Debunking the debunking of the Gallipoli Ghost at soldiers' cemetery

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Several stores have popped up celebrating the successful debunking of this supposed image of a ghost.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/ww1/gallipoli-ghost-an-open-and-shutter-case-20140423-37442.html


The caption in the image is:
An inexplicable photograph shot by Fairfax photographer Joe Armao on the the old Anzac battlefields of Gallipoli shows a ghostly shadow momentarily appearing.
Content from External Source
However this immediately confuses the matter. Because the majority of people look at the photo will think it's this silhouette:


When that's the silhouette of Celal Boz, who was posting for the photographer. The actual "mysterious silhouette" that they are referring to is this:



You might scratch your head at this, as it's clearly just a silhouette of the flower.



At this point you might think there's nothing at all to debunk. But then the photographer offer his own explanation, paraphrased in the article.

In such a case, the whole picture should have contained such shadows. But while other flowers had cast small and near-perfect silhouettes into the darkness, how could just one melt into what appeared to be an apparition of precisely the same height and dimensions as the man actually standing in the cemetery?

A minute study of the pixels finally revealed the mystery. Because the little flower in the extreme foreground was so close to the lens, the tiniest movement had created a large space of nothingness - the largest on the frame - which had imprinted itself on the image as "something" - in this case, a shape resembling a soldier rising from amid the graves.
Content from External Source
The problem with this explanation is that it makes no sense at all. The silhouettes of the other flowers are not different at all. They are the exact same size and shape as the flowers, and are offset in just the same way as the "ghost" image is.

The photographers actual explanation is a bit of a confused mixture.
To me it looked exactly like a soldier,and a soldier's helmet,...
All the other flowers, the silhouettes, were basically perfect silhouettes, but this flower wasn't a perfect silhouette of the actual image that was flashed. It was a lot thicker, it was a lot larger, it really had me baffled. ...
It came to me, because the flower in the foreground was obviously closer to the camera, it was more affected by the slow shutter speed than the flowers in the background, because it was affected more by the movement in the camera , with long shutter speed, it actually made more of a silhouette.
Content from External Source
The problem here is that all the flowers visible in the shot are all about the same distance from the camera. The "ghost" flower is actually at the back. There's no need to explain why it made "more" of a silhouette than the other flowers, because it didn't. The reason only the highlighted flowers have silhouettes is because they are against the sky, not because they are close to the camera.

So yes, it's great that this ghost image has a clear explanation. But by not pointing out that the "ghost" image in question is not the human looking figure (but actually the rather disappointing shadow behind the flower) , and by unquestioningly accepting a nonsensical explanation, the "debunking" is doing more harm than good. People are going to look at the photo, read the description of how the shadow is unusual, and then assume they are talking about the shadow of Celal Boz. Then since the explanation does not fit that shadow at all, they will reject it, and continue to think it's a ghost.

So what's going to happen is ghost enthusiasts will repost the photo, saying "ghost appears in cemetery, debunkers say it's a shadow, but it's obviously not", and the photo will enter the pantheon of recyclable bunk. .
 
Last edited:
the phrase "momentarily appearing" doesn't help, unless youre looking for youtube hits. I thought it would be a video.
 
This reminds me of the Loch Ness story, where the Daily Mail said:
For six months the image has been studied by experts at the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, where excitement is mounting after various explanations for it were ruled out... leaving them to conclude it is ‘likely’ to be the elusive beast.
Content from External Source
And then this ghost story:
Hours of close and sceptical inspection of the frame, including extreme digital enlargement, comparison with other frames and lively discussion of a number of theories about shadows from the flower, tricks of the light and movement of the camera during the 2.5-second exposure offered no suitable explanation.
Content from External Source
Where in both cases the explanation is quite obvious, and takes very little investigation.
 
well I definitely thought the "ghost' meant was his friend there because I didnt see anything else in the pic ghostlike. I was expecting the camera to shake a bit and his friend to pop up behind a stone.
 
Yes, you see lots of stories saying things like: "Experts stumped", when maybe no real expert has actually weighed in at all.
 
This reminds me of the Loch Ness story, where the Daily Mail said:
For six months the image has been studied by experts at the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, where excitement is mounting after various explanations for it were ruled out... leaving them to conclude it is ‘likely’ to be the elusive beast.
Content from External Source
And then this ghost story:
Hours of close and sceptical inspection of the frame, including extreme digital enlargement, comparison with other frames and lively discussion of a number of theories about shadows from the flower, tricks of the light and movement of the camera during the 2.5-second exposure offered no suitable explanation.
Content from External Source
Where in both cases the explanation is quite obvious, and takes very little investigation.
well according to the "Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club"
There is a nice new photo in today’s Daily Mail of a possible Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster. Resident expert Professor Kettle isn’t sure though:“It does look very much like a boat wake. The weird standing waves and undersea currents in Loch Ness often cause things that look strange to folk who come across them for the first time.”
Content from External Source
so I guess the bunk just abounds all over the place in these stories.
 
Back
Top