Based in Brooklyn, NY, I write about all things creepy and strange. My book based on the real haunting of Doris Bither (The Entity 1982 movie) will be released soon. Got a question? Drop me a line.

"Wedding Day Ghost"
"Wedding Day Ghost"

I sort of was hesitating putting up this image on GhostTheory because of the obvious problems with an image like this. The problems being that the image is too small to really analyze. Blowing it up only pixelates it more. Also the fact that the image itself of the “ghost” is too dramatic, too “Hollywoodish”. No matter what, It seems to be making its rounds through the internet as a “True ghost” picture.  I’ve seen this happen so many times. I’m posting it here so that maybe one of you can shed some light on WHAT or WHO created the photo. The image itself was sent to Stephen Wagner from I’ve shared many stories with Stephen over the last few years. usually sending him videos or photos that I find mystifying and hard to debunk. His paranormal section on has a very high audience, so most times, his readers help debunk a lot of what gets posted. Back to the topic on hand…

Stephen received this picture along with this email:

This is a photo of my aunt’s wedding day. The year was 1942, and the photo was taken with a box camera. On some of my feedback I’m told it’s not really there! Well, I know it is. This picture has been passed down. Please give me some feedback. I would like too see what everone thinks. It was taken in Jasper, Alabama. — Liz

To which Stephen skeptically responds:

It’s an interesting photo. We have three possibilities:

  1. It’s an extraordinary case of pareidolia — an illusion.
  2. It’s a hoax — a very clever and well-executed one — created with image editing software.
  3. It’s a genuine ghost.

I’m not ready to say it’s a genuine ghost. And I think it’s too detailed to be pareidolia. So I suspect — and Liz, forgive me if I’m wrong — that this is a manipulated photo. And my main reason for saying that is that the “ghost” is just too scary looking, like something out of a horror movie. It’s just too theatrical. Your opinion? — S.W.

Which makes total sense. For it to be pareidolia, it has to be one of the clearest and most detailed ones that I’ve seen. To me, it seem more likely to be done with some editing software, than to be a genuine ghost photo.

The owner of the image then replies to Stephen:

Liz responds:

I thank you for your feedback on the wedding day photo, but I do not agree. These pictures were taken before I was born — that’s a long time ago. And when I saw the photos they have never changed. There is a lot about this picture no one can explain, and I think it’s something paranormal. — Liz

Herein lies the problem with all the supposed paranormal proof that resides in the internet. In the end, you end up having to take the word of the original person who captured the evidence.

"Wedding Day Ghost"
"Wedding Day Ghost"
  • Gary P

    I’d rule the hoax bit out. As you can tell in the picture, it’s a sunny day, and the ‘ghosts’ head does not appear to be casting a shadow upon itself.

    This is a bizzare picture, I too saw this at and couldn’t really say anything about it. Just like you said though Jav, herein lies the problem with pictures like this. To add, Can you trust the person who submitted it?

  • Gary,

    You’re right. There’s no shadow or motion blur. The position and pose of the “ghost” suggest that it is floating towards the couple. You’d expect motion blur.

    It’s a cool looking photo effect.


  • KOZ

    In cases such as these, when one must rely on the word of the person who submitted the photo, one should do an analyzation of that person, that is if we are to take their word for it. Not stopping there but also an analyztion of the people within the photo and the photographer. Their jobs, family structure, friends, credibility and so forth. Is there any historical data associated with this picture other than it’s a wedding day and a statement that it is not been tampered with, allegedly?

  • Danny

    The original picture looks like a genuine photo, you can hardly see the the ghost image in the right hand corner of the image. An enlargement of the ghost in the picture does look suspect though, definently manipulated, it doesnt look real. If this picture was manipulated it’s a clever fake

  • i’m not buying it’s real, the old back and white pic’s are the best to fool with! I would love to see the real one up close! I seen the brown lady of Raynham hall! that to me me might be real. but like evrything, it’s up to debate!


  • Herein lies the problem with “proof” of the the paranormal. No matter what evidence someone brings to the table, there will always be that doubt in the minds of those who were not present when the so-called proof was obtained. Could the evidence be tampered with, or could it have been staged at the site? Personally, as Javier said, I think it looks to Hollywood horror movie, but I have no way of really knowing. Maybe this is an actual ghost and some of them aren’t blobs of light, but horror movie type apparitions. Whatever the verdict on this photo is, I have to say that it does look really cool!

  • bellaboo


    it’s been around “since before i was born” according to “Liz”, and “handed down” amongst family members – but it’s only surfacing online in july 2009?

    even the tint was changed so i don’t have much doubt that the photo was doctored.

  • YourRealityIsLaughable


    As much as I hate to say it, I agree with you. There is a definite appearance that screams out fake Lizs’ ghost photograph seems to be at the mercy of a photoshop filter/tool (clone too, judging by the face of the “apparition”)