Ghost picture mystery resolved

[Still Waters]

A 15-year-old mystery surrounding a photograph which supposedly showed the ghost of a schoolgirl standing in an inferno has been resolved, after a researcher found the image is copied from a postcard.

Amateur photographer Tony O'Rahilly took the snap while photographing a blaze which destroyed Wem Town Hall in Shropshire on November 19, 1995.

After developing his film, Mr O'Rahilly claimed he had captured an image of a young girl wearing old fashioned clothes standing amid the flames staring into the camera lens.

Mr O'Rahilly, who died in 2005, always denied doctoring the photograph - nicknamed the 'Wem Ghost' - and the image made headlines around the world.

Read more...

[NotReallySure]

Wow, what a disappointment. I wish people wouldn't lie about things of the supernatural nature. Ghost, ufo, bigfoot and other supernatural evidence is so hard to come by. At least this photoghraph was weeded out, although it was always one of my favorites...

[TheBloom]

I always knew this was a fake. People have been saying it's a fake for years, experts event proved that the image had been superimposed and people STILL dismissed it.

Hopefully, now people will think logically.

[Inn Spectre]

I have stated elsewhere that if the face is examined in isolation, it appears to be that of a man with seventies-style long hair and possibly bearded.

The 'dress' is indistinct and could be anything.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Inn Spectre

[Seand]

Sorry guys , the mystery is not solved.

This link shows the postcard in question: http://charapay.blogspot.com/2010/05/mystery-of-wem-ghost-solved-by-88-year.html

Can any of you honestly call that conclusive? Personally I believe the original explanation of this photo is most likely, it's probably just an illusion. I genuinely don't think it's doctored though, and the girl in the postcard really bears very little resemblance to the girl in the photo.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Seand

[Rob Awesome]

Other than the fire girl appearing brighter, even the tone of light on their faces is identical, same girl no doubt about it.

Either way, it looks to me that, with that huge forehead and brow, that she must've grown into a very handsome woman or a Geico Caveman.

[kirstylou]

this unfortunately i guess is the problem we have these days..... too many people trying to pose photographs that have been digitally altered to show some striking paranormal activity... it is a shame..... because the true ones i find FASCINATING!!!

[joshsluss]

Sorry guys , the mystery is not solved.

This link shows the postcard in question: http://charapay.blogspot.com/2010/05/mystery-of-wem-ghost-solved-by-88-year.html

Can any of you honestly call that conclusive? Personally I believe the original explanation of this photo is most likely, it's probably just an illusion. I genuinely don't think it's doctored though, and the girl in the postcard really bears very little resemblance to the girl in the photo.

Funny thing is, after looking at your link, I find that it IS a hoax. You can see in the first picture (the fake)a dark area right above her belt to our left of her. Now, when you look at the blown up version of the street photo, you can see that exact same dark mark which in this case happens to be a shadow cast by the wrinkling of her clothing.

This is what sealed it for me. Not to mention the right side of her cheek (her left) is the same tone in both pics.

Edited May 19, 2010 by joshsluss

[Mac E]

I have stated elsewhere that if the face is examined in isolation, it appears to be that of a man with seventies-style long hair and possibly bearded.

The 'dress' is indistinct and could be anything.

So it was Jesus in the picture dressed as a woman?

There are going to be skeptics for this one. The two images are not 1 for 1. There are strong similarities, but the details are too blurred in the postacrd to come to a diffinitive conclusion. However it does look like it's a hoax.

[Alchera]

Maybe both are ghosts.

[*Frank*]

I've higlighted a couple of areas in the 'ghost' photo that perfectly match those in the street photo.

joshsluss pointed out that the dark belt area is the same. There's also a dark area by her collar that is exactly the same although it is kind of obscured in the 'ghost' photo. I've also drawn a line that follows the shape of the girl's hat/bonnet. The only part that looks like it's had some extra work done to it is the face.

[joshsluss]

I've higlighted a couple of areas in the 'ghost' photo that perfectly match those in the street photo.

joshsluss pointed out that the dark belt area is the same. There's also a dark area by her collar that is exactly the same although it is kind of obscured in the 'ghost' photo. I've also drawn a line that follows the shape of the girl's hat/bonnet. The only part that looks like it's had some extra work done to it is the face.

Good post. Not only that, I don't know if my eyesight is great or what but I can faintly make out the outline of where her bonnet and hair are suppose to be. If I had the tools, I would outline that as well.

Edit: I was also not just talking about the belt itself, but the dark area which appears above the belt, to our left. It hugs her waist in the street photo but her arms are cut out of the fake photo.

Edited May 19, 2010 by joshsluss

[GoldenSilence]

How dissapointing Hoaxers annoy me.

Good post though Frank.

[+DieChecker]

I think the outfit is the same, but I don't think the image on the postcard is the exact same image as the fire ghost. It could still be a fake. The dress is probably a catalog dress and so there was likely millions of identical outfits put out.

[Odds]

I just do not see it... I mean, i notice a similarity in the the belt and possible bonnet, but as Diechecker said, they were an extremely common type of dress for girls back then. There was not such a diverse range in fashion as we have today.

Plus, the faces to me don't even look close at all. There is hardly any detail in the postcard photo, features barely visible, yet in the fire photo they are clear and defined. Also the hair and shape of the face just don't fit as far as i'm concerned.

I'm quite confident to say this is not a duplicate of that photo. Sure there are a couple small similarities, but put any two young girls in that period dress together and tell me there aren't similarities.

Far from busted.

[digitalartist]

I just do not see it... I mean, i notice a similarity in the the belt and possible bonnet, but as Diechecker said, they were an extremely common type of dress for girls back then. There was not such a diverse range in fashion as we have today.

Plus, the faces to me don't even look close at all. There is hardly any detail in the postcard photo, features barely visible, yet in the fire photo they are clear and defined. Also the hair and shape of the face just don't fit as far as i'm concerned.

I'm quite confident to say this is not a duplicate of that photo. Sure there are a couple small similarities, but put any two young girls in that period dress together and tell me there aren't similarities.

Far from busted.

Looking at the two dark areas circled by Frank in the image comparison I have two questions:

1 - If they are shadows, what would be the probability that identical shadows would appear in two different pictures

2 - Why would there be shadows on a ghost in the first place. Since you can see through the supposed ghost, indicating that light can pass through it. How are shadows cast?

[Blackwhite]

I think that it is, unfortunately, a hoax.

The clothing that the "ghost" is wearing is EXACTLY identical to the clothing that the girl is wearing in the 1922 photo.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Blackwhite

[Moonie2012]

I call that conclusive proof of a hoax, it's far too good of a match to be anything but.

You have to realize that the scan the website has of the postcard in question may not be of the best possible quality, and that could account for the small differences in things like the face.

[King Of Agony]

Here's a better look at the postcard photo from "The Sun" .

btw "The Sun" is considered the National Enquirer of the UK but occasionally they have legit seeming articles

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2977831/Blaze-ghost-mystery-over.html#ixzz0oIlS4vyz

[Moonie2012]

/\ Thanks for that. Yep, the face is a dead-on match too.

[*Frank*]

Here's a better look at the postcard photo from "The Sun" .

btw "The Sun" is considered the National Enquirer of the UK but occasionally they have legit seeming articles

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2977831/Blaze-ghost-mystery-over.html#ixzz0oIlS4vyz

Good post. I think that about covers it.

[Moonie2012]

I used a photo program to cut out and resize the postcard girl and then superimposed her over the "ghost".

I then used the transparency slider to fade her in and out - it became blatantly obvious that they were exactly the same girl. Little details that I didn't notice on the ghost girl that exist on the postcard girl popped out and lined up perfectly. I wish I knew how I could make a video of me doing that in the program.

100% guaranteed fake, absolutely no doubt.

[Odds]

Yep, actually after seeing the better resolution pic posted by king of agony, i'm going to have to go back on everything i said in my last post... That is, as far as i'm now concerned, a perfect match. So yeah, good call to those who picked it from the low res, cause i didn't... Touche', lol

[sjlennon]

i can't see much, if any, resemblence between the two pictures. i cannot see what the child in the postcard looks like.

[King Of Agony]

i can't see much, if any, resemblence between the two pictures. i cannot see what the child in the postcard looks like.

are you serious?

refer to post #21

Edited May 19, 2010 by King Of Agony