A few weeks ago someone sent me an alleged ghost photo, saying…

“This is a picture I took in Eau Claire, Wisconsin last summer.  The young girl in the front is my cousin.  The slightly older girl I swear was not there when I took the picture.  When I showed the picture to my father he immediately recognized the older girl as his sister (the younger girl’s mother) as she looked when they were kids.  She passed away a few years ago from complications of a stomach tumor.  I don’t know anything about ghosts, and my immediate instinct would be to assume it’s a glitch in the camera.  It made me think fist of a double exposure shot, but it was taken on a digital camera.  Can ghosts manifest as younger versions of themselves?”

Here is the pic….

Any thoughts?

UPDATE: The original file can be downloaded here


  1. Yes, it has all the hallmarks of a photograph of glass. The reflected portions take on translucent qualities as they approach lit background.

    It’s 1:30 in the morning – but that’s my first impression. I might be smarter tomorrow after some sleep.

  2. There’s a strange quality to all the background elements, like they’re being reflected in double-glazing. I suspect an angled (so that we don’t see the reflection of the subjects) glass shopfront or hotel window, with the elder girl on the inside.

  3. The photographer’s memory must be faulty – maybe she didn’t take the photo. The child in the white top is definitely there because the child in the foreground is making a shadow on the white top. It looks like the background pic has been wrongly imposed somehow on the pic of the kids and the llama because it is cut off down the right. Someone is having a lend of someone or the camera needs a serious seeing-to. Either way it’s no ghost. The photographer’s father must be thinking wishfully that he sees his sister.

  4. What sort of digital camera was used? A DSLR, where the exposure times can be manipulated? Depending upon the exposure time, faster objects will appear less distinct in a photographic image than slower objects, if the exposure is long enough. Can you supply the EXIF data for the file please, Richard?

  5. Some cameras have a “night shot” mode that uses a flash to illuminate the foreground, followed by a long exposure time to let ambient background light fill in the underexposed portion of the photograph. It’s likely that the foreground also had ambient light stronger than the background. The double image of the background could be minor camera shake as the photographer took their finger off the shutter release.

    Likely scenario: girl walks by right as the *flash*happens… girls continues past, exposure continues… shutter closes. The long shutter time exposed the picture with the image behind the girl at the time of the flash. When the photo was completed, the girl could be well away from the field of view.

    1. Yes I think the it’s to do with the long exposure – the foreground Llamas and girl are exposed with the original flash however I believe the photo of the girl in the background is exposed by another person’s camera flash slightly after the foreground shot is lighted.

    2. But a long exposure with the girl walking by would make her blurry. It seems to me she’s relatively in focus. The background is a little fuzzy though.

    3. Exactly my thoughts. (Long “nighttime” mode exposure with quick flash.) Check the original image, and look at the top of the llama’s ears. You have the same “ghost” effect. There are probably other places with similar effects.

  6. The cars, trees, and sky are all reflections in glass — you can tell by their slightly duplicated/blurred images. If you look closely you’ll see a shadow of the llama from the flash; that shadow must be cast onto the pane of glass. The “ghostly” girl is behind the glass; she may not have been visible to the photographer, but the camera flash illuminated her through the glass, as evidenced by her redeye. I’m guessing the “ghost” is another girl in the family (hence the resemblance to a younger version of the sister).

  7. well looking at the picture the suppose ghost is wearing very modern clothing therefore and also it looks like its a double exposure so it makes the person traslucent and not real. definatly fake as if you look at the guy in the background at his van he is slightly shady so therefore there are 2 ghosts. therefore fake definatly not ghosts

  8. Captain Haddock said, “Coochie coochie” to the llamas! Ghost, my arse! If you can’t find any rational explanation to any of these pics, then you have to go for someone making the picture up pixel by pixel. But ghosts? No frigging way!

  9. There are image artifacts that don’t add up. For example, the lama’s ear at top has overlapping sky going thru. The lama also casts a very crisp shadow at the wrong angle onto a background that’s quite a few feet back.

    Were this photo real, this photo reminds me most of the function many cameras have these days that use what is called a rear flash. Which is to say, the shutter stays open for a time to capture a rather dark scene, and then cues the flash just before the shutter closes. It’s possible the see thru girl could be captured in this manner. That would also explain the sky bleed into the lama’s ear. However, that does not explain the strange shadow of the lama.

    However, given the artifacts mentioned above, the picture certainly appears to be a digital manipulation. These days, it’s so easy to fake images like this. An extraordinary claim of a ghost to be convincing to this photographer’s eyes would certainly require a lot better evidence than a picture that otherwise has the earmarks of digital alteration.

  10. long exposure with a flash at the end. most digital cameras allow this to expose the background of a night image and sharpen the foreground

  11. It’s all very clear to me just by looking at the “ghost girl” and how she longingly looks at the llama….in their past life the two were lovers that died tragically…..he far more advanced has be reincarnated as this llama and sadly she has yet completed to spiritual work and hopes he will wait for her and not get caught up with that young shameless llama…..oh wait… no that just may be all a reflection through glass or a window….oh well……

  12. Yes, “ghosts” may “manifest younger images of themselves” I suppose but would they bother with photographic redeye? Really Richard, you must stop being so credulous, lots of good reasonable, earthly explanations here….

  13. I’m not at all sure the “ghost” in the background is a ghost!! If you look at her eyes they have white pupils? This looks more reflected from another place, like glass or something. The relative may well have recognised her but then all young blonde girls look very similar – especially from a recollection. We could ALL have relatives who look similar? Having said all this, I’m not an expert (although I am a medium) but have seen much stranger images pop up of ghostly sightings, in my Grandma’s day in the Victorian era, cameras didn’t have all these posh gadgets like digital etc. but similar images have popped up!!! Has someone from Kodak scrutinised it?

  14. The shadows indicate at least 3 different light sources / flash units:
    1. Mid-height – Left of camera – producing large shadow on girl in front;
    2. High – Left of camera – producing small shadows cast by girl in front and smaller llama;
    3. High – Right of camera – producing small shadow cast by larger llama.

    The girl at the back is real – look for her trousers, they are solid colour – and she appears to be stepping forward with her left foot, as if to go out of shot to her Right (our Left).

    If shot in front of a window, the background could, if bright enough in parts, show through the darker parts of the girl if she had moved before the (longer than expected) exposure had finished, hence the ghostly image. Most people expect the exposure to be as fast as the flash, but this is seldom the case, thus movement can still cause blurring or ghosting if an automatic setting recognises the darker background and adjusts the exposure accordingly.

    The shadows cast on the girl at the back show the background clearly, thus it is only the brighter parts of this girl which are shown, suggesting that she was there in the flesh, but not for the whole exposure. Either that or it is a double exposure / blend of pictures with the background image on a longer exposure than the foreground image.

    Of course, this is only an opinion, and is no better nor worse than any other opinions submitted.

  15. Ghost girl’s legs seem non-translucent, or in other words, unaffected by whatever is affecting her top half. The cousin is affected, however. Maybe ghost phenomena only affects the upper body? Also, ghost girl’s jeans have shadows; that seems a bit odd if the top half of her seems blurred and the other half is clear enough to have sharp shadows (from the cousin).

    I’d therefore contend that whatever is giving that girl her ghostly appearance is a reflection draped on top of her. We can’t see the pole through her forehead which indicates she’s in front of it and she’s, in fact, solid.

    The distortion in the image is key; i highly doubt anyone would argue a ghost blew up a good picture if the person looks, well, perfectly normal. Facebook surely would be infested with ghosts considering how many pictures have random people in pictures and associated comments like, “Who the hell was that guy?”

    Now, if the person who took the picture said the Llamas weren’t in the area, then I’d be impressed.

    1. The pole disappears beind the darker car, thus does not blend wih the image of the girl, but the outline of the car is seen as a clearer image of the girl’s forehead, until the girl gets fainter as the bakground shows through.

  16. Lots of my nighttime holiday snaps from last year came out like this- I changed the flash settings on my camera, I didn’t start crying “ghost”!

  17. As a serious amateur photographer who occasionally gets paid for it, I agree with Will’s hypothesis. I’ve taken hundreds of photos that look like this by accident – usually when I have my dslr on aperture priority settings while using a flash. On these settings it calculates the necessary shutter speed based on the light and my chosen iso and aperture, but of course, the photo still flashes. This means that the shutter is open for long enough to produce an image from the ambient light, but another much stronger image is formed from the flash. I would bet money that this is what has occurred here – long shutter speed plus a flash.

    This explains why the close to the flash elements in the photo look solid while the further away objects are blurry. It also explains why the girl is transparent, but her top, which is white and thus reflects the most light, is almost solid.

    You could easily produce this image without any kind of digital manipulation or taking the photo through any glass or other substance – it’s just a photo of exactly what you can see.

    It’s worth noting how the movement of the objects in the background is only very small and that presumably this was taken hand held. To me this suggests that the shutter speed was still fairly quick, just not as quick as the flash. This means that the account could be genuine, but that the girls face is actually distorted in a manner that isn’t obvious. You would expect the distortion to be less the closer the element is to the flash, so it could well be a girl the photographer would recognise, distorted enough so that they can’t. The father’s comment makes me think it’s a relative of the young girls mother – perhaps another daughter.

    1. So far, Jeremy seems to be on the right track. He’s right on the money. Everyone who is positing glass or separate backgrounds is just reaching. There is no glass, no reflections and the photo is not cut off at the right edge.

      I’ve made dozens of these photos, both accidentally and purposefully. There are no skills and no trickery involved or needed. I’m amazed at some of the mental contortions that people go through to explain this and other weird photos, to include putting in elements that only complicate a straightforward photo, like “glass”, window reflections, etc.

      On the Nikon digital cameras I use, the flash setting responsible for this is called “Slow” or “Rear Curtain Sync”. However, you can achieve the effect with any flash and a slow enough shutter speed.

      Anytime you use a flash to take a photo, you are, in essence, making a double exposure. For instance, when I use Rear Curtain Sync on my flash, it means the shutter opens, exposes the shot as if there is no flash, making one picture, and then the flash goes off right at the end of the exposure, as the shutter is closing (more complicated than this but not needed for this example),freezing the action and creating a second exposure. All in one photo.

      The mysterious girl in the background was simply moving her head faster than the camera could capture without the flash, and she is blurred and transparent looking because of it. The flash freezes everything else at the end of the exposure. Or in this case, it could be that the flash went at the beginning of thee exposure. Very hard to tell which because I can’t determine the direction of movement of the girl, although I suspect from right to left in the photo. That would place the flash at the beginning of the exposure.

      If I can access my own versions of this, I’ll post them. But don’t make this more complicated than necessary folks!

      As for the motives behind the ghost girl story, I won’t even speculate because it is clearly not true, based on the photo evidence.

  18. The girl is just behind a window
    that reflects the background.

    The background is actually
    the photographer’s.

    The girl is actually looking
    at the car on the right
    through the window.


    1. I agree, the photo has been taken out front of a building. The girl is inside the window, but for the most part the window is reflecting the outside sky and scene back at the camera. Cool effect.

  19. I’m going to go with reflection off of glass, it reminds me of pictures I took a few years ago with my daughter at the natural history museum in Philadelphia.

  20. I’ve just looked at the EXIF data (courtesy of the Exif Viewer Firefox extension) – it was indeed taken with the night scene capture mode, and if they’d set their camera data correctly, it was taken at 7:45pm on 11th September 2008.

    1. Thank you so much for the tip about the FF EXIF viewer! Downloaded and installed as of this moment 🙂

  21. We are all forgetting the parasitic psychic skills of llamas. Don’t be deceived by that cheerful, perky look they have. Llamas are known for their ability to pierce the minds of nearby prey and suck emotionally-resonant thoughts into their own sinister, calculating brains. For what nefarious purpose, science has not yet uncovered the answer.
    Here, the memory of the deceased is being projected onto electronic photo-sensitive cells not by supernatural means, but by the llamas. In this case, it’s got to be the brown one. Look at his eye and tell me I’m wrong. Go on, look. Look at him. Pure evil.

  22. The girl has walked past as the flash has been fired, however, the camera exposure is unusually long because of the low natural light. This means that as the girl continues walking she is no longer lit by the flash. Evidence of the darkness is in red eye effect, and slow exposure through camera shake. No ghost, sorry. By the way I can easily recreate this effect with most simple cameras!!

  23. I’m amazed no-one has pointed out that this ‘ghost of his father’s sister as a child’ is wearing rather modern clothing… Do they have GAP in the afterlife??

    If you look to the right of the photo you can see what looks like the reflection of the llama’s back => seems clear they are beside a window at a slight angle, and Ms Ghost is just someone else visiting the llamas who has been reflected onto the window.

    Seemed pretty obvious to me immediately… or is that just me? 😉

  24. The spooky part is, the smaller of the two lamas wasn’t there either… but it looks just like the mother of the larger lama did when she was younger…

  25. Why do people ask questions like: “Can ghosts manifest as younger versions of themselves?” Don’t they know you don’t actually believe in ghosts? And assuming there are ghosts or that you did believe in them, how would there be any rules like that that anyone could know about a supernatural phenomenon?

  26. Has no one noticed the glowing amulet around the neck of the girl in the foreground?? She’s obviously a witch who has summoned the ghost of her mother!

  27. As previously mentioned it’s from 2008, not “last year”, and has been loaded into Photoshop CS4 at least once according to the hex data. Occam’s Razor jumps out at me…..

  28. fib: Judging by the age of her daughter (i.e. the little girl), I’m assuming that the father’s sister was the age of the older girl somewhere in the 1980’s. The clothing would sort of fit that era, so it’s not a major inconsistency.

    Not that I think it’s a ghost, by the way. I’m with the long exposure theory. Ghosts wouldn’t have eyes that flash red in pictures, as they don’t have blood behind their retinas (being made of ectoplasm and all that).

  29. I like the girl behind a window with a reflected background reasoning along with the nighttime exposure effect.

    It seems to me that if the girl was behind the window in the dark, the photographer might not have noticed her standing there. She might only be noticeable during the flash. She could have just been looking out the llamas when the picture was taken and not even noticed at the time.

    OTOH, a digital camera might have a freeze frame of the image after the picture is taken, and it seems that she would be noticed then. Also, the photographer might have recalled, at least, that she took the picture in front of a building and not in an open background.

  30. Looks to me like the shot was taken using slow-sync or second curtain sync. What happens in those instance is that the camera first opens the shutter, exposing the background (and in this case the girl). Then, the flash fires. This would also explain why the shot looks like a double exposure – in effect it is.

    That’s my best guess anyway.

  31. I agree with all the flash + long exposure theories. EXIF data says 1 second exposure with a flash (typically 1/60 sec duration).

  32. Ok, I’ll see if I can attach one of my ghost photos as an example. No flash needed even for this one. Long exposure (at least 20 seconds). My son walks into frame with blanket over his head, stands still for five seconds, walks out of frame. Voilà!

  33. To me, it looks like she was right there. Perhaps edited/mirrored effect or all those strange effects they can use.

  34. The Llama-farming society, Llamas of Minnesota, (yes they do WI as well) only list one Llama farm in Eau Claire: Maplehoney Alpines, on 5890 Prill Road.

    But if you look up that address… IT DOESN’T EXIST. There’s a forest where the farm should be. Spooky, eh?

    Therefore: the girl in the picture may just be from the flash going wrong, but the Llamas are, in fact, ghosts.

  35. It could be a momentary reflection in glass – perhaps the ‘ghost’ was a person standing behind the photographer, and a brief flash of light – either camera flash or something similar – illuminated them, causing the optical illusion?

  36. P.S Xenon photo flash also has a large UV light component, so it’s possible some substances and surfaces may appear brighter under it due to fluorescence.

    I’ve heard this may also explain the ghostly ‘sphere’ photos some people have reported taking – dust particles amplified by the flash momentarily.

  37. Too many comments to wade through and check, sorry – but are they simply standing in front of a window? And the blonde girl is a reflection?

    Might explain the odd cropping too.

  38. I think we should be more worried about the photographer, and what possessed her to claim there was a ghost in the photo.

  39. I agree with @yochu and others: A long exposure with a flash at the end. The llamas and the small girl were relatively stationary, the other girl was dashing through and was picked up by the flash.

    Details that support this:

    The smaller girl and the small llama’s ear are CASTING SHADOWS on the ghost!

    Look at the highlights on the trucks and other fine details in the background. They are all smeared, indicating slight hand motion during the long exposure.

    Finally, open up the file with a tool that can show you the meta-data inside the file. It shows this when I open it using Preview on Mac OSX:

    Aperture Value: 2.75
    Color Space: sRGB
    Compressed Bits Per Pixel: 3
    Date Time Digitized: 2008:09:11 19:45:57
    Date Time Original: 2008:09:11 19:45:57
    Exif Version: 2.2
    Exposure Bias Value: 0
    Exposure Time: 1
    Flash: Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode
    FlashPix Version: 1.0
    FNumber: 2.6
    Focal Length: 5.8
    Focal Plane Resolution Unit: inches
    Focal Plane X Resolution: 14485.21
    Focal Plane Y Resolution: 14506.67
    ISO Speed Ratings: 80
    Max Aperture Value: 2.75
    Metering Mode: Pattern
    Pixel X Dimension: 2448
    Pixel Y Dimension: 3264
    Sensing Method: One-chip color area sensor
    Shutter Speed Value: 0
    Firmware: Firmware Version 1.00
    FlashCompensation: 0
    Lens Info: 5.8, 23.2, 0, 0
    Lens Model: 5.8-23.2 mm

    NOTE the flash was fired, and the exposure time is “1” – ONE FULL SECOND. That’s a very long exposure for this type of snapshot.

  40. You know what would really settle this? If the reflected ‘ghost-girl’ in the photo came forward and posted a comment on this blog…

  41. Without any photograph of the alleged dead sister, what is the point of even speculating? This is just encouraging deluded or grieving people in their paranormal beliefs by giving them a platform to publicise their claims.

    Whilst it’s nice to believe that the ghost of one’s dead sister might manifest itself in a llama photo (even though she didn’t die at the age she is meant to be in the picture), I think it’s borderline unethical to encourage such beliefs without the slightest bit of supporting evidence.

  42. Oops, please ignore my previous post: the perils of skip-reading. I didn’t know any identity had been put forward for the girl in the photo. My mistake.

  43. I am more cncernered by the arm that looks like it is trying to strangle the Llama in the foreground!
    Was there a window in the Llama pen with the kid in white behind the glass?

  44. In looking at it closer… it appears that the girl was looking down (at her feet) when the flash went off and then popped her head up for the remainder of the exposure. I can certainly see what looks like a long-haired head superimposed on her right shoulder.

    The main part of her body most likely remained pretty still throughout and therefore appears opaque (only her head is translucent).

    1. Actually, assuming the flash comes at the end, she would have lifted her head just prior to the flash going off.

  45. It’s called “Rear sync”

    Camera exposes for the background (long exposure) then fires flash at the end to light the foreground.

    If objects move in and out of frame during this process the can seem ‘transparent’.

    No mystery.

  46. As a professional photographer I can see immediately that this is a long exposure shot (probably 1/2 second or above) with a flash.

    When you press the button the shutter opens and the flash fires. The flash emits a very bright pulse of light which lasts about 1/5000th of a second and freezes movement. (Bjorn – it’s not ‘read sync’ – this fires the flash at the end of the exposure before the second curtain closes. It’s simple, standard, common or garden front sync, ie. standard flash)

    However, for the rest of the time, the shutter is still open and recording the ‘ambient’ light. Look at the trucks in the background – they’re blurred meaning that the camera wasn’t held totally steady.

    The ‘ghost’ was moving from right to left, and her ‘translucent’ image was recorded when the flash fired. She was probably in darkness when the flash stopped and she continued to walk towards the left – the background image then came through where she was, making her ‘appear’ translucent.

    Also, look at the cheek/chin of the cousin. there are background lights coming through her face as well. Does this mean she is also a ghost. No. Obviously not.

    It’s all standard photography techniques, albeit used by someone who didn’t know what they were doing most probably. I shoot lots of images using this technique for artistic effect.

    However, it does leave the question about why the father made the connection to her mother as a young girl. Probably a case of wanting-to-believe……

  47. I have several problems with the ghost hypothesis:

    1. Why should a ghost be wearing clothes?
    2. Since the Earth is whipping round the sun at quite a rate in a non-straight orbit, how does a ghost with no mass keep up?
    3. If the ghost has mass, what state of matter is it in. Solid, liquid, gas? If not solid, how does it maintain it’s composure?

    To me there’s only one conclusion, it must be a parallel universe leaking into ours. Eherm. Sorry excuse me.

  48. It’s a photo taken against a mirror or window.

    As to the question, Can ghosts manifest as younger versions of themselves?”

    Who knows? Nothing is impossible in this universe, until we we prove otherwise =)

  49. Perhaps ghosts are made up of the same sentient, time-travelling particles that supposedly sabotaged the LHC experiment?

    Not that the accelerator just didn’t work or anything…

  50. Would love to see some follow up from Dr. Wiseman on this one. Once again, I can’t help but think that posts like this are just so he can evaluate our responses, rather than be actually interested in finding an answer to photo. Especially since this one is so easy to figure out from a photographic perspective.

    1. I think that you have only highlighted this to try and create a connection between yourself and Richard Wiseman. It may appear that because of the previous sentence that I am trying to create one also, however by highlighting the possible reason behind highlighting your highlightation I hope to have cancelled that out. however by highlighting the previous sentence from now I have done the same so I will have to highlight the highlightation of all previous sentences as to try and justify myself justifying not trying to create a connection with Richard Wiseman. PJ has tried what McQ has tried also.

      Long exposure shot 

  51. She was not seen by the photographer when lining up the picture, because she was not “there.” Behind the main figures is a plate of glass. The “ghost girl” is to the right and not seen in the glass UNTIL the flash illuminates her.
    Summary: “Ghost Girl” is in the same room but not in the frame, she is to the right and you can not see her reflection until she is “lit up” by the flash.

  52. Maybe they’ve been time travelling, accidentally interupted the moment of their conception and are now fading out. The girl at the front seems to be affected too – her leg is fading and she has a ghost hand on her chest.

  53. I take pictures like this from time to time, on purpose. It’s fun to take long exposure pictures with my daughter, having her move 1/2 the way through the exposure out of the frame so she appears to be “ghosted” in the picture.

  54. My guess is that this is a long exposure shot. A photo that is taken for an extended period of time (look up star trails). For example, the photo was taken for 3 seconds however the girl in white was only present for 1/1.5 so both the girl and the background are present in the phot. further evidence which supports this is that the shot is blurred, which suggests either the person who was holding it moved a little in a long period of time or alot in a short. Becuase the blur is everywhere in the foreground and tghe back, my guess is that she was moving the camera little over a longer period of time.

    thats my opinion anyway

  55. Long exposure with a flash makes sense. I don’t think that a second flash is needed to explain the situation though. Here’s what happened:
    It is a dark scene; most of the foreground is dark while the background has some existing light from the streetlamp and the sky. The “ghost” girl was walking by as the picture was taken. The flash caught her, the cousin, and the llamas.
    Since the people and llamas are in the dark, no light other than that from the flash hit them. This means that there won’t be much blur on them since the quick flash left an impression on the camera’s sensor and no more light from them hit the camera as they moved.
    The “ghost” left the scene after the flash went off but the shutter is still open collecting light. Ambient light from the ground behind her (illuminated by the streetlamp) hits the camera and is superimposed on her image, giving a translucent effect. No light from the dark foreground hits the camera so the foreground remains unchanged.
    This would be an interesting image to replicate… I’ll have to try it sometime.

  56. I would say that the older girl is unlikely to be an apparition of the father’s sister primarily as the clothing type she is wearing does not fit with clothes worn in the 60/70’s or even eighties. It is a zip-up “hoody” type garment that became prevalent in the late 90’s and 00’s. It is perhaps explainable by the “ghost” images left behind on digital camera memory cards, even when deleted images can be recovered from their file imprints and only formatting the cards removes them. It is a possibility the older girl was captured in another image. I neither believe wholly in science or a spiritual realm so the aforementioned is my interpretation of the image.

  57. Could also be use of double exposure, girl in white underexposed along with background for 2stops, then foreground overexposed 2stops this would give a correct exposure.

  58. D’oh! It’s NOT a double exposure, it is a reflection in the glass. Didn’t anyone read my earlier post?

    1. AllenAllen it’s not a reflection in the glass as that method only works when there is no light behind the glass, it can only be done on a set or a stage or on a pitch black evening.
      If there was a pane of glass, the flash that has illuminated the camel will also have reflected off the same pane of glass that the girl in white is reflected off
      Also (excluding the point about light behind the glass), looking at the supposed angle that the glass will have had to be at, the girl in white would have to be illuminated from off the right side of the photo, however, the background area of the right side is the darkest part of the photo.
      Finally, as glass has a higher refractive index than air, you would need a significantly large pane of glass as to not make the photo look fake, for example if you have a glass cup half filled with water and then put a straw in, it looks as if the staw has been cut and moved along a couple of millimetres. As glass has around the same refractive index as water it would have around the same effect therefore you would need a very large pane of glass to make the photos index look consistent.
      So, for the four reasons listed above, the pane of glass method is just not feasible given the location and the lighting of the photo. I think it’s much more likely that the photo has either been doubly exposed or the photo has had a long exposure. Probably out of the two I would say the photo has had a long exposure and in my previous post I have given valid reasons as to why I think this.

    2. Also, as the white coat has more substance than her transparent chest and head, the glass method has not been used because, if so, her whole figure would have the same level of substance

    3. And, if you look below the green arm in the bottom left of the photo, you can see a pair of jeans and a pair of feet wearing pink sandals, clearly, if you look at the original file, they belong to the girl in white however appear to be closer than herself. Looking at her head its sideways looking at the camel rather than fully facing it, combine this with the fact that one foot is foot is in front of another (which is quite a hard stance to balance on if she was stationary) my guess is that she is walking of to the left of the photo, the little bit of blond hair on the middle far left may be hers. This statement further concludes that the camera taken a long exposure shot and, because of the further inconsistency of the substance of her figure, and the pair of feet which apparently belong to her and appear to be walking, disproves the glass method.

    4. There’s no glass, Allen, so there can be no reflection in the glass. It’s caused by slow or rear curtain sync of the flash, as has been explained in a few posts here already.

    5. Richard. Oh Richard… The glass is at an angle.

      Try this simple experiment. Take a hand mirror and look at yourself in it. Now turn it to the left 20 to 30 degrees… still see yourself in it? No, you see what is to the left.

      The glass in the phoe reflects what is probably about 30 degrees to the left (as you look at it). It would not reflect what is directly *in front* that is the point!…. that’s why the camera wielder was surprised.

      “only works when there is no light behind the glass” That’s just silly. Sorry but it is. I get my reflection in windows all the time taking pics at home when it is just dark out.. I guarantee there is no absence of light. 🙂

  59. People keep saying that there is no glass… Where do you get this statement “there is no glass?” You are perhaps claiming that there is a method that you can imagine that requires no glass… fine.

    But you can’t just make up facts/make up claims because that’s just cheating.

    And, sorry, I should have said, that this could be explained *if* there were a large window there. I didn’t say that because I can see the glass very plainly in the photo and thought everyone would see it once it was pointed out… but no. I mean, there are lights reflecting off from it. I could be wrong but it fits what we’re seeing. I think I could pick up a quick $100 if we could get a comment from someone who was there or knew the venue.

    1. There are methods that do not require glass to work. Probable the cheapest and fastest would be a long exposure shot.

  60. Light would still bounce of the glass even if it was 30 degrees from the normal.

    Although you do get a reflection in glass with light in the background, I am saying that the glass, especially as it is not parallel to the camera would be easy to spot, therefore you would need a significantly large pane of glass so that the angle of incidence is the same for the whole shot
    You imply that you can see the glass however earlier you said ‘Or to the left… you’d have to know the angle of the glass.’ This is confusing.

  61. you can see the flash in the girls eyes, and the shadow from the other girls head on her shirt … soooo fake!

  62. The OP is ancient and probably nobody will read this post, but here’s my take on the problematic photo: It’ a TRIPLE exposure. Well, not really, but kind of…

    The background was exposed the whole time the shutter was open, and the smaller girl and llamas were picked up with a flash before the shutter was closed. But, there was probably another person taking photos to the left of the photographer, and ANOTHER flash from another camera just happened to go off during the start of the exposure and picked up the ”ghost-girl” just as she was on her way out of the frame. I was so sure for a while that there had to be a window or glass involved in all of this, mainly because the sky seems to slightly ”overlap” with the larger animals back ear and I thought that the darker area framing the llamas ”snout” had to be a cast shadow, but that’s probably just the camera shaking and movement of the llama. A cast shadow certainly reveals that the ghost-girl was a real person behind the small girl at some time during the exposure. There’s a ”flare” or something on the smaller girls cheek that I can’t infer where it’s coming from, though. It could be background light, but it seems to me that she held her head in that position throughout the exposure, so that’s somewhat doubtful.

    Besides, I thought that all ghosts wear Victorian clothes…

  63. My mom passed away a couple of months ago. At her funeral service, my sister took a couple of photos of my daughter and I on a digital camera. We were sitting next to one another. A week later my sister’s emailed me the photo, along with another photo that was taken just before the one I am going to talk about. The one that we found so exciting was the second one where my mother’s face and arms took over my daughter’s image. My mom always crossed her arms high. In the photo was my mom’s face with her arms crossed high. She liked to do that. My mom didn’t look like she did fixed up for the funeral. She actually looked just like she did when she was sick in the hospital. We would brush her hair back with our hands and tell her we loved her over and over. Her hair was slicked back. It was no doubt my mom. Her neck was swollen from the throat cancer on one side. Her arms were not the same shape as my daughter’s in the other photo taken just before of my daughter and I. My daughter’s clothing was in the second photo with my mom’s crossed arms and my mom’s face. It was a shocker. My sister’s and I know without a shadow of doubt, this photo is our mother showing her presence to us, letting us know she is with us. It was no means my daughter’s face or arms. My daughter’s photo before that one was taken (1st photo), shows my daugher’s face with her fluffy hair, and swooping bags in front with darker hair. My mom was 80 when she died. My daughter is only 27. That is a difference in itself the photos showed. Has anyone ever heard of this happening in photos before? Is there any guess how long a person can stay on Earth before going to the other side? Other weird things have happened too. A couple of weeks after my mom died, I was sitting on our patio watching the birds and eating watermelon. I said to my mom, ” Mama if you are with me, show me a sign like an Indigo Bunting bird”. I picked that bird because I thought that would be the less likely to see. I got up a few minutes later and took my plate into the kitchen, walked over to the window and opened my blind. What did I see….. an Indigo Bunting under the tree. I NEVER see an Indigo Bunting in my yard. Last year, I saw one in the early spring. A few weeks ago, I was outside after dark with the dog. The sky was clear and beautiful. I looked up and said, “Mama if you are here with me show me. Maybe by a star in the sky. Then very high in the sky, a star began to move. It moved far enough for me to know it was not an allusion caused my space gases or etc. Then it just blinked out. Those are the only two times I have asked my mom to show me her presence and both times, I feel she has made herself known. I’m not crazy. I am level headed. I’m not dreaming this to satisfy my wanting my mom to still be with me. Has anything like this ever happened to anyone else in computerland? How long can a dead person stay until it goes to the other side?

    1. the dead can stay on earth until there unfinished busniess is dun and from the sound of it you moms unfinished bussniess is makeing sure all her kids and grandkids are all safe

  64. they are all full of shit my friend you captured a true full body aparishin on film and i have 2 questions for you did you or your cousin fell drained or did your cameria battery go dead if so that is proof in its self that was a true spirit my friend and you can get a hold of me at my e-mail

  65. Pingback: Eneida Canel

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.