SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!
Which would of course mean that the people who sent Mr Grosse these were trying to fool him with quite elaborate hoaxes that had a slight chance of being published in some book not many people would read or a TV programme like this. Adding the Enfield poltergeist case, where the kids definetly were trying to hoax at least some events, that would make him seem really gullible. On the other hand, he did say more than once that they sometimes did catch the kids in flagrante delicto and that it was usually no problem to tell that from the genuine stuff. So I guess he was on the lookout for hoaxers with the fotos, too.The one with the subway electric chair and the floating woman at the end look like darkroom manipulation with superimposed imagery.
Thanks for the expert opinion. I hadn't even been thinking about parallax distortion. So I guess, even if one would accept for a second the admittedly slight possibility that Ted Serios wasn't a hoaxer and that images in one's consciousness (in this case a hypothetical discarnate one) can turn up on fotographic film, that still couldn't be the explanation here, because that would probably not seem to be with the people at the table, but rather superimposed, like the one with the singers, as it is not a real image but only a thought construct or whatever one might call that. There goes my parapsychological speculation...But, the first one with the large headed woman that appears in the first 'ghost' photo is genuinely intriguing as the darkroom requirements for this are beyond me. At first I thought she was a cutout that had been inserted into the frame in the darkroom and the neg had been cut around the glasses, but the glasses in front of her have parallax distortion of her shirt in the glasses which means she, or her image, must have been physically present at the time the image was taken. The only thing that makes sense here is that there was an actual large cut out image placed behind the table and between the two women. Perhaps having a large printed image present at the time of shutter release would also account for the size differential and the blurriness of her specifc image.
According to Mr Grosse, the wall behind the boy is within the tunnels, where there are no posters. He says it in the vid.Can't be 100% certain, but I THINK the picture of a guy in an electric chair may be a movie poster, and the image is either outside on the wall, or in the carriage and simply reflected back.
As Mr Grosse says, the image shows the execution of Bruno Hauptmann (who was convicted of murdering the Lindbergh baby), as it is depicted in Mme Tussaud's wax museum (which is, as I remember, not too far away from where the subway was passing). What's in the picture, but not in the wax museum, are the sparks emanating from the wrists.I thought at first that the image was from the Wes Craven film 'Shocker', but it's not that one as it was an orange jump suit in that poster.
Of course, we only have the word of the investigator that there could have been no poster on the wall outside. Mr Grosse might have been mistaken. He also says it seems to be right up on the glass and I don't see why that should be a fact either (of course, we are not looking at the originals here).Can't be 100% certain, but I THINK the picture of a guy in an electric chair may be a movie poster, and the image is either outside on the wall, or in the carriage and simply reflected back.
I think this is super interesting just for the simple fact these are very weird. If you were setting about to fake a ghost photo none of these seem to be the route one would take if you actually wanted your ghost photo to be "believable". None of these images mesh with our preconceived notions of what ghosts might look like on film.Here's a vid I found quite interesting in which the late Maurice Grosse (who investigated the Enfield Poltergeist for the SPR) presented a few photos he thought were genuinely unexplainable. This was before digital photography.
Of course, most of them can be explained by double exposure and it's striking how many of the "ghosts" in these pictures clearly were people photos themselves (taken long before) that "somehow" ended up in the new photo. The witnesses of course say that they are not double exposues and that the fotos just turned up without anyone tampering with them, and Mr. Grosse obviously saw no reason to doubt their testimony.