Is the woman who obtained these the one who owns this site? Or did she just grab them from here? The photos are from a 2008 book by a woman with the following bio:
Ok, then.
That’s more diligence than I felt was due.
Correct, that’s the website of the woman who claims the pictures are ghosts. She claims they were taken by the police.
Is that even a dead teenager? I see no real evidence of trauma. The whole thing could be a staged fake.
So the explanations given above are exactly right. The woman doesn’t know the details of how the pictures were taken and whether or not a man walked through the frame during the exposure. She has a vested interest in getting people to believe her woo.
They’re not fakes in the sense of being Photoshopped. They are actual photos, but they’re not spirits or anything like that. You can do this on a single exposure of film pretty easily. As explained above, it’s just what’s called “slow sync” or “rear-curtain sync” depending on whether the flash hits at the beginning or end of the open shutter. This is a standard photo technique.
In the first photo, the bluish parts of the frame are what is frozen by the flash. The yellowish parts of the frame are an ambient exposure with the camera being moved around. Same thing in the second photo. I gotta run, but I can explain later, just ask questions.
pulykamell, professional photographer for 20 years.
Dear OP,
I’m surprised that no one has commented on your username. Be that as it may, don’t let these non-believers harsh your convictions. Those photos are totally real!
Wake up sheeple.
Could you give an example of another image having the thing involving the guy’s face and the dog in the second picture?
What dog? Not seeing it…
First car window, bottom right corner. It’s subtle.
Here’s plenty of examples of ghosting in images, but the way it was created in the photograph you linked to is the reverse (main exposure is flashed, ghosting is ambient exposure). What exactly do you need in terms of proof of concept? I can reasonably recreate the image in the OP given a willing male and dog model. The image can be created both accidentally or as willful trickery.
I’m not seeing a dog.
There’s something that kinda sorta looks like a dog, but it’s not (I was humoring the OP above, just so not to get into the “it’s a dog/it’s not/is too!” argument.) If you look at the highlight on the rear door handle and follow it to the left, the light trail makes it look like the teeth of a snarling dog. If you look at the leftmost “tooth” and up, there’s a ghosted trail that looks like a dog’s snout. It’s not a dog, though, it’s just the ghosted image of the door. But if you want the photo with a real ghosted dog, I can make it happen. 
For police photos, they’re way too vague to be used as evidence or as a record of the scene.
They were taken with flash, but with exposures long enough to show lengthy light streaks, at least a few seconds. The photographer was either careless with the settings or too inept for the job. Or the photos are bullshit.
Considering the source (Echo the ghostbuster? Really?), the most likely prognosis is: they’re bullshit.
If it is no trouble to you, I would find it interesting to see if you could recreate the second image. I’m not discrediting your exposition, but my exposure to cameras pretty much solely involves my iPhone, so I could better appreciate a picture than an articulation.
Here’s one I took in 2007.
It’s not exactly the same as your “ghost” photo, but it gives you an example of how it’s not very mysterious as to how the photo looks the way it does:
More than a good explanation of what created the image, and very good examples of the same kind of image, you won’t be satisfied until that same picture is recreated? I am getting the disturbing feeling that you will only be satisfied if it is confirmed that the images you provided us are actually supernatural in nature.
The significant difference, of course, would be that though the person’s figure appears deformed due to the speed and the camera, we can still see the entire form. The second picture just has the head.
Not the same picture, but it would be interesting to see the recreation of someone transparent and without the majority of their form.
But what of the explanations given so far for the images? Do you have any comments about the source and her veracity?
As I stated, I don’t wish to discredit people’s expositions, and I regret if that’s the perception, but because I’m not familiarized with photography, I don’t appreciate, as in, comprehend, the explanation as well as I would be able to appreciate a photo. It would just be interesting to see it recreated as this is an effect that I don’t recall ever seeing before. Like I said, pretty much my only experience with cameras is my iPhone.