OK. I didn't think much about it at first, after all, the story was published in the Sun. But I have seen it picked up by actual news sites and on several forums; so I have to point out what this is.

What it claims to be is a picture of a ghost. A young boy in scotland took this picture and says it was with a digital camera and was not a double exposure and that nobody was around at the time.

What it is: a picture taken without a flash, hence the yellowish cast and the blurry picture (even the banisters and carpet-- things that don't move are blurry) because it was a long exposure. If you have a digital camera and the flash is turned off, the camera will sense this and leave the shutter open for longer to get enough light to expose the image. This is where you get the yellowish cast (from incandescent lights in the room-- it would be greenish if it were flourescent lighting).

So, if the shutter is open for ten seconds to expose the picture and someone walks by on one of the landings and nobody notices, that person would probably only be walking by for a few seconds of the exposure. Placing your hand on the banister while the rest of you walks by will mean your hand will be the one thing that is in the same spot the longest, so your body will be a blur, but your hand will be clearer. But you still are not there the whole time, so even your hand will look transparent.

Here, I spent about thirty seconds creating this picture. My camera was sitting on a desk, so will probably be clearer since it wasn't hand held. But it is a long exposure and I walked in front of the camera, stopped and moved my body around. So the only thing that stayed in one place were my feet. So the only thing you can see is my transparent feet (because even though they were there the longest, they were not there for the whole exposure). If I had moved my body around less, then you might at least be able to see it as a blur as well, but I probably moved it around more than I needed to. The other image is where I walked out of the room and stuck my head back in for about half the exposure. If I had my head there longer, then it would be less transparent and more clear and shorter it would be more transparent and more ghostly. Both of these were also taken with digital cameras:

Discussions about whether or not you believe in ghosts aside. I've never seen a convincing photo that I couldn't have faked myself pretty easily. Sometimes I think people like to come up with some supernatural explanations for things when they don't know the answer to, instead of just saying I don't know. Here you have people, that if they didn't set the photo up, took a picture and it unfolded as above and because they didn't know why it happened and didn't know someone walked by the landing; immediately assumed it was a ghost.