Full Version: Back Seat Driver
Another classic ghost photograph. Whaddaya all think?
It looks too perfectly posed. I mean, isn't it amazing how the ghost gets itself lined up at the exact place to be seen, in such an ordinary everyday kind of shot. They are so accommodating! ;D
Why don't any of my family photos have any 'apparent' relatives? ???
Why don't any of my family photos have any 'apparent' relatives? ???
I remember this one, the passenger is supposed to be the bloke's deceased mother-in-law (i think). Ive always thought that it has been a simple mistake made by the picture taker. As in, the piccie was taken before the woman died and developed at a later date. Look at the face on the bloke.........yep, definatelly the face of a man asked to take the inlaw home. :s2
So the posed person in the hat is supposed to be a ghost... umm.... I have school pictures that are more dishelved and phantom-esque then that. It just looks like a picture...
[blue]If I remember at all correctly about the history of this photograph, it was taken by the wife of the guy driving it around about the 1940's ish. He was alone in the car at the time. The person in the back is his mother-in-law but she had died a few months before. She is sitting where she used to sit, wearing the scarf she used to wear, and has on her glasses (and seems to be ignoring her son-in-law, lol).
Any more than that I don't know.
I saw this photo over 20 years ago and it spooked me then. Doesn't spook me as much now.
:s4
[/blue]
Any more than that I don't know.
I saw this photo over 20 years ago and it spooked me then. Doesn't spook me as much now.
:s4
[/blue]
Uhm, is the preson in the back a ghost? Why? It doesn't look strange so.. I also rather looks like a man than a woman..
Loonboy,
20 years ago? I wasn't alive yet... :s2
Odin S. :s9
Loonboy,
20 years ago? I wasn't alive yet... :s2
Odin S. :s9
I found another photo that has been enlarged and which shows a bit more detail.
What I find rather strange is that the 'ghost' is wearing glasses that are undoubtedly 'reflecting' light. Wouldn't that infer substance(solidity)?
Magikman :sd
What I find rather strange is that the 'ghost' is wearing glasses that are undoubtedly 'reflecting' light. Wouldn't that infer substance(solidity)?
Magikman :sd
[blue]It would. ;D[/blue]
1940's camera's arent exactly the most reliable are they! i heared tales of how these kind of cameras show two pictures mixed together which have been on the same film. maybe thats what has happened, a previous photo on the same film has been mixed with the one taken... who knows?
Thats a good point, given that the photo is predominantly black or at least a dark colour, if it is a double exposure, then it would go a long way to solving ths one, since the ghost is in the dark as well.
[blue]I think it is possible that a double-exposure might explain it, if it were not for:
the fact that the ghost is facing the right way as if she were sitting in the car
she is suitably darker in tone - if she was that tone and outside the car, it would be odd
her image fits exactly inside the window and does not overlap either the body of the car or guy driving
hmmm....[/blue] :s9
the fact that the ghost is facing the right way as if she were sitting in the car
she is suitably darker in tone - if she was that tone and outside the car, it would be odd
her image fits exactly inside the window and does not overlap either the body of the car or guy driving
hmmm....[/blue] :s9
Yep, i totaly agree with you LB
What about the light on her glasses, its coming from a different direction then the rest of the light.By the way this picture was insperation for an x files episode
I always found this picture spooky when I was younger. Now, I'm Ok with it. I'm not ruling out the possibility, but I also realise that there's quite logical explanations for this photo besides a ghost.
Digging around some old books of mine (I've had them since I was a young fella) I found some comments which were interesting, especially as there has been some discussion on the possibility of a double-exposure.
Source: The World of the Unknown - All About Ghosts (1977)
It's interesting looking back on this article because there is no mention of a double-exposure and also no indication of who were the 'experts' that supposedly checked the film...
Digging around some old books of mine (I've had them since I was a young fella) I found some comments which were interesting, especially as there has been some discussion on the possibility of a double-exposure.
| QUOTE |
| Experts say that the film has not been altered in any way. Yet if you look closely you will see that the corner of her scarf seems to overlap the side pillar of the car. This would only be possible if her face was placed in the picture after it was taken. Yet if the experts are correct and the photograph is genuine, there is no explanation for how it could have happened - unless the woman in the back was a ghost. |
Source: The World of the Unknown - All About Ghosts (1977)
It's interesting looking back on this article because there is no mention of a double-exposure and also no indication of who were the 'experts' that supposedly checked the film...
I think it looks like a medium sized Terrier with a bandana around it's neck. Might explain the eyes if there was a reflection just right. And most dogs I know like to hang over the seat for a better view.
One of those "see what is suggested" photos? Maybe...
One of those "see what is suggested" photos? Maybe...
I also had this one in a book when I was just a wee slip of a girl .
The thing that allways worried me about this picture was the total lack of anything visible through the back window . Shouldn't you be able to see something there If it where a double exposure.
I agree with Odin it looks like a man to me not a woman .
The thing that allways worried me about this picture was the total lack of anything visible through the back window . Shouldn't you be able to see something there If it where a double exposure.
I agree with Odin it looks like a man to me not a woman .
Sorry guy's but I have to go with MagikMan on this one. The reflection on the glasses just doesn't seem to fit.
I'm sorry but I tend to go with the ghost idea more than favour any other explanation.
The light reflected on the glasses does not prove that the picture is erroneous. Light can be reflected from many sources. If there was a lady sitting inside the back of the car, the light source there would not be coming from directly ahead and to the left as it is for the car, it would be coming from every window of the car. That said, the light could well be reflected from outside or to the right.
The explanation that her scarf overlaps the post of the car door does not hold water either. You simply can't tell.
I don't quite understand what your point is LB. Are you saying the reflection is from a source other than the glasses, yet the glare is positioned precisely where you would expect if the reflection was from a pair of spectacles?
My take is he was saying the ghostly specs reflected a light wholly other from the natural light seen shining 'pon the car..
My take on the pic is its too old to know whether its a fake or not.
Recently I've seen a pic of a guy standing in the Tombstone graveyard, and a "spook" is coming half out of the ground. Have you guys seen that one? It unnerved me.. 'course I couldn't tell whether it was a fake or not either, but as it's a new pic maybe you guys could.
My take on the pic is its too old to know whether its a fake or not.
Recently I've seen a pic of a guy standing in the Tombstone graveyard, and a "spook" is coming half out of the ground. Have you guys seen that one? It unnerved me.. 'course I couldn't tell whether it was a fake or not either, but as it's a new pic maybe you guys could.
Interesting. Could it be that eye glass wearing ghosts are responsible for 'orbs'? 
I'm curious, besides this photo, has anyone ever seen another photo of a supposed 'ghost' wearing glasses? My memory isn't what it used to be, but to tell you the truth, I can't think of any others, and I've seen quite a few ghostly photo's over the years.
Sidhe - You can see the photo you refer to HERE
Magikman
I'm curious, besides this photo, has anyone ever seen another photo of a supposed 'ghost' wearing glasses? My memory isn't what it used to be, but to tell you the truth, I can't think of any others, and I've seen quite a few ghostly photo's over the years.
Sidhe - You can see the photo you refer to HERE
Magikman
Thanks, Magikman! I'm gonna go tell what I know over there..
this pic has always confounded me. from a photographer's perspective, it is very clean and all the angles have been superbly laid out. the woman is in perfect perspective to the man and that is in itself an achievement if this is a fake. the burning is good. if faked, i would say that the photographer who did this either 1. had a pic that would work perfectly for it (it was blurry and out of focus) or 2. had the driver stage this picture.
here are some things that lead me to believe it is a fake:
the reflection on the glasses. it could be realistic, but i would need to experiment in similar daylight conditions to see how it pans out. fact is, i don't feel a need to go to this trouble over a pic on this forum
if you notice the lighting, it is very crisp and hard light. the man's face is almost non-existant on the dark side, yet the woman is in a softer, more diffused lighting? ive wondered if her sitting near a window would offer an explanation but if you look at it carefully you will see the angle of the light is working against that theory. any light that came in from her window would be refracted light. you are given an example of how effective the refracted light is at illuminating an object in the vehicle in several locations: the backseat, the area through the triangular shaped window nearest the driver, and the opposite interior wall of the vehicle. all of these are inconsistent with the lighting she gets from her window.
the most interesting thing i notice is that when you look through that triangular shaped window you will immediately notice how much more in focus the opposite side of the car is than when viewed through any other window. this means it was burnt- that means it was enhanced in the darkroom because it was too blurry so the photographer went to an effort to emphasize it by spending more time defining it. why would he do this? because if the light to illuminate the woman existed, it would also be visible here. the fact that it was burnt so clearly leads me to be suspicious.
the focus: why would the focus be on the woman in the back seat instead of the man driving the car? did the photographer claim to see this woman when he took the pic? what other reason would the focus be misplaced from the apparent main topic of the picture? also, note that the majority of the picture is out of focus, except the woman. obvious motion is implied due to the lack of focus, but why would the woman be so in focus? fishy.
the area over the woman's left shoulder should show some sign of light if refracted light was illuminating her from that side. all the other areas where light enters the vehicle are somewhat illuminated.
the woman seems burnt in. that large dark area is like a canvas to a photographer. it is really easy to burn something in when you have a large negative space to work with, in contrast to an area with more objects you would have to negotiate. for example, burning the woman in to the right side of the backseat would be much more difficult- im talking leaps and bounds in difficulty. its just too easy.
fake, imho. a very good one though. lots of thought and planning went into it, i could probably only 100% prove its fake through a lot of painstaking testing and experimentation.
here are some things that lead me to believe it is a fake:
the reflection on the glasses. it could be realistic, but i would need to experiment in similar daylight conditions to see how it pans out. fact is, i don't feel a need to go to this trouble over a pic on this forum
if you notice the lighting, it is very crisp and hard light. the man's face is almost non-existant on the dark side, yet the woman is in a softer, more diffused lighting? ive wondered if her sitting near a window would offer an explanation but if you look at it carefully you will see the angle of the light is working against that theory. any light that came in from her window would be refracted light. you are given an example of how effective the refracted light is at illuminating an object in the vehicle in several locations: the backseat, the area through the triangular shaped window nearest the driver, and the opposite interior wall of the vehicle. all of these are inconsistent with the lighting she gets from her window.
the most interesting thing i notice is that when you look through that triangular shaped window you will immediately notice how much more in focus the opposite side of the car is than when viewed through any other window. this means it was burnt- that means it was enhanced in the darkroom because it was too blurry so the photographer went to an effort to emphasize it by spending more time defining it. why would he do this? because if the light to illuminate the woman existed, it would also be visible here. the fact that it was burnt so clearly leads me to be suspicious.
the focus: why would the focus be on the woman in the back seat instead of the man driving the car? did the photographer claim to see this woman when he took the pic? what other reason would the focus be misplaced from the apparent main topic of the picture? also, note that the majority of the picture is out of focus, except the woman. obvious motion is implied due to the lack of focus, but why would the woman be so in focus? fishy.
the area over the woman's left shoulder should show some sign of light if refracted light was illuminating her from that side. all the other areas where light enters the vehicle are somewhat illuminated.
the woman seems burnt in. that large dark area is like a canvas to a photographer. it is really easy to burn something in when you have a large negative space to work with, in contrast to an area with more objects you would have to negotiate. for example, burning the woman in to the right side of the backseat would be much more difficult- im talking leaps and bounds in difficulty. its just too easy.
fake, imho. a very good one though. lots of thought and planning went into it, i could probably only 100% prove its fake through a lot of painstaking testing and experimentation.
I'm with L.B. on this one . It's a very spooky pic.
I'm no expert on ghost's maybe ghost glasses can reflect light Unless we caught a spectacled specter , we would never know for sure would we .
I'm no expert on ghost's maybe ghost glasses can reflect light
Unless we caught a spectacled specter , we would never know for sure would we .
Had I not been told to look for a ghost when I was presented with this picture, I would see a person in the front seat of a car whose face resembles the "face on Mars" and something in the background that looks like Ponda Paba from Star Wars (the walrus guy).
Having been told to look for a ghost however, I see a man and something else in the background. If that someting else is a lady, she is none too pretty. If that something else is a man, he is none too pretty neither. If it was an early mock-up of Ponda Paba, it looks as pretty as it is going to.
If it was a ghost pictured in this photo (which there is not a great deal of compelling evidence for) why is it haunting the car?
Having been told to look for a ghost however, I see a man and something else in the background. If that someting else is a lady, she is none too pretty. If that something else is a man, he is none too pretty neither. If it was an early mock-up of Ponda Paba, it looks as pretty as it is going to.
If it was a ghost pictured in this photo (which there is not a great deal of compelling evidence for) why is it haunting the car?
I agree with Space Moose on this one it just looks like an ordinary photo with an ugly man? woman? in the back seat. 
DSchwartz thanks for a compelling argument - I'm with you on this one!
This one is as 'genuine' as u can get...
Yes, seeing as you were there when it happened, it couldn't be anything but 'real', could it? 
The whole premise of the credibility of the photo lies on the words of the person who took the picture and made the claim, all thats needed I guess to lend incontrovertible and undeniable proof of its authenticity. 
The whole premise of the credibility of the photo lies on the words of the person who took the picture and made the claim, all thats needed I guess to lend incontrovertible and undeniable proof of its authenticity.
Ok there is somone in the back seat,what on Earth does that prove.There is nothing to support he was dead.Nothing to support the camera was functioning properly and that there was not an unexposed picture which this was taken on top of.If you want to believe let's see the evidence.All of us who grew up watching In Search of... remember this photo don't we.
I remember this one too - i think its most likely a double exposure than a mistake over the time he photo was taken as the reflection in the "ghosts" glasses appears at the wrong angle.
geez it just looks like another person to me
I agree with KC 
hey guys,
just been looken for a site with interesting pictures and replys to the pictures.
i have finally found one.
so i registered and here i am.
So a big "HELLO" to you all.
I've seen this pic before, i saw it when i first started looking for pics of the unexplained. and i was interested in replys about the pic, but couldnt find
any. but i have now.
I agree that the backseat driver is to perfectly posed, if it was a ghost, wouldnt it be looking at the camera when the pic was taken?
just been looken for a site with interesting pictures and replys to the pictures.
i have finally found one.
so i registered and here i am.
So a big "HELLO" to you all.
I've seen this pic before, i saw it when i first started looking for pics of the unexplained. and i was interested in replys about the pic, but couldnt find
any. but i have now.
I agree that the backseat driver is to perfectly posed, if it was a ghost, wouldnt it be looking at the camera when the pic was taken?
Nice to meet you ((themasterofpuppets)) and welcome to the forum
hey djdodo, and thanks for the welcome
and to djdodo and everyone, keep the pics coming, they r unreal!
finally a site/forum with unreal pics and replys!...
and to djdodo and everyone, keep the pics coming, they r unreal!
finally a site/forum with unreal pics and replys!...
Oh Grandma! You want to go too? Well, just slide right into the backseat and we'll be off!
all i know is that this photo gives me that feeling. you know.. THAT feeling.. a major one.
It looks as if an ordinary man is in the back just not acknowledging the camera man!
I see nothing really special about this picture at all, only what the photographer says makes the picture anything more than it is.
Is it just me, or does the figure in the back look like Michael Jackson?
| QUOTE (SpaceyKC @ Mar 24 2002, 04:29 PM) |
It looks too perfectly posed. I mean, isn't it amazing how the ghost gets itself lined up at the exact place to be seen, in such an ordinary everyday kind of shot. They are so accommodating!  Why don't any of my family photos have any 'apparent' relatives? ??? |
I am with you on this one KC.
| QUOTE (SpaceyKC @ Mar 24 2002, 04:29 PM) |
| QUOTE |
| It looks too perfectly posed. I mean, isn't it amazing how the ghost gets itself lined up at the exact place to be seen, in such an ordinary everyday kind of shot. They are so accommodating! Why don't any of my family photos have any 'apparent' relatives? ??? |
Hey KC,
Back in the late 1800s... after the art of photography became more widely known and accepted. Many families had their images captured on earlier forms of imagery. My people homesteaded in the Adirondack Mountains, where my great, great grandfather was a well known Guide. His name was Nelson Chandler.
His original Adirondack homestead stood until just 5 years ago. Within it was a room (called sitting parlor back then) where friends and family would gather. Upon the walls were pictures (back then fairly recent) of family members in formal dress and some in hunting poses with their kill... and the one thing that still remains vivid in my memory was that EACH and EVERY photo, regardless of the angle of the shot taken, had images with eyes that would follow you wherever you viewed it (ot them) from within this room.
As I said, the homestead is no more. An Uncle of mine acquired the land via shady means back in the early 1970s from within the family's grasp and let the place go to build place a moble home (yeah, a frickin' trailer... the goof!) nearby to live in.
As the house fell in need of repair, he stripped the old disware and anything old in the way of antique furnature from it. The sitting room also once held a piano before he sold it. Oh, and the photos... the idiot found out that the frames were worth money, and that the primary reclaiming value of old and vintage photographs of that era was the silver within the negatives and some earlier pictures.
I'm very greatful to a great uncle of mine for giving his photographs of that era to me before he died in the mid 1980s. He was 86 years of age. Today - Those pictures are upon a wall in my home. And they bring me comfort while creeping out lots of other people that see them.
My Uncle that destroyed the homestead... selling off all the family energy... His wife died of cancer in that mobile home in 1984. From that point on, my Uncle had hauntings. Music was heard to come from the old closed up homestead, and yes, it was piano music. Lights were seen by cars passing by... to the extent that the State Police were called on several ocassions to investigate possible burglary. They found nothing.
Items would be moved the few times he ventured into the building, and this delighted me as a youngster because I knew he was being punished for his trespasses. His mother and father had lived there, and three generations before them... and, co-incidently, my great grandmother had a child that was still born. Back then, a simple burial on family land took place. Sadly, this childs grave has never been found nor made known to anyone because the baby was born out of wedlock. No marker marks the child's resting spot...and my grandfather, and his two brothers... they either were sworn to secrecy or had no knowledge of the birthing. Suffice it to say; the land has sooooo much of my family energy coursing in and about it.
Today the spot where the homestead stood is a caved-in-hole in the earth. My Uncle knocked the building down with a bulldozer, and then got a burn permit to torch it. The weeds and green growth of today couldn't be any healthier there about where it stood.
My Uncle the goof moved away and only recently has strted staying there during late summer long enough to get through deer hunting season. And on a cool sumer night, it has been stated by locals (when he isn't there, mind you) that voices and laughter like a lawn gathering can be heard in those few hours before the dusk has brought forth darkness.
It looks like a normal person to me...no translucency is there?
| QUOTE (Paralda @ Mar 24 2002, 09:33 PM) |
| I remember this one, the passenger is supposed to be the bloke's deceased mother-in-law (i think). Ive always thought that it has been a simple mistake made by the picture taker. As in, the piccie was taken before the woman died and developed at a later date. Look at the face on the bloke.........yep, definatelly the face of a man asked to take the inlaw home. |
One word I have to say about ur post
LOL!
RH
what am i looking at? i dont see it
| QUOTE (ForsakenHero @ Oct 14 2003, 09:33 PM) |
| what am i looking at? i dont see it |
It is kinda hard to see, I took the liberty of subtly pointing it out.
i dont think i would have seen the circle without all of those arrows pointing to it!
hehehehehe!
Pretty much the reason why I posted an enlarged version of the original photo further down the first page, just in case anyone had trouble seeing the figure in the original.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.