IĀ“d love to, when I can think of one. Until then feel free to submit your own if you can think of one.
This is quite a famous one, and always freaked me out a bit! I donāt think anyoneās debunked it yet, but there are various plausible theories about its origin.
The story:
This is the Cooper family, who have just moved to Texas. They took a photo during the celebration, then when they got the film developed were shocked to see a figure hanging from the ceiling.
An interesting contribution to the matter emerged in 2015, but Iāll wait until people comment first.
5 Likes
Whoa! 
My guess would be that another photograph was placed over the top of this one while it was being developed, causing something to be imprinted on the original image. Somehow. But if that were the case, you might expect outlines or shadows of other people or objects to appear on the original photograph too 
3 Likes
The way the arm doubles this looks to me like this kind slipped over from another negative and got developed on the same picture.
And I see @tasse-tee has the same theory.
3 Likes
Except if that was only the very edge of the other picture, which is most likely any way.
1 Like
Any thoughts about what it could be a photo of? 
I dunno. This is pretty much me right now. Hanging round in my pyjamas going wheeeoohhhhā¦
3 Likes
Some kind of animal with a bushy tail - thatās the view I think we can see in the photo. Iām not sure what animal it would be, though.
2 Likes
Yeah, angles are quite important, Iād say.
1 Like
If itĀ“s upside down then maybe the guy is acutally doing some sort of ballet routine? 
So how about that above photo then @Someone
Is this modern trickery or old-timery tom-foolery?
Dooledly-hoodly-do!
3 Likes
Milan gets a point!
2 Likes
So a simple case of overexposure where an upside down photo of a ballet dancer was involved?
This is what I mean when I say the truth can be more entertaining than just āitās ghosts!ā 
The theory is itās a photo of a ballet dancer inverted, and that someone doctored it over the original.
The freaky photo was circulated among various forums In the early 2010s. In 2015, Robert Cooper posted the following comment:
āWhen my older brother sent me this link I was floored. We are the two boys in the picture. Well we were back in 1959. I have many picture like this one, but not this one. My mother had a habit of throwing away pictures that she didnāt like. Eventually the ones she kept were passed along to me. What annoys me is that somebody got hold of a family photograph. The story is almost entirely fiction. Our last name is Copper, not Cooper. Does anybody know who did this?ā
He then posted a photo showing similarities to prove who he was:
The weird thing is that the guy was called Copper, so it seems a bit of a coincidence the original poster got their name almost correct (Cooper). I wonder if someone in the family did it!
2 Likes
I looked up those pages, too. Some of them even seem to have figured out the ballet dancer.
A few people also pointed out artifacts on the film that seem to indicate digital trickery which would explain that this thing never circulated until around 2009.
IĀ“m always skeptic when something doesnĀ“t have any pre internet sources. Like Polybius.
2 Likes
It is clearly a seance table with candles and everything. Brrrā¦
Even if it was an error with the film roll being only half way through to take the next picture, it would not explain the person being upside down.
Or being faceless.
2 Likes
I see youāve started debunkingā¦ Iāll give my theory without reading.
I think it is a fake made on purpose.
It COULD be a double exposure due to a jamming of the camera. In that case, it should be a second shot of a person raising his arms at the sky, with no other background involved (that explains the fact that no backround is supeirmposed too.
Butā¦ 2 buts.
- why is the man upside down? The only way to get an upside down accidental double exposure is to make one of the two shots with the camera upside down. It makes no sense.
- the shirt is very well exposed, while the face is underexposed badly. That is not a natural effect.
So all of this tells me some post-production must be involved. So i think it is a fake, made in a dark room printing two different negative films on the same paper, selectivlely adjusting exposure.
Oh, wait a minute. Thereās another possibility. Thatās not a fake make with an upside down second picā¦ it is the photo of the ghost of a hanging man.
2 Likes
There might have been different lighting on the head and more movement involved.
Yes, maybe. It is possible, but in my opinion quite unlikely. That, adding the upside down thing and the need of a jamming of the camera makes the whole occurence of an accidental double exposure very much unlikely, to me.
But, I admit, possible.
If I have to bet, I bet on the fake on purpose 90%. 9.9 periodical on the accident. The rest is for the real ghost.
Correct! 
2 Likes