I don’t think so. I think you’re imposing an interpretation on a mostly featureless blur. It’s easy to do; I began to kid myself I could make out a leg and a shoulder but the truth is you can’t distinguish anything except the hand.
Barring photoshop, the subject is definitely in motion. That’s what makes it translucent! I have a couple of “ghost” shots of this type myself from last year, but we made them deliberately:
These were 8-second exposures with the camera on a stable base, and the subjects barely moving. I think the castle shot is a shorter exposure of a subject at high speed! Note in the castle shot that everything is a tiny bit blurry; check out the bannister rails. That’s consistent with camera shake with an exposure that’s a sizable fraction of a second. In fact I’d expect worse camera shake - the camera probably has image stabilisation.
However the blur may have other causes. We don’t know how it got to us. Kid takes photo with some camera.
Gives the (?)mp digital file to the Sun. Or was a print of his image?
The image is blown up/scanned/cleaned up for print publication.
The image is ‘optimized’ for the web publication including resizing.
Almost all of these steps could cause some blurring.
Let us see the original camera file which probably has the exposure info embedded in it.
I don’t see this as any sort of clear cut evidence of ‘ghosts’ or even blurry evidence of ghosts. It’s a couple of kids playing with a camera. "Hey, run down the stairs while I shoot you. They probably didn’t realize how ‘see-through’ the runner would appear. Then they decided to sell it as a ghost photo.
The question was not “is this evidence of a ghost?” It was “Is this a ghost?” Different kettle of fish.
The “assumption” is based on the fact that despite years of trying by simply oodles of people, not one shred of evidence has been found. As Q.E.D. asked,
So, tell me, how long do we have to go with zero physical evidence for something before we’re allowed to say it doesn’t exist?
If anecdotes are the “best argument for the existence of ghosts,” I rest my case.
So, in your mind, “basic scientific inquiry” accepts as proof of existence a *report *of a “ghostly experience”? How do you define “experience?” Or “ghost,” for that matter?
You don’t know me, but I have never had a ghostly experience of any kind.
How would we even know if this is a picture of a ghost? What do ghosts look like? People have pointed out that they wouldn’t need the handrail or even the stairs. I wonder why they would even be affected by gravity, or any other force for that matter. Can ghosts be invisible? If so, absolutely any photograph could be considered a picture of ghost.
I used to be big into the paranormal thing, I didn’t really believe it 100% but it was interesting, then I realized I did the same “make up your own mind, I’ll pretend I don’t care but will still try to the ends of the earth to convince you” crap the 9/11 troofers do and went from zero to cynical on the issue in .3 seconds, give or take. I still watch the occasional Ghost Hunters or whatever, just out of sheer amusement, and at least some of them at least pretend to be reasonably objective, even if I disagree with their verdict half the time. I put this little disclaimer here just to let everyone know I’m mainly talking out of a viewpoint I once held, or rather one I understand so I feel I can reasonably answer some questions. Personally my new perception of the er… issue… is that ghosts don’t haunt houses, they haunt MINDS, I have no doubt people see ghosts, but they’re more of contagious manifestations (I use that term loosely, they’re not manifesting in reality, simply in people’s shaky perceptions of reality) of people’s own preconceptions and ideas rather than any entity (though I’ll admit some video footage still creeps me out a tad).
Well, now that THAT’S over with, a popular idea that ghost use stairs etc is a line between “intelligent” and “residual” hauntings. Intelligent haunting means the ghost has some will. They can answer questions, communicate, etc. (or, you know, decide not to). They may or may not know they’re a ghost, if they don’t they’ll act like a normal person, climbing stairs etc, though ones who do know may do so out of habit or just to screw with you (i.e. they’re like real people who can make these decisions). Residual means they don’t have any idea they’re dead, and in fact have no semblance of will, they’re an instant replay of past events. This could be anything, from walking up the stairs to making (or trying to make) coffee every morning. However I don’t want to make the impression that residuals are bound by household objects. If you move the staircase from the left side of the house to the right side, the ghost will still walk up the left side. Or they may go through a wall because there used to be a door there.
In other words, they AREN’T bound by any rules, they simply appear to follow them, or follow them because they think they need to.
And ghosts look like a lot of different things, from shadowy silhouettes of a humanoid figure that move on their own (i.e. not bound to a wall and may have depth) to what’s called a “fully formed non-vapourous apparition,” basically translating to “they look like a person and not this ‘the Nosferatu has taken the form of an ominous mist vaguely replicating a human shape this fine dawn’ stuff”. There’s also some stuff about other types of manifestations, as well as “alternate” explanations for typical ones (i.e. the shadows) that I don’t think are necessary to go into unless the discussion drifts that way, as a lot of it requires a doctorate from the Arkham Institute of Things I See While on Bad Drug Trips While Also Being Deemed Mentally Unstable to fully appreciate.
As for my impression of this photo, even if I WAS still a para-nut I wouldn’t give this thing a pass. It seems to be visual distortion/reflection or odd flash malfunction at best. I’ve taken photos like this before only to say “damn, I think I got a bad reflection, let’s redo this.” Or maybe my mind is just closed to the Reptoid-Illuminati conspiracy and can’t see the [pun]ghastly[/pun] truth.
If anyone is still unconvinced as to the actual, real, genuine nature of the supernatural, maybe they would be swayed in their beliefs by some really convincing alien footage.
