|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 922
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:58 pm: | 
|
Hoax? Real? Double Exposure?
What gives?
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3437
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Thanks for the thread, Ally.
Here is the notorious 1936 picture of the female ghost of Raynham Hall:
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 924
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
So Glenn,
Do you know on what evidence or reasoning this was declared a composite photo?
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 495
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Great idea, this, Ally!
Here's the spooky coincidence...
Ownership of the original negative of The Bowon Lady Of Raynham Hall is owned by the very organisation of which I am a Council Member - The Ghost Club! It was the property of our esteemed late member and famed paranormal author Dennis Bardens, who died last year.
This image is the most famous ghost photograph of all time and the general concensus is that it is not faked in any way.
Photographs of ghosts are a major interest of mine and I can sadly confirm that most of the famous images have since been proven to be mistakes - very very few have ever been suspected of being deliberate 'fakes'.
I have a rather strange image taken of me at an investigation at a well-known National Trust property last year, where on this one image alone there appears to be a lancet doorway with a figure standing in it, arm outstreched, superimposed over the top of me. The fogging does not extend over the edge of the negative and in over 1000 images taken with this 35mm camera it has never happened before.
I would be extremely interested to hear more from our guest about the sourcing of his ghost of JTR story at Millers Court. In fact, any stories.
My talk at Brighton is little over an hour long on THE GHOSTS OF JACK THE RIPPER but obviously I am very keen on acquiring more knowledge.
The only tales of the apparition of JTR himself at a murder site concerns 29 Hanbury Street and one account at Mitre Square.
Legends abound from Millers Court, indeed Leonard Matters even mentions the notion that #13 was haunted in his MYSTERY OF JACK THE RIPPER. I am sure, however, that this all springs from the romance erroneously attached to MJK and a willingness to be convinced of posthumous paranormal activity. In truth, of the canonical 5, I find the MJK accounts the least convincing of the lot.
But that's for Brighton!
Incidentally, once Brighton is over I shall be submitting the full text to Casebook if Spry wants to place it on-line.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3438
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
No, Ally,
None other than what our Norwegian friend Helge elaborated on earlier on the Mary kelly Ghost thread, namely that a so called expert by the name of Joe Nickell had dismissed it as a "sandwich" picture from a) a double exposure, or b) two images put together (composite). But apparently Nickell was no photographic expert or photo analyst in professional terms and he probably might not even have seen the negative himself (I quote Helge here).
Which is interesting, since quite a few real photographic experts are more or less in doubt or can't say either way.
So, with that in mind, it would be safe to say that there are no evidence in either direction -- only opinions.
Helge Samuelsen gave a number of relevant technical arguments for why it could have been a hoax on that Mary Kelly Ghost thread, and it is quite possible that he is right.
As far as I know, one of the photographers saw something sliding down the stairs and directed a flash gun towards it, while the picture was taken, and then this illuminated feature was exposed during development (according to themselves).
I have always found that the fact that both of them were professional photographers is a bit of a disturbing circumstance for the picture's genuine quality, but at the same time it must be one of the more convincing fake photos I've seen -- they are mostly quite bad and generally contains a lot of sloppy errors noticeable also to an unprofessional eye.
So, to be frank, I don't know of any concrete evidence either way. It could be genuine and then again it may be a very clever and well-produced hoax in order to sell copies of the Country Life magazine. I would like to say it is genuine and to me personally it has a certain thrilling and convincing quality that differs it from many known hoaxes. But who knows?The stories surrounding this "Brown Lady" are numerous and the first alleged sightings of her goes long way back.
Nickell never managed to get it totally declared as a hoax, and it is not to my knowledge fully established as such. There are, as far as I know, no proof of this, but that in itself doesn't mean that he was wrong, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3439
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hutch!
Thanks for this. Very interesting indeed. I had no idea of the photo's real prominence.
And I agree, it fits quite well with what I've read, that the picture is generally held in high regard for its genuine quality, which is also why it is so incredibly famous.
I also agree on that very few are deliberate hoaxes -- most of them are indeed mistakes.
The reason for why this one could be questioned is the context; it was taken and developed by two professional photographers who were on an assignment for a magazine (and who of course would have had the technical knowledge and opportunity). But that circumstance in itself does not in itself prove anything fishy. They could have been lucky, so to speak.
As for the photographic technical details, I am not the right person to examine or give opinion. I would love it if it was genuine, and I hope it is. The ghost stories surrounding this lady of Raynham Hall are many and interesting in themselves, and as far as I know, she is not the only spirit wandering around that huge estate.
Thanks again for the info, Hutch.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Hi, everyone!
Ally, I really can say that as far as I know there would be no other way of faking this in the 30's than either a double exposure or a composite, so when Nickell says it is one or the other, he is not exactly making an astute observation.
Unless there can be found an indication on the photograph (massively preferably on the negative) that something is "wrong", there will always exist a third possibility. That in fact, the picture is genuine.
The difference between a double exposure and a composite would be that a double exposure is made either on the photographic paper (easier), or (preferably) on the negative (slightly more difficult), by exposing the emulsion to a "new" image,
A composite would in most cases be made by sandwiching two (or possibly more) negatives, making a paper image that blends the two images. A new (fake) negative may also be made this way.
It is not as hard as you might expect, with the the right equipment. Many hoaxes are rather amateurishly made however. The "lady" was (if its a hoax) made by professionals that have avoided most pitfalls as I see it.
So, in both cases there may exist negatives, but not necessarily. However, if no negative exist, that is at least suspicious.
In my opinion it is VERY hard to prove a well made hoax, and this type of image (ghostly appearance, self luminous and semi-transparent) is the most easy to hoax well.
But I'm open minded until any proper research can be done. I will not claim Nickell is a fraud either. I simply have not seen any hard facts from his investigation yet.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 04, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 502
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi Helge.
As I have said, I sit on the Council of the organisation that owns the Brown Lady negative - so it does exist!
I've not seen it myself, but it is not out of the question that I could get personal access to it. It will have to pass through some hands, but obviously it is extremely valuable so it might be an effort.
I understand that the negative has undergone various tests over the years and nothing unusual has ever been found.
Of course - there is always the possibility that the negative is a copy made from an original doctored image. I don't feel this will be the case myself, though.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Philip,
Sorry, I did not get to read your last post yesterday, and today I must have been too preoccupied with my own thoughts. I'm the king of absentmindedness.
Is it possible to find out exactly what kind of tests has been done? It would be interesting to know if Nickell actually tested the negative for example, and what results he got.
I'm beginning to like this. Is it genuine after all?
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Just a few more thoughts on the "Brown Lady". Nothing much, but still.
There have been at least a couple of attempts to debunk this picture early on, grease on the lens , or a person (Shira) posing.
http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/hauntings/brownlady.html
The grease on the lens can be totally ruled out for technical issues, it would simply be so out of focus that it could never resemble what is seen on the photograph.
A person posing is technically possible. By exposing the film for several minutes (in low light conditions, using a small aperture this should pose no problem) it is possible to move in front of the camera without leaving any trace on the film, stand still for a while (How long is depending on light available, but can be calculated), then move out of the frame, still leaving no trace of that motion.
The cap could even have been replaced on the camera during such an operation, leaving more time for planning, or what have you.
The problem is that I have seen (and done) this kind of thing before, and never in a million years would it look even remotely like the "Lady" IMO.
Besides the relative low depth of field in the picture suggests that a low aperture was in fact NOT used (small apertures give greater depth of field). And exactly how dark would it be inside the Hall? (too much light leaves less time for "stunts" while the film is being exposed) To me it seems like an impossible proposal to pull off a thing like that under such conditions.
A more probable approach would be to use a life sized mock up made of reflective material (i.e. white), a person in dark clothing could place this into the frame, exposing it for a while, perhaps even being illuminated by a soft light (not a flash)
The problem is that all this will have to be done in situ, and would entail a lot of suspicious goings on inside the hall for some period of time.
Besides, a flash WAS used, one can see that from the highlights on otherwise dark areas, and that would tend to wash partially out any such image anyway.
Although it could be done, it seems highly unlikely, and would have been fraught with immense difficulty to pull off. IMO this is only a very unlikely, bordering on the impossible, probability.
However, the following account do say that the figure was "see-through", which invokes the problem (number 3) I talked about on the other thread (MJK's ghost).
../4920/17668.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3489
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Once again, very interesting views on the matter.
Thanks for this info.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 481
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
One thing I did notice on the image was that at least on the lower half of the "Lady", she seems to be "folded" over the steps of the stairs.
This may or not be an optical illusion, but it is certainly strange. Unless this was done by an absolutely brilliant hoaxer on the negative itself, it must have been done in situ by the use of some form of reflective cloth as I described before (pretty unlikely IMO).
However, as so often before, we are not talking about conclusive evidence, but this makes me think any hoaxer must at least have had far beyond average skills. Certainly above my own.
Besides, I see no reason to make this effect on purpose, as no ghosts are supposed to have this "folding effect" (to my knowledge) in folklore. So why should anyone want to do the effect on purpose when it would be easier to avoid it althogether?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4241
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I am not so certain that I see any any real folding effect, but it's an interesting observation if you're correct. And if that's the case then I agree on your thoughts and personal opinions on the matter. Sounds reasonable.
I don't know what the photographers were capable of in 1936 or how double exposure can be traced on a negative from that date, but it is interesting to note that no photographic experts to this date have been able to find any evidence of manipulation on the photo.
Thanks for the interesting input, Helge.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
