• 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)

church-ghost.jpg


I think it's a mark on the film
 
There are all sorts of things wrong with this photograph.

First, why does the grave napkin or sheet over the dead man's face have eye holes? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Second, there seems to be another opening for the nose. Do British dead breathe?

Third, the idea of the "sheeted" (that is, shrouded) dead originally had nothing whatsoever to do with "ghosts," in the modern sense. It referred instead to re-animated corpses in their grave clothes!

But if this fellow is some mediaeval monk come up from the cathedral burial crypts for a quick promenade, why in the world can we see through him?
 
The deepest-appearing Paranormal mysteries seem to go all transparent under Timble's gaze.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
There are all sorts of things wrong with this photograph.

First, why does the grave napkin or sheet over the dead man's face have eye holes? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Second, there seems to be another opening for the nose. Do British dead breathe?

Well when I look at that picture, I believe the Eyes you think are cut from a sheet are really the representation of sockets of a Skull, and the area that you think is that of a second hole for the nose, is to me the gaping mouth of a skull. All stretched and misformed from a strained manifestation. I think thats the effect the Ghost or at least the faker was going for!

I sometimes feel I look this way when I get up in the morning! ;)
 
Why would the face of a 'manifestation' take the form of a skull though? The rest of the figure is dressed in stereotypical monastic-type robes so one would expect the face to conform.

I have personally always thought that photo to be a fake as the face is obviously made of an old pillowcase. :lol:
 
Let's see, the Rev. Montague Rhodes James' "Oh Whistle and I'll Come to You My Lad" made me terrified of bedsheets and this photograph makes me scared of pillow cases.

I think I'd better start hanging myself up in the closet at night.
 
No, Mr. Radio! Not the closet! Don't you know what lurks there?

Neither does anybody else. That's what makes it so freaking terrifying. One of the great things about my current living arrangement is, there's no closet in my bedroom.
 
Hi, Peni.

I recall that in Peter Straub's genuinely profound horror novel GHOST STORY the bellhop at the local hotel speculates that the mysteriously demonic "A. M." character must hang herself up in the closet at night, since she obviously doesn't use her hotel room bed. (He doesn't make it through to the end of the novel.)

P. S. Those who know this great novel only through the lackluster motion picture adaptation have really short-changed themselves.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
P. S. Those who know this great novel only through the lackluster motion picture adaptation have really short-changed themselves.

Damn right, the film is a bastardisation of a modern classic of horror writing.
 
Crazy Ghost altar photo

Piscez~ said:
I was bored, so I did some fiddling to the monk ghost photo in Paintshop Pro. Working under the idea that, if its a darkened stain, you should be able to undarken it, and it will vanish.

I made a selection around the outline of the shape and adjusted it using the highlight/midtone/shadow function. I can't make both the top and bottom completly vanish at the same time. If I adjust it so the bottom is invisible, then you can see a bit of black by the head. And if I adjust it to remove that, you can see a bit over the stairs. So I don't think its a flat stain, theres slight variation.

The bottom seems to drap onto the stairs. More visible in the complete photo here
http://www.geocities.com/inhell_2000/churchmonk.jpg


You mentioned the bottom drapes on the stairs. Here's what i think.
It's possible the rev. had someone dress up in a costume.That would be the figure with the white hood over it's face.
But when he took the phony ghost photo, he actually captured a real one.
The shape of the drapery appears to me as if someone is kneeling at the altar rail praying from the way the drapery hangs, like some sort of cloak.
The head of the figure is dark, so it blends in with the robe of the white faced figure.This figure is FACING the altar,.
So I believe that a real ghost was caputred on film,just a shame the rev.resorted to trickery.
 
Crazy Ghost altar photo

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I've been fascinated by the Newby Church ghost photo for years and I visited the church in August two years ago. Its full name is The Church of Christ the Consoler and it is located in the grounds of Newby Hall.

The face has always looked to me like it is covered in a sheet - if you reverse the picture like I did with Microsoft Picture Manager, the once side of the face looks like it has a fold in it.

A forum I was on around two years ago suggested the ghost - if it is real - is a leper and I think this could be right - a leper hospital was a few miles from Newby and lepers wore monastic robes and it seems possible that they sometimes covered their faces as they were known to go on pilgrimages. Newby Church wasn't built until 1876 and Newby Hall told me that no buildings were on the site before. There are some strange facts about the picture, though:

1. As many people know, the ghost appears around nine feet tall. I have never known of ghostly figures being this height. The figure also looks too tall, and even if his robe was draped on the ground, he would still be too tall - close to seven feet.

2. The bottom of the robe seems to be spread across the step - but of course there was no step there when he was alive. Unless of course he hung himself in woods and the bottom of the robe was spread out.

Another unusual fact is that some sources give the date of the photo as 1954, when most others say 1963 or just "the early 1960s". Which is right?
 
Re: Crazy Ghost altar photo

Matt_19710 said:
1. As many people know, the ghost appears around nine feet tall. I have never known of ghostly figures being this height. The figure also looks too tall, and even if his robe was draped on the ground, he would still be too tall - close to seven feet.

Isn't the figure on the Shroud of Turin about that height too? I wonder if there's a link?
 
As an artist, i would say that the proportion is out. Either the phantom is stretched vertically or, if faked, the reference is derivative of familiar depictions of the Grim Reaper.
 
Re: Crazy Altar Ghost Photo

Although I'm not an artist, I also think the figure looks out of proportion - he just seems too tall. I thought that maybe perhaps his robe is draped or hanging at the bottom, but this still makes him too tall.

I wonder, if this image is a fake, why experts have been pronouncing it genuine for decades?
 
After years of looking at this photo, I've finally twigged what it looks like (to me, at any rate.)

What if it were a projection, as in from a slide projector or magic lantern, placed on top of a pew a few feet from the altar? Obviously the steps could distort the image, but would there be an optical "sweet-spot" from where the beam would look relatively uniform? I know precisely zilch about optics, so I really have no clue on that one, but it could serve to explain the elongated look and transparency.

I'm not saying that's what it is, but does it strike anyone else as plausible?
 
It would have to be a pretty cleverly arranged projection, worked out with not a little mathematics - most of it's on the far wall, and that's pretty far away.
 
Quite agree. However, today I spoke with an art teacher who knows a lot about trompe-l'œil, and she reckons that, given time and a bit of fiddling about, actually it would be quite easily accomplished. The slide would have to be made to measure, obviously, but nonetheless it's perfectly possible - they've been doing similar stuff in theatre design since the Victorian era.

Again, I'm not saying this is the case here, but it's worth bearing in mind.
 
Re:Crazy Altar Ghost Photo

I agree that it is worth considering the image to be a projection - especially when you think about its height. I remember seeing in Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers that photo experts using then state of the art software (now totally primitive of course - the programme was from 1985) couldn't find any evidence of double exposure , so if it is a fake, then projection could be considered a possibility...

The programme also tried to claim that other well-known ghost photos, like the colour shot of a monk kneeling at an altar and the mother's ghost in the back of the car showed signs of possible double exposure or long exposure. But those 2 images - especially the one of the kneeling monk - are much more convincing as ghost photos that the Newby Church picture.

What was sad about the Arthur C. Clarke programme is that the photographer of the "kneeling monk" picture was convinced he saw nothing at the altar, but the sceptical photo experts tried to think he had captured the image of a cleaner on a long exposure (even though he said in the programme that he used a short exposure).
 
Would be interesting to know if any interviews or follow ups have been done with the Reverend's family or associates.

Obviously they are unlikely to reveal that their forefather was a hoaxer. But they might, you never know...
 
Wow, I've always been chilled to the bone by this image and, just as another poster said, used to borrow a library book with it in just to scare myself and have to return it sharpish! However, now it's been suggested that it could be a projection... I can totally see that as a viable explanation - and would perhaps explain how the cloak seems to drape over the steps as well as the height discrepancy!

On the other hand, I reckon if i were allowed the chance to reappear after death I'd damn well make sure I'd do it as a seven foot tall melty-face skull-spectre! Otherwise, why would you bother?!
 
Do you mean the photograph of the guy with the pillowcase over his head? :)
 
My study of the Newby church ghost

Hello all
I have studied the famous Newby Chruch ghost photo at length and also numerous photos of Skelton-cum-Newby Church san ghost. After spending days scrutinizing all the material I could find, I am not ready to put forth a finally explanation for this photo. No, there is no "man in a "Scream" mask". No there is no double exposure. And I am sure the pastor of the church was completely innocent of any fakery for the reasons I will explain below.

I am quite surprised all these years have past without someone explaining this? photo properly. I will attempt to do this once and for all Using the best copy possible of the "ghost" photo and examining new color photos of the church, the explanation became clear to me. There are three elements creating this beguiling illusion.

Part one: Using a high resolution photo of the ghost, one can blowing up the 'ghosts' face, one can see the 'mouth' quite plainly. Doing this it become easy to disguish the "mouth" is the arch of a reflected window. You can actually see there area two arches quite plainly.

Why are we seeing a reflection of these arched windows (which are thoughout the church. What you could never see in just looking at the one old black and with photo is that the altar of the church is made of POLISHED MARBLE. The rear of the altar is a large slab of white polished marble, high reflective under bright light.

If you look at the photo, you can see a strong light source on the left of the photo, the right side is quite dark. The study in contrast show what a bright day it was. This allowed for the reflection off the marble to stand out in the shadow of the "dark" side of the church. It is the white relection off the marble, featured arched windows which creates" the face". Please notice elongated right side of the 'face'. Now imagine a light source behind the altar being bounced off the angled altar, casting a reflected beam on the pillar and wall. That explain the odd elongation of the face ... the angle of the altar to the light source and where it strikes the wall. ''I had some trouble understanding why there was little shift in image between the wall and the pillar. You would think there would be a break in the reflection, yes? But I figured out why there is no break! Examining modern high rez photos of the church, is its revealed the pillars are only HALF PILLARS SET INTO THE WALL! That was a key discovery and a puzzle that could only have been solved by seeing the altar from different angles.

In trying to solve such an complex optical illusion, how could possibly think we could explain it by examining only ONE photo of the 'ghost'!

Ah, but what about the body?? That famous black shroud that drapes on the steps. Well, there is the only real "flaw with the negative. The 'face' is reflected light and a genuine photographed element, but the "body" is water stain on the negative. But there is yet ANOTHER element to complete the illusion!

Water stained negatives most frequently produce rounded or smooth oblong stains.This accounts for the rounded, shapeless "robe" of most of the body. But, rightly so, people frequently note the draped effect of the 'robe.' This was quite easy to explain once I got hold of a quality copy of the photo. Enhancing that portion of the photo, it is easy to distinguish that the 'draped' end of the robe is a separate element. One most photos the robe and its draped "train" look identical in composition and color. But with a good copy of the photo, once can clearly see what appears to be spilled water on the marble. Spilled water? Why? This is most likely the result of the FRESH FLOWER seen on the altar. It would also explain why the Reverend never noticed that odd bit of shadow on the steps again, it simply dried up!
Together, the water-darkened stone melds with the water stain on the negative to create the body of the 'ghost' quite effectively.

Well you might think, well, this is a confluence of too many coincidences, but please remember, the "face" (a bright reflection shining off the polished marble with architectural element? clearly visible within it) and the water-spill darkened stone are normal elements that would have appeared in any photo taken at that moment. So really, it's only the single flaw of the water-stained negative that is the rouge element here! But it does a wonderful job tying together disparaged element and wonderfully producing the image of a 'ghost.'

I would have like to have posted detailed shots from my photo examination here, and hope to do so soon. I think will my explanation clearer. But in the meantime find yourself a good, large copy of the Newby Church Ghost? and bear in mind the elements I have explained here and it will all become clear.

This has long been my favorite ghost photograph and will remain so -- even after I believe I have finally come up with the proper explanation after all these years!

Cheers!
 
My Dissection of the Skelton Newby Church ghost photo

Skelton-cum-Newby Church


Hello all
I have studied the famous Newby Chruch ghost photo at length and also numerous photos of Skelton-cum-Newby Church san ghost. After spending days scrutinizing all the material I could find, I am not ready to put forth a finally explanation for this photo. No, there is no "man in a "Scream" mask". No there is no double exposure. And I am sure the pastor of the church was completely innocent of any fakery for the reasons I will explain below.

I am quite surprised all these years have past without someone explaining this? photo properly. I will attempt to do this once and for all Using the best copy possible of the "ghost" photo and examining new color photos of the church, the explanation became clear to me. There are three elements creating this beguiling illusion.

Part one: Using a high resolution photo of the ghost, one can blowing up the 'ghosts' face, one can see the 'mouth' quite plainly. Doing this it become easy to disguish the "mouth" is the arch of a reflected window. You can actually see there area two arches quite plainly.

Why are we seeing a reflection of these arched windows (which are thoughout the church. What you could never see in just looking at the one old black and with photo is that the altar of the church is made of POLISHED MARBLE. The rear of the altar is a large slab of white polished marble, high reflective under bright light.

If you look at the photo, you can see a strong light source on the left of the photo, the right side is quite dark. The study in contrast show what a bright day it was. This allowed for the reflection off the marble to stand out in the shadow of the "dark" side of the church. It is the white relection off the marble, featured arched windows which creates" the face". Please notice elongated right side of the 'face'. Now imagine a light source behind the altar being bounced off the angled altar, casting a reflected beam on the pillar and wall. That explain the odd elongation of the face ... the angle of the altar to the light source and where it strikes the wall. ''I had some trouble understanding why there was little shift in image between the wall and the pillar. You would think there would be a break in the reflection, yes? But I figured out why there is no break! Examining modern high rez photos of the church, is its revealed the pillars are only HALF PILLARS SET INTO THE WALL! That was a key discovery and a puzzle that could only have been solved by seeing the altar from different angles.

In trying to solve such an complex optical illusion, how could possibly think we could explain it by examining only ONE photo of the 'ghost'!

Ah, but what about the body?? That famous black shroud that drapes on the steps. Well, there is the only real "flaw with the negative. The 'face' is reflected light and a genuine photographed element, but the "body" is water stain on the negative. But there is yet ANOTHER element to complete the illusion!

Water stained negatives most frequently produce rounded or smooth oblong stains.This accounts for the rounded, shapeless "robe" of most of the body. But, rightly so, people frequently note the draped effect of the 'robe.' This was quite easy to explain once I got hold of a quality copy of the photo. Enhancing that portion of the photo, it is easy to distinguish that the 'draped' end of the robe is a separate element. One most photos the robe and its draped "train" look identical in composition and color. But with a good copy of the photo, once can clearly see what appears to be spilled water on the marble. Spilled water? Why? This is most likely the result of the FRESH FLOWER seen on the altar. It would also explain why the Reverend never noticed that odd bit of shadow on the steps again, it simply dried up!
Together, the water-darkened stone melds with the water stain on the negative to create the body of the 'ghost' quite effectively.

Well you might think, well, this is a confluence of too many coincidences, but please remember, the "face" (a bright reflection shining off the polished marble with architectural element? clearly visible within it) and the water-spill darkened stone are normal elements that would have appeared in any photo taken at that moment. So really, it's only the single flaw of the water-stained negative that is the rouge element here! But it does a wonderful job tying together disparaged element and wonderfully producing the image of a 'ghost.'

I would have like to have posted detailed shots from my photo examination here, and hope to do so soon. I think will my explanation clearer. But in the meantime find yourself a good, large copy of the Newby Church Ghost? and bear in mind the elements I have explained here and it will all become clear.

This has long been my favorite ghost photograph and will remain so -- even after I believe I have finally come up with the proper explanation after all these years!

Cheers!
 
We did have an explanation for this somewhere, that made sense to me. But I am not very good [read: can't be bothered] finding the relevant thread.

I am also very dim this morning as I just saw that the thread I am talking about is right underneath this one...duh.


You seem new here, so welcome.

Edited because I talk rubbish...
 
Re: My Dissection of the Skelton Newby Church ghost photo

chadbang said:
I would have like to have posted detailed shots from my photo examination here, and hope to do so soon. I think will my explanation clearer. But in the meantime find yourself a good, large copy of the Newby Church Ghost? and bear in mind the elements I have explained here and it will all become clear.

Soon please!
 
I'd be interested to see some of the close-ups, is that possible?

Interesting take on it :D
 
I still go for a deliberate fraud, it just LOOKS like it has been made to scare silly little boys with an interest in ghosts. (And it certainly done that to me)
 
Personally, I've always gone with the pillowcase explanation.
 
Back
Top