Where Are The White Ladies

A close friend of mine commented that in these days when camera's are more common we should be getting more pictures of ghosts. In and around the 1960's we had fantastic images such as the White Lady on the Tulip Staircase. (Taken by Rev.Ralph Hardy in 1966 at the Queen's House, National Maritime Museum in Greenwich). Why aren't we getting more of the same now? Why do we just get pictures of Orbs? Where have the White Ladies gone?



An article on the Queens House and the above photograph is now available on www.Mysteriousbritain.co.uk

Oh! Bejesus. I see a ghost. I see 2 ghosts!

Lim, i think the one top middle is an Alien its got that teardrop head thing going on.

On a more serious note, could the lack of new ghost pictures be because old cameras were properly manual affairs and not the all singing all dancing autofocusing autothisandthat things we have had for the last 15-20 years and are less prone to double exposure and suchlike ?

Looking at that picture a few times something doesnt ring right.. if you take the length of the left and right arms for instance, left arm is lets say normal and right arm is about a foot longer also the apparitions right arm seems to have a left hand attached to it. But then again, its a ghost, who am i to say what rules apply.

The following image was taken fairly recently, on 19 November 1995 by Tony O'Rahilly.



It was taken whilst Wem Town Hall, Shropshire, was burning down. It may be the ghost of Jane Churm circa 1677.

Thanks Bligger for reminding me of it.

Man That Photo Made my Heart Go Weird!.. Liek something entered me

Wow! That's terrific.

My own pet theory is that we hear more about orbs because they are easier to use to pander to tourists on ghost tours. "Oh, look, that's an orb! You got one!" and it's a reflection,but sends a chill down someone's spine. They "got their money's worth...

We hear more about orbs because people in this day and age arn't as familer with dust and water as they were decades ago, and what they look like on film. That and everyone is sporting a digital iphone camera. You can see how the number of supposed 'orbs' would then increase exponentially.

Interestingly enough, I vaguely recall a 'white lady' style picture taken at Salem, Mass. However, I haven't had a lot of luck tracing it down online. It was shown in some show about hauntings in historic areas and was briefly shown on screen. I believe they said it was taken in the jail there, but I'm not sure. I'll post it here when I find it.

Edit: Found a pic of it.

Real or not this one scares the jibblies out of me.

I'm gonna bump this because I edited the above and I don't think anyone will notice without a new post...

That's not a white lady... that's a lady in black!
If I remember the whole Salem witchcraft saga correctly (I am not very much into American folklore) most of the women and men hanged were over forty: this one looks like a considerable younger person. Not only that but her attire bears no resemblance to the peculiar dress worn by Puritan women of the late XVII century. She looks very much like a present day practicioner of Wicca (I know, I know...) or some other Pagan revival religion.
Failing an extraordinary claim, this picture in my opinion depicts nothing more than a young woman in a black dress in front of a door. Oh, and the photographer could use some lessons or buy an automatic camera.

Quote :

That's not a white lady... that's a lady in black!

I can't dispute your logic there Mauro, but it is an interesting photograph. I don't know what conditions it was taken under so I can't really comment on the validity, but it seems so differant from other so called ghost pictures like the Brown Lady, Tulip Staircase and the Monk with a pillow case on his head.

Do you know the story behind th epicture Baroniveagh?

Any chance of pointing us in the right direction of the original pic ?, that smaller one in the corner is from a different angle.

After looking at virtually everything on slightly warped website here is the link to the pic and story.
http://slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/ghastlyghostgallery/wickedwitch.htm
So that answers my question about the little inserted pic of the outside of the building.

It's a pity they didn't show the whole photo ...

That looks more like a photo of Diana Ross on a bad hair day!

Sorry for being away for a few days.

I haven't been able to find the whole shot, unfortunately. Supposedly, it was taken in the 70's at some point. I have seen the whole pic, as I mentioned, but I haven't been able to find one online, though as I recall the original image had a yellowish tint. I'll have to consult the library.

As far as outfits go, I really can't comment.

Sigh, I hate double posting....




Photobucket dosn't do linking right to photos I guess. I'm not to clear on the story on this one. Supposedly no one saw it when the shot was taken.




I think it looks fake, myself... mostly because as someone once said, it's what you expect to see.

BTW: We've all heard the Diana Ross jokes about the Ward House ghost before, but so far as I know, no one has debunked it. Made some snarky comments, oh yes, but debunked...

Edit: Yet another edit for yet another odd looking phantom. This one seems ot have a description: "Recently during a joint private investigation with members from both Missouri Paranormal Research and Ghosts & Haunts in Missouri an awesome picture of a full apparition was captured by one of the members of Ghosts & Haunts in Missouri on a Pentax A3000 35mm Film Camera."

The first photo could be a dust sheet of some sort hung on a spade or pole stuck in the ground seeing as how there is work being done on the house, second one looks good.

The second photo (misty 'figure') above appears to show something strongly illuminated - presumably by the flash that seems to have been used. It could be the photographer's cold breath. The 'human' shape is probably just coincidence.

It doubt this is a self illuminating 'glowing figure'. I know of a case where someone took photos of a floating ball of light at a haunted location. Several photos were taken but nothing appeared in the ones where the flash worked. However, in one photo the flash failed because it did not have time to recharge. Only in this one did the glowing object appear. Sadly, it was an amorphous shape.

The point is, when people take photos of floating lights, if they use a flash it is likely to overwhelm the subject! The object itself does not appear to be illuminating the room, as it undoubtedly would if it could outshine a photographic flash at short range.

...sigh.. I can't believe I'm about to argue lighting with you again, but....

The highlights on the stair rail is consistent with the light originating from the figure, as well as the lighting on the window frame behind the figure, all of which indicate the figure is at the far end of the stair rail from the cameraman. The image has been cleaned up and cropped for publication, lightened, from the looks of things, which makes the flash seem stronger (and figure brighter) then it probably was. Note that on the rail the figure casts a strong highlight but the camera does not appear to on the section of rail nearer to the foreground. I'm gonna say I don't THINK this was the cameraman's breath as the rail appears to slightly eclipse the figure, placing it near the far end, and probably on the far side of the stair rail.

baroniveagh wrote:

The highlights on the stair rail is consistent with the light originating from the figurel.

That's what I thought, at first, but the those areas are simply thinner bits of the mist which spread widely beyond the 'figure'. If you look carefully, you can see a little bit of blue mist on the far left, about half way up. There are also other faint patches, on the vertical wood section by the left window frame, for instance. This shows that the mist does indeed extend well beyond the apparent figure, though it is thinner, more patchy and harder to see against the background (not showing up at all against the dark bits).

Bits of mist show up against the brighter bits of the photo (like the bannister), making them appear lighter and bluer, but disappear in the darker areas. This effect is due to limited latitude in film/digital compared to human vision (latitude is effectively the number of 'shades of grey' between white and black).

Notice how in the window frame, top left, some bits of window frame are 'missing'. If the figure was illuminating this area, why are they not visible? It's because the 'mist', that would make them brighter, is missing from those areas.

Quote :

I'm gonna say I don't THINK this was the cameraman's breath as the rail appears to slightly eclipse the figure, placing it near the far end, and probably on the far side of the stair rail.

On the contrary. the mist appears to be quite clearly in front of the furthest vertical support to the bannister. Looks like a good case for 'photographer's breath' to me.

Eh, according to an account I dug up this thing matches what the witnesses saw. Not a ("Yes, that's what I saw" when shown the picture) but a ($H1T! Quick, the camera, the camera!) sort of witnessing.

My question is, why does the high light get stronger as it moves away from the camera toward the (apparently) luminous being if it's breath? Even if it was photographers breath, a more or less uniform surface, in this case the banister rail, tends to have the brightest highlight at the point closes to the source of the light, in this case a camera flash. So why's the highlight in the background rather then the foreground? Judging by the rungs under it, the camera flash intensity is very reduced at this range.

Further... while I'd bite at the idea of the breath cloud being conveniently shaped like a man and illuminated just so... this one seems too detailed. The lines of the figure are fairly crisp around the head and shoulders, not the usual sort of vaguely human shape you get with breath vapor.

baroniveagh wrote:

My question is, why does the high light get stronger as it moves away from the camera toward the (apparently) luminous being if it's breath? Even if it was photographers breath, a more or less uniform surface, in this case the banister rail, tends to have the brightest highlight at the point closes to the source of the light, in this case a camera flash.

What you have to remember is that the photographer's breath is very close to the camera. It only looks distant because of the perspective of the photo. People sometimes take photos of orbs in corridors leading away from the camera, claiming it as evidence that they are distant. They only look distant because of what is behind them - it is an illusion of perspective that any artist could reproduce easily. In reality, orbs are caused by bits of dust very near the camera.

The brightness of the 'figure' and other bits of mist depends on the distance of the breath from the camera. There is no means of knowing this so its distribution cannot be easily predicted. Photographer's breath is not generally uniform, more usually resembling a cloud with ripples, bulges, loops and other structures.

As regards what the witness said, I am merely looking at the photo. Photos, in my experience, regularly contradict witnesses' memory. A photograph is an objective, albeit limited, record of a pattern of light. A witness's memory is, alas, far less reliable. I always go with the photo in such cases.