Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wedding Day Ghost

Options
  • 24-07-2009 4:12pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭


    Taken from about.com

    wedding-day-ghost.jpg
    This is a photo of my aunt's wedding day. The year was 1942, and the photo was taken with a box camera. On some of my feedback I'm told it's not really there! Well, I know it is. This picture has been passed down. Please give me some feedback. I would like too see what everone thinks. It was taken in Jasper, Alabama. -- Liz

    It's an interesting photo. We have three possibilities:

    1. It's an extraordinary case of pareidolia -- an illusion.
    2. It's a hoax -- a very clever and well-executed one -- created with image editing software.
    3. It's a genuine ghost.

    I'm not ready to say it's a genuine ghost. And I think it's too detailed to be pareidolia. So I suspect -- and Liz, forgive me if I'm wrong -- that this is a manipulated photo. And my main reason for saying that is that the "ghost" is just too scary looking, like something out of a horror movie. It's just too theatrical. Your opinion? -- S.W.

    Liz responds:

    I thank you for your feedback on the wedding day photo, but I do not agree. These pictures were taken before I was born -- that's a long time ago. And when I saw the photos they have never changed. There is a lot about this picture no one can explain, and I think it's something paranormal. -- Liz


    any thought guys

    http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Paranormal-Photo-Gallery/Wedding-Day-Ghost.htm


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Slow Motion


    It's a cool picture, but it looks just too good to be true, I am in no way an expert but it looks like it is super imposed on to the original.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Very difficult to tell without a high-res scan of the original photo.

    From that image, the second and third blow-ups contain detail which can't be discerned from the first.

    From looking at the 3rd photo, it just looks like a case of pareidolia from the way the trees branches are arranged.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Riamfada


    Dan

    Could you get a high res scan of the photo and attatch it or PM it. Id love to have a closer look.Would also like to see the original to see if its been retouched. It looks like a retouch to me

    Cheers
    G

    edit: sorry Dan I didnt know it was taken from an article. The gallery is full of "fakes"


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    The image is very clear to me. One option not mentioned is that there was actually someone there messing about when the shot was taken. The lady is dressed for the era.

    So I offer option 4, Its a genuine person.

    Other than that, fakes were widespread at the time, because of the newness of photo trickery, I suppose people were more easily fooled. Even the spiritualist college has old b/w photos on display that to me are blatant double exposure fakes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭DANNY22XX


    Grimes wrote: »
    Dan

    Could you get a high res scan of the photo and attatch it or PM it. Id love to have a closer look.Would also like to see the original to see if its been retouched. It looks like a retouch to me

    Cheers
    G

    edit: sorry Dan I didnt know it was taken from an article. The gallery is full of "fakes"
    i sent an email to Steve wagner to see if he would send the original


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Much cleaner image here. Seems manipulated. Im suspecting a hoax planted all over the place by 'Liz'. But then I think like that. :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭iamhunted


    unless she had the negative, and it backed up the picture - otherwise you;d have to go for a manipulated image as a) its possible to do and b) you only have the word of someone you dont know to say it isnt


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Oryx wrote: »
    Much cleaner image here. Seems manipulated. Im suspecting a hoax planted all over the place by 'Liz'. But then I think like that. :p
    Well there would be people with ghost "agendas". They're so convinced that ghosts exist that they see nothing wrong with falsfying evidence in order to convince everyone else. After all, if something is true, then surely it's OK to make up evidence to prove it? :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭iamhunted


    thats one way of looking at it and Im sure many people do. same time though, money can be faked, but that doesnt mean money doesnt exist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭kshiel


    anyone ever notice in most of these so called ghost photos where the image is of a clearer image of a person the ghost always looks stressed or screaming or pulling some weird face, screams fake...


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,591 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    The image of the spirit in the tree is sharper than the tree itself...


  • Registered Users Posts: 635 ✭✭✭jonbravo


    really cool haha:D ..... i'd be ragin, if it was fake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    Id say its real but not a ghost just an coincidental alignmemt of objects that give the impression of a human figure


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Slow Motion


    On further thought it looks like some drunken student photobombing someones wedding pic :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Ghost Girl


    fake fake fake


Advertisement