[Zane Zackerly]

Taking a Moderator's advice to start a new thread for each photo, here's one of my favorite ghost photos: the Tulip Staircase ghost.

What do you think: is it real or tinfoil hat stuff?

Attached File(s)

•  ghost11.jpg (37.52K)
  Number of downloads: 136

[Welsh Shaun]

Its an old photo and Im just trying to figure out what Im actually looking at.

Could you give me a few pointers please?

[Zane Zackerly]

Welsh Shaun, on Nov 15 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

Its an old photo and Im just trying to figure out what Im actually looking at.

Could you give me a few pointers please?

The figure is climbing the staircase from right to left. Both its hands are on the rail.

In the center, between the two hands, you can see the hooded head lowered as if the figure is grieving. The photo is dark so it's kind of hard to see.

Overall, it is a photo of a robed and hooded figure climbing the staircase.

[Welsh Shaun]

Sorry just a bit confused with lighting.

You can see the hands quite clearly, but the photograph was taken many years ago so it is hard to say if it is a ghost or not.

[darkknight]

how old is this photo?...

[Saru]

I've always wondered about this one, does anyone have any further information about the background behind the picture ?

Here's another version of it, this time in colour.

Attached File(s)

•  Staircase.jpg (5.83K)
  Number of downloads: 87

[Crosis]

I thought this one had been debunked years ago, i could be wrong though.

[Zane Zackerly]

SaRuMaN, on Nov 15 2005, 12:21 PM, said:

I've always wondered about this one, does anyone have any further information about the background behind the picture ?

Here's another version of it, this time in colour.

All I know is that the bright object is a chandelier.

This suggests it's a fake: how many ghost pics are taken in bright light?

[JFS]

The picture looks like a painting to me, the stairs look very weird. Some of the steps look like they are rounded. It could be a picture of a painting, that's my thought. What do you guys think?

[darkknight]

looks more fake in color.

[Gigan]

I mentioned in the Brown Lady thread that this is believed to be a hoax,and was replicated almost perfectly not too long ago, so I am dubious about this one

[Elfstone]

This one is even better authenticated than the Brown Lady picture. It was taken in 1966 in the Queen's House at the Maritime Museum in Greenwich by a Reverend Hardy, a retired clergyman from British Columbia.

It is a visually confusing picture. You have to understand that it was taken from beneath a curving stairway looking up and the bulk of architecture you see to the left is the underside of the staircase. The Hardys were on vacation and Mrs. Hardy wanted a photograph that would duplicate a picture she'd seen in a magazine. When they got to the staircase (a famous architectural feature of the house) they discovered that they couldn't duplicate the picture in the magazine, which was taken from the top of the stairs, because that area was off limits and, in fact, the stairs themselves were blocked to keep everyone off them.

The only shot he could get of the staircase was the awkward angle from below, with the chandelier overhead, so that is the one he took. At the time there was, of course, no one on the stairs. The Hardys didn't discover the figures (if you look closely, there are actually two figures) until they were back in Canada. They turned the original negative over the England's Ghost Club, along with the negatives for the pictures before and after it on the roll. The Ghost Club sent them to Kodak laboratories for analysis and the experts who examined them pronounced them to be not tampered with and said the only explanation for the figures had to be that there was someone or something on the stairs.

To the best of my knowledge this picture has never been "debunked". You have to be careful with these classic pictures. Every now and again someone with no photographic credentials will come along and claim to debunk them by offering an explanation that experts have already dismissed. In this case, anyway, "recreating" the picture would be an exercise in futility. The structure in the picture is without doubt the Tulip Staircase and there's no way the museum would have allowed anyone to run up and down it to fake a picture. Remember it was completely cordoned off.

A further note about the two figures: If you look closely you can see that both hands on the railing are left hands and both wear wedding rings.

[Zane Zackerly]

Where is the second figure--is the rest of it besides the left hand not visible?

[Gigan]

I am still convinced that what is pictured is actually only one figure, but is in motion, so it looks as though there are two figures. I will have to have a dig through my books and see where the re-created picture is, as its almost perfect (except its not as grainy). I agree that it was probably not tampered with in any way, but that does'nt tell us whether the conditions the picture was taken under was'nt, like the shutter being left open too long etc. I like to think that most of the 'oldies' are true representations of something unusual, but this one has always been in a 'grey area'.

Zane Zackerly, on Nov 15 2005, 04:10 PM, said:

Where is the second figure--is the rest of it besides the left hand not visible?

if you look under where the light fixture is, there appears to be another hand, with a ring on' holding the rail.

[Elfstone]

And I'll have to look through my books. All the information about the type of camera and the film and camera settings are a matter of record. Also, as I said, the picture couldn't have been faked by someone running or walking on that stairway because that stairway was not open. It was blocked off and there were museum guards around to make sure no one sneaked over the cordon. It also wasn't a double exposure because all the pictures on the roll were accounted for and none of them were anything remotely like the figures.

[Cayra]

I've always thought if this one was a ghost.. it was the ghost of a very poor actor

It's a bit too gothic and staged looking for me to think it's real

[Elfstone]

Okay, I found the information I was looking for on this picture. This is from The Ghost Hunter's Guide by Peter Underwood, Blandford Press, London. 1986.

The picture was taken on June 19, 1966 by the Reverend R.W. Hardy of White Rock, British Columbia. After they returned to Canada and had the pictures developed the Hardys saw the figures and sent the original negatives to the Ghost Club. One of the members of the Ghost Club, a Mr. Hector MacQueen, had a cousin who lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, and she acted as an intermediary in contacting the Hardys regarding the picture. In 1967 the Hardys again visited England and at that time had a lengthy personal interview with MacQueen. During the interview these facts were established:

1. The picture was taken on a fair but cloudy day (this was verified ty the Meteorological Office of the London Weather Centre) at about 5 PM.

2. The camera used was a Zeiss Ikon Contina - Prontor S V S Zavar Anastigmat lens; 1:3.5f = 45 mm, with "skylight" auxiliary haze-filter. (I hope someone on here knows what all that means because I sure don't! )

3. The film was Kodachrome X, 35 mm color film with speed 64.

4. The light used was daylight and the electric candelabra which appears in the picture. No flash or floodlight was used.

5. The aperature and time are not certain but the aperature was probably about f4 and the time was probably about 4-6 seconds.

6. Each picture on the roll was accounted for by number.

7. The picture immediately prior to the ghost picture is of the colonnade outside the Queen's House and the one immediately following is of a figurehead. Neither bears any resemblance to the shrouded figure(s).

The Ghost Club subsequently arranged to spend a night in the Queen's House in the vicinity of the Tulip Staircase. This involved agreeing to a number of conditions, including taking out a 5000 pound insurance policy against damage to the permanent collection of paintings; prohibition of smoking, alcohol, or naked lights; having their equipment inspected and installed by the museum's engineers, being in the company of two warders for the night, and paying a "not inconsiderable" fee. They spent the night of June 24, 1967 in the Queen's House during which they recorded some unexplained footsteps and other sounds, as well as vague impressions they were unable to verify using scientific means.

The negative of the picture was submitted to Kodak labs. Their technicians concluded that the picture had not been tampered with in any way and that the only explanation was that someone was on the stairway, which officials at the Queen's House dismiss.

(I have more background info on the Queen's House if anyone wants it. I'm going to try to find another picture of the Tulip Staircase from a different angle.)

[Elfstone]

Me again.

First, here's a link to an article I came across about hauntings at the Queen's House. It doesn't even mention the picture! (There was a picture linked to the article which may have been the ghost picture, but the link is broken so there's no telling.)

Next, here's another picture of the Tulip Staircase. (I wonder if this is the type of picture they were wanting to re-create? I'd always assumed it was a picture from the top of the stairs, but I could certainly be wrong.)  tulip_staircase.jpg (68.46K)
Number of downloads: 31

[Welsh Shaun]

I'm well impressed Elfstone, you do know your stuff and well researched.

[darkknight]

Quote

but I could certainly be wrong.)

nope...infact you made technical point...elfstone.