AAAAAAAHHHHH!!! Has anyone seen the friggin’ movie and rewound it and frame advanced through it a million times??? Only those people are qualified to answer this question!!! In that scene, in the initial pan from left to right, there appears to be a little boy in the window, and on the (unbroken action, I might add)pan back from right to left there appears to a shotgun or rifle where the little boy was.
If I clipped a still out of a film of my ass, someone might thinks it’s a pretty mountain scene – the stills that have been provided so far are not good representations of what appears to happen in the movie. The effect in the movie is somewhat chilling, taken in the right frame of mind. I do not believe in ghosts and I am a very skeptical person in general, but that scene did pique the hell out of my curiosity. I kept thinking, “What the **** was that?” If you haven’t rented the movie and reviewed it frame by frame, then this thread is like explaining to a blind person with a crappy attitude what the color red is.
I agree with Myndefuquer and Notthemama. It’s a ghost. Ghosts, being supernatural beings, can transport themselves from highrise apartment buildings on the Upper West Side of New York to soundstages in Toronto in order to properly haunt movies.
Snopes and David B are simply in on the conspiracy.
Whoopsie, Ike, you can’t “agree with me that it’s a ghost” because I never said it was a ghost–my position is that it’s a real boy, for whatever reason. Not the “ghost” of a real boy.
David, thank you for so graciously allowing me to believe whatever I want! As you can see from my sig, I frequently believe as many as six impossible things every day, and during election years, I sometimes up that to 10 things.
Again, AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! I did not say it was real, and I did not say it was a ghost boy. I said that it was a real ghost boy.
Okay, it was a cutout of Ted Danson. Great. I guess my question would be ‘Why does the cutout change so drastically in such a short amount of time? Did the cutout get blown to the side in the brief moment that it is out of the frame so that the camera’s angle on it changed, making it appear to be a shotgun?’ The appearance of a ‘ghost boy’ is only a part of the equation. The whole equation has not been addressed. It’s like saying ‘2 + 4 = 6’ and refusing to acknowledge that ‘4’ exists. “2? 2? 2 doesn’t equal 6!!” Those who know will add a 4 to that 2, and everything will make sense – they have seen the whole equation. (Behold my metaphor, for it is good!) The rest of the equation: the appearance of a shotgun-looking thing (not arguing what it is, or supposed to be, or whatever!!).
pl said that he was going to get a load of stills from the movie this past weekend - I am either waiting for the series of stills (not just two crappy pictures) or notice of pl suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder incurred from watching a crappy movie.
BTW, (way off the subject - sorry) why can’t I edit my own message after posting? I’m sure one reason is so you can’t change the post and say ‘I didn’t say that!’ Is it that hard to possibly allow the author to edit his post for a certain time or until someone else posts? Excuse my typos in this and/or other posts, since the man is keepin’ me down and not lettin’ me reconglamorify my stuff. cheeet.
Sorry for not having screen captures up yet, but if y’all have been following my thread in MPSIMS, you know that on Tuesday I got offered a new position with my company in Washington, D.C., so this last week has been sort of hectic. I will get them up, though.
I will say that it’s 110% obvious to me that it’s the cutout. It’s unfathomable to me that it could be anything else.
Pldennison said:
Well, Phil, you know how some people are. When faced with the obvious answer, they use Occam’s Razor backwards and invent other things because they don’t happen to like the obvious answer… < sigh >
No, it’s not obvious that what we’re seeing in that frame is the cutout. To look at the images, the first one looks like a boy, and the second one looks like a cutout, and they don’t look like the same thing. So, I did the obvious: I grabbed copies of those images, copied out the cutout, shrunk it a bit, and rotated it to match the “boy”, and lo and behold, after you do all that, yes, it does, in fact, match the “boy” perfectly. I would post the resultant image, but I don’t have any web space available to me at the moment, and I’m too lazy. Maybe some folks have a better sense of lighting, camera angles, etc., than me, and to them it’s obvious, but for the rest of us, we’ve got to make an effort.
I’ll reserve judgement on the “shotgun” that Myndephuquer is describing until I’ve seen stills for that, too.
Okay, now, what Chronos just said DOES make sense to me. How come it took all this time for somebody to think of that suddenly terribly obvious little trick? So maybe it IS the cutout, with who knows what technical movie explanation for it.
However, David, I don’t know why you couldn’t have said something like that yourself, instead of merely continuing to beat me over the head with your rubber chicken, shouting, “It IS the cutout! It IS the cutout! You WILL believe! You WILL believe! And if you DON’T believe, may your deep freeze be filled with maggot-infested camel carcasses!”
I AM a reasonable person, you know, perfectly willing to listen to logical explanations, even if I do happen to believe in aliens.
P.S. to Chronos: Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the simple statement, “No, it is not obvious.” It’s nice to know that when the aliens were doing all those tests on me in the UFO, they didn’t tamper with my eyesight.
Way to go Chronos for that inciteful way to verify the image.
I will admit that the picture is a bit funky and looks odd, but it does seem to me pretty obvious once you study the pictures that they are the same thing, the cutout. However, Chronos found a way to check. Good for him.
Regarding the shotgun - if you want to see it, go to the snopes page here:
http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/3menbaby.htm
The first image shows what at first glance does look like a large shotgun, barrel down, leaning against the window. Closer examination will show it is an illusion created by the cardboard cutout figure propped in the window with the sheer drapes hanging just so. The drapes cover the head and part of the shirt and jacket, and the lack of clarity from distance in background prevents helps hide the detail of the shirt, etc. However, close study shows the black of the jacket of the other shoulder peeking through the sheer, and comparison with the next two images shows the detail of the vest/shirt to jacket layout, and shows the shape is an artifact of the cut of the lapel and the way the shirt poofs.