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.


* * * * * 1 votes

I was healed by a ghost...and there's a photo


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,025 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

  • My youtube channel, Has horror stories and skits.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCreepyCorridor

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:17 PM

Quote

A WOMAN believes she was healed by a ghostly apparition known as the White Lady as she visited a church during a family summer holiday.

To read more and to see the photo: http://www.express.c...oto-to-prove-it


Please note, I am a skeptic, I only post this for conversational purposes.

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route and find out what really happened.


#2    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:28 PM

Quote

The following summer they went back to St Mary’s Church in Worstead and showed the slide to the vicar, who told them about a local legend that the White Lady was a healer who appeared when there was sickness.

The folklore also said that a man climbed into the church belfry on Christmas Eve in 1830, boasting he would kiss the White Lady if he saw her.

His friends later found him huddled in a corner whispering “I’ve seen her, I’ve seen her,” before dying.
She doesn't sound like much of a healer if this dude saw her and then died immediately afterward.

I can't help but be cynical of stories like this.  They took a photo and six months later when it was developed were shocked and amazed about someone in the photo they couldn't remember being there when it was taken?  Occam's razor would suggest that they simply didn't remember the circumstances when the photo was taken six months earlier instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion of ghost because they don't remember the woman in the photo.  Add to that the fact that the story is being reported and told decades after even that.

My own cynical take on this (and I tend more towards this the more I see provably hoaxed photos in newspaper stories) is that a good proportion of these stories are simply invented out of thin air.  Someone takes a photo and a face shaped blob appears in a shadow or reflection or a person in the background looks vaguely ghostly and the story develops around that. And it's always the same.  The photographer (and subject) didn't see the ghost and only noticed it when the film was developed or the photos were uploaded to their computer and the "ghost" was seen. Blah blah blah.

Edited by JesseCuster, 27 October 2013 - 03:29 PM.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#3    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,025 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

  • My youtube channel, Has horror stories and skits.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCreepyCorridor

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:57 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 27 October 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

She doesn't sound like much of a healer if this dude saw her and then died immediately afterward.

I can't help but be cynical of stories like this.  They took a photo and six months later when it was developed were shocked and amazed about someone in the photo they couldn't remember being there when it was taken?  Occam's razor would suggest that they simply didn't remember the circumstances when the photo was taken six months earlier instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion of ghost because they don't remember the woman in the photo.  Add to that the fact that the story is being reported and told decades after even that.

My own cynical take on this (and I tend more towards this the more I see provably hoaxed photos in newspaper stories) is that a good proportion of these stories are simply invented out of thin air.  Someone takes a photo and a face shaped blob appears in a shadow or reflection or a person in the background looks vaguely ghostly and the story develops around that. And it's always the same.  The photographer (and subject) didn't see the ghost and only noticed it when the film was developed or the photos were uploaded to their computer and the "ghost" was seen. Blah blah blah.

All true,

My most favourite threadon um, was a guy who had claimed to have taken a photo of a ghost (shadowman). Of course, He added a story to it in an attempt to make it valid. I do not like stories, they can be easily be made up or altered


I decided to use my photoshop, It didn't do any thing fantastic except brighten and sharpened the photo. The end result was a photo of his own shadow. He wasn't impressed and vanished.

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route and find out what really happened.


#4    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:44 PM

Another thing that says BS to me is the clichéd claim that the ghost is wearing "old fashioned clothes".  Every second ghost photo in a newspaper article posted here seems to say that same thing even though there's typically nowhere near enough detail to claim such a thing.  Take a look at the photo in the OP and try to describe with confidence how the woman in white is dressed and how the clothes are old-fashioned.  At first glance it just looks like a regular cardigan or similar to me.

You could write a computer program to generate these articles.  The ghost only appeared when the film was developed or the photo was uploaded to a computer.  The photographer felt warm/cold/scared/happy/etc. when the photo was taken.  The ghost is wearing old fashioned clothes.  Etc.

But you know... OMG! CREEPY!!!

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#5    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:20 PM

OK so they took a picture with a film camera no less then waited some 6 months to have the pictures processed.  After all that time following an unremarkable diversion on a hot day,  their recall was so good as to know there was no one else in the sanctuary with them?   Please.....


#6    SheWomanCatTypeThing

SheWomanCatTypeThing

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shrewsbury, UK

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:25 PM

Its halloween week, The papers are full of this sort of stuff all week. I take no notice and I'm not a sceptic as such.

Edited by SheWomanCatTypeThing, 27 October 2013 - 08:26 PM.


#7    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:58 PM

View Postsinewave, on 27 October 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

OK so they took a picture with a film camera no less then waited some 6 months to have the pictures processed.
That in itself isn't strange.

When I was a kid my parents had a camera that was only taken out a few times a year - Christmas, birthdays, weddings, vacations, etc. - and a handful of pics were taken at a time.  At the end of the year they might have shot 2 or 3 rolls of film which would be sent to be developed.  As a result, when the slides came back, we'd be seeing photos for the first time that were taken anything up to 12 months previously.  That was back in the 1970s (consistent with the story in the OP saying the photo was from 1975).  Come the 1980s and cameras were smaller and cheaper and it only took a week to get photos developed...

Getting out the projector and looking at the 'new' photos was a bit of a family occasion.  These days you snap a vacation pic and within seconds everyone you know has seen it via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Edited by JesseCuster, 27 October 2013 - 09:00 PM.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#8    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostSheWomanCatTypeThing, on 27 October 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Its halloween week, The papers are full of this sort of stuff all week. I take no notice and I'm not a sceptic as such.

Yeah, good point.  Tis the season.

Edited by sinewave, 27 October 2013 - 09:08 PM.


#9    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 27 October 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

That in itself isn't strange.

When I was a kid my parents had a camera that was only taken out a few times a year - Christmas, birthdays, weddings, vacations, etc. - and a handful of pics were taken at a time.  At the end of the year they might have shot 2 or 3 rolls of film which would be sent to be developed.  As a result, when the slides came back, we'd be seeing photos for the first time that were taken anything up to 12 months previously.  That was back in the 1970s (consistent with the story in the OP saying the photo was from 1975).  Come the 1980s and cameras were smaller and cheaper and it only took a week to get photos developed...

Getting out the projector and looking at the 'new' photos was a bit of a family occasion.  These days you snap a vacation pic and within seconds everyone you know has seen it via email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes it took a while to use up the roll.  I am just questioning their recall after 6 months.   I have a picture of me visiting Fallingwater that shows one of the groundskeepers working on the landscaping a few feet away from where I was standing.  I do not remember him being there when the picture was taken but clearly he was.

Edited by sinewave, 27 October 2013 - 09:07 PM.


#10    SheWomanCatTypeThing

SheWomanCatTypeThing

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shrewsbury, UK

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:30 PM

When I go somewhere and take pictures i tend not to see the other people around me, Even if they happen to end up in the shot, If I want to take a picture i won't wait for someone to move out of the way or necessarily notice them unless they would ruin the pic if that makes sense. Even with digital cameras it can take me a few weeks/months to get around to looking at my photos and looking at it from a fresh perspective i often notice details, people in shot etc that i can't remember seeing when i took the picture.

Edited by SheWomanCatTypeThing, 27 October 2013 - 09:30 PM.


#11    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:33 PM

View Postsinewave, on 27 October 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes it took a while to use up the roll.  I am just questioning their recall after 6 months.  
Which is a good point.  Our memories are notoriously unreliable.  I had a bizarre argument with a friend some time ago.  I was telling a story about myself and some friends skipped a Friday off school and went on a camping trip instead.  He was laughing and nodding and agreeing because he remembered it well.  Until I pointed out that he wasn't there.  I even had photos of the whole group (apart from me who had the camera) and he wasn't there.  Someone else who was there confirmed to him that he wasn't present. I think he'd heard about it from myself and others and he unknowingly put himself into the story even though he wasn't there and as a result he "remembered" being there.

In the case of the OP article, it's not just the 6 month gap between the photo been taken and them seeing the 'ghost' for the first time, it's now being recalled almost 40 years later.  Who knows how reliable the story is now.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

#12    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 27 October 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Which is a good point.  Our memories are notoriously unreliable.  I had a bizarre argument with a friend some time ago.  I was telling a story about myself and some friends skipped a Friday off school and went on a camping trip instead.  He was laughing and nodding and agreeing because he remembered it well.  Until I pointed out that he wasn't there.  I even had photos of the whole group (apart from me who had the camera) and he wasn't there.  Someone else who was there confirmed to him that he wasn't present. I think he'd heard about it from myself and others and he unknowingly put himself into the story even though he wasn't there and as a result he "remembered" being there.

In the case of the OP article, it's not just the 6 month gap between the photo been taken and them seeing the 'ghost' for the first time, it's now being recalled almost 40 years later.  Who knows how reliable the story is now.

Yep, everybody does stuff like that one time or another.  The human brain is a wonderful but flawed machine.  That is why perception and memory are not scientific evidence.

Edited by sinewave, 27 October 2013 - 09:38 PM.


#13    Brian Topp

Brian Topp

    Dynamic Interactions Coordinator Of Paradoxes.

  • Member
  • 3,025 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Year next Tuesday!

  • My youtube channel, Has horror stories and skits.
    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCreepyCorridor

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:25 PM

View PostJesseCuster, on 27 October 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Another thing that says BS to me is the clichéd claim that the ghost is wearing "old fashioned clothes".  Every second ghost photo in a newspaper article posted here seems to say that same thing even though there's typically nowhere near enough detail to claim such a thing.  Take a look at the photo in the OP and try to describe with confidence how the woman in white is dressed and how the clothes are old-fashioned.  At first glance it just looks like a regular cardigan or similar to me.

You could write a computer program to generate these articles.  The ghost only appeared when the film was developed or the photo was uploaded to a computer.  The photographer felt warm/cold/scared/happy/etc. when the photo was taken.  The ghost is wearing old fashioned clothes.  Etc.

But you know... OMG! CREEPY!!!

Typical stories are.
1. "I was a sleep and i woke up and i saw" = You most likely they had just dreamt it or they were half a sleep when they think they saw it.
2. "I didn't sleep for two days and I saw" = sleep deprived. halucinate.
3. "My friend told me this video/photo and it is an eye opener" = They didn't see it, they only believed their friend who is just pulling their leg or they just making it up.
4. "I have this superpower!" = Yet refuse to prove it because they can't do what they claim.
5. "Any one give me your opinion on" = 9 out of 10 threads ends up with the original person telling a story and just want positive reinforcement and not asking for opinions.
6. "My dead relative/friend called me" = Amazing story yet they never tell us what the phone number was under. Most likely it is a automated telemarketer who auto dials
7. "I hear ghosts talking to me on the phone" = Most likely a crossed/poor signals or just a defective/cheap phone or terrible phone service.
8. "i caught it on my phone"  =ends up a ghost app where a picture is inserted.
9. "I caught it on camera" = Most normally it's dust reflecting  from the flash being close to the camera lens or flash turned off.

its endless
8

It is easier to claim it is paranormal than taking the hard route and find out what really happened.


#14    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:13 PM

View PostBrian Topp, on 27 October 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

Typical stories are.
1. "I was a sleep and i woke up and i saw" = You most likely they had just dreamt it or they were half a sleep when they think they saw it.
2. "I didn't sleep for two days and I saw" = sleep deprived. halucinate.
3. "My friend told me this video/photo and it is an eye opener" = They didn't see it, they only believed their friend who is just pulling their leg or they just making it up.
4. "I have this superpower!" = Yet refuse to prove it because they can't do what they claim.
5. "Any one give me your opinion on" = 9 out of 10 threads ends up with the original person telling a story and just want positive reinforcement and not asking for opinions.
6. "My dead relative/friend called me" = Amazing story yet they never tell us what the phone number was under. Most likely it is a automated telemarketer who auto dials
7. "I hear ghosts talking to me on the phone" = Most likely a crossed/poor signals or just a defective/cheap phone or terrible phone service.
8. "i caught it on my phone"  =ends up a ghost app where a picture is inserted.
9. "I caught it on camera" = Most normally it's dust reflecting  from the flash being close to the camera lens or flash turned off.

its endless
8


There are any number of reasons why people would say they experienced something paranormal.  Some are normal perceptual miscues or stress-induced hallucinations.  Others are due to mental illness or disease.  Others to the  usage / withdrawal effects of medications. Anti-depressants and other brain chemistry changing drugs (legal and otherwise) for example are known to cause some perceptual flakiness.  Some people are prone to suggestion or are otherwise primed to have an experience due to religious or spiritual beliefs.  Of course there is always the fact that some people just make s#1t up. Before any alternative explanations can be considered, all of these mundane possibilities must be eliminated.  It is difficult if not impossible to reasonably apply these to anecdotes.

Edited by sinewave, 27 October 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#15    SheWomanCatTypeThing

SheWomanCatTypeThing

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shrewsbury, UK

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:47 PM

By the same token, Discount those things, Some people do see things they / you can't explain. I'm someone who believes in ghosts and have experienced things i can't explain, Even though i'm pretty level headed and have tried to explain them away, I wouldn't expect you to believe me just as i haven't believed others, Unless i've seen something myself i won't believe them, I just know what i've experienced without the help of drugs, Mental breakdowns etc. We are all different and I dont believe this pic is genuine for one minute. Thats not to say ghosts don't exist at all and anyone who claims to have seen one is mentally ill etc. I think its just one of those those things that will never be proven either way. And if it is ever proven ghosts do/don't exist, What do we move on to then? But yeah, Thats not a ghost.

Edited by SheWomanCatTypeThing, 27 October 2013 - 11:59 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users