According to a Rev Kenneth Lord (vicar of Newby Church, Ripon, England), in 1954 he took a photograph of the church altar. When developed, the image showed a blak hooded figure standing to the right side of the altar. The figure appears to have a skull-like face, and is standind on a step before the altar.
Supposedly this photo is geniune(sorry-can’t post it, don’t have a scanner).
Has this photo ever been analyzed? And (for you ghost believers) why should an apparition be visible in a photo, and not to the eye?
By the way, the photo can be found on page 123 of A.C. Clarke’s “WORLD OF STRANGE POWERS” (John Fairley and Simaon Welfare, G.P.Putnams, NY, 1984).
Now why the … doesn’t this work?
Ok. That one should.
No elaborate opinion on the photo itself, though… well, looks kinda silly to me.
What sort of verification are you asking about?
A reverend said it was so. What more do you want?
Okay, so it’s a double exposure of a person in a cloak with a hood over his/her head.
My judgement of course, we all know no reverend would ever lie, or even engage in a practical joke.
I used to be an agnostic, including not believing in life after death.
Just hearing about this single piece of unverified anecdotal evidence with several prosaic explanations means I now believe in God, the afterlife and ghosts.
Not.
OK, Who else thinks we are dealing with a photo of a romantic female from a Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood painting? Bulwer-Lytton himself, maybe?
I have nothing to say about the photo cited in the OP (it looks creepy to me, but it could be faked—how would I know?).
But I just wanted to pop in and add this—so many of the “ghost” images in photos are most certainly not ghosts. At least the ones I’ve seen cited on ghost web pages and message boards. I stumbled upon a message board where people were posting photos with “mysterious” artifacts and markings. The people were speculating about what these mysterious things were, and were coming up with theories about their meaning. (I remember one photo of a man which had a “dagger” thing going through his chest. The man died of a heart attack a little while later, and people saw some significance in the mysterious “dagger” thing in the photo.)
But the “dagger” was simple negative damage! They were all negative damage! I used to work in the Art Dept. of a photo lab, we fixed damage like this up every day. The damage is usually caused by stress to the negative, or a rip or tear in the negative. I worked at a very crappy photo lab, and their antiquated machinery screwed up the negatives on a regular basis. Oh my gosh. How well I know the look of negative damage.
And so it was totally bizarre to see run-of-the-mill examples of negative damage called “ghosts”. I did try to tell the folks on the message board that their “ghosts” were just negative damage, but they would hear none of it.
The figure in the photo is either Howard Stern or Frank Zappa.
Er- not all ‘ghosts’ are due to damaged negatives- there is awhole new subclass of ‘ghost’ photograpgh showing floating ‘balls’ that have acquired the name* orbs*
…these are caused by the integral flash on the camera illuminating out of focus dust particles near the lens.
A ghost photo can never be proven as a genuine ghost; the best believers can hope for is there not to be proof otherwise.
I think this photo proves that Spirited Away is a true story.
Looks like the ghost of the Elephant Man to me.
Yeah, it makes no sense that ghosts would be visible on film yet invisible to the eye, but surely this is just another facet of their supernaturalism. (Supernaturalness?) I’ve heard stories of ghosts that have been photographed, only to gradually fade out of the picture to leave an empty scene. Again, this makes no sense, but it is the nature of ghosts to make no sense. Why would a ghost dress in a cloak and hood, anyway? To look cool, or what? And even if we assume that humans can somehow survive death, how do we account for the existence of their wardrobe? Are these spectral garments somehow condemned to haunt the earth for their sins? And if mundane objects such as clothing can become ghosts, why are we not surrounded by ghostly insects, trees and rocks? It’s questions such as these that maneology has to confront in order to progress as a science.
Another puzzle is whether ghosts have any influence in whether they appear in photographs or not. It’s commonly believed that ghosts are attempting to resolve unfinished mortal affairs, so one would think that they’d be trying to get into as many photos as possible, probably while holding big translucent signs stating their concerns. Yet ghost photos are few, frustratingly non-replicable, and even the most famous ones depict spirits that appear remarkably indifferent to being photographed. Generally the ghost in question is caught in some mundane activity like walking downstairs, or loitering aimlessly while staring into space. The bloke in the above photo might be posing for the camera, or he might simply be pausing absent-mindedly to wonder if he left his ghostly keys in the upstairs lavatory…it’s hard to tell with the hood on. Maybe his big unfulfilled earthly desire was to appear in a church photo while dressed as a sack of laundry.
The first thing I noticed was it had a shadow. That must violate some law of ghosts or something. And practically, something that isn’t visibly on the spectrum wouldn’t have a shadow.
Or that might not be a shadow but the cloak of the ghost. Whatever. I thought it was a little tiny thing with not legs, levitating with a shadow.
I’m fairly certain it’s real. Just a hunch.
Why do ghosts wear clothes anyway? It’s not like they have any bodies to cover.
It doesn’t look like a guy in a cloak to me. Looking closely at it, I think it’s a dark-haired woman in a long dress with a large puffy collar or maybe a shawl or stole. And the face doesn’t look skull-like at all. Still, it’s obviously a souble exposure, or maybe a long exposure where somebody was standing in the scene for part of the exposure time.
My totally uneducated eye tells me it’s a genuine fake!
(and a bad one at that)
Then that is one fucking ugly woman. The Elephant man’s sister, melted, perhaps.