13 replies to this topic

[Kelli Chases Ghosts]

I don't put a lot of stock in video and stills for paranormal research. There is a lot more that is subjective about a picture than there is with audio, at least IMO.

So I have to ask, has anyone ever captured an image of any type that was really worthwhile? Something that is unquestionably paranormal? If so, what did you use to capture it?

I personally think the best thing cameras are good for is to show what the live humans were doing when something of value was caught in an audio recording.

Thoughts?

[CaveRat2]

With the state of the art in regards to digital photography I don't consider ANY digital photograph as valid evidence of its own accord. It may serve as colloborating evidence but never on its own merits.

A few years ago only those with expensive equipment and considerable training could hoax a photograph. But now anyone with Photoshop and an hour to kill can do it on a home computer to the point that professionals can't detect the hoax. And with everyone these days going digital the days of conclusive photographic evidence have ended. There are even programs that allow people to alter the EXIF data so that is not reliable.

Film photography is still somewhat reliable, simply because to hoax a film image (and negative!) one does have to use some fairly expensive equipment not commonly found in the home. Which doesn't mean that a photographic studio couldn't do it. It's just not as easily or cheaply done. So I do give a little more credibility to a picture made from a negative than digital. But even that is not 100%, I still want to see something else besides jut the picture before I'll put a lot of creedence in it.

[grimshawl]

Anything can be hoaxed if enough effort is put into it. I dont think that should be the criteria for throwing out all video and photographic evidence. scientific and medical testing has been shown to have been hoaxed/skewed in many trial tests for many drugs and or scientific break throughs. with this logic you could just as easily say that we should then discount all such testing. IMO
Just like conterfitting undoubtably produces false money that at times is accepted as real you need to check it to the best of your abillity and use sound judgement but not automatically disallow due to the possibillity of its falsehood.

I think any one piece of evidence is stronger when supported by other collaborating evidence of another type but shouldnt be discounted just because you lack multible sources.

[afterlife]

Hello, I am the founder of P.O.S.T a paranormal Investigation team. One of the reasons I started doing this is because you cant trust Hollywood and yes a lot of people have been caught faking or altering photos & other "evidence". I have had my own personal experiences as a teen as well that really shook me but thats another story. So I set out to see what I could prove or disprove. I feel any one photo by it self cant really be concluded as evidence because you have no idea what happened before or after that particular photo. Any way I have caught what I believe in my hart to be a real apparition, While conducting an Investigation at a local pizza parlor. I used a full spectrum camera that captures UV,Visible & Infrared light. I took a series of 5 photos about 3 seconds apart and the camera was on a tri-pod. The first two photos were normal and the 3 photo reviled what seemed to be some kind of white mist. The following 2 photos were back to normal. However when I zoomed in on this apparition or mist, I could see the out line of a person within it. I also noticed that the up turned chair legs in front of the apparition were reflecting light from one of our IR cameras we had set up. The reflection is the same in all the photos except one! You guessed it the one with the apparition in it. This means what ever was there for a few seconds was dense enough to block some of the IR light. This mist was never seen with my own eyes only upon reviewing the photos did I catch it. Oh & the best part is we caught an EVP about the same time this photo was taken, a crystal clear "YES" in response to a question that was asked. In conclusion don't be dissuaded by the jerks and A-holes who would try to fake something but conduct your own Investigations & find the truth for your self!

P.S. If you would like to see the photos in question check out the POST blog & read the Investigation headed "Olde Towne Pizza"
CLICK HERE

[CaveRat2]

Interesting photo. Can't say what exactly you caught there. At 3 second intervals though, are you certain no one walked into the scene? I didn't pull down any EXIF data so I can't say what your exposure time or aperature settings were.

Also the use of wide spectrum cameras can introduce anomalies under certain conditions. Often material will reflect / glow when exposed to sources outside the visible spectrum. With a single wide spectrum camera you don't know which band was respoonsible for the image. (Not saying that's what this is, just something to consider when using wide spectrum.)

That is why I don't recommend these cameras. Instead I prefer the use of 3 cameras, firing simultaneously, one covering IR, the second visible light, the third UV if that's your goal. Using that method if you get an image on one, but not the others you havean indication of the particular portion of the spectrum involved. If for example UV is causing a reaction it will show on that image and not the others. If something is really out there it usually shows on all cameras.

[afterlife]

Well I took about 800 pics during that Investigation & that was the only one with any anomaly. also there were only three people in the building at that time(one being me) and they were all accounted for, you can see one of the Investigators in the background she actually gets blocked out of view by this mist. I don't think it could be a reflection because there would be reflection in the other photos as well, just like the IR light reflecting off the legs of the upturned chairs. That light reflection is the same intensity in 4 out of 5 photos(The 5th being the one in question). Also I was standing next to a IR camera when I took these photos. I watched that video over & over and nothing crosses the path at the time I took those photos. The fact that the IR camera DIDN'T pick any thing up is interesting because the only difference between the two is UV, meaning that maybe what ever this was, was better seen with the full spectrum camera due to the UV range. Oh I only put 3 of the 5 photos on my web page to save some room, just in case you were wondering.

[OMPRDave]

It wouldn't take much of a shift in the angle of the camera to possibly capture some type of reflective anomaly behind the glass. Is that a mirror you were shooting into? The first thought I had, if it is, is that it's something behind the glass on the mirror.

Very interesting picture.

[afterlife]

It wouldn't take much of a shift in the angle of the camera to possibly capture some type of reflective anomaly behind the glass. Is that a mirror you were shooting into? The first thought I had, if it is, is that it's something behind the glass on the mirror.

Very interesting picture.

No there were no mirrors around and the only glass is the far outside window which is stained glass. The opening in between the two rooms has no glass its completely open. As for any movment The camera was on a solid tri-pod. You can see every detail is the same between the photos except Rhonda who is in the back, she moves a little. Beleave me when I first saw this I tried every way to recreate it on the second Investigation & could not. The fact that the object had enough mass to block some of the IR light reflecting on the legs of the chairs tells me that it couldn't be a reflection.

[CaveRat2]

Dave, to their credit the photographer did use a tripod. Each of these pictures can be laid over the other with little to no positioning error thus the camera was not moved between shots.

That said the picture has very little range of contrast indicating it was likely lightened after being made. The limited range prevents additionalcontrast to be added and also limits the ability to do a pixel weight scan across the area since the range between pixels is limited.

While likely not a factor since it only appeared in one image, the bright area from flash reflection did push that segment into saturation. This can cause various anomalies, howeever since all other factors are equal I would have expected to see a similar anomaly in all pictures if that were the cause.

The benefit of shooting multiple images from the same point is clearly evident in this series of pictures. Each does serve to establish a baseline which can be beneficial for comparison as I have done here.

This does not appear to be a mirror unless the image was altered since lettering on the sign is not reversed as it would be if a mirror image. (True the image could be flipped, but that would constitute manipulation and would lower credibility.) (EXIF data indicates CREATOR was used, so manipulation of some type was done, although possibly just compression and size reduction for web posting may be so indicated.)

[afterlife]

D4mn,.. that's pretty good caverat!... By the way I didn't use a flash of any kind only a sima IR light attached to the tri-pod & yes I did reduce the size of the photos to be able to put them on my web page. So would you mind checking out other evidence we have to see what you can come up with?

[CaveRat2]

D4mn,.. that's pretty good caverat!... By the way I didn't use a flash of any kind only a sima IR light attached to the tri-pod & yes I did reduce the size of the photos to be able to put them on my web page. So would you mind checking out other evidence we have to see what you can come up with?

Our association does provide analysis at no charge to investigators and groups. We do require a submission form be sent with all requests. It asks a series of questions related to the evidence and provides us with the background information needed to do a thorough analysis. Since this getting a bit off-topic here, you can PM me and I'll send the appropriate forms for whatever evidence you wish to submit.

[OMPRDave]

Dave, to their credit the photographer did use a tripod. Each of these pictures can be laid over the other with little to no positioning error thus the camera was not moved between shots.

That said the picture has very little range of contrast indicating it was likely lightened after being made. The limited range prevents additionalcontrast to be added and also limits the ability to do a pixel weight scan across the area since the range between pixels is limited.

While likely not a factor since it only appeared in one image, the bright area from flash reflection did push that segment into saturation. This can cause various anomalies, howeever since all other factors are equal I would have expected to see a similar anomaly in all pictures if that were the cause.

The benefit of shooting multiple images from the same point is clearly evident in this series of pictures. Each does serve to establish a baseline which can be beneficial for comparison as I have done here.

This does not appear to be a mirror unless the image was altered since lettering on the sign is not reversed as it would be if a mirror image. (True the image could be flipped, but that would constitute manipulation and would lower credibility.) (EXIF data indicates CREATOR was used, so manipulation of some type was done, although possibly just compression and size reduction for web posting may be so indicated.)

I didn't get a chance to look at the EXIF data (it was late when I finally got to sit down last night)...thanks for point stuff out, guys.

[OMPRDave]

Mind you my scanner isn't liking Vista 64 bit at all so I rephotographed the original print with my Kodak Easyshare Z1275 on document settings. Also, during my divorce I lost all the negatives to the photos in my albums, so all I have is the information I had noted at the time for this. It was taken during a tour of the House of the Seven Gables in Salem, Massachusetts in October of 2002. The smoky haziness near the light streak should be ignored - it happened while trying to photograph the original print. Rather, the streak of light itself is the primary area which I can't account for in the original. I will eventually get this rescanned at one-stop digital photo kiosk, but for now here is a quick view of the shot.



The original was taken with a Minolta 400si 35mm with a 35-80mm lens, no flash, f-stop 2.8, shutter speed 1/30/sec with ISO 800 speed Fuji film. I had the camera pressed to my chest to stabilize it as best I could, and the lens was pointed straight ahead the entire time the shutter was open which accounts for the blurriness. The humanoid shape at far left is a painting severely blurred by the length of shutter time.

I had the photo and negative analyzed by Fuji film and was determined not to be a developmental error. All photos on the same roll before and after showed no streaks and the negative showed no signs of manufacturer flaws (according to Fuji). I worked in a high-end photolab for a time back in 2001 and I have never seen processing errors that looked remotely like the anomaly in the photo.

The light streak falls in front of the windows, with no lights outside the window and the only other light sources were the ambient lights from the room, all of which were overhead/chandelier style lighting or wall sconces. I did not see anything at the time the photo was taken in that room at all, nor did I experience anything else at teh time it was taken (no sounds, feelings, sensations, etc).

Out of hundreds of pics taken over the years it's the only one I cannot explain at all...too bad that the curators won't allow paranormal investigations there.

Edited by OMPRDave, 03 October 2009 - 01:22 PM.

[nekosensei]

Hello, I am the founder of P.O.S.T a paranormal Investigation team. One of the reasons I started doing this is because you cant trust Hollywood and yes a lot of people have been caught faking or altering photos & other "evidence". I have had my own personal experiences as a teen as well that really shook me but thats another story. So I set out to see what I could prove or disprove. I feel any one photo by it self cant really be concluded as evidence because you have no idea what happened before or after that particular photo. Any way I have caught what I believe in my hart to be a real apparition, While conducting an Investigation at a local pizza parlor. I used a full spectrum camera that captures UV,Visible & Infrared light. I took a series of 5 photos about 3 seconds apart and the camera was on a tri-pod. The first two photos were normal and the 3 photo reviled what seemed to be some kind of white mist. The following 2 photos were back to normal. However when I zoomed in on this apparition or mist, I could see the out line of a person within it. I also noticed that the up turned chair legs in front of the apparition were reflecting light from one of our IR cameras we had set up. The reflection is the same in all the photos except one! You guessed it the one with the apparition in it. This means what ever was there for a few seconds was dense enough to block some of the IR light. This mist was never seen with my own eyes only upon reviewing the photos did I catch it. Oh & the best part is we caught an EVP about the same time this photo was taken, a crystal clear "YES" in response to a question that was asked. In conclusion don't be dissuaded by the jerks and A-holes who would try to fake something but conduct your own Investigations & find the truth for your self!

P.S. If you would like to see the photos in question check out the POST blog & read the Investigation headed "Olde Towne Pizza"
CLICK HERE

Hey! Just out of curiosity, what kind of camera did you use to take that picture with? In other words, what's the brand, model, etc?