Poll: Newby ghost photo - ever proved a fake?

[nikebee]

Double exposure on one piece of photographic paper, or even the negative. It wouldn't be difficult to do at all.

Accidental double exposure

As I said, double exposure has apparently been ruled out as an explanation.

I wouldn't say it was a "fake" since that sort of implies that the person was trying to make it look like there was a ghost there. I'd say that looking at the year that photograph was taken and considering that personal photography was still a relatively new thing in those days and the technology was still in it's infancy I'd put it down to a fault with the camera/user.

 

[nikebee]

However, when you look at the picture, the Rev didn't get the Altar very central, and you have to wonder why. It also does look like a guy in a mask wearing a long cloak so you have to 'hmmm' at it.

The picture is in the OP isn't the original photo and has been cropped and/or resized.

You can see the original photo, with the full alter in view and centralized like you would for a normal picture here
http://www.castleofspirits.com/hoodmonk.html

 

[Adsta]

ok that is scary ive never seen this before.

I dont believe in ghosts, but that looks crazy !

 

[Vix]

The picture is in the OP isn't the original photo and has been cropped and/or resized.

You can see the original photo, with the full alter in view and centralized like you would for a normal picture here
http://www.castleofspirits.com/hoodmonk.html

ohhhhhh!! *shudders*

 

[Lysander]

As I said, double exposure has apparently been ruled out as an explanation.

I wouldn't say it was a "fake" since that sort of implies that the person was trying to make it look like there was a ghost there. I'd say that looking at the year that photograph was taken and considering that personal photography was still a relatively new thing in those days and the technology was still in it's infancy I'd put it down to a fault with the camera/user.

Glad someone said it before I did, double exposure was ruled out a long time ago.

"With regard to the (black and white) monk in the church photo which you claim is a double exposure, in the early 80's I was connected to a team that examined this (and many other) supposedly supernatural photographs for the BBC, and the one thing we decided it wasn't was a double exposure. We used, at the time, the latest in computer enhancement technology and no trickery was detected. We examined about fifteen other famous photographs (including Indre Shira's photo of the Brown Lady in Raynham Hall) and all of them were explicable in decidedly prosaic terms. Furthermore, the photograph is of the complete altar, not just the half with the 'monk' in it. I feel you are doing a diservice to the photograph by presenting it in this truncated form"

Faithfully

Karl Denchly

Once again, if there was no figure visible in front of the camera and this wasn't faked, it's one of the best examples of a spectre being caught on camera yet.

 

[Combat squirrel]

But surely easy to prove as a fake as well which nobody ever has despite numerous attempts by experts.

Dark and long exposure with the photographer dressed like that, standing in the photo for 40% of the time of exposure will produce such an effect. Also the clothes flow perfectly over the steps of the alter, if that was a ghost surely it wouldnt have such concerns as getting that right, its defo a fake, a) cuz ghosts aint real b) its obviously a long exposure or something

Infact I was mucking about with this effect while I was on a beach a few months back, want me to post up my results ? I look ghostly just like that photo.

 

[Gilly]

I wouldn't say it was a "fake" since that sort of implies that the person was trying to make it look like there was a ghost there. I'd say that looking at the year that photograph was taken and considering that personal photography was still a relatively new thing in those days and the technology was still in it's infancy I'd put it down to a fault with the camera/user.

That's a rather specific fault.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Why should it be proven fake, why not proven to be real?

 

[Gilly]

Why should it be proven fake, why not proven to be real?

You only have to try one thing to prove it fake, if it is an accurate test. You have to try everything to prove it real.

 

[antijoke]

You mean this one?

NO WAY! The girl I work with is friends with those people!

 

[cheets64]

I don't believe in the after life so its not possible, its all wishy washy. Easy way to make a few quid from doing very little.

 

[Vix]

Not sure if the Rev made any money from it?

I do believe in something after death, but not sure if you can photograph dead people! So I'm curious about this photo, and other claimed ghost pics.

 

[Lysander]

I don't believe in the after life so its not possible, its all wishy washy. Easy way to make a few quid from doing very little.

And what would the 'very little' be in this case? This photograph hasn't been proven fake and it's been around for over forty years.

 

[Ed]

Of course it's a fake. Ghosts aren't real.

 

[nikebee]

Why should it be proven fake, why not proven to be real?

Because the efforts to prove it real would be monumentally huge, it's a heck of a lot easier to disprove something than it is to prove it.

It's easier to go throw the common faults in the technology at that age and try and put one of those down as the reason, prove that that reason is why it is a "fake" and you know it's not real.

I mean seriously, how would you prove it was real? Get John Edward to do a Crossing Over Special and interview the ghost? Get Scooby Do & The Gang out there to hunt him down, only to find out it's "Old Mr Thompson" who's land it was long before the church was there and he'd planned to build a theme park there... so he was scaring everyone off....???

 

[knowledge123]

It actually looks like a guy in a cloth mask to me, spooky!

No, really, it does! look at the light and the shadows on the mask, and then tell that it's not

 

[MookJong]

=Vix;12691630]However, when you look at the picture, the Rev didn't get the Altar very central, and you have to wonder why. It also does look like a guy in a mask wearing a long cloak so you have to 'hmmm' at it.

Wrong, the alter is central, most of the versions you have seen are cropped:

However the picture is almost perfectly posed in photographic terms.

EDIT: Duuuur how did I miss this already posted on the first page

 

[cheets64]

And what would the 'very little' be in this case? This photograph hasn't been proven fake and it's been around for over forty years.

Why would he need to publish the picture, I bet it brought a lot of attention to his church.

 

[thecremeegg]

Of course it's a fake. Ghosts aren't real.

Why arent ghosts real? Because we cant comprehend it? The fact there is life on this planet is beyond our understanding, so ghosts are just as plausible

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Because the efforts to prove it real would be monumentally huge, it's a heck of a lot easier to disprove something than it is to prove it.

It's easier to go throw the common faults in the technology at that age and try and put one of those down as the reason, prove that that reason is why it is a "fake" and you know it's not real.

I mean seriously, how would you prove it was real? Get John Edward to do a Crossing Over Special and interview the ghost? Get Scooby Do & The Gang out there to hunt him down, only to find out it's "Old Mr Thompson" who's land it was long before the church was there and he'd planned to build a theme park there... so he was scaring everyone off....???

You would prove it was real by having more than one photograph of the supposed ghost over the course of 40 years. If it isn't repeatable it's hardly proven to be real or valid. I think it's a fake. If you showed me that the guy had managed to capture not one but 10 pictures I'd be far less sure. If he had somehow taken 50 I'd be seriously reconsidering my stance on whether ghosts are real or not.

One dodgy pic does not a proof make