"Ghost" photos which haven't been debunked

[Skulduggery]

I've never seen an alleged "ghost" photo (or video) that's swayed me. I'd enjoy seeing the "good ones" if there are any, the one's even the best photo analysts haven't been able to find fault with, not even this site's resident photo analyst god, ChrLzs. Are there any? This would be interesting to see.

[oldrover]

I've looked at things like this for nearly thirty years, and I can't think of a single photo that's either convincing, or not possible to have been faked. I know nothing about photography, but is it really possible now to trust anything you see?

Apart from this one

 

Apparently, they didn't notice anything strange until after they developed the photo. 

 

[Vorg]

5 hours ago, Skulduggery said:

I've never seen an alleged "ghost" photo (or video) that's swayed me. I'd enjoy seeing the "good ones" if there are any, the one's even the best photo analysts haven't been able to find fault with, not even this site's resident photo analyst god, ChrLzs. Are there any? This would be interesting to see.

To be honest, no picture or video will ever sway me. Cork a ghost in a bottle that will be proof for me. Too many hoaxers out there, and gullible ones who fall for it. But I'll post a video that can be debunked by actions. (At least by me)

 

[SHaYap]

Maybe just to give this thread the boost it needs perhaps a little revisit on some the mysteries listed on this list may just be the thing ...

~

~

[Sakari]

 

Ghost caught on tape

 

[MWoo7]

Whew , see , now that's ironclad!

[ChrLzs]

..me, a photo god..?    Nahh..   There are several folks here with similar skills, and at least one here who is way better than me, if not as prolific.

But anyways.. it all comes back to my mantra.

It's not the photo, nor is it the story.  It's how it all ties together.  There are usually many, many warning bells:

- no names or other verifiable witnesses

- no access to original file (eg stills with exif data intact, or downloadable original movie footage)

- originates at Youtube

- originates at YouTube channel that is full of sh it.  (sorry third eye, but unless you can bring the best one here along with why you find it convincing, I'm not going thru YT videos looking for gems.  In general there never are any...)

- story is full of holes, changes over retellings, or starts "I've always been a skeptic, but.."

- has a very obviously app-added ghost

- story teller demands that skeptics do not post, only believers

- story teller rejects logical explanations even when they apply perfectly

.. and I could go on...

[SHaYap]

Well my favorite one of the list remains the Freddy Jackson photo ... considering the age the times and the setting ... not so much the paranormal perspective but more on how and why such photos occurs ...

~

[rashore]

I don't know about swayed.. I don't think I've seen anything that has really swayed me that it was a ghost. But there have been a goodly handful of photos through the years that while I was fairly well swayed it was not a ghost, I still wasn't satisfied with possible explanations as to what it was or could have been. They weren't clearly debunked, but left ambiguous with multiple explanations as to what it might be.

It's like that sometimes with UFO photos too-while I'm certain it's not a saucer with little green men in it, sometimes a definitive ID isn't made either. It remains a UFO. Interesting and intriguing.

 

 

 

[ChrLzs]

Well, third eye. here's your challenge.  Have a long hard look at what the *claimed* enlargement of that are of the photo.  Yes, it does look like an extra face...  But is it really an enlargement or is it carefully doctored / enhanced?

From the best scan I could find, here's what a TRUE enlargement of that area looks like..

  - that smudge (to his left)  is barely recognisable as a face and only with a lot of pareidolia - could even just be a slow exposure movement problem (common in these days).  And yet, this is the claimed scan:

spot the difference?

I'm happy to revisit this if someone can find the source of that much higher resolution alleged original, but it stinks of a made up story and a highly edited image.  Even the dates of the death of Freddy (if the right one has been found) do not correspond with the story, and no-one seems to have ever been able to find an original shot of Freddy to compare.

 

Yes, that's about the standard of the best..

[SHaYap]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, third eye. here's your challenge.  Have a long hard look at what the *claimed* enlargement of that are of the photo.  Yes, it does look like an extra face...  But is it really an enlargement or is it carefully doctored / enhanced?

I dunno why you always take this fanatical competitive streak about things like this ... even if it is doctored and enhanced you have to provide the logic of how and not go about that it has to be because it can't be any other way ... its the history of the photo that makes it as interesting as it's fame ... I hesitate to say 'mysterious' in case you blow another fuse ...

nobody noticed the anomaly until the Squadron was making requests of copies for keepsakes ... not the photographer ... not in the dark room processing ... and it was not really apparent in the full photo ... one really has to look really really closely at one specific spot to see this 'Freddy' ... now in the darkroom of those days that takes really really fine work to have such fine results if it was even possible ...

Like I said ... I am more interested in the history of the photography and photo ... not whether if this is evidence of ghosts or not 

at least you, on the brighter note, you didn't take to that 'double exposure' feat of desperation ... so what were the cameras used back then ?

More importantly what was the camera used in this instance ...

As I have already stressed on numerous occasions, I don't care very much about 'ghosts' being real or not ... hell I think it funny if true .. if false the sky ain't gonna fall ...

You know there is a saying ... no one is fanatical about the things they are confident of and truly believe in ... just as one does not get fanatical about the SUn is sure to rise the next day ... you are very close to being fanatical about the claims of the paranormal in this respect ... 

~

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

- that smudge (to his left)  is barely recognisable as a face and only with a lot of pareidolia - could even just be a slow exposure movement problem (common in these days).  And yet, this is the claimed scan:
**

THat is the providence of your argument ?

Not only a badly enlarged and heavily pixelated exhibit but an enlargement of a scan of dubious resolution from god knows when?

I hesitate to add 'tampered' here in case you blow another fuse ... ye gads man ... just sayin'

 

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm happy to revisit this if someone can find the source of that much higher resolution alleged original, but it stinks of a made up story and a highly edited image.  Even the dates of the death of Freddy (if the right one has been found) do not correspond with the story, and no-one seems to have ever been able to find an original shot of Freddy to compare.

I dunno this is the best I have in my notes ... I'm too lazy to go looking for the links ...

* There are ten war graves in the churchyard of St Mary, Mellor in Lancashire. Here is the detail from the website:

* G F Jackson, Air Mechanic First Class, Service Number 214491
* Date of death- 7th November 1918- Royal Air Force.

 

... its pre 1919 not everyone has that luxury of having a portraits done, least of all selfies ...

 

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, that's about the standard of the best..

Then let's look at the other side of the coin ..

its a smudge ... someone doctored the photo ... Sir Victor Goddard is a liar ... Freddy Jackson does not exist .. that's not Freddy ...

what else ? ... oh ... everyone is seeing things ... Jeez ... one side is as bad as the other ...

~

[ChrLzs]

11 hours ago, third_eye said:

I dunno why you always take this fanatical competitive streak about things like this

???  Would you mind quoting the bit where I was 'fanatical'?  In future, either do that or keep your exaggerated perspectives on other people's state of mind to yourself.

Quote

... even if it is doctored and enhanced you have to provide the logic of how and not go about that it has to be because it can't be any other way

Which is why I want to see the original high res scan from which that crop came.  I've never been able to find it.  How does that become MY problem suddenly?  I'm not the one making the claim, I merely want to verify it.

Quote

... its the history of the photo that makes it as interesting as it's fame ... I hesitate to say 'mysterious' in case you blow another fuse ...

Again with the emotional characterisations?  Did you actually read the links and all comments, eg here:

http://www.skeptic.com/insight/new-facts-concerning-goddard-squadron-photo/

Very clearly the history of this person are very uncertain and in some cases conflicting - not only is it unclear whether we have the right person, the dates are very questionable and there isn't even a photo of that person to check it against.  If this was in court, it would be thrown out in seconds.

Quote

nobody noticed the anomaly until the Squadron was making requests of copies for keepsakes ... not the photographer ... not in the dark room processing ... and it was not really apparent in the full photo ... one really has to look really really closely at one specific spot to see this 'Freddy' ... now in the darkroom of those days that takes really really fine work to have such fine results if it was even possible ...

So where's that original scan?  And how have you verified your anecdotal 'facts' there - or do you just believe anything you read?

Quote

Like I said ... I am more interested in the history of the photography and photo ... not whether if this is evidence of ghosts or not 

Seems odd that you haven't read more about the facts and seen all the anomalies.

Quote

at least you, on the brighter note, you didn't take to that 'double exposure' feat of desperation ... so what were the cameras used back then ?

I did refer to a long exposure possibility, and how have you eliminated the double exposure possibility - do you think that wasn't possible back then?  So to you, offering possibilities for discussion is 'desperation'?  Seriously, stop with the emotional hogwash.  To use your methods, that's close-minded, surely...

Quote

More importantly what was the camera used in this instance ...

Why is that 'more' important?  Than what?  Do you have any camera details/exposure details to add to the discussion?

Quote

As I have already stressed on numerous occasions, I don't care very much about 'ghosts' being real or not ... hell I think it funny if true .. if false the sky ain't gonna fall ...

You seem to do a lot of posting/defending for such little care..  But hey, I won't question your motives/desperation/fanaticism...

Quote

You know there is a saying ... no one is fanatical about the things they are confident of and truly believe in ... just as one does not get fanatical about the SUn is sure to rise the next day ... you are very close to being fanatical about the claims of the paranormal in this respect ...

...I hesitate to add 'tampered' here in case you blow another fuse ... ye gads man ... just sayin'

Sigh..  Yes, ok then, just for your fantasy, right now I am rabidly shaking my head and spitting angrily at the screen... if it makes you feel better.

Anyone else got better than this, or unlike third_eye, able to find the original full-res scan from which that crop was taken?

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by ChrLzs

[seeder]

One thing Ive always wondered is.... why alleged ghost photos....show them in clothes?

IF...when we die...a spirit comes out of us.....why does a spirit need clothes?

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by seeder

[SHaYap]

51 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Would you mind quoting the bit where I was 'fanatical'?

~ you just did it again ... well at least you didn't spat out 'coward' this time round ...

51 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Why is that 'more' important?  Than what?  Do you have any camera details/exposure details to add to the discussion?

If the camera used and film format / plates is not important then what do you hope to examine ?

It was 1919 Professor ChrLzs  ...  camera history UK Camera com link

The 'scans' ?

of what ?

the prints of prints ?

.... okie dokie then ... thanks for your time ...

~

2 minutes ago, seeder said:

One thing Ive always wondered is.... why alleged ghost photos....show them in clothes?

IF...when we die...a spirit comes out of us.....why does a spirit need clothes?

 

Because they get cold too ?

~

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by third_eye
double post bypass

[ChrLzs]

Back in the good ole days:

- large format film was frequently used, esp on professional cameras designed for group portraiture

- the lenses were designed to make full use of the film's resolution, which was often higher than many high end digital cameras nowadays

- enlarging equipment for making prints of such work was also of a very high quality, and frankly, the grain of the film was the limiting factor.

Even in the early 1900's, it was pretty obvious to those who did this sort of work that a large group portrait is useless if the people's faces anywhere in the print are blurred or difficult to make out.  So they used very high end equipment.

It is again, simple common sense then that yes, whatever camera/enlargement process was used, it was almost certainly capable of creating a printed image at the resolution suggested by the crop showing the clear face.  ...However, it is also very well known that editing of images (now or then) is relatively easy and not too tedious, as long as the area being edited is not huge...

So, to a real image analyst, that small crop would be ringing some alarm bells - such a crop should ALWAYS be accompanied by the full-resolution image from which it came so that we can verify it has NOT been carefully locally edited.  It is virtually impossible to spot editing on small crops like that, but if we have the entire image to examine, it can give many clues to help judge the authenticity of what is being claimed.

Frankly, knowing what camera was used is virtually irrelevant unless it was not capable of making such large prints - the key here is to verify that the small crop is unedited - and thus we need to see the full-resolution original.  And again, it makes no difference if it was scanned on a flatbed scanner, a dedicated print scanner, a dedicated negative scanner, or simple by the print being rephotographed on a high end digital.  It is the actual quality of that entire file that is the key.  If that file no longer exists, then you gotta ask yourselves why would that be?  The answer seems a bit obvious to me, but maybe that's because I'm so fanatically desperate.. or maybe because I don't have an intense desire for this to be a ghost.

 

If anyone else has anything further to say, then please feel free to address facts rather than post ad hominems.

And I gotta say, all this to avoid posting a simple yes or no - do you know where the full original can be found?  It's a simple ask - does it exist?  If it doesn't then this is dead in the water, no much how much you want it to be true.

[SHaYap]

58 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It is virtually impossible to spot editing on small crops like that, but if we have the entire image to examine, it can give many clues to help judge the authenticity of what is being claimed.

THat's the issue here ... not whether this is proof or evidence of 'ghosts' like I said I like the background and history of this 'enigma'

The purported paranormal stuff was made public only in 1975 onwards if I'm not wrong ... after the print was reproduced for one of Sir Victor Goddard's book if I remember correctly, now whether this is because of his quirky interest in the paranormal or was this print the fire that stoked his interest in the paranormal I guess only Sir Victor can answer that ... calling him a 'liar' like some debunking attempts I have read in regards to this particular print solves nothing ...

58 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Frankly, knowing what camera was used is virtually irrelevant unless it was not capable of making such large prints - the key here is to verify that the small crop is unedited - and thus we need to see the full-resolution original.  And again, it makes no difference if it was scanned on a flatbed scanner, a dedicated print scanner, a dedicated negative scanner, or simple by the print being rephotographed on a high end digital.  It is the actual quality of that entire file that is the key.  If that file no longer exists, then you gotta ask yourselves why would that be?

Here I disagree ... establishing the camera used and the negatives or plates can establish the relevance of the proposed reasoning and logic of the debunking process ... for example, double exposure resulting in the extra image of 'Freddy' rests heavily on the type of camera used and the film / plates in question. Having the print (if any copy still exists today ) here serves no purpose because as you pointed out ... its not the original so does raise doubts, and more so because the anomaly in the image is hard to make out on the photos because of the size/resolution ratio factor of the processed photo ... it was only apparent when the print was 'blown up' which i think should mean enlarged ... from what process I have no inkling or any idea ... that's why plates or negatives matter here ... the scans most commonly available on the net are the ones included in and attributed to the book published by Sir Victor. I seems to have lost my notes on that and I'm too lazy to search for it . I didn't think it was important back then as I don't now either, further more image scanners weren't used for that one I don't believe as digital scanners weren't quite so wide spread even if it was available then but don't quote me on that, just a guess on my part. The subsequent version of it for the web were scanned from the one in the book that is no doubt ... but good luck finding when and who with that one ... anyhow like before I think it matters little if any at all because its not scanned from the prints but from a reproduction in a book.

So far from what I do know is that its most probable that plates were used bearing in mind the film stocks of those early days won't be able to get that kind of detail with such a wide angle ... as to which particular type I have no idea.

Where is the original plates ? Some say the RAF Historical Archives has it ... some say somewhere ... some say its lost forever ... who knows ...

That's my point ... this is one of my favorites because of such that is the conundrum ... not that this is evidence of ghosts caught on photos ...

This may be the one that is impossible to 'debunk' on technical grounds due to those reasons alone if we're truly honest ~ The Cold Case ... of ghost photos ...

~ Good ol' Freddy eh ?

nahhhh just joshing ... no need to blow a flash bulb ... ahhhhh how I miss those things ... remember how they go wheeeeeee when they recharge ?

~

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by third_eye
this time I did edit ... because of illogical grammatics

[LV-426]

On 15/10/2016 at 3:02 AM, third_eye said:

Maybe just to give this thread the boost it needs perhaps a little revisit on some the mysteries listed on this list may just be the thing ...

~

~

The Solway Firth Spaceman has been more than adequately explained as the back of Templeton's wife I'd say.

[Emma_Acid]

On 10/14/2016 at 10:20 PM, oldrover said:

I've looked at things like this for nearly thirty years, and I can't think of a single photo that's either convincing, or not possible to have been faked. I know nothing about photography, but is it really possible now to trust anything you see?

Apart from this one

 

Apparently, they didn't notice anything strange until after they developed the photo. 

 

I almost just choked on my lunch, making me wish for a split second that ghosts were real so if I died I could come back and haunt you.

[SHaYap]

4 hours ago, LV-426 said:

The Solway Firth Spaceman has been more than adequately explained as the back of Templeton's wife I'd say.

Yeah ... honestly that's the funniest of the list to me ... I mean that 'spaceman' was hilarious ... I doubt that space suit would survive a trip over a respectable camp fire ...

~

[oldrover]

4 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

I almost just choked on my lunch, making me wish for a split second that ghosts were real so if I died I could come back and haunt you.

Then I could have taken a photo, and been a big name on Youtube. 

[SHaYap]

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

However, it is also very well known that editing of images (now or then) is relatively easy and not too tedious, as long as the area being edited is not huge...

Actually the prints of those days are very hard to fiddle with ... you can add,  like for example the double exposures, which for a time was the rage with those shadow ghosts and fairies which were designed for the sole purpose to hoodwink, very easy to detect as there is no need for subtleties yet in those days, but to add something small and detailed is very difficult due to what was available to work with then. resolutions were high but the brushes were notoriously difficult to handle the chemicals and most of all ... the conditions of darkrooms really weren't there yet for the kind of things one can do with Digital Imaging today ... heck the end user PC capability just five to ten years ago compared to today is so vast it really bears no argument at all ... today just any normal desktop far out paces the Specialized Pro hardware I used to work with in the late 90s and early 2000s

I had to take a bit of time to double check my backups but here is also another bit of the puzzle ...

The 'presence' of Freddy here was noted (as the story goes) when the photo was posted on a bulletin board for requests of reproductions (copies)

Back in those days if you want a copy you made a request ... fill in the forms ... name rank and numbers and then wait for the notice to pick them up.

So if the prints were 'meddled' with that also raises the question as to where the image of 'Freddy' was taken from as its already quite apparent that there is very little if any other known photographs of Freddy available ...

The other point made was perhaps that was someone that was not part of the squadron that got into the shot by mistake ... here I would say that group photos like this here is like the Class Photos when I was at school ... very formal and usually a controlled situation, names are called and matched to who belongs in which class and Squadron as the case here ... so I don't think that is a viable proposition ... and the fella there in front/beside the 'smudge' would have known something was amiss if there were such attempts to photobomb the Group Photo ...

Anyhow it still begs the question of how this stranger could be mistaken for Freddy or even to say nothing of the chances of him bearing that striking resemblance to Freddy that his mates in the Squadron would make that mistake calling him out as Freddy ...

Unless of course it goes back to calling these blokes liars ... that I am not so inclined to do ...

~

[toast]

14 hours ago, seeder said:

IF...when we die...a spirit comes out of us.....why does a spirit need clothes?

Yeah, and where did they came from, who bought them and who paid for?

[ploppy]

On 10/14/2016 at 10:20 PM, oldrover said:

I've looked at things like this for nearly thirty years, and I can't think of a single photo that's either convincing, or not possible to have been faked. I know nothing about photography, but is it really possible now to trust anything you see?

Apart from this one

 

Apparently, they didn't notice anything strange until after they developed the photo. 

Can you please give a warning before showing such harrowing content. I need to change my pants now.

 

[SecretSanta]

The Copper family ghost (hanging body) has also been debunked by one of the boys (now a grown man).

I can post the link to another message board if anyone is interested. 

[SHaYap]

I think it's under 'Cooper' Family nowadays if I'm not wrong ...

~