ghost pics

[Slept with ghost]

i just thought it would be a cool thread to start

[Slept with ghost]

[Slept with ghost]

[Slept with ghost]

[Slept with ghost]

in the mirrior under the flowers

[Slept with ghost]

"my daughter was home alone one day and took a web cam pic of herself to send home to my mother...nobody else was in the house at the time (or so we thought) the house had lots of cold pockets and we would hear what almost sounded like whispers in the night...my husband and I had similar dreams the whole time we lived there, it hadn't happened before that house and hasn't happened since leaving that house (dreams were often about packing clothes in the basement or attic)...the house was about 75 years old and had been in the same family for years, we were the first 'non' family members to live there."

[Slept with ghost]

[Brenda Starrr]

I love ghost pics!!!

[LadyWindstone]

Here are a few that I conjured up lol.

This controversial ghost picture was taken at haunted Newby Church in

England by Reverend K. F. Lord. The apparition picture appears to have a

monk with hands folded in prayer and a ghastly face.

Taken in 1919, this ghost photo of a RAF squadron from World War One

has an extra ghostly face in the picture. It is believed to be Freddy

Jackson, an air mechanic who had been accidentally killed by an

airplane propellor two days before the pic was taken. His funeral took

place on the day the photograph was shot. Members of his air

squadron recognized his face with ease and believe he must have

showed up for the haunted picture, unaware he had passed. Freddy's

ghostly apparition appears behind the airman in the top row, fourth

from the left.

This photograph of the Combermere Abbey library was taken in 1891 by Sybell Corbet. The figure of a man can faintly be seen sitting in the chair to the left. His head, collar and right arm on the armrest are clearly discernable. It is believed to be the ghost of Lord Combermere.

The above two pictures show footage from a closed circuit camera at the palace of Henry VIII (Hampton Court Castle) just outside London. Security was concerned about a fire exit that was often found open and checked the footage to find this ethereal figure opening and then closing the doors. The figure appears to be wearing long, flowing robes, and could be a woman - maybe King Henry's 3rd wife, Jane Seymour who died on the premises shortly after giving birth. This footage was taken in December, 2003.

[Brenda Starrr]

The one of the car accident is extra, extra freaky.

[phee]

[Rozzlyn]

Here are a few that I conjured up lol.

Exposure flaw or, quite possibly, a freak concentrated accumulation of debris after a car accident.

This controversial ghost picture was taken at haunted Newby Church in

England by Reverend K. F. Lord.  The apparition picture appears to have a

monk with hands folded in prayer and a ghastly face.

Double exposure.

Taken in 1919, this ghost photo of a RAF squadron from World War One

has an extra ghostly face in the picture.  It is believed to be Freddy

Jackson, an air mechanic who had been accidentally killed by an

airplane propellor two days before the pic was taken.  His funeral took

place on the day the photograph was shot.  Members of his air

squadron recognized his face with ease and believe he must have

showed up for the haunted picture, unaware he had passed.  Freddy's

ghostly apparition appears behind the airman in the top row, fourth

from the left.

Judging my his location in the photo, and the fact that there are two cramped-in looking men in the photo behind his row, I smell shenanigans afoot in this one. My guess is somebody forgot when the photo was taken (not an unusual occurence, especially when you consider that the world was still all higgeldy-piggeldy, being just after WWI).

ETA: More shenanigans -- this photo was published until 1975. Reeks of shenanigans, if you ask me.(/Edit)

This photograph of the Combermere Abbey library was taken in 1891 by Sybell Corbet. The figure of a man can faintly be seen sitting in the chair to the left. His head, collar and right arm on the armrest are clearly discernable. It is believed to be the ghost of Lord Combermere.

Faint double exposure.

In 1891, it took around ten minutes to take one photograph. During this time, subjects had to sit very still and not move or weird little exposure glitches would happen. In fact, the antiquated myth that having one's photograph taken "steals one's soul" probably stems from people who've flinched or moved slightly during the process of old glass-plate exposures, thus creating a "ghostly" image behind or around them (which, of course, resembled them). This page, though, states that Sybell Corbet claimed the exposure took around an hour. It also states that Lord Combermere died that year and, surprise-surprise!, this photo was taken during his funeral procession. While his servants all testify that they were at his funeral at the time the exposure was made, it is still entirely possible that somebody else came in, sat for just under a minute, and took off -- after all, it's not unreasonable to assume that Corbet knew people besides Combermere's servants.

A friend of mine in upstate New York, actually, is taking a photography course that specialises in classes on old glass-plate exposure photography. This kind of effect is completely possible to replicate, and quite easily.

The above two pictures show footage from a closed circuit camera at  the palace of Henry VIII (Hampton Court Castle) just outside London.  Security was concerned about a fire exit that was often found open and checked the footage to find this ethereal figure opening and then closing the doors.  The figure appears to be wearing long, flowing robes, and could be a woman - maybe King Henry's 3rd wife, Jane Seymour who died on the premises shortly after giving birth.  This footage was taken in December, 2003.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These kinds of "survelence photos" are easily faked all the time. The fact that the image of the frizzy-haired woman in robes looks just as clear as everything else in the photo suggests that she's a real person, and not a "spectral image". The camera that high up and obviously an older, grainy survelence camera are facts that are taken advantage of by charlatans crying for attention in "ghost hunter" circles all the time -- the hieght and apparent graininess of the camera can easily obscure any facial features or even a mask worn intentionally to deliberately obscure one's features.

[Guest MsMaldoror]

I was just waiting for someone to bring up the errors in some of these ghost pics. A few of them are very classic examples of fake ghost photography and have shown up in books and journals on the subject over the years.

[Rozzlyn]

I was just waiting for someone to bring up the errors in some of these ghost pics.  A few of them are very classic examples of fake ghost photography and have shown up in books and journals on the subject over the years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm surprised that somebody hadn't brought it up before me.

Especially those survelence camera photos -- just because the face is obscured doesn't mean it's a spectre.

[Rozzlyn]

I'm surprised that somebody hadn't brought it up before me.

Especially those survelence camera photos -- just because the face is obscured doesn't mean it's a spectre.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.castleofspirits.com/brownlady.html

Also, apparently the only "experts" to examine the negs for the photo os "the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall" and claim it was untampered with were people for the magazine that hired the photographers who took the photo. Photo analyst Joe Nickell was the first to label the photo a fake.

The above article also asks why two photographers (or, more accurately, a photographer and his assistant) with seemingly good reputations would fake a photograph, but when one considers that the house had had centuries of ghost-sightings, it becomes clear that their reputations plus the history of the house would help make them very famous.

[Rozzlyn]

In 1891, it took around ten minutes to take one photograph.  During this time, subjects had to sit very still and not move or weird little exposure glitches would happen.  In fact, the antiquated myth that having one's photograph taken "steals one's soul" probably stems from people who've flinched or moved slightly during the process of old glass-plate exposures, thus creating a "ghostly" image behind or around them (which, of course, resembled them).    This page, though, states that Sybell Corbet claimed the exposure took around an hour.  It also states that Lord Combermere died that year and, surprise-surprise!, this photo was taken during his funeral procession.  While his servants all testify that they were at his funeral at the time the exposure was made, it is still entirely possible that somebody else came in, sat for just under a minute, and took off -- after all, it's not unreasonable to assume that Corbet knew people besides Combermere's servants.

A friend of mine in upstate New York, actually, is taking a photography course that specialises in classes on old glass-plate exposure photography.  This kind of effect is completely possible to replicate, and quite easily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More on the Lord Combermere photo:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/grphotos.html

The photo was actually taken of the splendid library of the house and the camera was placed with a long exposure of about one hour, details of which were carefully noted in her photographic diary.

Although no one was in the room at the time of the exposure, the developed plate showed the head, body and arms of an older man, seated in a high-backed chair to the left side of the room. The photo was shown to a relative of Lord Combermere and she announced that if did resemble the man. However, not everyone agreed about this. Regardless, the features of the man are hard to distinguish.

The strangest thing about the photo was that, at the time it was taken, Lord Combermere was attending a funeral at the local churchyard in Wrenbury, a few miles away. The funeral was his own! Lord Combermere had been killed a few days earlier in a road accident in London.

As mentioned, the photo caused quite a stir and attracted the attention of Sir William Barrett, an investigator for the Society of Psychical Research. He experimented with a similar photo process and then first dismissed this photograph as an unintentional mistake. He surmised that a servant had entered the room while the shutter of the camera was open, sat down in the chair and then left, leaving behind a faint, and rather “ghostly” image.

After further investigation though, Barrett reconsidered. He later learned that the image did not resemble any of the servants in the house and that all of the male servants had been away attending their master’s funeral anyway. He confessed to being perplexed and the photograph remains mysterious today.

OK, so Sybell Corbet set an unusually long exposure time and another photographer confirmed that this could have been easily "faked" -- yet for some reason, it seems bizarre to people that she could have ushered somebody in to sit down quickly and then take off, in order to fake a "ghost photo."

These exist as ghost photos because people simply want to believe these are ghost photos. Personally, I want to believe that I'm Adam Ant, circa 1980 and dating David Sylvian (same year) and that I live in Melbourne, VIC, Australia and have gobs of unlimited income to spend on all the useless crap I like, but no matter how much I want to believe in it, that doesn't make it true.

[phee]

[FarrIL]

Fakes or not, those photos are still pretty creepy.

If I had a decent photo to show, I'd post it but unfortauntely, I lack one. The photo in mind was taken by my sister when we went to Port Austin for a week, a few years back. The photo features the sides of two large rocks (( basically the entire shoreline of Port Austin is nothing but cliff-rocks and such )). There appears to be an apparition in front of the rock on the left of the picture. Not only does this apparition look like half of a face looking AT the camera, this apparition looks like a profile of someone or something walking in FRONT of the camera when my sister took the picture.

If you look closely, there is what looks like a cloak around this face, and so it seriously looks like Death walked in front of the lense when the picture was snapped. It is NOT on the rock, it's in front of the rock because you can faintly see the rock's outline behind this thing, whatever it is.

[Rozzlyn]

Fakes or not, those photos are still pretty creepy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, OK, if they're easily explained rather than "real paranormal evidence", then what's so creepy? Things are usually "creepy" because there's something about them we fear. We usually, as rational human beings, fear either known dangers or unexplained occurences. These are explainable -- there is nothing to fear, therefore, they are not "creepy."

If I had a decent photo to show, I'd post it but unfortauntely, I lack one.  The photo in mind was taken by my sister when we went to Port Austin for a week, a few years back.  The photo features the sides of two large rocks (( basically the entire shoreline of Port Austin is nothing but cliff-rocks and such )).  There appears to be an apparition in front of the rock on the left of the picture.  Not only does this apparition look like half of a face looking AT the camera, this apparition looks like a profile of someone or something walking in FRONT of the camera when my sister took the picture.

If you look closely, there is what looks like a cloak around this face, and so it seriously looks like Death walked in front of the lense when the picture was snapped.  It is NOT on the rock, it's in front of the rock because you can faintly see the rock's outline behind this thing, whatever it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A reflection on the lens is usually how these things happen if, in fact, they are not double-exposures.

OK, there was this photo of me taken when I was seven, I believe (I really wish I had it) and "I" ended up on both sides of the shutter frame at the same time, in the same outfit -- and I appeared to be "floating." Later, I tried to figure this photo out, and it could have been anything from a shutter problem to something simple like my mom didn't wind it back all the way (not a full double-exposure) to the camera lens reflecting this antique mirror of my grandmother's (which was in our front room for YEARS), an effect that's achieved from awkward lighting. This photo was not proof of my "soul" leaving my body -- it's proof of accidental exposure anomalies that produce a "ghost-like" effect.

You mention your photo was taken at the shoreline. Do you know why the ocean looks blue? The ocean looks blue, from a distance, because it's reflecting the sky. If there was some dork in a cape *behind* the person taking the photo (and, since you're posting on a Goth forum, no offense, but dorks in capes have been commonly associated with Goths for YEARS), the ocean could have reflected it and the lens reflected the ocean back into the camera -- and because of the arrangement of glass lenses and mirrors inside real cameras, this could produce a rightside-up human figure.

It happens all the time and you don't see normally rational people shrieking "OMGZORZ!!! DEATH IS AFTER ME!!!" (Cos, if Neil Gaiman is correct, Death doesn't look nearly as menacing as many people assume.) No, you see most rational people looking for every other tangible reason imaginable for why these photos happen.