• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

15 year old ghost mystery possibly solved

Stray Cat said:
Well what's "obvious" to you is just most likely to me. Sorry you've got a problem with that. :rolleyes:


I'm sure that as a witty response, that would be really funny... if it made any sense.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit unclear as to your position.

Are you saying that yes the photo is hoaxed but he didn't use the post card to do it or that there's a chance that the photo represents some unexplained phenomena?
 
doctoratlantis said:
Actually I think 100% certainty is subjective. I was 90% sure the photo was faked and this new evidence made me 100% certain. But I've been looking into the matter for months, reading old articles, watching interviews, etc...

Can anyone prove to Stray Cat the postcard photo is the one used to fake the Wem ghost photo? Clearly not.

I usually have a dearth of certitude but every now and then a hoax pops up with enough evidence to make me sure the case is solved - and this is one of those rare (but happy) occasions.
Click to expand...

I don't think the question is whether it is faked or not, but rather that the post card was used in making the "fake" ghost image. That is approaching 100%.

Stray Cat said:
If you mean the line running from the bottom of the window sill on the right of the picture as you look at it, apart from it being at a different angle and a different height, I couldn't agree with you more.
Click to expand...

I think I've figured it out. Maybe you're looking at a different picture?

Careyp74 said:
Here is my contribution. These items aren't similar, they are exact duplicates.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=304&pictureid=3028
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Guy said:
I think I've figured it out. Maybe you're looking at a different picture?
Click to expand...
Maybe not.

ThatLine.gif


It's at a different height and a different angle. :)
 
Stray Cat said:
Maybe not.

It's at a different height and a different angle. :)
Click to expand...

You mean the line of the girl's dress from the postcard photo THAT IS COVERED UP BY THE LINE OF THE RAILS?!?

You do realize that every one of your examples showing what you think is a significant difference actually shows the opposite of what you think? That part of her dress has clearly been washed out in the fire picture and then covered up with the rails.

Why can't you just admit that you are biased? You are looking for data that only supports your opinion, and you are ignoring everything else. Have you ever studied the Scientific Method?

:cool:
 
After reading through this entire thread, I can't believe you all are still debating this. It's clearly the same picture. Some of the contours may have changed because, as one poster pointed out, contours can change slightly when the brightness and contrast are altered. Other contours -- the bonnet, the ruffles at her waste, the tie, etc -- are not just similar, they precisely overlap. It's the same pic.

If somebody doesn't want to believe that in light of the all the evidence that's been presented here (the various juxtapositions and cross-fades), just let them be and move on. :-)
 
Stray Cat said:
Read the thread?


Neither of those things.
Click to expand...

Yes I did.

I see you do not want to explain your position but would rather engage in answering questions with questions and then being obscure.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Yes I did.

I see you do not want to explain your position but would rather engage in answering questions with questions and then being obscure.
Click to expand...

No, not at all, I thought I'd answered your questions (more than once) during my exchanges in the thread.

But here we go again:
What I think is that the photo is a hoax and the most likely explanation is the one presented (the postcard was used). The evidence doesn't allow anymore than 'most likely' as despite what others claim, the photo doesn't have enough detail for anything more than a rough match. It has remarkable similarities and some differences.
 
GregInAustin said:
You mean the line of the girl's dress from the postcard photo THAT IS COVERED UP BY THE LINE OF THE RAILS?!?
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension problems much?
No, not the line of the girls dress.

GregInAustin said:
You do realize that every one of your examples showing what you think is a significant difference actually shows the opposite of what you think? That part of her dress has clearly been washed out in the fire picture and then covered up with the rails.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that would make sense if it were what we were talking about.

GregInAustin said:
Why can't you just admit that you are biased?
Click to expand...
How can I possibly be biased?
My position is that I'm not entirely sure... what is biased about a position where certainty is not the only way?

GregInAustin said:
You are looking for data that only supports your opinion, and you are ignoring everything else. Have you ever studied the Scientific Method?
Click to expand...
It seems this is exactly what you are doing with my posts.
I have looked at and studied the photos in great detail.
I have stated they are remarkably similar (which they are)
I have positioned my two photos aligned to these remarkable similarities.

As for only looking for data that supports my opinion - How can I possibly do that?
How can I only show data that supports that "I'm not sure"?
 
Stray Cat said:
It seems this is exactly what you are doing with my posts.
I have looked at and studied the photos in great detail.
I have stated they are remarkably similar (which they are)
I have positioned my two photos aligned to these remarkable similarities.

As for only looking for data that supports my opinion - How can I possibly do that?
How can I only show data that supports that "I'm not sure"?
Click to expand...
...oh .... by "aligning" the lines on your comparitive photographs in a misleading manner.
 
chillzero said:
...oh .... by "aligning" the lines on your comparitive photographs in a misleading manner.
Click to expand...
Or even by quickly doing a rough (I still don't really have time for this and don't know why I keep getting dragged back into it) explanation of certain differences I have picked upon.
But this certainly isn't ONLY showing data that supports my opinion unless all the times I have stated that there are remarkable similarities and stated more than once that the postcard is the most likely explanation is conveniently ignored. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So- are you sure you're unsure, or are you unsure that you're sure that you're...
*counts on fingers*
...unshure.
;)
 
Yes, sure, I can assure you that sureness on my part is surely tempered with a certain amount of uncertainty. :D
 
Stray Cat said:
Put your cursor on it and see it jump between the two shots by a significant amount.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the two photographs were shot with the same camera at the same distance with the same type of lens. I stand corrected.
 
doctoratlantis,
I'm guessing you wrote the article about this photo in the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Good job!
 
LTC8K6 said:
It's the same image. Can't understand why anyone would doubt it.
Click to expand...

This thread made me post for the first time since i signed up quite a while ago.

I'm just TOTALLY amazed how people are saying they don't look a like. I cannot understand it. You must be partly blind, drunk or stoned to come to the conclusion it's not the same girl.
Everything is identical...the face, the clothes...

What the hell is wrong with people??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom