Bathroom ghost

This from the person who sent it in:

I have been capturing ghost/spirit images in my photos for several years.
Its not just by chance because I am seeing them in my LCD screen on the camera or otherwise sensing that they are close by.  I have sent to you a recent picture took at an alleged haunted cafe/restaurant at Walton on the Naze Essex. I do not photos for a living, I am an Alarm engineer.


What do you think?  Comment and vote now!

131 Responses to “Bathroom ghost”

  1. danielbradberry Says:

    That looks like some smudges on the lens of the camera, would explain why they show up on the LCD screen too.

    • Someone Says:

      Definitely smudges…not in the right perspective..they obviously appear to be on the lens…you can just tell…

  2. Anise76 Says:

    It looks like pale grey airbrushing in Photoshop to create the figures.

    • jon Says:

      i agree

    • manigen Says:

      I have to agree as well. The blobby shapes that make up the figures really look like they were created with an airbrush tool set to a circular shape.

      • Anise76 Says:

        If I had the software on this particular machine, I’d do a mock-up in a few seconds for you, but, being frank, am too lazy to go the other computer!

      • Anise76 Says:

        In fact… I got bored, and did this in 30 seconds, using Gimp, and a laptop touchpad, hence the lack of artistic control!

      • mini e cigarette Says:

        I say Anise76’s fake and it’s better the original image posted. Too bad there are so many tricks these days. I love the idea of ghosts, but I have to remain cynical.

      • bh39302 Says:

        I wonder how many years it will be before Anise76 photoshopped photo starts showing up on different websites as genuine.

    • Cintia Says:

      yes…100% XD

      I said that everything is possible in the era of photoshop

  3. Dave Says:

    Blatantly fake.

  4. Chris Says:

    It’s amazing how many people believe that Ron’s photos are a work up through Photoshop or some other photo program, however, I know that Ron does not have the computer saavy to create anything like this. I also know that he has had many, many people witness the photographs he takes, standing right behind or beside him to see for themselves what the camera captures. More of Ron’s pictures can be seen at and there is also a book entitled, “A Gift from Spirit” featuring over 100 of Ron’s photos.

    My question to all who have looked at the photos on this site… shouldn’t you be asking a few more questions of the photographers before making a judgment decision?

    • tuell Says:

      “shouldn’t you be asking a few more questions of the photographers before making a judgment decision”

      Why, that looks so blatantly photoshopped it’s not even worth asking questions about

    • Michelle! Says:

      Sorry dude, it doesn’t take any type of ‘suave’ to do that crappy of a job fakeing a ghost picture.

  5. Chris Says:

    People tend to make these kinds of snap judgments about Ron’s photos, however, I know that he is not computer saavy enough to create anything in a Photoshop program or any other photo creating program. I also know that there have been many witnesses, standing behind or beside him while he takes a photo, who have seen the apparitions on his camera as the photo is taken. More of Ron’s photos can be seen on the website and there is also a book entitled, “A Gift from Spirit” that features over 100 of Ron’s photos.

    My question to those of you who have commented here… wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out more about the photographers on this sight and the situations behind the photos before making a snap judgment?

    • David Says:

      To respond to you Chris:
      I think you will find that the majority of people judging the photos on this site are skeptics (as am I). But we are intelligent skeptics and know just how easy it is to create fake ghost photos. We also know that people can make money off of fake ghost photos, like by selling books for example. Your statement that Ron isn’t savvy enough to create fake ghost photos is almost meaningless in this forum because we demand proof of such statements; we won’t just take your word for it since we don’t know anything about you either.

      I went to the night watchman chronicles site and viewed a lot of the photos. To me, they all look like manipulated photos; and they are not even good fakes in my opinion. I find these kinds of photos insulting to my intelligence, but what makes it worse is that there are too many gullible people out there in the world that will see such forgeries and really believe they are seeing ghosts. This reinforces these beliefs and leads to the huge logjamb of bogus orb, mist, shadow, and vortex photos all over the web.

      If I look at a photo and can immediately think of one or more ways to easily recreate it either with the camera or through graphical software, then it gets a vote of fake or normal phenomena. I don’t think I’m alone in this way of thinking.

    • Alex Pryce Says:

      To be fair, this doesn;t need anything near the ability of photoshop. A spary can in MS Paint will do just the job- and a 2 year old can use MS Paint.

    • Michelle! Says:

      Sorry dude, it doesn’t take any type of ’saavy’ to do that crappy of a job fakeing a ghost picture.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    In my opinion are the local air and the general environment is not the same as the proportion of gases caused by

  7. Angie Christie Says:

    I was gutted to read the comments on Ron’s work. One day he came to Long Melford near Sudbury, Suffolk and I walked round with him. Two pictures taken whilst I stood by his side watching him snap away had spirit on them. Not noticed until he got back and we looked properly. Ron is a genuine man and a modest man. I believe wholeheartedly that the people who think they know it all are not worth the trouble. Yes he has a much longed for book in print to show his work. You all have your views but if you actually got to meet this man you would see why we are on his side. The gift he possesses I would love to have myself. Ron is genuine in his photography. Sorry about most of the rest of you thinking he is not without even taking the trouble to find out more about him. He will always come up against people who think they know best.

    • manigen Says:


      As David pointed out when responding to Chris above, your personal testimony is not worth much on the internet. For all we know, you and Ron are the same person.

      If you want to convince us of Ron’s legitimacy, we’re going to need to see some evidence. Better evidence than an easily faked photo, anyway.

  8. Chris Says:

    I co-authored the book “A Gift from Spirit” with Ron. I researched for over a year all the locations from which he had taken photos as well as interviewing people who were actually witness to Ron’s photos. Now, as stated previously by David, my word is meaningless unless evidence can be provided. So, there is only one solution to this debate if any of you are inclined. On the Night Watchman website, there is a bi-monthly online newspaper called Night Whispers. Within some of these newspaper issues, there are some articles about Ron which give details and more photos of locations in England he has been asked to go to. Now, I could give you the names of the proprietors of these locations and also the name of the location, but since you cannot take my word, that would be pointless. Contact these people for yourself. They are upstanding people and business owners and have no reason to lie for Ron. Is it worth it to take the time to possibly discover that Ron is not a fake or is it easier just to look at a photo and make an instant decision? This offers you the opportunity to prove or disprove – finding your own satisfactory evidence by actually researching for yourself. And, perhaps, if you are ever in England, Ron would be willing to go out with you himself. Would you believe if you saw it with your own eyes? So, there it is. The best evidence I can offer you is a way to research for yourself.

  9. Kevan Says:

    That’s a natty little copyright logo for a man who his supporters claim is “not computer saavy enough to create anything in a Photoshop program”. You say he also runs his own website?

    Perhaps Ron could take some video footage, the next time he sees a ghost on the screen of his digital camera? That would give people a much stronger example to judge him by – even a few seconds of solid, three-dimensional ghost would be extremely compelling, and way beyond the ability of a layman to fake.

  10. Chris Says:

    Here is the first person who doesn’t wish to put in their own research. Had you been inclined to research the site before writing, you would have found that Ron does not run his own website. My husband, John, and I have run this website for the last six years. Look around, you might even find an “About Us” to prove it as well as multitudes of interviews that we’ve done with some pretty established people. Please, take a look before making judgments that can easily be proven incorrect. Oh, yes, there is also an interview in the MP3’s that my husband did with Ron Bowers. Perhaps take a listen.

    • Kevan Says:

      Thanks for answering my question, I hadn’t looked too closely at the site.

      If Ron has friends who can put a good website together and add copyright messages to his photos, though, it doesn’t mean an awful lot to tell us that Ron is “not computer savvy enough” to have edited the image himself.

  11. Damo Says:

    Hi Chris – I’m quite happy to accept that spirits can be captured on film and I’m also happy to accept that if that is true, then some are more sensitive than others, for example, one person in our group got anomolies when no one else did.

    The idea of this website is to exhibit pics, generate discussion and to gather opinion given that such anomolies are worthy of research or comment and the people on here are (mostly) commenting on the picture and not the person.

    Obvious skepticism and calls of “fake” are to be expected – I accepted that early on (see “Woman in White”) because it’s a natural response otherwise we’re saying “Yup, that proves it… now what?”

    But I’ve got to ask – if this is a constant thing with Ron, why did I never come across him or his work when I was looking for examples of this? Why are they not widely publicised or why is he not quoted or exhibited more widely in this field? Has he been “tested” (for want of a better phrase) and also, does he sleep with the lights on…? I doubt I would ;o)

    If this is something he does, something that is replicable (if that’s a word) it could go a long way to further the big questions on this subject if it was monitored under controlled conditions?

    Just my thoughts…

  12. Chris Says:

    Hi Damo. Thank you for your thoughts and also your open mindedness. It took a great deal of convincing on my part for Ron to do the book because he is actually a quiet, timid man and knew that he would be under fire for what he offers. He has a hard time understanding why it is so difficult for people to believe that such things are possible and an even harder time understanding why anyone would spend their time “creating” a photo. He has a wife, 4 children and a full time job and enjoys the time he gets to go out and take these photos. Although quite nervous at first, he is getting out there more (in England), being called in to photograph in different businesses and such. However, his children are his primary concern and he does not want them to be faced with defending their father. All of his children have been privy to his gift. This is also the reason that he will not, at this time, do another book. The first one took too much time from his family with the little time he has from the demands of his job.

    As for doing anything under controlled conditions, I cannot speak for him. I do know that he is the first to admit that he may be at a location, take 200 photos and never get a thing. At another, he may take 200 photos and get 3 apparition photos. I don’t know that this is something you can just “make happen” when you want it to. I imagine, when it is meant to happen, someone will find him and take his photos more public. At least that is what I hope will happen for him. As it stands, we do what we can with our website for him, but we are not anywhere near (not even a smidgeon) what Coast to Coast AM brings in for viewers.

    Again, thank you for your comments and the discussion.

  13. Dave Says:

    I don’t trust any image without a negative.

    Do not put images like this out in public if you don’t want critical commentary.

  14. Lilith Says:

    doesen’t convince me.
    Just because I work whit photoahop and stuff
    so, for me, seems fake.

  15. Chris Says:

    Hi Lilith. Thank you for your input. Convincing you is not the goal. As you said, you work with Photoshop and stuff so, for you, SEEMS fake. All we asked was if you really want to know one way or the other, do a bit of research on your own with the information given if it’s important enough to you. If not, that’s fine too. I can’t imagine what the Professor will get out of this study as it stands – no study should be conducted without actual deeper research. What has happened thus far is, people have looked at photos and made a quick decision. Was that the actual intent of his study or was there supposed to be more to it? Hmmm…

    • Tallulah Bankhead Says:

      Chris darling,

      Even I know this is a fake, and I’ve been dead for 41 years!

      I saw that damned watchmen web-thing- yes, darlings, we do have wi-fi in the afterlife- and it was pathetic! I certainly wouldn’t own up to being responsible for that abomination!

      Most of the pictures are reflections, lens glares… all those nifty little tricks we used a hundred years ago in Hollywood.

      No, darling. It’s good you’ve stopped talking now. You were doing yourself a great disservice.

      I’m still waiting for the codeine and bourbon. The service around here is lousy.

  16. Lilith Says:

    I am no specialist in this subject, thats why I used “seems” and not “is”.

    And yeah, it is not the goal convence me, but it’s my own critical, hm.
    If I’m wrong or not the professor will say, cause I don’t have time for study a picutre that “seems” fake for me.

    I will just go along it.

  17. Luiz felipe Says:

    Para mim é apenas poeira na lente ou estava flutuando no ar e muito proximo da lente no exato momento da foto….

  18. Tody Says:

    An photography from the stickers on the glass door but without focus…

  19. Rodrigo Says:

    Quem em sã consciência sai por aí tirando fotos de corredor de banheiro? Fala sério… O cara fez isso intencionamente…

  20. Ricardo Garcia Says:


  21. Viviane Says:

    Someone should clean the camera sometimes =/

  22. Lilith Says:

    hahahahaha realmente, em parte concordo com o Rodrigo.
    Mas vai saber qual é desses gringozets… =P
    Mas ainda acho falso.

  23. kristoffer garm rygg ulver Says:

    ??? there’s a photoshop work on it…

  24. Andre Says:

    PaintBrush do Windows…certeza!!!!

  25. Alex Says:

    the worst fake

  26. MP Says:

    Nem photoshop é… é um Paint muito do maldito!!!
    MP – RJ – Brasil

  27. Gibson Says:

    Foi um pum que o fotógrafo soltou.

  28. davi Says:

    paint muito do mal feito aff usava o corel draw …

  29. ITA Says:

    Hello World in the Paint

  30. Fernando ( BRAZIL ) Says:


  31. Denise Says:


  32. eduardo caram Says:

    Alexandre Aksakof (Ripievka, 27 de maio de 1832 – São Petersburgo, 4 de janeiro de 1903), diplomata e conselheiro de Alexandre III, czar russo, doutorou-se em filosofia e se notabilizou na investigação e na análise dos fenômenos espíritas durante o século XIX.

    Foi professor da Academia de Leipzig e fundador, em 1874, da revista Psychische Studien (Estudos Psíquicos), na Alemanha. Em 1891, lançou em Moscou a revista de estudos psíquicos Rebus, a primeira do gênero na Rússia.

    Criou adeptos entre cientistas e filósofos de seu tempo, que, através de experiências feitas com médiuns famosos como Daniel Dunglas Home, levou a Rússia a formar a primeira comissão de caráter puramente científico para o estudo dos fenômenos espíritas. Para essa comissão, Aksakof mandou vir da França e da Inglaterra os médiuns que participariam das experiências. Como resultado, por haver fugido das condições pré-estabelecidas, tal comissão chegou a conclusões questionáveis, saindo como relatório conclusivo o livro “Dados para estabelecer um juízo sobre o Espiritismo”, onde afirmava a falsidade dos fenômenos observados. Aksakof contestou a comissão com um outro livro intitulado: “Um momento de preocupação científica”.

    Sustentou longa polêmica e refutou as explicações materialistas do filósofo alemão Von Hartmann, discípulo de Schopenhauer, que atribuía todos os fenômenos espíritas a manifestações do inconsciente ou a charlatanismos.

    Efetivou numerosas experiências e observações científicas com o concurso da médium italiana Eusapia Palladino, que serviram de fundamentação para sua obra mais importante: Animismo e Espiritismo assim como, ao estudar a mediunidade da médium inglêsa conhecida como Elizabeth d’Espérance, testemunhou um evento sobre o qual escreveu a obra “Um Caso de Desmaterialização”.

    [editar] Obra
    Animismo e Espiritismo, volumes I e II (Livro de 1890: FEB, RJ);
    Um Caso de Desmaterialização: (FEB, RJ);
    Étude sur les matérialisations des formes humaines. s.l., 1897. “in” 8° (artigo);
    Precursores do Espiritismo desde 250 anos, ou Predvesttniki Spiritizma Zapoledmie 250 Lyet (artigo);
    Um monumento de preocupação científica (artigo).

    [editar] Bibliografia
    AKSAKOF, Alexandre. Animisme et spiritisme (trad. do russo por Berthold Sandow). Paris: Ed. Paul Leymarie, 1906. Librairie des Sciences Psychiques

  33. fabiano Says:

    Adobe PhotoShop!!!

  34. Thiago Vaz Says:

    Bom esta foto tem uma explicação bem simples, primeiro a lente suja é uma coisa que pode ser limpa com um paninho seco mas se voce quiser e acreditar que tem algo ali na foto fique a vontade quem tiraria uma foto de um corredor??????

  35. James Bunda Says:

    Alguem andou brincando com a ferramenta de spray do paint, do mais quem é que vai tirar foto de banheiro ?

  36. Bárbara Says:

    Chris: It’s simple to know if it’s a fake or not: next time, he could take his pictures using RAW intead of Jpeg format. The RAW is an extention that can not be modified, and can only have it’s colors modified, with a few enhancements too (like brightness, contrast, saturation, etc)… When you want to make a composit or anything else at Photoshop, you need to export a jpeg archive to open in PS (the RAW format pictures doesn’t open in Photoshop)…
    I work using Photoshop all day long, and for me it seems a fake, and I would only believe that it’s not a fake if I could see a RAW archive of his photographs….
    The RAW is considered the “negative” of the digital photography and most of the digital cameras have the option to use it, so if he could send to this site any RAW archive than he would prove that it’s a fake or not….

    • Rowan Thorpe Says:

      Bárbara: In fact even using one of the so-called “raw” (or losslessly-compressed) formats can’t provide “proof” of non-post-processing. Whatever the exact “RAW” file-format, as soon as it’s digital it can be streamed to/from any number of formats, even by free programs. For example I have used dcraw ( a few times to extract & manipulate raw images, often re-saving as the same raw-format. These days I think the GIMP ( and ImageMagick ( have import-export filters for most of the formats too, including several proprietary ones (making them as easy to edit as any other format). Anyone using the “can’t support CMYK or 16-bit though” arguments should check Cinepaint (, which I hear is already making some headway into handling 64-bit TIFFs(?). By the way they are all Free/Open-Source software… The simple fact is that with enough free time any digital image can be “tweaked”. For that matter – even analogue images can be “tweaked”, but that usually requires a lot of time and a *lot* of money (because special/expensive hardware is required for detailed manipulation of actual film – rather than just software), meaning that usually only Hollywood or the CIA can afford to do it, but with digital media anything is possible if someone’s determined enough…

      To all the people trying to defend the photographer’s character: That is not the point here, the point is to *objectively* analyse photographs and to deduce how unlikely it is that the effects have an alternative non-mystical explanation, or could have been doctored. The “objectively” part means not to think “even if it looks like a 5 minute hack-job with a low-end photo-editor, I’ll ignore that because the photographer seems like such a straight-up nice guy”. That would be tantamount to saying “this presidential candidate must have been smoking the hard stuff when he planned this campaign, because his promises and goals are completely out of touch with reality, but he seems like such a nice guy, I’ll vote for him anyway…”

      To the people repeatedly plugging the photographer’s book and related website: Can you please stop trying to turn this blog into an advertising forum?

  37. yuzuki Says:

    essa chega a ser ridícula é claro que é so um vidro embasado vidros quando embasam tomam qualquer forma podia ser um et ou um monstro kkkk

  38. Amanda (Brasil) Says:

    Porque alguém tiraria uma foto de um simples corredorzinho numa casa? Claro que é montagem! Mal planejada ainda…..

  39. stevemac Says:

    There is more to suggest from this image by RON and his ~followers~to suggest it is a FAKE or touched-up image than to consider it original. The other posters on this site have given good advice in regard to taking MOVIE clips or providing the RAW data of the image, so they may be analised objectively. Also, I have studied these aspects of ‘spiritual being’ while living in Brasil,.. and I can see there are many others here from that region,… Therefore, it’s NOT that we do NOT believe in SPIRIT manifestation, but we are more aware of the reality in the forms this takes,… and how others prefer to make fakes.

  40. stevemac Says:

    Also, the ~entities~ (if real) appear to me more or less ~material~ by this I mean condensed or the ~perispirit~ is evident via conglomeration of the ectoplasm in the area.

    If this is to be true,… any other individual in the vicinity would ALSO have seen the ~forms~,… and more importantly, they would have CAST A SHADOW on the wall to the sides,.. as the main source of LIGHT is from the top-right behind them !!!!


  41. Victor Says:

    I can do the same thing with Microsoft Paint

  42. Evil Dwarf Says:


    • Edward Cullen Says:

      Its an EPIC FAIL
      you cannot think that this is real and
      chris and angie or whatever the hell your names are are delusional if you believe thats real

  43. L. Says:

    mal feito hein?! Photoshop puro…

  44. Dean Michael Cook Says:

    Analyzed this photo aswell, if people wish to fake photo’s in photoshop atleast do a good job, j paint showed the super imposed layer of the added paint tool straight away.



  45. marina Says:

    and the level has just dropped..

  46. Jenny Says:

    I fully appreciate and understand the scepticism expressed here as this photo does indeed look as if it has been faked and, if I had nothing else to go by, I would not be impressed either. However, I had the opportunity to meet Ron (for the first time) last weekend. He took 100s of digital photos in RAW format in front of a dozen or so witnesses, everything from orbs to mists to forms. He also took 3 spirit photos for me on my own camera (though I did not think of changing the format to RAW at the time). Having seen him in action, I have no doubt whatsoever that Ron’s photos are genuine.

    • emi Says:

      And that means absolutely nothing to any of us. Videos or it didnt happen.

      Voted fake.

      • Jenny Says:

        Actually, I don’t think that any images posted anywhere online – whether video, RAW format etc. and whether by Ron or anyone else – would convince anyone here. Everyone needs to experience it for themselves and, even then, we can question the ‘reality’ (whatever that is) of what we have experienced! With any ‘paranormal’ topic or event, it seems to be very difficult to get beyond the hearsay and superstition to the truth – there are so many contradictions in this area. I myself question everything – it is in my nature to do so – and in most such ‘paranormal’ things I have seen to date, I remain open-minded but unconvinced. However, last weekend I was totally persuaded by the veracity of the photos I witnessed Ron take and I do not accept that there was any trickery involved.

    • sandy Says:

      How interesting that another mysterious person with the same writing style as the previous two shows up to mention that Ron in fact took many photos in RAW format with her… just after RAW format had been mentioned as a proof in the thread.

      Come back with your convoluted back story and personal vouchings for honesty when you’ve at least learned how to use photoshop properly!

  47. Monk Says:

    Worst. Fake. Ever

  48. Andy Cooper Says:

    could it be a smuge on the camera

  49. Ben Says:

    Photoshop?! This isn’t even that advanced! It’s clearly just 1-2 seconds work with the spray can on Microsoft PAINTBRUSH.

    Awful effort!

  50. archangel Says:

    i have seen all photos thus far and voted i just have to comment on this one !!! WHO YOU TRYING TO FOOL, FOOL i agree with all the peeps b4 a crap effort with an airbrush on paintshop or worse used the freebie paint pad on xp i have seen ghosts they look bugger all like that GET A LIFE SADDO

  51. scientist Says:

    Ron seems to have some really dedicated followers. It reminds me of a cult leader. Pull people in with charisma and trickery then they follow you anywhere constantly defending you. If you have to constantly defend someone something is wrong. It worries me that there is a book and followers for this guy.

  52. ellie Says:

    i am a believer but i do not believe this photo is real. i have looked at rons website and a couple do look genuine but most dont.
    this one i could recreate using paint!!

  53. alan Says:

    Thats a picture taken through a glass door or screen of a family used bathroom. The image is a grey print showing a parent with a child. Look in any airport or restraunt, those signs are everywhere!!!

  54. Curious Skeptic Says:

    The “ghost” images are very unimpressive, with no depth or variation in color tone. No matter how “nice” Ron is, the photo could very easily be faked and must therefore be Dismissed as inconsequential…

  55. Leave a Reply Says:

    Goooood thats real!

    Im freak.

    OH SHIT.

    HELP US!

  56. Stu Says:

    Why anyone would try and pass that nonsense off as real, I’ll never know.

    It’s one of the poorest fakes I’ve seen, some (most) of the images on the the photographers website are also complete nonsense.

  57. Bubba Says:

    I think its either a smudg on the lense or its been photoshoped!

  58. NHJonesy Says:

    Any photo or video can be faked no doubt, and one can pass judgment on just the photo alone if they so choose. A photo itself doesn’t prove anything – if we assume that fakery is not involved then such a photo would only raise more questions, “then what is it?” There could still be logical answers but whether one wants to pursue further research is entirely up to them. The photos I don’t think say much w/o any corroborating evidence (like other examples of paranormal activity and a clear history of the places). I am open-minded, but even I wonder what it would take to truly convince me – a photo alone won’t do it, photoshopped or not. Until science is able to prove the possibility that the human spirit can live on what benchmark is there to say whether or not it is a ghost.

  59. Deep Says:

    If I got a picture like that, I’d be tempted to clean my camera lens.

  60. Shiromi Says:

    Interesting how it’s the exact same shade of grey all throughout the “ghost”… so totally faked!

  61. Chester Says:

    That really is a terrible job. As someone above said, if you’re going to fake an image, at least make an attempt at doing a good job. With the tools available today, it’s not even that hard… hell, in my spare time at work, I’ve set aside 10 minutes and fabricated believable pictures of my friend’s chinchilla sitting inside a blender.

    Just no excuse for trying to pass off something of such poor quality.

    Also, why do the people supporting “Ron” all sound like Scientologists for some reason?

  62. Chester Says:

    Just came back from the website and had to follow up on my last comment…

    Um, the last update was in 2008 and you’re still using tables for layout, not to mention the bulk of content is in all caps and your nav bar is off center (oh yes, I could go on for ages about how broken that site is). If you guys actually think enough of that website to advertise without being embarrassed, then I completely understand where your lack of visual sensibilities come from and get why you’d think something obviously doctored in some MS Paint freeware garbage would be genuine.

    Seriously, CSS is a good thing though… go buy the book. Right now!

  63. Snark Says:

    100% pure fake. Not even a good one

  64. Kitsuné Says:

    I’m not a proper skeptic as I believe that ghosts could and have appeared in photos, but I’m not fool either. I can tell a fake. That’s just colour dodge brush on photoshop. Looked at the other photos and it looks like a photoshop brush effect or a poorly cropped picture with a lessened opacity and overlay effect. The edges are too hard.

  65. Chuzzy Says:

    Yeah, engineering another false alarm ain’t ya mate

  66. Song Jin-Gao Says:

    air brush in paint

    enough said

  67. Cly Says:

    Terrible photo manip, stop wasting our time please.

  68. Vicky Says:

    Fake… Someone mentioned that this guy was not computer savvy. Well these pics prove it cause they are crap.

    I’m sorry – but whether or not it was faked – these grey-like paint/photoshop pictures just aren’t compelling enough to make anyone believe that these are apparitions. I’m a skeptical believer and unfortunately (because of all the faked evidence out there) this picture just falls within the questionable authenticity category.

  69. Big Chris Says:

    Why would you be wanting to take pix in the toilet??

  70. Jason Says:

    How ron can sleep at night is beyond me, he needs to wake up and get a real job ,this is the most pathetic ghost photo i have ever seen, it is so clearly an air brush technique on photoshop that it insults my intelligence and i know as ive used photoshop, this is an insult to ghost photography.

  71. Berndettea Says:

    I have a ghost photo and i used a 35mm camera and its on negitive i dont lie digital and im not in to orbes

  72. derekcsy Says:

    False ghost. Those “figures” are created by smudges made by soap suds upon the glass panel of a showering area in the bathroom. Pretty nice illusion, the lens is of focus – focused on the floor tiles and not the soap suds.

  73. harry Says:

    it is very easy to prove that this is fake – by measuring the pixel colouration/variation – although difficult to explain in a few words. when a flat coloured surface is photographed the individual pixels will have different colour readings ie. red=188 green=105 blue=125, or similarly cmyk values. each pixel side by side will naturally, so you may have a pixel in a grey wall of red=188 green=105 blue=125, yet the pixel next to it will be red=194 green=125 blue=126.

    when you airbrush in photoshop or paintshop etc – you select a single colour value to brush over the image which will remain constant and only vary around the feathered edge or soft edge of the brush where it fades out.

    if you measure the pixel colour values in the ‘main body’s’ of the ‘ghost’ images they are “Constant” and only vary by a minimum of 1 pixel value per rgb / cmyk channel with some of them not changing at all, in which changes would natuarally occur due to jpg pixel compression – therefor is indicative if a digital painting or airbrushing technique.

    someone is pulling the wool over somebody’s eyes i’m afraid

  74. Jessica Says:

    the spray paint option on my computer is great i use it all the time too!

  75. ZeroCorpse Says:

    Clean your camera lens and get a less ridiculous hobby.

  76. damir Says:

    guys, this is airbrush from ms paint

  77. John Says:

    I think someone’s jizzed on your lense, mate.

  78. Fake Ghost's Discover Says:

    OMG!!! It was made on paint, it’s a fake…O god, my little brother could do something better than that!

  79. Eric Reber Says:

    Well, I would actually not assume it was Photoshop looking at this image. I believe, if this is a fake, that it is spray paint on Plexiglas set up in front of the door. However, I won’t just poo poo on this if it is a fake. I would rather call it inspired art.

  80. nikolina Says:


  81. MiMi Says:


    Obvious fake:rolleyes:

  82. pjero Says:

    i can make better fake in Paint…

  83. sb Says:

    Tell me this is a joke.

  84. ella Says:

    airbrush :O

  85. holly Says:

    im sorry, but that looks like somebody stuck a photo in paint and drew shapes with the airbrush tool
    also, some of the photos on here are random shots in like a field where you would want to take a picture and then something appeared, but why would you be taking photos of this on the first place?

  86. Shona Says:

    Haha, gtfo.

  87. sazzie Says:

    I am 100% certain that this image is not fake. i am a waitress at this restaurant. there were a few people in the toilets with Ron when he took the photo, I have had a lot of strange things happen in the restaurant which cannot be explained along with other staff there. Ron did not use any ‘airbrush’ tools or any other for that matter, he only has a camera. thank you Ron for proving that our restaurant is haunted.

  88. Carlos Says:

    stupid end fake (-_-)

  89. zansu Says:

    I think the digital camera should not be used for ghost photography I have said it before I will say it again they are highly sensitive to dampness insects dust and the so called Orbs I would like to see the original cameras where you get negitives I wonder if all ghost hunters will go back to use the good old traditional cameras for ghost photography I get very bored seeing a little bit of white blob and it is so pose to be Spirit i like to see a proper ghost photo or presance which is incredibley rare I do believe in ghosts

  90. wee-mee Says:

    Forget photoshop,it looks like spray paint in Windows Paint!

  91. LuS-K Says:

    it looks like the radiohead OK Computer artwork

  92. Lilanime Says:

    This was probably edited on MS Paint, or another virtual painting program.

  93. doomed Says:

    worst photoshop ever. I have commercial plugins that do better than this with one click.

  94. Anonymous Says:


  95. LOUUULouelladeville Says:

    I you look at the two smudges these are the signs you see on toilet doors. this is the women on the right with the girl on the left. The shape on the right has a triangle dress like the signs have.

  96. Says:


  97. Snipps Whispers Says:

    Ron – stick to the Alarm installation. Your so called ghost pictures may fool a few very gullible souls but obviously those with half a brain aren’t taken in by your
    very poor quality efforts – oh, by the way did your supporters say you had a book to sell?.

  98. carlos Says:

    stupid and fake (-_-)

  99. Shaggy Says:

    I can see you (do not photos) for a living. First of all you were lucky no one caught you taking pictures in a public restroom. Here in the States you might get your as* kicked for something like that. Secondly your photo skills are proven elementary at best. Try smoke and mirrors next time pal.

  100. Anonymous Says:

    i have seen ron bowers taking photols of ghost in public i have been with him and i take photol of ghost to you all can do it

  101. Anonymous Says:

    Is nobody seeing that this photo is taken through a pane of glass, as evidenced by the edges being clearly visible in the window frame? It’s NOT Photoshopped. It’s actual spray paint on glass.

  102. Lawerence Says:

    Howdy would you mind stating which blog platform you’re using? I’m going
    to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a tough time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.
    P.S Sorry for being off-topic but I had to ask!

  103. Says:

    Howdy! This is kind of off topic but I need some guidance from an
    established blog. Is it very difficult to set up
    your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things
    out pretty fast. I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where to begin.

    Do you have any tips or suggestions? With thanks

  104. google Says:

    Howdy! This is kind of off topic but I need some guidance from an

  105. Says:

    What’s up Dear, are you in fact visiting this
    web site regularly, if so afterward you will absolutely obtain fastidious know-how.

  106. Leia Says:

    That is a good tip particularly to those fresh to the blogosphere.

    Brief but very precise info… Appreciate your sharing this one.
    A must read post!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: