Can Ghosts Be Caught On Camera?

Can Ghosts Be Caught On Camera?

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. BaronIveagh says:

    I see no reason why not. 
    I see no reason why not.  If anything emits light in the visible spectrum then the chemicals in film will react.  Digital is another issue entirly.  I’ve heard of far too many digital camera breakdowns during legitimate cases to think of that sort of recording as ironclad evidence.

    Then again, 90% of ghost photos show indistict ‘orb’ type shots these days anyway… yuck!

  2. Ian Topham says:

    Ghosts On Camera
    If ghosts can be caught on camera, surely this means they can’t be hallucinations and would be visible to the naked eye.

  3. Mysteryshopper says:

    There are many causes of
    There are many causes of ghost sightings. Most are probably misperceptions, some hallucinations and there are other causes for the remainder. It might be that some of this remainder are indeed photographable. We can’t rule this out on the available evidence.

    • Ian Topham says:

      Mysteryshopper wrote:
      There

      [quote=Mysteryshopper]There are many causes of ghost sightings. Most are probably misperceptions, some hallucinations and there are other causes for the remainder. It might be that some of this remainder are indeed photographable. We can’t rule this out on the available evidence.[/quote]

      Good point Mysteryshopper, sometimes I get too blinkered. 

      So given that in theory they could possibly be caught on camera, does anyone have any candidates for what they beleive are genuine apparitions on camera?

  4. Matt.H says:

    I can’t say I’ve ever seen a
    I can’t say I’ve ever seen a "ghost" photo that really impresses me!

    Going off the Green and McCreery theory that many apparition sightings are hallucinatory, then the chances of

    a. seeing a ghost that actually appears objectively in the visible light spectrum, and
    b. having a camera and taking a photo of it

    seem pretty bloody long!

  5. Kim says:

    We have re-created famous

    We have re-created famous pics in the past – you can see those on our website

    http://www.ghostconnections.com/Fakery.htm

    Other things we have experimented with

  6. Mysteryshopper says:

    You have an interesting
    You have an interesting website, Kim. You have a page containing an unexplained photo (http://www.ghostconnections.com/Unexplained%20Ghost%20Connections.htm) with several diverse explanations. I’d like to add another. There was something partially obscuring the flash unit on the final frame! It explains why the illumination looks fine around the edges but not in the middle. It’s easy to replicate by putting your finger over the middle of your flash unit and taking a photo.

    There is still one oddity about the photo, however. The shadow behind the rope on the left has moved relative to where it was in the first photo. It is closely following the rope in the first frame, as you’d expect. In the final frame it looks as though the flash is firing from a different position. Was the internal flash unit being used or a separate one? Either way, it looks as though the unit was partially obscured during the exposure.

  7. Kim says:

     Hi Mysteryshoppe,
    I will

     Hi Mysteryshoppe,

    I will pass you comments onto the rest of the team

  8. BaronIveagh says:

    Not to rain on the parade,
    Not to rain on the parade, but they didn’t have Paint Shop Pro and digital camera’s like the Fuji S5500 in the 1970’s.  Though I won’t argue that images could, and were, retouched, but using modern cameras and photo manipulation tools does not recreate the image.  Now, if you did so with techniques available at the time, that is more acceptable (slow shutter speed, double exposure, etc.)

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima