Comments on: Ghost Images

By: Yeshe

Yeshe — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:12:37 +0000

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/

By: SuPeRgrl

SuPeRgrl — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:23:25 +0000

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!!

By: MadMolecule

MadMolecule — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:27:06 +0000

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.

By: ted

ted — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:23:14 +0000

linty, that’s because the term “rational people would say” sounds less fun than “skeptics argue”.

By: linty

linty — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:01:03 +0000

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

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:45:18 +0000

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 .

By: seefish3

seefish3 — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:27:25 +0000

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.

By: ted

ted — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:26:06 +0000

Ghosts are just like smudges.

By: Miss Cellania

Miss Cellania — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:09:22 +0000

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?

By: Evilbeagle

Evilbeagle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:39:28 +0000

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

By: Kalel

Kalel — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:02:37 +0000

The figure in the castle is obviously Vincent Price.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:09:47 +0000

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

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:44:11 +0000

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

By: MadMolecule

MadMolecule — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:28:27 +0000

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.”

By: I M First

I M First — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:59:24 +0000

Yah! Woowee!