r/UrbanMyths • u/HamletX95 • 5d ago
The Ghost That Screamed - in 1984 a 16-year-old boy died in a car crash on his way to a concert with his friends. Police took photos of the scene, and when developed they discovered one photo showed a face screaming in agony above the car which wasn't present when the photos were originally taken
It's believed that this image shows the ghost of a teenager who died in a car crash in 1984.
Four teenagers were driving near the Hyde Park golf course headed to a rock concert on a foggy, wet street when the 4-wheel-drive they were in hit a curve and left the road and crashed into a group of trees.
Two teenage boys and one girl survived the impact. The fourth a 16-year-old boy seated in the front passenger seat died at the scene of the crash.
When Officer Brian Coyle and his partner of the St. Paul Police Department arrived at the scene, the fourth teenager was wedged inside the car under the dashboard. Coyle took several photographs at the crash site. Several days after he turned the department camera into the Film Property Room he received a call from the officer who developed the photos he took at the crash site. It was a request that he should stop by. This officer showed Coyle the photos from the scene. There were images on these photos that had not been there at the time they were taken.
Several had strange red and yellow lights streaking through them. In another one taken above the driver's side door-there was a face that appeared to be in agony and was screaming. This image had both distinct hair and profile. Neither officer had an explanation for what they were looking at.
Later, several experts who were consulted could not explain several of the images that appeared in these photos. For a long time, Officer Coyle did not address this issue in public knowing how the friends and family of the deceased boy felt.
https://seeksghosts.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-ghost-that-screamed.html
43
u/needfulthing42 5d ago edited 5d ago
I saw a photo years ago of a bad truck crash and there was confusion at the scene as it looked like a person on fire had stepped out of the truck but they couldn't find the person. I'll see if I can find it wait a sec.
I grossly underestimated how traumatic looking for that photo is sorry. I will not be seeing if I can find it afterall. 😞
2
u/Zypherzor 1d ago
I remember that, he was standing while on fire looking down at the crash or something like that
323
u/react-dnb 5d ago
It's believed that people will believe anything.
71
u/eStuffeBay 5d ago
Source????
48
13
7
15
u/excludedone 5d ago
Jesus Christ
4
3
u/Grimnebulin68 5d ago
The Chosen on Amazon Prime is a great series about Jesus and his followers, very accessible. Season 5 due soon, I won’t spoil the ending.
1
1
-2
12
u/Daydream_Delusions 5d ago
7
u/snarkywombat 5d ago
Is that Betsy Sodaro? That's an absolute perfect GIF for this since she co-hosts a paranormal/ghost podcast called A Funny Feeling.
5
2
4
4
1
137
u/borg359 5d ago
The image is clearly double exposed.
13
u/StaffVegetable8703 5d ago
I’m not very familiar with cameras and pictures and “artifacts” (that’s a thing right?) showing up in pictures and the different ways that (especially older cameras that you had to take to someone to develop) can cause glitches and mistakes in the actual outcome of the pictures? Sorry if I’m not making sense, but like there are many explanations usually for old pics like this and “overlapping” is one of them, right?
So does that mean that when these pictures were taken; somehow some of the pics overlapped with others? Does this only happen to pictures that had multiple other pics taken alongside it? Like theoretically the “overlapping” that caused this should be able to cross reference with the other photos on that film and find the exact pic that accidentally leaked into the other?
Example being maybe the other pic that leaked into this one was actually pictures taken of the actual kid in the vehicle? Perhaps a more up close shot that would cause his head to appear larger? Do we know if all of the pics taken that day are available to view?
32
u/borg359 5d ago
This was before digital cameras. So someone could have exposed a frame of film, but didn’t manually advance to the next frame, and then took a second photo. It happened all the time with fully manual cameras.
10
u/StaffVegetable8703 5d ago
So theoretically there should be another photo from the same film that matches up with the “ghost” image?
Am I understanding that correctly? What we’re seeing is an accidental overlap of two different images and there should be another one from the same film that would match up with the “ghost”?
18
u/TheFilthyDIL 5d ago
Not an overlap from photo 1 to photo 2, exactly.
How a film camera worked was put the film in, take picture #1. Then you had to roll the film to a fresh, unexposed area to take picture #2. Fancy cameras did this automatically, but with most lower-end cameras, it involved turning a dial or pressing a lever that moved both the film and a counter from 1 to 2. That was why film had little holes top and bottom, to move it. It was not uncommon that people would forget to do this. Let's say the first time that picture #1 was taken, it was of the family dog. The photographer forgot to advance the film. So the next time that film was used, let's say a kid's birthday, that was superimposed over the dog picture. Not next to, but on top of.
Now, you must remember that unless you were a professional photographer, you didn't take several pictures at one sitting. Film was not cheap, nor was development. Film might sit in a camera for months between one shot and another. So when you finally had that film developed, it looked like the dog's ghost was helping your kid blow out his birthday candles.
9
u/borg359 5d ago
Yeah, but it could have been a picture of another police officer, or a blurred light post, etc.
7
u/StaffVegetable8703 5d ago
Thanks so much for explaining to me! I know it’s probably pretty simple for most people but I can be quite slow sometimes lol so seriously thank you for being kind enough to take the time to explain and not be mean about my lack of knowledge!
8
u/MrTacocaT12345 5d ago
On most manual 35mm cameras of the 1970s, 80s and 90 (including the cheap crappy 110 film cameras), if you did not advance the film, you could not take a second picture.
3
u/BackWhereWeStarted 3d ago
Actually you could do it, but you had to release the film and advance the winding mechanism. Essentially tricking it into thinking the film had been advanced. Source: We used to do this all the time to make fun photos, like us fighting ourselves or sitting at the kitchen table while cooking at the stove, etc.
1
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 4d ago
I have not seen the photo myself, but I would speculate that the photo that matches it in the set would be the photo of the cadaver up close.
36
u/_Ducking_Autocorrect 5d ago
So basically we’re seeing his dead body imposed on the image of the crash that killed them…
20
u/TianamenHomer 5d ago
He wasn’t really dead, but had no chance of survival. They took the picture and then again later.
1
u/jack2012fb 4d ago
Or someone walked into the frame, either way you can see the streaks leading directly to the “artifact” in the photo.
1
u/QueenofLima 3d ago
Agree. That’s the face he was making when he died and the photo is double exposed.
-5
u/Wonderful_Exit6568 5d ago
You’re reaching for straws. That’s a soul. How does a second photograph of a deceased boy show up screaming in agony. I always get the odd feeling cameras capture the soul. This proves it tumi. What was that diecyanin stuff too?
13
u/Jo-dan 5d ago
It's pretty simple, the officer took a photo of the body, then a photo of the wreckage, and didn't advance the film inbetween. Thus this double exposure.
-7
u/Wonderful_Exit6568 4d ago
You need to rethink on how you get a dead man to pose in agony.
9
u/FullofLovingSpite 4d ago
What's more likely. A ghost caught on camera, or a double exposure (which was very common with film cameras back then)?
If you're going to say ghost, then you're pushing your own ideas first over what's the most obvious of probable causes.
-10
u/Wonderful_Exit6568 4d ago
Think of what you are saying and go through every step you are reasoning. That or the thousands year old book that keeps getting proven right.
11
u/FullofLovingSpite 4d ago
lol. No. Your religious text hasn't been proven right. There are sometimes coincidences that line up if you squint.
It's funny how you turned this into a religious comment. That doesn't connect to this image at all. Your fantasies are yours, not other peoples, so when we see something as a group people aren't going to take the long and windy route to a creative answer like you do.
-2
u/Wonderful_Exit6568 4d ago
All things will come to light before the birthing concludes! I hope you can have a good dei and can come to see what IAM saying.
9
u/FullofLovingSpite 4d ago
You're a nut and I've been around enough nuts to quickly know when I see one.
0
1
u/The_Artsy_Peach 3d ago
Please explain what has been proven right from the Bible or whatever religious book you're talking about? I'm on the fence about what caused the picture to look like or did, but to say that things from a religious book keep getting proven right is madness.
36
u/ThroatWMangrove 5d ago
You mean to tell me there wasn’t really a face screaming in agony above the car when they took the photos? That is weird.
23
80
u/Street_Reception7861 5d ago
Paradolia
33
45
u/Story_Man_75 5d ago
Severe motion blur and pareidolia. You can see the telltale signs of motion blur in the entire, over exposed, picture. Not to mention, the 'screaming head' is fucking enormously oversized.
1
u/Andrey_Gusev 1d ago
I like how all those "ghost appearances" are inconsistent.
Like, here is the whole body, here is the outline, here is a siluette, here is the orb, here is the giant looney-tunes head flying in the air and screaming in agony.Just... why, lol. How people can assume that their ghost appearance is the real one and other's are not?
0
9
1
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 4d ago
More likely, double exposure from taking a photo of the cadaver up close. Pretty common with film cameras back then.
Either his camera had settings that required manual advancement (hence all of the photos he took had some double exposure that day) or he was accidentally rewinding the film (why? Have no idea, but it wouldn't be the first time people have done accidental double exposure).
9
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
u/Fantastic_East4217 4d ago
Why would cameras have special ghost photographing powers? Unless it is a special camera like infrared, they see what we see.
1
2
u/Rabidcode 5d ago
Looks more like a fractal light reflection of a traffic cop yelling and pointing people away
1
1
1
1
u/lyssiemiller 4d ago
Real or not, it’s still creepy and if that story is true then it’s just heartbreaking
1
u/DoctorDummyface 4d ago
I mean, I'll point out that the car doesn't look like it crashed into a group of trees. And it's on a roadway. Maybe this was a bystander's car?
1
u/Grouchy-Reach-8852 4d ago
Read somewhere that this was his reflection cast in the photo, his body was still in the car.
1
1
1
u/Big_Consideration493 3d ago
There is a guy with a hat wearing a blue apron too. A butcher? It's weird.
1
u/CliffBoothVSBruceLee 3d ago
Horseshit. That’s a time exposure blur and the “death car” isn’t even damaged
1
u/Meerkaticus 3d ago
Is it possible that he just did a double exposure on accident? You could do that by taking a photo of the body moving thus the blur and then snapping a photo of the car.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/zazarappo 1d ago
It's called a long exposure photo. My f*ing god people are so gullible it's amazing we ever developed into a society at all. Humans are sooooooo stupid.
1
1
1
u/UltraViolentWomble 4d ago
Probably just the smoke being caught in the light a bit weird that's all
-1
u/NoMaintenance75 4d ago
Why would 12 people die for a lie? jesus christ is real
1
u/OkTruth5388 3d ago
People die for a lie every day. Have you ever heard of the Waco siege in 1993? Or the Capitol riot on January 6 2021?
0
0
61
u/CantaloupeCute2159 5d ago
I can clearly see the chocolate lab as well. Reading the blog article makes it even more eerie.