Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ghost Photographed In London Dominion Theatre


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#31    C235

C235

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 216 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2012

Posted 28 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

If this was real then why aren't they dead?? lol


#32    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:49 PM

View Postscowl, on 26 October 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

It's awfully convenient that the couple is posed so all edges of a poster behind them would be blocked.  The ghost also doesn't have the traditional transparency we've seen in other ghost pictures.

When you consider that most ghosts are NOT transparent and look like ordinary people, and that you only discover the person you have seen walking along a dark corridor or who has just been having a conversation with you suddenly vanished or disappeared into a wall, then it won't come as any shock to discover that the ghost in the photo isn't transparent.

I may also be willing to believe that it is nothing more than a poster if it was actually the case that the "poster" was parallel with the wall behind it, which isn't the case.

It's also interesting that the ghost in the photo is that of a child, because the theatre - the Dominion Theatre on Tottenham Court Road -  is actually haunted by a ghostly child.  Many times workers and theatre-goers have heard the sounds of an unseen child giggling.
Posted Image

Who could the ghostly child be?  

Well, in 1814 Tottenham Court Road was where the London Beer Flood took place.  On 17th October a huge vat at the Meux and Company Brewery containing over 135,000 imperial gallons of beer ruptured, causing other vats in the same building to succumb in a domino effect. As a result, more than 323,000 imperial gallons of beer burst out and gushed into the streets. The wave of beer destroyed two homes and crumbled the wall of the Tavistock Arms Pub, trapping teenage employee Eleanor Cooper under the rubble.  The brewery was among the poor houses and tenements of the St Giles Rookery, where whole families lived in basement rooms that quickly filled with beer. Eight people drowned in the flood or died from injuries.  Those who were not immediately injured by the disaster began to drink the beer off the streets, scooping it up in their hands or in pots.

Eleanor Cooper was one of the eight fatalities.  She was about 15 years old when she was killed, so it could very well be her ghost - and I like to believe it is -  which has been heard giggling in the theatre -  and which decided to make an appearance in that photograph 200 years after her death.  The Meux and Company Brewery was demolished in 1922 and the Dominion Theatre was built on that very spot in 1929.  The threatre is also haunted by a former brewery employee and even Freddie Mercury's ghost supposedly haunts it, probably because the theatre is the home to the Queen musical "We Will Rock You".

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 28 October 2012 - 07:30 PM.


#33    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:54 PM

View PostColoradoParanormal, on 28 October 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:


This statement always makes me laugh. When pictures are provided, they're never accepted as "evidence" or proof. This brings us to an ongoing conundrum. What, if anything, would be an accepted medium for "proof?"  You see, the problem lays with the internet itself. We've been flooded with millions of faked, forged, insanely real but still hoaxed media: ie; pictures, video clips, testimony, audio files etc. Due to this, an absolutely genuine article could be presented to the world and it would automatically be discounted as fake.

This is why websites such as this are rather funny to me in that aspect. People get on here to present "evidence" and try to prove, disprove etc but, it's always the same. No breakthroughs will be accomplished here. No proof of Extraterrestrial Life, Ghosts, Demons, or Cryptids will be established here. To believe so is just uneducated non-sense lol. And the reason being what I previously mentioned in this response.

However, if you're coming to websites and communities such as this to learn, discuss theories, pastevents, current events and share News about these subjects and just make online friends of a like mindset, then more power to ya! That's exactly why I come. However, I believe it's time for people to start waking up, pull their heads out of the clouds, and face reality. If you're wanting be the person to make these discoveries and find actual "evidence," then get off the computer and start your research in the real world.


I agree with you.  We can all come on here and give our opinions as to whether or not ghosts exist, but most of us aren't exists and cannot know for sure.  The best way to prove that ghosts don't exist - or vice versa -  is to go out and do your own research.  Do investigations in haunted houses or become a parapsychologist.


#34    Bling

Bling

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:35 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the mans shoulder looks suspect where it meets with the ghost? I believe in ghosts but I'm not sure about this one, its too much of a coincidence that its peeking exactly between them.


#35    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:02 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 28 October 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

When you consider that most ghosts are NOT transparent and look like ordinary people, and that you only discover the person you have seen walking along a dark corridor or who has just been having a conversation with you suddenly vanished or disappeared into a wall, then it won't come as any shock to discover that the ghost in the photo isn't transparent.

The vast majority of reports of ghosts are of transparent figures roughly shaped like humans. The reports of "conversing" ghosts like you describe are extremely rare.


#36    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:40 AM

What I'm thinking looking at this photo is why it couldn't just be another patron standing in line behind them?  Cell phone cameras are notoriously crappy and screw up colors all the time.  If the camera exposed for the warmer tones of the skin of the people in the foreground and the person behind them (who in my opinion looks like "she's" staring down at a cellphone in her hands out of view) is bathed in the cool LED light of say a phone, then the colors could be off like we are seeing, creating the pallid hues that someone would associate with a dead person.

It doesn't look like a photoshop, or a ghost to me.  It just looks like another person standing in line.  What amazes me is how little it takes to make the news these days.  BLah.


#37    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:53 PM

View PostBling, on 28 October 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Am I the only one who thinks the mans shoulder looks suspect where it meets with the ghost? I believe in ghosts but I'm not sure about this one, its too much of a coincidence that its peeking exactly between them.

Isn't that what the ghost should be doing? Wouldn't it want to be in the photo?


#38    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:30 PM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 30 October 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

What I'm thinking looking at this photo is why it couldn't just be another patron standing in line behind them?  Cell phone cameras are notoriously crappy and screw up colors all the time.  If the camera exposed for the warmer tones of the skin of the people in the foreground and the person behind them (who in my opinion looks like "she's" staring down at a cellphone in her hands out of view) is bathed in the cool LED light of say a phone, then the colors could be off like we are seeing, creating the pallid hues that someone would associate with a dead person.

Dang it, you're making me look at this stupid photo again!

The color of the "ghost" is closer to dark purple than light blue so my eyes want to say it's not a case of clashing color temperatures. There's no trace of the incandescent light on her anywhere yet the background behind her is also brightly lit with incandescent light -- somehow she would have to be in a dark shadow between the couple and the wall and lit only by another light source. I don't see how that's possible without some effort.

I'd eliminate a phone as a light source because of how she's lit. The tip of her nose and cheeks are lit but her mouth and chin are in shadow and her nose is casting a shadow down to her mouth. That light isn't coming from below her face, but from above it. Also her clothes are evenly lit so that would have to be a large phone.

If you look at the image in black and white to eliminate the color temperature, you still see a girl with very large dark circles under her eyes and featureless clothes that look like a nightgown. It sure looks like a ghost to me but much more like a girl standing behind them. Maybe it was an accidental picture of someone behind them which looked spooky enough to make someone decide to ghost her up in Photoshop.

You do have the simplest possible explanation. It certainly could have been someone behind the couple with spooky makeup on.

It reminds me of the fabulous Wem Town Hall Ghost hoax. Young girls just make for great ghosts.


#39    Bling

Bling

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

View Postscowl, on 30 October 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Isn't that what the ghost should be doing? Wouldn't it want to be in the photo?

If it's an attention seeker perhaps  ;)


#40    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:29 PM

View Postscowl, on 30 October 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Dang it, you're making me look at this stupid photo again!

The color of the "ghost" is closer to dark purple than light blue so my eyes want to say it's not a case of clashing color temperatures. There's no trace of the incandescent light on her anywhere yet the background behind her is also brightly lit with incandescent light -- somehow she would have to be in a dark shadow between the couple and the wall and lit only by another light source. I don't see how that's possible without some effort.

I'd eliminate a phone as a light source because of how she's lit. The tip of her nose and cheeks are lit but her mouth and chin are in shadow and her nose is casting a shadow down to her mouth. That light isn't coming from below her face, but from above it. Also her clothes are evenly lit so that would have to be a large phone.

If you look at the image in black and white to eliminate the color temperature, you still see a girl with very large dark circles under her eyes and featureless clothes that look like a nightgown. It sure looks like a ghost to me but much more like a girl standing behind them. Maybe it was an accidental picture of someone behind them which looked spooky enough to make someone decide to ghost her up in Photoshop.

You do have the simplest possible explanation. It certainly could have been someone behind the couple with spooky makeup on.

It reminds me of the fabulous Wem Town Hall Ghost hoax. Young girls just make for great ghosts.

You make some really valid points on the lighting that I overlooked.  The shadows are wrong for her to be lit from below.  I'm going to go with the explanation that it was just another person behind them in line but that this person was doctored on a color level to make her seem spookier.  Go team!

Another ghost photo bites the dust.  :tu:


#41    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

Even though I don't think it's the most likely explanation, I like it. Say you take a picture of your friends and some girl makes a creepy face behind them as a joke. Everyone laughs but you think, "Hey, a few minutes in Photoshop and I could make her look even creepier." That would be funny, right? So you select her face and slid the tint over so she's purple, kind of like Reagan in the Exorcist. Whoa, that looks way better than you had imagined. And it was so easy.

So an hour later you're airbrushing in creepy shadows and enormous dark circles under her eyes and blurring her clothes to look like a nightgown (again using Reagan from the Exorcist as a model) and the result is beyond what you had imagined. That silly joke now looks like a gen-u-ine ghost photo equal to many other classic ghost photos. But what to do with it? Why not pull the whole world into the joke?

I think sometimes people don't intend to create a hoax but when they play around with a photo and discover how easy it is, they just can't help themselves.


#42    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:24 AM

View Postscowl, on 31 October 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Even though I don't think it's the most likely explanation, I like it. Say you take a picture of your friends and some girl makes a creepy face behind them as a joke. Everyone laughs but you think, "Hey, a few minutes in Photoshop and I could make her look even creepier." That would be funny, right? So you select her face and slid the tint over so she's purple, kind of like Reagan in the Exorcist. Whoa, that looks way better than you had imagined. And it was so easy.

So an hour later you're airbrushing in creepy shadows and enormous dark circles under her eyes and blurring her clothes to look like a nightgown (again using Reagan from the Exorcist as a model) and the result is beyond what you had imagined. That silly joke now looks like a gen-u-ine ghost photo equal to many other classic ghost photos. But what to do with it? Why not pull the whole world into the joke?

I think sometimes people don't intend to create a hoax but when they play around with a photo and discover how easy it is, they just can't help themselves.


That is what I'd be doing.  Maybe I'm doing it right now.  You'll never know......mwahahahahahahah


#43    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:50 PM

View Postscowl, on 29 October 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

The vast majority of reports of ghosts are of transparent figures roughly shaped like humans. The reports of "conversing" ghosts like you describe are extremely rare.

No.  Most ghosts are completely solid, exactly like living people.


http://theassap.blog...rent-ghost.html

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 01 November 2012 - 02:52 PM.


#44    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:05 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 01 November 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

No.  Most ghosts are completely solid, exactly like living people.


http://theassap.blog...rent-ghost.html

Most reports of ghosts are transparent blobs in the rough shape of a human or are invisible.


#45    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

Ok then, if most ghost are supposedly solid, then why do most purported ghost photos depict transparent beings?   You can't have it both ways - you can't claim that ghosts are solid like real folks and then also claim that all the ghost photos are real too - when they tend to show transparent figures.  Either one is mostly BS or the other is.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users