Poll: Newby ghost photo - ever proved a fake?

[simpletom]

It's a fake because it's a ghost.

Ghosts don't exist.

You can sleep with the lights off, throw away your ear candles and stop believing in elves and fairys.

 

[Footyslayer]

You either believe or you don't. Nothing can be proved either way in reality.

I do enjoy things like this, I suppose I believe more than I don't.

 

[arknor]

So what appears to be a Monk would somehow be a demonic spirit....ok. And its amazing to see in 10 seconds of "analysis" using paint you've debunked a picture that's been debated for decades.

so why is the outline of the figure clearly darker than the rest of the so called ghost? you can clearly see the outlines of a person..

why would a ghost even be in the same shape as a human? if a spirit exists it's going to be energy of some kind and not contained in the shape of a human body

 

[Gerard]

so why is the outline of the figure clearly darker than the rest of the so called ghost? you can clearly see the outlines of a person..

why would a ghost even be in the same shape as a human? if a spirit exists it's going to be energy of some kind and not contained in the shape of a human body

Considering what's its meant to be, who knows? Even the supposed outlines look wonky to say the least.

 

[arknor]

Considering what's its meant to be, who knows? Even the supposed outlines look wonky to say the least.

look at the high res image lyzander posted the outlines aren't wonky just my ms paint skills

 

[Gerard]

look at the high res image lyzander posted the outlines aren't wonky just my ms paint skills

I've looked at it, to me its more the robe that I can make out more than anything else.

 

[Lysander]

it's clearly a guy stood on the steps and the cloak bit is probably where he walked down during the exposure.

Apart from the fact that those aren't steps. If you take a look at this far more recent photo of the altar, you'll see it's a wall recess, which means your perspective is out.

 

[Jokester]

It just seems too perfect a combination of watermarks and reflections to make that kind of image so perfectly. I can see what the guys said about church archways, I found a high res version of the photo. But still

That's the thing, if it wasn't perfect we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it.

 

[Sayso]

a lil bit of poo just came out.

 

[arknor]

the bottom part of the shadow seems to be roughly the same shape as the head

exposure and light trickey

 

[deuse]

If you think there are ghosts.






Well there aren't





Grow UP

 

[Lysander]

the bottom part of the shadow seems to be roughly the same shape as the head

Interesting how nothing else is casting a shadow in the same direction then.

Clutching at straws, arknor.

 

[Lysander]

Another double post, dammit.

 

[arknor]

Interesting how nothing else is casting a shadow in the same direction then.

Clutching at straws, arknor.

dood go make a shadow puppet.

shine a light on it and if by magic the shadow is gone

 

[Johno please?]

You either believe or you don't. Nothing can be proved either way in reality.

I do enjoy things like this, I suppose I believe more than I don't.

Yea? so you believe in fairys then? And unicorns? I mean, nothing can be proved either way right?

 

[LOAM]

The head, diagonally up from right to left really does look like reflected arches on columns. I would go as far as to say you can even see the capitals.

 

[neodude]

Yea? so you believe in fairys then? And unicorns? I mean, nothing can be proved either way right?

The difference being that the concept of fairies and unicorns can be traced back in history to have a fictional origin. The concept of ghosts comes from records of factual reports from real people as far back in history as records go.

 

[Edrof]

If you think there are ghosts.






Well there aren't

Where were you a couple of years ago when I was writing a book about this shizzle?!

 

[mmj_uk]

It's clearly a fake but I'd love to know how it was done (I'm guessing glass/refraction or something like that) because it's from the 1960's, you couldn't just boot up Photoshop back then.

 

[Lysander]

It's clearly a fake but I'd love to know how it was done (I'm guessing glass/refraction or something like that) because it's from the 1960's, you couldn't just boot up Photoshop back then.

If we had some way of knowing the exposure time it would either help or thicken the mystery. I just can't imagine that those who examined it for fakery didn't consider the possibility of a long single exposure, which leads me to think it was less than a second.