The last one, with Elisa Lam, is mysterious. Not sure it has got so much to do with photographs though.
She did act strangely before anding up inside that water-tank.
The "child with the astronaut" has been explained some time ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman
According to Sheffield Hallam University journalism lecturer and writer David Clarke in 2014, the "spaceman" is most likely Templeton's wife, Annie, who was present at the time and was seen on other photographs taken that day. "I think for some reason his wife walked into the shot and he didn't see her because with that particular make of camera you could only see 70% of what was in the shot through the viewfinder", said Clarke. Annie was wearing a pale blue dress on the day in question, which was overexposed as white in the other photos; she also had dark, bobbed hair. It has been argued that, when using photo software to darken the image and straighten the horizon, the figure increasingly appears to be a regular person viewed from behind.[3][4] Of its impact, Clarke said: "[P]eople will still be talking about it in another 50 years."[3]
Take a closer look, here:Well, that "debunking" was a load of bollox, I think.
Take a closer look, here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread896175/pg1
See also the comments, where moro photos and details are pointed out.
Or here:
http://debunkedmyth.blogspot.it/2013/07/the-solway-firth-spaceman.html
The "spaceman" clearly looks like someone's back and the arm/elbow position looks unnatural unless you realize it's seen from the back.
Source: http://i.imgur.com/Py7ZI9i.jpg
The heavily contrasted image on the right says it all, IMO.
Doug
Ah, that was a better one. That settles it. Great find.
Why didn't they do that from the beginning?
Actually, I don't think that helps. There's something wrong with the lighting in the shot. Typically with the use of flash there is a thin black outline around one edge of the subjects, people, table etc. Here the visible shadow is very thin. Yet around the top left corner there are apparently multiple shadows, and very wide ones at that. It might suggest a double exposure (who knows what was the other shot, it may have been a mistake). Or simply a deliberate hoax. Something isn't right for an ordinary single photograph I think.What about looking at "the space between"? Etc.
Possibly that appearance - which tends to look 'ghostly' even when one knows the explanation, was the result of a long exposure shot without flash, where the hands were moved during the exposure.The hands also look unnatural. The hand on the right is not even recognizable as such.