PDA

View Full Version : The ghost of Jim Morrison?



Palomar
2007-Jul-12, 07:23 PM
Mr. Mojo Risin' is in the news today (cause of death speculation).

Went Googling, found this:

The ghost of Jim Morrison?

http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Jim-Morrison-Ghost.html

No, I'm not saying it is. ;)

I saw this photo (unmarked/untitled) smaller, towards the bottom of a previous page. I wondered who it was a photo of.

Does look like a person standing there, arms outstretched.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-12, 07:25 PM
Looks like a brick wall to me.

Paracelsus
2007-Jul-12, 08:22 PM
How could they tell that the figure in the photo was Jim Morrison? I couldn't see the figure's face.

Besides, didn't Morrison bloat up right before he died due to excess alcohol? The figure is slender.

I read a biography of Morrison once. He was a rather mean and nasty SOB; he made great music, though.

Fazor
2007-Jul-12, 08:28 PM
I'd like to know exactly what principle of photography makes people think a photograph can "detect" a ghost that the human eye cannot.

Film works through a chemical process, where the crystals are affected by light in the visible spectrum (yes, there's film out there that detects other spectrums, but we're talking about pictures like the one above). Anyway, in order for ANYTHING to show up, it had to have been somewhere in the visible light spectrum (or lack thereof, if it's "black" in the photo).

Maybe I'm missing something, but even if ghosts did indeed exist, why would they show up on film if they're invisible to the eye? It's not like photography is some weird, unexplained magic that we do not fully understand.

Lurker
2007-Jul-12, 08:28 PM
This isn't true Jim Morrison isn't dead, he is hiding out in Detroit with Elvis...

nauthiz
2007-Jul-12, 08:33 PM
Film works through a chemical process, where the crystals are affected by light in the visible spectrum (yes, there's film out there that detects other spectrums, but we're talking about pictures like the one above). Anyway, in order for ANYTHING to show up, it had to have been somewhere in the visible light spectrum (or lack thereof, if it's "black" in the photo).

Not necessarily. I don't think there's a single film on the market that doesn't respond to radiation outside the visible spectrum. Most film is designed to do that as little as possible, but none are perfectly limited to what humans can see.

nauthiz
2007-Jul-12, 08:38 PM
How could they tell that the figure in the photo was Jim Morrison? I couldn't see the figure's face.

Isn't it interesting how powerful our imaginations are? We see a blur that's shaped like a long-sleeved shirt, and the brain automatically fills in the rest.

Don in the lower right hand corner of the blow-up you can see a much clearer image of the ghost of the Black Knight, (http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail014.jpg) by the way.

Fazor
2007-Jul-12, 08:39 PM
Okay, but does radiation show up as a clear, sharp shape? I thought it was more..."fuzzy"?

Anyway I guess that's what I was wondering. So if ghosts are also radioactive, then there we go.

Next question, for something to be radioactive, doesn't that mean it's going through particle decay? So what then would a radioactive ghost, who otherwise doesn't exist, be decaying?

nauthiz
2007-Jul-12, 08:50 PM
Okay, but does radiation show up as a clear, sharp shape? I thought it was more..."fuzzy"?

Why not? The only difference between visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation is its wavelength.

If there's a decent photography store in your area, you might be able to get a hold of some film that's designed to be most responsive to UV or IR radiation. Everything in pictures you take using that stuff will be just as in focus as if it were visible light, though the tones in the resulting photograph might look odd because the film is designed to pick up light you can't see. With some flowers you can even pick up patterns on the petals that were completely invisible when you looked at the flower with your eyes.

Maksutov
2007-Jul-13, 08:34 AM
I won't give it any probability of being real until the BA sees it on his shower curtain (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html).

And even then...

Damburger
2007-Jul-13, 09:59 PM
My girlfriend thinks I'm a dead ringer for Jim Morrison. I hope the similarity ends there, because I'm 27 next year...

nauthiz
2007-Jul-13, 10:50 PM
Morrison and Lenin were hacks. Mother Teresa started making apparitions (http://www.bongojava.com/nunbun.html) even while she was still alive.

Trebuchet
2007-Jul-13, 11:13 PM
That picture looks like it was taken through glass and the image is a reflection of someone behind the photographer.

Paracelsus
2007-Jul-14, 12:06 AM
My girlfriend thinks I'm a dead ringer for Jim Morrison. I hope the similarity ends there, because I'm 27 next year...

I hope the similarity ends with looks and musical talent! :) Jim Morrison didn't treat his girlfriends very well.

Glutomoto
2007-Jul-14, 12:14 AM
Why not? The only difference between visible light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation is its wavelength.

If there's a decent photography store in your area, you might be able to get a hold of some film that's designed to be most responsive to UV or IR radiation. Everything in pictures you take using that stuff will be just as in focus as if it were visible light, though the tones in the resulting photograph might look odd because the film is designed to pick up light you can't see. With some flowers you can even pick up patterns on the petals that were completely invisible when you looked at the flower with your eyes.

How far outside of the normal visible range can you go and still have the cameras optics focus that radiation ? Also it's possible most people think of radiation, like Fazor said, as some kind of particle decay. Some of which won't be stopped by the camera body, and that is why it shows up as a fuzziness or fog on the entire photograph.

just wondering.

gld
:)

nauthiz
2007-Jul-14, 03:39 PM
Some of which won't be stopped by the camera body, and that is why it shows up as a fuzziness or fog on the entire photograph.

I really doubt that particle radiation would effect silver halide the same way that electromagnetic radiation does. But I can't say I know for sure.

What I do know is that fuzziness and fog on the entire photograph or swirls of "mist" in just one part of the photograph can very easily be caused by scads of completely mundane factors: mishandling of the film during development or printing, expired or poorly prepared photographic chemicals, extraneous light interacting with the film before development, bad photographic paper, etc.

I'm actually really amazed ghost photographers aren't more interested in darkroom photography classes. I've taken one myself and TA'd a few, and noticed this really fascinating phenomenon: Beginning students take lots of ghost photographs at the beginning of the course, but manage to get few, if any by the end of it. :think: Something about this class is really destroying their ability to communicate with ghosts.