The Gowned Ghost

Hello ATS,

I had an interesting start to my day, and thought I would share it with you guys.

A friend emailed me the attached picture. This photo was taken recently during a home renovation project in Canada (house was built in the early 1900's.) The person that took it was taking photos of the entire house. When they were reviewing the photos, this one jumped out. Have a look. There appears to be a figure at the bottom of the stairs, along with some kind of circular object, off and to the right.



I am hoping that maybe one of you photoshop gurus can possibly enhance it. In looking at it, I think I can make out these details: eyes/nose (faint), arms, feet. The figure appears to be wearing a gown of some kind, and you can make out the difference in size between the sleeve of the gown, and the arm. To me, the head seems slightly larger than what one would expect. The arms also seem longer to me, but not hugely so.

Anyways, I found it interesting. Hopefully you will too. Enjoy.

I see a kid holding the handlebars of a bicycle...

...maybe that's just me looking too closely though. Wish I could be of more help but I know next to nothing about Photoshop, sorry.

All I see is a child's head and the front wheel of a bike.

I see a small boy holding a cane. I suck at Photoshop. I tried playing with it and I am hopeless. I do, however, think that you have something there. Maybe someone with skills can give it a go. Good luck.

That's a classic double exposure.

It looks like a kid in shorts or skirt with a spaghetti arm.

reply to post by XFriday


Hey there XFriday,

It does look like a child sitting on the floor at the bottom of the stairs and I see the circle you mentioned.

BTW Did you notice the second (smaller) circle slightly down from the top and right (you need to click the enlarge to see it properly).

Do you know anythiing about the history of the house at all???

Without any background the 'childs' head could be a mark on the wall (damp plaster) and the circles could just be dust particles. But if anything happened to a child in the house's history, then there could be more to it.

Interesting though ... bit different to the usual 'orb & mist' pics. I'd definately be interested to know if you find anything out.

Woody

I see what you're talking about. Was there anything else in any of the other pictures taken?

reply to post by woodwytch


I don't think it's sitting because I can see the feet.

Hey folks,

Thanks for all the comments and observations. The "bicycle" comment was interesting, if you look at it long enough it is not hard to see how a person could make that out. The "orb" does not look like a bike wheel to me, though - not quite. But hey, all of your guesses are as good as mine.

Woodwytch, I do not know anything about the history of the house - I will see what I can find out. And NO, I had not seen that second orb. Good eye.

One question, for Tuebor - you mentioned double exposure. Is that possible with digital cameras? Forgive my ignorance on this. The image was taken with a digital camera, and I did not think "double exposure" could ever be a problem with a digital camera.

Take care folks.

EDIT: There were no other anomalies in any of the other pictures. I will ask them to go through them again, though. Perhaps they missed something. It is certainly worth double checking.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by XFriday]

I think it's interesting how the stains and smugde marks on the wall seem to give it some facial features.

Would you please post another picture taken during the same time?

Sorry to debunk this so quickly but there is a PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS tag in the metadata...

Most likely the image of a child has been overlayed and had it's opacity changed to about 10.

reply to post by fooffstarr



Daggummit, can't believe that stuff still goes on.
I guess the filename gives it away too.

If the OP renamed it to give it a more user friendly name, maybe he can now produce the original.

Hey folks,

I did rename the photograph. The original filename gave away the exact location of the house, and for various reasons, the person who send me the file asked that that information remain confidential.

I am fully aware that there are a lot of hoaxes out there - I really do not think this is one. The guy that sent it to me is almost 60. He is a real estate developer. The guy that took the photo works for him. He is as non-technical as you can get. They are people that I trust.

Now, you have no reason to trust them. And you have no reason to trust me either (who the hell am I?) All that said .. this is probably not a photo that has been meddled with. It is *possible* that someone edited the image before sending it to me .. but again .. the group that this comes from .. they are not Internet people .. they are not hoaxsters. They renovate houses. The word "photoshop" would be alien to them.

What does the "photoshop elements" tag actually mean? Does that mean that the image was definitely manipulated by that application? Or, is it possible that that is just what they use to offload their camera? More info here would be great.

If that tag proves manipulation, that would be great to know. If someone can definitively state that, then I can go back to these guys and say "I am told that the this has been photoshopped by this particular application -- do you have anyone there that uses it? etc." It would be better if this turned out to be a hoax, actually -- the guy that took the picture refuses to go back into the house, and is quite shaken up by it. If there was some front desk/techie type person that is playing a joke, that would be *great* to uncover.

Thanks.

Rather than renaming the original, try making an copy (Right Click Copy) and Paste.
Next, rename this copy.
This should retain the integrity of the raw data within the image file.
Post this file.

Hey folks,

Well, you guys pegged it right - hoax. One of the I.T. guys was playing a trick on the two older gentlemen. The "ghost" is actually a photo of a child on a bike, as was suggested earlier in the thread. Nice work in debunking this so quickly.

My apologies for presenting this as something legitimate - I thought it was, at the time.

Thanks.