Are there any ghosts that are captured on photos?

More specifically, I'm referring to this famous ghost picture of the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall:

A ghost

I've never heard anyone debunking the myth of this photo, but I think this picture is so famous that someone must have dug it out and made it a shooting target, no?

  • 5
    Compare with crop-circles: while it is hard to prove a specific circle has been made by humans, it is easy to show it CAN be made, and using Occam razor we must conclude that assuming aliens exist, arrived and did nothing more then make the circle is a bit more "complicated" than needed. Same here: Apart from having a perfect account of how this image was made, and proof every step of it, its near impossible to proof this is 'fake'. but: - it is easily shown that an image like this isn't all that hard to recreate - Occam's razor says that using above method (basically needs no extra assumption
    – Nanne
    Commented Mar 6, 2011 at 14:34
  • 2
    Well, given that ghosts are not proven to exist, and given that there are innumerable examples of photographic fraud - I do think that providing alternate ways of producing the picture is enough to debunk it. - Photoshop - Double exposure - Inclined glass technique - Negative manipulation
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Mar 6, 2011 at 14:48
  • Can you please rephrase the title to reflect the actual question? :-)
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Mar 6, 2011 at 15:57
  • 17
    I don't see a ghost on the photo. How do ghosts look like? Commented Mar 7, 2011 at 19:52

1 Answer 1


No, it does not.

The "ghost" in question is known as the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall. And, although often still presented as evidence of the supernatural, it's also pretty well debunked — see this detailed article. In short, a 1937 analysis notes that there are other visual artifacts in the picture indicating a double exposure, but these are normally cropped out. But, even when one looks at the version you've posted, it's clear that the banisters have become crooked — the two exposures don't line up perfectly. Also the picture is generally printed very darkly, disguising the fact that it was taken at 4PM (and hiding more visual anomalies).

And finally, the smeary blur in the photo does not match previous "eye witness" descriptions of the ghost, which described a detailed and real-seeming person. Given that, were the ghost actually real, it would be awfully fortunate that she turned out to look just like a double exposure.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .