|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Garrison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:32 am: | 
|
Hi All
There is an image that appears in only one photo as far as I know, of the exterior of 13 Millers Court. The photo appears in Daniel Farson's 'Jack the Ripper'. The picture is not cropped as it appears in most books and more of the archway leading to Dorset Street can be seen. If you look up and to the right from the door to 13 Millers Court a face with features can be made out, below this face is a misty body like shape.
I do not have the facility to scan this image onto the Web but if anyone else could scan this photo from the relevant book I would be very grateful. Like I say the image is in only one book that I have seen as the photo is depicted in full size and is very clear and light.
Please have a look at any copies of the picture you may have and look up and to the right of the front door.
Seek and you may find the ghost of Mary Kelly.
Regards
Garrison |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi Garrison
Here is the image as it appears in the Farson book:
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
And here is the "ghost" image larger:
 |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 416
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
This could be anything!! To rely on a scan of a photo printed in a fairly old book, would not be very worthwhile IMHO.
The "effect" could be on the original plate, have occurred in processing for publication, or been a trick of light, damp, or the camera.
Who's to say.
And what does it tell us?
Phil |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 492
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
I have looked at my Farson and there is nothing there on my copy, save for some inconsistancies of print clarity as is evident on the white blotches on the shot.
Though not in my Sugden, I have seen somewhere that there was an entrance into the back of 26 Dorset Street in the alleyway shortly before #13. If this is so, then the darker patch will simply be the doorway.
I got quite excited when I first saw this thread up as The Ghosts Of Jack The Ripper is the subject of my presentation in Brighton in October but, being a professional (whatever that may mean) 'ghost hunter' who has studied a great deal of supposedly paranormal photographs, I have to concur I think there is nothing in it beyond some wishful thinking (not least mine!).
The 'face' is one of the most common things we have to account for. Unfortunately, the reality is shockingly mundane. Any two dots with a third equidistant below them is going to be a face. They happen all the time. It is how people see The Man In The Moon, shapes in clouds, faces in flames or what have you.
But I really, really wish it wasn't the case!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2409
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi Garrison et al
Maybe it's come from spending too long at 'lunch' but have just picked this up and hate to say it........Oooooh yes I can see it, mind you..... said 'ghost' is wearing a hat so maybe she's in the wrong place!(nice apron tho!)
Suzi |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
All,
I'm afraid I have to say it again, why do all the "weird" things seem to be connected to MJK? Or at least the ones I know about.
Carolyn |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 795
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
This appears to be just an anomaly of light and dark shading. But it is interesting that the "left hand" of the "woman" appears to extend beyond the door jamb at the very top of the door -- as if she were reaching to turn the knob, but the figure is much too high off the ground for that. This extending of the hand beyond the jamb indicates that this just might be an actual female form appearing in double-exposure from a previous or subsequent exposure. I presume this is a crime scene photo since the window pane is clearly broken. So, I wonder what the photographer shot immediately before or after this exposure.
It takes a lot of imagination but I can see a "skull-face" atop this figure with bulging eyeballs, or a face denuded of its flesh. Of course, this cannot be so if the figure is moving about and opening doorknobs. I can also see a long skirt and an apron (again using imagination). But I don't see a hat.
If you are looking for ghostly faces, however, look at the upper left window above Mary's room (1st floor above ground floor) for a male face!
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
He He
It is a bit like that picture of Mary with her hand on the door of No 13!
Hmmmmmmm ,of course there's nothing here,maybe there should be .....in fact it's sad there's not !!(Have checked mine too Philip to the same effect!!!)
Mr Pan -Face in the top window though is as you say Andy is something to worry about! 
Suzi x |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 796
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, my Farson is a library discard and doesn't have any photos. However, this photo is also reproduced in the Ultimate Scourcebook and my edition of Rumbelow. It shows enough of the archway to be able to say that there is no figure visible. But the photo is darker than the scan on this thread and it is also clear that any such detail would be lost in the darkened space of the arched walkway.
However that face in the window above is quite a bit clearer in my book. It bears a striking resemblance to -- forgive me -- Yogi Bear!
Andy S. |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Having worked in a photolab several years ago (back in the days before the one hour mini-lab), and having some experience from the dark room etc, I can easily perceive this "mist" on the photograph as being what we called "fogging".
It may appear in new pictures if the paper is dipped in the fixing solution for too short a time. The negative may also be affected by the same flaw through basically the same reason. In older pictures it may happen over a period of years, even many decades if there were initial minor flaws related to this process, giving a severely delayed effect. No mystery.
(I have explained this over-simplified in lay man's terms, I'm aware of that)
It is even possible that such an effect may be related to extensive exposure to direct sunlight or even heat.
As this is a print in a book, it might even be related to the printing process, although we are talking about a totally different process here.
It is not possible for me to determine the cause without seeing the negative (on glass or film) or the positive photograph (if that was used in reproducing the image)
There is, however, certainly several quite mundane and not very exiting, nor spooky, processes that may produce such images. On such an old photograph it is to be expected, even! Photographs may last a long time, but not forever. Some degrading will occur over time.
Besides, it is common knowledge(?) that our brain interprets images in such a way that we try to make sense out of even random images. The most common "mistake" is to see faces where none exist. The face (or "man") in the moon is a perfect example. On close scrutiny these patches of darker material does not really look like a face at all, yet we all routinely se it!
Having some experience in looking for "real" unexplained forms\shapes in photographs, I can unhesitatingly say that this is NOT MJK, nor any other ghost for that matter. And that is at least a semi-professional statement.
I hope this does not discourage anyone. I am not making fun of this. I have been interested in parapsychology and ghost hunting for many years, but I am inclined to look for natural explanations wherever possible.
Sincerely,
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3427
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
I absolutely agree with Helge.
I myself have an old and keen interest in the paranormal (rather than parapsychology, though) and ghosts, and I think it's important to look for natural explanations first, at least when the occurrences are vague or doubtful (as in this one).
I believe one can easily rule out a ghost here; as Helge also implies, most of the produced photographs that display some sort ghostly shape can be considered as results of the photographic process or dust. And with todays developments in computer graphics and PhotoShop, photographic "evidence" has more or less become worthless.
The photos that generally are considered as "unexplained" or "interesting" by photographic experts, are much more extraordinary than the likes of this one, often displaying a very clear figure that can't be mistaken for anything else but a human shape. Not a dusty cloud that, with the help of imagination, can be interpreted into anything you want.
The discussion there instead generally involves theories about deliberate hoaxes produced with the help of double exposure, although in some of those cases photographic experts has said that they can't find any signs on the negatives that points at any form of technical manipulation.
To cut it short, the dusty "shapes" on the Millers Court photo probably don't belong to that minor category, but is simply one of those common tricks of human imagination.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 798
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Helge --
I agree that the "flaws" you mention are by far the most likely explanation for the "female form" in the photograph. However, is there a possibility this "figure" might be caused by double exposure?
Andy S. |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Hi, Glenn and Andy!
(Have enjoyed your posts for a long time! That goes for you other guys and gals as well..)
As I understand, you agree that most "ghosts" on photos are in fact easily explained by the mind "playing tricks" on us. Flaws are interpreted as something they are not.
Interestingly, the number of such "ghosts" reported seems to drop markedly as "old fashioned" film-emulsions are phased out by digital cameras. But recently it has become apparent that digital cameras produce their own type of flaw. Paricularly in low light conditions, they will sometimes produce what looks like blobs of light. This is recognized by the manufacturers as a problem.
Recently, the reporting of just such blobs of light have increased. I guess that says it all.
I'm open-minded, but still a sceptic.
Fakes obviously also exist. I could easily reproduce the effect of the image in question had I still had access to a dark-room. On the negative if need be, and near impossible to detect.
But why? This particular image will, I'm sure, be regarded as a naturally occurring anomaly by all experts. Why fake something that is in fact nothing? As Philip so correctly stated earlier "Any two dots with a third equidistant below them is going to be a face". And might I add, "anything remotely looking like a human form is going to be a human form" But of course, in most such "ghost" cases it is not.
Andy, I can see the "male face" on the upper window as well, but to me it looks like a demon (ouch, don't try to psychoanalyze this ;) However, I know, from experience, that it is nothing.
It is like when they see the pope in a chicken breast!
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/pope_chicken_breas/
To answer your question, Andy, a double exposure will look completely different than this one. Notice the graininess of the image. It is impossible in my opinion to fake this using double exposure, as a "new" exposure would affect all grains on the emulsion thus producing a much finer image. It seems that we have an example of whole clusters of grains being affected at a time here. (one caveat, that is how it looks on the PRINTED image, which may be distorted in the printing process, as well as through Jpeg artefacts in the rendering on this particular digital copy)
Faking this can relatively easily be done photo-chemically, as I previously mentioned, though. Maybe even digitally, but that is outside my field. I do take digital photos nowadays, but I'm old fashioned that way, and alas there is no more fun in actually making paper copies anymore!
Glenn, I said I was interested in parapsychology, but I could have included the paranormal as well ;)
Helge
"Reality is just an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3431
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hej, Helge. Hvordan går det?
(Sorry people, couldn't resist some Scandinavian there... these Boards are not littered with people from that part of Europe)
I agree (I don't know anything about photography, though), the dusty "shapes" on the photo above looks different from those made by double exposure.
However, I am having a very hard time seeing any human features on the head referred to in the upper window -- all I see is a white lump that could be anything. Not with any stretch of the imagination can I read a human form into that.
Helge, I have a question for you.
Would it be possible for a photographic expert to discover double exposure attempts on a negative from the 1930s? I have a specific, very famous ghost photograph in mind here, that probably, if it is a fraud, only could have been caused by double exposure, but apparently no photographic experts have managed to find any signs of manipulation...
Can you clarify this? If a photograph from the 1930s was manipulated by double exposure, would it possible to see signs on that on the negative, and in such case, how?
You say that you "could easily reproduce the effect of the image in question had I still had access to a dark-room. On the negative if need be, and near impossible to detect", but would it be possible for someone in the 1930s? I am just curious.
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
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 494
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Wow! This thread I am finding really interesting and not a single shade of people getting ratty with each other!
Nice contributions, Helge!
In regards to the orbs you refer to in digital photography, I have recently narrated a documentary on them which can be downloaded on the homepage of The Ghost Club (www.ghostclub.org.uk).
I agree wholeheartedly on all your views here. Just because we say "This is not paranormal" it doesn't mean we don't believe in ghosts! Though the CAUSE of them we might scrap about!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1994
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Here is the "ghost" with a bit of cleaning up...
 |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Hei Glenn, det står til liv vet du 
Ok, I'm an amateur in the "fake" business, but I'll give it a shot.
As far as I know, there is no way of knowing if a negative has been double exposed if it has been done correctly. Usually you would try to photograph the subject of the second exposure in a dark area, preferably in front of a black surface. When you expose the film to this new image, all the emulsion detects is the light reflected from the object in question, and that light is simply added to what is allready there.
There is no way the emulsion can "remember" that this light came on a separate exposure. So once the film is developed, what is there, is there, and there are no separate "layers" or anything.
Obviously this poses a problem for debunking purposes
The technique I mentioned works very well with what is supposed to look like semi-transparent and self luminous objects, but not at all well with more complex images. This is why most accidental double exposures are easily recognized, it appears to be (and indeed is) simply two pictures on top of eachother.
So how to debunk a fake?
If, say, a person or an object were to appear SOLID in such an image, there are several ways to detect a double exposure. Firstly, there could be traces of transparency that is not easily detectable with the human eye (but that explains nothing if what you see is supposed to be a ghost in the first place!), secondly, an analysis of the angle of light might reveal that part of the image was taken with a different lighting arrangement.
Unfortunately, most "ghost-images" are transparent and appear self-luminous, so they are the most easy to fake!
A third option of debunking such an image would be to use common sense. It is for example very suspicious if someone claims there was "nothing there" at the time, and then takes a picture of what would appear to be a totally empty staircase!
I cannot give an expert opinion, but I would love to see the picture you were thinking of, Glenn.
Oh, yes, Philip, I had forgot that the blobs of light I was talking about was called orbs in english. Ghost hunting has its own vocabulary, but I'm afraid I'm not quite up to date on english terms yet!
Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading your narrative!
Chris, your post came up just as I was finishing this. Good job. Now I'm even more certain my initial analysis was right.
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3432
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Hi, Helge,
Thank you so much for that thorough explanation.
Well, the one I was thinking about is of course the famous Brown Lady of Raynham Hall from 1936.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/raynham1.html
Now, that is what a proper ghost photograph should look like, fake or not -- not those blurry misty orbs or shapes that we see in the Millers Court photo and that could be anything.
I have always found this picture intriguing and quite thrilling, and I think there are something that sets it aside from most known hoaxes.
It is also a bit puzzling; on your link, it says that "analyst Joe Nickell examined the photograph and concluded that it was nothing more than two images composited together", but from what I've read elsewhere other photographic experts (who usually like most scientists are quite mindset in their opinions regarding these phenomenon) have not been able to find any traces of manipulation on the negative. That is why I asked you about the possibility to spot double exposure on a negative from the 1930s.
As far as I know, this photo has not been totally confirmed as a hoax or officially declared as such beyond doubt (although it very well could be one).
What bothers me about the picture, looking at it from a sceptic point of view, is that it was taking by one of two professional photographers from the magazine Country Life, assigned to do an interior coverage of Raynham Hall, and not an amateur.
So, the question remains... from a pure technical point of view: is this a matter of double exposure or not?
(Those who think ghosts are silly crap and who are convinced of that they don't exist: don't bother! I am not going into that discussion.)
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: 16
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Amazing! This is my favourite ghost photo as well!
Unfortunately it has all the characteristics of an "easy" hoax, as I see it. But that is not proof of anything. It deserves to be genuine, if ever there was a genuine ghost photograph
Very unscientific opinion, I know..
On a more serious note, the fact that more than one person was present when the photograph was taken, and that one of them actually saw something that the camera then recorded, makes this a special case. Thus much more plausible than most such claims.
I should like to know how Nickell could be so sure this was a double exposure. After all, if he can prove it, why can't anyone else? Maybe he simply can't prove it, maybe he just thought it was the most likely explanation?
From a purely technical point of view I agree with Nickell, although it can only be an opinion.
But my heart does not quite follow my logic on this one, I must confess!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 03, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Philip,
Just watched that narrative about the orbs. Fascinating! I was aware of the dust problem, but there also used to be a flaw on digital cameras that caused problems due to faulty pixels as well. Luckily this is remedied on newer digital cameras.
For those interested:
http://www.prairieghosts.com/digital.html
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3433
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Helge,
I am pleased to hear you like that one too.
I do not posses your photographic knowledge, so thanks; interesting and valuable views. You could very well be right.
What would make the hoax theory quite relevant, in my view, is that it was taken by professional photographers (who had the knowledge and equipment), but I don't know about "easy" hoax, though (if it is a hoax at all) -- I have seen stacks of them and none of them are really convincing -- except for this one, which I believe is quite in a league of its own.
"I should like to know how Nickell could be so sure this was a double exposure. After all, if he can prove it, why can't others? Maybe he just thought it was the most likely explanation?"
Indeed. That is what puzzles me.
Did he see something from a technical point of view that others didn't, or was he just not objective enough during the examination?
I would like to see the documentation of this test as well.
That was partly my issue with the double exposure thing the context of the technique of the 1930s; if it is that hard to determine physically on a negative, then an examination in such case can't be used as proof of either a hoax or a genuine ghost.
"But my heart does not quite follow my logic on this one, I must confess!"
I agree. Indeed.
All the best
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: 18
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I agree that professional photographers could more easily stage a hoax. They even developed the film themselves. Thus certainly they had opportunity.
I just realized something crucial. A flash was used. This is problematic. Since they obviously took the photo indoors in poor light conditions (which explains the flash in the first place), they would still have used a relatively long exposure time. I don't know which camera they used, but it is universal (and certainly in the time period in question) that the shutter speed when using a flash is much longer than the actual duration of the flash.
Realize that it is the flash that records most of the image. But ambient light also comes into play, as it is allowed to expose the film longer than the actual flash itself.
Problem number one. If the "lady" was self-luminous, she would never have been recorded as sharp as she is. After all, she was, as witness stated, in motion, albeit slowly.
Problem number two. The lady appears as the brightest object on the image. If she is brighter than the flash (even though it is reflected by a comparatively dark background) she must have been blindingly bright to the naked eye!
Problem number three. If the lady was NOT self luminous, then she must have been illuminated by flash only. This explains the above problems, but poses a new one. Does a transparent figure reflect that much light? By its very nature it should not, as most light would pass THROUGH it (otherwise it would not be transparent)
You never know with ghosts, one could say, perhaps normal physical laws do not apply. But somehow I dont buy that.
Just my opinion.
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 917
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
To address Helge's question, to me, the fact that he supposedly saw the ghost before the photo was snapped would indicate that it was more likely to be hoaxed than not--trying to establish that a ghost was there and then, hey we got a photo, rather than we saw nothing and look what came out.
I don't know if this is a hoax or not, whether or not ghosts exist or not, but I would also like to know what was the evidence of compositing two photos.
Although maybe we should start a thread on Pub Talk. I was going to ask the boss to create a forum for General Mysteries. If anyone else thinks it is a good idea.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Ally,
You are right. Obviously hoaxers would have tried to create a scenario to establish a more believable situation. Adding those details that makes it all more tangible and all that. I admit, I was slightly gullible there.
And yes, this is not really JtR related. At least not directly. But it was great fun. However, the discussion around hoaxes\naturally occurring flaws on photos etc, does have an impact on how we may perceive similar circumstances regarding Ripper photographic evidence. And indeed this all started with a Ripper-photo.
I would imagine that no evidence exist that the "Brown Lady" photo is in fact a composite. However, it does seem most likely, and thus we might say it is circumstantial?
I'm always in on a good mystery, if I feel I can contribute.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on May 03, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 918
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hey there Helge,
I am definitely not a stickler for on-topic conversations.  I just have noticed a general interest in other mysteries lately and thought..hey we should have a mystery board. Pub Talk disappears too fast to maintain a serious conversation. Sometimes you miss 20 posts in a fast moving conversation because they get deleted.
I would love to discuss ghosties in depth as well as other non-ripper-like murders.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Ally,
Mystery board? Well, I'm game.. Great idea!
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3434
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Helge,
I think your views are valid indeed, and since your knowledge in photography and lighting (yes, a flash was used -- a flash gun, I think) is greater than mine, I can't dispute anything you say. All interesting points.
Still, it would be interesting to find out exactly on what technical grounds it was considered a "sandwich" picture, according to that particular expert. Especially when others don't know what to think of it.
As for your three "problems", I would go for option number three; as I recall they never say that she was self luminous, but that they only saw a shape sliding down the stairs. According to the story, it appears as the spirit was illuminated by the flash. And of course, if the ghost WAS geuine, we don't really know what they are built of or how it applies to physical laws.
But I agree -- much points at it being a crank, although I would hope that it wasn't.
Ally,
A great idea. I support that, absolutely.
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
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 799
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Just to clarify my above question, I was not suggesting the "double exposure" to be a hoax but rather an accident. The reason the possibility was of interest to me is the possibility of gaining some insight on what else the photographer may have shot that day.
Frankly, I can't see that much difference between the "form" in the Miller Court photo and the Brown Lady photo. As you say, the latter figure it considerably brighter, but this may be because it seem to be the focal point of the frame whereas the figure in Miller's Court is not.
I once saw a TV documentary on "Ghost Photos" that used a genuine accidental double exposure as an example. A photo of an individual in the front seat of an automobile showed the figure of her recently deceased husband sitting in the back seat! It was discovered that this was an accidental double exposure, the previous exposure being of her husband while still alive and this coincidently positioned in the position of the back seat of the next exposure. The double exposed figure in that photo did not appear sharp and distinct but grainy and "fuzzy."
Andy S.
PS -- In the printed photo that white blob in the window is definitely Yogi!
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 3:01 am: |
|
It's just a case of bad copying in the Farson book, some light has got onto the print in an area that should be dark. |
Nathan merry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Hi all,
Very interesting post about Mary Kellys ghost, It reminded me of an account I read in a book on ghost sightings in england,
A man (the book didnt give his name)who had just moved to whitechapel in the early 1920's, was on his way to work in the early morning when he saw a man walking towards him in a long coat with his coller turned up & wearing a deerstalker hat with a parcel in his left hand, the man walked up to the doorway of a boarded up building looked around then disappeard through the door, our man not being quite sure what he'd just seen carried on to work where came across a policeman & expecting to be laughed at told him what just happened, to his suprise the policeman told him you've just seen the ghost of jack the ripper, & that the building was 13 millers court the sight of the last murder.
i'm not sure if the account in the book is true i personally dont believe it, why would JTR haunt the building & not mary kelly he didnt die there.
Nathan
|
Garrison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Thanks for scanning the picture Chris and thanks for your comments Phil.
As you say Phil it could be anything, but anything could encompass all manner of things including the unexplained, including spirits.
It doesn't really tell us anything, however to me it is intriguing none the less.
Regards
Garrison |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm a lot going on here! not sure I can cope with all the photo-brilliance from Sweden! BUT ok have checked my book and with a lot of 'visualisation'!!!!! and some looking ...OK I can see the image but it still looks like the image of Mary wearing the hat at the doorway ......not I think the best..BIT OF FUN THOUGH
Suzix |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 919
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
There is now an Other Mystery board. Hope to see some of you there!
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 21
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Ok, I need to post this before I go to bed.
Beware of the woman crying, it scared the hell out of me, because I had my speakers on full volume!
http://www.hauntedhamilton.com/gotw_raynhamhall.html
(I am still ranting on about the Brown Lady, btw)
What is interesting here: "Photo analyst Joe Nickell was the first to label the photo a fake. He examined it and came to the conclusion that it was a double-exposure or two images put together to form the illusion of a spirit."
Nickell think it was a) a double exposure, or b) two images put together (composite)
If he does not know this, he cannot have seen the actual negative. In a composite you use two negatives, one put over the other.
Also the wording "Photo analyst Joe Nickell was the first to label the photo a fake. He examined it..", seems to me to indicate he only saw the photo, i.e. not the negative.
If this is the case, shoddy analysis!
I also found some indications that Dr. Nickell is in fact NOT a specialist in photography, but "a stage magician, private investigator, journalist, and university instructor".
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/nickell-bio.html
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3435
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Helge,
Very interesting. Ha!
So much for that analysis.
Ally,
Thanks for the Mystery Board.
Let's move things over there, then.
Maybe these posts concerning the Brown Lady discussion should have a thread of its own over there, so not to put the spotlight off The Millers Court photo?
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
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 923
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
I have made a Brown Lady thread on the Mystery board.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have been skimming (yes, that seems the fairest way of saying it - skimming) this thread out of sheer curiosity. To say I don't believe in ghosts seems unfair - I probably do think about the possibility quite frequently. But most of what I have read on this subject is so weak that it makes some of the wilder views on Ripper subjects seem strong - compare trying to view poor Mary's horrible visage (based on two photographs of her remains) into that fogged up background) with, say, the rather odd theory about Lewis Carroll. Suddenly Rev. Dodgson seems quite possibly blood thirsty.
When I was younger I occasionally scared myself reading Frank Edwards and similar writers on the unexplained. Then I would read debunkers who showed the lies many of these writers like Edwards passed on because they seemed good stories. [One of them whom I only read a couple or years back was Harris, by the way.] Considering the number of hoaxes (well meaning, accidental, or what-have-you) perpetrated on the public to prove that the dead are never totally gone or that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden (paging Sir Arthur) you can tell that I am just too skeptical to see anything but a vast black darkness in the photo of "Mary's ghost".
Years ago I recall reading a book with at title like "Unseen Horizons" or "Distant Horizons" by a man named Ellison. It included a story about how the corpses of two dead seaman were seen by their surviving fellow crewmen "following the ship" all the way back to it's home port. There was a photograph taken by the crewmen showing the wake of the ship, and (in closeup, of course) of the two "faces" of the dead men. Actually it also looked like a wake of a ship or waves. But hey, one's imagination can make anything out of anything. Sometimes I can stare at a ceiling and think I see faces.
Jeff |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 661
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Joe Nickell is a somewhat famous debunker of all things paranormal, like James "the Amazing" Randi but not as well-known. He is definitely not a photo expert, from what I understand, just someone used to seeing a lot of cons.
I wouldn't read too much into what that passage you quoted says. It sounds like someone badly paraphrasing someone else who was not too careful in how he or she explained things. I don't think the text means a one or the other situation like you explain it. It was probably originally "he says it was a double exposure (which for you people who don't know what that means is basically two images together)." Reports get garbled like that.
I was resisting it on the alleged MJK ghost, but as long as I'm posting anyway I'll say my new favorite word: pareidolia.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3440
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Oh my God... James "Father Christmas" Randi... 
Well, yeah, with "objective" examiners like that, you can only get one result...
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Joe Nickell was also part of the Rendell team who examined the Maybrick Diary.
Very clever man, that Joe. He was paid for his opinion that the handwriting didn't resemble Maybrick's (gasp, shock, knock me down with a feather etc), from which he concluded that the diary was an amateurish fake.
When Mike Barrett claimed to have done the faking (even though his handwriting bears even less resemblance to the diary), it was more or less a case of, well he's confessed now so QED, another job well done.
Love,
Caz
X |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 386
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Jumping in late to say that I'm thrilled I can see the thing. Usually I can't make out what others are talking about (remember the lengthy discussion of the "flesh" on the back of MJK's bedside table?).
And Ally, yes please so make an Other Mysteries thread.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3441
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Interesting.
Well, I certainly know about James Randi, and I am glad to have gotten the opportunity to now stumble across this Joe Nickell was well -- a guy that up til now has been a complete stranger to me.
Maria,
The thread is there now -- you'll find it in connection to the Pub Talk section. Enjoy.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 04, 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: 22
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hi, everyone!
Dan, well, Nickell would say it was a double exposure or a composite, because there really are no other way to fake this (in the 30's). But, if done correctly, I doubt if he could prove it.
I am not saying that he is a con, he could very easily be right. Actually, I would say it is a composite or double exposure myself if I had to put my money somewhere.
But, Glenn, you know where my heart is..
The point is that I have not yet seen any SCIENTIFIC reason for believing it to be a hoax, except what I might call circumstantial evidence. If one does not believe in ghosts, then it is a fake. If one believe it to be a hoax, it follows that it is a double exposure or composite. And it probably is, but I would not be so sure without any evidence.
Besides, unless Nickell used a specialist in his investigation, I really can't take his claims seriously! He may be a jack of all trades, but that does not qualify him to an expert opinion on everything.
Besides, he makes a living out of debunking. I'm not saying he cheats, but I don't think he is objective either.
BUT: He is probably right, in my opinion! However my opinion does not qualify as evidence either. And I keep all options open for now.
I'll discuss this case on the new thread from now on, methinks
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
torrance
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
i don't know about this one. jack the ripper is one of my favourite topics but i don't believe in ghosts. Why mary kelly? why couldn't it be the ghost of elizabeth stride or polly nicoles? it might be a photo problem, who knows it might be a ghost, but personally i think we're identifying something and saying its the ghost of the most well known victom in a vein attempt to keep the ripper intrest alive. don't get me wrong id love it to be true, but relistically, this photo is a desprite means for new ripper hype. is it possible we're seeing paranormal when there's just... normal?} torrance, 17. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 12:53 am: |
|
Hi all,
I was watching an episode of unsolved mysteries. They did a story about a couple who claimed to see a naked womans body at the side of the road. The couple went to the nearest phone and called the police. When the police came to the scene there was no body. They noticed a car had crashed into a canal below the road. When they went to investigate, they saw a woman and her son trapped in the car. The woman was dead. Her son was still alive. The police saved the boy. They claimed that if that couple had not called the police to report seeing a dead womans body, the boy would not have been found in time. The area was coverd with bushes and trees and was not visible from the road. The show suggested, that the ghost of the mother had appeared on the side of the road in order to draw attention to the accident, and save her son. I do not know.
Your friend,Brad |
torrance
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 11:44 pm: |
|
i don't know. jack the ripper is one of my favourite topics but i don't believe in ghosts. although i do admitt, if i did that pic would have me. but why mary kelly? why doesn't anyone think it's elizabeth stride or polly nicols? are we just justifing every coinsidence with the one victom everybody knows? torrance, 17 |
IIG
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
How did the diary get into this thread???!!! |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hello,
IIG, good question. It seems to pop up everywhere! Can't seem to get away from it.
torrance, because of the location. Right outside the room where she killed. True, MJK is one of the better known of the victims, but here has been a lot of "paranormal" activity associated with her. More so than the other victims.
Carolyn  |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 505
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn
For once I can speak with authority! Absolutely positively NOT.
By far the most prolific stories are connected with Annie Chapman.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
