15 year old ghost mystery possibly solved

[LTC8K6]

Aaaaahhh.... 'scepticism by consensus of opinion then'... righty oh.

The thread is actully full of strong evidence that the picture of the girl is identical. Perhaps you don't agree, but that has no bearing on me.

 

[LTC8K6]

looking at the two pics in that morph, the only movement that I could discern is the inclusion of a door and railing, and the disappearance of her right side. all distinguishable features remain intact. Shadows, folds, lines, all there. Nothing changes position, it either appears, or disappears, depending on what is being added to, or taken away from the photo due to cropping.

If there are any lines or shadows that do change position please point them out.

The bright spot to the left of her head is most likely from burning in the girl's image.

 

[LTC8K6]

They were very good back in the day...

http://gajitz.com/before-photoshop-7-photo-edits-that-literally-made-history/

 

[Stray Cat]

The thread is actully full of strong evidence that the picture of the girl is identical remarkably similar.

Fixed that for you

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Sorry, I still disagree. Though the images of the girl are remarkably similar, they are not an exact match. This is as close as I can get and some of the details are still jumping around a bit. I have mostly concentrated on lining up the creases in the bonnet and making sure the belt is as lined up as possible.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/GhostGirlMorph.gif

It also appears that there is a line at the bottom of the image where the building's wall meets the sidewalk in the postcard. Looks like a match IMO.

 

[LTC8K6]

Fixed that for you

You cannot fix my opinion. It remains the same no matter how many lines you draw through it.

 

[Careyp74]

Here is my contribution. These items aren't similar, they are exact duplicates.

 

[Careyp74]

It also appears that there is a line at the bottom of the image where the building's wall meets the sidewalk in the postcard. Looks like a match IMO.

I looked at that before, doesn't line up on the morphing, however there may be a slight difference in zoom and angle that would cause this, since the line is in the outer extremities of the subject.

The bright spot to the left of her head is most likely from burning in the girl's image.

yes, that is in the original postcard too. (just to the left of my red circle, I should have included that.)

 

[Stray Cat]

You cannot fix my opinion. It remains the same no matter how many lines you draw through it.

Your opinion... that's OK then, just so long your opinion is open to evidence based data that may 'fix' it.

See, my opinion is that there isn't enough evidence based data on which to be so certain and that anyone reaching such a certain conclusion is being premature and overreaching. Something that if we saw it in the behaviour of woo's, we would relish pointing out.

 

[Careyp74]

Your opinion... that's OK then, just so long your opinion is open to evidence based data that may 'fix' it.

See, my opinion is that there isn't enough evidence based data on which to be so certain and that anyone reaching such a certain conclusion is being premature and overreaching. Something that if we saw it in the behaviour of woo's, we would relish pointing out.

Still waiting for your differences

 

[JcR]

The line is on the wall below the window sill. Not where the sidewalk meets the wall.
And no it doesn't seem to line up. Line up where you might think it should. There could have been more details in the photo that O'Rahilly used that are unclear here.

 

[Careyp74]

The line is on the wall below the window sill. Not where the sidewalk meets the wall.
And no it doesn't seem to line up. Line up where you might think it should.

Yes, you are correct about it being a sill, that should clarify the conversation a little better. You may be right, the line might have been on the original fire pic.

 

[Stray Cat]

Still waiting for your differences

Remarkably similar, yes.
Exactly the same, no.

 

[JcR]

I was playing around with the post card street girl in Photoshop and I can almost see that detail (line) in the fire girl picture.

 

[Steve001]

Your opinion... that's OK then, just so long your opinion is open to evidence based data that may 'fix' it.

See, my opinion is that there isn't enough evidence based data on which to be so certain and that anyone reaching such a certain conclusion is being premature and overreaching. Something that if we saw it in the behaviour of woo's, we would relish pointing out.

SC the preponderance of evidence both visual [ light and shadow on the girls face in particular ] and topological suggests that to a high degree this is the same little girl in each photo.

P.S. I just looked at your forensic evaluation of both photos. I noticed you should and would have matched the contour lines if you had been more observant. I'm now certain both photos are of the same child.
You have not raised by your uncertainty a reasonable doubt in us. That's why we are not on board with your assessment ?
No one was being woo- ish for those reasons.

 

[Careyp74]

Stray Cat,

You are drawing lines to describe what you think is the positioning of certain details on the face in two different pictures with different levels of contrast. The angle will appear to change with the changing of contrast. Also, you are not doing a very good job in the first place.

Even with this being known, wouldn't you say that the two samples that you took have enough of a similarity to have a good chance of being from the same picture?

I mean, do the same thing five times with both photos, and combine all the results. I think you will see what I mean.

Here is something else to try. Take the line you drew from one photo, and put it on the other.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/GF1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G1b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/GFamend.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G2b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G3.jpg[/qimg]

Remarkably Understandably similar, yes.
Exactly the same, no.

Understandably, because they are obviously from the same source ..

They are images of different quality/resolution .. Of course they are not an exact match ..

Your tenacity in this is baffling. The ' Super Skeptic ' persona doesn't befit you ...

 

[Stray Cat]

SC the preponderance of evidence both visual [ light and shadow on the girls face in particular ] and topological suggests that to a high degree this is the same little girl in each photo.
You have not raised by your uncertainty a reasonable doubt in us. That's why we are not on board with your accessment ?

Hi Steve, my point is that I shouldn't have to raise doubt. As sceptics, the doubt should be there to start with. The evidence only points to a similarity, not a conclusive certainty.

Otherwise I could show two photos of remarkably similar looking people and claim they were the same person.

Built upon a preponderence of evidence (and complete lack of contrary evidence) collected over years of research I can fairly confidently say that this photo is a fake. But knowing that there have been millions upon millions of photos taken since the invention of photography and some of those photos will look remarkably similar to each other, I can not be certain that the girl in the postcard has been used to fake the photo of the ghost in the fire.

 

[Stray Cat]

Also, you are not doing a very good job in the first place.

Well this has been fun.

 

[JcR]

A basic glow effect.

ETA: Notice how it appears to change her hat line.