Poll: Newby ghost photo - ever proved a fake?

[NeilF]

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.

Then nothing is out of bounds - You cannot even proclaim elephants can't fly then?

There is no solid evidence for ghosts, so personally I'd suggest it's far more ridiculous to suggest they do exist than don't

So... IMHO ghosts do not exist...

 

[XeNoN89]

Ghosts aren't real.

/thread

 

[dpbadger]

This site is quite interesting.
http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/HoaxPhotosPage.htm

 

[D.P.]

Its adouble exposure, very easy to do and very hard to detect because it doesn'tuse anykind of computer trickery.

 

[Energize]

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.

Infancy?!

You do realise that photography has been around since the 1820's? In the 1960's (a century after colour photography was developed), photography was well developed and certainly not in it's infancy!

 

[HEADRAT]

I believe in Mr Claypole

 

[Rroff]

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.

Yeah reading this thread after it was bumped I had to wonder what kind of "evidence" they have it wasn't a double exposure or similiar, potentially its something thats almost impossible to confirm it can't have been and the picture has all the hallmarks of such a technique.

Taken from Lysanders quote above:



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?

I believe (traditional) film is also sensitive to i.e. ionizing radiation, etc. but might be wrong not just visible light can leave a mark.

 

[Indie]

freaky stuff!

 

[ShortWarning]

Why has the photo been taken with the Alter left of centre leaving just the right amount of room for the ghostly figure? Unless the photo is cropped?

 

[NeilF]

Why has the photo been taken with the Alter left of centre leaving just the right amount of room for the ghostly figure? Unless the photo is cropped?

It was cropped... That was covered earlier in the thread

 

[Zethor]

Do not try and see the ghost. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
There is no ghost. Then you'll see, that it is not the ghost that shows itself, it is only yourself.

 

[aardvark]

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

beyond your understanding clearly

 

[NeilF]

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

Because there is no compelling evidence to suggest they are real. Just like there is no compelling evidence for fairies, dragons, vampires or werewolves.

Put it all in the same drawer as astrology and psychics, marked "Hmmmm!"

 

[Lysander]

From Fortean Times site. Have not had a chance to read this yet. Dumping for later.

Hello all

I have studied the famous Newby Chruch ghost photo at length and also numerous photos of Skelton-cum-Newby Church san ghost. After spending days scrutinizing all the material I could find, I am not ready to put forth a finally explanation for this photo. No, there is no "man in a "Scream" mask". No there is no double exposure. And I am sure the pastor of the church was completely innocent of any fakery for the reasons I will explain below.

I am quite surprised all these years have past without someone explaining this? photo properly. I will attempt to do this once and for all Using the best copy possible of the "ghost" photo and examining new color photos of the church, the explanation became clear to me. There are three elements creating this beguiling illusion.

Part one: Using a high resolution photo of the ghost, one can blowing up the 'ghosts' face, one can see the 'mouth' quite plainly. Doing this it become easy to disguish the "mouth" is the arch of a reflected window. You can actually see there area two arches quite plainly.

Why are we seeing a reflection of these arched windows (which are thoughout the church. What you could never see in just looking at the one old black and with photo is that the altar of the church is made of POLISHED MARBLE. The rear of the altar is a large slab of white polished marble, high reflective under bright light.

If you look at the photo, you can see a strong light source on the left of the photo, the right side is quite dark. The study in contrast show what a bright day it was. This allowed for the reflection off the marble to stand out in the shadow of the "dark" side of the church. It is the white relection off the marble, featured arched windows which creates" the face". Please notice elongated right side of the 'face'. Now imagine a light source behind the altar being bounced off the angled altar, casting a reflected beam on the pillar and wall. That explain the odd elongation of the face ... the angle of the altar to the light source and where it strikes the wall. ''I had some trouble understanding why there was little shift in image between the wall and the pillar. You would think there would be a break in the reflection, yes? But I figured out why there is no break! Examining modern high rez photos of the church, is its revealed the pillars are only HALF PILLARS SET INTO THE WALL! That was a key discovery and a puzzle that could only have been solved by seeing the altar from different angles.

In trying to solve such an complex optical illusion, how could possibly think we could explain it by examining only ONE photo of the 'ghost'!

Ah, but what about the body?? That famous black shroud that drapes on the steps. Well, there is the only real "flaw with the negative. The 'face' is reflected light and a genuine photographed element, but the "body" is water stain on the negative. But there is yet ANOTHER element to complete the illusion!

Water stained negatives most frequently produce rounded or smooth oblong stains.This accounts for the rounded, shapeless "robe" of most of the body. But, rightly so, people frequently note the draped effect of the 'robe.' This was quite easy to explain once I got hold of a quality copy of the photo. Enhancing that portion of the photo, it is easy to distinguish that the 'draped' end of the robe is a separate element. One most photos the robe and its draped "train" look identical in composition and color. But with a good copy of the photo, once can clearly see what appears to be spilled water on the marble. Spilled water? Why? This is most likely the result of the FRESH FLOWER seen on the altar. It would also explain why the Reverend never noticed that odd bit of shadow on the steps again, it simply dried up!
Together, the water-darkened stone melds with the water stain on the negative to create the body of the 'ghost' quite effectively.

Well you might think, well, this is a confluence of too many coincidences, but please remember, the "face" (a bright reflection shining off the polished marble with architectural element? clearly visible within it) and the water-spill darkened stone are normal elements that would have appeared in any photo taken at that moment. So really, it's only the single flaw of the water-stained negative that is the rouge element here! But it does a wonderful job tying together disparaged element and wonderfully producing the image of a 'ghost.'

I would have like to have posted detailed shots from my photo examination here, and hope to do so soon. I think will my explanation clearer. But in the meantime find yourself a good, large copy of the Newby Church Ghost? and bear in mind the elements I have explained here and it will all become clear.

This has long been my favorite ghost photograph and will remain so -- even after I believe I have finally come up with the proper explanation after all these years!

Cheers!

 

[Belmit]

Who's to say it wasn't entirely set up using this method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

With a camera you don't even have to trick real people, only the camera itself. This could be done with a cardboard box, an angled piece of glass in front of the lens, and an old sock.

 

[Mark A]

I was just about to say this was fake, until I turned around and saw it stood behind me. It's still there.

 

[Gerard]

From Fortean Times site. Have not had a chance to read this yet. Dumping for later.

So apparently its sorted because some random guy online says so? So a picture taken in a church "just happens" to get a water splodge and random light effects to resemble a monk?

 

[Energize]

So apparently its sorted because some random guy online says so?

Don't worry I've diagnosed Lysander as schizotypal based on his conspiracy theories in the other thread, so this kind of sourcing is par for the course.

 

[Gerard]

Don't worry I've diagnosed Lysander as schizotypal based on his conspiracy theories in the other thread, so this kind of talk is par for the course.

Is a weird picture though, remember seeing it years ago in a ghost book in the library. I'm finding it hard to swallow that all these random elements came together to produce something like this, especially considering the bottom of the robe and the placement of what appears to be a shroud. Everything just seems to be too well placed for it to be a combination of light and a water stain.

 

[Amnesia]

Who decided that a faded image must be a ghost ?

How many of you claiming it's a ghost have actually seen a ghost with your own eyes ?
Seems pretty bizarre to just claim ghost as if you know for certain they exist.