15 year old ghost mystery possibly solved

[Ernie M]

doctoratlantis,

You did a good job with your animated overlay of the "ghost" and postcard-girl, as a means to show "The Wem ghost" photo was faked. Your approach is clear and concise.

Although I wouldn't put it past some die-hard paranormal zealots to come up with a piece of crap explanation/reason that there was quartz in the soil which captured and froze in time, where the quartz 'remembered' or imprinted/recorded the spirit/image of the girl in 1922 and 'replayed' that same image in 1995. That would be pure garbage, but I've heard rubbish about rocks (minerals) on different paranormal TV shows before.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

-Ernie Marsh

 

[Stray Cat]

What would constitute conclusive evidence for you?

Mr. O'Rahilly had his own photography studio and certainly had time to make the hoax.

A copy of the postcard amongst his personal belongings.
A negative of the postcard in his darkroom
Any evidence that he knew of the existence of the postcard 15 years ago.
Any physical connection between Mr O'Rahilly and the postcard

Any of the above would be conclusive for me.

Until then, it remains the most likely explanation.

 

[GregInAustin]

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 don't think I have nor was I trying to prove they were different, only that there is not enough information to prove they are the same.

Which is it? Do you think they are different or not? Are the girls seen in the two pictures the same girl or not? It sure sounds to me like you are arguing that the girls in the photos are not the same. You even crudely drew red and blue lines in a failed attempt to show that they are different. If you think that there are differences, why don't you provide evidence that supports your hypothesis, instead of evidence that shows otherwise?

Taking into the effects of photo manipulation (changes in brightness and contrast, as shown here and by personal experiments), what are the differences that make you think the photo of the girl in the fire is NOT the exact same photo of the girl standing on the sidewalk?

 

[Stray Cat]

Which is it? Do you think they are different or not? Are the girls seen in the two pictures the same girl or not? It sure sounds to me like you are arguing that the girls in the photos are not the same. You even crudely drew red and blue lines in a failed attempt to show that they are different. If you think that there are differences, why don't you provide evidence that supports your hypothesis, instead of evidence that shows otherwise?

Taking into the effects of photo manipulation (changes in brightness and contrast, as shown here and by personal experiments), what are the differences that make you think the photo of the girl in the fire is NOT the exact same photo of the girl standing on the sidewalk?

Sorry Greg, if you think that "there are differences" and "they are different" are the same thing then you are arguing a strawman. Especially when you think it's OK to ignore the times I have also said there are amazing similarities.

And as you're one of the one's who is 100% certain, then why don't YOU provide some evidence to show with 100% certainty that what you say is correct?

What other evidence can I provide that would prove my position, when my position is that I think the postcard is the most likely explanation?
Because the evidence throughout this thread supports my position perfectly.

 

[doctoratlantis]

A copy of the postcard amongst his personal belongings.
A negative of the postcard in his darkroom
Any evidence that he knew of the existence of the postcard 15 years ago.
Any physical connection between Mr O'Rahilly and the postcard

Any of the above would be conclusive for me.

Until then, it remains the most likely explanation.

Interesting. I'm something of a skeptic myself, but I'd be willing to say this photographed is fake. That's the opinion of at least one established photography expert as well. That being said, the question was could it be proven to be faked. Without this piece of evidence - the postcard - it would only be possible to say that it looked like an image had been placed into the photo. But with the specific image made available, there only appear to be two obvious explanations:

1) That the person who took the photo faked it
or
2) That the image appeared on the camera through supernatural means

Mr. O'Rahilly claimed to have taken the photo. That much is not in dispute. I have a scan of the negatives he submitted to the Fortean Picture Library. If we assume that the photo was faked and not supernatural (as skeptics often do) then the only way it would have appeared on that roll would be for him to have taken a picture of Wem town hall's fire, then doctor the photo and then reshoot the altered photo to add it to the negatives.

If you have any other explanation I would love to hear it.

I think you're conflating the fact that we don't have 100% documentation of each step in his hoax for an inability to conclusively say that he faked it. Strictly speaking we can't prove he took the faked photo. It could be his neighbor came over and faked it and tricked him. Or that fairies did it. Or that notorious photo hoaxer Bigfoot. (Or more likely, in the UK, Nessie.)

But are you questioning whether the photo was faked at all?
Or just whether O'Rahilly did it?

 

[Stray Cat]

But are you questioning whether the photo was faked at all?
Or just whether O'Rahilly did it?

Have you read the thread?

Of course it's a faked photo, ghosts don't exist.

Did he use that postcard to fake it?
Most likely.

Can anyone prove with 100% certainty based on the evidence we've seen here that he used that photo?
No.

Therefore is the level of certainty shown in this thread unwarranted?
Yes.

Can that be changed in any way?
Yes, by finding a physical link to the photographer and the postcard.

How many times?

 

[doctoratlantis]

Can anyone prove with 100% certainty based on the evidence we've seen here that he used that photo?
No.

Um, actually yes.

Perhaps not to you, but the number of matches between the two photos is too great for any other explanation...

Unless you would like to provide an alternative explanation? I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong.

 

[Stray Cat]

Unless you would like to provide an alternative explanation? I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong.

I prefer not to be so certain I'm right in the first place.

 

[Olowkow]

I have not read the entire thread carefully, but it is clear to me that the postcard pic is very probably the one used in the composite. I read the Atlantic Skeptics article Oh, really Mr. O'Rahilly, and googled the name just to see what I came up with, and found this:

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa102102b.htm

O'Rahilly submitted the photo to the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena which, in turn, presented it for analysis to Dr. Vernon Harrison, a photographic expert and former president of the Royal Photographic Society. Harrison carefully examined both the print and the original negative, and concluded that it was genuine. "The negative is a straightforward piece of black-and-white work and shows no sign of having been tampered with," Harrison said.

I'm no photographic expert, but to me "The negative ...shows no sign of having been tampered with" is kind of meaningless. It is a negative of a composite picture produced on a computer. No one is saying the print or the negative was altered. Any thoughts?

ETA: My point is that perhaps Mr Harrison submitted a lengthy report stating that this is a composite, and one sentence in the report could have been the bolded one above. The woo sites then quote mine this to make it look like it is a confirmation of a ghostly photo.

 

[Stray Cat]

I'm no photographic expert, but to me "The negative ...shows no sign of having been tampered with" is kind of meaningless. It is a negative of a composite picture produced on a computer. No one is saying the print or the negative was altered. Any thoughts?

Unless the negative was in the center of a strip all taken during the fire.
But even then, there's nothing to stop a good hoaxer from taking half a dozen black and white prints and then simply reshooting the whole strip back onto negative with the hoaxed photo in the middle of the strip to cover the what would be obvious differences between an original and a photo of a print.

 

[Olowkow]

Well, Dr. Harrison was definitely no lightweight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Harrison

However, it all depends on where you look for his involvement in the Wem case, as to whether he actually did the analysis.

http://skeptic.danielalderman.com/?p=43

Dr. Vernon Harrison: Also appears to have been a legitimate scientist with expertise in photographic analysis. I can find no independent reference to his working with the photo.

Neither can I. Ah, those woosters! Clever little buggers.

 

[doctoratlantis]

I'm no photographic expert, but to me "The negative ...shows no sign of having been tampered with" is kind of meaningless. It is a negative of a composite picture produced on a computer. No one is saying the print or the negative was altered. Any thoughts?

That quote is meaningless, and is the same one you'll hear from ghosties who submit their fake (or error-filled) photos to Kodak or other film makers for authentication.

The expert from the National Photography Museum who examined the photo found signs of fakery. I'd been trying to contact him for follow-up when this post-card emerged.

Looking back at my notes, I found that I wrote:

Anyway, normally I'd be even skeptical of the experts since it is a TV
show - but knowing now what I do about the British legal system and
how easy it is to sue someone for libel and/or slander I am inclined
to suspect that the evidence for hoaxing might even be stronger than
shown in the segment.

That still seems a valid observation. The British legal system is extremely weighted in favor of the person whose reputation has been slighted. One good reason why Mr. O'Rahilly might have not fought the BBC in court would be that he knew that their expert's opinion of the photo was correct. Of course that's just one possible interpretation of why he let their show tarnish his reputation.

Regardless, a hoax like this doesn't require photoshop. Just a photo shop, which Mr. O'Rahilly did have.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Unless the negative was in the center of a strip all taken during the fire.
But even then, there's nothing to stop a good hoaxer from taking half a dozen black and white prints and then simply reshooting the whole strip back onto negative with the hoaxed photo in the middle of the strip to cover the what would be obvious differences between an original and a photo of a print.

And, for the record, the photo falls at the end of the strip. That doesn't have to mean anything, but it is where the picture lies.

 

[GregInAustin]

And as you're one of the one's who is 100% certain, then why don't YOU provide some evidence to show with 100% certainty that what you say is correct?

I never said I was 100% certain. Nothing in life is 100% certain, and I'm not 100% certain about that.

What I said is, according to the evidence presented here, by yourself and others, it is obvious that the girl in the two photos are the same girl. Yes, there are differences. Major differences. Notice the girl in the fire picture is missing her arms and legs. The brightness and contrast of her facial features is different. The biggest and most obvious difference is that in one photo, the girl is standing outside on a street sidewalk, and in the other, she appears to be engulfed in flame.

But what we are trying to say, and you are refusing to admit, is that there is sufficient evidence to safely say, with certainty, that the girl in the fire is not really there, and is the result of photographic fakery, created by copying the girl from the street photograph. I didn't say 100% certainty, I said certainty.

I prefer not to be so certain I'm right in the first place.

Please forgive me, but you sound really certain about that.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Stray Cat, like with any scientific theory, you can't give it 100% accuracy, but given the evidence put together in this thread, I give it as much certainty as I give the Theories of Evolution and Gravity. Even the post you made with your hand-drawn lines didn't prove what you thought it proved. And I honestly think that the line in the wall behind the girl even matches up.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Certitude

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.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Any ideas?

I prefer not to be so certain I'm right in the first place.

But seriously, I know you want to keep an open mind about this case - but do you have any alternate explanation for how the two photos could contain the same image besides a deliberate hoax by Mr. O'Rahilly?

 

[Stray Cat]

But seriously, I know you want to keep an open mind about this case - but do you have any alternate explanation for how the two photos could contain the same image besides a deliberate hoax by Mr. O'Rahilly?

I think I already said that from the millions upon millions of photos taken since the invention of photography, some are bound to look remarkably similar. It would almost be paranormal if such coincidence hadn't hit the world of photography. Plus costumes from the period were similar (there are two other girls in the same postcard wearing similar outfits though obviously not in the same pose.

My biggest reservation is why he would choose a picture (albeit a vintage one) from a postcard of his hometown. Where if it was going to be spotted, that would be the place most likely for it to be spotted, and indeed it took 15 years but someone possibly spotted it. Which is why some evidence that he knew of the postcard's existence would be good.

I fully understand this is a much less likely option, but when balanced against the physical evidence (the photo) which although remarkably similar doesn't have enough detail to be able to make an exact match and the circumstantial evidence (the back story) which is mostly written by woo's and can't be fully relied upon, I don't think the chance that a different photo was used to fake the ghost and it's coincidence that two photos dating from the same period look remarkably similar has been comprehensively ruled out. As slim as that option is.

 

[Stray Cat]

And I honestly think that the line in the wall behind the girl even matches up.

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.

 

[Stray Cat]

What I said is, according to the evidence presented here, by yourself and others, it is obvious that the girl in the two photos are the same girl.

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

Please forgive me, but you sound really certain about that.

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