This (alleged) photo of a ghostly image was taken in Australia, in 1959:
I have never read anything about it, except that it was taken by a minister, who was honest. Supposedly, it portrays an aboriginal woman-holding something?
Has anyone ever formally investigated it?
How do you know the minister was honest?
He had kind eyes.
It’s a photo of a “ghost.” You really need someone to investigate it?
You’re not interested in how it was done? I am. There wasn’t photoshop back then, so it’d be interesting to know how the photo was staged.
I’m clearly missing something about this picture, because it appears to be a person in a white dress holding a camera. What part of this picture needs explanation?
There were no cameras in 1950s Australia.
While it indeed looks to me like a woman in a white dress with hands raised in front of her face, possibly holding something, she doesn’t look especially aboriginal. My money is on a simple incident of “pareidolia”, which can be surprisingly vivid.
Incidentally, what sort of “terrible ceremonies” are the Australian aborigines said to have performed? I suppose “civilized” folk have paranoid, pseudo-Lovecraftian folklore about “savages” everywhere, but the perception of aborigines by Americans like myself is as a historically pretty docile folk – in contrast with American Indians who at least often had warrior traditions.
Yeah I’m puzzled too. She’s not even see-through, or oozing ectoplasm or anything. What a swizz.
The obvious method is to take two photos from the same vantage point, one with your friend in the scene and the other without. Then when it comes time to develop the film, you use both negatives for half the time each instead of just using one or the other.
I agree, it’s pareidolia. The branches and overexposure is forming an illusion of a person. The lack of detail suggests to me it’s leaves and branches and rocks, our brains filling in the blanks.
There are slightly better images of this photo here. Scroll down to number 6. The upper half of the person seems clear and real, and you can see through the bottom half.
Wow, that “Jesus” photograph is cool. I didn’t see any child until I read the explanatory text.
Is there any Corroboration of this photo?
Looks like a simple case of double exposure to me, Watson.
I’ve moved this to General Questions from Cafe Society. ralph124c, please make an effort to put your questions in the right forum.
The blown-up inset of that photo also shows how un-headlike the ‘head’ is - it’s too small and the wrong shape.
In addition to the camera she’s holding a Frogurt. A free Frogurt. You know the rest.
Yeah, that photo was a bit like those “do you see a young lady or old woman” or “two faces or a goblet” type of illusions. At first, I only saw the child, and didn’t get the whole Jesus thing, but once I saw Jesus’s face, it was difficult to reset my brain to see the child.
As for the photo in question, it doesn’t look at all like a double exposure to me, but almost certainly an example of pareidolia.
Um, Marley…IIRC,** Ralph** has previously been chastised for posting “woowoo” questions in GQ. I think maybe he was probably trying to follow those previous instructions by not posting this to GQ.