15 year old ghost mystery possibly solved

[Skeptical Greg]

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".

The ' certainty ' has been shown to be warranted. You are the one who can't seem to concede your doubts were/are unwarranted..

The thread title is correct. It mentions the word possibly.

No, the thread title is not correct.

The mystery ( if it ever was one ) has been solved ..

 

[Sherman Bay]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/GF1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G1b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/GFamend.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G2b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/G3.jpg[/qimg]

Remarkably similar, yes.
Exactly the same, no.

Stray Cat, I suggest, in the interest of science, that you supply copies of both photos to other parties without telling them why or which was which. Independently, ask them to draw in the lines where the contrast changes, but do not attempt to define a threshold for them.

My guess is that those lines will differ from yours, since there is a significant element of subjectivity.

Then superimpose all the lines from all the drawers and see what happens. My guess is they won't line up even from the same source image.

Also, you may be unaware of how brightening or darkening can change the apparent location of a contrast change. I'm sorry I don't have time to illustrate this, but I see it all the time. Take one test image and draw your lines. Then, using the same image, brighten it enough to make it "bloom," and try drawing the lines again (better yet, let someone else do it both times while you aren't present). I can guarantee that the lines will not match. So trying this technique with two images with drastically different contrasts is surely doomed to failure (or success, if your intention is to prove they aren't the same).

So what you've done is take two images that could never be lined up properly anyway based merely on their photographic characteristics, then used the results to "prove" they are different. The fault lies in the invalid and meaningless technique, and is a favorite of woos with Oswald and Bigfoot images.

 

[RhodyDave]

Anything photographic is suspect. There is no photograph that has ever been taken that can by itself verify as factual anything it depicts. Photos are created by a very labor intensive process (up until relatively modern forms that don't require "wet" processing) and as such are susceptible to human manipulation and other forms of alteration. A photo proves nothing.

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray Cat, I suggest, in the interest of science, that you supply copies of both photos to other parties without telling them why or which was which....[snip]

I suggest you read my post that says I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

[snip]...I'm sorry I don't have time to illustrate this,...[snip]

You nor anyone else apparently.

So what you've done is take two images that could never be lined up properly anyway based merely on their photographic characteristics, then used the results to "prove" they are different....[snip]

Did I?
Have you even been reading what I wrote?
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. Again another one blinded by your own certainty, you fail to spot the difference between the position you think I hold and the one I actually hold.

 

[Nightmare060]

My two cents on the matter;

Both pictures deffinatly seem incredibly simular and could be the same. True, alot of the qualities to the naked eye do match up. But I have a few questions I would like to ask;

1: If this photo was made in the ages long before photoshop, could an effect that almost merges the face of the girl with the glow, while just obscuring the features on the clothes and hat but not so much the face, be achived? If so, how easily?
2: Wouldn't a double exposure cause the figure to be more etherial or see-through? Most if not all double exposure shots I have seen are rarley so solid.
3: How many cases of tricks of the light are there that would create a human face so clear that you can compare it to an actual photo of a girls face and have it look almost identical? To me, this picture seems to farfetched to be just datasearching.

The most likley explination I can think of so far given the evidence is that it is a camera trick using those two photos and figures. Keep in mind, that camera tricks can alter the image slightly so they may not be EXACTLY alike. This is not modern phatography where you can get a crystal clear image of the person!

 

[steve s]

1: If this photo was made in the ages long before photoshop,

It was made in 1995, Photoshop was released in 1990. As I mentioned in another post, I bought Corel Photo-Paint in 1995 for under $100. It would have easily been capable of doing this.

Steve S

 

[richardm]

2: Wouldn't a double exposure cause the figure to be more etherial or see-through?

Not necessarily. This is a double exposure from 1895; it's a mistake to think that a clever photographer can't do clever things in a traditional darkroom:


!

 

[Nightmare060]

It was made in 1995, Photoshop was released in 1990. As I mentioned in another post, I bought Corel Photo-Paint in 1995 for under $100. It would have easily been capable of doing this.

Steve S

Aaah I see. Then it would be very easy to change the contrast and a few details in photoshop. So even if the photo doesn't look absoloutly identical to the supposed "ghost", these images would be easy to modify. Thanks for the info .

Not necessarily. This is a double exposure from 1895; it's a mistake to think that a clever photographer can't do clever things in a traditional darkroom:
(image that I can't quote)!

Interesting! More evidence of how easily a photo such as the one discussed in this thread could be hoaxed. Thanks for the information, never have I been so plased to be wrong before

 

[Soapy Sam]

Seems the only real difference of opinion here is about degree of certainty.
Everyone thinks the ghost pic is a fake.
Some are convinced it's faked using the postcard pic.
Some are not so sure it's the postcard pic. It might be faked using another pic.

Anything else left to discuss?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anything else left to discuss?

Nope, that's why everyone else stopped 13 hours ago.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Time zones my man.

 

[Careyp74]

Nope, that's why everyone else stopped 13 hours ago.

Oh behave

Nightmare, I learned in photo class that a lot can be done when transferring information from a negative to a piece of developing paper.

basically, making a picture involves projecting the image from the negative onto the paper. You can block out areas of the paper to keep all of the negative from being transferred.

Also, the exposure is light going onto the paper, which creates the dark spots, so lighter areas are actually NOT exposed as much, so when the girl is projected onto the bright fire, her image is allowed to be exposed.

You can also zoom, blur, and line up the information any way you want before actually exposing the paper to the projection.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Line up?

I don't get it. The photos seem to line up perfectly for me.
Mr. O'Rahilly had his own photography studio and certainly had time to make the hoax.

Here are my thoughts on the case:
http://www.atlantaskeptics.com/2010/05/27/oh-really-mr-orahilly/

(But, very briefly, I think this piece of evidence is the final nail in the coffin on this one.)

 

[cathmurphy]

But the really interesting question is...

..to me anyway...

Why go to all that trouble? Did the guy believe in ghosts and was frustrated at the difficulty of obtaining proof? Or did he just fancy having a good laugh at everyone else's expense?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

.....Or financial gain, notoriety, a big double bluff to expose the credulity of believers that he died before completing.


We'll just never know, unless HE comes back as a ghost and tells us....

 

[GregInAustin]

Excellent. The rendering by doctoratlantis shows, without any doubt, that the girl in the two photos are the same.

Stray Cat, with all due respect to your insistence that we be skeptical of everything, I think you are letting your own personal bias and pride prevent you from seeing the obvious: You are wrong.

Just admit that you are wrong, and go on with it. It won't kill you. The evidence is clear to everyone else. Yes, we should be critical and analytical, but not in the face of the obvious. As skeptics, we MUST be able to admit when we are wrong and not stubbornly hold onto our beliefs when evidence proves otherwise.

 

[doctoratlantis]

..to me anyway...

Why go to all that trouble? Did the guy believe in ghosts and was frustrated at the difficulty of obtaining proof? Or did he just fancy having a good laugh at everyone else's expense?

Good question - you can at least see what Mr. O'Rahilly said when confronted if you watch him being inteviewed on Out of this World.

I'd been researching this case for a while when the solution dropped into my inbox. I share some of that on our Atlanta Skeptics blog entry I posted last night:
http://www.atlantaskeptics.com/2010/05/27/oh-really-mr-orahilly/

 

[Stray Cat]

Just admit that you are wrong, and go on with it. It won't kill you. The evidence is clear to everyone else. Yes, we should be critical and analytical, but not in the face of the obvious. As skeptics, we MUST be able to admit when we are wrong and not stubbornly hold onto our beliefs when evidence proves otherwise.

How can I possibly be wrong?
I have said from the start that the two photos are remarkably similar.
I have never said that it is certainly not the photo proposed.

There is a massive difference between thinking it is the most likely explanation and saying "it is the explanation and you're a silly fool for believing otherwise".

Any new conclusive evidence?
No, just the same evidence make bigger.

 

[doctoratlantis]

Any new conclusive evidence?
No, just the same evidence make bigger.

What would constitute conclusive evidence for you?

 

[Careyp74]

Why go to all that trouble? Did the guy believe in ghosts and was frustrated at the difficulty of obtaining proof? Or did he just fancy having a good laugh at everyone else's expense?

I hope you aren't trying to argue against him faking it, are you? I hear the "why would he do that" a lot as argument. I agree, it is an interesting question, but not a crucial one for the case.