Viewing Thread:
"I need your opinion"

Hi guys,

as many of you are skeptical here I would like your opinion on one of my photographs I have taken on my last investigation:

Strange Light

It is the 2 photos at the bottom of the page.

Dan, the BPRG head investigator and myself can't seem to figure out what this is. I need everyone's opinions.

It seems too bright to be a dust particle and there were no reflective items up that high (we looked).

It would be great to hear your opinions and hopefully we can explain it away as a natural occurence.

Thanks

Ok, status has changed to actually believing...just watched video footage of what happened to me during the investigation - and it corresponds to what I felt.

Also just heard some wicked EVP. Looks like the place threw up more than what I thought in possible evidence...

Just call Mulder and Scully, or the Ghostbusters ;P

Garin wrote:
> Now you've depressed me. I know you're quite timid when it comes
> to exchanging views so I wont say anymore.

I don't mind exchanging views, but i know when we are in a debate - it can get a bit heated. We will always have opposing views but I don't mind that - it does mean you bring forward a point that I do not initially think of. Again, a reason I brought it up for debate.

> And I doubt your camera is faulty. Artefacts are a
> "feature" of digital cameras. If thats what it is, it
> doesnt mean its broken.

Unfortunately you are right. Working with them on a daily basis usually annoys me to no end.


I guess we can both say the image is paranormal (in the proper sense of the word). The image "artefact" is "beyond what we would normally expect", be it with a logical or supernatural reason.

The team could actually use someone like you :)

Now you've depressed me. I know you're quite timid when it comes to exchanging views so I wont say anymore.

And I doubt your camera is faulty. Artefacts are a "feature" of digital cameras. If thats what it is, it doesnt mean its broken.

Dust would produce a more even reflection - either that or I have captured a very rare speck of dust that has very unique properties.

It must have been a distance away from the camera - my pop up flash is quite a distance away from the lens. If it does prove to be a reflection of dust, then it must have been aligned directly with the flash itself - but this wouldn't be picked up by the lens, due to the lens and flash not being along the same plane.

If it is a reflection of something other than dust, then we are stumped as to what. It is still a very likely possibility, but we couldn't find anything that would cause that reflection.

Likewise, it could be a digital error - although my other pictures came out fine. If it definitely is an error, it'll be returned asap as it's only a few months into its warranty!

HM wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> I like how the website dismisses the obviously explanation with
> a
> nonsensical reason.
>
> It looks like a digital camera's interpretation of light
> refraction. Not alot more you can say.
>
> It is rather interesting as it appears to have a dark
> core. The outer part is too bright to be a reflection of a dust
> particle - especially considering the distance away from the
> camera

Ok then, why is the outer part too bright to be a reflection of a dust particle? And how did you determine its distance from the camera?

Garin wrote:
> I like how the website dismisses the obviously explanation with a
> nonsensical reason.
>
> It looks like a digital camera's interpretation of light
> refraction. Not alot more you can say.

It is rather interesting as it appears to have a dark core. The outer part is too bright to be a reflection of a dust particle - especially considering the distance away from the camera

Could this be something paranormal? We still are uncertain - as this still is an orb photo... what do you think?

And just to emphasise that there is no reason given. All that has been said is what it is unlikely to be (no dismissing whatsoever).

Hence why I'm asking for people's opinions on it so that I can find the right one.

The BPRG have taken my photo and are sending it to several professionals (i.e. experts on photographs and people who study paranormal evidence) for further investigation.

Warhunt wrote:
> The website, and HM in general, seem to actively look for valid
> and realistic reasoning before putting it down to anything
> "mysterious". It could be what you say, it could not
> be. Who knows? And that is what they are saying, not that it's a
> ghost....
>
> That's why I kinda like the site.

Thanks all :)

It could be a refraction of light, but I don't quite understand why it is just on that one picture. Also a bit worried if my new camera is just throwing in these weird light refractions. I generally dismiss anything "orb-like" as most of the time it is dust or snow (as stated on the webpage)

At the moment I am tending away from actually believing in ghosts (actually if I told you exactly what I believe, we'd be here for hours because of the intricate details of believing one thing but not another makes it very complex.

The post wasn't intended to say ghosts exist, nor to say they don't - I was just after an opinion. I have already concluded that no piece or set of evidence will ever prove paranormal activities and entities exist - the only way for someone to believe that weird stuff happens is to experience it first hand.

EDIT: And Hmmm..., that pic made me chuckle!

Right - shall we all get together next tuesday and go down there?

I think we can solve the problem once and for all.

We need beer though. It's a very important ingredient.

I concur with Machie, Jason.

Again, although i'm a sceptic, it's very interesting researching the unknown. Think some people go abit too far with it though (ie. I don't believe in the people on Most Haunted who have a 'genuine' conversation with ghosts)

*EDIT* Also read that part of the website about Dolls. Eileen is definitely the creepiest just looking at it.