GHOSTS!!! Are you a Believer?

[Foxfyre]

This story is not about ghosts but the reason we weren't allowed to have a Ouija board in our house when I was a kid was because of something which my mom said happened to her when she was a teenager.

She and her friends asked the Ouija board about the sailor boyfriend Billie Joe (or something like that) of one of the friends. They asked for a phone number and got one. They called it up. It was a Billie Joe - but a completely different one, not the boy they knew.

They were understandably spooked, so no Ouija for us.



Guess she coulda been making it up, or maybe it was an urban legend that she somehow adopted as her own story, but I don't remember her being like that about anything else so I don't think so. She was a pretty level-headed and very honest.

No, I recounted a similar spooky experience with a Ouija board. Spooky enough I decided not to get one for my own kids. Some of us are fans of a late night eclectic radio program, Coast to Coast, that frequently focuses on testimony of alien visitations, ghosts, psychic phenomenon, shadow people, etc. Whether or not the testimony comes across as credible, George Noury weekdays and Ian Ponditt on weekends both seem to be perfectly well balanced and credible and make excellent hosts for this program. Both, and also Art Bell, the former and best known host of the program, are adament that it is dangerous to play with a Ouija board and nobody should be messing around with them.

So, I dunno? Something to it? Or just wierd coincidences that make it look more credible than it is and it is actually just a harmless child's toy?

Couple that with a couple of the "Ghost hunters" (popular currently running TV show) who were on Fox & Friends yesterday morning. They, like California Girl has indicated, are not firm believers but they have sure encountered a lot of phenomenon that they can't explain doing this kind of work. One especially said she was pretty much a believer until she got away from it and started doubting. She has come back to the program this season for another go at it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Ah Urban legends..........When I was a child (1965?)we would go through the woods to the other side of the creek (Sewer rain water run off) to what we remembered as an old cemetery.

In the cemetery was a grave with a chain around it about a foot off the ground.

The Gravestone read WILDMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the dirt was gone so you could look down and see one side of the casket.

This is the legend as we remember seeing it as children.

2010 update: Last year my younger brother and I with the same memories of this grave went over to that cemetery.

It is a Jewish Cemetery with some of the graves dated in the late 1800's. Today it is not kept up. the newest gravestone we saw was next to WILDMAN. Dated 1973.
Problem is the name on the 2 headstones was not WILDMAN but WALDMAN......
It's a shame the cemetery was in such bad shape even the chains around that grave were broken and laying on the ground. And seeing the casket? I think the dirt had settled on one side and we could see the vault. It was filled in when we were there.
We did contact a Jewish Center and talked with their administrator about the place. they didn't know it was there. It's really small, less than 75 graves and in the woods behind some businesses on a dead end street. They said they would look into getting some volunteers to go over and clean it up....... I should check it..... Could get a little side job out of it next spring........

 

[Iridescence]

I thought this thread got me banned... Or, rather, my post.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought this thread got me banned... Or, rather, my post.

I see your posts. Did you post something that didn't show up?

 

[Ringel05]

I thought this thread got me banned... Or, rather, my post.

I see your posts. Did you post something that didn't show up?

A picture of a ghost.........

 

[SFC Ollie]

I thought this thread got me banned... Or, rather, my post.

I see your posts. Did you post something that didn't show up?

A picture of a ghost.........

Naw I posted the picture of a Ghost. And I guess no one saw it.................

 

[Foxfyre]

For a Halloween treat one year at the agency I headed in Kansas, we had a program on paranormal activity for one of our groups. I don't remember a lot of what went on that day but do remember the guy, a Brit and therefore using all British illustrations, presenting the WWI photo below that shows an extra face on the top row. He was explaining how so many ghost stories are fairly easily debunked, but nobody at that time had been able to explain that face in the group shot. The extra face was not noticed for decades in a photo taken of a WWI squadron.

I just found what I think is that photoalong with this said about it:

This intriguing photo, taken in 1919, was first published in 1975 by Sir Victor Goddard, a retired R.A.F. officer. The photo is a group portrait of Goddard's squadron, which had served in World War I at the HMS Daedalus training facility. An extra ghostly face appears in the photo. In back of the airman positioned on the top row, fourth from the left, can clearly be seen the face of another man. It is said to be the face of Freddy Jackson, an air mechanic who had been accidentally killed by an airplane propeller two days earlier. His funeral had taken place on the day this photograph was snapped. Members of the squadron easily recognized the face as Jackson's. It has been suggested that Jackson, unaware of his death, decided to show up for the group photo.
Freddy Jackson ghost picture

That the people recounting such phenomenon all seem to be the real deal and not the type to play pranks on people, it is things like this that keep me wondering.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well since you brought up Halloween.......................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnt1xxvS33w]Pre Halloween walk through, 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

For a Halloween treat one year at the agency I headed in Kansas, we had a program on paranormal activity for one of our groups. I don't remember a lot of what went on that day but do remember the guy, a Brit and therefore using all British illustrations, presenting the WWI photo below that shows an extra face on the top row. He was explaining how so many ghost stories are fairly easily debunked, but nobody at that time had been able to explain that face in the group shot. The extra face was not noticed for decades in a photo taken of a WWI squadron.

I just found what I think is that photoalong with this said about it:

This intriguing photo, taken in 1919, was first published in 1975 by Sir Victor Goddard, a retired R.A.F. officer. The photo is a group portrait of Goddard's squadron, which had served in World War I at the HMS Daedalus training facility. An extra ghostly face appears in the photo. In back of the airman positioned on the top row, fourth from the left, can clearly be seen the face of another man. It is said to be the face of Freddy Jackson, an air mechanic who had been accidentally killed by an airplane propeller two days earlier. His funeral had taken place on the day this photograph was snapped. Members of the squadron easily recognized the face as Jackson's. It has been suggested that Jackson, unaware of his death, decided to show up for the group photo.
Freddy Jackson ghost picture

That the people recounting such phenomenon all seem to be the real deal and not the type to play pranks on people, it is things like this that keep me wondering.

I'd like to see a close up of the entire photo to check for other "ghostly" images. I'd be willing to bet they there also which would provide the purely scientific (or in this case) "developmental" answer.

 

[syrenn]

Would this all be a case of: You die and then shit happens?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh Ollie, your Halloween display this year. How wonderful. Are you going to make us a video of the night lighted display too?

 

[Foxfyre]

For a Halloween treat one year at the agency I headed in Kansas, we had a program on paranormal activity for one of our groups. I don't remember a lot of what went on that day but do remember the guy, a Brit and therefore using all British illustrations, presenting the WWI photo below that shows an extra face on the top row. He was explaining how so many ghost stories are fairly easily debunked, but nobody at that time had been able to explain that face in the group shot. The extra face was not noticed for decades in a photo taken of a WWI squadron.

I just found what I think is that photoalong with this said about it:

This intriguing photo, taken in 1919, was first published in 1975 by Sir Victor Goddard, a retired R.A.F. officer. The photo is a group portrait of Goddard's squadron, which had served in World War I at the HMS Daedalus training facility. An extra ghostly face appears in the photo. In back of the airman positioned on the top row, fourth from the left, can clearly be seen the face of another man. It is said to be the face of Freddy Jackson, an air mechanic who had been accidentally killed by an airplane propeller two days earlier. His funeral had taken place on the day this photograph was snapped. Members of the squadron easily recognized the face as Jackson's. It has been suggested that Jackson, unaware of his death, decided to show up for the group photo.
Freddy Jackson ghost picture

That the people recounting such phenomenon all seem to be the real deal and not the type to play pranks on people, it is things like this that keep me wondering.

I'd like to see a close up of the entire photo to check for other "ghostly" images. I'd be willing to bet they there also which would provide the purely scientific (or in this case) "developmental" answer.

Apparently the original negative and prints have been thoroughly examined by experts, at least according to our speaker, and that one image was the only anomaly and nobody has been able to explain it. You can put a magnifying glass on it and see it but can't find anything remotely similar anywhere else.

 

[Ringel05]

For a Halloween treat one year at the agency I headed in Kansas, we had a program on paranormal activity for one of our groups. I don't remember a lot of what went on that day but do remember the guy, a Brit and therefore using all British illustrations, presenting the WWI photo below that shows an extra face on the top row. He was explaining how so many ghost stories are fairly easily debunked, but nobody at that time had been able to explain that face in the group shot. The extra face was not noticed for decades in a photo taken of a WWI squadron.

I just found what I think is that photoalong with this said about it:



That the people recounting such phenomenon all seem to be the real deal and not the type to play pranks on people, it is things like this that keep me wondering.

I'd like to see a close up of the entire photo to check for other "ghostly" images. I'd be willing to bet they there also which would provide the purely scientific (or in this case) "developmental" answer.

Apparently the original negative and prints have been thoroughly examined by experts, at least according to our speaker, and that one image was the only anomaly and nobody has been able to explain it.

I'm sure anyone who is intimately familiar with exposure and development of the photos and camera function/make up of that time would have a plausible explanation.

 

[zzzz]

The human mind is something we are only beginning to understand. The human soul we know next to nothing about. Descriptions of near death experiences indicate that a light draws the deceased toward it, others say they have saw themselves from above before coming back to life. I have dabbled some in out of body experiences and meditation and the one time I felt like I had left my body it scared the hell out of me and I never tried it again.

Demons and other evil spirits exist but I believe that if unless you seek them they will not come into your life. You have to invite them into your life. I believe in guardian Angels as I have received visions or interventions that may have saved my life or serious injury 3 different times.

Can ghosts exist in Christianity? Being lost here on earth can be a part of purgatory. I certainly believe that ghosts can exist and have experienced a few things that can qualify as an encounter with a spirit.

Ouija boards, in my opinion, are a farce in that a spirit will guide the indicator. Unless there is a medium who can draw a spirit the participants or audience is likely the source (esp) of the answers. But then again if you seek out evil, evil will come, maybe not in the form you expect and maybe not that instant but down the road evil will surely make its presence felt to your disadvantage.

I no longer dabble in the hidden world and the evil I have experienced and the strange happenings have ceased to be a part of my life. Today I have faith in the Lord and he protects me from evil and gives me guidance and peace in my soul.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Oh Ollie, your Halloween display this year. How wonderful. Are you going to make us a video of the night lighted display too?

The camera really doesn't do the lighting justice. I just hope there's no wind so the fog hangs around...........

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to see a close up of the entire photo to check for other "ghostly" images. I'd be willing to bet they there also which would provide the purely scientific (or in this case) "developmental" answer.

Apparently the original negative and prints have been thoroughly examined by experts, at least according to our speaker, and that one image was the only anomaly and nobody has been able to explain it.

I'm sure anyone who is intimately familiar with exposure and development of the photos and camera function/make up of that time would have a plausible explanation.

So what would your theory be? From before WWI and up to and through the 60's, the standard press camera was a version of this:

I am even old enough to have used one. They are bulky and cumbersome, you had to change the flash bulb after every shot, and the large film was loaded into a holder that was then inserted into the camera. You take the shot, remove the holder and film, insert a new holder, and take another shot. The film itself was excellent and if you had good sense for what F stop to use and you could hold the heavy camera steady, you got sharp and well contrasted photos that didn't fade much after developing and have endured into modern times. Nowhere in the process of taking the photo or developing it afterwards, which I also did, can I imagine how anybody would have been able to photoshop a photo like that back then.

 

[Ringel05]

Apparently the original negative and prints have been thoroughly examined by experts, at least according to our speaker, and that one image was the only anomaly and nobody has been able to explain it.

I'm sure anyone who is intimately familiar with exposure and development of the photos and camera function/make up of that time would have a plausible explanation.

So what would your theory be? From before WWI and up to and through the 60's, the standard press camera was a version of this:

I am even old enough to have used one. They are bulky and cumbersome, you had to change the flash bulb after every shot, and the large film was loaded into a holder that was then inserted into the camera. You take the shot, remove the holder and film, insert a new holder, and take another shot. The film itself was excellent and if you had good sense for what F stop to use and you could hold the heavy camera steady, you got sharp and well contrasted photos that didn't fade much after developing and have endured into modern times. Nowhere in the process of taking the photo or developing it afterwards, which I also did, can I imagine how anybody would have been able to photoshop a photo like that back then.

Photoshopping back then was creating a double negative. The process could be controlled but occasionally accidents happened where part of an image was superimposed on the next shot if the photographer forgot to wind the film, it didn't wind all the way through or (if it was a single load) the photographer forgot to replace the last exposure. There are too many valid possible explanations not to mention possible overlay of negatives during the development process. I know, I've developed my own photos before.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure anyone who is intimately familiar with exposure and development of the photos and camera function/make up of that time would have a plausible explanation.

So what would your theory be? From before WWI and up to and through the 60's, the standard press camera was a version of this:

I am even old enough to have used one. They are bulky and cumbersome, you had to change the flash bulb after every shot, and the large film was loaded into a holder that was then inserted into the camera. You take the shot, remove the holder and film, insert a new holder, and take another shot. The film itself was excellent and if you had good sense for what F stop to use and you could hold the heavy camera steady, you got sharp and well contrasted photos that didn't fade much after developing and have endured into modern times. Nowhere in the process of taking the photo or developing it afterwards, which I also did, can I imagine how anybody would have been able to photoshop a photo like that back then.

Photoshopping back then was creating a double negative. The process could be controlled but occasionally accidents happened where part of an image was superimposed on the next shot if the photographer forgot to wind the film, it didn't wind all the way through or (if it was a single load) the photographer forgot to replace the last exposure. There are too many valid possible explanations not to mention possible overlay of negatives during the development process. I know, I've developed my own photos before.

There was no film to wind in these cameras. And there was no windable film in cameras in WWI days. You can double expose the film, yes, if you forget to remove the film after a shot and take another over it. I have done that but it is extremely and unmistakably obvious when that happens. There is no indication of any double exposure on the photo in question however. If it had been double exposed it would be obvious through the photo.

 

[Ringel05]

So what would your theory be? From before WWI and up to and through the 60's, the standard press camera was a version of this:

I am even old enough to have used one. They are bulky and cumbersome, you had to change the flash bulb after every shot, and the large film was loaded into a holder that was then inserted into the camera. You take the shot, remove the holder and film, insert a new holder, and take another shot. The film itself was excellent and if you had good sense for what F stop to use and you could hold the heavy camera steady, you got sharp and well contrasted photos that didn't fade much after developing and have endured into modern times. Nowhere in the process of taking the photo or developing it afterwards, which I also did, can I imagine how anybody would have been able to photoshop a photo like that back then.

Photoshopping back then was creating a double negative. The process could be controlled but occasionally accidents happened where part of an image was superimposed on the next shot if the photographer forgot to wind the film, it didn't wind all the way through or (if it was a single load) the photographer forgot to replace the last exposure. There are too many valid possible explanations not to mention possible overlay of negatives during the development process. I know, I've developed my own photos before.

There was no film to wind in these cameras. And there was no windable film in cameras in WWI days. You can double expose the film, yes, if you forget to remove the film after a shot and take another over it. I have done that but it is extremely and unmistakably obvious when that happens. There is no indication of any double exposure on the photo in question however. If it had been double exposed it would be obvious through the photo.

Windable roll film was invented in 1881, Eastman bought the patent in 1912 and was used extensively. Also the camera you showed was only one of a dozen professional models not to mention the existence of many personal winding type cameras of the time. The Kodak 1A Pocket camera came out in 1914 and the 2A followed in 1915 and the Brownie was released in 1900. Your post made no reference to the type of camera used. If the settings were wrong and the film not advanced, then another shot was taken with the proper setting you would have a "ghostlike" image show up behind the developed second image, it wasn't all that uncommon.
I used to be an amateur photog from my pre teen days, I collected cameras and have a rather large collection with detailed information on most of them going back to the turn of the century as well as different old, undeveloped film and information about the film, it's attributes and drawbacks, I know a lot about this stuff.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yes, ghosts exist.