• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

School Ghost Picture

JackDark

JackDark

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
198
Obviously, we take stories behind pictures with a grain of salt, but apparently this image was discovered only after a few years of the video being taken.

The rest of the video is online somewhere, and shows the ongoing demolition of a school and its outbuildings. Apparently the spook was only noticed by the owner of the footage recently.

So then, 'teacher' type - middle of pic.

What's the opinions?

skoolghost.jpg
 
Not much more to be got from the foto. (I've blown it up, tweaked the contrast, etc.) The figure appears to be forward of the rubble in front of the porch, with just a suggestions of legs present.

Any idea of where, when, name of video, etc?
 
JackDark said:
Yeah, done the old analysis route myself too, no obvious fakery to be seen, that's why I posted it here. Its a good one!

Anyway, the complete story and video is here ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad81hk1HMqk
Click to expand...

Seems very much like the old faithful simulacrum. From the picture I sense the the image of the person being created from the shadows and light, are at the door, not nearer the camera. So this would make a very big ghost. I don't see any eveidence of legs infront of the rubble. It seems rather like the Kelty Woods ghost image I came across awhile ago. Similar simulacrum effect, but very effctive.
 
If it was just a face, I'd go along with simulacrum. But the detail seems to include a jacket and tie (and maybe more!)

So if it's not what it claims to be, we have to think of photoshopping. If not that, then the digital version of a double exposure?

I'm also intrigued to notice that at least some of the pics were taken on Leap Year day, 2004... :shock: (What are the chances of that, eh? ;) )
 
Looks like a shop dummy! Shoot me down in flames if you will, but could this be a, er, person standing there? i.e. a living one?
 
We really need more information. The video poster hasn't posted anything else, so there are no clues there. The 29th Feb was a Sunday, which fits in with a security guard doing evenings and weekends.

The trees are bare, so this is the northern hemisphere, and I'd say probably Britain (nothing obviously foreign in sight).

The buildings don't look that old, so why were they being demolished?
Anybody local to the area would probably recognize the location...
 
Can't accept the simulacrum idea myself. Its just 'too' good an image. And yes, there are legs apparent as well, take a look in negative and you will see.

A real person? a shop dummy? All possibilities of course, IF it's been 'shopped.

The legend seems to point away from that, but then again all legends do.
 
I get the impression of a man in suit & tie standing with his hands behind his back. If it is fake it is very good.

I think it could be in a New town some where. One of the first few pictures shows houses in the back ground, they look like typical 1950's new town houses. The number plates on the cars that can be seen are yellow so that should confirm the UK. If a number plate could be read that may give a clue to the area.

I live in just such a new town, and schools only 20 years old have been knocked down to have housing estates built on them. Now the houses have kids in them and there are no school places. I wish someone could explain the logic in this. :?
 
Put this pic up for discussion in a few places. No-one has as yet come up with a decent debunk.

I think it's a wonderful picture, and I can't help thinking that if I was the guy who had taken it - and was therefore fully aware of its authenticity, then the apparition would be good enough for me, and I'd be a 100 per cent true believer.
 
JackDark said:
...then the apparition would be good enough for me, and I'd be a 100 per cent true believer.
Click to expand...
In what, exactly? 8)

Only hard-nosed skeptics deny that people sometimes see 'ghosts', but this still leaves unsolved their exact nature. Spirits of the dead? Time slips? Memories, imprinted somehow on particular places? Something else? :?
 
rynner said:
JackDark said:
...then the apparition would be good enough for me, and I'd be a 100 per cent true believer.
Click to expand...
In what, exactly? 8)
Click to expand...

In ghosts. ;) :roll:

(I wasn't trying to open up a profound discussion)
 
Why does it have to be a ghost? It looks like some bloke, so why couldn't it be some bloke?
 
gncxx said:
Why does it have to be a ghost? It looks like some bloke, so why couldn't it be some bloke?
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

1) WHO said it WAS a ghost?

2) It may well be 'some bloke' but people aren't usually 'transparent'. Unless of course he's the invisible man - mid morph?

Anything sensible to say?
 
Could be our old friend the double exposure?
 
Hmmm. For some reason the 'scale' looks a little off to me. He just seems a little too tall and wide in comparison to the entry doors- I'm fairly familiar with school buildings and the doors have to allow lots of kids through at the end of the day!

I'm in the double exposure camp...
 
squizita said:
Hmmm. For some reason the 'scale' looks a little off to me.
Click to expand...

?

Eh?

You can only work on scale if you know exactly where the figure should be. You don't. You are assuming he is standing near the entry doors when he could be standing further forward, on the edge of the playground.
 
floating

As a person who fakes ghost pics for Halloween every year (I always let people know at the end of my 'show' that the pics are all fakes), I can honestly say there's cause for doubt. If the person is indeed standing closer to the camera (and hence the difference in scale), they would have to be floating. This is a common problem I encounter when I fake photos: getting the figures to rest naturally on the floor at the correct scale-distance from the camera point in relation to the background.

However, I do happen to have a genuine photo of a ghost, taken by a family member, in which the ghost would have to be floating for the picture to have been taken.

Another thing I notice is that my fake ghost pictures tend to be a little too clear, a little too crisp. This guy is nice a grainy.

Another thing: look to the right, in the right-hand side of the pane of window on the first floor. My imagination sees a woman's face partly blocked by the wood separating the upper-lower panes, and two hands resting on the sill.
 
Many school buidings from the early to mid seventies are ripe for demolition now - they only had a thirty year life span. They were built to accomodate the children of a percieved baby boom in the seventies. Any one have any idea where this pic was taken?
 
[homer simpson]

Of course it's a ghost, didn't you hear the music!?!

[/homer simpson]
 
Re: floating

baleeber said:
As a person who fakes ghost pics for Halloween every year (I always let people know at the end of my 'show' that the pics are all fakes), I can honestly say there's cause for doubt. If the person is indeed standing closer to the camera (and hence the difference in scale), they would have to be floating. This is a common problem I encounter when I fake photos: getting the figures to rest naturally on the floor at the correct scale-distance from the camera point in relation to the background.

However, I do happen to have a genuine photo of a ghost, taken by a family member, in which the ghost would have to be floating for the picture to have been taken.

Another thing I notice is that my fake ghost pictures tend to be a little too clear, a little too crisp. This guy is nice a grainy.

Another thing: look to the right, in the right-hand side of the pane of window on the first floor. My imagination sees a woman's face partly blocked by the wood separating the upper-lower panes, and two hands resting on the sill.
Click to expand...

not really clear from that whether you think the pic is genuine or not.

I'm amused though that you have a 'real' ghost photo , that you measure everthing else against.

1) How do you know its 'real'?
2) Can we see it?
 
What I take to be the figures right shoulder (as you look at the picture) I see as part of the door. It is quite easy for a photographer with an SLR to take a photo on a long exposure time, get the person to stand there for a few seconds then walk away. You should then get a transparent figure such as that.

If you could estimate the distance from the camera to the door, know how high a standard door frame is and use a little maths you may get a little better idea of how far away the figure should be standing if it is within the limits of hmuan heights! The only way to ensure it has not been faked would be to see the photo in a raw format (I think it is raw, can't vremember now). :D
 
looks like a fake/ simulacrum to me. If that is a dude with the tie and the head and the (apparent) right shoulder stood in the door way then surely he would be too big. taking into account where his shirt ends (visible beneath what has been described as the blazer) then his feet would presumably be through the floor. Should he step forward from the door way then he would appear gigantic next to the porch post on his left/ our right
 
people are mentioning the perspective of the photo, why does it have to follow conventional rules, if there are intelligent ghosts, why do they have to follow our laws of perception?


Anyway, that's a great pic, gives me the creeps for some reason, lol
 
I embossed the image in Paint Shop Pro, which indicates that a solid object is actually in the picture. If that is the case then perhaps it is a photo with a long exposure with someone standing there for a short while before moving off camera? But the scale of the man doesn't seem right. :?
 
Looking at the picture closely there is definately something there, and you can see the distortion of the background all the way down one leg if you zoom in very tight. The figure appears to be standing in front of the mound of debris, just back of the edge between the dark and light brown areas. If you put him there, then it makes it about the right size for an average-tall man (ie 5' 10" - 6'4").

Just my two cents :)
 
Why are people still going on about perspective issues here? No one knows where the figure is supposed to be standing, so, perspective arguments are non starters. :nonplus:

Simulacrum? Not for me, just too good.

Double Exposure seems the best option, BUT ...... this pic was taken from a video.
 
JackDark said:
Why are people still going on about perspective issues here? No one knows where the figure is supposed to be standing, so, perspective arguments are non starters. :nonplus:

Simulacrum? Not for me, just too good.

Double Exposure seems the best option, BUT ...... this pic was taken from a video.
Click to expand...

Where is the rest of the video. Our answers would be in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top