Thanks for all of the punchlines yesterday.  I think the worthy winner was…..

An egg walks into a bar and starts smashing the place up. The French chef storms out of the kitchen and shouts “hey, that’s une euf”. (congrats SuperDave).

I did a short debate about the paranormal on the Today programme yesterday.  Listen to it here.  Obviously I don’t agree with Robert McLuhan’s position, but he is a lovely chap and has a blog here.

Last week I posted a creepy ghost photo.  When getting ready for an event next week, I came across another one from  Here it is….

and the close-up is here….

Any thoughts?





  1. Given the architecture, the door and windows are about average size, and about the same distance from the camera. Hence, the face is rather small to belong to a person looking out from behind the window. Either an ornament, a reflection, or an accident entirely.

    Creepy, yes, unnatural, no.

    1. I disagree. Ghosts do not manifest themselves in perfect proportions. This image is worthy of more investigation.

    1. I could see this being a possibility. It looks like there might be a horizontal line just above the face where the screen meets the case of the television, and a difference in the shadows on the left where the case ends and empty space begins.

  2. Occam’s razor: it looks like a person, so it’s probably a person. Good spot on the shirt logo – I’d agree most probably the cleaner (big house too, so would be more likely to have one). Spooky.

  3. I don’t understand this one. Where is there supposed to be a ghost? Theere’s a kid standing at the window, are you saying this is the ghost?

  4. A child-sized person standing or even kneeling in front of the window (hence the apparent shortness of the person). Maybe a cleaner looked up when cleaning the skirting boards? There are candles in the windows either side of the door, too, suggesting it is unlikely to be a TV image.

    Nothing in this image suggests ‘GHOST’ to me. Even if ‘ghosts’ existed, surely they wouldn’t create an image on a photograph.

  5. I don’t think it’s a person… that’s not to say I think it’s a ghost though.

    It looks to me like the lefthand side of the face is extended over where the curtains are, especially if you look at the eye. However, the ‘shirt’ looks to either be the other side of the curtain, or not a shirt at all.

    The ‘Shirt’ looks very, very crisp to me, Maybe my ironic isn’t up to much but my collars don’t bend that nicely. I think it’s actually some kind of ornament, maybe a greetings card, on the windowsill. Despite the description up on the website saying the photo was from May 2008 ( the wreath on the front door suggests that it’s Christmas, so having greetings cards about is not exactly a stretch. There are also precious little leaves on the tree in front of the house, which also suggest it’s not in May. All this is neither here not there with regards to the ghostliness of the photo, but it does mean that I have doubt as to the honesty of the authors claims about the date, which leads me to question the claims that A) there was no-one in the house and b) that this was submitted to Kodak.

    There is a weird light bouncing off the collar bone of the ‘ghost’, possibly from the candle (Ps. Don’t leave candles burning if their is no-one in the house 😉 ) which would seem odd if it were indeed a ghost, not just some form of object in the room.

    The ‘face’ is floating above the body, and seems to be a very different colour to the ‘skin’ above the shirt. The features are also rather deformed IMHO, which further leads me to think not a real person.

    If we look in the rest of the photo, there are a lot of strange translucent reflections in the glass. I think the ‘face’ is just a three dotted reflection that can be considered to look a bit like a face.

    You’ll also notice a blob floating in the middle of the other side of the window. Is this also a face? Nope, it’s another reflection.

  6. FIrst off, it’s not a candle. It’s a door left ajar opening onto a room at the rear of the house showing a small strip of window and an electric light on through the narrow gap. There is a strong possibility that what appears to be an electric light is actually the sun reflected of, say a greenhouse roof in the back garden.

    The Blue shirt is a blue paper gift-bag of a shape similar to that of a McDonalds take-out bag with the top rolled over. The Badge is a a reflection of the window of a car parked just to the left (as we look at the facade) of the house combined with a very conveniently placed fold in the bag.

    the “face” is a reflection of the cab an open truck driving past the house.

    The garden is deeper than it appears in the photograph and the photographer is on the same side of the road as the house. The car and truck behind him.

    a freakish number of coincidental light effects.

  7. The lighting is wrong for this to be what it appears to be. The candle is casting no light onto ‘her’ face and she appears to have a very bright pin-point of light on her neck. There is a statue by the front door – I wonder if there is another that we can’t see and the face (if it isn’t just Pareidolia) is a reflection of this? Also there is a red line above the window pane, is this an artifact or is there really something red inside the house that is part of the ‘face’.

  8. Another vote for the “television screen” theory. The newer ones are so big and bright that you can see them clearly, through window, even from across the street.

  9. I don’t think the photo was intended as a fake. It doesn’t even look much like a ghost to me; I think our propensity to find faces in just about any obscure image is what is happening here. Yes, it looks vaguely like a face. But it looks more like something in the background of the room that just happened to come together to form a rough, facial image from the angle at which we are viewing it. I don’t think it was intentionally done to deceive people and I certainly don’t think it’s a ghost.

  10. “Don’t give up what you do know for what you don’t know”.

    There is no such thing as ghosts, therefore the image in the window is not a ghost.

  11. Reflection of a billboard maybe? The blue thing under look like a reflected portaloo and you can kind of see the rest of the rectangle toward the left.

  12. Why are all Photos of ghosts made with out of focus ? Not one sharp one exists ?
    I think it looks ghosty because its a Picture made with long exposure (yes also digital photos can have a long exposure). So, all persons that move while shot will be unnatural, and with above-average shadows in her eyeholes…

    1. “Why are all Photos of ghosts made with out of focus ? Not one sharp one exists ?”
      I have a hunch that, if ghosts existed, a few of them would have been booked on “Oprah” by now.

  13. The candles in the front windows are obviously battery operated by the color. My guess is there is a person in the house looking out. Where is the thinking otherwise ? How is this even a ghost photo. I dont get it.

  14. It just looks like the shroud on one of those light that stands on the floor – I wouldn’t even have seen the face it the title didn’t mention ghost…

  15. Turning the photo upside down, the “eyes” in the “face” look a lot more square – reflection of the windows of a house across the street? Although it looks at a rather odd angle for that.

  16. I investigated this home nearly a year ago and was referred by Jeff Danelek. We investigated the home and not the photo or circumstances surrounding the photo, but I was able to review the original and did not find evidence of Photoshop (which was my first guess). The candles are electric, the only child in the home is in his teens and was the one that took the photo, the television is in the far left hand corner of the room, but would not be seen at this angle nor could we see it very well when outside in similar conditions. There are no billboards on or near this street, however, the windows do give off strong reflections of the homes across the street but nothing that would produce this similar image. The nicest family lives in this home and they would never fabricate this photo or any other details surrounding their case, as much as I hate to admit it this photo has stumped me and we focused on helping the family through other events that were happening in the home.

  17. This has to be one of the most captivating images on the subject I have personally ever seen.

    The home/photo owner was kind enough to share with me a full size copy of the original image which I spent about a month and a half digging into last year. And the further I dug into it, the stranger it got.

    And just to cover my bases here, let me state for the record that I have hobbied in digital graphics since 1997 and have investigated many odd images. This one still holds top spot.

    I believe that the image is genuine and the owner of the home is being honest. That is to say – I do not think there is a purposeful effort to deceive – there does appear to be a child-like figure standing within the house-structure at the window.

    Now, that all being said, is what we see a real ghost? I mean, we may believe in life after physical death but… as for proof? We won’t have that until we ourselves someday get there. So, for now, it’s up to you to make that call for yourself.

    In closing, I think that life is always going to be full of mysteries and chances to test your brain. Sometimes you may get taken in by those who purposely set out to fool you. But if you immediately rule out everything because of a fear of being jigged, you’ll never look under the first rock… or turn the first page in a book.

    You walk the thin ice to find what is on the other side or you stay at home and look at the lake from the safety of the bank.

    It’s your choice.

    My special thanks again to picture/home owner, Lu Ann, for sharing her picture and her time.

    NOTE: This picture and story has several other locations… one being the property of this same Prof. Wiseman and is located here:

  18. Add a “there was noone in the house while the picture was taken” and it’s like all the other cheap-ghost-pictures…

  19. The blue “shirt” seems to me to be something that sits inside the house, perhaps slightly deeper than the electric candle. A greeting card perhaps? The smaller bright spot might be the candle’s reflection off the card’s glossy surface.
    Then to the “face”. Part of the bright feature (left cheek if it was somebody looking out) covers area that is in front of the curtain: the source is not in the room. Note there is a slightly brighter area that runs to the left and a bit down from the bright feature, the area’s height matching about that of the feature. This would be consistent with a flying animal (e.g. a small bird, flapping madly) illuminated by a flash at one end of its trajectory and receiving just the natural lighting for the rest of the shutter opening.
    There’s no EXIF data in the images, it would be nice to know the shutter speed and flash usage.
    BTW, my pareidolia-center interpreted that the face belongs to a bald man with a black beard, definitely not a girl.

  20. This is clearly something very strange and unusual. There is a creepiness about it that deserves looking into closer. This is not pareidolia.

  21. Pingback: gardening
  22. May I ask are you the Professor Richard Wiseman.. Many years ago who presented the Y files on an obsecure satellite tv Station.. Much respected in the world of Parapsychology and hailed by Dr Ciarian Okeeffe?.. I would suggest Peirodolia is the most likely answer. I’m the student of Parapsychology at Paranormal Services on Facebook.. I would be honoured if you would check out our page Sir

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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