Pianist photographs ghostly woman in theater

[Chewie1990]

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Considering October is just around the corner. I'm going to chalk this up as an attention grab. Basically free advertisement. Anyone with me on this?

It's distinctly possible, though like I said I dont think it's as nefarious as that - more than likely willful ignorance / confirmation bias / opportunism or a combination of the above..

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

when i first saw it i thought person watching checking on talent rehearsing,  i did that to talent.

one has to wonder why would talent take random pics of an empty venue, but im guilty of that myself,

in this age of digital computer photography i wouldnt put much into time stamps, they can be faked.

it reminds me of old alleged ghost photos where the photographers swore this or that but when scrutinized by unbiased photo experts not surprising the photographers lied

 i wonder had he title this threads picture something like "cleaning lady" would some say, no no no, its a ghost, even when myrtle says, no, it was me cleaning.

That's a very good point, and faking time stamps is a lot easier than faking photos - then again I don't think I could do a convincing job of it with what I have available so I can't say for sure that CL can

Perhaps it's more accurate to say if the guy is honest and true to his word it would clear it up, if he tries to fake it there's a chance someone more photo savvy than me will pick up on it

RE: Why would they take the photo - we dont know what kind of set decoration they have - even if it's just a banner saying Lore that would be reason enough for a fan of the show who happens to work there

[the13bats]

11 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

It's distinctly possible, though like I said I dont think it's as nefarious as that - more than likely willful ignorance / confirmation bias / opportunism or a combination of the above..

That's a very good point, and faking time stamps is a lot easier than faking photos - then again I don't think I could do a convincing job of it with what I have available so I can't say for sure that CL can

Perhaps it's more accurate to say if the guy is honest and true to his word it would clear it up, if he tries to fake it there's a chance someone more photo savvy than me will pick up on it

RE: Why would they take the photo - we dont know what kind of set decoration they have - even if it's just a banner saying Lore that would be reason enough for a fan of the show who happens to work there

the few times i took photos of my venue or shows empty was for example to study the lights or show before crowd after crowd,

in this case i dont see much grey area, there is something there, i dont believe paranormal or ghost but rather the very likely prosaic explanation a human, who or why there isnt too important really,

like i said if there in person this one would likely be easy to investagate, easy to rule out all workers of being the subject or on the other hand rule one in, most good venues dont let looky lous wonder in and out, for liability reasons as well as respect and safety to the talent,

for example im known where i do my dec show but i still wear a cheesy laminate lanyard for sercurity reasons.

the fact the venue as far as i know hasnt chimed in suggests to me they know its a promo stunt or i have to accept they run a very unsafe lax operation.

i can assure you had talent posted such a photo and claim from my venue i would have commented, and had it been a promo stunt i would have played right along, its called good showmanship.

 

 

[Chewie1990]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

the few times i took photos of my venue or shows empty was for example to study the lights or show before crowd after crowd,

in this case i dont see much grey area, there is something there, i dont believe paranormal or ghost but rather the very likely prosaic explanation a human, who or why there isnt too important really,

like i said if there in person this one would likely be easy to investagate, easy to rule out all workers of being the subject or on the other hand rule one in, most good venues dont let looky lous wonder in and out, for liability reasons as well as respect and safety to the talent,

for example im known where i do my dec show but i still wear a cheesy laminate lanyard for sercurity reasons.

the fact the venue as far as i know hasnt chimed in suggests to me they know its a promo stunt or i have to accept they run a very unsafe lax operation.

i can assure you had talent posted such a photo and claim from my venue i would have commented, and had it been a promo stunt i would have played right along, its called good showmanship.

There's a few interesting angles I hadn't considered there tbh

I agree they are just people and it doesn't matter who they are, and we'll likely never know as "Myrtle" and friend(s) are likely either oblivious (unlikely) or happy to let the speculation go on, wheres the fun in spoiling it for them?

You did make me think to check the theatre's twitter though and yeah they did put out a post about it a couple of days later, clearly looking for engagement with "What do you think? Did our woman in white make an appearance?"

I have to say I'm quite surprised how little traction it seems to have gained (only 5 comments, 3 negative, one emoji, a guy asking for more info who gets linked again to the only article online I could find that mentions a white woman ghost)

In fact the only place that seems to have pushed it is KVUE news who made a very embellished version of the story with details I can't find anywhere else online of a woman trying to reach her missing soldier husband (that old chestnut..)

Interestingly the news piece ends with one presenter saying "it could also be an employee watching the rehearsal" and another responding "I've read a little about that and they've said that there was an employee working there during that time period.." only to be shushed for being a buzz kill..

His co-host then responds that it's "great before Halloween, right?"

Yup, sure is

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

Ok cool, then we are in agreement on the first point - no hoaxes in sight, either he genuinely believes its paranormal or he has an agenda he aims to profit from but neither of us can say for sure, fair?

Point 2, that's fair, although I'd argue this isn't really a knowing your equipment issue but I know what you're saying..

And again, I'm not saying he took the photos 10 minutes apart and is nefariously lying to us - he could have taken them 5/10 seconds apart, gone for a meal, gone to bed, posted the videos in the morning and then noticed the figure, and in thinking back to the night before his memory has foreshortened the time before shots

And 5/10 seconds would be more than enough time for the movement we see in the photos regardless of whether they are humans or ghosts, fair?

 

Here's the words of our photographer.

chadlawsonpiano    For anyone raising an eyebrow of my previous post, these are the 3 quick-tap photos taken in quick succession. For what it’s worth.

He doesn't seem to consider that he could be mistaken but that is possible. Most likely scenario is that he did what he said he did but nobody can speak with perfect certainty.

3 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

 looking at the evidence I have systematically eliminated all possibilities including the paranormal based on the evidence available,

Eyebrow raised. You could not have systematically eliminated the paranormal logically. It's just not your favored theory (and I think the use of the word 'favored' is quite appropriate here).

 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Chewie1990 said:

There's a few interesting angles I hadn't considered there tbh

I agree they are just people and it doesn't matter who they are, and we'll likely never know as "Myrtle" and friend(s) are likely either oblivious (unlikely) or happy to let the speculation go on, wheres the fun in spoiling it for them?

You did make me think to check the theatre's twitter though and yeah they did put out a post about it a couple of days later, clearly looking for engagement with "What do you think? Did our woman in white make an appearance?"

I have to say I'm quite surprised how little traction it seems to have gained (only 5 comments, 3 negative, one emoji, a guy asking for more info who gets linked again to the only article online I could find that mentions a white woman ghost)

In fact the only place that seems to have pushed it is KVUE news who made a very embellished version of the story with details I can't find anywhere else online of a woman trying to reach her missing soldier husband (that old chestnut..)

Interestingly the news piece ends with one presenter saying "it could also be an employee watching the rehearsal" and another responding "I've read a little about that and they've said that there was an employee working there during that time period.." only to be shushed for being a buzz kill..

His co-host then responds that it's "great before Halloween, right?"

Yup, sure is

i am ocd and research the hell out of stuff i find interesting which is mostly old stuff if you look up manwon lenders ghost pic post on here i feel at the risk of sounding arrogant i solved it to a 99.9% certainty,

what was interesting is it had several back stories all of which claimed to be the correct one, so when these type modern ones pop up i pay very little creed to the reporters stories,

with the added info you provided, ty, i was busy, lazy and feeling crappy to look it up myself i am sold that you blew this one up and for me it to is easy a 99.9% certainty a publicity stunt, with that .1% being it didnt start that way but just fit, the venue milking it is typical of a hoax.

i give it zero % paranormal not human.

of course blind faith true believers will say im being closed minded but i counter i took all the info and came to the best conclusion, sorry its not a real ghost this time, but hey, maybe we will get one next time

[Chewie1990]

43 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Here's the words of our photographer.

chadlawsonpiano    For anyone raising an eyebrow of my previous post, these are the 3 quick-tap photos taken in quick succession. For what it’s worth.

He doesn't seem to consider that he could be mistaken but that is possible. Most likely scenario is that he did what he said he did but nobody can speak with perfect certainty.

Eyebrow raised. You could not have systematically eliminated the paranormal logically. It's just not your favored theory (and I think the use of the word 'favored' is quite appropriate here).

 

"For what its worth"

Not a whole lot when faced with contradictory information

I tend to find that when I'm mistaken I dont usually realise I'm mistaken until someone points out I'm mistaken..

Otherwise I wouldn't be mistaken..

 

I'm not really sure which bit you're struggling with here, so let's recap

Anti-ghost evidence (and non-evidential red flags):

- We have a photo that looks like a person, nothing inherently ghostly other than context, it's not floating, or mist-like, or passing through an object, or rattling chains, it's a fully corporeal body behaving as human bodies do

- We have a theatre that suddenly claims a significant amount of paranormal baggage despite the fact that from what I could see online there's not really a huge amount of documentation prior to this event (and when asked directly for further info they provided zilch?) Feel free to dig deeper if you dont believe me

- We have the activity occurring prior to opening night of a paranormal podcast tour in the build up to Halloween

- We have a generally very lax reporting of the incident even by the clickbait sites and very little interest on twitter, suggesting there are very few people as convinced of this evidence as you are

- And finally and most significantly (and I'm not sure if I can make this any clearer):

IF photos were consecutive, we have the ghost of a woman walking up the stairs and the ghost of a modern man who sure looks like a crew member taking a photo who instantaneously teleports between positions in a way that can only be described as impossible

Alternatively, if the man is real (as hinted at by the theatre themselves, and common sense) then more time must have been left between photos 2 and 3 which leaves plenty of time for the woman to appear and move into position without needing to be a ghost

Pro-ghost evidence:

- A guy says he saw a ghost

It's a close one to call, but...

 

If you have a different definition of logic for me to try please let me know, I am genuinely willing to look at this in any way I have to for us to get even close to the same page

Unless I'm missing anything I think I'm fresh out of evidence to consider and I dont think I've been at all unfair, if anybody else can point out flaws in my process I'm open to hearing it

 

I'm not a debunker, I'm here for the journey, I enjoy research and considering all the options, not skipping to the end and peacing out

Frankly I think I've spent far longer looking into this than it probably deserved, and it certainly seems like I've done a lot more legwork than anyone else here (not a dig, you guys probably made the right call honestly..)

Anyway, it's been an interesting debate even if it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree...

[Chewie1990]

39 minutes ago, the13bats said:

i am ocd and research the hell out of stuff i find interesting which is mostly old stuff if you look up manwon lenders ghost pic post on here i feel at the risk of sounding arrogant i solved it to a 99.9% certainty,

what was interesting is it had several back stories all of which claimed to be the correct one, so when these type modern ones pop up i pay very little creed to the reporters stories,

with the added info you provided, ty, i was busy, lazy and feeling crappy to look it up myself i am sold that you blew this one up and for me it to is easy a 99.9% certainty a publicity stunt, with that .1% being it didnt start that way but just fit, the venue milking it is typical of a hoax.

i give it zero % paranormal not human.

of course blind faith true believers will say im being closed minded but i counter i took all the info and came to the best conclusion, sorry its not a real ghost this time, but hey, maybe we will get one next time

It sounds like you and I are similarly afflicted, I'd hate to think how many hours I've spent researching inane topics online to no real end

I really do think it's funny (and sad) how the people who fight the hardest for the paranormal perspective (whether it be hardcore believers, hoaxers or bad journalists) do more harm than good to their cause

Just imagine if we didn't have a slew of fishing line videos, and all these haunted venue stories had unique and well fleshed out backstories instead of cookie cutter copy and paste jobs

It would be a hell of a lot more entertaining and would be so much harder to just dismiss at face value - but now we've seen the tricks and identified the patterns and it's all just so.. disappointing

I'm still inclined not to think pure publicity stunt but that might be because I like the podcast and would like to think they wouldn't stop so low..

But getting caught up in the moment and then not correcting your mistake? Yeah that I can believe, it makes total sense with the facts we have and the way people typically behave online, and I can't say I even blame him for doing it

Fingers crossed for the next case!

[the13bats]

i believe many such "paranormal" photos start out innocent like all the spookies on baby monitors, but people love haunted,

its not like he wasted time posting it or jumping to ghost.

so i ask myself why snap the pix of an empty venue, perhaps to take a pic of the lady on purpose and the ghost promo bit came later, its not really important bottom line not being there i cant prove its not a ghost but im comfortable saying its not a ghost due to all the evidence in a whole.

 

[Chewie1990]

On 9/22/2019 at 4:15 AM, the13bats said:

i believe many such "paranormal" photos start out innocent like all the spookies on baby monitors, but people love haunted,

its not like he wasted time posting it or jumping to ghost.

so i ask myself why snap the pix of an empty venue, perhaps to take a pic of the lady on purpose and the ghost promo bit came later, its not really important bottom line not being there i cant prove its not a ghost but im comfortable saying its not a ghost due to all the evidence in a whole.

All totally reasonable, I can think of ways to justify the photo beyond fakery but of course we're probably never going to know for sure, this story will be forgotten by the time the next one comes along (until its posted again in 5 years and attributed to a different city anyway..)

The funny thing is if it were a deliberate fake (or deliberate misidentification of a normal event) he might have been better off posting photo 3 without mentioning ghosts at all - knowing the internet I'm pretty sure someone would have done the work for him.. as you say, people love haunted

[Jr 1]

It looks like someone in sack clothing like in medieval times.