• 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)

As it's regarding a specific analysis of the photo, I think it's deserving of its own, distinct thread.
 
I don't know how it could possibly relate to the odd apparition but every reproduction of that photograph which I have seen has some signs of damage, as if by a razor blade, along the line of the altar-cloth. Does this new analysis explain this? Or is there a version which does not feature this damage, which looks to have been done to a print? :?:
 
My late father, who had a Fortean outlook and collected books about UFOs, the Yeti and the general supernatural, firmly believed in ghosts. His mother was a staunch Spiritualist and he was raised upon it. ;)

However, he maintained that all ghost photos were fakes because ghosts are things of spirit and so cannot reflect light, and thus cannot be photographed. Sounds right to me.
 
The "face" has always looked like a melted candle to me. The eyes are the rim of the candle holder, above are the short, stocky remnants of a large candle and everything under that is formed by melted wax hardening.
 
Crazy Ghost altar photo


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.

No, it's not nine feet tall - here's a photo of a fairly short bloke standing in the same location
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43259952@N08/9592006348
 
That sounds like the ghost photo in Newby (?) church. Monk like and unnaturally tall.

As far as I recall, these two ladies could see no face, presumably it was hidden in the cowl. Weird detail: they thought it was on stilts at first, but then realised it really was that big.
 
That was a classic scary ghost photo! But wasn't it revealed as a hoax?
Was it? I'd like to know more!
RE: Newby Spectre / Newby Church Ghost

As I understand it ... Inspections of the image have yielded inconclusive results, which advocates and opponents each spin to their own advantage.

It's long been reported that examination of the photo failed to provide evidence that the image itself was the result of manipulation (e.g., post-capture editing).

AFAIK no such judgment has ever been rendered regarding whether or not the photo represents a true capture of a scene that's been manipulated (e.g., by using a half-silvered mirror or catching some reflection from the scene).
 
As I understand it ... Inspections of the image have yielded inconclusive results, which advocates and opponents each spin to their own advantage.

That was the last thing I read about it too (some years ago, granted). It was one of the first so-say ‘ghost’ pictures I ever saw in that old Unwin book and it scared the life out of me for years. So I was not reassured to know that it was possibly ‘real’ :litg:
 
It was also covered in "Arthur C Clarke's world of strange powers" and was the one photo the experts couldn't debunk. I should say "experts" as I don't think much of their analysis of one of the other pictures.
 
I thought the explanation was a long exposure photo, and somebody dressed as the monk walked into frame, stood for long enough to leave an impression, and then buggered off again.
 
I thought the explanation was a long exposure photo, and somebody dressed as the monk walked into frame, stood for long enough to leave an impression, and then buggered off again.

Assuming the the good reverend was using a 35mm camera, exposures long enough for the action you describe would not have been necessary in 1963: Kodak Plus-X (160 ASA), and even Tri-X (400 ASA), film was readily available. (Further assuming he wasn’t using flash.)

The days of coming out from under the hood, pulling off the lens cap and counting “A thousand and one, a thousand and two…” were long past.

The above, of course, proceeds from the assumption that the man of God wasn’t in on a hoax…

maximus otter
 
Assuming he wasn't out to hoax (a big assumption), that also assumes he was using a faster film and indeed was the sort of person who would consider himself a "photographer", rather than just a vicar with a camera.
When I first got a decent camera in the late 1980s, 100 or 200 ASA was my "usual" film, and indoors, with natural light, (especially in a fairly dark church), a 5 or 10 second exposure wouldn't be unusual with the aperture stopped right down (either deliberately or through oversight).
 
Morning peeps I live quite near to the church not in the village/or the estate and know of the photo but have never heard any other stories or reports of the church being haunted or any other sightings
 
Church-Christ-Consoler-Newby-Fortean.jpg


Church-Christ-Consoler-Newby-Fortean-01.jpg


Church of Christ the Consoler, Skelton-cum-Newby, North Yorkshire

Newby Hall, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4 5AE

https://www.visitchurches.org.uk/visit/church-listing/christ-the-consoler-skelton-cum-newby.html#

maximus otter
 
Hi maximus I must admit I’ve never been in the church nice looking building though
 
Sorry if it’s already been suggested, but isn’t this the photographe’s shadow over a melted church candle on a stand…?
 
I'm after a fairly high (600 DPI) scan of the face and cowl of the Newby "ghost". Can anyone help please?
TIA!
 
It's probably been mentioned over the preceding 5 pages of thread, but the cloth 'mask with eyeholes cut out do seem to = fake, to me!

AFAIK even pre-reformation monks with disfigured faces weren't made to wear cloth masks - and even if they had, would a ghost 'choose' to carry on doing so?

It's one of those famous spooky photos that, even as a child, I thought, "Nah, that's not real!"
 
It's only in the last few months that I read that the photo was published in a magazine after it had been purloined from the photographer who was apparently very upset that this had happened. ISTR he didn't want any publicity regarding the snap.

I recently binged on a huge pile of FT from 2019-23 and I think it was in one of these issues
 
Back
Top