Aug 05 2009
Ghost Photo
These stories crop up every now and then – someone looking through recent photos notices something odd, perhaps something that was not noticed when the picture was taken. Many people will shrug off such anomalies – weird stuff happens on pictures all the time. However, those with a certain inclination may jump on a paranormal explanation, which most likely means the photo will be presented as evidence for ghosts.
And sometimes the local news will pick up such a story, because they are suckers for that sort of thing.
The latest ghost photo flap deals with this picture (click to enlarge). Look in the upper left hand corner and you will see what appears to be the face of an old woman.
The news story is presenting this as “ghost or hoax” – a silly false dichotomy. Some of the comments to the story are buying this false dichotomy, give the old argument, “why would they lie?” – so therefore, the only other option, is that it must be a ghost.
The other option, of course, is that it is neither. It is far simpler to conclude that there is an innocent but mundane explanation for the photo. The photo itself is not evidence for anything unusual. It is a picture of a little girl with an older woman standing behind her. That’s it. There is nothing about the picture that is interesting or anomalous. I do not think this is pareidolia – the image of the woman is clear and too detailed to be just a suggestive blob. It’s a person.
The only thing that makes this picture an anomaly is the report of the person who took the picture. The teenager, Kasey, says that she and the little girl, Penny, were the only ones home at the time. Perhaps, however, she was mistaken about this fact. Perhaps she simply did not notice the women who wandered into the room when she was focused on taking pictures of Penny.
There is such a thing as attentional blindness, which can be quite dramatic. Yes – people can simply not notice such things. I am sure you have seen pictures of people with items in the background appearing to come out of their heads. When looking at the picture it is obvious, but when the picture was taken the photographer was focused on the subject an not the entire frame of the picture.
There could also be something unusual going on – perhaps there was a picture of a person behind the girl, or it’s a reflection. Perhaps it is a purely photographic artifact.
What I always find interesting is when believers (just read the comments to this story) argue that an alternate explanation is unlikely, but then substitute the explanation that it is a ghost – as if that is not significantly more unlikely. See Occam’s Razor.
What believers are doing is anomaly hunting – the woman in the picture is an anomaly – but only so because of the report of the photographer. Weird stuff happens, and we cannot always explain it. Out of the millions of pictures being snapped every day, it is not surprising that occasionally something truly unlikely happens. We do not need to hypothesize about ghosts to explain this.
It is also interesting how culturally narrow the claim that this is a ghost is. Believers are not just inserting a paranormal explanation into an anomaly – but one specific to their culture. If someone from Saudi Arabia had the same thing happen they might believe that the person in the photo was a genie. This would sound silly to Western ears, but it is no more silly than believing it is a ghost.
In the end there is nothing extraordinary about this photo. This is just another example of the – someone unknown in the background – artifact. This is just one of the things that can happen when the vagaries of photography and human memory conflict.
21 Responses to “Ghost Photo”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s obvious that the old woman is a relative of the little girl. Look at their eyes, they are the same! Although it’s not a 100% sure proof, blue eyes are not very common.
Honestly, it’s such a lame story. I mean come on, a picture by a teenager taken as evidence for ghosts? Haven’t the believers ever heard of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?
Reminds me of this “alien photograph”: http://www.ufomystic.com/wp-content/uploads/solwayfirth64011.jpg
It’s amazing what a photographer can fail to notice.
(For completeness sake, it’s probably worth pointing out that IMO the the “alien photograph” has a mundane explanation — it’s someone facing away from the photographer (as can be seen by the angle of the elbow), and the “space suit visor” is a scarf covering the back of the person’s head.)
There is actually a hit of red-eye in the elderly woman in the photo. Ghosts have blood filled reflecting retinas now…
The image of the woman in the background is of the size you’d expect if she were in fact standing a few feet behind the child.
The light source on the woman and the child are consistent, what you’d expect if she were in fact standing behind the child.
The woman, as much as can be told, appears to be 50+ years of age, about the age the child’s grandmother might be.
As Dr. Novella points out, it is not the photo, but the teenager’s report that creates the ‘anomaly’, and as we all know, no teenager has ever expressed interest in ghosts, nor ever contributed to events ascribed by others to poltergeists, nor has any teenager ever expressed a desire to pull the wool over any adult’s eyes.
However, if you look reeeeeal close, the old woman has a bright spot in the shape of the letter ‘J’ on the front of her dress, the sort of spot that would be left if a necklace pendant of the initial J typically rested there, shielding the dress behind it from the effects of fading caused by the sun. Where in the world is the sun quite bright and hot? Saudi Arabia. What woman’s name that starts with a ‘J’ is most common to this woman’s age? Jeanne.
All things considered, I think Dr. Novella is correct in his identification of the woman as a genie.
Why yes… I AM a journalist. Why do you ask?
DevilsAdvocate, I don’t think that’s a pendant. It’s justthe little girls hair.
The photo appears to be taken in a home. Would it not be incredibly simple to find out whether or not the photographer knows this woman ? If she does, I’m pretty sure she’s not a ghost, not having passed the prerequisite dying bit and all.
“It’s amazing what a photographer can fail to notice.”
Indeed. As a fan of MST3K, I’ve become more adept at spotting some of the things that all the highly-paid people involved in producing a film have somehow failed to spot.
None of them saw it until the final cut was already printed and distributed (or saw it slightly before that but decided it would not be worth the expense of printing new reels). Boom mikes, out-of-period sunglasses, vehicle tracks, lights, sometimes entire crewpeople…. Some of the goofs are quite hilarious, and stick out like sore thumbs once you’ve noticed them. But nobody noticed it at the time, for the same reason that nobody sees the magician move the ball to his other hand; that’s not what you’re looking for.
The ‘Cottington Fairies’ girls are a good example why someone would lie about photographs — just because they can get away with it and cause a sensation. And the photographer could be doing the same thing.
Its easy! The ‘old woman’ is in fact the photographer! The small child is placed in front of a mirror and the photographer’s face is reflected in the mirror back into the camera.
Please don’t tell me that no-one else saw this?
There is a tacit implcication in these sorts of storeis tha the camera can somehow pick up on supernatural phenomena that the human eye can’t. This is absurd. Cameras are designed to pick up what the human eye can see, (unless they are specifically designed for other types of radiation, which commerical cameras are not). If it was true that ghosts could be easily picke dup by cameras but not by the human eye, we should have thousands of very clear and unambiguous footage of ghosts on film.
That this photo showed a ghost in the background is ludicrous! It looked nothing like an Orb!
Heh, yeah, Superdave, I’ve noticed that implication, too, and even wrote up Doggerel #155 on it. I’ve done a share of headdesking from people who fall for license plate “obscuring” sprays and so forth.
Even remember a tale of one bankrobber who didn’t bother with a mask, though the tellers said it looked like he was very sweaty. When showed the security footage with his face clear as day, he said the footage had to be fake: “I put on the lemon juice!”
I have always thought that it would be a relatively easy matter to estimate the number of photographs taken in any given year and then compare that to the number of “UFO” or “Ghost” photos. If there were 2,000 “UFO” photos in 1955, and 200,000,000 photos taken, then in fifty years later, in a world where 800,000,000,000 photos are taken, it should only be natural that there should be 40,000 times more UFO photos. And further, the many millions of UFO photos should be MUCH clearer, showing details, etc… But, what happens? The better the photographic equipiment gets, the FEWER UFO photos crop up (because clarity makes it obvious that the blurred lines are moths, birds, pebbles, bottlecaps, airplanes, helicopters, lenticular clouds, Venus, etc…)
Similarly, if the ghost photos were “real” in 1959, we should have 4 or 5 THOUSAND times as many ghost photos 2009 as we did in 1959 (because 4-5 thousand times as many photos are being taken). Not sure about the numbers! Just guessing! But more importantly, the BULK of ghost photos should increase EVEN MORE, because the modern cameras have resolution that is orders of magnitude higher.
If someone did that study (on the number and quality of photos taken), it would cross-debunk ALL unusual phenomena that are dependent on flimsy photographic evidence.
One of my favourite ghost photos was of a church alter that had a mysterious ‘stepped’ path of light running across it. The photographer swore that the image was taken under normal conditions and that the ghost image had only become apparent once the film had been developed. After some investigation the most likely explanation turned out to be that the photographer had used a long exposure to take the picture and that while the camera’s apperture was open someone had climbed the steps holding a lit candle which they then placed on the alter. The stepped path of the light trail was consistent with someone holding a candle at waist hight and walking up the few steps to the alter. Also, in earlier photographs there were no lit candle but one was present in later pictures! Despite admitting that he had taken some long exposure photographs the photographer swore he’d never taken his eyes off the alter while the picture was being taken. The man was so excited by his picture he refused to consider any more mundane explanation.
Blue eyes are not so uncommon that it is unusual both subjects have blue eyes.
I do not see the red eye in the older woman’s eyes – but that would be a good test for alleged ghost photos.
I too have encountered people who insist that photos or video were taken under certain conditions, that later were proven to be false. Their certitude does not predict accuracy. Memory stinks anyway, but the desire to believe solidifies the false but convenient memories.
Mario: “DevilsAdvocate, I don’t think that’s a pendant. It’s justthe little girls hair.”
Ghost-denier! Ghost-denier! Halp! I’m being oppressed! Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!
dadredge, I see what your saying in elements of the picture. The child’s facial features appear flattened from the mirror image. The woman photogragher behind her looks 3-D.
Surely someone can zoom in on the reflections on the eyes and see who else is in the room! They do it all the time on TV!
The “ghost” might also be a framed photo hanging on a wall or sitting on a shelf. Like so: http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06Lq5qffcig3h/610x.jpg
My money’s on that explanation. I suspect Penny was standing in front of a family photo, which Kasey failed to notice in the background of her tiny LCD screen. That would explain why Kasey is so certain they were alone in the house, why the woman’s face is small, and why (according to Kasey’s account) she looks like Penny’s great grandmother.
I would say that occam’s razor used to brush away any possible paranormal explanation is a cop-out. Question for the skeptics, is it imaginable that their could be any evidence that supports the paranormal, or do you just use occams razor all of the time?. Now i ain’t saying occam’s razor can’t be used but the usually by skeptics it’s used as the ultimate say on the issue.