The Brown Lady of Raynham Hall Photo

[Bogeyman]

Dont you just bloody hate scientists and investigators that wont rest until they prove things are not paranormal ?

Only joking ...of course things must be investigated thoroughly but this photo has been the ultimate proof for loads of people since it became famous........I hate to be the one to tell you but it seems it was down to a malfunctioning camera all along......read on

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/215_r...am_hall_1.shtml

[incarnatehellraiser]

hahaha i cant believe it, so many years and it all boils down to this....a faulty camera...o i love it

[Barek Halfhand]

Dont you just bloody hate scientists and investigators that wont rest until they prove things are not paranormal ?

Only joking ...of course things must be investigated thoroughly but this photo has been the ultimate proof for loads of people since it became famous........I hate to be the one to tell you but it seems it was down to a malfunctioning camera all along......read on

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/215_r...am_hall_1.shtml

The "wont rest"statement says it all!.... fake or not I LOVE that pic it is a classic!.....................B Edited January 12, 2007 by Barek Halfhand

[Bogeyman]

The "wont rest"statement says it all!.... fake or not I LOVE that pic it is a classic!.....................B

I dont think it's a deliberate fake just a malfunction of the camera.....ALTHOUGH ......it must also be noted that the photo was taken because one of the journalists saw something coming down the stairs and got the other one to hurridly take a picture of it....so who knows

[Princess Serenity]

I can't see the picture.

To me, I believe it's real. Nothing else, but that's my opinion.

[Barek Halfhand]

I can't see the picture.

To me, I believe it's real. Nothing else, but that's my opinion.

how can ya believe its real or not if ya can't see it Honey? ..................B

[Oderint]

how can ya believe its real or not if ya can't see it Honey? ..................B

blind faith?

I like the photo, real or not.

tho I've never realy believed it's a genuine ghost. a bit too good to be true

[starmelody]

I want this picture framed to hang it over my fireplace. It rocks.

[Duppy Conqueror]

It always did seem 'to good to be true' ..

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Real or not, I have to agree, it's one of fav's - have seen it in books since I was child, it's a smashing photo

[boorite]

Unbelievable that not one author since 1936 has remarked on the obvious camera shake/double exposure. I've seen the pic before and didn't bother looking too closely at it. I just don't put a lot of stock in ghost photos. Still, I should've noticed. Everyone should have!

[Episteme]

I might just have to jump to the other side of the fence on this one.

On the left hand side as the viewer sees the picture, (i.e. on the Brown Lady's right hand side) hangs a framed picture on the wall. Immediately beneath, seemingly hovering in the air, is a duplicate image of this picture.

I don't see this at all. We've had discussions before about the inconsistincies in the staircase and members have even clearly marked the photo with what they believe to be the solutions to our questions mostly starting here (actually with Anvil's quote above my post) and continuing to the next page of the thread. It's always bothered me that I've never seen photos of the staircase without the ghost, but without a better explanation or evidence to the contrary, the solutions brought to light in the linked thread seemed very logical. In short, (the theory goes) there is a platform in the center of the staircase that when viewed at this angle is difficult to see that likely extends out a couple of feet. Now if you closely view the area that the Forteantimes article claims is a double exposure of the painting on the wall, their theory just becomes outlandish. All one has to do is study the horizontal angle of any point in the painting to see that the double exposure theory isn't plausible. For this to be a double exposure and the angles to be so drastically different, the camera would have to have been dropped about 5 feet. Not only that, but the area that they claim is the painting's double exposure doesn't look similar at all to the painting. Another questionable part of the theory to me is that if indeed there was a double exposure, shouldn't the entire photo be doubled, instead of just a few specific areas?

In my opinion, they did a good job finding the light arc, but should have taken the money and ran. That alone was enough to debunk the photo to hardcore skeptics. There is the chance that the figure was simply a light anomoly from the arc or light leaking to the negative from a faulty camera, I'm not a professional photographer or a scientist and I certainly have no clue as to the problems one might encounter with cameras of the day. When they got into claiming double exposure and the "second painting" they lost me completely. The double exposure doesn't even support how the figure would come into the photo in the first place and IMO they just got carried away.

[Blueguardian]

I might just have to jump to the other side of the fence on this one.

I don't see this at all. We've had discussions before about the inconsistincies in the staircase and members have even clearly marked the photo with what they believe to be the solutions to our questions mostly starting here (actually with Anvil's quote above my post) and continuing to the next page of the thread. It's always bothered me that I've never seen photos of the staircase without the ghost, but without a better explanation or evidence to the contrary, the solutions brought to light in the linked thread seemed very logical. In short, (the theory goes) there is a platform in the center of the staircase that when viewed at this angle is difficult to see that likely extends out a couple of feet. Now if you closely view the area that the Forteantimes article claims is a double exposure of the painting on the wall, their theory just becomes outlandish. All one has to do is study the horizontal angle of any point in the painting to see that the double exposure theory isn't plausible. For this to be a double exposure and the angles to be so drastically different, the camera would have to have been dropped about 5 feet. Not only that, but the area that they claim is the painting's double exposure doesn't look similar at all to the painting. Another questionable part of the theory to me is that if indeed there was a double exposure, shouldn't the entire photo be doubled, instead of just a few specific areas?

In my opinion, they did a good job finding the light arc, but should have taken the money and ran. That alone was enough to debunk the photo to hardcore skeptics. There is the chance that the figure was simply a light anomoly from the arc or light leaking to the negative from a faulty camera, I'm not a professional photographer or a scientist and I certainly have no clue as to the problems one might encounter with cameras of the day. When they got into claiming double exposure and the "second painting" they lost me completely. The double exposure doesn't even support how the figure would come into the photo in the first place and IMO they just got carried away.

i aggree with you, the theory they came up with doesnt make sense

[isis-999]

This is still a classic......

[Princess Serenity]

how can ya believe its real or not if ya can't see it Honey? ..................B

Well I saw a ghost once with my own eyes. When I was little. So I believe The Brown Lady was/is real.