92 Responses

  1. drFaust at |

    spooky stuff! puts that paranormal movie to shame :)

    Reply
    1. Blistered at |

      Its a shame that most of these aren't real.

      Reply
      1. John Fisher at |

        You say most, I’m curious as to which ones you think are real?
        Personally I saw nothing to prove the existence of ghosts.

        Reply
        1. Joseph DeSantis at |

          See a ghost and you wouldn’t be posting that, I used to be in a Paranormal research group. I had a lot of interesting times, nonetheless I am not even 30 yet but have stopped fully searching for the paranormal for self-preservation reasons!

          Reply
          1. Ash Pryce at |

            “See a ghost and you wouldn’t be posting that,”

            I can’t speak for John but I’d still be saying that. I’ve experienced many things I can’t explain that people who believe in ghosts say is supernatural. I simply accept them as unexplained- unexaplined does not equal ghost.

            “I used to be in a Paranormal research group.”

            How did you go about research: Did you use Ouija Boards? Did you use EMF meters? Did you use psychics? Did you useVoice recording? Did you use thermometres? If the answer to any of these is “Yes” you were probably researching incorrectly as none of these items has been shown to be able to react to “ghosts” only people’s pre-conceived expectations.

            Reply
  2. Nagalot at |

    Regarding number 2:

    I saw a documentary where at one point they were talking about this photo. It turns out that somehow it and another photo from the same film overlapped. Another significant thing is that, according to the experts, her head is disproportionally big .

    Reply
    1. brad at |

      i thought it was debunked because her white scarf overlapped the door of the car.

      Reply
  3. mattkendrick.com at |

    Very interesting stuff. I would like to see some more recent activity though.

    Reply
    1. aarles at |

      go to this site: cazafantasmas.com it’s in spanish, but they have very good footage.

      Reply
  4. London Differently at |

    I love these pictures! I came across this from a link posted on Twitter and am really glad I clicked through: they're fascinating! I'm always a bit cynical when I see ghost photographs, but the focus on images which pre-date current photo wizadry makes these particularly intriguing, and I really enjoyed your write up to introduce the background.

    Thanks for compiling this!

    Reply
  5. Carrie at |

    Fascinating images! I know of a couple of them and they're still very intriguing :)

    Reply
  6. joeblogg at |

    it amazes me that it occurs to nobody that either a film or digital camera captures nothing but light in the range VISIBLE TO HUMANS. so if there is something there giving out visible light that the camera catches, then a human would see it, no doubt at all. that is why i am always sceptical of photos in which the ghost is said to appear afterwards. also, you said that some of those areas had 'high levels of electromagnetic anomalies'- 'electromagnetic activity' is better known as 'light'- hardly surprising there was a bit of that around, and if there was an 'anomaly,' then all youre saying is that there was a particularly bright or dark area, and that woman doesnt look particularly bright or dark.

    also, have you ever seen a long exposure picture in which someone moves half way through? they look translucent, and dark areas look almost transparent, and as for the bearded guy, i could personally identify that as any number of people.

    ghosts would be pretty cool though….

    Reply
    1. MrWeiner at |

      I'm just playing some devil's advocate here, so don't get defensive. You say that cameras only light within the visible spectrum. Agreed. However, that does not address #4, which I think tears quite the hole in your argument. The photo was taken with infrared red film, in which case if the "ghost" were to appear through infrared light, then it would be captured by the film, not seen by anybody there, and not captured by conventional film, which would include the high speed film. Interestingly enough, the high speed did not capture the ghost. So, going based solely on what you have already addressed as "rules", we can assume that every photograph is not real, except for #4. Any response? Again, just playing devil's advocate…please don't hurt me. :P

      Reply
    2. Cory at |

      Also, a lot of the pictures had a very long exposure time, so if you’ve ever heard about when cameras were JUST made and people had to stand in front of them for an hour or longer for it to finish taking the picture… well that’s when these images come up. I’m sure if you looked in the same exact spot without blinking once and without your eyes going out of focus, you’d see these things too.It’s amazing to me that it doesn’t occur to you that these are paranormal situations. There is nothing normal about them.

      Reply
  7. wonderwon at |

    Frightened that our God is dead,

    We seek to raise the dead instead.

    Reply
  8. jesse at |

    i used the The Chinnery Photo photo for one of my logo's for a psx game

    Reply
  9. Kandinsky at |

    Number 8 is a certain hoax. The only image that is open to question is Number 5. Google the rest and see for yourselves. So far, there isn't a single image ever produced that shows a ghost. I believe in the possibility of ghosts (a lot of folk make the claim), but in reality there's no 'smoking gun' image, video or audio anywhere at all.

    Reply
    1. andrew at |

      #5 I would certainly like to see what is covered by that insert.

      Reply
    2. ttoxic at |

      i have personally taken one of these photos. i was taking a picture of myself through a mirror and when pulled up in the computer there is a clear as day profile of my grandma standing behind me who died in a house fire 2 years prior.

      Reply
    3. David at |

      lol @ Kandinsky “So far, there isnt a single image ever produced that shows a ghost”

      somebody thinks pretty highly of himself huh?

      which other life questions can you absolutely 100% without a doubt answer correctly?

      did the big bang happen?

      what about aliens?

      please give us insight to your omniscience!

      Reply
  10. Someone at |

    Your #1 photo was thoroughly debunked a long time ago. And I can't understand how anyone could miss the obvious double-exposure artifacts (which I see you've carefully cropped out here).

    Reply
    1. TopTenz Master at |

      I didn't crop anything. The picture was submitted as found. If there are other pics, please provide links for our readers. Thanks.

      Reply
  11. li at |

    No color ghosts?

    Reply
  12. Jen at |

    My mom used to work at that Toys R Us when she was a teenager. She told me it was definitely haunted, no doubt about it. What a CREEPY photo.

    Reply
  13. Marcelo Novaes at |

    These supposed ghosts are nothing more than poor photographers committing mistakes (in exposure, mostly). This is why the big bulk of them is from a long time ago, where technique and technology left plenty of space for errors. Recently, aside from double-exposure, the main source of supposed ghosts is the use of low-quality optical accessories – as filters, for example – and the more common use of cell phones with cameras and the alike. But, nonetheless, it’s fun to see how people tend to believe and make up stories to support the myths…

    Reply
  14. Tony at |

    These are definitely creepy photos. I believe that there are many things we don't properly understand, but I have also double exposed photographs, which gives some strange effects.

    Reply
  15. Lelale at |

    la 2 es falsa, por que el cuello de la camisa de la mujer en el asiento trasero se trasluce o confunde en el marco de la ventanilla.

    La primera est? incompleta, la foto completa se ven dos cuadros en la pared. Si uno ve las luz no coincide la fuente con la sombra reflejada por los marcos de esos cuadros.

    Reply
  16. Dave at |

    Right off the bat your choice for #10 discredits your judgment on the subject of whether or not a photograph is doctored. It's obviously a double exposure. For one thing, the image of the baby looks like it was taken from a different angle than the image of the grave site.

    Reply
    1. Kelsey at |

      also you can see through the gravestone. you can see the fencing on the top left corner of the stone.

      Reply
  17. swarnaw at |

    Very interesting stuff.

    Reply
  18. Andrew at |

    Number 6 if you zoom in on the girl looks really creepy

    Reply
  19. Carp23 at |

    freshpics.blogspot.com/2010/02/best-ghost-pictures-ever-taken.html

    Who's stealing from who?

    Reply
    1. TopTenz Master at |

      Considering this list was was posted on January 4, 2010 and that list was published February 22, 2010, I would say we had our content stolen which would be about the millionth time or so that has happened, We are very popular.

      Reply
      1. Ed at |

        That might’ve been a genuine question.

        Reply
    2. David at |

      haha BOOM

      Reply
  20. dum-da-dum-dum at |

    @ joeblog

    ‘electromagnetic activity’ is better known as ‘light’ – Really? The only visible wavelength is at 400-700nm, a tiny, tiny portion of the full wavelength.

    Reply
  21. Ash Pryce at |

    10: Most likely a double exposure, though could also have been a problem with the developing.

    9: Pareidolia (the human mind’s ability to see patterns in random shapes)

    8: Pareidolia, albeit a fine example.

    7: Could be photographer blindness- the phenomenon where the photographer does not see everything in an image they take, only what they are focusing on.

    6: Pareidolia

    5: Pareidolia, double exposure, long exposure and the man moved his head. Someone else. Pick one.

    4: Light. Nothing more.

    3: Possible long exposure, gentleman sits in chair then quickly vacates when he realises a photograph is being taken, or he was sat there at the start. Couple with photographer blindness.

    2: Pareidolia

    1: Light getting into the film.

    Now these are only possible explanations, maybe they are ghosts (I don’t believe in ghosts), but when we have naturalistic explanations, even far fetched ones surely they are still more likely than a ghost?

    Reply
    1. andy at |

      How come wherever you go in the world you always get a Mr know it all?

      Reply
    2. Dayadhvam at |

      @Ash Pryce

      How on earth is #2 a case of pareidolia?! It’s quite clearly a human being. The family even identify it as their mother.
      As for #4, it can’t simply be “Nothing more than light”. What about the gentleman in the background? The people who were there say that he wasn’t present (and he wasn’t in the rest of the footage that was shot from the vantage point of the “man” in question).
      As for #5, can you read? The other members of the crew even identified the figure as their fellow crewmember.
      Again, how on earth is #8 pareidolia?! It’s quite clearly a girl. I’m very certain that it’s not my mind making random opaque shapes. As you can it see, the girl appears opaque, which means something is in the way of the light. If it’s not what it is claimed to be, then what is it?

      Indeed, we should be sceptical about photographs of ghosts, as we should with most things, but if you’re going to completely ignore witness accounts (and refuse to read the text) then you’re not making yourself look very “scientific” at all. Yes, witness accounts are not always reliable, but I find it ludicrous that particular groups of “secularists” and “atheists” tend to jump to that conclusion whenever a “spiritual” person claims something that is contrary to their beliefs, as if ALL religious and spiritual people are completely deluded.

      Besides, why do ghosts have to necessarily be “un-naturalistic”? Maybe they are part of nature. Obviously, you must believe that science has discovered everything, or enough to disregard “spiritual” beliefs, if you think the notion of the existence of ghosts is contrary to nature.

      Reply
      1. Jessica Blight at |

        I’m a Atheist and fully believe in Ghosts. I fully and undoubtedly believe there is life after death. I’m very sensitive to spirits as I have seen them all my life, I can also feel there energy. I’m not being a b**** , but please don’t put all Atheists in that ” non-believing douchebag” section.. Atheism is the non-belief in god or gods. Not the non-belief in the supernatural..

        Reply
      2. Ed at |

        I would argue that #2 isn’t particularly clear. I’d say pareidolia.

        Reply
    3. David at |

      @ AshPryce

      saying all those biased “Explanations” and following it up with “i dont believe in ghosts.” 100% discredits all of it. (not that anybody took you seriously)

      Reply
  22. jaja at |

    nice compilation…. i want more…. can i have some links to find more of this photos….

    Reply
  23. gerry at |

    Its funny at the way some people would argue just to disprove the existence of ghosts.

    Reply
  24. Matthew McColl at |

    I am no photographic expert so I have to trust where it says that the photos are authentic, but there are a few taken in the 1990′s and both are said to be done by expert photographers. My question is this: Why are they in black and white?

    Reply
  25. fajas colombianas at |

    How come most ghost photo’s are black and white.

    Reply
    1. Sasha at |

      Because it’s easier for your eyes to play tricks on you when something is in black and white… makes it easier to see the “ghosts”. Not a lot of color ones because, for example, if number 2 were taken in color and you could see that whatever the lady is supposed to be is really part of the headrest or something… it suddenly wouldn’t be a ghost photo.

      Reply
  26. anonymous at |

    I personally think photos number 6,5 and 3 are the most realistic photo of real ghost because in times like those people cant fake those photos with transparancy without light shining through out them. I think most of them were either hoax or images of objects made diffent because of human mind. As one unuasual objective can trigger a man’s mind and so as the lightest infraction of a hungry stomach etch. can change man’s perspective about things.

    Reply
  27. ed at |

    #4 the guy is wearing classic seventys close, not 1890′s stuff!

    Reply
    1. David at |

      clothes

      Reply
      1. Ed at |

        Good call, I cannot believe I wrote that.

        Reply
  28. Gabby at |

    Just because we humans don’t understand something, doesn’t mean it isn’t so…

    Reply
    1. David at |

      HUH!?

      dont you know that 3/4 of the people that comment on here know EVERYTHING?

      Reply
      1. TopTenz Master at |

        I think it is much higher than that. And I read every comment. All 25,000 that have been approved.

        Reply
  29. Jen at |

    I believe in ghosts, but number 8 has been proven to be a hoax. The girl in the fire was cropped from a postcard and put into the picture.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279329/Wem-ghost-picture-mystery-resolved-eagled-eyed-pensioner.html

    Reply
    1. Kita at |

      I looked at that site and found it bogus. The pictures look nothing alike in the facial area. Maybe a combination of two pictures… But that reasoning does not work for that picture. So you may keep your belief in ghosts for now.

      Reply
      1. K.T. at |

        Number 8 was, in fact, proven. Look at the girl in the postcard and look at the picture. They are the EXACT same person. He probably did a bit to change the way she looked slightly to create a more convincing photograph but alas, it is not real. Honestly I was disappointed when I found out it was faked. If it were genuine it’d be one of the best apparition photos I’ve ever seen. I’ve been investigating for 6 years now.

        Reply
        1. andrew at |

          If you cut and paste the girl from the photo and set her next to the fire photo, it is REALLY obvious.

          Reply
          1. Kita at |

            Eh… The main problem is with the close ups. You can see the face of the girl in the picture, but not in the postcard. Maybe the other website has a crappy version, but from what I see… I can’t tell you that that is the same girl without a single doubt. I’m not a photographer so I don’t know if you can make the face look clearer without photoshop.

            Reply
    2. Bj at |

      The photo of the girl on the postcard isn’t the same as the photo of the girl in the fire. U can’t see the face at all on the postcard. The clothes are similar but that’s about it

      Reply
  30. Caitlin at |

    I think it’s funny they mentioned these were taken before digital cameras and photshop but they can easily be achieved with a film camera. A long shutter speed can make these ghosted effects. If the subject does not stay in the frame the whole time, then they look transparent. I made some for a photogrpahy class.

    Reply
  31. Marv at |

    Just read a great investigative article on the Watertown photos. Upshot is that the faces are pasted in, and extra stanchions are pasted in over the cut lines. A little airbrushing to provide continuity with the waves, and there you have it. Instant ghost faces. By the way, the author of the article found the original specs for the tanker, and calculated that the faces would have each been as large as a full-grown person.

    Reply
  32. jonnycakes at |

    i’m not an expert on photos or anything, but some of them are interesting for sure. A photo that didn’t make the list that I always found intriguing was one taken by Harry Houdini at a lady’s funeral. He made a career out of debunking the “paranormal,” and apparently this was the only time he could offer no explanation. Supposedly they had ruled out the possibility of human/camera error for some reason.

    Reply
  33. Jose at |

    i believe that theres something like a ghost, maybe just energy, but these pictures do not show me anything. specially because if you notice it, some of them are picture of stuff like a set of stairs. or a tree (not even a nice tree), it just seems like they were taken to be photoshopped.. or an old school version of photoshop.

    Reply
  34. Aaron at |

    In number three, how could somebody take the photo if the house was empty? And why would somebody take a picture of an empty chair.

    Reply
    1. annie at |

      i agree with you

      Reply
  35. ed at |

    In these times, with all the people carrying camera phones, you would think there would be more ufo and ghost pictures.
    Wonder why not.

    Reply
  36. David at |

    Actually it’s realllllly easy to fake these photos now AND back then. Ever wonder why people didn’t used to smile in their photos? It’s because primitive cameras took a long time for film to register the light that creates a photo. People didn’t smile because it was hard to hold it for the minute or two while their photo was taken. If you DID move in one of these photos it would create a blur or a shadow or faint image or a person. Search how to make a coffee can camera and you can EASILY do this yourself. You can create really cool images (with the right tools, you will need access to a dark room) that look extremely ghosty.

    I want to believe in ghosts but until one kicks me in the face I’m not going to.

    Reply
  37. liz at |

    people who think they are so smart to say that nothing like this could happen, humans do not know everything that there is in existence. i believe in the paranormal, that there is something more than to just us. people who discredit these with “they could have made it up”, are truly “dumb”. i really don’t get people these days…

    Reply
  38. andrew at |

    The burning building girl has been debunked as the image of a girl from a postcard, as has the faces in the sea. See here: http://paranormal.about.com/b/2010/05/29/classic-ghost-photos-debunked.htm

    The #1 photo is a double exposure of a statue of the madonna.

    Reply
  39. MadiT at |

    To the people that took the time to write out reasons why EVERY photo on this list is bogus, is it so difficult to believe that not everything can be a coincidence? If something is occurring and being witnessed by a lot of people in a lot of places, it can’t all be a hoax that people make up for a laugh. I’m not particularly spiritual, but I think if so many people have personally witnessed ghost activity, then it couldn’t all just be a coincidence. At least, it would be a very elaborate and unlikely coincidence.

    Reply
    1. Ash Pryce at |

      By that argument Allah is the one true god, also Jehovah is the one true god, oh and Yahweh is the one true god, and L Ron Hubbard was right we’re all descended from alien thetans, aliens are watching us, time travellers are amongst us etc etc

      Argument Ad Populum is invalid. Rememebr people are witnessing different things and assuming they are all the same, there are many descirptions of ghosts many that contradict and also change over time- Victorians saw ghosts in white sheets, today we see ghosts in full clothes.

      A billion people can be wrong. One of the main reasons for rejecting ghost photos is ebcause it is assumed that ghost, if they exist, can be captured on film but strangley can’t be seen with the human eye.

      Rememebr, even if we can find NO natural rational answer for an occurence does not mean it is supernatural, it just means its unexplained.

      Reply
  40. annie at |

    i saw the pictures,well.. interesting ! but it’s more interesting when i saw people are hardly argueing about it.
    calm down my friends,just enjoy it,don’t make it hard for your self !!

    Reply
  41. Nell Rose at |

    Hi, I am always suspicious of modern photos, as they can always be faked. But the old ones always intrigue me. No one at that time would know how to fake them. Amazing pictures, thanks

    Reply
  42. baffy at |

    10-fake-you can clearly see the arm of an adult around the baby.
    8-fake-admitted by the photographer.
    3-false positive. The exposure on this photo was an hour long.

    Reply
  43. Beondra at |

    Ghosts must not like color pictures for some reason

    Reply
  44. Piper at |

    Iv seen many things in this life most i can’t explain and even more so when I was younger I and died just for a bit but even though I can see I still prefer to keep whats left of my sanity

    Reply
  45. Tilen Hrovatic at |

    I think that “Brown Lady” is the most authentic photo of ghosts. Others are great too but I’m not so sure about some of them. Some look like fakes for me, I don’t know. But they surely look more real than most of “real ghost photos” taken with digital cameras and photoshoped. Nice list and nice article.

    Reply
  46. Jack at |

    In my opinion, some photos from this article are fake. The only one which I think is authentic is The Brown lady.

    Reply
  47. Jen at |

    Do modern day cameras scare away ghosts??

    Reply
  48. bob at |

    who ya gonna call, ghostbusters!

    Reply
  49. precious at |

    # 10 is the most unbelievable photo!!! how dare you use this child freak everyone! it’s obvious..

    Reply
  50. Marv at |

    The 5. HMS Daedalus Photo, 1919, is very easy to explain: The man in the background is not Freddy Jackson. Because there was no Freddy Jackson. The story was created after the photo was taken by a man who thought the “ghostly” face would make a good yarn.

    The photo is genuine, to be sure. But it’s a genuine photo of people who were all alive.

    Research it if you don’t believe me.

    Reply
    1. craig at |

      Interesting coincidence regarding photo number 5 re Sir Victor Goddard’s photo of Freddy Jackson.
      I have unearthed an old photo album which contains several original photos of Sir Victor Goddard on a sailing trip on the Norfolk Broads in England with 2 friends in September 1913,6 years before he took the famous Freddy Jackson photo.
      On one of the album pages there are 2 nearly identical photos of Victor sailing a yacht.The photo on the left has the top of his head cut off and the photo on the right is as it should be.His friend who took the photos must have realised that he had missed the top of Victor’s head and took the other photo seconds after.There is a gap between the photos in the album page where Victor has written.. ‘advt.Try ‘Killum Kwik’ for the hair.Gives a luxuriant growth after 1st application.Mr R Victor Goddard the World’s great Adonis writes.I was bald(in photo 1)and had tried all remedies but with no success.3 minutes after the first application of your wonderful ointment I became(as in photo 2)with parting complete!
      I believe Sir Victor was 16 years old when writing the entry in the album in 1913.
      I am in no way suggesting that the Freddy Jackson photo could be fake but only dislosing that Sir Victor Goddard had a connection with an interesting photo of a head in the past and in this particular case it was his own!Ijust think it’s a strange coincidence.
      Craig.

      Reply
  51. Skeptic L. at |

    i can fake the brown lady with a modern camera no photo editing.All you have to do is take a clear peace of plastic like the plastic on the little paper DVD envelopes or the wrapper that you take off a new CD and take a marker of what ever color to draw a person on the little plastic peace.Take out your cell phone, put the plastic over the lens , adjust your ghost and take a picture.Now you have a creepy looking shadow ghost picture!

    Reply
  52. Anna at |

    There will always be argument about whether photos like these are genuine or not. That fact alone means some may be genuine. Consider the following too. What if number 10 was a double exposure that wasn’t deliberate? Seems even more beyond our comprehension and frightening. What if some of the photos are paraeidolia? Even if a pattern in something does look like something or somebody it’s inexplicable and beyond our comprehension. What if something is a trick of light or reflection? Still just as frightening if it’s not deliberate. Coincidence itself can be just as spooky. These are just some of my thoughts. I think that whether you want to prove something or disprove it, it’s the argument (and coincidence) that makes the paranormal topic so frightening.

    Reply
  53. Joe at |

    Double exposures have been around since the invention of cameras. So have cut outs pasted onto photos and re-photographed. Everything I saw could have been produced by accident easily. This collection of pictures does not convince that ghosts exist.

    Reply
  54. Shirley at |

    The only people who don’t believe is the ones who has not experience any thing or has not paid attention. I have saw and experience such.
    There are ghost or spirits….If you believe it or not.

    Reply
  55. Marv at |

    #8 Wem fire. I found the web page with the ghost photo and an old Wem postcard photo side by side (the accompanying article suggest the girl in the postcard was used to fake the girl in the fire).

    I copied both image and brought them into photoshop, overlaying one on top of another.

    They are an exact match.

    The fakery became even more clear when I adjusted the contrast and brightness of the ghost photo.

    Reply
  56. Eban at |

    10. Double-image obviously.
    9. Already discredited
    8. Smoke/ash, but admit it appears eerie. Freak shape like clouds.
    7., 6, 5. Meh, could be trick photog like old spirit photos
    4. Gimme a break, the dude’s wearing flared pants as they did in the late 1970′s.
    3. Exposure 1 hour?? Anyone could have sat for a spell and then gotten up. And a big tip off to these fakes is – why take such a picture of an empty chair?? Think about why the pic was taken.
    2. Look closer could be shade/shadows.
    1. Debunked. Immaculata statues of Madonna standing on globe popular then. Look at bottom of Brown Lady.

    Reply
  57. chandanasrivatsa at |

    very nice and very scery

    Reply
  58. orrintiffany at |

    some of you say that thare is no gost but thare is I have sean thim for my self I sean one going in and out of A fireplace I was abut 20ft Away and it did not hert me this whos abut wen I was 15y old and after that I started seeing things and feling things I thot that I was going nuts I realyed that wen Iem In right place I can reach out and tuch thim and it is cold but thay do not try to hert me Ithink wen I ask thim to move something like A ball some times thay can A fuw of my frends have seen me work whith thim I like being A rond thim ? I have A recorder and I have pick up that will amaze you but wen you hear A lot of nois that is staic but wen you can hear A voice that makes it the best thing of ALL. I know I lived oh for12ys ago I told thim that I wood go in to cheack things out and I did thay seed that A man dyd in the bldg from A rope back in the 40s I sead ok wen I took in A evp meatr and A recoder and A nitevison I started asking thim to come forth and wen Idid I herd 8 difaret sonds comeing in side the bldg I now thay were trying to get my atenchin I hade the hare stanup on my arms thats wen I now that thay where close to me I like that fealing thay are trying to cotack some one so wen you see some thing that you can knot explane stop look some one mite be trying to get in tuch whith you.??!.

    Reply

Leave a Reply