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 -
stereologist

Spirit Images

350 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist

Back in the 1860s a photographer in New York City became probably the first photographer to deliver photos with spirits in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Mumler

The photos he took showed people with the dead standing near them. The American Civil War had recently ended and there were scores of people who had lost loved ones that wanted to reach out to them. Mumler helped them with that connection by taking portrait shots and then delivering photographs showing the person with the spirit of the deceased with them. A common spirit was the figure of the assassinated US president Lincoln. The most famous of these portraits is with Lincoln standing behind his seated wife. But Lincoln's spirit appeared with many people.

From this link we learn that Mumler was not the first but more famous.

http://www.cultofweird.com/blog/william-mumler-spirit-photography/

Quote

While Mumler’s original photo is considered the first official spirit photograph, a man named W. Campbell from Jersey City actually did it first. A year prior to Mumler’s photo, Campbell took a test shot of an empty chair. But when the plate was developed, the image of a small boy had appeared in the chair. Campbell was never able to reproduce it, though, so Mumler’s uncanny ability to capture ghosts again and again was favored by the burgeoning spiritualist movement.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What Mumler had done is to quickly transform a new technology to the hunt for evidence of ghosts. 

In another thread a simple question was asked if there were any photographs of ghosts that people in this forum thought might be genuine. As we can see from Mumler and Campbell there is well over 150 years of taking photographs that are supposed to show spirits or ghosts.

Cameras have improved considerably since the time of Mumler. They have become cheap and reliable and turned from analog film to digital. With billions of photos taken each day there should be more ghost photographs. But are there? Does anyone today get photographs showing ghosts in portrait shots or has that ship sailed?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56

When Mulmer started the film was exposed for a bit of time in order to get a clear photo.  Is it possible someone walked behind the subject being photographed and cause a sort of double exposure?  Why would a non-corporeal being be able to be photographed.  When I was a kid I did a lot of experiments with double exposure of film.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The claim is that Mumler would take a photograph and then in the lab during the printing step would add in another image. The film itself was not double exposed.

The question of course is how could Mumler have made images including images of loved ones that had died. People came to his business to sit for portraits. It was suggested that he burglarized residences to get information about the people. He also used the image of Lincoln in a number of photographs. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The claim is that Mumler would take a photograph and then in the lab during the printing step would add in another image. The film itself was not double exposed.

The question of course is how could Mumler have made images including images of loved ones that had died. People came to his business to sit for portraits. It was suggested that he burglarized residences to get information about the people. He also used the image of Lincoln in a number of photographs. 

Interesting.  I think the photo was etched onto a metallic plate so he could have used previous plates to add the extra image, maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Early on the spiritualist movement latched onto these spirit images. They captured on film what people believed in. This was clear evidence for them that spirits existed and that there was an afterlife and that their loved ones were still with them. These spirit images vindicated their treasured beliefs.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

 With billions of photos taken each day there should be more ghost photographs. But are there? 

I believe ghost photos to be rare but real phenomena today, just like ghosts in general. I do not know why we would expect a certain number. We learn by observing. I feel sure many of these claims are coming from people with no inclination or technical knowledge to create fakes.

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Does anyone today get photographs showing ghosts in portrait shots or has that ship sailed?

Yes, I have seen modern ones of ghosts photo-bombing family members. And as I said I believe these are coming from people without the inclination or technical abilities to create fakes.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Ye olde photo shoppe.:lol:

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
37 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe ghost photos to be rare but real phenomena today, just like ghosts in general. I do not know why we would expect a certain number. We learn by observing. I feel sure many of these claims are coming from people with no inclination or technical knowledge to create fakes.

Yes, I have seen modern ones of ghosts photo-bombing family members. And as I said I believe these are coming from people without the inclination or technical abilities to create fakes.

That's not a very good reason to believe in something - it can't be faked. 

Mumler was a hoaxer and he produced these ghost portrait shots one after the other with apparently little difficulty.

Suggesting someone is incompetent is hardly assurance that the photos are genuine.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patient Zero
42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe ghost photos to be rare but real phenomena today, just like ghosts in general. I do not know why we would expect a certain number. We learn by observing. I feel sure many of these claims are coming from people with no inclination or technical knowledge to create fakes.

Yes, I have seen modern ones of ghosts photo-bombing family members. And as I said I believe these are coming from people without the inclination or technical abilities to create fakes.

Would you mind providing a few examples of what you believe to be genuine?

No, i'm not trolling you either. i'm genuinely curious to see where you're coming from on this subject.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

 

Suggesting someone is incompetent is hardly assurance that the photos are genuine.

It’s pretty goof assurance they aren’t faked was my valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Patient Zero said:

Would you mind providing a few examples of what you believe to be genuine?

No, i'm not trolling you either. i'm genuinely curious to see where you're coming from on this subject.

Thank you.

I’ve seen many I thought were likely genuine. My thought is that all of them being faked or having a natural explanation has become exceedingly small.

Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It’s pretty goof assurance they aren’t faked was my valid point.

You failed to assure anyone just because you suggest incompetence on the part of someone.

It is remarkably easy to make a ghost image. There are even plugins to do it.

There are even online tutorials

http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/ghost-an-image-and-create-photoshop-spirit-effect.aspx

Here you again you talk about people and avoid the evidence: "I feel sure many of these claims are coming from people with no inclination or technical knowledge to create fakes."

That's a failure. Please address the evidence if you have any.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I’ve seen many I thought were likely genuine. My thought is that all of them being faked or having a natural explanation has become exceedingly small.

Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there.

Do you have any evidence or are you claims of the existence of these images made up fiction?

Here is the important part: "Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there."

This is the final conclusion to any residualization case. The process of residualization begins by admitting that there are fakes, hoaxes, misidentifications, ... whatever. Then someone thinks that there are so many images they can't all be fake. When all of the garbage is thrown out there must be a residue of real images. Getting down to this residue is residualization. 

See here is the residualization step: "My thought is that all of them being faked or having a natural explanation has become exceedingly small." It is the idea that a residue exists.

When asked to show some part of the residue there is never an answer. In fact we have admission that it is not possible to find a part of the residue.

Here is the admission: "Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there."

 

You hear the same stories being told about UFOs, BF sightings, crop circles, etc. There are large piles of BS stories for each of them. That leads the believer to think that a giant pile of manure is so big that it can't be all manure. There has to be a gem stone in there somewhere. No. A giant pile of manure can be just a giant pile of manure.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

If a ghost shows up in a photo, how is that image created. There are plenty of possibilities.

  • Maybe light reflects off of a ghost just like it would have to if people see it
  • Maybe the ghost affects the photograph itself without being seen
  • Maybe the ghost is captured and become trapped in the photograph - it becomes attached without being actually in the photo
  • Maybe there is no ghost in the image, but the ghost makes you think there is
  • Maybe the ghost inserts its image into the photo after the photo is taken

I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
54 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Do you have any evidence or are you claims of the existence of these images made up fiction?

Here is the important part: "Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there."

This is the final conclusion to any residualization case. The process of residualization begins by admitting that there are fakes, hoaxes, misidentifications, ... whatever. Then someone thinks that there are so many images they can't all be fake. When all of the garbage is thrown out there must be a residue of real images. Getting down to this residue is residualization. 

See here is the residualization step: "My thought is that all of them being faked or having a natural explanation has become exceedingly small." It is the idea that a residue exists.

When asked to show some part of the residue there is never an answer. In fact we have admission that it is not possible to find a part of the residue.

Here is the admission: "Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there."

 

You hear the same stories being told about UFOs, BF sightings, crop circles, etc. There are large piles of BS stories for each of them. That leads the believer to think that a giant pile of manure is so big that it can't be all manure. There has to be a gem stone in there somewhere. No. A giant pile of manure can be just a giant pile of manure.

If your judgment is that they all are faked or natural effects then so be it. At this point you are to me clearly set in your ways and any attempt to change your judgment would be an act in futility.

My judgment is that most (not all) people nowadays don’t have the inclination to fake us. I consider all natural possibilities and listen to the accompanying narratives people give and form my judgment. I will always revise my positions when given new evidence and argumentation. My position is that legitimate ghost photos exist beyond reasonable doubt. The explain aways for too many, especially those with recognizable past family members, seem unsatisfying to me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If your judgment is that they all are faked or natural effects then so be it. At this point you are to me clearly set in your ways and any attempt to change your judgment would be an act in futility.

My judgment is that most (not all) people nowadays don’t have the inclination to fake us. I consider all natural possibilities and listen to the accompanying narratives people give and form my judgment. I will always revise my positions when given new evidence and argumentation. My position is that legitimate ghost photos exist beyond reasonable doubt. The explain aways for too many, especially those with recognizable past family members, seem unsatisfying to me.

You are the one to judge based on nothing but your personal preferences. You are the one that never discusses the evidence. You discuss the people involved.

I have made no judgement about anything other than Mumler producing fake images.

Your take again is not about evidence but about the people involved. That  is what you wrote: "My judgment is that most (not all) people nowadays don’t have the inclination to fake us."

This is not true is it? "I consider all natural possibilities and listen to the accompanying narratives people give and form my judgment." You form a judgement based on your personal preferences and not on the evidence.

Here you claim that something exists: "My position is that legitimate ghost photos exist beyond reasonable doubt." So show it to us. Provide the evidence.

But you always finish off by backing off from evidence and talking about people: "The explain aways for too many, especially those with recognizable past family members, seem unsatisfying to me."

Apparently, you have nothing. You should just say that while you do your residualization.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bendy Demon
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Any single case can be argued forever so I’m not going there.

Every single case SHOULD be argued rather than just blindly accepting it at face value: this is what children do but not adults.

In this society of ours, people have absolutely no compunction about creating fakes, frauds and hoaxes so long as they get the notoriety and this Mumler chap is no exception either, he simply took advantage of the gullible people of his generation just as the con artists of all manner do in this day and age.

Most people DO have the inclination to con us either because they themselves are ignorant and gullible and/or they just love to post outright lies because they know people will indiscriminately eat it up because blind belief is easier than employing logic and reason to sort out the true from the nonsense.

Interesting photos but with enough know-how, can be easily faked with or without photoshop.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, Bendy Demon said:

Every single case SHOULD be argued rather than just blindly accepting it at face value: this is what children do but not adults.

In this society of ours, people have absolutely no compunction about creating fakes, frauds and hoaxes so long as they get the notoriety and this Mumler chap is no exception either, he simply took advantage of the gullible people of his generation just as the con artists of all manner do in this day and age.

Most people DO have the inclination to con us either because they themselves are ignorant and gullible and/or they just love to post outright lies because they know people will indiscriminately eat it up because blind belief is easier than employing logic and reason to sort out the true from the nonsense.

Interesting photos but with enough know-how, can be easily faked with or without photoshop.

I consider all that too before forming my position. And I still think the odds that some are real is overwhelming.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider all that too before forming my position. And I still think the odds that some are real is overwhelming.

Residualization is such a cheap and worthless argument. Pretend odds are so lame.

If you actually had anything you'd present it.

Why not provide some evidence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

A quick introduction to odds since there are statements about odds.

Odds that something is real = (number of real objects)/(number of real objects + number of fake objects)

As we see, the odds are a fraction between 0 and 1.

In science good odds are 95%. Are overwhelming odds better than that? Such odds would mean that better than 95% of all ghost photos are real photos of ghosts. Frankly, I find that hard to believe since zero of the ghost photos shown to me to date turned out to be ghosts.

I'm guessing that "overwhelming odds" was use of the wrong term. 

Since spirit or ghost photos have been taken over 160 years why isn't there a single valid photo to date? I suppose it might be that ghosts don't exist.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I came up with a number of ways that ghosts might appear in a photo. I'm sure that those that are extremely gullible don't even consider the ways in which a ghost might appear in a photo. They simple gloss over that issue which is fairly important. Look at astronomers today wondering why they are unable to detect planet 9. They are considering all sorts of possibilities. Why don't fringies do the same?

Science comes up with ideas and tests them. Fringies could do the same - if they wanted to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Fringies could do the same - if they wanted to.

Too much work to be wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davis3335
The first evidence is the testimony. I belive in ghost photos!!!

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 minutes ago, Davis3335 said:

The first evidence is the testimony. I belive in ghost photos!!!


 

Okay. What testimony. If you believe in ghost photos do you have any that you think are worth posting?

Share this post


Link to post
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.