The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Eccentric's last prank, 66 years after his death, 1900
Van Gogh's ear exhibited, 1935
Jernegan's Gold Accumulator Scam, 1898
Life discovered on the moon, 1835
The Nazi Air Marker Hoax, 1942
Bizarre pictographs of Emmanuel Domenech, 1860
The Hoaxing Hitchhiker, 1941
Jean Gauntt, the Immortal Baby, 1939
The Lovely Feejee Mermaid, 1842
Princess Caraboo, servant girl who became a princess, 1817
Spooky Images
Status: Photographs with blurry objects in them
Edna Barrie sent me this series of images that's circulating around. It's accompanied by the caption:

If You Don't Send This to at Least ten People in the Next 2 Hours You will Forever have Bad Luck.....If You do...Something Good Will Happen to you in the Near Future!!!! Good Luck.

What I can't understand is why over-exposed and double-exposed images would cause anyone bad luck. But as it is, I'm slated for permanent bad luck because I waited over two hours to post these on the site.

image image image
image image image
image image image
Categories: Paranormal, Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Mon Nov 07, 2005
Comments (29)
It's like they're not even trying.. I mean, really.
Posted by Robin Bobcat  in  Californian Wierdo  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  01:18 AM
Well, I can tell you right off the bat that most of these are photoshop. A couple are double expsures. And one of them could be real. Yeah Right! Say, if you ever need a photoshop expert for anything, feel free to ask me.
Posted by Victor  in  los angeles  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  01:21 AM
I always laugh when I hear someone describe the population as "sophisticated." Our technology may be but, as a civilization, we sure aren't. I mean, people get an email from a stranger containing a double-exposed photo with the admonishment that if they don't pass it on, bad things will happen and the BELIEVE THIS???

How does someone come to the conclusion that the universe actually works like this??
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  04:01 AM
I had a great laugh when I saw the last image as I had just 2 minutes eariler seen that same image on a documentary about Ghosts that happened to be playing. They interviewed the photographer and showed that the negative also had the ghostly appiration. I think in the end they chalked it up to the "unknown". The woman who was in that car when it crashed swears she was saved by that very ghost... I kid you not.
Posted by Justin  in  New Zealand  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  05:12 AM
Someone is going to say it eventually so I may as well get it out there, the center photo in the middle row, doesn't it look like that ghost farted?
Posted by Zoe  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  08:08 AM
The middle image on the first row of the imprint on the bed is from Worth1000.com, a image editing competition site and is definately a photoshop as theres an explanation of how it was done!
Posted by Dagrak  in  UK  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  08:29 AM
Yah i can't see anything spooky in the fire or lightning just bad photoshop and double exposure but the one on the bottom left how can anyone beleive that's a real ghost i mean i can do that with my bloody camera phone! I've got to admit i like ghost photos but come on at least put some effort into faking them lads. this lot are the ghost equivalent of a trashcan lid on a string as a ufo.
Posted by Geekmafia  in  Dublin, Ireland  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  05:26 PM
It looks like I can see a face/a guy carrying a gun in the fire one (an image off of the fire) but then again, I attribute that to my imagination which can see images on my ceiling and various opjects ("The stapler has a face!!") as opposed to ghotst smile
Posted by Mera  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  07:02 PM
Although the middle top picture is a Photoshopped pic (as Dagrak said), it's still damn creepy. grrr
Posted by Mewtaila  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  07:06 PM
I don't see what's so scary about bad photography, either.

"...They interviewed the photographer and showed that the negative also had the ghostly appiration. I think in the end they chalked it up to the "unknown". ..."

I wouldn't call a light leak in the camera "unknown." I'd call it an otherwise ordinary picture being spoiled by equipment failure.
Posted by Big Gary in Dallas  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  08:20 PM
I love the top middle picture. That's the only vaguly interesting one of them all.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Tue Nov 08, 2005  at  10:30 PM
I don't get the top right one either. It just looks like the negative got bent.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Wed Nov 09, 2005  at  12:30 AM
Anyone who has an interest in this sort of phenomenon may wish to look up "pareidolia" in a good dictionary.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Nov 09, 2005  at  03:28 AM
The fire one (8) I believe I saw on Worth1000. I wonder if the people who send images from Worth1000
know it's illegal under copyright law....
Posted by RPGLand, formerly Ozymandias  in  Madison, Wisconsin  on  Wed Nov 09, 2005  at  06:02 PM
The fire has the face of a crying baby in it. The lightning is obviously a divine finger pointing at the precarious cliff that's about to crumble onto the unsuspecting old ladies.

I'm a pretty hardcore skeptic, but a good ghost picture still gives me chills. Or at least it would if one could prove it wasn't Photoshopped.

For some truly silly - I mean terrifying - old-school spirit photographs, check out these:

http://www.forteantimes.com/gallery/para_index.shtml
Posted by Elizabeth  in  Austin, TX  on  Thu Nov 10, 2005  at  07:28 PM
i see a face near the top and the middle of the fire. no gun.
Posted by Ian  on  Sat Nov 12, 2005  at  05:13 PM
If you watch the fire picture from a distance of 2 inches, you can clearly see the Cigarette Smoking Man's brass Zippo lighter.
AND the Bermuda triangle! :-O

Seriously, this was some of the most pathetic attempt I ever saw...
Posted by eovti  in  Sandefjord, Norway  on  Sat Dec 03, 2005  at  07:45 AM
i dont believe the whole "if you dont send this you get blah blah" crap. gosh, anyone who believes it must be so gullible

i do like that picture with the fire though, but it must be photoshopped
Posted by Eva  in  New york  on  Sat Feb 11, 2006  at  09:02 PM
Fake, fake, fake, and ridiculous.
Posted by Logic  on  Tue Jan 23, 2007  at  02:27 PM
I like the one with the bed. Most fake/accidental ghost pictures are so blatantly obvious (man in a white sheet type of stuff) but that one's nicely subtle. Gives me the chills, a bit.
Posted by Nona  in  London  on  Mon Mar 19, 2007  at  08:55 AM
...and isn't that the Bermuda triangle, hovering over the bed in the second pic? :-O
Posted by eovti  in  Sandefjord, Norway  on  Mon Mar 19, 2007  at  04:11 PM
Oh wow Lil Chyna Doll
Posted by Lil Chyna Doll  on  Thu Feb 07, 2008  at  09:27 AM
the picture with the car and the ghost thats in front of it i believe that someone died in the car accedent and the ghost is that person that had died from the accedent.
Posted by Crystal  in  Medford  on  Fri May 02, 2008  at  05:58 PM
Crystal said:

"the picture with the car and the ghost thats in front of it i believe that someone died in the car accedent and the ghost is that person that had died from the accedent."

There is ZERO evidence to support that, Crystal. You believe it because you WANT to believe it, not because it makes any sense.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat May 03, 2008  at  02:49 AM
whoa... harsh, CMG... I think that's what Crystal's trying to say, sorta, that she believes that's what the image suggests, not omiting other explanations, just showing a preference for the post-accident victim apparition theory... chill pills on the coffee table... help yourself
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat May 03, 2008  at  07:27 PM
wait, you know what, ignore my previous post, CMG. I forgot: you're the "Cranky" Media Guy... What was I thinking? Carry on, don't let me interupt, sorry, my bad
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat May 03, 2008  at  07:32 PM
Hairy said:

"I think that's what Crystal's trying to say, sorta, that she believes that's what the image suggests, not omiting other explanations, just showing a preference for the post-accident victim apparition theory."

But why jump to THAT conclusion? If your house shakes a bit, do you immediately think that ghosts are pushing on the walls or do you think that, just maybe, it's the wind?

Start with the simplest/most likely possibility. If that can be eliminated, THEN you can entertain more exotic possibilities.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun May 04, 2008  at  03:39 AM
Okay, I'll type this slowly so you'll have a better chance of understanding my point: I think that Crystal was just giving her interpretation of any possible connection between the background image and the blurry, ghostly image in the foreground. I don't think Crystal was trying to give an explanation of the cause of the image, just offering her Rorschack(sp) interpretation of the what relationship between the principal image and the ethereal image suggests. Again, no offer of a true theory of cause, just a preference for a scenario applied to the image. Ow, now my head hurts. Thanks, pal. I owe you a headache
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sun May 04, 2008  at  12:40 PM
Sorry to say but #5 #6 AND #8 ARE REAL!!!!
Posted by Owen Davis  in  Springfield, Illinois, USA  on  Sat Jun 07, 2008  at  07:35 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.