by Mysteryshopper ·
by Ian · Published September 11, 2008 · Last modified November 21, 2018
by Ian · Published December 24, 2009 · Last modified November 15, 2018
by Ian · Published September 16, 2010 · Last modified November 17, 2018
More
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Re: New development with Wem photo
Easier to compare at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2977831/Blaze-ghost-mystery-over.html
Re: New development with Wem photo
The second link certainly highlights that the pictures are very similar. Certainly looks like it could be a fake………though no doubt someone will say it is the ghost of this 1920’s child in the Wem picture.
Re: New development with Wem photo
[quote=Ian Topham]… though no doubt someone will say it is the ghost of this 1920’s child in the Wem picture.[/quote]
I saw that in a blog yesterday – sadly I lost the link. If anyone has it, please post …
Have a look here too http://www.kuxas.com/94/spooky-case-of-the-wem-ghost.html
My fade doesn’t seem to make any difference at all so I’m not convinced it is working on my computer.
Re: New development with Wem photo
I can’t get the fade to work either. Another good link though.
Re: New development with Wem photo
Fade works fine with my PC (Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox).
Looks quite convincing .
Re: New development with Wem photo
Perhaps neither photos are fakes and they both show the same ghost 🙂 – I think this post will kill off an credibility I had left 🙂
Re: New development with Wem photo
Um, MS, just to let you in on it: the ‘original’ image that The Sun is running is doctored. The one that The Mail ran is the real postcard. She’s out of focus in it. There’s an original of this one at a local antique market I’ve seen.
Is it the same girl? Meh, could be.
Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima
Re: New development with Wem photo
[quote=BaronIveagh]Um, MS, just to let you in on it: the ‘original’ image that The Sun is running is doctored. The one that The Mail ran is the real postcard. She’s out of focus in it. There’s an original of this one at a local antique market I’ve seen[/quote]
Do you have a copy of the postcard? If so, any chance you could scan it in and post it here?
Re: New development with Wem photo
Unfortunetly no, I went over yesterday after I posted thinking to do just that and someone had already bought it.
If anyone else sees one, please scan.
Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima
Re: New development with Wem photo
[quote=BaronIveagh]Um, MS, just to let you in on it: the ‘original’ image that The Sun is running is doctored. The one that The Mail ran is the real postcard. She’s out of focus in it. [/quote]
Yeah, I noticed that as well. In The Mail postcard, you cannot see the girl’s face clearly. In The Sun Postcard, you can see the girl’s face, and it is exactly like the one in the original photo.
Re: New development with Wem photo
[quote=Mauro]Fade works fine with my PC (Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox).
Looks quite convincing .
[/quote]
Also works with Chrome. In the postcard there is a boundary between two different bits of wall. There is a line in the other photo in precisely the same position!
Re: New development with Wem photo
Here’s something to ponder: this image was taken in 1995.
While it’s easy enough to make it look realisitic now, could it have been done then?
Note: the image really is on the negative. This was taken with a film camera rather then a digital unit.
So: is it a double exposure type spirit image? If so, the girl is scaled up with remarkable skill.
Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima
Re: New development with Wem photo
Seems pretty convincing to me.
In the interests of balance, it’s also worth pointing out that this puts paid to the theory that it was a case of paradoloa caused by falling timber or similar.
In terms of explanations from a hoax point of view, a straightforward, if admittedly very skillful by the sounds of it, use of an existing always seemed the most likely to me.