Grey Lady of Hampton Court ghost CAUGHT on camera: Hoax or Proof?

a reply to: nullafides


My thoughts on discussions and debates on this website are better left OFF the internet. However thank you

I agree with you on the way this ghost looks! Not you average Scooby Doo figure is it?!

I have not seen a ghost either, but as usual with things like this, we are saturated in what things SHOULD look like in the media.

a reply to: scepticalkat

I've looked at the image again, and I think you're dead right that it may be the photographic anomaly you described.

If you concentrate only on parts of the "ghost", and not as a whole, you can distinguish a girl in different sections.

Sadly, I have no graphic skills, so these will have to do:

The bottom part. Imagine a girl, up her shoulder with her back to the photographer. Hair coming down her back, a left arm, a right arm, the collar of her jacket.



The top part: Still the back of a girl, from the shoulders up but at a slightly different angle. Also notice the "weird gap" on the right hand side, just above the shoulder. Hair that long and thick shouldn't leave an empty space like that. It can however be explained by movement.



And finally the hair at the bottom is exactly, (almost pixel by pixel) the same shape and color as the top part(s):



If that didn't help, enlarge this picture and try and find multiple girls morphed into one tall one.

Edit: Several similar examples

a reply to: scepticalkat

I want to go back to your theory on the whole panoramic idea.

I have had a change of heart, and I admit, I was wrong.

Looking at your last post (I will forget the first part with micpsi)... I feel you may have hit a nail of some sort here.

That picture you posted, is much wider than the one I originally saw. And assuming this picture was taken on a mobile phone, there is no way on earth a mobile phone would be able to cover that wide of an angle, even in landscape. That would mean only one thing could produce that kind of image... A panoramic.

Now, we have all ready established this has been through Photoshop with several pieces of data missing. Could we conclude then that the Daily Mail, along with a very naïve 12 year old, have cropped the FIRST attempt at a panoramic, and used it to show a "ghost", with the second one (with a girl posing) used as an "After" image?

Would you agree?

It is easily plausible I think.


We all know the DM will go to a lot of lengths for a story.

Fair play to you all for trying to analyse it so deeply but to me it looks like a person dressed up. If not it a photo shop job. For a spirit a spirit to manifest itself requires alot of energy (apparantly). I have never heard of a ghost conjuring enough energy to have reflective hair and clothes. Also...The ghost looks 6'7 adleast. King Henry would of had here killed just for being that tall

originally posted by: brace22
a reply to: nullafides


My thoughts on discussions and debates on this website are better left OFF the internet. However thank you

I agree with you on the way this ghost looks! Not you average Scooby Doo figure is it?!

I have not seen a ghost either, but as usual with things like this, we are saturated in what things SHOULD look like in the media.

You hit on what I was trying to say, quite succinctly but tangentially. Whereas I have never seen a ghost, I HAVE seen photoshop jobs.

To me, this appears to be photoshop. It just bears certain niggling factors that scream it to me.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Final thought: There are actually several "unnatural wobbles" or weird empty space on the back of the supposed ghost, which can all be explained by the panoramic theory:

a reply to: nullafides


Well we know the image has been through PS for AT THE LEAST saving for the web. I am starting to land in Panoramic side of this discussion, with the inclusion of Photoshop to "Enhance" certain aspects of it.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Yes, I think that it really could be this effect...

BTW, it produce some very funny examples:

a reply to: Gemwolf


The Panoramic theory is now becoming more conclusive!!! I am pretty much there to believing that is what it is. I just mentioned about how wide of an angle the photo is, and how that could only be achieved via a panoramic shot when using a mobile phone!

Winner winner chicken dinner?

The "figure" is lit by the chandelier, not something I am used to when seeing them, the ethereal plain doesn't depend on ambient lighting conditions to become visible, do they?

The hair bun on the "real girl" is similar to the "apparition".

The 'before and after' pics are suspicious, leading one to believe they planned it this way.

Who did the "slide" feature of both images? Whats the twelve year old girls background with editing?

originally posted by: brace22
a reply to: nullafides


Well we know the image has been through PS for AT THE LEAST saving for the web. I am starting to land in Panoramic side of this discussion, with the inclusion of Photoshop to "Enhance" certain aspects of it.

I hear you.

And just to attempt to better clarify my early statements...

To me, the image looks FAR too much like the kind of modern day full light special effects in movies.

Thanks for reading my analysis all, I really do think it's a panorama- and there is still a reasonable chance the girls were not aware until they looked at the photos the next day.

Fun photo, good analysis and the mistaken anomaly (rather than hoax) described above is likely.

That doesn't detract from the fact that things labelled as 'ghosts' exist... besides personal experience, one simply has to spend time studying it to come to the conclusion there is something odd happening... and it might even be as folklore and seers explains it, for all we know.

Creepy anomaly, though... but the long, duplicated part does look more fabric like than hair.

I think it's the same girl that is on the left. And indeed an artifact of a panorama shot gone bad.
I don't know why the jacket is in blue, but it could be the panorama algorithm is picking up the blue color from the fireplace.

originally posted by: Baddogma
Fun photo, good analysis and the mistaken anomaly (rather than hoax) described above is likely.

That doesn't detract from the fact that things labelled as 'ghosts' exist... besides personal experience, one simply has to spend time studying it to come to the conclusion there is something odd happening...

This. I've experienced it personally. While I've never seen an apparition, I've experienced poltergeist activity (with witnesses), phantom voices (with witnesses), phantom footsteps, etc.

It should be noted that not all apparitions are reported as being transparent. There are many accounts of people encountering "ghosts" that appeared completely solid. In some cases, people have reported carrying out conversations with them, only to see them vanish seconds later.

I'm by no means vouching for the authenticity of the images, but spooky # happens

It's a panorama that discombobulated a person that was obviously moving while the panorama shot was taken.


Case closed, not even amateurs needed to figure this one out sheesh.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
It looks like a girl in a blue coat whose hair has been stretched in some way.

That's all I saw at first! It took me a while to see the "ghost" being referred to! In the second picture, I just thought I saw the same person, with the same coat (and a handbag) having moved to the left, and partially visible still.

a reply to: brace22

When I ran the image through fotoforensics.com there appears to be to doctoring of the photo at all. If there were images overlayed or doctoring of the photo, it would show up when the photo is broken doen into data. I'm trying to use the most layman terms but here is the picture when it is ran through the program, and as you can see, much of the data is consistent with the rest of the image, thus giving good evidence that it has not been doctored.



If there were doctoring done to this image, the ghost whould appear as blue or green to show different layers or apparent brushstrokes or photoshop techniques to elaborate certain features of the ghost to make it seem otherworldly.

Hello I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments.

I wanted to ask if anyone is looking at this "person" from a profile/sideways point of view vs. a backside point of view? In the beginning I thought I was looking at the back of "something." Now I can see a woman's profile with her nose and forehead slightly showing at the top of the image - if I see the image as standing sideways to the camera. The "ghost" is looking down at her. Also, if she is floating - it would make her height more realistic and the rope situation as well.

Additionally, since the photo hasn't been added to - according to one of your commenters - the person would have had to be behind the ropes - which no staff at Hampton Court would ever allow. And...I've seen many distorted images from iPhones - but none that make a person taller - just longer/wider. IMHO the distortion really doesn't look distorted if the "person" is looking down at the girl vs. standing in the same direction of the girl.

Is everyone else seeing this as well regarding the profile POV? All I keep reading is the focus on the hair and the back, so please forgive me if I'm pointing out something that is obvious to everyone I have no idea if it's real or not - but when I see the other angle - it is quite creepy:/

Thanks for letting me post

does anyone know if women of that period had long, long hair as a style, and wore it in long, uncombed dreadlock style? if so, this is authentic. if not, this is ridiculous. it the crucial fact. DID SERVANTS WEAR LONG, UNCOMBED, LOCKS during that time period? was that common? It seems like it could be...which would make this pic creepylishus.

[how many more random comments do I have to post before I can initiate a thread?]