Ghost Images

1. I M First
   March 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

   Yah! Woowee!

2. MadMolecule
   March 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

   Iv'e been a photography enthusiast for years and years. There's nothing in any of those photos that's even remotely difficult to explain without resorting to "ghosts."

3. Johnny Cat
   March 27th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

   Yeah, cause as we all know, spirits can only be seen on film. Good grief.

4. AJ
   March 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

   If that's their best photographic evidence, I'll sleep soundly tonight.

5. Kalel
   March 27th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

   The figure in the castle is obviously Vincent Price.

6. Evilbeagle
   March 27th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

   As a resident of Hertfordshire, and a big believer in ghosts, I must remain skeptical. I never trust ghostly photography.

7. Miss Cellania
   March 27th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

   I have an awful lot of pictures like these. My cameras always had trouble advancing the film properly. Especially when I forgot to wind it!

   As for the #1 picture, there's a person in the window. Why do they think it's a ghost?

8. ted
   March 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

   Ghosts are just like smudges.

9. seefish3
   March 28th, 2009 at 7:27 am

   In the age of Photoshop, the phrase "photographic evidence" has become an oxymoron.

   Sorry, folks, but when you shut off the transmitter, the signal stops. End of story.

10. Martin
    March 28th, 2009 at 7:45 am

    From the site, about the #1 picture:

    "an unnoticed visitor, an odd reflection of light against the wall, or digital manipulation."

    Translation: "well, we don't know what it *is*, but we know what it *isn't*"

    While I don't think the #1 picture actually shows a ghost, every time a discussion about this topics shows up the arguments are the same: "ghosts don't exist, so the thing in your picture must be something else, because it can't be a ghost". I'm pretty sure that if some day I get to take a picture of a ghost while talking to me (or, even better, showing his ID), people will say "its photoshopped, you can see the pixels"

    BTW, I'd love to see an analysis of this photograph: http://paranormal.about.com/library/blclassic_fire_girl.htm .

11. linty
    March 28th, 2009 at 8:01 am

    i always hate when articles / people use the term skeptic like it's an insult.

12. ted
    March 28th, 2009 at 8:23 am

    linty, that's because the term "rational people would say" sounds less fun than "skeptics argue".

13. MadMolecule
    March 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    Martin: The shape in that photo does look remarkably like a girl, but it's basically just a couple of dark splotches.

    Our brains are so face-attuned that we interpret a colon followed by a closing parenthesis as a sideways smiley. Couple this with the fact that there are hundreds of billions of photos in the world, no two of them alike, and it's not too surprising that some of them have splotches and blotches that we try to see as people.

14. SuPeRgrl
    March 29th, 2009 at 1:23 am

    ooh my goodness
    this freaks me out some of thouse photos look realy fake and some look photo shopped
    but some are creepy and look so real!!

15. Yeshe
    April 20th, 2009 at 12:12 am

    Martin:

    Some people analyzed the Wem photograph and came up with a possible explanation, although it's far from conclusive:

    http://forgetomori.com/2009/paranormal/ghosts/the-second-best-pareidol ia-a-hoax/

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT