V. SPOOKY AND ABSOLUTELY GENUINE MISSING PERSON SHOT:

Pete,

The two hats appear to be 100% different in terms of styles. The white being a small head hugger, and the black like something Cilla Black would be proud wearing, in other words, massive!!!!

Gary.
 
Perspective is still wrong, the black hat disappears behind the bald guy's nose, although the size of the hat suggests she should be in front. And really tall. With a huge head.
 
I've seen this before at weddings, someone shouts the buffet open and the mother in laws there at the food table plate in hand and her hat still at the place she once was :lol:
 
2650089842_9b6ca82e91.jpg


Taken about half a hour earlier than the line-up shot

Goodbye 'conspiracy' theories I think [from likes of CT, etc etc etc]
 
Well, there's no question that it's a big hat.
 
Well I think that picture helps make the case that the hat is the one shown in the original picture, but I still have concerns about its size and relative position. There's something about the height that doesn't quite match up.

I'm still cynical, but perhaps less so than before. Given the similar colours of the hair, face and outfit I wonder if there was a problem with the film which effectively made these transparent?

Any experts in film developing out there?
 
The camera was obviously so shocked by the size of the hat that it forgot to look at the rest of her. That or the hat was acting as a black hole sucking in all the light that should have been reflected of her and bending the light from behind (ok i watch far too much sci fi)!
 
If you look closely at her hat it just dont seem right...there something not right about it when zoomed in, in relation to the background? I know the quality isnt ace but I reckon its that Monkey again....look closely:thinking:

zoompic1td2.gif
 
hepburn said:
Given the similar colours of the hair, face and outfit I wonder if there was a problem with the film which effectively made these transparent?
Click to expand...

Basic physics says no. Even if for whatever reason the film couldn't render the colours, it couldn't 'see' straight through her.
 
ivortripod said:
Goodbye 'conspiracy' theories I think [from likes of CT, etc etc etc]
Click to expand...

I never suggested a conspiracy theory - just people reading more into this than it is.

That's some hat though! :D

Come on Ivor, let's be seeing a larger crop of the area around that hat. :thumbs:
 
2649717511_e05a0fe4a1.jpg


NB:The shadow of the head of the guy in the foreground is in exactly the correct spot on the pillar.
Because....[For Flash Angle Theorists:]
I was standing on a chair to get the higher viewpoint for this shot

Some of You B*gg**s just won't believe it happened...but it really did..
Why the **** I bother to show you, I don't know :bang:

PS: I have already offered to show anybody the neg....
So PM me if you want to check it out.. :thumbs:
 
I think your M-in-Law was subjected to a Klingon Cloaking Device. That's not a hat either it's a light shade.
 
My guess is this:

Edge of hat brim resting on hubby's left shoulder on one side and item of furniture on the other.

Lady bobs down to pick something up from the floor at the moment the photo was taken, accidentally leaving the hat in situ.

2650089842_9b6ca82e91.jpg


If, for example, she'd stooped when the shutter was pressed in the shot above the hat would've been left perching on the shoulders of the men on either side.

I'm a small person given to wearing extravagant millinery and know from personal experience that the foregoing is entirely feasible. Not possible if the hat is anchored with pins though - any chance of finding out Ivor?
 
I've sussed it, i've sussed it! She came dressed as a hotel and has blended seamlessly into her surroundings thus making her appear 'invisible'.:lol:

Slightly disturbing pic with no rational explanation I can think of.:eek:
 
ivortripod said:
Some of You B*gg**s just won't believe it happened...but it really did..
Why the **** I bother to show you, I don't know :bang:

PS: I have already offered to show anybody the neg....
So PM me if you want to check it out.. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Keep your shirt on Ivor ;)

I'm sure we all accept that the neg will be the same, and no-one is suggesting any sort of skulduggery is involved, but the fact is these strange images do occur, and there's sometimes a logical explanation, sometimes there isn't, but for most people some strange occult involvement for it is a little difficult to accept. Others seem to accept it more readily. ;)

Be cool - it's an interesting shot and it's bound to attract comment.
 
only thing I can think is she was hiding behind the arch holding the hat and it hid her arm, god knows it's big enough. There ya go, case solved :D NEXT!!!!
 
If you look at the 2 pictures, the hat isn't there in it's entirety in the "spooky" pic (there are small bits missing mainly on the top), but it is the same size and angle in both. Given the husband's head is smaller in the "spooky" one, it would appear that this is some sort of double exposure and most of the hat has somehow been transposed onto the last frame of the film.
 
fabs said:
If you look at the 2 pictures, the hat isn't there in it's entirety in the "spooky" pic (there are small bits missing mainly on the top), but it is the same size and angle in both. Given the husband's head is smaller in the "spooky" one, it would appear that this is some sort of double exposure and most of the hat has somehow been transposed onto the last frame of the film.
Click to expand...

I noticed that the hats were at the same angle in both images - good spot. :thumbs:
 
OK here's my explanation, I don't believe it's a double exposure.

spooky.jpg


If you look at the lady's hat in the first shot, there's a hard hat surrounded by that veil. In the spooky interior image, that shadow, which is what I believe it is is, conforms more to the shape of the hard interior of the hat, as it would casting a shadow. Furthermore the veil on the hat is responsible for the hazy indistinct effect which you can see on the more decorative bits of the hat in the shadow shot.

I believe mom- in -law was standing in the arch but much further away from hubby, somewhere behind the chap on the extreme right of the shot. Look at hubby's line of sight - it's entirely consistent with him talking to someone standing at around that point.

Shadow. ;)
 
:thinking: I cant really see that CT, for several reasons, the flash has drowned out any other light in the area and is obviously from an elevated angle, in fact as already mentioned, you can see the shadow of the man second from right on the pillar of teh arch. Also, the room beyond the arch seesm to have quite low lighting, even taking the foreground flash into account. Now if MiL was stood near the chap on far right, the shadow of her hat would a-much lower down, and b-one would hope accompanied by her head and body.

However, I do agree that in the spooky picture, there does seem to be less hat that the normal one, the huge net bow doesnt seem to to be there, even allowing for some difference in angle of shot, that bow would be obvious I think. Having said that, its feasible that that detail has been lost in the film processing and I still think the best bet is the 'she bent down and the hat didn't' one [as I suggested originally, though admittedly in jest] Its certainly fair to say that hat is big and is at about the right height and angle in comparison to her husband.


:dunno:
 
OMG - just seen this thread for the first time and I have to agree it's bloody spooky as Hell

No, not the silly shadow hat thing, but that fat lass in the white skirt and shiny blue top under the wall-light... she's missing her head & arms !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

How the Hell did that happen? :shake::shake::shake:

Come'on you non-believers in the preternatural - explain that away :thinking:

DD
 
LOL. Hubby is saying - "This'll get 'em going on TPF" :D
 
it is spooky, i would guess that she has taken the hat off (after someone pointed out it was backward or to sort her hair), if oyu look at her hubby, just behind his head is a little flick of white hair and his does not look long enough to have the flick. this would leave the 3 other people in the shot to block the woman in anyway possible.

have to say though, you gone to great lengths to keep a motherinlaw out of the shot!:thumbs:
 
To me the hats aren't in the same perspective or the same angle the one in the bigger photo is more facing towards and tilted forward as though looking downwards JMO so I dont know whats going on
 
Had a go

CT said:
spooky.jpg

)
Click to expand...

ladies.jpg


flick between ob not perfect but shows looks to me about right for size and the hats not oversize, MMM anti wrinkle cream seems to work LOL a;thought the man is saying something to the lady beside him so would she not be looking toward him mmm well sayin that my missus dont and dont listen to a thing I say so maybe not LOL spec when Im on about expensive lenses LOL
 
i would guess it is the welcome line, so they talking to the guests as they enter
 
Alison said:
My guess is this:

Edge of hat brim resting on hubby's left shoulder on one side and item of furniture on the other.

Lady bobs down to pick something up from the floor at the moment the photo was taken, accidentally leaving the hat in situ.

If, for example, she'd stooped when the shutter was pressed in the shot above the hat would've been left perching on the shoulders of the men on either side.

I'm a small person given to wearing extravagant millinery and know from personal experience that the foregoing is entirely feasible. Not possible if the hat is anchored with pins though - any chance of finding out Ivor?
Click to expand...

As I said in the original post the groom assured me that his mother only removed her hat several hours after this shot was taken. He was adamant about that.

To me, as the photographer, the most interesting bit of this whole debate is this:
I had one frame left on the last roll of film
I wanted to get a full line-up shot which [obviously] included the grooms mother
To do this in cramped conditions I had to stand on a chair which I did
And I waited till there was a gap so that she could be clearly seen..even if she had stooped...

Just go back and check the original image.

Obviously most viewers have had a laugh about this, good, no suprise there then.
Just bear in mind though, that if you ever have this happen to one of your images..
there will be no earthly explanation...
 
Just because we don't obviously see the 'earthly explanation' doesn't mean it's an 'other worldly' one!

That illogical approach is how superstition, astrology and 'witch-craft' came about, causing fear, misery and death throughout the ages

It'd be a lot saner world if we just said "That's odd, don't know why that's happened" - than

"I don't understand, so it must be Ghosts, Aliens, God, a tear in the space/time continuum, etc."

It's odd Yes, is it spooky No - end of for me (and all other rational persons hereabouts methinks)

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Just because we don't obviously see the 'earthly explanation' doesn't mean it's an 'other worldly' one!

That illogical approach is how superstition, astrology and 'witch-craft' came about, causing fear, misery and death throughout the ages

It'd be a lot saner world if we just said "That's odd, don't know why that's happened" - than

"I don't understand, so it must be Ghosts, Aliens, God, a tear in the space/time continuum, etc."

It's odd Yes, is it spooky No - end of for me (and all other rational persons hereabouts methinks)

DD
Click to expand...

Indeed. But just in case, Ivortripod your welcome to take a photograph of MY Mother in Law! :D
 
I still think it's Darth Vader in the reception with a lightsabre. He's clearly in the shadows of the arch :D
2649717511_e05a0fe4a1.jpg

darth-vader.jpg
 
cool I love this stuff. Is there a mirror near her causing a reflection that could mask her somehow, ie as magicians use??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top