• 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

P.J. Denyer said:
Stray Cat-If it isn't the same image then the question becomes 'why are they so similar?'
Click to expand...
Yes it does doesn't it.

You're presuming I think it is a different image?
The reality of situation is that I don't know if it's the same image or a different image. There isn't enough evidence to be certain either way.
 
Stray Cat said:
Yes there is a reason, it's here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5956183&postcount=96
Click to expand...

Stray Cat said:
I'm sure my accuracy is off. I neither have the time nor inclination to spend hours on every little detail proving something where the burden of proof is not really mine to bear. The illustration is a guide to the differences in the two pictures, that's all.
Click to expand...
You don't think that's an important discrepency in your attempt to show differences between the two images? It's not even a minor one- you left a fairly obvious margin that if corrected should actually match / almost match the one in red.

But, if you are invested in demonstrating an already determined conclusion, I guess that could explain it.
 
chillzero said:
You don't think that's an important discrepency in your attempt to show differences between the two images? It's not even a minor one- you left a fairly obvious margin that if corrected should actually match / almost match the one in red.

But, if you are invested in demonstrating an already determined conclusion, I guess that could explain it.
Click to expand...
No not at all.... I am still open to both options (real options as opposed to the false ones PJ Denyer gave me).

1. The photo is composed using the photo discovered on the postcard
2. The photo is composed using a different photo

The burden of proof is not mine. I only indicated (quickly because to be quite franky I've got better things to do with my time than look at fake ghost pictures) that there are differences. I have also stated there are remarkable similarities.

Now if anyone can show EXACT matches. Feel free to do so. I can be persuaded by conclusive evidence, but not opinion based upon looking at a photo and saying "it looks the same to me"
 
Stray Cat said:
Built upon a preponderence of evidence (and complete lack of contrary evidence) collected over years of research I can fairly confidently say that this photo is a fake. But knowing that there have been millions upon millions of photos taken since the invention of photography and some of those photos will look remarkably similar to each other, I can not be certain that the girl in the postcard has been used to fake the photo of the ghost in the fire.
Click to expand...
Stray Cat, how do you explain the stunning correspondence between the positions of the (very complicated) frills, folds and shadows on the clothes - even to the point of the shadows being cut off at the same place by the right sleeve? And the equally stunning coincidence that the original photo is of a street in Wem?

Yes, all of this could be one mindbogglingly stupendous coincidence without contravening the laws of physics, but it's the laws of probability that we're interested in. All your "millions upon millions of photos" wouldn't account for this level of correspondence by chance. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt (indeed, beyond unreasonable doubt) that there is a non-accidental connection between the images. This leaves three possibilities:

1. They are the same image.
2. They are images of the same subject, taken very close together in time.
3. The image used to create the 'ghost' was a deliberate imitation of the original (in fact, from the equivalence of the shadows etc. it would have to be a fake rather that just an imitation).

1 is by far the most likely.
 
Last edited:
Lucky said:
This leaves three possibilities:

1. They are the same image.
2. They are images of the same subject, taken very close together in time.
3. The image used to create the 'ghost' was a deliberate imitation of the original (in fact, from the equivalence of the shadows etc. it would have to be a fake rather that just an imitation).

1 is by far the most likely.
Click to expand...

As far as number 2 goes, does anyone argue that changes in contrast due to exposure or copying would not add enough difference in shadowing to make the two faces look slightly different?

I mean, JCR's post shows this does happen. One pic is darker than the other, the lines of shadow change, the angle looks different. We don't need to put much effort into the possibility that two pictures were taken at close to the same time.
 
No but with the level of absolute certainty being shown here, The Life Of Brian does.

Got to go out now... work to do.
 
Here is Richard Burnham’s analysis

In a big fire, there is a lot of stuff in the air: smoke billowing around, creating patterns of light and shade, debris falling from ceilings or blowing about in the hot draughts, sealed containers exploding and so on. My guess is that the photographer has been very lucky to catch some of these in an instantaneous configuration that the human eye and brain find very easy to interpret as a human figure.
Click to expand...


wemotternoses_girl.jpg
 
Stray Cat said:
So your judgement is based upon the impossibility of the event... Well so is mine to reach the conclusion that the photo is faked. But regardless of the event, the technical detail of a how a photo is faked doesn't rest upon the need to believe in or be sceptical of ghosts.
Click to expand...

Indeed not.
But I think the circumstances affect the conclusion and I'm not sure you understood my meaning.

Let's assume the postcard pic is a genuine postcard. There may have been other, similar exposures, but it hardly matters; any other image would be of the same situation.

If you showed me another such image and said "Are these the same?" I'd be stumped. That would require a pixel by pixel analysis and even that would not be certain.

My point is that the appearance of what appears to be part of an extremely similar photo , in a picture purporting to show something very improbable, greatly increases the probability that the photo is faked. That implies an image has been taken from elsewhere. Given we know of the postcard image, it is very likely it came from there- or from a similar image taken at the same time and place, which (in this case) makes no difference to the argument.

(I see this is essentially the same as Lucky's post).

What is interesting (to me) is that I and others thought the images different until shown better quality / differently arranged images. Nobody seems to have gone from belief to doubt.
 
Last edited:
Hi Stray Cat,

I miss your photgraphic forensic analyses in the epic silliness that is the UFO thread. :)

When you get time, and the inclination, could you overlay the lines that you drew on one of the pictures onto the other picture to see how they match up? I think that was Careyp74's suggestion but it may have gotten lost in there somewhere.
 
Careyp74 said:
As far as number 2 goes, does anyone argue that changes in contrast due to exposure or copying would not add enough difference in shadowing to make the two faces look slightly different?

I mean, JCR's post shows this does happen. One pic is darker than the other, the lines of shadow change, the angle looks different. We don't need to put much effort into the possibility that two pictures were taken at close to the same time.
Click to expand...
I included 2 and 3 because they're not of the same order of improbability as any suggestion of a coincidental resemblance between two unrelated photos - but they are still many times less probable than it being the same image.

I agree that the copying and faking process could easily account for the slight differences between the original and the 'ghost' - that's not why I mentioned the possibility of different photos taken on the same occasion. If the child had been told to stand very still, and two photos were taken within a few seconds then I'd say the results could be similar enough that we can't rule out this possibility. Of course, the photo that wasn't published would have to be still in existence, and accessible, which is why this is very improbable.

As for 3, we can dismiss any possibility that the hoaxer did some kind of mock-up and used that instead of the original, as creating a striking resemblance to an existing photo is the last thing he would have wanted to do. So it would have to be a separate fake, done by someone else, for some different reason - again, exceedingly improbable.

Anyway, as Soapy points out, if 2 or 3 turned out to be the answer then it would still be true that the eagle-eyed pensioner had discovered the original.
 
Stray Cat said:
Hi Steve, my point is that I shouldn't have to raise doubt. As sceptics, the doubt should be there to start with. The evidence only points to a similarity, not a conclusive certainty.

Otherwise I could show two photos of remarkably similar looking people and claim they were the same person.

Built upon a preponderence of evidence (and complete lack of contrary evidence) collected over years of research I can fairly confidently say that this photo is a fake. But knowing that there have been millions upon millions of photos taken since the invention of photography and some of those photos will look remarkably similar to each other, I can not be certain that the girl in the postcard has been used to fake the photo of the ghost in the fire.
Click to expand...

Granted there could have been a photo or photos that looked similar to the one in question, but you didn't present any of those. You just argued there could be because you felt there were dissimilarities between those two photos- there aren't. You assumed because you were doubtful we should all be doubtful. Even though a somewhat more than casual look at the photo showed many similarities enough to quell any reasonable doubt that this could be a look alike photo.

I understood your point of doubt being the default position, but you presented somewhat of a manufactured conundrum.
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
I agree. The original shots did not impress me as very similar, but both Orthoptera's images and Stray Cat's blink comparator converted me. I agree it's the same image.
Click to expand...


Count me in as well. The morphing image and Stray Cat's lines made it easier to see that they are the same image. I know that's not what Stray Cat intended to show, but that was the conclusion I reached. The difference between the red and blue lines appear to me to be within the tolerance of trying to follow the edge of features, as the pixles are gradiated and not clearly black/white.

I agree that swapping the lines from one image to the other would be a good comparison.
 
Monza said:
The difference between the red and blue lines appear to me to be within the tolerance of trying to follow the edge of features, as the pixles are gradiated and not clearly black/white.
Click to expand...
We also have to allow for the fact that the images didn't start out the same size, and there's bound to have been some difference in orientation. The sizing and alignment processes are necessarily inaccurate, especially as there aren't any sharp lines for Stray Cat to use as a reference. Given these points, and the subjective choice involved in matching blurred and shadowy features, I don't think we should expect the red and blue lines to correspond any better than they do.

Stray Cat, from visual inspection it seems clear that your lines at the base of the nose are wrongly placed (which is the most obvious discrepancy in your comparison). In the original the nose length (between the horizontal lines above and below) includes more of the shadow below it than in the 'ghost'.
 
Before I bow out of this thread (there is nothing for me to prove here and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste any more time on it).

My point in this thread was to highlight the unwarranted 'certainty' expressed by several members. I see this as just as bad as woo certainty. People here should have higher standards of evidence than "it looks the same to me so it is the same".

Lots of people have criticised my illustrative graphic with the blue and red lines and yet not a one of you have actually tried to prove your certainty with similar work of your own. Ignoring the fact that your 'certainty' leaves the burden of proof entirely at your feet. For, me I'm happy to state that I have not enough evidence to be so certain. As Lucky has conveniently pointed out in the post directly above this, there are differences in the two photos. Regardless of how these dofferences came about, they are enough for me to say that these two pictures can not be proven to be the same, but they are similar enough so that it can not be proven they are different. This is all that can be concluded, yes sure disagree and air your subjective opinions but unless you validate them with conclusive evidence, your certainty is based on something that is not certain and to me as a sceptic, that's a position I would be uncomfortable with. I prefer to face the fact that sometimes it's OK to say you don't know.

The thread title is correct. It mentions the word possibly.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Hi Stray Cat,

I miss your photgraphic forensic analyses in the epic silliness that is the UFO thread. :)

When you get time, and the inclination, could you overlay the lines that you drew on one of the pictures onto the other picture to see how they match up? I think that was Careyp74's suggestion but it may have gotten lost in there somewhere.
Click to expand...
Hi RoboTimbo :)

I do keep up with reading the UFO thread... I'm surprised it's still alive, but not surprised that it's the same ground still being covered.

Sorry like I said in my previous post, I'm not spending any more time on this, but here's a nice bottle of ambiguous source.... apt really as that's what the source of this photo remains. :D

Ambiguous-Sauce.jpg

Here's hoping for more epic silliness soon, the crop circle season has stared... that should bring some along. :)
 
monoman said:
I'm making a few assumptions for why I don't think he would have used photoshop: -

(1) He was an amateur photographer and presumably photoshop cost a bomb 15 years ago - and was only available on the Mac. (I may be confusing this with cubase though).
.
Click to expand...

I bought Corel Photo-Paint back in 1995 for under $100. It did nearly everything PhotoShop does and ran on Windows.

Steve S
 
Stray Cat said:
No not at all.... I am still open to both options (real options as opposed to the false ones PJ Denyer gave me).

1. The photo is composed using the photo discovered on the postcard
2. The photo is composed using a different photo

The burden of proof is not mine. I only indicated (quickly because to be quite franky I've got better things to do with my time than look at fake ghost pictures) that there are differences. I have also stated there are remarkable similarities.

Now if anyone can show EXACT matches. Feel free to do so. I can be persuaded by conclusive evidence, but not opinion based upon looking at a photo and saying "it looks the same to me"
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make a case either way. I'm merely disappointed that the one person trying to make any case for the photos being different has done so through sloppy means. It does not strengthen your case or encourage faith in your position to this side of the argument, to allow such obvious discrepencies, and then to dismiss them as unimportant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom