Poll: Newby ghost photo - ever proved a fake?

Do you think the Newby Ghost photo is real or fake?

  • Real

  • Fake

Results are only viewable after voting.
I was going to bring this one up but it looks like there's already a topic for it. There are plenty of people saying on the net, "oh come on, it's clearly a fake", but no-one seems to seems to say how.

This photograph was taken in 1963 by Reverend K. F. Lord at Newby Church in North Yorkshire, England. It has been a controversial photo because it is just too good. The shrouded face and the way it is looking directly into the camera makes it look like it was posed – a clever double exposure. Yet supposedly the photo has been scrutinized by photo experts who say the image is not the result of a double exposure.

The Reverend Lord has said of the photo that nothing was visible to the naked eye when he took the snapshot of his altar. Yet when the film was developed, standing there was this strange cowled figure.

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 specter is about nine feet tall
Click to expand...

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Specter-of-Newby-Church.htm

Clearly no-one here seems to have any ideas either. Maybe this one can even surpass the hardened cynics of OCUK.
 
What the hell is it with all the ghost and ghoulies threads all of a sudden lately? I have a question why would the ghost be invisible to the naked eye then show up in the photo? Do ghosts have nothing better to do than ruin people's photos.
 
Lysander said:
Yet supposedly the photo has been scrutinized by photo experts who say the image is not the result of a double exposure
Click to expand...

It's conclusive then. Some expert somewhere in the world at some point in the past has said it's not a double exposure. Definitely that person must be right.

This was very easy with a manual film camera. You just put the camera on the tripod and take two exposures at half the shutter speed without winding the film on. I can't see how anyone could examine it and say without doubt it's not a double exposure.
 
NeilFawcett said:
But yes, I agree, it's not genuine... Ghosts do not exist :)
Click to expand...

That's as ridiculous as saying "ghosts do exist". Obviously the onus is on the party proving that they do exist, since proving that something doesn't exist and providing complete, factual 100% evidence of such is impossible.

I don't believe in God but I can't rule out the notion altogether.
 
Father Ted said:
One of the most famous 'ghost' photos ever. Taken by the Rev Lord at Newby church in Yorkshire in the 60's. He was taking a photo of the altar and was adamant there was nothing there. However when developed a ghostly monk like figure appeared.


I remember first seeing it on Arthur C Clarkes Mysterious World, it really creeped me out. I know a lot of the most famous photos have been debunked, but as far as I know nobody has ever proven this one to be a fake. Or have they?
Click to expand...

Yes i remember this when i was younger, one of the best 'old' photos of ghost ever in my opinion, proper creepy. I also would like to know if it's been proved a fake


EDIT - Nine feet tall??? ***********! *******!
 
Last edited:
wingman said:
Can you elaborate on that in layman's terms?

e. - genuinely interested and also genuinely not got a clue. Does it mean leaving the lens open for a longer time?
Click to expand...

You can achieve that effect in one of two ways, either a long exposure or a double exposure.

The long exposure method would require keeping the shutter open for a long time; say 30 seconds.

You set the camera up on a tripod so it can't move then press the button and wait for 10 seconds. You then stand in the picture for 10 seconds then finally leave the picture for the last 10 seconds.

The only downside to this method is that depending on how sensitive the film is, how much light you let into the camera through the aperture of the lens and how long you keep the shutter open, it's possible to pick up your movement as you walk in and out of the shot. (think of light trails at night when people photograph cars).

The double exposure method is excellently described by Zogger:

Zogger said:
This was very easy with a manual film camera. You just put the camera on the tripod and take two exposures at half the shutter speed without winding the film on. I can't see how anyone could examine it and say without doubt it's not a double exposure.
Click to expand...
 
I really see no need to prove these types of pictures fake. There could be dozens of completely logical, rational explanations for them, explanations which have actually been proven to occur naturally without any need for magic. Those explanations are far more likely than one for which the evidence has never been anything more than paper-thin.

It seems rather silly to pick such a ludicrously unlikely explanation and ask for it to be proved wrong.. Prove it right.
 
Can anyone see the woman in this photo?

Apparently she's in the upper right hand side. I'm struggling to see anything. :confused:

e. - thanks Irish Tom, that actually makes a lot of sense!
 
zenf said:
I really see no need to prove these types of pictures fake. There could be dozens of completely logical, rational explanations for them, explanations which have actually been proven to occur naturally without any need for magic. Those explanations are far more likely than one for which the evidence has never been anything more than paper-thin.

It seems rather silly to pick such a ludicrously unlikely explanation and ask for it to be proved wrong.. Prove it right.
Click to expand...

But why the hell would you bother proving something when you could just make claims and watch people try and disprove it, whilst the whole time claiming that it could still be real :confused::confused:
 
The more I look at it the more it looks like just a problem with the film with some very coincidental background details which aid the human brain into thinking it's the shape of a person.

If you delete all the background detail from the image and take purely the 'ghost', I think it'll look a lot less like a person.
 
Taken from Lysanders quote above:

The Reverend Lord has said of the photo that nothing was visible to the naked eye when he took the snapshot of his altar. Yet when the film was developed, standing there was this strange cowled figure.
Click to expand...

On a camera that works in the visible spectrum (what we can see with the naked eye), how is that even possible? After all doesn't the camera "see" what we see?
 
12236314844_36f4bf71c9_o.jpg


I'm so, so sorry. Just really bored at work and all I have is paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom