“It was taken in October 1972 by a professional photographer who was commissioned to take photographs of guests arriving at the wedding reception of friends whose son had just married in Paisley. The photo shows me on the left, my wife who is pregnant at the time, and friends. Crouching behind one of the figures is a “spirit extra” looking towards the camera and dressed in what appears to be open-toed sandals.
The photographer said the negative also showed the “spirit extra”. He could not explain the photo. As far as he was aware no one was behind the man when the photo was taken and no one was there when we moved away. He said it would be impossible for anyone to crouch behind without the person being aware of their presence and indeed without their body being visible to the person’s left. Compare for example the size of the person’s foot to that of the extra. The person with his hands behind his back would surely have felt someone behind him?
Another friend who was working with the police at the time had the photograph examined by a police photographer who said the photo was genuine and not faked.
One Glasgow medium, predicted that I would receive such a photo. Another well-known Glasgow medium, was able to tell me without seeing the photo that it contained a “spirit extra”. A visiting medium from England, was able to tell me the reference number written on the back of the photo, again without seeing it.
I would be delighted to hear your views on this photo.
What do you think? Comment and vote now!
Ghostly photographs from Hauntings 
April 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
Creepy…
April 9, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
I concur.
February 3, 2011 at 6:40 am |
Hello my friend, This is my first visit, I am very excited to be joining your blog, and seeing what there is to offer. My professional background includes fashion, designer and entrepreneur.I want to learn about online marketing combination. I work at dresses and wedding factory, so if you any help or question about my job please contact me or reply this post. Here is My new post: Most Important Wedding Flower Checklist
April 9, 2009 at 7:45 pm |
Looks good at first glance and apart from maybe someone standing behind them it could be photoshopped.
I have no technical knowledge so couldn’t say if I think it was or not.
February 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
well most people do accually think thats its been tampered with, but police have examined this picture over and over, and found no real evidence that is was fake 🙂
January 17, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Look at the area where the “extra” is standing in the first photo there is a crease that should be more visible in the close up. But its simply not there in the next shot. When it should be much more noticeable.
November 24, 2012 at 10:25 pm
its not what u think
January 7, 2013 at 4:20 am
its not fake because a child is clearly behind the man. its a small foot and a child sideways can be easily hidden in a normal picture without having photoshop.
January 7, 2013 at 4:22 am
you can even see the kids eye peaking where the man’s hand should be.
July 13, 2011 at 9:25 am |
It’s probably ‘Jake the peg’s’ third leg. Much too clear to be ghostal.
April 9, 2009 at 8:37 pm |
Is that Kenny’s Mum?
April 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm |
AHH, the old hoover bag stuck to a 7″ tuna & sweetcorn pizza trick. This was a popular pastime with the poople of Wigan in the 1920’s.
March 19, 2010 at 10:10 pm |
the most obvious explanation. well played.
May 15, 2011 at 4:07 pm
how the hell is tht a hoover stuck to a pizza ….. not a chance !!
April 9, 2009 at 8:41 pm |
It’s Jake the peg with the extra leg.
April 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
Hahahaha! :o)
April 9, 2009 at 8:46 pm |
Perhaps I can suggest another way of looking at it?
…and of course this is assuming that we are not simply looking at a child being mischievous.
Just before the photo is taken the lady on the right asks her husband to hold her shawl so that it doesn’t hide her new dress. Being a gent, he holds it behind his back out of the way. Note the gloves; a shawl would coordinate nicely with those.
Then there is the face…until I saw a face I saw a wrist with a watch strap. The majority of people wear a watch on their left hand though, so lets move the arm a little further up, could this be the man’s right hand with a ring on the first finger?
Wonderful picture.
April 24, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
having had a close look I agree with Billy here, the gent does look like he’s holding something behind his back
April 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
I never looked at it like that, and I must admit it does just look like some sort of fabric and a hand. Gotta love how our brain interpretates shapes as faces and figures.
August 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
That was my first thought, i also believe he could be holding a shawl or a scarf. Love the outfits and retro feel tho!
April 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm |
I think the scarf scenario is the most probable. While that does look like a face, I could just as easily see it being a hand wearing a ring. I’ve had my own experiences, so I’m not really a skeptic…but I really don’t think this is the result of anything paranormal. It’s also definitely not a child hiding behind him.
July 10, 2010 at 8:15 am |
BillyMcCoy, you have just ripped your theory from Ghost Stories word for word, this is exactly how the professor explains the same photo. Do you have your own theory or someone elses?
July 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Ghost stories only started a few months ago. Billy McCoy wrote that over a year ago. Maybe its the other way round!!
August 21, 2010 at 10:48 am
@Tonks, well done Sherlock, Billy wrote that theory almost a year before that play debuted!
September 14, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
This doesn’t hold any weight anyway, as the woman would have been aware of this, so there wouldn’t have been any need to have the photo examined, unless they were all fibbing, of course!
February 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
you get that from ghost stories?
April 28, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
Looks like a cilds leg and feet.
You are seeing the back of theleft foot and leg and the right foot front
February 27, 2014 at 6:04 am |
Excellent debunking job! I believe you are 100% correct.
But this picture almost had me – I couldn’t see that the “face” was actually the man’s hand with a ring until you pointed it out.
April 9, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Ghost?! Who cares?!! Look at the frickin’ coat that lady has on!
April 22, 2010 at 10:56 am |
haha!!
yh. thats what i was looking at too!!
January 20, 2014 at 3:28 am
I was looking at the third woman’s hair. haha!!
April 9, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
Hmmm. There’s this problem with “ghost photos” – in this case if the person were really in the photo – exactly what physical position would s/he be in to produce this pose? The eye seems like an adults and the foot is large, but there is not enough room for an adult to be posed behind there without their butt to be sticking out – is there?
I note that the lines around the face portion and the leg do seem extremely straight. Has anyone actually examined the negatives on this one? No matter how “psychically approved” they may be, my first thought is that this looks phony to me.
(But it is a very creepy effect – so, nicely done if the intent was to chill the viewer…)
April 15, 2009 at 1:11 am |
just saw the eye, gave me quite a fright.
Looks like indian sandals haha
August 30, 2010 at 3:05 pm |
it certainly made me shudder!!
April 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm |
Is that John Kettley on the left?
November 15, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
Its Nigel Mansell!
April 9, 2009 at 9:02 pm |
Just a kid hiding. Nothing to see here.
Good coat, though.
April 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
That foot is way too big to belong to a child.
January 20, 2014 at 3:47 am
Double feet stand together.
January 20, 2014 at 2:13 pm
definitely..is a ghost …a real ghost
April 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
I only just saw the eye, yeah I agree with everyone else, that’s a kid hiding.
April 9, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
Likewise, until I read the post mentioning the wristwatch I hadn’t noticed the ‘eye’. Definitely a creepy photo, real or not.
April 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
Yeah I do say its a kid hiding behind the man, and since it was taken in the 70’s you probably dont remember. Nothing ghostly about this picture. I didnt notice the eye til later, that was kind of freaky but nothing unusual.
April 10, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
My god! It’s like a human only half the size (and hiding behind it’s dad) i’m so freaked out!
April 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
Well I have the feeling that this a a child that is from the other side….and is related to this man…he could be the father some relative…
April 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
I would also add – assuming that Wiseman is reproducing the claims of the photographer here and not speaking in the 1st person – that the submitter of the photo doth make much ado about how perfect and psychic the photo is. How it has been tested and attested to.
These claims – to me – make it more likely that trickery is afoot.
That and the very, very straight lines down the man’s leg where the ghostly figure is supposed to be.
I wonder if Wiseman has examined the original photo?
April 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
i do think it is a rather freaky image! It sends shivers down my spine! I have no idea what it is! Could it be someone standing behind? Although can you stand like that with a straight leg like his is? The eye really freaks me out though, he doesn’t look like a kind person who ever he is!
April 13, 2009 at 1:13 am |
The foot appears smaller than the man’s foot in the front. Just looks like a kid hiding and sneaking a peek to me. Doesn’t look menacing or creepy at all. Very cool coat, though.
April 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
That ghost midget has just spooked the hell out of me… WEIRD!!! little demon man. real or fake you done well there mate thats better than the one in the castle window…
April 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
Looks definately like a child hiding. Next to the ladies hand i can makeout some of a child’s face. A mischevious eye looking at the camera.
April 14, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
I don`t know why, but this is the creepiest one so far.
If it`s a fake, they were very clever to have made it so subtle and understated. And being black and white probably made it easier to alter.
If that were a real person somehow crouched behind the man, they would have to be a contortionist.Also, their face would not be so well lit from that position.
So I`m saying; Fake ……but nicely done!
April 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
Ah, so ghosts now use white kneaded pants. It’s only a man standing on the hall. The husband is tall, the size of the feets is proving that the man behind is smaller.
There’s more nice things in this blog. Go see them.
April 16, 2009 at 6:52 am |
It’s probably a little boy peeping from behind a drink stand. the photographer has got an excellent memory to say that noone was there at the time. Or did the photographer want his money, and he didn’t want complaints made about his lack of detail?
April 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
Out of all the pictures on this website, this one freaked me out the most but I don’t know why.
I could only see the leg and foot but when I spotted the eye, it made my tummy do a flip and I have no idea why!!
Although I don’t know why the ‘ghosts’ bum isn’t sticking out…that’s the only odd thing
April 16, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
There is some furniture behind the couple; if you follow the lower line of this item you will see that the ‘eye’ is actually scuffing where the wood has worn away, creating random flashes of bright colour across the surface. The ‘feet’ are probably – as earlier suggested – some material (a coat, etc) being held by the man on the far left of the picture. Not a ghost, sorry.
April 16, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
Maybe it’s me.
After reading all these comments, I went back to the picture to try for the eye several correspondents mentioned – but I have failed to find it, so far….
April 21, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
Look next to the lady’s hand in the enlargement and you can see what looks like a child peeping out – I do think this is a fake but it is still creepy!
April 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
Yeah, it looks like an eye. But think of the resolution needed in the pic for that to be an eye. I don’t think it’s possible.
It could be a kid (or ghost kid) standing behind the guy. And that doesn’t have to be a single leg or shoe. We could be seeing the left leg and the toe of the right shoe.
April 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
Such horrible ghost feet…
April 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
I’m agree with the guy who said its a shawl or wrap of some sort. Even though it looked like a third leg at first, the more I look at it the more it looks like a fabric. The eye is probably just either part of the shawl or his hand. To me the way his hands are behind his back looks like he’s holding something.
April 21, 2009 at 9:01 am |
Looks like the creepy dwarf man from Twin Peaks !
“Fire walk with me”
April 21, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
Just a kid. The feet are one beside another
April 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
A child hiding behind the man. As Samuel said, his feet are together making it look like one big foot. The story attached to this is a good job of building up the tale to make it seem like something it’s not.
April 23, 2009 at 6:55 am |
I think the “foot” is just the pattern of the floor, maybe with an object such as a cigareete end dropped creating the shadowed section, but if you ignore that then its the flooring. As for the leg, possibly a shawl and the eye probably the wrist.
April 27, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
I believe that it would be the coat, if you look closely you can see a print sort of fabric which would be the bottom part of the ‘shoe’
April 29, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
Is the second photo supposed to be an enhanced zoomed in section of the first photo? (or vice-versa) If so there are some gross inconsistencies…
(go ahead check) which alone should discredit validity.
Now assuming the two photos come from a different sources (possibly a duplicate better kept photo) you can’t get that kinda of digital clarity from a zoom without modifying image attributes.
It’s too bad, i was enjoying this site until i actually stopped looking for a ghost and reading others comments and started to focus on the inconsistencies.
April 30, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
The original photo was returned to the professional photographer when I received it. He produced the 35mm negative which clearly showed the “extra” and he could not explain it.
I can assure you that the gentleman did not hold a shawl behind his back and, although children attended the wedding, no one stood behind us when the photo was taken.
The police photographer who examined the original photo made an enlargement from the original photo to enable the “extra” to be seen more clearly. He was of the opinion that the photo was genuine and not “doctored”. He further advised that the dimensions of the eye and foot were such that they could not possibly be that of a child.
One explanation given by psychics for the impossible pose is that the “extra” is a spirit in the process of “building up” while the photo is in the process of being taken.
I mention psychics because they were genuinely consulted as part of my own investigation of the photo in 1972. The fact that one medium predicted that I would receive such a photo is all the more interesting.
May 4, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
Well this is not a ghost althought we may consider there is a leg ghost. And it was photoshoped.
April 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
your an idiot
May 6, 2009 at 3:43 am |
Probably an garbage bin or freestanding ashtray – don’t forget kids that smoking in public places was allowed back then.
May 8, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
I think that this photo’ could be showing the man’s overcoat, or scarf which he is holding behind his back so as to be out of view of the camera. His wife is without a coat so it might be hers. There’s too little revealed of the “foot” to draw conclusions from but the retained garment theory would be consistent with the visual evidence. Inferring further from the picture the lady who still has her outer garment on – given it was October and that it would be likely that both couples would have had overcoats and that if there were a cloakroom would have both left them there together. Therefore, on balance of probability, it’s a garment rather than a crouching spirit.
May 10, 2009 at 6:52 am |
I hardly think a shy child hiding behind a man in a photo in anyway constitutes a ghost.
May 10, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
Firstly I originaly saw this photo in 1984, before photoshop had been invented, so that’s that theory rubbished. Secondly you would be hard pushed to meet a more cyncical person than the submitter of this photo. Although he has more than an avid interest in the supernatural, and was actively involved with the spiritualist church, until he realised that they were not as thorough as he would have liked when vetting mediums, he is the first person to explain away ghostly going-ons. He is one of the most genuine, level headed people I know and would absolutely never fabricate information or try to mislead anyone. This is NOT a fake, he’s just not that shallow.
February 13, 2011 at 2:43 am |
‘Cynical’—or even merely ‘sceptical’—people don’t consult mediums at all, let alone inadequately vetted ones.
May 12, 2009 at 1:48 am |
Consulting “psychics” is a good way to wind up your imagination and discount the obvious: It’s a child. The pose is not “impossible”, and there’s nothing remotely supernatural at work here.
You want desperately for this to be “something” but it’s really just a kid who wandered behind, got in the shot, and wandered away. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take the word of someone who “was actively involved with the spiritualist church” that was “vetting mediums”.
May 12, 2009 at 10:00 am |
These were the days when photos cost a lot to develop. A child playing behind the guests would not have been tolerated back then and I doubt they would have done it for fear of being punished.
February 12, 2011 at 8:30 am |
Eer… what? In the seventies photos cost a lot to develop? Bullshit. Photos stopped being expensive a lot earlier. Please tell me you’re around fifteen and simply don’t know what you’re talking about rather than nostalgia clouding your memory and your common sense.
It’s a child.
April 8, 2011 at 2:40 pm
i am fifteen and even i can see this truly is a child its not photoshopped im currently taking a photoshop class and its real its hard to edit older pictures such as this. so therefor its real anyone with common sense can see it
July 13, 2011 at 9:30 am |
Honestly! what child – that’s an adult’s foot.
July 14, 2011 at 12:58 am
Awfully small adult, then, if it’s not a child. Notice the face is only at the guy’s bottom area? It’s a kid.
July 18, 2011 at 2:06 am
It is a child supernatural or not. The leg in front gives the illusion of one large foot but in actual fact the leg just blocks the actual view of two legs and feet. 🙂
May 17, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
why cant we just accept that some people are born with three legs? this picture was obviously taken at a time when a person with three legs would feel somewhat ashamed, so he has obviously painted it with whitewash and hidden it behind him. Nowadays in this new politically correct environment people with three legs are depicted showing their extra leg all the time. I thought we put all this extra leg discrimination behind us!
May 18, 2009 at 3:10 am |
It does look eerie, but my guess would be that what looks like a leg and foot are actually a piece of clothing of some kind that the man is holding behind his back and that is touching the ground, while what looks like the edge of a face with one eye showing is actually part of the man’s wrist or hand with a watchband or wring as BillyMcCoy suggested.
I could be wrong, but it doesn’t seem to me like a child could stand that closely behind the man without bumping him and being noticed.
May 18, 2009 at 3:12 am |
Sorry, I meant “ring” in the last line of the first paragraph.
May 18, 2009 at 7:05 pm |
Rather than give me the creeps when i first noticed the eye in this pic, which took me a while to find!, it made me smile. This just looks like a naughty, shy little child peeping out. If you measure the child’s face using the gloved hand of the lady as a guide he can’t be more than 3 years old, maybe younger, and if you visualise a 3 year old standing next to the tall man and compare their size then the pose is not is not impossible. He looks to be wearing baggy, light coloured trousers and Jesus sandals. Ive tried looking at it from every point of view including the possibity of a watch strap and ladies shawl but on looking closer at the eye I noticed a light reflection in the pupil possibly caused by the flash of the camera, what looks like a little toenail and the arch of an eyebrow. If it wasn’t for the light reflection in the eye though i prob would put it down to trick of the eye. I’m quite open minded but believe there are very sensible explanations for most of these photos.
May 20, 2009 at 6:48 am |
I think the “eye” is the hand of the man on the right, and a reflection from a watch. I really don’t think it’s a child. The “foot” is a bit more puzzling.
May 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
The Smile (__ : ) ___) at the bottom of your blog. . . is it a ghost? hehehe
May 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
the toe of the shoe is the same design as the floor.
May 20, 2009 at 7:20 pm |
Pardon my earlier sarcasm about 3 legs etc, but the key to this picture is the body language of the ‘adults’ in the photograph. It seems to me that the bloke with the alleged spirit behind him has his hands behind his back! venturing it seems to control what I think is a child. The first chap on the far right seems to be gazing slightly to his left as if showing some slight concern (I presume the child has been a little mischevous during earler possible takes) The reason the foot appears large or long for a child is that we are looking at 2 separate feet in close proximaty to each other separated by the mans leg as Samuel stated earlier. It would be interesting to measure this picture with other pictures that may have been taken at the event, or if the picture has a wider focus then the one submitted. It is not a fake, but I think some opportunism has taken place with the facts.
May 27, 2009 at 6:46 am |
This is definately a watch. Most men have the shirt cuff showing below their jacket. Also there are shelves behind the guests, which proves that they are not standing close to the wall. The foot looks like a small table with a cloth draped over it, and the man has possibly dislodged the cloth as he stepped back. With modern technology why not examine the photo more clearly, or is it better to think that a ghost was watching the whole show? I certainly wouldn’t want to watch from behind someone. BBBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! anyway.
May 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
Some of you people amaze me as your reasons for any anomaly is much more ridiculous that stating it might be a spirit. Its not his damn watch! Its easy to see his arms are behind his back, and there is a leg just one leg, an eye and part of a face. That is no child, and the proportions are way off to be an adult. I just have one question for the OP..Why is the man on the right, wearing a tux, and everyone else is rather casual? Thanks
June 2, 2009 at 12:03 am |
Child, most probably male, it’s not one big foot, it’s two feet… (not including anything about anyone else in the picture, only commenting on the child that I see)
wow…. a watch? really?
June 2, 2009 at 1:36 am |
After closely looking at the picture. This looks to me as a mans cufflink and he is holding something that is touching the ground. Seeing the man has on a tux it is normal for the coat to have shorter arms than the shirt which will show off his cufflinks. The mind will see what it wants to see. If it looks like a face and feet, then your mind will see a face and feet.
June 2, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
Yeh! and if your mind wants to see ‘Ghost’ you will see one, or a cufflink, or a watch. Its obviously a child behind the man. Please get a grip.
June 3, 2009 at 9:52 pm |
The comments from BillyMcCoy seemed spot on when i looked at it again. Why do so many people think these photos are delibrately faked? I would think most just have natural explanations…ghosts are natural right?
June 5, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
wow I like that girl’s mini hooded cape!
June 6, 2009 at 12:38 am |
looks like a kid hiding in sandals when it’s probably cold outside. the child’s heels are close together while the toes r further apart. that’s two legs back there, not a giant foot. it shows accurate proportions of a child hiding. if my son hid in a wedding photo i’d be pissed. probably more so back then. the man has his hands behind him. if that’s his hand peeking out it’s pretty hairy and mangled.
June 22, 2009 at 7:38 pm |
The simplest explanation is the best. Why are so many people trying to ghost-ify this. There is absolutely no reason to believe the story of the submitter. I dismiss it out of hand.
There is a child, standing behind the man. We see his feet behind the man’s feet, we see him peeking out from behind the man. This is proof enough to me that there was a child there when the photo was taken. The feet are not “too large” The man’s feet are, compared to the ladies feet, not terribly long. The child’s feet are even smaller than the man’s feet.
There is a simple explanation here. It makes sense and it’s not contradicted by what we see. Can we move on?
June 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
The flash from the camera made shadows from all 4 figures behind them(camera flashes back then were very bright), but if you look at the child’s leg behind the man, there is no shadow-should there have been?. And a shadow from the man’s arm would have cast part of a shadow on the child’s face, but the child’s face looks very clear. Or is it just me?
July 1, 2009 at 1:46 am |
Wow! I showed my mom this photo and she flipped out! Okay.. sorry everyone who thinks it’s a kid crouched.. zoom in far and you see that the face (I know you can’t see much of it) does NOT look like that of a child’s. The feet and the leg are not in a crouched or bent position so how could someone hide behind the man, bend down and not be seen whatsoever on the other side of him? Note that the foot is much too big to be that of a child’s.
July 1, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
It doesn’t look like a kid crouched. It looks like a kid standing. The foot is not too big to be a child’s.
July 3, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
Hmm.
I don’t see a ‘shoe’. What I see is a bag with stuff in it…not unlike the one the other lady is holding. These are guests ARRIVING at a wedding reception. The guy is hiding the bag so the bride and groom don’t see it.
Look at the ‘shoe’ again, and you can clearly see there is some square object inside it…between the man’s legs.
July 10, 2009 at 8:54 am |
I can clearly see a kid hiding behind the man and the thing that looks like a leg is actually a shawl touching the ground. Although i do believe in ‘spirits’ after having experiencing strange phenomena and i don’t think it’s the souls of the deceased rather than something i still can’t really explain yet, i think this is just a photo with a kid hiding.
July 16, 2009 at 9:06 am |
Cute Kid. he/she is crouching slightly to peek at the camera, enjoying the game, apparently (which would have been to NOT be noticed). The photo is taken with hard direct flash, which often gives the outline effect to foreground objects which can be seen from the man’s trouser cuff on the child’s shoe and the edge of his jacket on her little face (I like to think she’s a little girl). Having been a graphic artist and photographer for 20 years I can speak to the fact that the child is definitely alive and real. As a father of a seven year old girl I can say it would have been a simple matter for her sneak in and out without being noticed (by a busy photographer and adults) and also for her to be simply overlooked at the time.
BTW great photo-such genuine smiles.
July 24, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
Um, hello? It’s a kid standing behind the guy. Boo!!!
July 28, 2009 at 12:31 am |
I say, you are a real cad!! First your taking pictures of your girlfriend and her second gremlin head in bed, then you show up at a wedding with your pregnant wife. Have you no morales? By the look on your face, you look as though you’d rather be shagging your girlfriend.
July 28, 2009 at 9:40 pm |
spooky – but kinda cool too – I remember we had a school photo where the pic showed someone in shadow was looking out the top floor window but there was 100% definitely no one in the building at the time.
Who knows – maybe ours is not to reason why? – Sam
July 29, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
I think this is real and very freaky
August 2, 2009 at 9:49 am |
It’s just a man with dwarfism
August 20, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
looks real, although it could just be a man hiding behind him? although unsure why someone would be hiding in this scenario- either way it’s definitely an odd one!
August 20, 2009 at 10:17 pm |
Look at the size of the Feet then imagine the distance to the waist then do the same with the partial head & Eye the torso would be tiny would not be proportioned right Think about it!
August 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
sooo stupid and lame
August 21, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
weird
August 21, 2009 at 7:56 pm |
ella Says:
August 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Reply
sooo stupid and lame
anonymous2 Says:
August 21, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Reply
weird
your comments directed at me?
August 27, 2009 at 3:11 am |
I don’t know but seems a fake photograph.
August 27, 2009 at 9:56 pm |
DoctorAtlantis Says:
April 9, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Reply
Hmmm. There’s this problem with “ghost photos” – in this case if the person were really in the photo – exactly what physical position would s/he be in to produce this pose? The eye seems like an adults and the foot is large, but there is not enough room for an adult to be posed behind there without their butt to be sticking out – is there?
I note that the lines around the face portion and the leg do seem extremely straight. Has anyone actually examined the negatives on this one? No matter how “psychically approved” they may be, my first thought is that this looks phony to me.
(But it is a very creepy effect – so, nicely done if the intent was to chill the viewer…)
Well Done Mateyou Saw it as i did!!!!!!!!
Although these planks replied with this!!!!!!!!
ella Says:
August 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Reply
sooo stupid and lame
anonymous2 Says:
August 21, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Reply
weird
August 28, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
The negative was examined by the professional photographer who took the photograph. The negative also showed the “spirit extra”.
The photographer could provide no satisfactory explanation as to how or why this should be the case.
August 29, 2009 at 10:13 am |
At first glance it looks like a child behind the man, but I can understand people’s point of view that it may be a throw or shawl. However, would they not have removed the shawl before taking the picture and at the time would the photographer not have remembered the man holding something behind his back?
August 31, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
it truly looks. was it taken in a church? maybe it was a young boy who died recently and had a a funeral at the church. maybe his spirit was playing aound and hadn’t went to rest. if you could find the church records from before the wedding to see a young boy or girl had died recently.
September 17, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
good idea Lover puppy- that will solve the case of the mysterious legs.
September 18, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Why be so surprised that a child or sibling from the other side came to share the big day with you, this photo lets you know the aprove of the match
September 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
Not to point out the obvious, but there’s somebody standing behind him. Somebody a little shorter than he is.
September 24, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
Outstandingly fake…
September 30, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
its a genuine fake!
October 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
Looks like a small child not wanting to be in the photo but curious enough to peek around the tall gent. As far as someone earlier mentioning that the “spirit” foot was way to large for a child’s, that’s if you’re comparing it to the foot of the tall gent in front of him. But one must take into account that the tall gent’s foot is turned to the side a bit making his foot appear smaller than normal hense causing the child’s foot to look too big for a child. I hope that made sense. LOL. At any rate, I don’t feel that it’s supernatural in explanation.Sorry.
October 23, 2009 at 3:56 am |
The only thing I can say about this picture is that it freaks me out!! I didnt see the face at first but once i read some of the comments talking about it, I scrolled back up and saw it immediatly and it shot a scary feeling straight through me!! Good picture, but I dont wanna see it ever again!! haha!
October 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
With the economy the way it is, wedding budgets have gone way down. Brides shop around these days more than ever, making it tougher for vendors to compete. It will turn around one day, just have to be patient
October 28, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
think its just a child hiding behind the man
October 30, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
it could be a child? or maybe a jacket he is holding behind him… I don’t think it’s a ghost.
November 2, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
One option is that it’s some material – a scarf or something, held by the man and dragging on the floor. The other option is that someone is standing behind him. Yes, that is peculiar and it’s not clear why anybody would do that. However, given the choice between believing that a person would do something strange and believing that a fully clothes spirit has just materialised from the land of the dead, I think I’m going to opt for the former. As for why nobody spotted him – the photographer was either too busy or too embarrassed to admit he’d messed up the photo and everyone else was clearly looking in the wrong direction.
November 4, 2009 at 8:29 pm |
I originally saw the “face/eye” as a wrist with a watch on it. It took me a while to see the eye, but when I did….holy mother it freaked me out. Once I recovered from the freak-out and took a closer look at the photo, these were my impresions:
1) The face/eye do not look like a child’s. Am I the only one who can see a bit of a receding hairline on the face?
2) The “leg” does in fact look like a leg to me with a sandal on the foot.
3) I can’t explain the position a grown man would have to be in to have this make sense.
That being said, I can’t make a decision on this one. I don’t know what else to say! lol.
November 8, 2009 at 8:56 pm |
The “Eye/Face” looks like the man’s hand with a ring. I can’t exactly explain the foot though..
November 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm |
Those who write about the kid’s foot size. What you are looking at is at the front part of one shoe (to your left) and the back part or heel of the other shoe (to your right). So, the two shoes are there but covered in the middle by the man’s leg giving the effect that is just one shoe. Evidently is just a boy hidding behind his dad, or uncle, or whoever.
November 25, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
Today’s technology many things are possible! Yes, but certain things are not! You have guessed it correct! It’s LOVE the most precious thing on earth than anything the technology can do and the money can buy. I request every individual who interacts with any individual any where, not to play with emotions.
December 7, 2009 at 9:43 pm |
this thing suckssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
December 7, 2009 at 9:45 pm |
get real pictures at photobucket you butt touchers
December 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm |
why don’t u bastards get real pics like on youtube or something
December 11, 2009 at 7:05 pm |
maybe dude’s holding a fake leg behind him for kicks and giggles
December 13, 2009 at 7:10 am |
well, i was pretty set on thinking maybe it was a child, and then i started looking for reasons how it would be proved wrong to test my own theory.
i fucking cracked it: does anyone not notice the folds in the original photo [they look like cracks across the mans suit] are nowhere to be seen in the zoomed portion? and the “face” is much too clear, there isn’t even a black spot on the original photo where the “eye” is.
i’m surprise no one noticed!
December 13, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
HI, just found your blog, looks great, and very interesting, keep it up, cheers Bryan. scary ohhhh
December 14, 2009 at 9:19 am |
Actually, GhostBuster, I can see a black spot where they eye is supposed to be. The ‘face’ shape looks to perfect to be created by a shawl or wrap, so I think it could possibly be real. However, your comment on the folds in the picture not showing when zoomed in makes me doubt that a little. I do not have a solution, but I definately think the wrap and watch ideas are dumb. Also, why is the kid all white if he is real and hiding from the camera?
December 15, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
Give me a break. It’s just a kid behind the man. There’s nothing “supernatural” about this. Just a little kid who probably didn’t want to be in the shot or wasn’t supposed to be in the shot. Nothing fantastic. Not even so much as creepy.
December 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm |
okay, i admit to being wrong about there being no shape for the eye in the original. but i still have no idea how it could appear so clear and sharp in the zoomed version instead of pixelated, and of course why there is no cracks/folds in it either. i just think it was faked. it’s interesting and gave me a stir at first but i just don’t see how this could possibly be real with all the evidence supporting that it was somehow altered.
December 30, 2009 at 2:00 am |
This is not a fake photo. There is no man or kid behind him. He is holding something (a coat maybe?) in his hand behind him.
Before I saw the ‘person’ I saw a piece of cloth with some sort of shiny metal band around it (in between the man and the lady).
About 2 minutes later my spine tingled when my brain turned the image of the cloth into what looks like an eye and eyebrows peeking around the man.
Classic trick of the brain. Scared the crap out of me but I blame that on my mind playing tricks.
January 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm |
The zoomed section is a different enlarged photograph from the original negative, not a zoom of the original photograph, that is why the cracks/folds do not appear. This is clearly stated by the submitter.
It should also be pointed at that in 1972, the lady in the hooded coat was pregnant, the cape camoflages this, which would have been desirable at the time, and explains why she is the only person still wearing a coat for the formal picture.
As has been mentioned previously, photographs were expensive to develop at that time, there were far fewer informal pictures taken, and children were not allowed to simply wander into the frame. Remember at this time children were ‘seen and not heard’, and nowhere near as indulged as today.
Wedding photos in 1972 were formal – this type of shot is typical of wedding guests photographs of the time, who were not part of the family or bridal party. Pictures were taken as people arrived – usually in a particular spot chosen by the photographer and near to the entrance, but not in the way of anybody, which could therefore be controlled so that nobody would accidentally get into the pictures.
The formality of posed wedding photographs such as this would have made it illogical for the man to be holding a coat (or anything else) behind his back – it would have be placed aside out of shot before the subjects were posed and the picture was taken. His posture indicates a common posed posture of a man standing with his hands clasped behind his back.
And for the person who said it was a bag – the man’s wife is holding a bag already, why would he be attempting to hide another one? if it belonged to the other lady, and for some bizarre reason it was not placed outside the shot, surely it would be placed behind her husband, not the other man?
I disagree that the ‘face’ is this man’s hand/watch/cuff, it seems to me that would mean his right arm is shorter than his left. I also do not see any shelves, just a curved wall about half a metre behind the subjects.
I don’t think it looks like a child’s face, it would be too long. Looks more adult to me, and it seems like the clothes on the figure(white baggy trousers and sandals) aren’t in keeping with a child’s formal outfit of that time or season. The figure seems out of place, and very short, but very solid. I’m not sure what to think, but I don’t see how it could be faked.
January 13, 2010 at 10:50 pm |
This is an excellent that I’ve fortunately stumbled upon. I’m actually a psychological magician and love all things spooky. I am however a deep sceptic in all things spooky, psychic and spiritual so I would say there is a perfect explanation for this, the shawl one mentioned earlier is a good example. More spookily, for me, was when I read the date being October 1972…my birthday!! Just don’t tell me it was the 14th :O ??
January 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
I think this is another classic case of pareidolia.
In my opinion, the man is holding something behind his back-possibly his wife’s coat- and the collar is lying on the floor. The collar gives the impression of being an open-toed sandal or shoe.
As far as the “eye”, his right arm could be slightly bent at the elbow and we only see a portion of the man’s hand with a ring on his finger. What looks like the “white” of the eye is merely the result of the camera flash reflecting off the ring.
February 15, 2010 at 1:37 am |
Sorry guys but i think this pic is real, i got a mighty scare and nearly jumped out of my chair when i saw the eye. If it is not and its just a kid lurking behind him, then thats one creepy looking kid.
February 17, 2010 at 2:00 am |
This picture is featured in Jeremy Dyson’s play Ghost Stories.
February 19, 2010 at 6:44 am |
Ok so now I’m going to have trouble sleeping.
March 4, 2010 at 9:13 am |
Wierd! I guess when the photographer says ‘big guys at the back’ we should listen
April 5, 2010 at 11:06 pm |
I laughed heartily at many of these proposed explanations. Its obviously a child standing behind the man. The man’s posture suggests his hands are being held together behind his back, otherwise having one behind and one at his side with his arm bent to where his supposed hand was would be rather awkward.
Also, what makes you think the man is unaware of the child behind him? The gesture of having his arms behind him may imply just that. Haven’t any of you ever seen a shy kid hide behind his father, ie: child was holding his hand and shly crept behind him as the photo was being taken.
No, that is not one large foot. its two feet one in front of the other with the child standing with his side to the camera, as if he were attempting to completely hide behind the man’s leg(s).
His shadow does not appear because of not only the man blocking his light, but the position the kid is in (his shadow would be blocked by himself).
Its not an apparition. the clarity of the eye and the most apparent and defined line of the shoe suggest this.
Either a child hiding behind a man, or a photoshopped picture.
April 10, 2010 at 12:16 pm |
Nice picture bit funny as well, and maby ghosts do appear so clearly? but I never saw one so clear as this boys face,so I am thinking this is a fake one. Besides the shooes looks dirty like its a very old shoe, and that does not fit with this photo,because there all need and dressed up. So if this man had A shy son who hide behind him then you should have seen this clearly on the man’s face. A father would show that is my feeling, and thats not the case here. No I dont have a feeling this is real sorry.
April 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm |
Ah, I see the child’s face by the white gloved hand. He is peeking out at the photographer.
April 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm |
That is such a spooky picture.
April 23, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
It’s a child! You can see him peeking through. What some think is an arm is in fact his face. Only one eye is visable. What a little jokester!
Great pic!
May 16, 2010 at 8:53 am |
有个小孩在后面,至少我这么认为.
July 19, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
That’s nice – but what does it mean on English?
June 8, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
It is great to read some of the information and feedback, here. I hope to read more ideas in the future!!!
June 14, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
what were the numbers on the picture?
July 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
The numbers were: 5/345
June 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm |
Looks like a child standing behind him.
July 21, 2010 at 3:29 pm |
This one is 100% genuine, I am a professional at photoshop and i can entirely tell this hasn’t been photoshopped what so ever. the colour of the boys skin is also the same pigments as the rest of the family, Genuine ghost photo
July 23, 2010 at 11:04 pm |
ghost has no leg, I can confirm to you.
August 5, 2010 at 10:28 pm |
Back Then Drugs Where The Thing And Drinking Was Often And HEavy!! This is a wedding Pic The girl with her legs crossed would not know if Kennedy Was In the room … That Is someones kid that Wanted to be in this Pic And Did Just That … If U recall Adults Allways said Kids are to be seen and not heard I was never noticed When i was a kid unless I was on FIRE !!!
The Kid Is VErey Real … As Real As The people in this pic !!!
August 14, 2010 at 4:20 am |
To me, it looks like it might be two spirit extras… a small child’s face and an adult male’s foot… just an opinion…
August 23, 2010 at 7:15 am |
Its a little kid standing in the background.
August 23, 2010 at 9:46 am |
i saw ‘ghost stories’ at the theatre on sat and thought it was great. this pic shocked me, i believe in weird stuff. i like to think this is a real little boy ghost, his wifes SHAWL couldnt look like a shoe!? and when you zoom in, that looks too much like a little boys eye to not be?! surely. its cool anyway.
August 29, 2010 at 12:59 am |
I’m the same as Gemma, I saw ‘Ghost Stories’ tonight and I was shocked by it. Reading through some of the other comments left I can’t see the whole wrist watch and wifes shawl, I just see the eye which freaks me out every time. I don’t believe in ghosts but I can’t see past it being anything else but a ghost.. weird.
August 31, 2010 at 9:16 pm |
I definitely see a shawl and a wrist watch.
September 10, 2010 at 10:14 pm |
I definitely see a child.
In regards to foot size: the “one foot” that we are seeing probably is actually two feet (think about the elongated animal illusion, if you hide a portion of the object you are seeing but offer a suitable extension that is visible we will see it for one object and not two) so proportions are correct and consistent.
It does look like the man is holding something behind his back. But the wedding ring idea to replace the eye of the child does not make sense (wedding rings on left hand) and the eye looks too much like an eye with reflection not being quite correct if it were a ring.
To return to the holding of something by the man, this may be why the man did not realize the child was standing there. And let’s face it the chaos at a wedding causes children to be lost within the excitement and thus not as noticed. The photographer was probably too busy and the guests too eager.
So I believe I see a child but not a ghost
October 3, 2010 at 6:24 am |
Good show!
I concur with your most logical assessment.
January 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
I agree also, that this is a child hiding behind the man.
September 12, 2010 at 3:04 am |
It’s like there is a ghost behind the woman and there mine. On her right side, just under her hand is a little boy sticking his head and looking right at the camera
November 2, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
What you are seeing is actually just the womans scarf that the man is holidng behind his back. Also, if you thought that there was a face poking out from the side, it is in fact the mans watch strap. Fact.
January 28, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
I do not believe it is a watch strap. To me it looks like the guy has both arms behind his back, and that is an eye from the child. You can see the white of the eye, and the pupil, a small bit of eyebrow, the forehead, and a bit of hair. And that is the child’s foot/shoe on the floor.
November 3, 2010 at 1:53 am |
I really do not know whether all stories here are genuine..but believe me i literally saw a ghost when I was around 18 years of age..unfortunately I don’t have a photograph if not I would’ve added here.
November 3, 2010 at 1:55 am |
I really do not know whether all stories here are genuine..but believe me i literally saw a ghost when I was around 18 years of age..unfortunately I don’t have a photograph if not I would’ve added here.
November 3, 2010 at 1:56 am |
I really do not know whether all stories here are genuine..but believe me i literally saw a ghost when I was around 18 years of age..unfortunately I don’t have a photograph if not I would’ve added here.
December 29, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
This image are real, and the child is real, not ghost
December 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm |
if you really wanna freak go and see ghost stories
u will under stand why i am posting this on the picture only if you see the play in london
at first i belive it could be a small child
but at closer expection i think it maybe a cardigan from his wife and it maybe his watch on his arm and his hand is in his pocket. but then looking at were his pocket should be you can not see an pocket on the other side of his trousers and there is no noticalble hand shape under a maybe pocket (not being rude) and if he had his hands behind his back then you shouldnt be able to see his arm.
i i come to my first conclution yes it can easly be a cardy but the eye i belive may be real.
i do not think the picture is faked at all.
January 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
Most likely a real child just being silly but if it is real, its creepy as hell!
January 28, 2011 at 10:44 pm |
It is just a kid hiding behind the guy, peeking around his leg.
January 29, 2011 at 6:11 am |
Him holding something behind his back seemed almost plausible except (to me anyway) that looks like a shoe on the ground (maybe the leg could look like a scarf or whatever he might be holding) but still doesnt explain (to me) the fact it does look like a mans shoe attacked to it. Who knows I guess thats the point ;p)
January 29, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
The toe of the shoe may seem like the same pattern as the floor, the heel also seems to be the same pattern, only lighter…but there is a definite sole to the shoe from toe to heel. Also the tall forehead seems to be above the bottom of the jacket arm. That calls for a short person with an adult sized head and foot. Too many human features to be able to write them off as pieces of fabric and light. I’m not saying it’s a ghost, but there is obviously something more than a shawl or coat behind this man…and it’s creepy the way the eye is looking directly at the camera.
February 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
lugtttt
February 7, 2011 at 5:14 am |
This site makes my head hurt.
Are there really this many people who believe in ghosts and who are completely unwilling to accept logical answers?
This is disappointing. Humanity is going nowhere fast.
February 26, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
we as humans always try to persieve faces or human body parts, its part of our natural brain function, but for this one on the other hand, with the police proving that its not been tampered with, im sure that this is unequivical evidence that there is such a thing as ghosts, but on the other hand, i do not belive in heaven and hell, well….i dont have to belive as the is no such thing, this bullshit about heaven and hell is just not true, how on earth could there be a place so far above earth that we pass on there when we die, this must be beyind the reaches of space, now in a rocket that would take you 3.8 billion years to reach that, and hell, no life form could survive down there even the soul of a deceased person.
but overall i think this photo is REAL
March 9, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
Wow, some kid hides behind his dad and you see ghosts…
Okay, let me see:
Someone said he is too well illuminated. Why? Do you not use a flash? Lights everything up nicely, allows the camera to occasionally pick up details the viewfinder does not.
It is not creepy, it is a kid who wants to be in the pic but has been told this one of the adults only.
March 16, 2011 at 12:46 am |
essa acredito ser um fantasma, muito perfeita,
April 9, 2011 at 9:45 am |
It could be a pick-pocket caught in the act.
May 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
according to the people in the photo, there was no one else but the man may be holding a scarf of some sort to explain the leg and foot and the face could easily be the arm and hand of the man going in to his pocket, the eye his watch.
May 9, 2011 at 2:08 am |
That is an eyeball, eyebrow, and forehead of a kid near the lady’s hand, and a foot/shoe and pants near the guy’s foot. The guy is not holding a scarf. If he was, then I doubt he would let it drag on the ground. Plus, if you look closely enough, you can tell the man has his arms behind his back, not to his sides.
May 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
im pretty sure this is real, because if u look at the top of the picture there is no head to the foot so it cant just be a person .
May 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
ok……. new theary, it is a little boy bending over behind the man you can see the little boys head near the womans hand soo there is no ghost her..
May 15, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
It’s not a new theory. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It is a young boy standing behind the man, and peeking out from behind the man. That is why we can only see the boy’s eye and part of his forehead, and part of his foot and leg. No ghost or trick photography here. When the original post said something like there was no-one else besides the 4 adults, I think maybe the kid snuck in behind the guy just before the photo was taken. I do not think this is supernatural.
May 15, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
Hey
Can this image be bought?
Many thanks
Mark
May 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
Yes – image is published in the collector’s edition of “Ghost Stories” programme available from Duke of York’s Theatre where Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman’s “Ghost Stories” is now playing.
June 13, 2011 at 3:04 am |
ListingDirectory.org is link and listing directory catering towards all of your business needs. Be it a local business or mid size company, small business or huge turnover organization, this online directory satisfies as an essential tool to widen the clientele base still further.
June 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
Obviously after studying this photo it’s actually a boy in behind the man who probably didn’t want his child running about so he held his hand told him to stand behind because the boy wasn’t to be in the picture but had peeked out and clearly see his feet. those aren’t sandals, sandals weren’t even invented then
June 14, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
No, they’re not sandals, but sandals have been around for ages. Perhaps they just werent as fashionable then. But they were around.
June 23, 2011 at 2:37 am |
i would like to see and even more zoomed in image of this – the foot could be a stand , am not sure about the face portion- or it could be an actual boy – though the eye seems so intent at least one feels incline to read something older in the small part of the face than i would normally feel appropriate for a child. – if it is a child he is so frustratingly well hidden – born of a ninja-master!
June 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
Hasn’t anybody as a child been camera shy and simply hidden behind their mum or dad before? It’s definately not a ghost. I’d love to find out whose wedding it is and if they still had their guest list lying around.
July 19, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
after visiting your site and reading your article, I benefited a lot, hopefully I can apply in my life
July 20, 2011 at 12:03 am |
the pict above are your wedding webmaster?
July 20, 2011 at 1:41 am |
how could it happen, it means that we live not alone, perhaps we can also offer good cooperation *_*
July 23, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
I have read some post in your blog, but only this time I comment. whether you may be part of paranormal activity?
July 29, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
It looks like a child hidden behind the mans leg, but the boy looks lighter than anything in the photo! The people that have taken the photo may have edited the boy to make him lighter. I do believe there are ghosts, as i seen them as a small child and still do very occasionally!
July 31, 2011 at 11:53 am |
This is a Child who was probably told to stand behind Dad for this pic. Kids don’t like to listen and peeked. His shoes look beat up, typical for a kid. Especially ones who are mischeavious…..
August 5, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
This photographs is of circumstance that is of a mystery means. I feel that it is of a real presence of the soul and spirit in the ghostly manor of a photograph. I just love it. I would just see this to be a conversation piece to speak of all night long with coffee and a fire. With many real ghost stories to tell….
August 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
To the man who posted this photo, also keep in touch with me let me know if I’m right, but that same mans right arm more towards the waiste area, take a better look at it, looks like a little boy peeking… right? My emails deblsco@aol.com I’m so curious, to hear from you!
August 29, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
Well, I left a message a while ago, I forgot you had mentioned the face. I read a few comments and no way that’s a wrist watch, a lot of the time back in those days people stood with their hands behind their back. It is an incredible photo, you say this is a wedding, no way if that were real, a child would dress that way. But who knows right? 😉
September 9, 2011 at 5:51 am |
Hmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any suggestions for novice blog writers? I’d really appreciate it.
September 9, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
Residual type haunt.
September 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
just looks like some one standing behing him who is smaller
Paul From
short breaks to paris cheap hotel in paris.
September 28, 2011 at 12:43 am |
This is the most real-looking photo ever! if it’s fake, who cares, cause it’s creepy as hell!
October 5, 2011 at 6:44 am |
Mr. Electric of Winnipeg 3155 Assinboine Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3K 0A3, Canada +1 204-949-9299 winnipeg.mrelectric.com…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
October 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
It looks to be a kid, if you notice the man has his arms behind his back, and if you look right in between the ladies gloved hand, and the mans pants, you see what appears to the side of a face peeking around the leg of the man with 1 eye visible starring at the camera.
October 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
south wales weddinga…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
October 29, 2011 at 5:21 am |
Wether it is genuine or not, that eye poking out behind him, sure is creepy.
November 12, 2011 at 11:33 am |
moncler kid coats…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
November 16, 2011 at 6:26 am |
｛Moncler Chaquetas| Moncler Vestes| Piumini Moncler| Moncler Jackets| Moncler Sale| Moncler Chaqueta de Plumón| Moncler Hombres| Moncler Mujeres| Cazadora Moncler| Venta Moncler| Tiendas Moncler| Moncler Outlet｝…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
November 18, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
Samsung TV Review (LE19D450G1W)…
[…]This is a great little 19 inch TV with loads of great features. You may want to have a look at[…]…
December 1, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
You’ve also lost the plot LG TV
November 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
二手筆電…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
December 1, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
Ah think you’ve lost the plot Moncler
December 1, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
Woah this blog is great i really like reading your posts. Stay up the great paintings! You know, lots of individuals are searching around for this information, you can aid them greatly.
December 7, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
portrait photography Derby…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
December 15, 2011 at 11:07 am |
local wedding businesses…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
December 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
Old people usually are not aware of their surroundings.
December 17, 2011 at 8:55 am |
…
Beauty is only skin deep…but ugly goes all the way to the bone!…
December 17, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
Are you saying that people have ugly bones?….
December 27, 2011 at 4:19 am |
Real.
Spirit of child, 5 to 7 years with sandals. We see the heel of one foot and the toes of another, not one large foot. If this were a real child, it would be grabbing at the man’s trouser, but here the pants fall straight. There is no furniture back there, just molding. Its not an illusion of a face, its not a profile and not symmetrical enough to create that phenomenon. There is clearly hair on the head as well. at the same time, he is a different color of the other people, and seems to glow from the shadows.
December 28, 2011 at 2:45 am |
Not a spirit. This is a real child. The child does not have to grab the man’s trousers to be real. He is clearly leaning over just a little bit, to peek around the guy’s leg. He probably just snuck in there at the last second before the shot was taken. The child does not have a shadow I noticed, but that is because he is hiding in the man’s much bigger shadow.
December 30, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
Or possibly a spirit trying to materialize in the fraction of a second before the shot was taken. Hence only a partial face etc.
The man would surely be aware if a real child was standing that close to him.
January 17, 2012 at 8:46 am |
Hi,
Is it possible to get a high resolution copy of this photograph?
I would love a copy for my collection of strange things.
Many thanks.
January 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
Hi, what I see is the gentleman is holding his partners shawl, it looks like they have just come in from outside (hence the other woman in the coat) she gave the gentleman the shawl to hold and what we are seeing is shawl hanging to the ground behind his back, note his arm position as well.
January 18, 2012 at 2:11 am |
This is a young boy. The man is clasping his hands behind his back.
February 11, 2012 at 6:17 am |
twitter value…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
February 18, 2012 at 10:04 am |
Haunted Man…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
February 22, 2012 at 5:12 am |
If you look closely, next to the woman’s white glove, there is a feint shadow of the girl’s head. You can see the shadow caused by the man’s right leg, and then suddenly the shadow of the man’s leg slightly juts out, as if caused by the girl’s head. An apparition would not create such a shadowy effect.
March 4, 2012 at 7:05 am |
healthy eating…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
March 20, 2012 at 1:12 am |
nuthouse…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
March 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
montaj parchet…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
March 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
Case for the ghost busters
April 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
שמלות כלה…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
May 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
irish wedding band…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
June 2, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
omg that is creepy really creepy & scary yeah really scary
June 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
plz yar take more horrible pix of ghost
June 9, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
corporate event magician…
[…]Wedding ghost « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…
July 6, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
why do so many people add a coment it is sad
July 10, 2012 at 11:58 am |
You just did. So where does that put you? Welcome to the “sad” club.
July 22, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
I think it could be the gentleman’s hand. Because of bad lighting and shadows that create this “optical illusion” so to speak. And of course there is the “power of suggestion”. Making people see something that really is not there. Just my two cents.
September 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
I have seen a very similar picture circulating the internet with a face appearing in a sofa next to a family posing…same trickster!
September 23, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
All these reasonable explanations seem to be pretty good! It’s amazing how many people still want to insist that this is a ghost when there are so many physical things it could be. Did anyone else notice the piss stain on the front of the trousers of the guy standing to the left ? Heh heh heh …….
November 18, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
Very nice, I also read that Betsey Johnson has not said its last word and has done very well at the upcoming New York Fashion Week
The link is http://blessbride.com/?p=77686
November 24, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
its fake.it might look likea face but took a good look at it and it was really the mans watch and the third leg was really the woman with the white gloves shall.
November 24, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
its not what you think ,the third leg is the woman with the white gloves shall and the face is the mans watch.its not a ghost so dont worry
November 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
Who’s worried? It is a little boy. Watches do not look like faces or eyeballs, and the lady doesn’t even have a shawl. She has a long dress, with long sleeves. No shawl. That is a little boy’s face and eyeball peeking around the man’s leg, and the boy’s foot near the man’s foot. It is not a ghost, and it is not clothing. It is a live little boy, maybe playing hide and seek with some friends, or trying to sneak into the picture.
November 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm
really someone said that it was a shall
November 24, 2012 at 11:24 pm
really
November 24, 2012 at 11:38 pm
cat you never know,if it was the boy than wheres his other leg
December 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
this is not a ghost at all mate!!!.. this is a gentleman wearing his tux and has his white scarf to go with the tux, hanging from his hands behind his back!! the open toe sandal everyone is seeing is a trim on the scarf sitting messy on the floor..and there’s a wee cheeky/shy 4 year old boy hiding behind him.. and the child has same eye(s) as his parents!!
December 12, 2012 at 2:24 am |
so creepy .. its areal ghost holly molly¡¡¡ i feel fear..
December 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
I’m amazed at the amount of interest this genuine photograph has aroused since it was posted in April 2009. I can assure you the photograph generated similar conflicting comments when it was taken in 1972 long before digital photography was invented.
The four people in the photograph, the photographer who took it, and the Police, who created an enlargement of the original photograph for analysis, maintain the genuineness of the photograph.
According to them there was no child present and the gentleman dressed in dinner suit did not hold a shawl, scarf or other such item behind his back. The Police analysis concluded that the key features of the “extra” – the eye and foot are adult size and not that of a child.
To date no satisfactory explanation has been given – the photograph remains inexplicable.
December 18, 2012 at 3:51 am |
Hi there! I know this is somewhat off-topic but I had to ask.
Does operating a well-established blog such as yours take a lot of work?
I’m brand new to blogging however I do write in my journal on a daily basis. I’d
like to start a blog so I will be able to share my personal experience and feelings online.
Please let me know if you have any kind of recommendations or tips for brand new aspiring
blog owners. Appreciate it!
January 25, 2013 at 2:51 am |
I Love Your Site. Practically every post makes me lol, ponder, and learn something.
July 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
The man is holding a piece of fabric – scarf maybe?- which has pooled upon the floor creating shadows which appear to be a foot.
August 24, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
My spouse and I stumbled over here by a different website and thought I may as well check things out.
I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to checking out your
web page repeatedly.
August 27, 2013 at 4:59 am |
You have got good stuff on this website.
September 17, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
the eye is the mans whatch and hand and the foot is some kind of coat fallen in to what looks like a foot
November 2, 2013 at 12:16 am |
I just think it’s a simple little boy behind the man, embarrassed to take pictures.
November 27, 2013 at 11:33 am |
I think it is a child. A young boy. What we see is the back of one shoe and the tip of the other, not one big foot and his face is peeping around the side of the mans arm. It is creepy though and I wonder what a boy is doing at whatever function the adults are at?
November 21, 2019 at 3:21 pm |
They’ve probably gone to a wedding. I am wondering why your woman there has her (admittedly brilliant) hood up, but I think if I had that coat I’d never put the hood down either.
December 22, 2013 at 4:12 am |
Hello, the image near the top of this website article is loading a little weird to me? I attempted mailing an e-mail but it bounced again.
April 11, 2014 at 4:10 am |
Automatic Website Builder is revolutionary, all-in-one automated site maker for creating, publishing, updating and monetizing websites. Equipped with innovative features, the software automatically builds daily updated blogs, undetectable cloaking portals, affiliate directories and 100% AdSense TOS compatible webpages with highest quality content. visit this link -http://bitly.com/PkozGw
August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
fresh flowers delivery Haymarket VA
Wedding ghost | Ghostly photographs from Hauntings
August 4, 2014 at 8:13 am |
best cash for lawsuits Williamstown NJ
Wedding ghost | Ghostly photographs from Hauntings
August 5, 2014 at 5:11 am |
about us
Wedding ghost | Ghostly photographs from Hauntings
October 20, 2014 at 10:01 am |
best Maryland SEO company
Wedding ghost | Ghostly photographs from Hauntings
February 20, 2015 at 6:45 pm |
Who is the babe on the left? Nice legs,,,
April 17, 2015 at 2:14 am |
[…] (via: Science Of Ghosts) […]
April 17, 2015 at 2:18 am |
[…] (via: Science Of Ghosts) […]
April 17, 2015 at 2:25 am |
[…] (by way of: Science Of Ghosts) […]
April 17, 2015 at 6:00 am |
[…] Science Of Ghosts […]
April 18, 2015 at 3:34 am |
[…] Science Of Ghosts […]
April 3, 2016 at 12:10 pm |
Simple answer;the couple to the right of the photo,as we look at it,seem to have a young daughter they don’t wish to be in the photo…hence why you see a childs leg with an open foot sandle…
September 4, 2017 at 8:07 pm |
Traiteur Rabat Regal; Traiteur de ronome au Maroc
Traiteur Rabat Regal au Maroc
March 7, 2019 at 8:37 am |
Could it beb puddled scarf hanging out his right hand?
Looks cold out
November 21, 2019 at 3:19 pm |
That is about as spooky as seven year old boys get. Not sure why the people present would claim there was no-one there, unless they completely missed their little photobomber.
February 22, 2023 at 8:30 pm |
Even more odd to me is that my mom and I look exactly like the woman in the hood. I would have been 4 years old in 1972, but she is my doppelganger in 2023.