easily allow forgetting or not associating someone else in the car on a different occasion. As registration for the Beauties Pageant started at 4 or 5PM, and they were at least 30 min. far from the event at 5-6PM as provided by SunCalc, maybe the date wasn't accurate anyway...
These are some loose thoughts I hope someone will comment to help sharpen them.
Last edited:
Is "Date Acquired" not the same as "Date Created"? Has anyone actually got the full EXIF data? I can't see it in this thread.
kasparovitch
Active Member
The pictures are here:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Paranormal-Phenomena-3278/2016/8/boy-backseat.htm
And archived here, very useful if deleted from the original source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161128...normal-Phenomena-3278/2016/8/boy-backseat.htm
You can check metadata at
http://fotoforensics.com
by copying and pasting image location or saving them on your computer and uploading.
"Date Acquired" is at XMP, where there are the tags, so this might be the date these were created or inserted.
By the way, from FotoForensics.com:
"The presence of an XMP block usually indicates a resave by an Adobe product."
Source: http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-meta.php
This information seems to support 0x90's comments above.
Last edited:
Yea it gets messy if they're a Lightroom user & shooting in JPEG; because Lightroom will write/alter the data on a JPG when imported by default. RAW files & video types demand sidecars.
It's apparent "not-fake"; dead giveaway is the colors; I'd tear the photo apart if the rest of the planet didn't already. Thank you for DSLR and modern photography; the hangman was dated but this is obvious.
Is it just me, or have ghosts been sharing a lot in common with Aliens & Parallel Universers. I didn't think that was ever a child; nature of the photography suggests a fake - so fake it's alien. I don't see a ghost. lol
It's apparent "not-fake"; dead giveaway is the colors; I'd tear the photo apart if the rest of the planet didn't already. Thank you for DSLR and modern photography; the hangman was dated but this is obvious.
Is it just me, or have ghosts been sharing a lot in common with Aliens & Parallel Universers. I didn't think that was ever a child; nature of the photography suggests a fake - so fake it's alien. I don't see a ghost. lol
Looking very carefully, I distinguish two shopper bags. The lower one contains two long small objects, probably french bread. The shopper in the background is a bigger, reflecting one and he is out of focus.
So, what one interprets as "curly hair" are in fact two handle grips of this upper bag.
The really convincing illusion of the "mouth" of the boy is just a fold in this upper bag, caused by falling backwards, which shadow coincidentally runs together with the contour of the supposed french bread.
Please compare the included picture with drawings of the supposed bags with the original picture to realize that a face, due to the shifting lines on the left side, the earlier mentioned gap in the chin and the deep carvings of the "curled hair", is a way less obvious than one might to believe at first sight.
Coming to Occams Razor, the assumption of the two bags is the explanation for:
- the fact people are schopping by car and tend to store there bags on the back seat.
- the out of focus, consistent with the 5.6 diafragma of the camera.
- the play of light and shadow. Not only the shadow of the fold in de the bag, but also the shiny spot on the side of the latter, creating a subtle line with the side towards the viewer, everything consistent with the direction of the sunlight.
- the falling position of the upper bag, obeying the law of gravity.
- the angled rim of the upper bag, obeying the principles of perspective.
- ...
Though, one riddle remains in the dark. What strange relationship exists between Florida people and french bread?
Last edited:
jtveg
New Member
It is still quite a good job and the average person wouldn't suspect it was retouched without being told so in the first place.
kasparovitch
Active Member
I agree with you, but that photoshop didn't help the case and the conclusion is that there's no evidence the pictures were modified.
I'd just add "[...] without being shown both pictures".
I'd just add "[...] without being shown both pictures".
Greyhawk101
New Member
Sorry, but that all looks like normal hair movement to me. All the hair is moving varying amounts, there's no real difference between areas. I see no evidence of Photoshopping.
Your suggestion that the bottom part of the hair is virtually untouched is nonsensical, it moves a lot.
Move the slider here for comparison
[compare]
[/compare]
My first post here! Glad I found this site after arguing with flat earthers...a bit of sanity! At any rate, in Mick Wests slidey post you can see part of the right shoulder coming into shot in the first pic, followed by the full "face" in the second pic. Just flash it left and right and you can see the movement of someone in the back seat coming into shot from right to left as viewed from our perspective. Seems just to be someone in the back seat.
Lisboneu
New Member
I'm fascinated how all of you spend the time analyzing and scrutinizing all aspects of this case (based on the available data); it really is forensics, almost like what the FBI does. I've always been fascinated by forensics and often wish I had gone to the FBI academy.
It's encouraging seeing people taking the time to look closely into cases such as this in attempt to determine the truth.
It's encouraging seeing people taking the time to look closely into cases such as this in attempt to determine the truth.
AxiosMatic76
New Member
I agree with Francis, if this is not a fake, then those are most likely shopper bags. If you look very closely at the fingers, you can see that they appear to be inside his shirt. The head and the shirt also do not align well. May be a rare case of pareidolia.
Ann K
Senior Member.
But while the back seat image is going right to left, the girl's hair is doing the same, so it's reasonable to assume that something may have blown that direction. It's a sunny day in July, in Florida, so it strains credulity to say there was no wind in the car. Wouldn't an open window or air conditioning be far more likely than a car closed up tight in the heat? And the girl was going to be a pageant contestant, so a dress, possibly in a light weight drycleaner's bag, might well have been the occupant of the back seat.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17800
Guest
Hi.
I took the liberty of using an uploaded to this site file.
I did a simple enhancement of the photo then made a duplication.
Then I rendered the entire photograph in a generic 'black and white and simply erased the black and white from the ' boys' face / fingers / chin to afford enhancement of what it is we're looking at.
So what can I see:
Well in between the ' boys ' presumed fingers that ( area of presumed facial skin ) doesn't have pixels / shade / colour that match the 'boys' fingers or face.
The ' boys' face is a trifle elongated but within the realms of reality.
That ' pixel' mismatch seems to continue without obstruction and is apart of the ' boys' chin area.
The colours even taking into consideration depth light and such do not match the skin.
Even if it say ' were a toy 'presumably in between it doesn't match or make much sense with the 'boys' presumed jumper / sweater etc.
If the ' boy' has something between his ' fingers ' and face that possibly could fit but unlikely in my opinion.
So to conclude:
This is just my opinion and nothing else.
I think what we have here is a pure coincidental case of pareidolia./ Or an actual child sat in the back ( but unlikely ).
Also to note ( I did not physically attempt actual measurement / scale but if the 'boys' head was level with the woman it would be just about out of the likely range of a child's head in that it would ( I believe ) be too big. We don't know how far back he could be or is. This latter comment is only an opinion for if it were a child we don't know the age.
I took the liberty of using an uploaded to this site file.
I did a simple enhancement of the photo then made a duplication.
Then I rendered the entire photograph in a generic 'black and white and simply erased the black and white from the ' boys' face / fingers / chin to afford enhancement of what it is we're looking at.
So what can I see:
Well in between the ' boys ' presumed fingers that ( area of presumed facial skin ) doesn't have pixels / shade / colour that match the 'boys' fingers or face.
The ' boys' face is a trifle elongated but within the realms of reality.
That ' pixel' mismatch seems to continue without obstruction and is apart of the ' boys' chin area.
The colours even taking into consideration depth light and such do not match the skin.
Even if it say ' were a toy 'presumably in between it doesn't match or make much sense with the 'boys' presumed jumper / sweater etc.
If the ' boy' has something between his ' fingers ' and face that possibly could fit but unlikely in my opinion.
So to conclude:
This is just my opinion and nothing else.
I think what we have here is a pure coincidental case of pareidolia./ Or an actual child sat in the back ( but unlikely ).
Also to note ( I did not physically attempt actual measurement / scale but if the 'boys' head was level with the woman it would be just about out of the likely range of a child's head in that it would ( I believe ) be too big. We don't know how far back he could be or is. This latter comment is only an opinion for if it were a child we don't know the age.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Mendel
Senior Member.
that's why the idea has been floated that he's wearing a long-sleeved hoodie and is throwing a V sign
the boy's head appears to be half the size in the picture; if the heads are equal sized, then perspective dictates that the boy's head is as far behind her as her smartphone is in front of her, presumably an arm's length.
as a 2-year-old's head is at best 25% smaller than an adult head, any perceived "surplus" in size could be due to distance.
What I don't understand is how the boy's head appears so low as to make his mouth level with the window frame.
P.S. once you've attached an image to your post, you can insert it among the text by clicking on it (requires two clicks) when editing the post
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
I doubt that very much, I must say.
I thought it might be an empty plastic grocery bag blowing around in the back.
Last edited:
Lilleum
New Member
Has anyone tried the experiment:
-close at least with your finger the side of the photo that denotes the "forehead of the ghost";
-try to distract yourself from the impression that this is a person;
-look at the rest of the "ghost's mouth and fingers" from a different angle.
Imagine that instead of fingers there is an empty space, separation. And what you see is a kind of staff or tool, flat and long, sticking out of the bag. What is "fingers" is the separation between two or more objects. It's as if you see this object slightly turned on its side, and there's something like a split in the middle. For example, a hanger with clothes sticking out of a bag.
Deception of vision is a trivial situation. Pareidolia can work in this way: everyone who reads an article programs themselves immediately through the title and text. They form an image of the child in advance, then look at the photo. If you don't know anything about photography, then the human brain has a short period when the object is perceived as incomprehensible, then a suitable image is selected.
Forgotten kid: If they forgot that they were taking someone else that day, they would simply recognize him even from such a photo.
-close at least with your finger the side of the photo that denotes the "forehead of the ghost";
-try to distract yourself from the impression that this is a person;
-look at the rest of the "ghost's mouth and fingers" from a different angle.
Imagine that instead of fingers there is an empty space, separation. And what you see is a kind of staff or tool, flat and long, sticking out of the bag. What is "fingers" is the separation between two or more objects. It's as if you see this object slightly turned on its side, and there's something like a split in the middle. For example, a hanger with clothes sticking out of a bag.
Deception of vision is a trivial situation. Pareidolia can work in this way: everyone who reads an article programs themselves immediately through the title and text. They form an image of the child in advance, then look at the photo. If you don't know anything about photography, then the human brain has a short period when the object is perceived as incomprehensible, then a suitable image is selected.
Forgotten kid: If they forgot that they were taking someone else that day, they would simply recognize him even from such a photo.
