Plus: if you double expose the same piece of film twice, it gets brighter. So seeing that the wall is lighter than the faceless head, proves ot cannot be a double exposure! Unless they accidentally had a freaky blob of ink on their wall.
1 Like
How much compared to the possibility of ghosts being captured on film? 
I forget one thingā¦
The more I look at the hanging man, the more I have the feeling heās not upside downā¦ he seems really hangingā¦ that reduces even more to my eyes the odds it is accidental superimpose.
So either itās a real ghost, or they put much care in doing it. Anyway, itās a good fake.
But now Iāll go to read the solution 
1 Like
The strongest case for double exposure the the blurry hand that not only gets doubled but trippled as I just noticed. It is in three places at onceā¦but then again ghosts are known to do these things tooā¦ 
1 Like
Iāve made an arbitrary esteem some posts earlierā¦ 
Ok, I read backā¦ basically weāre all saying the same thingā¦ the fact i
he is upside down and some other technical stuff exclueds the double exposure.
But none of us could tell WHY it is clearly a fake and not a ghost.
We must apply to the old Occam, without any stronger evidenceā¦
1 Like
Of course it is! It is in the Netherworld, in this world and in the intra-conscious vortex of energy called the internet.
Iām going with the most obvious and logical explanation: itās a ghost!
By the way, we have no issues seeing, hearing and talking to people when theyāre still alive. Why should that suddenly become creepy and frightening the moment they died?
I blame books and movies!
Personally I talk to dead relatives in my sleep sometimes and it isnāt scary at all. (Also not ārealā, but then again, what is?)
1 Like
Sleep well everyone!
2 Likes
FTFY
Only if they talk backā¦do they?
1 Like
The only thing that frightens me more than ghosts is @Sushi Ā“s fringe logic.
2 Likes
That story of the boy in the picture is weird too. Why would his mother throw away that (original, ghostless) picture? It is a fine picture!
Unless of course it had that thing from the beginning!
And then the whole last name being misspelledā¦ I donāt knowā¦ how would they even know their name. I canāt imagine the mother writing the familyās name on the back of everything she throws away?
I think that little boy in the picture is hiding somethingā¦
like, where is his father? 
(Except for behind the camera)
1 Like
Of course!
This could dangerously lead toā¦
PS: Appologies to Kate but this just fits so well.
PPS: Because you see the joke is that this is the same actor.
Thatās the bit that niggles at me too.
I know! Hence my PS and my PPS. 
Yeah I saw those, just wanted to animate it 
1 Like
You and all others have said everything, so I donāt have much to add. 
I havenāt seen @PiecesOfKateās photo before, so I donāt have the solution. So here are just some general notes:
The human brain is trained to discover and recognize faces and people (as fast as possible). So the first question you have to ask yourself: Do I actually see a person and/or a face? Or could this be another thing or dust or whatever? (btw: I havenāt seen the āmanā at first sight.)
The second thing is to ask: Is this picture a fake? Itās easy to achieve the illusion on @PiecesOfKateās photo - with the old analogue equipment and with Photoshop. Itās easy to darken some parts of the man, to highlight some other parts and to blend them over. And I would be skeptic if the origin of a photo is unknown and if the picture suddenly appeared in the internet.
The third possibility is an accident in the darkroom (back then). Please remember that the picture with the man does not have to be the next picture on the film. It could be that there were two different negatives lying in the darkroom and that the one with the man slipped accidentally over the one with the boys during the development of the pictures. Another accident could happened with the film rolls in the camera: Back then you could roll the entire film yourself in each direction. So it could be that the father put an old film into the camera the wrong way up. A lot of pictures with āghostsā were created by a double exposure.
The fourth possibility (but a very unlikely) is, that the picture is the result of an AI. We know these āelectric dreamsā pictures like this:
There are also pictures that are only slightly mixed or āalienatedā. Beside that, we have AIs today (and neural networks) that could change parts of a picture and a film. But I donāt think that this happened here.
2 Likes
The double exposure is a thing that has led to a thriving business in ghost photography (or fauxtography) pretty much as soon as photography became a commercial thing.
The fact that no one questioned the odd coincidence that their decased relatives looked EXACTLY like on the few pictures that were made of them shows that only the most desperate people were exploited who just wanted to belive there was proof in that new technology that their loved ones where out there looking over them.
3 Likes