What do u guys think about these pics

[Todd]

what do u guys think about these real or fake

[MichaelF (FPIE)]

Pic #1.  The camera they are using isn't smooth motion, looks like it has delays in it.  Look like somebdoy gave the doors a big pish, then went out to grab them to me.  Just looks spooky because of the jerky style of picture.

Pic #2.  Can't say anything really without seeing pics taken before and after, plus knowing light sources and such.  One thing does jump out at me though.  The "ghost" appears to be radiating it's own ambiant light.  You can see it all around it, stairs, railings, walls.  Well except for on the stairs on "it's" right.  If it truly is radiating light, paranormal or not, that light should behave like light.  If you say it's not radiating light, then look at the top of the stairs at that big window there.  That window could easily set up the Pepper's Ghost effect that Dave just taught us about.  It's a very interesting picture though.

Pic #3.  The resolution on this one made it sort of hard to really work with.  I believe this is a fake.  A fake that started out good, but then somebdoy got lazy or something.  Examine the "ghost,"  look down at the very bottom, the robe drapes down the stairs in a very convincing fashion.  Yet it sets this up, that if the object is freestanding, it is standing two steps from the top.  Now look at "it's" right hand side, where it interesects with the alter.  I enhanced it and played with it as much as I could, but no matter what I did, the image seems to be in front of the alter at the bottom, and behind it at the top.  Now a shadow can have that effect, seeming to warp around things, but not a free standing object.  Lastly, the figure is approximately 7 feet tall, give or take.  Assume that the railing and alter top is about 3' high, then measure it out.  I could be wrong, but I think this one is a fake.

[PPI Karl]

Yeah, pic #1:  Guy in a local theatre production of The Devil and Daniel Webster cuts one backstage, runs to the doors, and lets in a little fresh air.  When he's done and tries to close the doors again, he realizes he's made an error:   it's one of those setups where the right door has to be in place first before the left door can be shut snugly into place.  So, he opens up the left door again, checks to make sure his hem doesn't get caught on the hinges, and sets things to right.  Afterward, he runs back to the Green Room and asks his mate to run some lines with him, before realizing he doesn't have any. He leaves the set in full makeup and costume and heads down to the pub in search of a pint in which to drown his thesbian sorrows.

#3 is still considered by the experts to be an authentic image of a ghost.  It nevertheless sounds my alarm, only because that Edvard Munch-like face on that monk is so time-bound, in the same way that ropes of cotton, slopping out of the nose or ears of a spirit medium, were time-bound interpretations of what ectoplasmic energy was supposed to look like.  Still, I guess it's possible.

#2 was, if I recall correctly, confessed to be a fake in some correspondence made by the original photographer.  (I'd research that, though, before quoting me.)  My guess is that it's an early attempt to superimpose negatives--a pretty good one, at that.  Looks like a statue, though, of the Virgin Mary, don't it?  Maybe Our Lady of Fatima, with the kids kneeling at her feet?

[Donna]

Karl, ROFLMAO on your suggestion for #1

[MichaelF (FPIE)]

Lol, I guess I blew it on #3.  Karl, do you know how the experts explained it is in front of the alter, yet behind it as well?

[Todd]

hahaha

[PPI Karl]

Lol, I guess I blew it on #3.  Karl, do you know how the experts explained it is in front of the alter, yet behind it as well?

Looking at the literature now, I might have confused which photo was pronounced as a hoax.  Actually, they might all be hoaxes!  I found these threads on the JREF (James Randi Foundation for Skeptical Enquiry), which seem pretty resolved that, both, the Newby Church monk photo and the Brown Lady of Rainham Hall are suspicious based on the campaigns of authenticity used to back them in their time.  Our feelings about them are probably right, then.

Newby Church Monk
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66431

Brown Lady of Rainham Hall:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35673

[PPI Karl]

And, not to be forgotten, the Hampton Court Palace ghost :, discussed almost apologetically on the JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=15440

[MichaelF (FPIE)]

Well I don't really feel qualified to totally call anything a fraud or not, I just look for inconsistencies.  Not knowing the age of the photoes also makes it harder, because things like "photoshopping" didn't exist 50 years ago, not in our current form at least.  It's entirely probably that ANY picuture taken of the paranormal may have inconsistincies, which is why reputation is so important.  Sometimes you just need to trust people.

[Kristen]

Does picture #3 remind anyone of the famous mask in Scream?  Maybe it's just me.

[Todd]

looks kinda like it
-Todd

[jputt]

#1 the persons feet are visible.
#2 Looks like a superimposed vigin mary.
And #3 looks like a superimposed Danzig after a long night. From his mid-thighs is an add-on.