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 have queried Greg Pocha about the evidence posted here and have this answer:
In short, he claims that the photos were validated by the press, not him, and rejects evidence shown here as mere opinions. Also says that "[in my] that first letter to the questioner I point out all of the discrepancies that lead me to believe the image to have been faked". And that "It was not until I started private correspondence with her did i look into the photos in greater depth".
He didn't bother to be polite when answering. I'm sorry, this is not a question of politeness, just discussing evidence, complex evidence indeed, humanly by trial and error.
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.
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!
By them admitting it is fake.Can you explain what you mean by "proved fake by first hand input from one of the people actually in the picture"?
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.
Try it against a real background. I can see where you took an eraser tool to the tufts on the right side; without a uniform backdrop that fuzzy edge would be far more obvious.
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
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.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.
that's why the idea has been floated that he's wearing a long-sleeved hoodie and is throwing a V signWell 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 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.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.
I doubt that very much, I must say.It is assumed by most that the girl's hair is blowing in the wind. But I don't think so. I think the hair is sticking out ( and the girl's head leaning to that same side ) because the car is swerving...maybe a sudden lane change. And she captures the exact moment when a load of shopping bags perched on the back seat ( the two 'fingers' being sticks of bread ) all fall over to the right side of the back seat. I agree with the idea posted above that the 'hair' of the alleged person in the back seat is actually the handle straps of the carrier bags.