Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ghostly hand turns up in 116-year-old photo


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

If i can see the real photo and it's like this, yeah... it's weird. Maybe someone was hidden between the girl...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo looks altered like the photographer when developing the photo took somebody out and forgot the hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who can't use an extra hand? :/

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I think this photo was doctored at some point. Either that or someone was playing a prank.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that even is a hand. Could be raised wrinkles on the woman's shoulder from her clothes or something else equally mundane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very pixelated when you blow it up so it's impossible to say for sure, but it def. looks like a hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks very much like part of a hand, three fingers and a thumb. The way it's placed on her shoulder makes it a right hand, either that or it belongs to a contortionist! How it got there and who it belongs to is anyone's guess. Real or not it's an interesting photo I think.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know..! Someone was removed except they missed the right hand from her shoulder. Perhaps a man? Look at the woman's dress (standing behind her) and how VERY long it is. She would have to be a giant if it was actually her dress. Someone removed the offending person and extended the lines of the girls dress. I am very used to darkrooms and touching up or modifying pictures.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a much better quality zoom in on the following link of the hand on shoulder. Higher resolution and nowhere near as heavily compressed as some of the other versions on the Internet: http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/310596-photo-appears-to-show-a-ghostly-hand-resting-on-the-shoulder-of-a-worker.html

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Snip*

Edited by Still Waters
Image is copyrighted, can be viewed in the source link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on the edge of the portrait couldn't be fit in with the rest, so they were removed; only they forgot the hand resting on her shoulder. Creepy? Yes, a creepy mistake in editing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JesseCuster said:

There's a much better quality zoom in on the following link of the hand on shoulder. Higher resolution and nowhere near as heavily compressed as some of the other versions on the Internet: http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/310596-photo-appears-to-show-a-ghostly-hand-resting-on-the-shoulder-of-a-worker.html

Now that's interesting. The length of the index finger looks to be too long, although the tip of it could just be her dress making it look longer than what it is.

Edited by Still Waters
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those old time photos where long exposures, if someone put their hand on her shoulder and moved it away during the exposure it might show the hand on her shoulder and folded in the woman's arm in the back. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak Brownie camera and roll film was introduced in 1900 so the darkroom work would have required

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak Brownie camera and roll film was introduced in 1900 so the darkroom work would have required

Edit: It seems most of my post was deleted and the first line posted twice. I apologize for the ghostly intervention that caused this error.

Edited by highdesert50
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have required what?

Maybe it's me...but doesn't that area by the woman's other shoulder look odd. The woman's dress looks drawn...very different than the other girls. Also the girl with the odd hand on her shoulder's neck on the opposite side and that hunk of hair also look weird...hair looks drawn to me as well. I'm wondering if this isn't just a new photoshop where the rest of another girl, minus her hand was chopped out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there was another person who has been removed from the photograph.  Like UFOwatcher said the girl standing on the end would have to be a giant if her skirt was that long plus most of the others have tools hanging from their waists.  You can see the start of the string but it just ends with no tool attached so I believe there was a person there who's head blocked out the tools but she was removed at some point, probably on the negative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this image has most likely been edited - back in the day it may not have involved darkroom work so much as using white paint, pencil, watercolours, you name it.  It's impossible to tell without a higher res image - even the big one that Jesse found appears to be not only a low-res image, but it is of a dot-printed second-gen copy anyway.  We're too far away from the original...

Another - admittedly very weak - clue... if you look carefully at the dress where the deleted person would have been, the creases seem a little odd, and one seems slanted slightly wrongly for the way the dress is falling...  Not an absolute, and I'll happily concede that apart from the forgotten hand, the touch-up job is a pretty good one...

Such retouching is not uncommon - I have a couple of examples of family shots from the 30's and 40's, and the work is very good.  And hopefully some of you are old enough or have access to old family images that include those rather wonderful 'colorised' images that were black and white but were then carefully painted into very realistic colour versions..

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No biggy!.....it's only 'Thing' 

tumblr_netui3oDui1rp0vkjo1_500_zpsqzjiui

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I do this right cause I suck at this stuff. Check out this MSN link to this story. In the small pic at the top the girl behind whose dress is weird isn't even there nor is the rest of the 4th row.. Then at the bottom of the article is the pic I've seen posted here. I'm calling photo shop. If I could I'd post the small pic here for you guys to compare. Maybe someone else can do it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/the-ghostly-object-concealed-in-this-spooky-irish-snap-will-really-give-you-a-fright/ar-AAhI6vy

Edited by skliss
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skliss said:

I hope I do this right cause I suck at this stuff. Check out this MSN link to this story. In the small pic at the top the girl behind whose dress is weird isn't even there nor is the rest of the 4th row.. Then at the bottom of the article is the pic I've seen posted here. I'm calling photo shop. If I could I'd post the small pic here for you guys to compare. Maybe someone else can do it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/the-ghostly-object-concealed-in-this-spooky-irish-snap-will-really-give-you-a-fright/ar-AAhI6vy

Absolutely. Well spotted. If there are 2 versions of this photo it's not a stretch to say there's a third that includes the girl that goes with the hand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there are multiple versions of the photo, with different edits just blows it's credibility out of the water. In the MSN link above, one photo shows the girl wearing the long dress behind her edited out. Or maybe she was edited in from a different pic, who knows. I wouldn't waste much time trying to solve this one. It is of my opinion the entire thing is simple trickery to deceive the gullible. This is the very reason that makes ghost hunting lose it's credibility. Too many people out there willing to take advantage of the subject. Whether it's financially motivated, or whether they just want some attention. As a user above stated, there's another photo somewhere that shows the owner of the hand.

Edited by xxxdemonxxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.