(Please click the link and read-up before reading the rest of this post)
http://forgetomori.com/2010/paranormal/ ... to-solved/A bit dissapointed to hear about this being a hoax but understandable.
Two possible scenarios;
1. The girl in the 1922 picture is also a ghost and shes makes a reappearance in the other photo.
2. The girl in the 1922 picture is a real girl but her ghost appears in the other photo.
Most likely: they're all double exposures.
It couldn't have been a double exposure as the postcard was taken in 1922 and the photo in 1995.
And one thing I didn't find out 'til last night was that the man who took the picture developed it himself (he passed away 5 years ago).
WedNESday wrote:
It couldn't have been a double exposure as the postcard was taken in 1922 and the photo in 1995.
You know that you can take a photograph of a photograph, right?
I meant from the same roll of film as if the man had taken the original picture that is the postcard and the one of the fire on the same roll of film.
If he had just simply taken a picture of the photograph then there would be other elements in it not just the girl.
WedNESday wrote:
I meant from the same roll of film as if the man had taken the original picture that is the postcard and the one of the fire on the same roll of film.
If he had just simply taken a picture of the photograph then there would be other elements in it not just the girl.
He probably owned a pair of scissors too.
Has NESDev turned into the History Channel while I wasn't looking?
Part of the setup for something I've been working on involves fashions having been frozen at 1922.
tepples wrote:
Part of the setup for something I've been working on involves fashions having been frozen at 1922.
Huh?
A fictional setting I'm developing for use in various projects has more or less modern technology as we know it, but its styles of dress are from steampunk and earlier periods because of certain random chances that happened differently. The date 1922 figures into it for a very good reason.
tepples wrote:
Most likely: they're all double exposures.
Yes, that seems reasonable to me. (All the possibilities should be considered, though.)