The Stone Girl Of Eyeworth

[catseye]

Although I notice that, in all his scholarly research, @Steven has failed to take into account the forlorn hanky that Queen Catherine was clearly waving to attract the attention of her soon-to-be-ex-husband as he rode past her from one Eyeworth to another. A hanky which, inexplicably, became lodged in a nearby bush...

 

[Steven]

Oh bum, it's the Ragfinder General.

 

[Steven]

Sorry if I've forgotten that someone's already answered this question: how is that the figure, which facially appears to be an adult, is so small? On the Weird Wiltshire site, a (photographed) adult - visiting the exact spot where the 'Stone Girl' picture was taken - towers over the wooden barriers on each side; yet the Stone Girl's head only just clears that minor height.

 

[SimonBurchell]

Sorry if I've forgotten that someone's already answered this question: how is that the figure, which facially appears to be an adult, is so small? On the Weird Wiltshire site, a (photographed) adult - visiting the exact spot where the 'Stone Girl' picture was taken - towers over the wooden barriers on each side; yet the Stone Girl's head only just clears that minor height.

View attachment 87753

Steven, Steven, Steven [shakes head and sighs sadly]. It is because it is a rag hanging on a bush relatively close to the camera; it appearing to be further away is an illusion. Worth quoting a post elsewhere by @Paul_Exeter :

Yes, a touch of Father Ted going on there:

View attachment 84570

But still a huge catch by any measure.

 

[Steven]

Maybe her legs are worn down after running back n' forth between Bedfordshire and other counties.

 

[catseye]

Steven, Steven, Steven [shakes head and sighs sadly]. It is because it is a rag hanging on a bush relatively close to the camera; it appearing to be further away is an illusion. Worth quoting a post elsewhere by @Paul_Exeter :


View attachment 87754

My work here is done.

 

[Steven]

In all seriousness, I'm amazed that quite a few members believe the 'Stone Girl' to be a rag. I don't mean that I think they're wrong - it's just that the close-up photo of the Girl seems if not totally humanlike then a completely remarkable case of pareidolia; far too 'remarkable' for me - I think it's either a prop of some kind, originally created to resemble a human person, or else a modern-day hoax. Would love to believe that it's a ghost but sadly this seems unlikely to me.

 

[SimonBurchell]

I think the problem is that the close-up photo seems to be a retouched photo. None of the more convincing human-like features are visible on the original photo.

 

[Steven]

I think the problem is that the close-up photo seems to be a retouched photo. None of the more convincing human-like features are visible on the original photo.

Is there a close-up photo of the original photo?

 

[SimonBurchell]

Is there a close-up photo of the original photo?

See the original post on this thread - with the original photo with a blur where the knot face is, and the retouched close up with all the detail.

 

[Steven]

Why is the allegedly retouched photo blue-ish when the original image is seemingly sepia-coloured?

 

[Paul_Exeter]

Worth remembering that the hunt tried quite hard to make money from this photo - albeit for fundraising purposes - so it may be a clever hoax using a cutout of the ghost girl that legend says haunts the area.

The close-up image with the blue tint has been tampered with in my opinion and may have bene done after the photos are handed over.

 

[catseye]

Worth remembering that the hunt tried quite hard to make money from this photo - albeit for fundraising purposes - so it may be a clever hoax using a cutout of the ghost girl that legend says haunts the area.

The close-up image with the blue tint has been tampered with in my opinion and may have bene done after the photos are handed over.

I think the phrase 'tampered with' is a bit extreme, they've just sort of accentuated bits to make it look more like a face. It's not like they've put her in a ra-ra skirt and stilettoes.

 

[CharmerKamelion]

I think the phrase 'tampered with' is a bit extreme, they've just sort of accentuated bits to make it look more like a face. It's not like they've put her in a ra-ra skirt and stilettoes.

You mean like the ghost of someone out on a hen night?

 

[CharmerKamelion]

Oh bum, it's the Ragfinder General.

Nobody expects the Ragfinder General!

...or should that be the Ragsmeller Pursuivant? (cue the thunder clap)

 

[ChrisBoardman]

The big house nearby is for sale on Rightmove

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/158978060#/?channel=RES_BUY

 

[PeteS]

It's not like they've put her in a ra-ra skirt and stilettoes.

They should have done really. Would have generated more interest amongst some of us on here.

 

[catseye]

Nobody expects the Ragfinder General!

...or should that be the Ragsmeller Pursuivant? (cue the thunder clap)

It's okay, I come with my own thunder clap. It's the beans.

 

[Frideswide]

This is the sort of thing she reminds me of. "A 1679 Sundial showing the fashionable lines of a woman’s clothing in a three- dimensional form." It's from a page about the Textile and Fashion historian Janet Arnold.

https://theschoolofhistoricaldress.org.uk/?page_id=124

 

[Paul_Exeter]

This is the sort of thing she reminds me of. "A 1679 Sundial showing the fashionable lines of a woman’s clothing in a three- dimensional form." It's from a page about the Textile and Fashion historian Janet Arnold.

https://theschoolofhistoricaldress.org.uk/?page_id=124

View attachment 87790

Definite similarity in the head an face area

 

[Frideswide]

Definite similarity in the head an face area

As it's a sundial (my comparison picture I mean) it can only be about waist high at the most. No point in having a horizontal sundial on a head height stick!

Which sort of address the weird height aspect...