By GROONE
Why Not Cameras in Para-Research? part 2
This is part 2 of my original “Why Not To Use Cameras In Para-Research.” This is a continuation of the article about why using digital cameras is pointless in paranormal research. The idea of the article was that a digital image tells a part of the story and not the entire story.
In a recent investigation we met a gentleman by the name of Dennis Holt. He captured an image of an alleged ghost during an outing with another paranormal research team. The image shows what appears to be a picture of a ghostly figure of a man standing by a window. If you look at the image and use some creative imagination it almost looks like the man is wearing an old style naval sea coat.
The image is quite interesting to say the least, but really hits home with what I was writing about the use of digital imagery in paranormal research. When you learn about factors that took place to capture the image, one must question it thoroughly.
Please keep in mind while you read this article that this is one person’s analysis of Dennis Holt’s picture. His picture may or may not be an actual image of a ghost, but it seems that the news agencies, magazines, and television shows have accepted the image without question. Any good paranormal investigator should never accept something at face value. It is our duty to analyze any data that comes across our desks thoroughly. If we don’t do things like this, then we might as well accept orbs as an end-all point of evidence and proof of the existence of ghosts.
Things I know about Mr. Holt’s image are: He said that he left his aperture open for 5 seconds, he also feels and recalls that he was the last one out of the room and that he took the picture from within the door frame of the room. At the time he took the picture there was also a flash of lightning.
The first thing we should look at is the placement of the camera. Placement of this image is very important. The room is 17′ long. In Mr. Holt’s image, we are facing a corner near a window. If you were standing at the door of the room, you would not be able to see the far corner as it is in the image.
The far corner that we are seeing is almost completely blocked by the bed if we were standing at the door. In order to get the angle of the picture, you would have to step 3′ to the right of the door and be almost adjacent from the foot of the bed to get the angle in the picture. In the heat of a paranormal investigation,
it is very easy to forget simple things such as placement. Subjectivity and desire will win every time.
When we completely examine the image with a critical eye, we can start seeing things that are recognizable and would be present during the time of an investigation. Because of this, I believe what we are looking at is the backside of a person that is looking down at a video recorder or something else and is preparing to leave the room. Here’s why:
In the image; I highlighted several items that seem to be quite obvious when pointed out.
1.) The shirt appears to be a black golf shirt. There is a short sleeve, and a noticeable collar. If I’m not mistaken, one of the investigation team members (or all) was wearing black golf shirts. 2.) Above the collar is white and then black. It appears to be the nape of a neck. The transition goes - dark collar, nape, and then black which might be the back hair line. 3.) If you look through and to the left shoulder of the figure. You can clearly see the outline of an object that is long and square in shape. Looks very much like a camera on a tripod. 4.) The stance of the image is facing the window, left arm bent chest level toward the window and the head bent down.. 5.) The darkness of the waist appears to be caused from a dark object, possibly a chair or table, sitting in the corner. 6.) The light on the wall appears to be from a flashlight whose beam could very well be enhanced from the flash of lightning. 7.) Lastly, the trail of light to the left can be caused by a flashlight or even a flash from a camera due to the long exposure.
The most critical part of this image is that the aperture was left open for 5 seconds. Using a simple calculation of distance = rate * time we can figure out a few things that can happen in 5 seconds.
Time = 5 seconds or .0014 hours
Rate = Standard strolling speed of 3 mph or 15840 feet per hour
Distance = 15840fph * .0014 hr
In 5 seconds a person, slowly walking, can cover 22.2 feet. This gives ample time for a person or persons to hurriedly walk in front of the camera and walk out of the room. An airplane can land. A bus and 3 cars can pass in front one after another at 35 miles per hour. A world record hotdog eater can put away 10 hotdogs.
During our investigation at the same house; my team decided to test what can happen with an aperture that has been left open for an extended period of time. Here, I took a picture of Bruce as he walked out of the room. I was using a Pentax *ist with the aperture left open for a little less than 3 seconds. Bryan held an LED flashlight on Bruce while I took the image. Bruce slowly strolled out of the camera field of view. The only thing we were missing in the image was the flash of lightning, but the results are obvious.
Later in our investigation, Bryan took a startling image of what appears to be of a person standing in front of his camera. While we were excited about this image at first, we started connecting the dots and found, with high certainty that the image Bryan captured was of him.
Why do we feel this? When Bryan was taking the picture, there was a video camera behind him that had a strong infrared illuminator attached to it. He walked in front of the video camera and then snapped a picture with his infrared camera. What he picked up was the shadow cast from the ir illuminator as it flooded the
room. Since the ir could not be seen by the visible eye, there was no way to tell that he was standing and casting a shadow as it did.
While digital and film camera’s are nice to have to journal and log an investigation, you can see that they really do not paint the entire picture. Our tests and analysis show that the world within the picture will change once we learn the entire story behind the picture or use a critical eye to recreate the story within the picture. If we accepted the images from cameras at face value and that’s all; then the cameras would be worth their weight in gold, but we are trying to prove or disprove the existence of something that allegedly exists and we have to get beyond accepting things at face value. It is the only way we, as investigators, will grow and begin testing new theories and ideas.
