Buffalo wrote: Seeing a ghost clearly would make open to the possibility that they were real - as long as it was something clear and obvious, not just something out of the corner of my eye. Being able to capture it on film or take a picture would convince me that it wasn't just a hallucination.
This one has always interested me. Maybe because it's similar to what I saw. Taken by a Vicar in England of his church. He saw nothing when taking the photo.
Double exposure is the more likely explanation. Cool picture, though.
You have to think about this - why would a deceased spirit be wearing a black robe with a white piece of cloth over his face?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Double exposure is the more likely explanation. Cool picture, though.
You have to think about this - why would a deceased spirit be wearing a black robe with a white piece of cloth over his face?
I think this negative (taken back in the good old days before digital) has been examined many times by experts. It seems it's a "good" Neg. I.E. not a double exposure. Turns out that the minister is (or was) a kindly old guy with no ax to grind.
This one is probably not a fake.
Who knows why these things appear as they do? I'm still on the fence.
A little quote from one of those "paranormal" sites. I'm doubious of these, but the best quote I could find on the fly.
The Newby Church Ghost was photographed by Reverend K. F. Lord at Newby Church in North Yorkshire, England in 1963. He claims he was merely taking a photo of the alter and didn’t see anything unusual at the time, until the photograph was developed. This particular photo has been the subject of many arguments and much controversy over the years due to the rather “fake” appearance of the figure in the photo. A BBC team examined this photo back in the 1970s and concluded that it was definitely NOT a double exposure and that the negative had not been tampered with. The Newby Church was built in 1870 and, as far as anyone knows, did not have a history of ghosts, hauntings or other peculiar phenomena. Those why have carefully analyzed the proportions of the objects in the photo calculated that the spectre of the ghostly monk is about nine feet tall!
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Assuming this is legit for a moment: What about the way cameras worked in that day would make this thing perceptable on film while remaining invisible to the human eye?
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
Mad Viking wrote:Assuming this is legit for a moment: What about the way cameras worked in that day would make this thing perceptable on film while remaining invisible to the human eye?
That's a good question! Film is sensitive to some wavelengths of light that our eyes cannot see (My field, so I'm kinda up on this).
Many digital cameras have extended sensitivity to near visible infrared light. Try taking a digital of the front of your tv remote while pushing a button. The image will show a light glowing there that your eyes cannot see.
I don't know if this is the explanation, but it could be.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Buffalo wrote:Double exposure is the more likely explanation. Cool picture, though.
You have to think about this - why would a deceased spirit be wearing a black robe with a white piece of cloth over his face?
I think this negative (taken back in the good old days before digital) has been examined many times by experts. It seems it's a "good" Neg. I.E. not a double exposure. Turns out that the minister is (or was) a kindly old guy with no ax to grind.
This one is probably not a fake.
Who knows why these things appear as they do? I'm still on the fence.
A little quote from one of those "paranormal" sites. I'm doubious of these, but the best quote I could find on the fly.
The Newby Church Ghost was photographed by Reverend K. F. Lord at Newby Church in North Yorkshire, England in 1963. He claims he was merely taking a photo of the alter and didn’t see anything unusual at the time, until the photograph was developed. This particular photo has been the subject of many arguments and much controversy over the years due to the rather “fake” appearance of the figure in the photo. A BBC team examined this photo back in the 1970s and concluded that it was definitely NOT a double exposure and that the negative had not been tampered with. The Newby Church was built in 1870 and, as far as anyone knows, did not have a history of ghosts, hauntings or other peculiar phenomena. Those why have carefully analyzed the proportions of the objects in the photo calculated that the spectre of the ghostly monk is about nine feet tall!
Paranormal sites are notoriously credulous about ghost stories.
It seems that the appearance of these ghosts keeps getting updated as time moves on. This particular ghost is quite Dickensian.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: Paranormal sites are notoriously credulous about ghost stories.
It seems that the appearance of these ghosts keeps getting updated as time moves on. This particular ghost is quite Dickensian.
Yeah, they are. I don't want to put myself in the position of defending this image. I really don't know if it's true or not. I just find it interesting.
I am a big Dickens fan. Maybe THAT'S why I like it. :)
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Simon Belmont wrote:I enjoy shows like Ghost Adventures and Ghost Hunters. Although I know some of it is fake, I am left in disbelief at some of the occurrences on those shows. Ghost Hunters, for example, does their little "flashlight trick" which seems convincing, also sounds that happen only when one of the participants asks a question or makes a statement are convincing, too. I honestly don't know, but I am open to the idea.
I also like these shows, but mine favorite is vampire diaries and true blood. Do you like it? I'm huge fan of it and what do you think Buffy the Slayer. That was awesome!!!
Quasimodo wrote: This one has always interested me. Maybe because it's similar to what I saw. Taken by a Vicar in England of his church. He saw nothing when taking the photo.
It's funny you picked this one quasi, because it does look so completely fake: especially the "puddle" at the bottom and the cloth face with eye holes!
I find "spirit photography," both the early hoaxed versions and contemporary internet 'shops interesting as subgenre of photography as well as cultural anthropology. There was a wonderful exhibit at the Met in 2005, The Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult which illustrated how wide and fascinating the field is.
Since a great deal of my Psychoanalysis and Literature course is spun out of Freud's essay on the Uncanny, I bring some of these artifacts into class for discussion. An archivist at the University of Manitoba put together this stunning video surveying one of their collections: T.G. Hamilton's Photos of Ectoplasm. It's a lovely way to display it, the original music and editing are quite beautiful. The back story is a common and sad one: the untimely death of a child as a the catalyst for a life-long interest/obsession with seeking evidence of "the other side."
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
