Ghost Photo on Front Page of New York Times
June 28, 2010
If you picked up a copy of the New York Times last Thursday, you would have gotten a copy of what may be one of the most widely seen ghost photographs in years.
The photograph, taken by Doug Mills of the Times , shows President Obama and General David Petraeus at the White House on June 23. It is an otherwise ordinary picture--except for a mysterious ghostly glowing white streak in the lower left hand corner of the photograph. The image looks identical to dozens of “orb” photos I have been shown over the years as evidence of ghosts.
A close analysis reveals that there may be two ghosts right next to each other, or one ghost moving sideways. It’s not clear whether any Secret Service agents reported seeing the ghostly image, or if Obama or Petraeus experienced any physical symptoms supposedly associated with a ghostly presence (such as a chill, or nausea, or a feeling of being watched).
This is one of the rare times that a ghost has actually been photographed by a professional photographer, and ghost hunters and paranormal investigators who examine the image will find that this spooky, ghostly orb may just set the standard for spirit photographs. In my ten years of experience as a scientific paranormal investigator, I can honestly say that this image is about as good as it gets.
On the other hand, it may simply be a flash reflection off of a pair of out-of-focus microphones in the foreground.
Nah, it must be ghosts.
#1 David Vanderschel on Tuesday June 29, 2010 at 1:38am
I was reading the blog from its RSS feed in Google Reader, and I was annoyed at how long it took for that little picture to load. I checked, and it was over 4 megabytes! Now, in this case, this was not so bad because I wanted to see it large, which I could do with right click and “View Image”.
On the blog itself, there is no huge picture-file problem, as the small picture is just a 10KB thumbnail, which you can click to get the large version. Not sure why it was the large version that came through on the RSS feed; but this is something the Webmaster can hopefully deal with in the future.
I suspect that an adequately resolved version of the large picture could still have been achieved with a lot less than 4 megabytes.
#2 Simon (Guest) on Wednesday June 30, 2010 at 11:30pm
Or possibly most professional photographers wouldn’t publish such a photo.
#3 John Pieratt (Guest) on Thursday July 29, 2010 at 11:28am
The smears in that photo come from a Photoshop “healing brush”. The marks were likely an artifact of an edit gone wrong or just glossed over.
I am 99% certain of that.