Famous Ghost Photos--Or Not?.......An Open Discussion

[Bathory313]

Best Ghost Photos; we all know and love these famous pictures and they have yet, to date, resisted the 'debunkers'. I'd like to open up a discussion on these photos, and get opinions from both the skeptics and the believers (I'm a little bit of both)

First photo for discussion:

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Spe...



Specter of Newby Church

I really, really want to believe this one. I do. But it's just to fantabulous to believe. A ghostly, running-faced cloaked figure in a church? Yessssss!

But nooooooooooo.

The figure is so conveniently on the altar. The 'face' looks like a mask. The lighting on the figure is 'not-quite-right'. The figure doesn't fade out, and the tail of the cloak falls neatly on the step, precisely the way it would if a human wearing the cloak posed for the photograph. The altar is not centered in the picture; the photo is just enough to the right to include the 'ghost'.

My opinion: A deliberate fake, either by double exposure or using a transparency (no Photoshop in 1963). Churches have been using fake phenomena for centuries to drive up membership and add to the coffers--no offense to any churchgoers here; but it's an old tactic.

I will be adding to this discussion as the days go by; please feel free to add your favorite famous ghost photos to discuss!

[Bathory313]

Next: The Ghost Boy of Seven Gables

http://paranormal.about.com/library/bl_gables_ghost_b.htm

I'm sorry........I think this is a case of over-excitement. I see a light area in the bushes. That's about it. A little boy? Not in my opinion.

Trying to examine this photo in a photo program leaves you with a pixellated mess of light and dark areas.

I'm not convinced.

[Bathory313]

Freddy Jackson.........showed up for the photo!

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Fre...

I love this picture.

Freddy Jackson, accidentally killed a couple of days earlier by an airplane propeller, did not let his squadron down when it came time for the group photograph.

He showed up in it.

The photo was taken in 1919, and it smacks of the genuine article to me. You can clearly see it is not the face of the man in front, there is no blur. You can also see mist around Freddy's face.

Freddy Jackson, my hat is off to you, guv!

[Gail]

This photo is easy to decipher. In 1919, most cameras were "box cameras" that used a "roll film". After snapping a photo, the film was advanced manually by a small knob which twisted the inside spindle to advance the film. If you had taken a photo and did not completely advance the film, you would get a double exposure, or a picture over a picture. I think this is the case here. I still have one of those old "Brownie" box cameras.

[Bathory313]

But this perfectly? It's a great photo, nonetheless.

[Gail]

It is definately a great photo. And it seems to be perfectly situated. Even if it were a double exposure on one roll of film, it still makes a great testimony for their fallen comrad, and I like believing he was with them.

[Bathory313]

The Tulip Staircase Ghost(s)

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Tul...

Hmmmmmmmm. Something about this picture looks hincky to me. Again, just my opinion.

The figure on the left is well-lit. Both of the hands on the staircase are left hands, and the body on the left appears to have a very strange/awkward angle to it.

BUT............

The Tulip Staircase was cordoned off. The picture is a visual nightmare........the stairs you see to the left are actually the underside of the stairs. The picture was taken from beneath the stairs at an awkward angle.

There have been quite a few reports of hauntings in the Queen's House (where the staircase is)

Link to the story of the staircase:

http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/england/greater-london/hauntings...

More info about the photo:

"The picture was taken on June 19, 1966 by the Reverend R.W. Hardy of White Rock, British Columbia. After they returned to Canada and had the pictures developed the Hardys saw the figures and sent the original negatives to the Ghost Club. One of the members of the Ghost Club, a Mr. Hector MacQueen, had a cousin who lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, and she acted as an intermediary in contacting the Hardys regarding the picture. In 1967 the Hardys again visited England and at that time had a lengthy personal interview with MacQueen. During the interview these facts were established:

1. The picture was taken on a fair but cloudy day (this was verified ty the Meteorological Office of the London Weather Centre) at about 5 PM.

2. The camera used was a Zeiss Ikon Contina - Prontor S V S Zavar Anastigmat lens; 1:3.5f = 45 mm, with "skylight" auxiliary haze-filter.

3. The film was Kodachrome X, 35 mm color film with speed 64.

4. The light used was daylight and the electric candelabra which appears in the picture. No flash or floodlight was used.

5. The aperature and time are not certain but the aperature was probably about f4 and the time was probably about 4-6 seconds.

6. Each picture on the roll was accounted for by number.

7. The picture immediately prior to the ghost picture is of the colonnade outside the Queen's House and the one immediately following is of a figurehead. Neither bears any resemblance to the shrouded figure(s)." (From Elfstone, on GhostMysteries.com)

I'm still not convinced, but I'm leaning that way.

[Bathory313]

Wem town hall burned to the ground in 1995. A man, a photographer, takes pictures of the moment, and is startled to see the face of a young girl peering out of the building.

Hoax? Or real?

According to these experts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEA8qRNP5iY&feature=related (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXB1P2IlH9w&feature=related (part 2)

it's a hoax. The photographic expert says it looks like an image capture from television or video superimposed on the image, due to some horizontal lines.

What I think: I've examined the photo (not the actual, of course) at 800% magnification and I don't see the lines he speaks of. Even under that heavy magnification the image stands up on its own. The face is still a face at 800%.

Nice. I like it.

[Bathory313]

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/The...

The Boot Hill Cemetery ghost.

A friend takes a photograph of another friend dressed in period clothing. The photographer (and friend, I assume) is shocked to find a half-man in the background, in a black cowboy hat.

It looks good, it really does. It's pretty awesome, really. But is it real?

The photographer's name is Clanton. "Clanton is an actor, recording artist and cowboy poet". (emphasis mine)

From Skepticopia: "The photo is blatantly staged. The gun points toward the person in the background, who looks like a kid wearing a fedora to me. The person who took this photo knew that it was fake. The photographer is Terry “Ike” Clanton. He owns a website about Tombstone and is very much involved in the tourist industry there, which gives him the motive. Not content with just one fake ghost photo, Clanton has taken many and posts them on his site. Most of which are blurry figures in the distance or obscured by trees. There is no reason to believe the stories behind the photos. I don’t understand how a person can lie to people like he does, profit from those lies and still sleep at night."

I uploaded the file into my photo program and did some tinkering with it. I removed the 'hat' and 'head' from the photo entirely, leaving the 'body' in place. The body ended up looking like a regular tombstone, which left me wondering if the head and hat weren't planted in, or a prop. *shrugging*

I'm leaning towards "too good to be true" on this one.

[Kelly Ku'ulei/Seraphim]

Photo 1: Reminds of the movie Scream.
Photo 2: There seems to be a figure there but it’s not the boy who they’re comparing it to.
Photo 3: Evidence of the pilot passing prior to taking this photo. Authentic.
Photo 4: Without having read the history there’s a definite ‘being’ standing there. After reading the story: Why would the couple take the photo with the knowledge of an Non-participant poser? Authentic.
Photo 5: Authentic ghost girl.
Photo 6: Reminds me of the photo of the man sitting in the vehicle. Too solid to be ghost? Nope. But In this photo I say it’s not ghost but a person in the background who got in the shot.

[Bathory313]

Seraphim, the backseater is one of my favorites!