Wedding ghost

This from the person who sent it in:

For many years it has puzzled me to what it might be. Here i am as a bridesmaid
(the small one) and beside me is what i feel is a girl looking at another girl, at my
Aunt & Uncles wedding. The Church is in Church Aston in Newport Shropshire. I
remember very distincly feeling sad, cold and would not move. The ‘ghost’ is the white figure standing with a vail over her head, which could indecate the period she lived in (1887)?? I noticed whilst looking around the graveyard that there were no ‘Angel’s’ or headstones. Although, i noticed that there were three graves of children that died a year one after another.

img033

What do you think? Comment and vote now!

63 Responses to “Wedding ghost”

  1. Anise76 Says:

    Were there three or four bridesmaids? I can see a couple of things that might or might not be what we are supposed to be looking for, but would like to know just how many girls in pink there actually were present before making an informed comment!

  2. Richard Wiseman Says:

    Four. The ‘ghost’ is the white figure to the far left.

  3. Anise76 Says:

    Thanks, Richard. To me, that looks like a gravestone. It has the ornate carving reminiscent of late Victorian tombstone architecture, and you can see the lighter areas where moss and lichen are growing. Being honest, the slightly taller of the two younger bridesmaids looks rather pale and “out of place” to me!

    • essie Says:

      Hi, everyone thankz for all comments! Some are so funny! Just to let u know that i checked the Church and with the Priest that there were no Tombstone or Headstone present during or after that time of photo…There is no fence or gate there either just a lawn.

    • Lilanime Says:

      I looks like it is a ghost. It’s not a gravestone, and some details make it NOT look like a gravestone.

  4. ashley . Says:

    i agree looks like a gravestone … like leaning on one side .. verry old ..

  5. Chrissy Bee Says:

    Oh wow, I went to school in Newport Shropshire.

    Looks like a photo of a wall taken from above, odd.

  6. mairin Says:

    looks to me as ythough there is a ghostly figure clad in a long loose veil or cape standing beyond the headstone.

  7. shaun Says:

    I think ,there is a verry old barrier.

  8. Pigalina Says:

    That’s a gate isn’t it?

  9. Bruce H Says:

    Quite possibly genuine. Film and (nowadays) digital photography have been shown to pick up images that persons present swear they did not perceive. Both film and digital camera sensors have a spectrum response different from the human eye.

    • Lachwen Says:

      A “spectrum response different from the human eye.”? Is that even supposed to make sense? Cameras (both film and digital) record electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum and that’s it. Just because people are unobservant doesn’t mean there are ghosts.

      And for the life of me I can’t find this “girl in white” everyone’s babbling about, all I see is a broken-down old fence.

      • jimbofin Says:

        Not only that but both film and digital cameras respond to well known parameters – if the human eye doesn’t see it is doubtful the camera will

      • Heather S. Says:

        Actually there are quite a lot of films with various spectrum sensitivities. The two most obvious and extreme examples would be Orthochromatic B&W film and IR-sensitive films like SFX (in B&W) and the no longer produced Kodak EIR films.

        In IR-sensitive films, there’s an extended red sensitivity in its response-curve. With filtering, you can allow just this extended sensitivity to be seen. Landscapes taken in B&W IR-sensitive films tend to have very white, almost ghostly glowing foliage of plants/trees/grass due to the heat reflected from the sun and from their internal processes of photosynthesis. In IR-sensitive colour films, you could get vivid red/magenta foliage, bright blues, alien-like landscapes. No photoshop trickery!
        Even in some digital cameras the sensors are quite sensitive to IR to the point that most have an IR blocking filter permanently installed over the sensor. One of my older digital cameras lacks this so you can point it at, say, your standard tv remote control front, press a button and watch it flash a nice light blue at you. Making the invisible IR visible.

        In orthochromatic film, which is what was first producing with wet-plate collodion photography, there’s actually very little to no red response on the film, which can produce black lips on a model wearing red lipstick (again in black and white photography).

        There are also various UV filters out there so you can see what bees see – the special UV markings on various flowers.

        However, in regards to the original photo, it’s total bunk, that’s a fence. People will see what they want to see.

        If you want to see what i mean about spectral sensitivity curves, look at the last page of the data sheet for some Ilford/Harman films like SFX vs. FP4+ as an example.

    • jimbofin Says:

      Erm, which is what? Less than rather than more than for the average camera, especially an old film camera that this must have been

      • markribbands Says:

        Heather S (and Lachwen, Jinbofin), what a pleasure to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about! In these digital days, had no idea that Ilford’s FP4, PanF etc and their IR emulsions were still available. Takes me back years to the scientific photography module of my general science degree, taught by a chap who used to work at Ilford.

        A couple more extreme examples of weird spectral sensitivity are litho film, used in printing (no idea if it still is though), which is very blue-end sensitive and with vicious contrast – black OR white; and, of course, X-Ray-sensitive emulsions.

        For those non-scientists here, X-Rays are nothing special, just high frequency ‘light’, up beyond the blue and UV end of the spectrum, but before you get to gamma radiation (that’s the nuclear stuff). The rubbish human eye can only ‘see’ a small part of all this. We construct a model in our brains in what we call ‘colour’, no doubt because that’s all we need to survive on this ridiculous planet. Evolution ignored the rest.

        None of this has any relevance to ghost hunters. All the stuff one hears about ‘cameras can pick up things the eye can’t see’ is just nonsense from people who don’t understand how film emulsions work. And not many people load X-ray, UV or IR film into their happy snaps camera.

  10. Mark Ribbands Says:

    I suggest a double exposure due to faulty film advance. The ‘Ghost’ image is of a bridesmaid taken before or after this shot. Examination of the original negative strip would elucidate.

    cf. The Edinburgh Castle cannon picture.

  11. Quackers Says:

    I see a normal photograph.
    I wish there was a voting option for “Ordinary Photo, nothing special to it”.

  12. Katsipoulis Says:

    Normal to me… Lol agree with the one brides made looking a little odd.. hehe, her face it rather ghostly…🙂

  13. Anonymous Says:

    sieeee

  14. kmk Says:

    sieee

  15. galadriel Says:

    it looks like a ghostly fence. Do fences come back as ghosts?

  16. Finbarr M Says:

    First one I’ve seen so far that seems genuine.

    Of course we have the suggestion here of an old photograph, which implies that no digital trickery could have been used… And IF digital trickery was used, it’s very well done to be fair.

    The only thing I’d say here is that the famous picture of The Staircase Ghost (paranormal fans will know the one) is similar and was easily replicated using exposure techniques.

    Anyways good picture very interesting.

  17. Mute Says:

    I much prefer older photographs of ‘ghosts’ if only to debunk the orbs and photoshop ‘ghosts’ of recent day.

    However, faulty instamatic cameras of the day were prone to ‘ghosting’ (haha, no pun intended) from previous photographs taken. Remember how you had to wind the film on every time you took a photo?

    The fact that the ghost is also dressed in a gown type shape further reinforces this theory. Perhaps if the ghost were dressed in a military gas mask or something seemingly unfitting to a wedding then you could argue it is a ghost.

  18. Jaymee Says:

    where are we supposed to be looking?
    all i see is a normal picture with a bride and four bridesmaides with a wall on the left.

  19. Alex Pryce Says:

    Its a very odd shape. Its not a head stone, when dropped into photoshop its obviously not a headstone or a person. Could be part of a misalligned fence or a lighting issue. Its outside, I assume on a summery day, light bounces aorund quite freely and creats all sorts of interesting shapes and patterns.

  20. Kate Says:

    Could be a double exposure – too vague to tell

  21. jack Says:

    where is this ghost at the far left there is a gravestone.. if you are thinking thats a ghost you’re blind, seriously? no ghost in this picture

  22. BB Says:

    You need to read the explanation before the picture, the woman says there were no gravestones or statues present. The picture does look like a double exposure or whatever you call it, but the best way to check this one would be to go to the church and see if there are gravestones.

  23. Anonymous Says:

    the ghost is the bride lol

  24. Miche Says:

    It’s a white fence! You are not going to take a picture of the bride next to a grave-stone. Defo not a ghost figure.

  25. Rich Says:

    I live just up the road in Ashworth Way !

    Must admit it looks like the back of a white iron bench to me.

    Nice to see the photo though. Looks like late 70s early 80s?

  26. Ed Says:

    Its obviously something that moved in the frame during the exposure. Loo at the pattern carefully. It looks like something straight and elongatred that moved upwards and to the right during exposure. No idea where the veil is coming from. Normal explanation.

  27. PDR Says:

    looks like a gate t

  28. Fustbariclation Says:

    Why is it that so many of those sending in these photographs seem to be illiterate?

    • Mark Ribbands Says:

      Hmm, yes, is there a correlation there?

      Oh right, 1887. I had no idea that ‘vail’ fashions were so fast-moving. The Spring or Autumn collection? Or 3rd August at 11.34 in the morning?🙂

  29. ChristopherM Says:

    There is no ghost in the picture but if you look in the top right the yellow blob is clearly a UFO. Difficult to tell exactly what type owing to the poor quality of the photo but it looks like a Mk VII Inter-Galactic Cruiser from the Planet Zarg.

    • markribbands Says:

      Why are idiotic, ignorant posts like this one allowed?

      It’s a disgrace that valuable bandwidth is wasted with such rubbish.

      Accuse me of pedantry if you wish, but it’s quite obvious it’s a Zargan Mk VIII IGC. With the after-market ectoplasmic drive.

  30. Bob Says:

    It’s a streetlight.

  31. b Says:

    nn kardes hayalet dıye bır sey yokturr ınanamıaayın sakınn:D::DD:

  32. b Says:

    bunu yazan bır ınsan hayaletmı yazdıdıye dusunmeyın haaa :D:D:

  33. John Says:

    Whatever the “after image” is, it looks nothing like a person! It is all in the eye of the beholder.

  34. bp Says:

    hadilen çoğu ışık yansıması

  35. Noel Says:

    It is definitely a stone gravestone perhaps reflect back through the eyepiece, meaning the stone was behind and to the side of the photographer.

  36. ZeroCorpse Says:

    Looks like the reflection of the back on a park bench caught in the corner of the camera’s lens.

  37. Simon Says:

    Looks like a smudge to me!

  38. Rosa Says:

    Does anyone ever read the explanation posted with the picture?
    It’s an old photo, and the sender identified herself as being the smaller bridesmaid – who appears very young. How many people would specifically remember “feeling sad, cold and would not move.” from when they were so young? Also, she is very descriptive about the “smudgy blob” the rest of us see, even pinpointing it to being 1887 – if you were guestimating something like that, you would be more inclined to say late 1800’s – there’s no way of specifically determining a single year over 100 years back.
    To me, this photo had a smudge on it – and someone decided to have some fun and see how gullible people can be…

  39. ThomasFich Says:

    If you improve the contrats in the picture with any normal photo-program it becomes obvious that it’s a stone structure. Either a gravestone or another decorative structure. No ghost in sight

  40. Darlon Says:

    Finally an intrige one. Looks like a gate or a piece of an old wooden fence…

  41. Richard Hulligan Says:

    Its a poorly taken wedding photo, taken in a grave yard..or by a grave yard. There is no supernatural occurences. The lady in white is the Bride, the girls and lady in peach, Bridemaids.
    Pointless picture to be honest.

  42. Joseph Says:

    I dont see it!

  43. Vicky Says:

    Double exposure causing what looks like some sort “ghostly” fence or gate…

  44. holly Says:

    I’m sorry, i really dont see what your looking at, it says there is a woman standing there, but it looks like a wall to me, im confused =(

  45. Jane Says:

    It looks like a fence to me and for give me for sounding rude but isn’t Richard a bit of a macho name for a brides maid?

  46. Anonymous Says:

    dunno, looks like a bench to me.

  47. Melissa Says:

    To the people who think it’s a gravestone, why would someone getting married stand by and have picture taken near grave or gravestone?

  48. Anonymous Says:

    I don’t buy it at all. To the left of the picture it looks like a bench that has been put on some kind of patio. I DON’T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PICTURE THAT RESEMBLES A LADY IN WHITE WITH A VAIL? Unless you are referring to the BRIDE in the photo? Why would there not be a bride in the WEDDING picture. This one is confusing. I STILL DON’T SEE ANYTHING!

  49. coollayo Says:

    fake and gay….. thats tottally a headstone

  50. Julie Sanders-Martinez Says:

    Id say with the time frame in which it was taken, and the common dampness of the area in which it was taken, I could see it as being quite easily a problem with the film. however being a firm believer in spirits, I want to believe it is in fact a spirit.All believers know that spirits are most commonly manifested when the situation is filled with high emotion, including joy. a wedding encompasses everything from joy to sadness jealousy, and even fear. It is common for little things to pop up at weddings!

  51. miz lucas Says:

    it really looks like something made out of wood to me, like a part os a hedge or gate fallen (not saying that’s what it is). My point is, to me, it does not look like a person at all…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: