Anyone knowledgeable about chemical/film photographic effects?   Check out these pictures:  http://www.gotsc.org/MaterializationSilverBelle.htm All I know is that this was pre-Photoshop and they look pretty good to me.   I believe these pictures were supposed to have been taken in the dark because light destroys the ectoplasm or something?   That's why the pictures were taken with "infra-red film" (whatever THAT is)?  

OK never mind the last post.   This is what an infrared photo looks like:   http://lightingtheway.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/infrared-photography-a-discussion-part-1-of-2/  So it could have been infra-red film used in those photos, shooting in the dark.   But if the ectoplasm isn't real then obviously they used some type of optical technology to make the effects.  

Ectoplasm (the paranormal stuff) is bullshit.

Ectoplasm (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded&quot is a term coined by Charles Richet to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.^[2] Ectoplasm is said to be associated with the formation of spirits, however since World War II reports of ectoplasmic phenomena have declined and many psychical researchers doubt whether genuine cases ever existed.^[3]

 

I don't find the idea of ectoplasm strange at all, as long as it's invisible. We practitioners of energy healing or other esoteric practices are quite used to strange energetic stuff emanating from people's bodies, coursing within us and floating around. Some of it, to some of us is quite tangible or perceivable. It is mostly on what we call etheric levels, a subtle counterpart of ordinary matter, no fancy extra-dimensional stuff or anything. It's the part of the world that orgonomy works with.

However, the process of materializing this stuff is what really fascinates me. I don't understand the process at all, it doesn't seem easy to me and maybe it's better that way. If the medium takes some substance from her etheric body and then materializes it (usually temporarily) then I suppose it's not healthy.

Gathering an ectoplasm from own bodily substances is one thing, something I have never seen nor heard of since the era of fashionable spiritism. Another thing is to gather something like ectoplasm from the surroundings, which is quite a different technique that I can use. There is a psychic I trust and on a rare ocassion I asked her to divinate me a chemical composition of such a substance. The composition of this "ectoplasm" was mostly gold and a radioactive element heavier than radium, plus traces of two other metals. 
Therefore, I do believe in the possibility of ectoplasm, but I consider it an artificial man-made thing, a densified etheric substance of some kind. If some people gather it from their own bodies, that's probably not wise. That website says that Ethel Post-Parish was very exhausted after her ectoplasmic spectacle, even though she managed to absorb most of the stuff back. All that to materialize a temporary form for some spirit. Good esotericists usually frown at such a cooperation, we consider it exploiting the people.

Btw, I found this book The Psychic Structures by W. J. Crawford, I am pretty sure there must be something about ectoplasm.

 

As for the spirits, I don't really follow that paranormal researcher's logic. Electromagnetic radiation in the air does not explain anything. It's measurable and if we'd project any significant amounts, doctors would already know it. EM radiation doesn't do anything, just like there are no paranormal phenomena around wifi routers. 
I rather say that we have not only this biologic body but also its subtle counterpart, the etheric body. Which can under some special circumstances interact with the dense physical world, producing interesting phenomena. The etheric and dense matter are convertible on each other, although often they revert back after a time. According to the subtle body theories we consist of multiple subtle bodies and when our biologic body dies, we continue to live in the others, some of which may also get abandoned or dissolved. Therefore we get various kinds of "spirits" or even quasi-semi-conscious remains of shed subtle bodies. Good esotericists consider that something between a vermin and environmental pollution. 

Yeah, just try to make a photo-realistic image of a woman while most of your etheric innards is hanging outside in the air!  

According to "Poltergeist" this is ectoplasm;

That's not really a mirror image.   The face isn't the same shape in both.      

there are slight differences, but it still looks to me like nothing a few careful shadings of a pen couldn't accomplish.  it's not as if she's grinning or squinting in one and not the other.

Nah... that's the not-so-funny second flick where NYC's collective hatred, disgust and depravity congeals in the sewers to form some pink goop that resisted GBs' "proton streams".

I think it may be real and if not it's pretty impressive.  The pictures aren't as laughable (to me anyway) as you're making them out to be.   Those wisps of ectoplasm are the most impressive and they clearly weren't done with "cardboard cutouts" of all things.
 

So you're saying that that A or B must be true:
 

A.   I'm trying to convince you all that I THINK IT'S REAL (which is not the same as trying to convince you that it IS real.)  No, this one would be incorrect.   If have a personal belief about something I don't feel the need to convince people that I really do believe it.  They generally just believe that I believe it.  I'm also not trying to convince you that it IS real because I'm undecided about it.   I don't know what to think of them.   I need more information.  
 

B.   I'm an ignorant person.   This one is correct as far as photographic double exposures or whatever technology was used here.  I am completely lacking in knowledge or training on this and that is why I asked if anyone can explain how they were done.  Me asking if anyone is knowledgeable is basically conveying my own ignorance on the subject, isn't it?   Since you're apparently so non-ignorant as far as photographic processes, how did they make those wisps of ectoplasm?   Cotton, paint, chemicals on the negative plate, what?  I'm also ignorant about that photographer.   If he is recorded to have been involved with other known photographic hoaxes, that would be telling.   "Ignorant" doesn't mean the same thing as "stupid" by the way.   You seem confused about the meaning of the word.  

 

It says this seance happened in 1953.   You think that's EARLY 1900s? 
 

Do you have monitor near death? The spirit is clearly an illustration. Compare the details and shades of gray in the women and their clothing and everything else to the illustration.

 

Notice the ornament on the head band is over a different eye in each picture. If the head just turned the headband was held still. OR the image was simply reversed.

 

These fairies seem suspiciously antropomorphic, clothed and sharply photographed to me. This is quite different from how the devas of nature are supposed to look like, devic evolution should be rather similar in diversity and looks to the plant life or coral reef inhabitants. Devas aren't human (chordata, mammalia), they do not think as we do and they are more like collective beings, working in larger groups. So much for theory, which was so far useful to me. It will take some evidence before I re-think that and start taking these kitshy fairies seriously.

Also, I suppose these little critters do not have any special skills with photographic technology. I've seen subtle energetic shapes on photographs and they mostly looked like crap. I'd rather trust the Mahatmas, who would be better suited to the task of doctoring the photos.

Look, this photography is supposed to have a glass original in the British museum. If I remember, the historical story is that it was taken with Jelena Petrovna sitting on the chair alone and the men behind her materialized later on the photograph. 

From now on, W.W.J.D. is going to stand for What Would Jelena Do?

If you mean exactly how then there is likely no answer unless someone can find the confessions of the people who made them. For the first century and a half it was all wet chemical processes. There were a half dozen or so popular ones. Kodak developed an easy and reliable one. I doubt there are many people today who have experimented producing ectoplasm photos. Disolving chemicals during the development process is one obvious place to start. I mean as a trickle of crystals that disolve and inhibit or enhance the process. Or simply failure to agitate the container during the process.

All this before getting into double exposures, wires and small objects close to the camera. Remember we never see the failures where the wires are obvious. From there we can go to exposed the print from the negative where dodging out imperfections and burning the good parts was a talent of all good darkroom jockies. Dodging out wires is obvious.

What strikes me in most of the pictures is how the detail of the ectolasm is so very like enlarged images of tobacco smoke.

 

 

 

I can find nothing about this photo online. I did searches for  Jelena Petrovna and ghosts

but could not find anything related to it.

 

(edit)

LMAO. I went to the URL of that picture and then bumped up to the main page. LMAO... talk about a fake picture. That website is a complete conspiracy theory beehive. I glanced through some of the shit and it's this complete hodgepodge of bullshit oozing over every paragraph of the page.

I had to close the page quickly because it was starting to infect my screen...

 

 

I've yet to see any pictures which lead me to believe there was any thing worth while other than a skilled photographer who tricked people. Most other photos are really crappy and terrible over exposures, double negatives or damaged equipment/negatives.

 

I submit the following website for a ton of fake pictures (which they claim are real)

http://www.angelsghosts.com/famous_real_ghost_pictures.html

 The obvious photo of the princess could easily be different in the two photos because it is a projection onto a surface in the area where the "ectoplasm" is. This would cause distortions if it is a sheet which could be moving due to air currents or someone behind the screen (which supplied the real-looking hands) touching the screen, distorting the projected image.