Man of Honour
I take back what I said before. They're real.
They're in parents attic in a photo album somewhere I imagine.
The child isn't see through or faded or anything. I might have oversold how spooky it is lol. It's always stuck in my mind though. Imagine a child wearing old fashioned dark coloured shorts and thinking about it now, I'm sure he's wearing a t-shirt, so we're not talking period Victorian chimney sweep clothing, but definitely looks unusual. I suppose like someone walking around in plus fours would be now... though thats not unheard of.
I imagine an outsider looking at the photo would be very underwhelmed!
I love photobombing people. How I'm not famous for it yet is beyond me.
Hahaha, more believable than the picture in the Op anyways.I take back what I said before. They're real.
Of course the 'ghost' isn't real.if the ghost was real
Of course the 'ghost' isn't real.
I was reading this in my email and came on to quote exactly the same bit
I'm embarrassed to say that one of my Cousins (I have about 70 of them) runs this place
https://www.facebook.com/hauntedmuseumstoke/
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/new.../gallery/take-look-inside-new-haunted-5785497
That nursery is actually creepy, but I’m not sure I’d find my career on something that don’t exist. Then again, the church is pretty successful…
Of course the 'ghost' isn't real.
I know this topic hasn't been posted in for a long time, but I have read all the posts and I wanted to comment that I have studied the Newby Church ghost photo in detail. I first saw it when I was 9 and although it never scared me, I always found the face covering weird until I found it could have been a covering for leprosy. I have visited Newby Church twice, the second time I took photos of myself standing in the ghost's position and I carefully studied the full version of the photo to get an exact copy of the Reverend Lord's photo in terms of measurement. One or two people had reenacted the photo before and someone on Flickr commented the ghost couldn't have been 9 feet tall, although their photo didn't exactly match the original's dimensions.
I found that by recreating the photo, the ghost was only around 6 feet 3 inches. I can never understand where the 9 feet tall claim comes from. Something that has always fascinated me is how, if the ghost was real, why was he standing on the altar step of a church that wasn't even 100 years old at the time. Although it looks like the robe is draped over the altar step at first glance, I only realised about 2 years ago that what appears to be the bottom of the robe actually looks like a spill on the negative, there are also one or two small parts that stick out on the right of what is thought of as the robe's bottom and if you look carefully, the spill goes upwards into a dark cone shape in the area where the ghost's legs should be. Also, when you look carefully at good quality copies, the bottom of the robe appears to be behind the dark area around the altar step, the dark patch on the step looks separate to the ghost's robe.
I also found an article on the British Newspaper Archive from 1967 that was in The People. It says the image was taken seven years before, so 1963 is obviously wrong and the Reverend Lord commented he had no interest in ghosts and didn't believe it to be a ghost, saying "it could well be a trick of the light". Whatever the ghost really was, it never turned up in any of my photos on both visits!
Really can.You can't say that with any certainty.
Fascinating stuff, thanks Matt. There are plenty of people saying this photo is fake or has been debunked but I don't think there is an reliable source which confirms this.
Well of course it is faked because there is no such thing as ghosts. I mean, this is 101.
If someone showed me a picture of a Unicorn there is no requirement to prove it is a fake or debunk it - Unicorns don't exist, ergo, the photo does not contain a picture of a Unicorn.
Someone shows me a picture of the Loch Ness monster, again no requirements to debunk - Loch Ness monster doesn't exit, ergo the photo does not contain a picture of Loch Ness monster
So in the same way I don't need to prove that a Medium is nothing more than a Charlatan preying on the grief of people who have lost someone near - I (or anyone else) don't need to prove a picture of a ghost isn't real, because your claim it is a picture of something that doesn't exist cannot possibly be true.
Whereas every civilization in the world admits that spirits are real
If ghosts were real they would be popping up on CCTV and doorbell cameras all over the place.13 years later this is still considered real. Come on folks time to face reality.