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

The Newby Church Ghost Photograph (AKA: *That* Ghost Photo)

Your husband is right. On both counts. Yes Photoshop and yes it is hard to tell with a jpg because of the artifacts.

I just wanted to see if I could make an image as spooky as some of the one's we see. No intention to upset, btw.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to 'expose you'. I thought it was a really good photo and I was conviced.

Sorry.
 
Not bad alb. I noticed that the first time you posted the image the face was different (more obvious) and then later you changed it. I almost posted to say so, but I thought I'd see how it played out, to see what other people's reactions were! ;)
 
Yes I tinkered with it a bit over today.

I learned 2 things from this re the pictures we look at on the web.

Firstly - my Photoshop 'originals' were sometimes more convincing than the compressed jpegs -- the artifacts introduced apparent joins and defects which were not actually present.

Secondly - it really is pointless trying to assess a jpg. You just can't tell what it looked like before the compression.

PS - I like everyone here too much to carry on a subterfuge for long. But I'll be interested to see if the picture turns up anywhere else.
 
Personally, I'm not aware of the Newby ghost photo having been debunked - please enlighten me! I remember an episode of one of the Arthur C. Clarke series where he took some ghost photographs to an image lab and while some were explained away (a knight kneeling at an altar turned out to be a cleaner...), they couldn't find anything amiss with the Newby image - no double-exposure, nothing...
 
Whistling Jack said:
Personally, I'm not aware of the Newby ghost photo having been debunked - please enlighten me! I remember an episode of one of the Arthur C. Clarke series where he took some ghost photographs to an image lab and while some were explained away (a knight kneeling at an altar turned out to be a cleaner...), they couldn't find anything amiss with the Newby image - no double-exposure, nothing...
Click to expand...

See: castleofspirits.com/hoodmonk.html

Link is dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040405030259/http://www.castleofspirits.com/hoodmonk.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whistling Jack said:
Personally, I'm not aware of the Newby ghost photo having been debunked - please enlighten me! I remember an episode of one of the Arthur C. Clarke series where he took some ghost photographs to an image lab and while some were explained away (a knight kneeling at an altar turned out to be a cleaner...), they couldn't find anything amiss with the Newby image - no double-exposure, nothing...
Click to expand...

I expect that image processing stuff today would probably be able to find some flaws. Let's face it, the Newby image is a cliche.
 
That photo is so dubious, if ever i was to see a man dressed up with a monks robes on and a white sheet over his head that is what it would look like. Stand the man next to the camera man get a thin sheet of glass prop it in front of the alter make some ghostly noises and SNAP take the picture of the alter including the glass as a reflection of the monk next to you will appear. Classic parlour trick. And in slow grainy old b+w film you get a rather spooky image, which is in know ways tampered with and not enought quality image to inspect for jokery.
 
The Yithian said:
But that may be because its been copied so widely and poorly. Perfectly authentic things can still become cliched.
Click to expand...

No, I think this image was already relying on cliches when it was first created.
 
The Newby photo was debunked in ITVs series "strange but true", series 4 episode 1.

Using image enhancing techniques they coude see specular reflections from the monks glasses, and eyeballs behind them.

And they couldn't work out why the monk what a white rag on his face.
 
Whereas someone taking a photo almost a hundred years ago is more reliable...? ;)
 
To clarify, I was having a dig at the standard of ITV's programme output ;). Further to the Newby photograph, did 'Strange But True' come up with a theory as to how the image might have been made? I'd be a lot more readily inclined to believe that a contentious 'paranormal' image has been 'debunked' if those arguing against it managed to convincingly replicate it, using the materials and equipment available to those who shot the original photograph or film. That said, I'm not convinced that the image is a 'ghost' - but neither am I satisfied that it's a double-exposure, man-in-a-blanket, theatrical illusion etc...
 
There is nothing about the newby photo that could not be replicated by a man in a blanket with cloth over face and a camera that can do double exposure.
 
But... in my initial post, I related how a previous examination of the image came to the conclusion that it wasn't a double-exposure - it's not like experts to disagree, is it? ;)
 
I've just read your first post....

I remember the episode for Arthur C Clark, they show 3 photographs taken of church alters.

The first is a kneeling figure which turns out to be a cleaner, you can also see the dustpan & brush.

The second has a person and a trail of light, it turned out to be somebody with a lit candle lighting the other candles and the shape of the stream of light from the flame was consistent with the height of the steps.

Both the first two were blurred because of the number of seconds the shutter was open due to the dark church.

The third was the newby photo, they couldnt find a natural explanation for it but by no means addressed the issue of whether is was faked or genuine.
 
As for the Newby photo, my recollection (although I haven't seen the programme since the early 1990's) was that despite closely examining the image, they couldn't find anything technically wrong with it - you sound as if you've seen the programme more recently though, so I'm prepared to believe that I'm remembering a false memory...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dug up the arthur c clark video this week and watched the analysis of the three church photographs. The first two which were natural phenomenon were explained in great detail as to how they happened and why they were as they were.

With the newby photo he could not think of a natural explanation for it and then very bizarrely said then it didn't look like a double exposure. But he did not say what made him think this or why it was not consistent with a double exposure.

You were right about what the man said but he was not very convincing in that he could not back up his opinion on the newby photo with any explanation as to how it did not look like a double exposure.
 
The Newby Ghost

I know the Newby Ghost (see the Paranormal section of the Gallery link on the FT home page) has been mentioned in a number of threads, and I don't wish to begin a debate on people's opinions as to whether the picture is genuine or not, but has anyone ever read an interview with the chap who took the picture, the Reverend K F Lord?

It seems that every time the photo is published, there is a reference saying the Reverend saw nothing at the time, but, and forgive the assumption, it appears that this is merely everyone else plagiarising everyone else. Any genuine interviews with the Reverend himself in existence? I recall as a child seeing the picture analysed on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, so was there an interview then perhaps?

Like many others on the message board, this photo scared the bejeebers out of me as a child, and even today the possibility that this photo might, just might, be real and that this thing might, just might, exist, sends a shiver down my spine. Brrrrrrrrr!
 
The photo at the centre of this topic seriously frightened me as a youngster. I had not seen it until it popped up on an episode of Yorkshire TV's "Arthur C Clarke's World Of Strange Powers" about apparations and odd photos - the Cottingley fairies were debunked in the same episode.

Bizarrely, I now work for Yorkshire TV!

I can remember who was in the room, and even how I was sitting. And I was further disturbed the next week when, thinking I was unlikely to see the picture again, I tuned in for the next programme and the bloody image popped up in the *opening titles*! Enhanced! Aaargh!

I know it's been analysed as a fake, and I'm inclined to agree, given that similar photos are few and far between, if not non-existent. But the ghost is so tall - how'd they do that?

Just thought I'd share that with you. This has been my first posting on the Message Boards.

Best wishes,

Greg Taylor
 
Re: *That* ghost photograph

Dark Detective said:
One of the most memorable images from my childhood was seeing this piece of spook photography. It was taken by the Rev. K.F.Lord who was taking the photo of the altar at Newby Church, Yorkshire, England in 1963. He claimed to see nothing unusual at the time of the photograph being taken.

So what was it then? How was it done? It's always seemed a little stagey to me, but why does it still seem to hold up to scrutiny?
Click to expand...

I remember seeing that pic in one of those PG Tips card collection books, this one in particular was devoted to "Unsolved Mysteries" IIRC. Freaked me out a lot as a kiddie.
 
I thought when 'whoever' was discussing the photograph they worked out that the figure would have been extremely tall. Now was that because the faker wasn't very good, or because the ghost had Barbie-like unhuman proportions? I don't think this has been mentioned in the thread? Apart from someone who said the haunting was by some 'seven foot monk' allegedly?

Anyway, like you say, scared me ridiculously as a child, even though it doesn't make much sense to have a figure with a hanky over their face like that.
 
I am now completely confused about the Newby Church ghost.

On the one hand, it has been mentioned that the photo has been debunked thoroughly and that the figure is, in part, produced using a double exposure.

On the other hand, I too remember seeing the Arthur C. Clarke series where, after rigorous examination by photography experts, they stated quite clearly (or at least that is how I recall it) that the photo most certainly was not faked in any discernible way.

I also don't buy the argument that it cannot be a real ghost because it looks too obviously like a ghost. Since the whole point of contention concerning ghosts is that we still have no irrefutable proof of their existence, I fail to see how we can make a judgement as to how a ghost should or should not look (although it really does look like a chap with a pillowcase on his head).

Can't the government do something useful and get someone other than Lord Hutton to carry out a thorough investigation and settle this question once and for all officially, so that we can all no longer sleep soundly in our beds once more.
 
I remember seeing that Arthur C Clark programme also.

The Newby monk photo has always made me feel very uncomfortable.I dont even like looking at it
 
Newby Monk

For what it's worth I knew the reverend Lord and he was not the kind of guy who would have been involved in a hoax
 
Did the Reverend ever write about the photograph he took? I once looked for information on the subject and it was fruitless.
 
Are we talking about te monk thingy? A double exposure plain and simple of a bloke in a hooded robe with eyes cut out needs no more. I recall reading somewhere also that spectacles were evident!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top