_Spawn_ Posted December 23, 2006 #1 Share Posted December 23, 2006 (edited) found this on the net, no story came with it though looks genuine to me... (If you can't find the ghost, it's right above the boy ) Edited December 23, 2006 by anonymous007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virusdeath0 Posted December 23, 2006 #2 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I can only just see a face in it. It is 100% real. And 100% proof. Love the find. Lets see the skeptics say they faked this on photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub_x0ne Posted December 23, 2006 #3 Share Posted December 23, 2006 (edited) I can only just see a face in it. It is 100% real. And 100% proof. Love the find. Lets see the skeptics say they faked this on photoshop. Can easily be faked in photoshop. =P Color corrected photo: Edited December 23, 2006 by sub_x0ne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_TIP Posted December 23, 2006 #4 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Could be faked, it's out of proportion with the child in the picture! If it was genuine then the spirit would only be around 4 feet tall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virusdeath0 Posted December 23, 2006 #5 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I doubt they had photoshop back then. And how do u know the ghost would be that tall. Its a ghost. Not much is known about them. And if there was we wouldn't have skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_TIP Posted December 23, 2006 #6 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Ghosts & spirit people are playbacks of former living people. Whose to say the picture wasn't doctored more recently? There are plenty of pictures that were taken in the 20s & 30s that contained ghost images that have since been proven to be fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virusdeath0 Posted December 23, 2006 #7 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Well that sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Episteme Posted December 23, 2006 #8 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I believe the anomolies scattered around the photo are damage due to time. I believe the "ghost" behind the child is actually a statue, probably the Virgin Mary. Then, as now, it's common to take photos in parks in front of statues. Here is an enhanced version of the photo which shows the figure somewhat better: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m. Moe Posted December 23, 2006 #9 Share Posted December 23, 2006 (edited) I can only just see a face in it. It is 100% real. And 100% proof. Love the find. Lets see the skeptics say they faked this on photoshop. Although they didn't have photoshop, they had other ways. One way was if they didn't clean the plate on the camera, faint versions of previous pictures would appear. Once people found this out, they then started manipulating the photos on purpose. Although this may not be proof, this is still very clever. Edited December 23, 2006 by MR_MOE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Episteme Posted December 23, 2006 #10 Share Posted December 23, 2006 As a side note, I believe the anomoly in front of the statue that looks like a hand giving the thumbs up is damage as well. If you look to the right you can see pretty clearly her arm extending downwards similarly as it does on the opposite side. Also on the left side near the boy's arm you can see what looks like the letters "JC". This is damage one will commonly find on old photos, I don't understand the science behind it but know it usually comes from stacking photos on top of eachother and one of the photos has writing on the back. I know alot of the new photo albums and pens you can buy are acid free and perhaps this had something to do with acid eating away at the photo, but that's just speculation having only a scan and sketchy memories to go off of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virusdeath0 Posted December 23, 2006 #11 Share Posted December 23, 2006 It would be better to find out where it came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Episteme Posted December 23, 2006 #12 Share Posted December 23, 2006 For comparison: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagaz Posted December 23, 2006 #13 Share Posted December 23, 2006 It would be better to find out where it came from. I agree, and also where was the photo taken, because it could have been very well taken in front of a clothing store. I mean, perhaps they had manikins already in the late 1800s to the early 1900s. To me it almost looks like he's standing before a store and in the background you can see the outline of said manikin. Otherweise, I'd say she's a very pretty ghost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted December 23, 2006 #14 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I have to agree with Episteme. It looks like the boy is standing in front of a statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bLu3 de 3n3rgy Posted December 23, 2006 #15 Share Posted December 23, 2006 It's an odd photo, the boy is clearly standing outside infront of a garden path yet the background is very dark. I'll go with episteme's theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m. Moe Posted December 23, 2006 #16 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I agree, and also where was the photo taken, because it could have been very well taken in front of a clothing store. I mean, perhaps they had manikins already in the late 1800s to the early 1900s. To me it almost looks like he's standing before a store and in the background you can see the outline of said manikin. Otherweise, I'd say she's a very pretty ghost. They did have manikins back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavvyWitch Posted December 23, 2006 #17 Share Posted December 23, 2006 After seeing the enhanced photo... you can tell where the sun light is hitting the statue. After time the picture's dark colors faded together, leaving the lighter colors within it to stand out. (sorry but I don't know the technical explination for it. ) Our minds naturally look for faces in things. When I saw the first pic posted I thought to myself " if this is a face of a ghost he looks pretty wicked!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted December 23, 2006 #18 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Looks like a statue of the virgin Mary to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatal Posted December 23, 2006 #19 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I believe the anomolies scattered around the photo are damage due to time. I believe the "ghost" behind the child is actually a statue, probably the Virgin Mary. Then, as now, it's common to take photos in parks in front of statues. Here is an enhanced version of the photo which shows the figure somewhat better: That could be true. But if that was a statue that faded in the picture due to time, I find it weird that the "Statue" faded so much but the child hadn't faded a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Spawn_ Posted December 23, 2006 Author #20 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I you "google" a bit, you find a lot of such really old ghost photos, here's one from the civil war, also no story included with the picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsilvestro Posted December 23, 2006 #21 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I believe the anomolies scattered around the photo are damage due to time. I believe the "ghost" behind the child is actually a statue, probably the Virgin Mary. Then, as now, it's common to take photos in parks in front of statues. Here is an enhanced version of the photo which shows the figure somewhat better: I agree it looks just like the Virgin Mary statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabrielX Posted December 23, 2006 #22 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I believe the anomolies scattered around the photo are damage due to time. I believe the "ghost" behind the child is actually a statue, probably the Virgin Mary. Then, as now, it's common to take photos in parks in front of statues. Here is an enhanced version of the photo which shows the figure somewhat better: going with you on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted December 24, 2006 #23 Share Posted December 24, 2006 (edited) Anonymous007, back in the Civil War times, photography was in its infancy. People had to stay still for minutes for the image to be taken. It's likely that any 'ghost' photos from this time are merely people that moved into the area being photographed, stayed still for a few seconds, and then moved back out of the picture. The rest of the people in the photo remained still for the duration of the opening of the shutter. So they appear normal, while the one person who moved out of the photo becomes the 'ghost'. And Shadow09, the statue was in shadow when the picture was taken, while the boy was standing in sunlight. It simply was never as clear as the boy to begin with. And any fading due to time has occured over the whole photo, making the statue dimmer, as well as the boy. edited for spelling!!!!!! Edited December 24, 2006 by crouton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavvyWitch Posted December 24, 2006 #24 Share Posted December 24, 2006 (edited) That could be true. But if that was a statue that faded in the picture due to time, I find it weird that the "Statue" faded so much but the child hadn't faded a bit. I got a 4 yr old picture of me standing in front of a black mustang (only difference, the picture was taken at night.) But when the picture was first developed, you could still see the car and see the mustang symbol (perfectly since it was silver/chrome) After four years all that's left in this picture is me standing there with my hands outwards leaning back on the car (though you can't make it out anymore)...now when people people see this pic they ask me what I'm leaning on. You can't even make out the symbol anymore, and this is just after a 4 year period, I hate knowing the fact, that this picture wont last as long as I would have hoped it to last (glad I still have the proofs.) All in all, even though it was taken at night.. I think this is still a decent example that, the darkness in any picture can and will devour the pic. I think it would be worse in a black and white photo, also; most of the original black and white photos that are still clearly visible... have all been taken in direct sunlight where the only contrasts of black shown are very little (IE: hair, clothes, etc..) Oh and... I *think* I can see the fading of the pic, on the child where the shadows of his facial features are. *call me crazy on that one * And Shadow09, the statue was in shadow when the picture was taken, while the boy was standing in sunlight. It simply was never as clear as the boy to begin with. And any fading due to time has occured over the whole photo, making the statue dimmer, as well as the boy. Edited December 25, 2006 by SavvyWitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Episteme Posted December 24, 2006 #25 Share Posted December 24, 2006 Oh and... I *think* I can see the fading of the pic, on the child where the shadows of his facial features are. *call me crazy on that one * You're not. When I was examining the photo I saw several areas that appeared to be deteriorated. My first thought was photoshop, but the areas that had these, we'll call them "smudges", over them were areas that wouldn't be obvious places to edit. I can pull them up if you'd like, but they are somewhat visible on the photo I displayed. They appear almost in pixilated color, the most obvious area is on and above the child's left eye. If you look around the edge of the child you will also find several areas that appear to have many colors, these are the same types of spots I found above the eye that I assumed were due to deterioration. Another thing I noticed that may support the "Virgin Mary Statue" theory is the child appears to be in his Sunday best. The clothes he would be wearing to church, or perhaps a wedding or baptism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now