“I just read the article about the ghost picture on Yahoo. I attach a picture of my husband with what appears to be a little girl in pink on the balcony to the upper right of the picture. The picture was taken outside a museum in Amsterdam.”
What do you think? Comment and vote now!
Ghostly photographs from Hauntings 
March 28, 2009 at 11:29 pm |
These are wild photos. No photoshopping? If so, then here’s witness to the wonders of life, the wild and crazy curiosities that make the world go around. I feel the same way about the curious concoction of the spork or the sprake. Whoever invented these had to have had a vision or a ghost-like inspiration that said, “The world needs a new utensil.” http://tinyurl.com/spork-more
Fascinating imagery here, and now I’m going to keep a look out for my own mysteries.
March 29, 2009 at 1:19 am |
It’s a ghost
March 29, 2009 at 2:54 am |
Trick of the light through the trees combined with the wall, cool effect.
March 29, 2009 at 7:32 am |
I think it looks pretty jenuin but I do believe that it could have been jeneticaly manipulated somehow, since you can see that she is wearing what looks like skinny jeans. But you never know!
September 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
‘jeneticaly’ ? What do you mean? Please tell me because i don’t have a clue……
March 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
I took this picture of my husband in 1995, in Amsterdam. I can’t remember everything about the camera except it was a Nikon. I don’t know how to “doctor ” pictures so it is exactly how it turned out when developed. I don’t think the child is wearing jeans but it looks to me like a pink smock type dress and white stockings or tights. She has a blond bob hairstyle.
March 29, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
This could be a light anomaly I suppose – If you look along the balcony to the right of the ‘ghost’ there’s a pinkish panel – and the ‘body’ of the ghost appears to made up of exactly the same color as that panel – It seems likely that the panel behind the ghost is exactly the same color as the more obvious one to the right, and that light has caught it in a particular way giving the impression of a body shape/clothes. Ditto with the head, where the cream panel has had light shining on it in such a way as to give that impression.
March 29, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
I believe that this an apperition as well. It looks similar to the one I SAW in real life. Hazy line.. I also saw a lil girl with my own eyes. I was in a friend of mines house and the ghost was at the bottom of the stairway. This was a VERY big old Victorian house in the South. She was dressed in a yellow(looked high end, or expensive fabric) dress twirling a yelllow parasail umbrella. The commeny above about the skinny jeans..lol..it was 1995 not 07-08 for that matter. She seems to be wearing some type of dress and stockings So I think this pic IS authentic!!!
March 29, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
I to think its a ghost.Dont think the little girl is wearing jeans she seems to me to be wearing a kind of smock dress and stockings. Her hair seems to be blonde in a bob style.
March 29, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
It looks like a trick of the light on the wall because the girl appears to be about the same color as the wall, but the problem I have is with the window behind her. If that is an open window, there would be no reason for the pink to show up in front of it like that, and if it’s boarded up, there still shouldn’t be any pink. The last thought I had was that maybe it was shutters behind her, but if they were shutters, there wouldn’t be that brown stripe through her, and you would see a window also, instead of the pink of the wall.
It doesn’t look like it was doctored either, so I’m going to have to say, this is a genuine photo of a ghost, or at least the most convincing one I’ve seen yet.
March 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Very interesting picture this one. Bright pink and possibly white shorts. The clothing looks modern and appears to be a double exposure. Nikon do film and digital cameras, it would be interesing to know which type it was.
The figure seems too detailed for a simple light flare and shows no traces of movement. The feet appear to be stood on the balcony, so it foes appear to be real.
This is one of those photos where you need to investigate the people submitting it. How genuine do they seem? Even if the person submitting it is genuine, could one of thewir relatives be playing a joke on them?
My personal feeling is that this is an intentional fake, designed to deceive by either the submitter, or someone close to them. If the investigation of the submitter seems to suggest that they are honest and there is fairly good evidence that no-one else had access to the camera to set this up, or manipulate the image if it is digital, then this picture would have to be investigated further as it cannot be explained easily. If ghostly pictures do exist, this might be a good candidate, subject to further investigation.
March 29, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
If you notice the top of the window, it is dark for awhile, but right as it passes through the “head” it lightens up. And it comes out dark again…That’s weird…it’s possible that the light is causing this but….Also, the thick black line running across the entire balcony can be seen through her.
It just might be an illusions. Notice that the arms are perfectly in line with the shutters. Something like this suggests that the “body” is something behind the window…wow this is weird…I would have to see the place first and check what’s in the room.If this isn’t a person, then it’s possible that both the head and legs are created by the light and the body is something in the window. hmmmm…
March 29, 2009 at 11:34 pm |
Looks def. like a trick of light. The “pink body” seems to be the interior wall of an open window. Notice the dark “segments” on either side, they seem to be open door/window panels (like a dutch door). The “head” and “legs” also seem to be filtered light through tree leaves. I copied this pic to my photo program and “blew” it up 150%…thats my take.
March 30, 2009 at 7:25 am |
Fake or not, the place is well chosen. It is the patio of what is now the Amsterdams Historisch Museum (Amsterdam Historical Museum) and that building used to be an orphanage called Burgerweeshuis.
March 30, 2009 at 7:47 am |
Here (http://image05.webshots.com/5/1/81/27/172918127SKsFpu_fs.jpg) you will find a photograph of the same patio from another angle. The tree is now on the right and the gallery is on the left. In summer the patio is used by the restaurant on the ground floor of the museum.
March 30, 2009 at 11:12 am |
nice think that back in 1999, i saw the same young girl, when visting, and dismissed it as figment of my imagination. but it is nice to see that some one else has captured, the girl apart from my memeory
March 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
Nothing mysterious. It’s called pareidolia.
March 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
Thank you for all the comments, especially the positive ones. The camera used was as I said above a Nikon. It was an ordinary camera not a digital one. We took other pictures on that day and on that patio but no other strange images appeared. I also have a pic of myself taken by my husband on that same spot, but nothing else is in the picture. We had no other family members with us to play tricks on us nor did we have any small children in our family at the time to cause any type of double exposure. I may still have the negatives for this picture and I suppose any one who knows about these things could tell from that if there had been any trickery. I wasn’t aware until I read one of the comments that the building had been an orphanage and I was also pleased to note that someone else has seen her!
March 30, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
If you look at the shape of this anomaly and then further to the right on the same balcony, there is a very faded figure the same shape and slightly wider. Then look to the ground floor – the shape is repeated along those walls over and over again. It is clearly the strongest example of a reflection, or possibly light coming through a narrowish gap, (e.g. filtered through a tree) that appears several times in the picture.
March 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
interesting…
manip maybe (a great manip), but this time I dont know.
March 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
It doesn’t even look like a figure to me. It just looks like an effect of the light falling on the stonework. There are plenty of similar reflections on other parts of the building.
March 30, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
Im with Cly.
Not everything that looks odd is a ghost.
March 31, 2009 at 4:29 am |
The thing is, you’re not going to believe that it’s anything but a ghost, so why not keep it in a box of scary stuff.
I personally don’t immediately assume that anything out of the ordinary is supernatural. I look for logical explanations FIRST, as should you all. It’s certainly much more likely that this is a sunbeam hitting that wall through the leaves of a tree.
Pareidolia. We are hardwired to recognize patterns. That’s how we recognize different people’s faces. We are very very good at it and it happens on an unconscious level. As a consequence we will see a face, or in this case a figure, in anything that remotely resembles one.
Logical explanations first.
Many ghost hunters have tried to come up with proof that ghosts exist. They do not pass scientific scrutiny. No reputable scientist has ever looked at a ghost photo and said “yep, that’s a ghost.” And ghost photos that are convincing are likely to be fakes.
For Pete’s sake, there were two girls in the early 20th century that cut pictures out of a book, took pictures and said that they were fairies and had the almost the entire world convinced.
Critical thinking and skepticism are good things. They keep people from being easily lead sheep. Don’t let people fool you and don’t fool yourself!
March 31, 2009 at 8:40 am |
No photoshop… It looks like play on shadows and light. Sunlight hitting the facade of the house.
March 31, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
Just looks like light dappling to me – another of those “if you aren’t told it’s a ghost, it’s not there” optical illusions. Even then I find it difficult to make out – it looks very similiar to a patch of dappling further left in the picture, just a bit brighter.
April 1, 2009 at 4:14 am |
ITS A GHOSSSSTTTTT………and I am the pope, never will happen. This picture reminds me of the pic. where a ghost appears in a no floored building. It is just a perception trick and the trick of the light. If you stare at the legs of the ghost you can see that they seperate into 2 different bodies possibly 3-4 feet apart. The head is the Same smell. The color of the dress was probably just a coincidence from the cover of the trees.
April 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
It’s just sunlight shining through the tree onto the wall between two dark shutters. I love ghosty stuff, but Jesus people, get a grip…..
April 2, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
i reckon it looks genuine!
April 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
I would guess that this is columns of sunlight passing through something, possibly the tree behind the chap in the foreground, and landing on the building. The mottled light all across the front of the building shows that the sunlight falls on the building but in patches. The pink is caused by a shutter, another of which can be seen a little further right on the same level of the buildingl, the white is caused by the colour of the outer walls. This would also explain why the ‘feet’ appear to be standing on the balcony, there is no sunlight getting to the wall directly below the balcony so it does not pass through. I have to say that anyone with two good eyes can see that this is clearly sunlight. To say that it is anything else, really, is doing so just for the sake of it. I’d also suggest that the figure may have been enhanced slightly digitally.
April 6, 2009 at 8:23 am |
This image is not doctored, but merely a light effect caused by the light from the evening sun that is shining through the tree. I doubt this ghastly figure of a girl is real, but pure coincidence because of the surroundings and time of day. Observe that the figure’s legs has a serious case of rickets – it is bending too much! 😛
April 22, 2009 at 10:36 pm |
It’s just the way the light is hitting that section of the balcony/wall. No big deal. A little pareidolia and poof! You have a “ghost”.
October 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
That ghost is NOT a ghost. Or even real.
October 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
Just something to consider: The museum in question is the Amsterdams Historisch Museum (I live in the city). I went looking for other photos of the courtyard and found that the wall with the ‘ghost’ is part of the museum’s display: the shutters have lit compartments behind them, which could account for some extra ‘trick of the light’.
See for example this picture of the wall and subsequent pictures that show this is in fact the same location:
(these aren’t my pictures)
Like I said, my only point is to show that there might be another light source to consider besides sunlight.
December 11, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
Lowri, are you high?
jeneticaly? Do you perhaps mean genetically? You can only do that to living things, unless someone gave birth to this camera.
Idiot.
September 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
டேய் கெழ்ட்டு நாயே. உன் மனசுல என்ன பெரிய நியூட்டன் புலுலுனு நினப்பு புண்டையா???
January 16, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
This is definitely one of the most believable photos I have seen on this site so far (:
January 20, 2011 at 1:35 am |
could it not just be a girl in a pink dress?
July 23, 2012 at 1:07 am |
the ghost is real is casper.. bbr que mello
November 3, 2013 at 2:16 am |
[…] photo from Science of Ghosts appears to show a pinkish specter standing on the balcony. A woman snapped the pic at what is now […]