The Only Ghost Photo I Ever Found Convincing. What Do You Think?

[ChrisBoardman]

These photos were taken by holiday makers in 1988 at the Hotel Vierjahreszeiten in Maurach, Austria. On the last night of a holiday they decided to take a group photo, they put the camera on a table and set the self timer so they could all be in it.

For the first photo the flash did not go off so they took a second photo and for that it did.

In the first photo with no flash there is an extra person in the picture who they did not know. She is behind the glasses but in front of the other people, so it would be hard to fake in 1988. Experts say she is 14% too large.

The suspicious bit is there is conveniently a gap between the ladies either side of her so she can appear.

But if they were holding a cardboard cut-out then light off it would reflect in a different way so it is not that.

What does everyone else think?

 

[JamesWhitehead]

This one went the rounds of those Strange But True and similar tv shows in the early nineties.

So far as I know, 1988 is a bit early for face-detection software in consumer cameras but the interloper is a trifle generic, as if made from elements of the other ladies. I can't now recall if anyone in the group recognized the ghost.

 

[AnonyJ]

It'd be worth seeing the previous and latter photos in the film reel of 24 or 36 - something odd may have happened regarding the exposure placement during the film winding and whether the lady and her size/pose appeared in those other images. We forget that often photos would 'come out' with half a frame exposed onto the next one, or similar foul-ups, in the photographic film reel days.

It was the height of the cheap(er) 35mm 'point and shoot' battery-powered film spindle & flash-type cameras in later 1980s-1990s before digital cameras became popular.

 

[ChrisBoardman]

It'd be worth seeing the previous and latter photos in the film reel of 24 or 36 - something odd may have happened regarding the exposure placement during the film winding and whether the lady and her size/pose appeared in those other images. We forget that often photos would 'come out' with half a frame exposed onto the next one, or similar foul-ups, in the photographic film reel days.

It was the height of the cheap(er) 35mm 'point and shoot' battery-powered film spindle & flash-type cameras in later 1980s-1990s before digital cameras became popular.

It's nothing like that, double exposures are so obvious fakes. This is nothing like that. That lady is there in the picture.

 

[ChrisBoardman]

This one went the rounds of those Strange But True and similar tv shows in the early nineties.

So far as I know, 1988 is a bit early for face-detection software in consumer cameras but the interloper is a trifle generic, as if made from elements of the other ladies. I can't now recall if anyone in the group recognized the ghost.

This one was not on Strange but True (1994-1997), but is was on Schofield's Quest (1994-1995).

 

[Jepra Peld]

This one was not on Strange but True (1994-1997), but is was on Schofield's Quest (1994-1995).

I remember seeing this on Schofield's Quest too and it scared me in a way that no other ghost photo has before or since. Looking at it again I am less convinced it's real. The table is narrower than it first appears and think the ghost is just a real person crouched behind the table. Notice how in the non-ghost photo you can clearly see underneath the table and it the ghost one you can't.
It's still a great photo though and still gives me the chills a bit. It's definitely more convincing than most ghost photos.

 

[kesavaross]

The ghost appears to be on the table. I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. I've never seen it before but I'm tempted to say it's authentic.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Something weird has happened to the cuff of moustache man* drinking beer. It is a showy silk shirt, as can be seen in the flash-shot but in the ghost version, the cuff seems to have expanded to form what could be taken for the white dress of the spook. It must be his cuff, because his thumb - or finger - is still around the glass. If the spook is not in white, could she not be a double-image of the dark-haired lady behind? Did she make a movement to grasp her glass from the table, for a toast and suddenly sit back as the flash went off?

*Or the man to his left, looking again! Anyway, a big cuff is in there.

 

[kesavaross]

Something weird has happened to the cuff of moustache man drinking beer. It is a showy silk shirt, as can be seen in the flash-shot but in the ghost version, the cuff seems to have expanded to form what could be taken for the white dress of the spook. It must be his cuff, because his thumb - or finger - is still around the glass. If the spook is not in white, could she not be a double-image of the dark-haired lady behind? Did she make a movement to grasp her glass from the table, for a toast and suddenly sit back as the flash went off?

Good points.

I think the angle is slightly different in the second picture as well. I also can't work out how the table doesn't appear to go back as far as the three ladies at the back.

edit:

Perhaps the 'ghost' with the big head is actually at the edge of the table and the other ladies are a short distance behind her and then for the second picture she ducked down out of sight? Maybe?

I've changed my mind about this picture. I think it's a probably a fake and a really good one.

 

[ChrisBoardman]

I remember seeing this on Schofield's Quest too and it scared me in a way that no other ghost photo has before or since. Looking at it again I am less convinced it's real. The table is narrower than it first appears and think the ghost is just a real person crouched behind the table. Notice how in the non-ghost photo you can clearly see underneath the table and it the ghost one you can't.
It's still a great photo though and still gives me the chills a bit. It's definitely more convincing than most ghost photos.

Very interesting point about abut seeing under the table.
The guy on the right, the person next to him you can't see them.
Good call.

 

[ChrisBoardman]

To be fair, the main excuse for the ghost pic was the flash didn't go off.

That may explain why under the table is not lit up in the other photo.

 

[Salmonellus]

To me the most suspect part of these images is the spacing of the four ladies. The ghost appears between them, but their spacing has altered quite significantly between the two images.

It really shows up if you mark the centre line of their heads on the pics.

That wouldn't be likely to happen if they were just sitting there between exposures.

 

[AnonyJ]

It's nothing like that, double exposures are so obvious fakes. This is nothing like that. That lady is there in the picture.

Why so dismissive of a polite reply offering some information about cameras of the time period?

I don't mean a deliberate fake attempt - I mean that part of a previous shot is exposed on the film frame and then the shot of the group without a flash is superimposed on top. It looks to me that you can just make out beneath the table some pale cloth or textile which could be the woman's skirt or trousers if she was sitting down against a dark background. The 'party' image is superimposed on top. Accidental colour 35mm double exposures do look a bit like the 'ghost photo'.

It strikes me that it could be also kind of optical illusion - the figure is around the same size of the 3rd man in line, R to L and she could be on a lateral level with him, crouching in front of the three ladies, perhaps having been invited into the photo for the 1st shot and there's not enough room to sit down - a waiter or landlady?

It could be these or it could be something else very strange but it's always good to explore various paths of thought and inquiry.

 

[Floyd]

If you look at the woman fifth from the left (white shirt), her neck seems to be being 'pulled' over towards the 'ghost'.
It is certainly much larger than in the second photo.

 

[Floyd]

To me the most suspect part of these images is the spacing of the four ladies. The ghost appears between them, but their spacing has altered quite significantly between the two images.

It really shows up if you mark the centre line of their heads on the pics.

That wouldn't be likely to happen if they were just sitting there between exposures.View attachment 69909View attachment 69910

She seems to be leaning forwards in the first photo.
It's possible that after the first shot was taken that she then sat back- (red line) into a more relaxed position perhaps, not realising that the cameraman/woman was going to have to take another one.

 

[Stormkhan]

To me, I use the objects on the table as 'markers', since even in fakes they tend not to move, as re-arrangement is a faff.
Thus in the 'dark' photo, the dark haired lady's chin is over one of the beer glasses whereas in the 'apparition' shot, she's way over the right, almost away from both glasses.
This might be put down to her relaxing back in her seat. Y'know what it's like: they set the shot up (presumably by the guy in the far right), some people lean forward to look at the camera (to be in shot), flash doesn't happen. Bloke goes to check the camera while everyone relaxes, he dives back, tells everyone "say cheese" but some can't be bothered.
This might explain the spacing.
The lack of flash explains the lack of detail under the table which, after all, would be in shadow under the room lights.
What it doesn't explain is why the big light above and behind the group seems brighter, shedding more light on that part of the group than if it was just reflecting the flash light. The flash might reduce the illumination from the room lamp, but not that much, surely?
The 'apparition'? Not a clue. She's got a different hair colour from the lady on the left while a different hair style from her on the right. Her cheeks appear different too, being quite 'chubby'. Her image, in comparison to the others in the shot, is more blurred.
It appears that she was kneeling before the table when the picture was taken - the angle of the table surface would hide this.
So much 'oddity' with this photo, it could be fake or real.

 

[Cochise]

These photos were taken by holiday makers in 1988 at the Hotel Vierjahreszeiten in Maurach, Austria. On the last night of a holiday they decided to take a group photo, they put the camera on a table and set the self timer so they could all be in it.

For the first photo the flash did not go off so they took a second photo and for that it did.

In the first photo with no flash there is an extra person in the picture who they did not know. She is behind the glasses but in front of the other people, so it would be hard to fake in 1988. Experts say she is 14% too large.

The suspicious bit is there is conveniently a gap between the ladies either side of her so she can appear.

But if they were holding a cardboard cut-out then light off it would reflect in a different way so it is not that.

What does everyone else think?

View attachment 69902



View attachment 69903

It's a fallacy that photos couldn't be manipulated before Photoshop. You could do all sorts of things in the printing. What is less easy to manipulate is the negative which is what I would be wanting to see in this case.

Having said which, it is eerie and the inserted face looks like someone in distress.

 

[Ermintruder]

It's certainly a curious apparent intrusion effect.

Agreed, the possibility of an unintentional double-image on 35mm film photography is a tempting solution: but the layering effect from the glasses on the table, and the rest of the surroundings around the intrusion, tend to contradict this proposition.

There are some very good comments being made above.

I'm tempted to do a full photometric ray-trace analysis of the two pictures, but I really don't have the time right now.

There's an effect I'm very struck by: look at NeckyWhiteShirtLady, to our right of SlumpyGranny.

In the unflashed ghost/guest shot, the brown beer bottle is aligned with her chin. In the flashed 'ghostless' picture, the beer bottle moves to our left of her, as viewed; which is consistent with the camera POV moving to the right: but the general impression in the second (flashed, reshot) photo is that the camera POV has moved to the left, thus explaining why we see more revealed details of the enfilade people in the right of the picture.

There's also a slight but significant variation in the vertical heights from which these two pictures were taken. Both are from a low vantage point (my gut feeling is lower than from someone kneeling or squatting: I wonder if a tripod has been used, or the camera sat upon an adjacent table?).

If this was the case: I wonder if we are seeing some kind of a auto-timed shot, and the intrusion is the photographer having dived under the table, and popped up in time for the flawed flashless picture to be taken?

Motion blur from movement towards the camera (head/shoulders pitching in the axis of the lens) would/could result in an unfocused oversized outline....

She's then gone back to the camera, reset the flash to on (repropped it upon a slightly-higher something-or-other upon the adjacent table, with a reframed image) and then decided not to return to her popup location via the table underside route, as one bruising experience of that was more than enough.

ps setting aside my rapid logical analysis in more ways than one: am I alone in being rather disturbed by the paradolia effects visible in both versions of the pictures, to our extreme right as viewed? (above the head of SkinnyGreyJumperGuy)...tell me that doesn't look odd

 

[Spookdaddy]

...ps setting aside my rapid logical analysis in more ways than one: am I alone in being rather disturbed by the paradolia effects visible in both versions of the pictures, to our extreme right as viewed? (above the head of SkinnyGreyJumperGuy)...tell me that doesn't look odd

The amorphous shapes behind him do look somewhat ominous - but there are other versions of the image on the net which suggest that they are bulky coats hanging somewhere just behind the figure. (An indication maybe of how the same image can look different without any more complex manipulation than, for instance, a slight shift in contrast.)

 

[Cochise]

ps setting aside my rapid logical analysis in more ways than one: am I alone in being rather disturbed by the paradolia effects visible in both versions of the pictures, to our extreme right as viewed? (above the head of SkinnyGreyJumperGuy)...tell me that doesn't look odd

I thank that is coats hung up on the wall.

 

[Salmonellus]

setting aside my rapid logical analysis in more ways than one: am I alone in being rather disturbed by the paradolia effects visible in both versions of the pictures, to our extreme right as viewed? (above the head of SkinnyGreyJumperGuy)...tell me that doesn't look odd

I thought that might be a couple of fur coats hanging on coat hangers on the wall. There's a very small bit of info on Maurach on Wikipedia, which suggests that the area offers winter skiing, so fur coats are not out of the question.

 

[escargot]

It's nothing like that, double exposures are so obvious fakes. This is nothing like that. That lady is there in the picture.

Fakery is not being suggested, rather the process of accidental double exposure.

 

[Min Bannister]

What it doesn't explain is why the big light above and behind the group seems brighter, shedding more light on that part of the group than if it was just reflecting the flash light. The flash might reduce the illumination from the room lamp, but not that much, surely?

That is not quite how it works. Cameras are not as good as the human eye in adjusting for contrast. In the flashless photo, the light is by far the brightest object in the room but it is relatively small and so the camera is trying to expose the rest of the scene correctly instead. And so the light becomes overexposed.

In the flash photo, the camera then compensates for the flash which has brightly lit up most of the rest of the scene. Thus the light appears much dimmer.

I think everything we are seeing can be explained by this difference in exposure - this is different to a double exposure. The flashless photo maybe has an exposure of a few seconds. The flash photo, far less than one second. If it not the result of the photographer rushing in to be in the photo having set a long exposure as explained by Ermintruder (copied below) then it could be the dark haired lady leaning forward briefly during the few-seconds exposure. The hair and face are almost the same. Just stretched a little by the movement.

If this was the case: I wonder if we are seeing some kind of a auto-timed shot, and the intrusion is the photographer having dived under the table, and popped up in time for the flawed flashless picture to be taken?

Motion blur from movement towards the camera (head/shoulders pitching in the axis of the lens) would/could result in an unfocused oversized outline....

 

[DrPaulLee]

As someone says, the face of the intruder appears behind the objects on the table...?

Is there are a reasonably good photo of the table without the intruder, then we can see what is different in the area near the face?

 

[Floyd]

The guy in the striped shirt, far left seems to be holding a different type of glass in both photos.
The one he is holding in the second photo seems to be behind the one he is holding in the first.

 

[Jepra Peld]

It's a fallacy that photos couldn't be manipulated before Photoshop. You could do all sorts of things in the printing. What is less easy to manipulate is the negative which is what I would be wanting to see in this case.

Having said which, it is eerie and the inserted face looks like someone in distress.

I have always thought that, probably why it's the only ghost photo to genuinely frighten me.
Real or not I am glad to see this photo being discussed as it's one I have always found intriguing.

 

[MorningAngel]

It'd be worth seeing the previous and latter photos in the film reel of 24 or 36 - something odd may have happened regarding the exposure placement during the film winding and whether the lady and her size/pose appeared in those other images. We forget that often photos would 'come out' with half a frame exposed onto the next one, or similar foul-ups, in the photographic film reel days.

It was the height of the cheap(er) 35mm 'point and shoot' battery-powered film spindle & flash-type cameras in later 1980s-1990s before digital cameras became popular.

She seems to be behind the glasses and double exposure couldn’t do that.

 

[escargot]

The guy in the striped shirt, far left seems to be holding a different type of glass in both photos.
The one he is holding in the second photo seems to be behind the one he is holding in the first.

Nope, it's the same glass positioned in front of another. The different lighting picks out the rim of one glass more clearly than the other.

 

[Ermintruder]

https://ghostwatch.net/paranormal-r...embodied-spirits/report/56-ghost-photobombing

So I was right, substantially, re the auto-shutter and tabletop location for the shooting camera. And I wonder...could it still have been a popup undertable person?

In order to mark the occasion one of the party, Mr. Todd, set up his Canon film camera on a nearby table and pointed it at the group. (The table is the white band at the bottom of the photos.) After setting the self-timer on the camera he hurried back to the table. The shutter clicked and the film wound forward, but the flash did not fire. So Todd set the camera for a second shot. This time the flash fired

I was sure there was an SPR comment aspect to this, and yes, that appears to be true

The photo was examined by the photographic department of Leicester University, the Royal Photographic Society and the (SPR) Society for Psychical Research, all of which came to the same conclusion, the photo bombing ghost was not caused by a double exposure. Besides being a bit out of focus, the woman's head is also too large compared to the other vacationers, unless she is sitting closer to the camera, which would put her in the middle of the table.

 

[Ermintruder]

then it could be the dark haired lady leaning forward briefly during the few-seconds exposure. The hair and face are almost the same. Just stretched a little by the movement

Wait...do you then mean that the exposure time was so lengthy that the dark haired lady was photographed twice? Upright and also forwards?

Almost like the classic Edwardian school assembly photographs, where cunning scholars could appear twice in the same picture, by running behind the crowd ahead of the camera pan?