My apologiees if I came across as snippy. My only excuse is that I was trying to be, well, snippy.
Completely understood. Don't worry, this is the only "supernatural" thing I ever saw. Initially, I wasn't going to even say
anything, but...
This post, though, leads me to believe that you're serious about this and trying to have an honest discussion. Apologies again for not thinking so before.
It's more of well, you see a big packet of glowing 'gas' one minute, and the next it's gone, leaving no trace of itself, and it really goes no further than that. In my case it remained there until I snapped and bolted. I mean, think about how you would approach it.
That said, I still think you've got it muddled round. There is nothing wrong with discussing this photo or your experience here. In fact, I think it's rather an excellent place to do so.
Indeed, in fact, I don't think there is any other more appropriate place to develop a treatise on urban, folk, and other myths.
What I am trying to point out, though, is that you are beginning your discussion with the assumption that this photo represents a supernatural phenomenon whereas a quick analysis indicates it represents photographic manipulation.
Oh no, the photo could be a complete fake, but it still cooincides pretty much what I observed as far as general color and the amount of light reflected. What I observed was much more of a solid blue, with some type of specks of whitish distortion. I mean, think about it, if you actually saw something like that, then notice a lot of the photos people claim are ghosts and learn some people are faking them also. You aren't going to have much of a debate. As soon as I saw the photo, I was weighing whether I should, instead of just ignoring it, "Well, hey. That's a pretty good example, whether it is a fake or not, of what I saw very similer to that." There are a lot of photos like these, commonly they are "orbs", which are of the same color but are not luminescent. This is, by the way, the only thing I ever came across that I had serious problems with reasoning around, so bringing it up, so you can understand why it piqued my curiosity.
Simply go back and read the analyses of the people who have posted here.
Done. I also examined the photo on this workstation with a 30' Apple display here at the studio I work. If it was a fake, very likely Photoshop would have been used (and associated brush templates). Here's the three criteria I used off the top of my head:
1) Stamp spaced brush template marks.
2) Stroke termination.
3) Overlapping stroke layers.
There appears to be three
potential red flags on the image, the cutoff Ed mentioned being noted also. On closer examination, though, it's hard to understand how he would have not seen the "edge", because he made a very good effort to leave no smoothing artifacts.
