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

The Hoo Lake Apparition: The Best Ghost Picture Ever?

T

triplesod

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
112
Forget that paper in the grids at the castle. Ignore the pic of the woman with glasses in the back of the car (I have a pic of my mum in the backseat of a car but I can't get away with calling her a ghost now cause of this pic!), Amytiville, Schmamytiville!

You look all your life for the ghost picture. The one that will make you believe but you only ever find hoaxes, paradeidolia or innocent naivety then one day, when you least expect it, it falls into your lap.

Allow me to introduce you to somethingawful.com

This is a generally a comedy website but it has some of the best threads on the internet. One of my favourite long running threads are the spooky threads. The Spring ghost stories and the "post your favourite spooky pic" threads.

Due to the publicity of Prof Wiseman's attempts at psychologically looking at the way we see ghosts, a thread was started...
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... enumber=11

I advise you all to read that thread thoroughly. Some very interesting stuff there.

Actually... Please just read the thread, I am not going to be able to do justice to the posts of the person who discovered his ghost photo.

His name there is "Fuctifino". You will first see his story, you will then see some rough pics and finally, you will see this....

swyatt.com/ghost/HiResScan.png
Link is dead. No archived version found. See (much) later post with a current link to pictures.

Please go there and read his explanation and let us know your thoughts here. Feel free to skip the posts and concentrate on Monsignor Fuctifino (at least the first time you read through). I am not being very helpful here because you may find the way the story develped interesting and of help to your theory.

For the record. I find the guy completely sincere and I honestly, HONESTLY do believe this is the best picture of a supposed spirit entity of all time, and I really have seen the lot, as I know you lot have!

Please enjoy the thread....

EDIT: title changed by WJ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK.

April 1st's over now, and the original poster was a Mr Fuctifino (Fucked-if-I-know.)

Now - Mr Sod: do you want this thread to a) stay in Ghosts on a standalone basis, b) become appended to one of the other ghost photo threads in Ghosts, or c) get moved to Chat?

Do let us know.

Stu

Edit - this thread subsequently developed in quite an unexpected direction, hence in Ghosts it stayed. Keep reading :).
 
Best ghost pic ever? Hardly! :roll:

(FWIW, I sailed a dinghy on Hooe lake many years ago. It's a tidal creek off the Cattewater in Plymouth harbour, assuming there's not another Hooe Lake somewhere.)
 
Hmmm.

Somethingawful.com churns out a lot of photoshopped photographs, as I'm sure you're aware. However, it doesn't look photoshopped to me, more likely a person in a latex mask.

No offense to you, but there a lot of juvenile antics that take place on that board and the fact that the high res image was posted on April 1st, pretty much debunks it outright.

All that rubbish about the filmmaker wanting to 'burn/hide the photo's and negatives'. Surely, a film maker would grasp this as a chance to make another film.

I don't know. The guy does seem to be giving some intelligent answers though.

Hmmm.
 
Last night, I sat and watched part of an unfunny spoof, on New Zealand's lost cinema, featuring that, 'Lord of the Rings' and 'King Kong', chap, Peter Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgotten_Silver

This, 'ghost picture´, spoof, was a work of genius, in comparison and mercifully brief. ;)
 
Hi.

Triplesod lent me his account just so that I could keep an eye on this thread and reply first-hand.

My name is Stuart Wyatt, and I am the owner of the negatives. Just because I use the handle 'fuctifino', and hang around on SomethingAwful (which is the only online community I really belong to), and just because I managed to get the enlargement back from the developers on April the 1st.... you really shouldnt automatically cry fake.

While I like jokes and gags, please believe me when I say that this is not a joke. The photo was taken on B&W 35mm film in 2005, by a photographer who was hired by a local short-film maker - and this shot was taken as a test for lighting, as the film maker wanted to use the location for a scene.

We noticed a strange blob on frame 29, and when we scanned in the original print, it looked very strange. When we zoomed in on the scan, we could see what appeared to be an image of a person. Shortly afterwards, I fell seriously ill (and still am to a certain extent - ME/CFS/Fibromyalgia), and during a couple of years of semi-homelessness, I thought I had lost the negatives. They only turned up again a few days ago.

The only people at the location was the film maker, and the hired photographer - and from where the photo's were taken, if anyone walked into they area, they would have been noticed by those two. The film maker was a very serious person, and had zero budget.... and his first reaction when he saw the prints was annoyance... it was a complication that he did not want. He wanted to burn the negatives and the photo's, but I managed to pursuade him to give them to me after I had finished the film score for him.

This is the full frame 29 - [img=[URL]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7268/ghostnegativescan.th.png[/URL]]

The enlargement you've already seen in the OP.

I did a 1200dpi scan of the negatives - http://uploading.com/files/62PLA3P9...e0003.tiff.html [10.8MB]

And if anyone wishes to speak to me, they can phone me (stu edit - number removed: see later discussions.) If there is anyone local to Plymouth who wishes to see the negatives first-hand, that can be easily arranged.

As for my own reputation, I used to the violinist out of local band Mad Dog McRea before falling ill. Since falling ill, I have been a rather loud and active medicinal cannabis activist and lobbyist (and recently just finished a crown court trial - google it if you dont believe me).... and I was also a staunch anti-Scientology protester - http://youtube.com/plymouthscientology (I'm the one in the scooter), but had to step back after they 'fair-gamed' me.

So - with all this in mind, would you please look again at the evidence without automatically shouting 'fake'....

Cheers

- Stuart Wyatt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've just uploaded a load of photo's to my new hosting account:

The following show the same shot, but from slightly different angles:

swyatt.com/ghost/Frame27.jpg
swyatt.com/ghost/Frame28.jpg
swyatt.com/ghost/ghost-negative-scan.jpg (Frame 29 - where the 'ghost' appears)
swyatt.com/ghost/Frame31.jpg
swyatt.com/ghost/Frame33.jpg

1200dpi scan of the 12"x8" print that I picked up from the developers yesterday (yes I know it was April 1st when I picked it up . I wish I'd waited a day TBH lol) - swyatt.com/ghost/HiResScan.png

Where the location is (yes, its the boathouse at Hooe Lake, Plymstock)
swyatt.com/ghost/map.jpg

Aerial image of the place:
swyatt.com/ghost/ghosthouse.jpg

For anyone to have walked into the building, they would have been noticed by the photographer and the film maker.

And a newspaper cutting from 1982/83 that I found at the library the other day, which goes into detail about some of the ghosts of Radford:
swyatt.com/ghost/NewspaperWhiteLady.jpeg

Here's hoping you can provide some theories.....

- Stuart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Stuart, my apologies at expressing an immediate outright sceptical eye to your photograph.

Can I ask you a few questions?

Just to understand you correctly, this image is a single frame from B&W 35mm photo film, not 'cine' film?

Why did the film maker show annoyance and 'a complication he did not want' if a single photograph was botched with a 'blob'? You mentioned they were only taken for testing lighting and despite the anomaly on one of the photos they still do the intended job. Not to mention the other photographs that were taken.

I could understand his annoyance if these photographs were to be used for press stills or it was actual film footage. But for testing lighting, why would he care so much?

That's my biggest gripe with your story I'm afraid.

I simply don't understand why he'd want to burn the photos and the negatives simply because of this single anomaly in one of his photographs. If it was a complication he didn't want, why take the time to burn them? Perhaps this was just a figure of speech when you asked him about the photographs.

I would however, personally rule out pareidolia, as the shape is there one moment and not in another photograph taken from the same angle. So unless there is moving vegetation, it seems unlikely.

The figure definitely shows a mass to it, unlike most ghost photographs where the figure is usually opaque. But that's merely an observation and doesn't prove its a ghost or not anyway.

Did the film ever get made? Was this location ever used?

Oh and the '1200dpi scan' link isn't working.
 
If you look closely the ivy and spaces between make multiple faces in other parts of the pic. I see faces in everything. I believe it is called paredolia.
 
Dandelo_ said:
Hello Stuart, my apologies at expressing an immediate outright sceptical eye to your photograph.

Can I ask you a few questions?
Click to expand...
No probs... and fire away :)
Just to understand you correctly, this image is a single frame from B&W 35mm photo film, not 'cine' film?
Click to expand...
Yes, its from a B&W 35mm photo film, not cine film
Why did the film maker show annoyance and 'a complication he did not want' if a single photograph was botched with a 'blob'? You mentioned they were only taken for testing lighting and despite the anomaly on one of the photos they still do the intended job. Not to mention the other photographs that were taken.
Click to expand...
The film maker was a very poor student, and was also a manic-depressive. His only focus was to get his short film finished. He was annoyed, because it was a complication that had the potential to have lots of ghost hunters on the set, destroying its tranquility and rustic dereliction.

I also believe he was quite superstitious, and the photo's freaked him out quite a bit. I think he read too much into it, that it was some kind of personal omen for him...

To be quite honest, I have no idea how his head worked. He was one of the most eccentric people I have ever met.... I can only relate to what I observed...

I simply don't understand why he'd want to burn the photos and the negatives simply because of this single anomaly in one of his photographs. If it was a complication he didn't want, why take the time to burn them? Perhaps this was just a figure of speech when you asked him about the photographs.
Click to expand...

Superstitious fear perhaps? It took a lot of persuading from my part to get him to give the negatives to me... and he agreed once I gave him the film score (which can be heard at http://somehow-someday.com/solostring/a ... oundtrack/ - if you fancy committing suicide lol).... as I said, I have/had no idea how his mind works.

I would however, personally rule out pareidolia, as the shape is there one moment and not in another photograph taken from the same angle. So unless there is moving vegetation, it seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

I agree. I believe it was a warm sunny day when the photo was taken, so there would have probably been little wind to blow vegetation into the archway...
The figure definitely shows a mass to it, unlike most ghost photographs where the figure is usually opaque. But that's merely an observation and doesn't prove its a ghost or not anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree... It definitely shows mass - but that mass appears to dissipate towards the bottom of the figure....
Did the film ever get made? Was this location ever used?
Click to expand...
The film was made, but I don't think it ever got anywhere except a couple of local film competitions/showings.... It was called "The Anima", and the directors name was Tim Coles (who has absolutely zero online presence).... I fell out with him for other reasons a few months after the film was finished, and I've not been able to get in contact with him since. I believe he still lives in Plymstock.

And the location wasn't used for the film in the end, although I believe he wanted to use it for his next film...
Oh and the '1200dpi scan' link isn't working.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the scan of the negatives? I've just tried uploading them to my hosting, but there is a 4MB limit (the file is 10MB).... I can try to find a place to upload it if you want. (Its just to prove that the image appears on the negative)

If its the 1200dpi scan of the 'ghost' print, then that is uploaded here - http://swyatt.com/ghost/HiResScan.png

[Edit] I've just managed to upload a 1200dpi scan of the negative strip where the image appears (its frame 29)... http://swyatt.com/ghost/negative_strip.tiff

- Stuart
 
Multimap.co has good maps, including decent size OS ones, as well as aerial imagery. You can zoom in on this:

http://tinyurl.com/dxcjh4

It seems the boathouse is on Radford Lake, which now seems to be non-tidal. All fascinating stuff, but no theories about the photo spring to mind, apart from a photographic anomaly and/or a simulacrum. (I don't rule that out - plant life in full leaf doesn't need much wind to set it a-quiver, and passing wild-life, especially birds, will also set it moving.)

My only visits to that area were in 72/73. Who knows, if in the future a ghostly dinghy is seen sailing across Hooe Lake, it might be me...! :shock:
 
rynner2 said:
Multimap.co has good maps, including decent size OS ones, as well as aerial imagery. You can zoom in on this:

http://tinyurl.com/dxcjh4
Click to expand...
Thanks. I've not been back to the location since 2005, and I'm not sure if I'll ever be able safely do it any more with the illness. So cheers for this...
It seems the boathouse is on Radford Lake, which now seems to be non-tidal.
Click to expand...
Yes - its the old boathouse of the old Radford Estate.
There is a famous ghost there (which I only found out about a few weeks after the photo was taken) called the White Lady. There is more information about that ghost in the newspaper cutting I uploaded from 82/83 - http://swyatt.com/ghost/NewspaperWhiteLady.jpeg . According to folklore, she was a lady of the house who died after falling into the lake, after rowing across the lake to either meet her lover, or a local girl of a lower class (who she had to meet in secret)...

Many locals have claimed to have seen her, and she is so much ingrained in local folklore, that there is a road just outside the park that is named after her. When I was phoning up the council to try and locate the old Radford estate records (the mansion was demolished in the 30's by the way), the lady who I spoke to lived in the area, and although she hadnt seen the ghost herself, she knows many people of all ages who have claimed to have seen her.

My only visits to that area were in 72/73. Who knows, if in the future a ghostly dinghy is seen sailing across Hooe Lake, it might be me...! :shock:
Click to expand...

Hahaha :) I doubt if the place has changed at all since those days.... except for the frequent sightings of chavs I suppose.

Regards,

- Stu
 
Hi Triplesod, first of all thanks for sticking around and trying to explain everything. We are [well I am quite gullible] very thorough and don't just take anything for face value here, that is why [if you photo is showing a ghost] this would be the best place to post it. Had you posted it on other sites you might have got the "thumbs up" for best ghost picture ever straight away, not here though. It has to go through the mill. So good on you for sticking it out.
Now when I opened the very first picture my thoughts were: "Hmm, where is the ghost, above the statue?"
I saw a face like shape in the leaves and thought: "its a crap ghost".
Then when I read on, I noticed that the "statue" was the ghost.
Of course later I saw that the figure only appears in one frame. Still, whatever it is, it looks to me like those things that you find in graveyards, looking down on graves, rather than an apparition.
Maybe its an apparition of a statue?
;)
Maybe its performance art. By claiming that there is a "ghost" in one frame and it is the "best" one there ever was, that young film maker could make it far more interesting.
Throw in some "madness" and anger and hey presto, a cult film in the making.
Still, an interesting thread. Don't run off though... 8)
 
Thanks for your theories....

Re: the performance art angle, that would be a possible explanation had he promoted the pic and made a big song and dance about it. As it happened, he only showed it to a few people, and then became rather spooked by it. The location wasn't used in the end for the film The Anima, hence the picture would have given him nothing to benefit from...

Basically, the situation is this: It was a quiet weekday, and from where the photographer and the film maker stood, it would have been very difficult for someone to walk into the location and the shot without being noticed by both of them. Nobody remembers seeing anyone in the area that day, and because there was a lot of thick vegetation back then (the council was lazy in keeping it tidy that summer), any person walking through the undergrowth would have made a sound.

The film maker had serious issues of having his own photograph taken (I tried to take a mobile phone pic of him a few times when I knew him).... plus the image in frame 29 looks nothing like him - he always stays behind any camera.... so its definitely not him in the pic pulling a prank.

Im at a total loss with this pic.

- Stu (still hijacking triplesod's account - waiting for my account to be validated)
 
triplesod said:
- Stu (still hijacking triplesod's account - waiting for my account to be validated)
Click to expand...

I noticed when I joined recently that validation seems to take forever. I think this is generally off putting towards new users. It took over two days for my account to be verified.
 
triplesod said:
..Stu (still hijacking triplesod's account - waiting for my account to be validated)
Click to expand...
What's the username?
Dandelo_ said:
..I noticed when I joined recently that validation seems to take forever. I think this is generally off putting towards new users. It took over two days for my account to be verified.
Click to expand...
Two days vs forever - I have trouble with differentiating between those as well.

Turnaround is usually 24 - 48 hours. Any longer than that and it usually means we aren't vaildating you :).
 
stuneville said:
triplesod said:
..Stu (still hijacking triplesod's account - waiting for my account to be validated)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What's the username?

I registered it this morning - 'stuwyatt'
Thanks in advance ;)

- Stu
 
stuneville said:
Two days vs forever - I have trouble with differentiating between those as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm just impatient :)
 
triplesod said:
I registered it this morning - 'stuwyatt'
Thanks in advance ;)

- Stu
Click to expand...
Ah - see, we don't even get to see the new registrations for a full 24 hours (some bullshit we were fed about drive-by spammers using registration bots), and then we try to process them within a further 24 hours - we do this manually, and there's only four of us, all of whom do other stuff.

Soon as it shows up, we'll punt it through. Should be live by tomorrow arvo.
Dandelo_ said:
Sorry, I'm just impatient :)
Click to expand...
S'ok :).
 
stuneville said:
OK.

April 1st's over now, and the original poster was a Mr Fuctifino (Fucked-if-I-know.)

Now - Mr Sod: do you want this thread to a) stay in Ghosts on a standalone basis, b) become appended to one of the other ghost photo threads in Ghosts, or c) get moved to Chat?

Do let us know.

Stu
Click to expand...

Hi Stu.

Please try not to be presumptious, mate. I assure you that this was not an April the first joke (and as it remains in the "Ghost" subforum, I presume (tsch! Doing it myself now!) that you have realised that or other members have assured you.

It is completely legitimate, in as much as "fuctifino" found what appears to be the figure of an old wo/man in the ruins of a cottage which was completely deserted at the time.

I did give the link to the thread that he first posted it on and I have you his username so you could see how his story (ie him discussing the pic, finding the pic, showing us a poor quality pic and scan of the negs and then finally developing the neds and posting a high quality pic). It is a shame you didn't take the time to read his posts there. If you had, not only would you have realised that this isn't an april fools joke (it started several days before April 1st and continues healthily along) but you would know the full story.

I repeat that I really DO recommend people at least read "fuctifino's" posts in the Something Awful thread.

It's ridiculous to point out a person's username as proof of anything more than an imagination. If he was using the name "I'm a big hoaxer and I'm going to doctor a picture to make it look like there is a ghost in it!" then I could understand but the name "fuctifiknow" doesn't mean a thing in this situation.

Anyway. Thanks for the message.

I have only read up to your post so far - because I wanted to reply as soon as poss so no one got the impression that this was just a joke - but I'm really excited that there are two pages of new posts for me to read. I'm getting on them now! Can't wait to read your thoughts!


EDIT: I forgot to say. I hope it is OK with you mods but I have let "fuctifiknow" use my account, just in case anyone has any questions about the pic and so he can make any replies and see where the thread is going.

His health is very precarious and he could turn quite ill at any time, so I thought it would be best to let him share the account, so he doesn't have to mess about with setting a new one up if he is ill.

I'm hoping that he finds the site interesting with his visit here and finds the people posting in this thread intelligent and decent, so that he might consider making his own account at some point.
 
This is Stuart.... coincidently posting at the same time as triplesod
(Thanks triplesod! for the above! I should have my account validated tomorrow sometime)
stuneville said:
Soon as it shows up, we'll punt it through. Should be live by tomorrow arvo.
Click to expand...

Thank you :)

Just for an added bit of info, the film director had a severe dislike (almost a phobia) of having his picture taken. Not sure of the reasons why... but he would always make absolute certain that he was behind any camera. It used to be a game of mine to try and capture his picture on my cameraphone when he used to visit me, and after quite a few months of attempts, I was unable to succeed. I questioned him and challenged him many time s over his reasons for it, but he refused to give any hint of a reason.

Also, the film director was a final year film student, although he had the attitude of a dedicated professional. My belief was that he was only enduring college so that he could have access to the DVcam equipment he needed. He lived for very little else other than making movies. He had very little money, and was not the sort of person (in my judgement, which is fairly accurate most of the time) to pull a prank like this. He was far too serious and focussed....

The film maker was a total recluse and hermit (he hated civilisation), and in fact, his favourite phrase was "I pray for a nuclear holocaust"... and he would have been alerted at the slightest hint that an outsider was invading his space

The reason why I'm going into so much detail about this is because there would have been absolutely no way that he would have allowed himself to be captured in the shot. There were only two people there that day, him and the photographer... and for anyone to enter the house, they would have first had to walk in full-view of them and they would have made a lot of noise due to the overgrown vegetation.

I sadly fell out with him at the end of 2006 (or he fell out with me). I lost a lot of friends during that period after turning psychotic on the meds the NHS prescribed me... I became very insular and selfish, and no doubt I said something to him that was inexcusable. Shortly after I last saw him, he changed his number. While I know the rough location of where he lived in Plymstock, all attempts at finding his address or telephone number have failed. He has a zero overt online presence, and even my honed internet-detective skills have failed to find any leads.

I never met any of his friends (he compartmentalised everyone), so I have no way of getting a message to him. He left the college in 2005/2006 - so they wont be able to help either.

I must admit, that while I would wish for this photo to remain unexplained (just for poetic reasons), I am enough of a scientist to want to analyse all possibilities.

I know that I am an internet stranger, but hand-on-heart, I believe 100% that the image in the image is not a person, at least in the general sense of the word. I've visited the location, and have tried to find a way for someone to get into the shot unnoticed, and I can't fathom it.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in ghosts or other strange phenomenon.... I have yet to see compelling evidence from either side to give me a definitive opinion. But I must admit, this photograph has me stumped. I just cannot explain it.

So I'm open to all theories...

-Stu
 
Dingo667 said:
Hi Triplesod, first of all thanks for sticking around and trying to explain everything. We are [well I am quite gullible] very thorough and don't just take anything for face value here, that is why [if you photo is showing a ghost] this would be the best place to post it.
Click to expand...


This post is by Triplesod, not Stu. [EDIT: I see you're online now. Good to see you posting and thanks again for taking the time to answer people's questions. I'm hoping to get more interest in here for the pic but as I told you, the traffic here is really quite slow moving compared to ATS or other excitable forums. Anyway mate, did you see what I wrote to you about your phone number?)

This is exactly why I decided to post the pic here instead of anywhere else. I told Stu about this place and about how they are extremely cynical with "ghost" pics (and very, very rightly so. I think there only maybe 2 or possibly 3 pics that I do not strongly believe I have debunked) and that you lot will immediately look for the flaws that prove that this is nothing more than a hoax/paraedolia/simulcrae/person on scene etc etc.

I have been madly into the paranormal ever since recieving some "Mysteries of the Unexplained" type cigerette cards (they weren't from cigs, maybe from tea bags, or something). I take the field very seriously and constantly find myself disgusted and upset by other forums who fawn over pictures of a person's hair in front of the lens+flash or crying out that if you do not find this picture of a seagull gliding through the air as concrete proof of UFO's/visiting ET's, then you are a disinfo agent!. Posters in these sites drive me mad!! They will look for the most extreme, fantastical explanation for the most mediocre event. For example, at one site, I remember a poster starting a thread which blamed the "aleans!!" for a black out in NYC!! The same site had a thread which blamed the Illuminati for... ohhh, I can't remember but it was something ridiculously normal. Something that happens daily without any real notice!

No. I am fond of this site and the field is important to me, so I brought it to you as a group of intelligent adults that regularly put Occams Razor into practice.

Actually. I think, if you read my posts in that SA thread (Troubled Joe), you will see that I have said as much there. Unless I just said this to Stu privately.

MESSAGE FOR STU!

Do you really want your phone number up there, mate? You know better than me but would it not be better to offer your number, if anyone wants it and tell them you will send it them by private message?

I know you have added it to be completely upfront and showing your palms but is it not a little dangerous?
Anyway, it's great to see that you have taken the time to join in mate and allow people to ask you questions. You're a star!
[/u]
 
I suggest someone edits the post to remove the phone number to be on the safe side in this instance.
 
[This is Stu in reply to the real triplesod]

My number is pretty much already splashed over the net already, so its cool. I used to be the main contact for Humedi (medi weed mailing org) before my arrest last year, and I've also been an open contact for the anti-Scientology stuff.... I'm pretty much an open book on the net. And I can handle harassing telephone calls quite well, as I've been the recipient of such attacks in the past from Scientologists and nefarious elements of the online cannabis communities.

If I'm not well enough to handle a telephone call, I will let the caller know, or simply just not pick up the phone.

Cheers for directing me to this forum, and also for trusting me with your account. I was more worried about diving into a community of total believers rather than sceptics. It makes me laugh at some of the 'ghost' images and 'orbs' that are plastered all over the net, and how people will automatically believe things are ghosts rather than a logical reason. Its the same as people saying "Ghost Dont Exist" automatically, without providing any evidence to back it up.

So Im excited to see some rational explanations/theories over the pic. I've given a fair bit of hearsay evidence that you can only accept at face value, but I am if anything an open and honest book (with a long online history of doing the same). If this is some kind of hoax, then I am certainly not an active willing participant in the hoax.

Cheers,

- Stu
 
jimv1 said:
I suggest someone edits the post to remove the phone number to be on the safe side in this instance.
Click to expand...

I agree but I don't want to do it without Stu's permission.

I think I'll leave it for an hour or so and see if there is anything from him. If he doesn't post, I'll presume that he is busy or away from his PC and take it out, leaving him the opportunity to post it back up if he prefers when he returns.

STU. Please feel free to use my Private Messaging service here.

StuNev. I ask this respectfully but Would you mind, or do you think it would be a good idea to edit your first post, just to say that it wasn't an April Fools gag, or maybe just delete that part of your post, mate?
It's just that the last thing I want here is for people to lazily click threads until they find something interesting, come across this thread and see the second post is a mod saying it is a hoax/fake.

What do you think mate?
 
triplesod said:
Hi Stu.

Please try not to be presumptious, mate. I assure you that this was not an April the first joke (and as it remains in the "Ghost" subforum, I presume (tsch! Doing it myself now!) that you have realised that or other members have assured you...

StuNev. I ask this respectfully but Would you mind, or do you think it would be a good idea to edit your first post, just to say that it wasn't an April Fools gag, or maybe just delete that part of your post, mate?
It's just that the last thing I want here is for people to lazily click threads until they find something interesting, come across this thread and see the second post is a mod saying it is a hoax/fake.

What do you think mate?
Click to expand...
Ah, come on: it was a fair enough assumption - posted on April 1st by someone called fuctifino, but I now accept it was actually sincere, so in Ghosts it stays.

I won't edit my original post as that would be many people's immediate reaction as presented, but I will add to it that the thread develops in an unexpected direction, and if not already done I will remove the phone number.

OK?
 
[This is Stu]

I'm not one for editing history.... so I propose we keep this thread as it is. Its all cool... I suppose I should have waited a few days before uploading the scan of the optical enlargment.... lol... You know, the April 1st thing didn't cross my mind until someone brought up the issue on SomethingAwful.

As for the name 'fuctifino' - it was a name I chose in a fit of madness in 2001 when I joined their forums (What user name do you want,? F***d if I know....) and I've not used it anywhere else since... And the photo was first posted on their forums as that is the only online community I really belong to these days.

But I admire and respect the scepticism of people here ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top