Does this explain some historical paranormal phenomena?

Question

http://www.photographymuseum.com/believe1.html

Did you already know they were able to do this with photography so long ago? I didn't.

Answer 1

Yes that is obviously why i do not believe photographs of ghosts unless they come from me or my friends. But they are easy to spot a fake (don't get me wrong some are difficult), but man those men, camera's and film really hurt the paranormal community.

Answer 2

Cameras in the old days didn't have buttons to take the picture.  The photographer would remove the lens cap to expose the film and then replace it after a certain amount of time had passed.  The length of time was determined by the amount of available light.

So if 30 seconds were required to take a picture, you could take a picture of two people for 15 seconds, replace the cap and have one person leave, then finish the picture with the other person still in the picture.  This would make the person who left appear to be transparent and ghostly.  That's why the horse's head is blurred--because it was moving it while the photographer exposed the film.

It's no coincidence that ghosts which appear in pictures do so in a manner determined by the technology of the day.

EDIT: Thoughtographic Photography...what a gas!

Answer 3

We used to make those with our old camera.  If you have dim lighting, you need to leave the shutter open longer - say, a few minutes under a full Moon.  Just set up the camera on a tripod, take a few minute exposure sitting really still, then roll the film back and take another one - but leave on person where they were and the other person gets out of the frame.  You've got ghosts!

Answer 4

no

Answer 5

There will always be some people who find it fun to perpetrate hoaxes, and so-called spirit photography has not been immune to that tendency. From the moment cameras and film were invented some knucklehead immediately tried to fake pictures of ghosts. Of course, this doesn't mean that all such photos are fakes, but it does mean that this type of evidence is not very trustworthy and cannot be taken at face value.

One of the best collections of evidence I'm aware of that apparently involves genuine psychic photography (but not of spirits or ghosts) is the case of Ted Serios.

Answer 6

Yes, it does. That is precisely why I distrust ALL photographs of ghosts, even digital.