Is there a photograph analyst in the house?

[Lianachan]

Somebody has asked me to look at the two photographs attached to this thread.

The image is of a ghost/apparition/whatever allegedly photographed at a remote Scottish castle. The person who sent it to me said she'd had an abusive email from somebody saying it's the shadow of a statue - and contacted me to ask about statues at the castle. I told her that there weren't any (there aren't) but that I had reservations about the authenticity of the image. It just doesn't look right - something about the edges of the shadow, and just a vague "nah!" feeling to the whole thing.

One photograph is the original, and the second is a close up of this mysterious ghostly figure.

Any thoughts?

[Sam5]

Yes, I used to be a photo analyst with the Interpol Bureau of Ghosts and Elves.

This looks to me like the Elf of Muness Castle on the Shetland Isles. We’ve been trying to catch him for years, but he only appears as a shadow in tourist photos. We've been working to perfect our Shadow Capture Device, but it's not ready yet.

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/unst/munesscastle/index.html

[Lianachan]

Yes, I used to be a photo analyst with the Interpol Bureau of Ghosts and Elves.

This looks to me like the Elf of Muness Castle on the Shetland Isles. We’ve been trying to catch him for years, but he only appears as a shadow in tourist photos. We've been working to perfect our Shadow Capture Device, but it's not ready yet.

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/unst/munesscastle/index.html

That is indeed the castle. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a woo-woo, or in anyway consider the image to be (for want of a better word) real. I only put it here because I felt there'd be others on this board who could offer a more comprehensive debunking of the image itself (ha! itself!).

[Sam5]

That is indeed the castle. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a woo-woo, or in anyway consider the image to be (for want of a better word) real. I only put it here because I felt there'd be others on this board who could offer a more comprehensive debunking of the image itself (ha! itself!).

Oh, the photo its-elf? I think it looks like the shadow of someone standing to the right of the door and several feet out from the wall.

http://photos2.ghostweb.com/agood3.html

[Lianachan]

Oh, the photo its-elf? I think it looks like the shadow of someone standing to the right of the door and several feet out from the wall.

http://photos2.ghostweb.com/agood3.html

Yes, that's the source of the images too. It does look like a person's shadow, indeed, and that's what I think too - but if the person who's presenting the image is saying there was nobody around then, what scope for debunking is there? Aye there was - naw there wusny - aye there was - etc.. is hardly a useful debate!

[Halcyon Dayz]

The shadow is a lot shorter than the door.
It is either a midget, assuming a natural light source
or a figurine close to a lamp.

[Gillianren]

Yes, that's the source of the images too. It does look like a person's shadow, indeed, and that's what I think too - but if the person who's presenting the image is saying there was nobody around then, what scope for debunking is there? Aye there was - naw there wusny - aye there was - etc.. is hardly a useful debate!

if there was no one around then, who took the picture?

[Lianachan]

if there was no one around then, who took the picture?
Sorry, I should have said no one else around - anyway, that's not a claim of mine, that's a claim made by whoever contributed the image to that site.

[GDwarf]

Building off of previous comments, not only must something very short be casting the shadow, but it must be very close to the door, just off the camera I'd say. Now, I'm no photo analyst, so I'm only using common sense, which doesn't always apply with photos, but you'll note that the shadow seems to have about half of it's legs shown on the wall, so the thing casting the shadow can only be half of the shadow's leg's distance away from the wall, or, just outside the picture. I'd say it's the sun/a light shining on a figurine of some sort, which is just off camera, but I'd want someone who actually knows about these things to confirm that.

[Sam5]

The shadow is a lot shorter than the door.
It is either a midget, assuming a natural light source
or a figurine close to a lamp.

Doh.

Isn't your shadow short at noon and long at sunset and sunrise? Does your height actually change, or just the length of your shadow?

[Lianachan]

Doh.

Isn't your shadow short at noon and long at sunset and sunrise? Does your height actually change, or just the length of your shadow?

Actually, aren't you tallest when you first get up in the morning, before your weight starts acting on your previously relaxed and stretched out joints?

[genebujold]

Turns out, I did photo analysis a while back (early 90s), and have long been an amateur photographer. I've involved with digital photography since I got into photo analysis, and I do digital photography as a (very) part-time job.

Having said that, I brought your images up and here's what I find:

It's a fake, for the following reasons:

1. The shadowing of the inside of the doorjamb should be uniform from top to bottom. It's in shadow - shaddows do not add! But the shadow of the forward, triangular appendage adds slightly to the shadow of the doorjamb.

2. The additional shadow on the inside of the doorjamb is of a different color set than the rest of the doorjamb. Darker shadows (more shading) along the same surface would be of the same colorset, just a darker shade of gray.

3. The forward (left) leg casts an uneven surface against the bend in the rock on the wall, but it's too much for the angle in the rock.

4. The lower shadows, supposedly of the feet, are merely darkened areas, including tell-tale circles of burning (a technique for darking an area of a photograph) against the wall.

5. The color set for most of the body and especially the head is all wrong for it to be a shadow against the wall behind it.

6. If if were anything other than a shadow, because it's not pitch black, there would be at least some lines of "form" around the head, hat, face, neck, and shoulders, but there's nothing but the outline - yet it's a reasonably dark brown. Much darker photographs of faces with even poorer resolution show at least highlights of cheekbones, foreheads, eyesockets, etc. Here - nothing but randomness, indicating that it was cut and pasted in much higher resolution, then smeared, and finally burned before cutting the resolution WAY down, supposedly to hide shoddy digital studio workmanship!

[Sam5]

Actually, aren't you tallest when you first get up in the morning, before your weight starts acting on your previously relaxed and stretched out joints?

Yeah, but that's only about 1/2 an inch.

What you need to do is go through all your old outdoor photos of people and look at the shadows of the photos taken at different times of day.

Also, there are many ways to make "shadow ghost" pictures like this. Like go to the south side of a building, put on some kind of coat and hat, then stand a few feet from the building, with the sun to your back. You can do this at different times of day and see what kind of a shadow you will cast. Then print the photos and crop you out of the picture. Try doing it near a door, so your shadow will look like a "ghost going in a door". And think, why would a "ghost" need to use a door?

A simple "ghost" photo can be made by using 2 people. Put one inside a big glass door, near the door, looking out. Use a glass door facing North. At about noon, take that picture and also have a person standing outside the door, off camera to the right, with you and the camera being slightly to the left of center. The person outside the door will be lit up by the sunlight, and the person inside the door will be dimly lit in the shadow of the house. You can move around a little and cause the glass reflection of the person outside the house to show up in the same place where the image of the person is inside the door. So, you get an image of two people overlapped and both look like a "ghost".

There are all kinds of ways to make fake "ghost" pictures.

[Sam5]

Oh, and another thing.... the camera lens and color film see just about what the human eye sees, so the human taking the picture would have seen the "shadow ghost" if there had been just the shadow and no one making the shadow. And if the "shadow ghost" had been moving, just that alone would have been worth a big news story in the local newspaper. I mean, if I saw a "shadow ghost" moving along a wall, with nothing making the shadow, I'd run like heck and I'd tell the local newspaper. I might take a few other photos before I start running.

[Lianachan]

Yeah, but that's only about 1/2 an inch.

What you need to do is go through all your old outdoor photos of people and look at the shadows of the photos taken at different times of day.

I knew I should have dropped a "this isn't serious nit-picking" smiley into that post!

There are all kinds of ways to make fake "ghost" pictures.

Yes, there certainly are. You're right about how the photographer should really have seen this "shadow" too, were it genuine.

[Lianachan]

Turns out, I did photo analysis a while back (early 90s), and have long been an amateur photographer. I've involved with digital photography since I got into photo analysis, and I do digital photography as a (very) part-time job.

Having said that, I brought your images up and here's what I find:

It's a fake, for the following reasons:

1. The shadowing of the inside of the doorjamb should be uniform from top to bottom. It's in shadow - shaddows do not add! But the shadow of the forward, triangular appendage adds slightly to the shadow of the doorjamb.

2. The additional shadow on the inside of the doorjamb is of a different color set than the rest of the doorjamb. Darker shadows (more shading) along the same surface would be of the same colorset, just a darker shade of gray.

3. The forward (left) leg casts an uneven surface against the bend in the rock on the wall, but it's too much for the angle in the rock.

4. The lower shadows, supposedly of the feet, are merely darkened areas, including tell-tale circles of burning (a technique for darking an area of a photograph) against the wall.

5. The color set for most of the body and especially the head is all wrong for it to be a shadow against the wall behind it.

6. If if were anything other than a shadow, because it's not pitch black, there would be at least some lines of "form" around the head, hat, face, neck, and shoulders, but there's nothing but the outline - yet it's a reasonably dark brown. Much darker photographs of faces with even poorer resolution show at least highlights of cheekbones, foreheads, eyesockets, etc. Here - nothing but randomness, indicating that it was cut and pasted in much higher resolution, then smeared, and finally burned before cutting the resolution WAY down, supposedly to hide shoddy digital studio workmanship!

Excellent - thank you. I hadn't noticed until just now, but you can actually see through this "shadow" to the lighter coloured stones in the wall. Another clue, perhaps.

[Sam5]

I knew I should have dropped a "this isn't serious nit-picking" smiley into that post!



LOL, I joke quite a lot on this board, but I forget to add the smileys so a lot of people think I'm serious. I enjoy a nice debate. I didn't mean to appear to be mad at you or rude. I can't figure out how to get a smiley to show up right at the end of my message.

[Sam5]

Lol, you know what I hate? Sometimes, maybe once a year, I hang up a coat in some odd place in my house, either in a hallway or in my bedroom, then I go to sleep, then in the middle of the night I wake up and open my eyes and I see a big faint shadow of that coat on the wall, and for about 3 seconds I think it's some kind of big ghost. I hate when that happens. I feel so stupid when that happens. Lol.

[captain swoop]

Why do 'Ghost Hunters' seem to think a film would record anything other than the light falling on it? just like eyes do!

[GDwarf]

Why do 'Ghost Hunters' seem to think a film would record anything other than the light falling on it? just like eyes do!
Because cameras are mystical technology that can colour paper.

Besides, there is something in that, namely that many ghost pictures are overexposed photographs or pieces of dust that a camera's flash bounces off of, giving it a glowing look. Since these people couldn't see these things with their eyes the idea came up that cameras could see things that an eye couldn't.

[captain swoop]

And I thought it was all Chemistry!

[Lianachan]

And I thought it was all Chemistry!

Don't forget that cameras also have "soul eating" characteristics that it may be appropriate to point out at this stage. As far as I know, eyes generally don't do that either.

:)

[John Jones]

Somebody has asked me to look at the two photographs attached to this thread.

The image is of a ghost/apparition/whatever allegedly photographed at a remote Scottish castle. The person who sent it to me said she'd had an abusive email from somebody saying it's the shadow of a statue - and contacted me to ask about statues at the castle. I told her that there weren't any (there aren't) but that I had reservations about the authenticity of the image. It just doesn't look right - something about the edges of the shadow, and just a vague "nah!" feeling to the whole thing.

One photograph is the original, and the second is a close up of this mysterious ghostly figure.

Any thoughts?

I defer to Arthur C Clarke who said (referring to UFO photos): "I'm no longer interested in looking at photos. There are just to many of them and they're too easily faked."

That prolly doesn't help you, but that's my take on it.

[Lianachan]

I defer to Arthur C Clarke who said (referring to UFO photos): "I'm no longer interested in looking at photos. There are just to many of them and they're too easily faked."

That prolly doesn't help you, but that's my take on it.

I very much agree - but I recall that there was a mention of Arthur C. Clarke in the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman:

Ancient Scots had Weapons of Mass Destruction
When Arthur C Clarke was interviewed by the Guardian in 2004 he was asked what he thought was the biggest mystery that he had encountered. He replied: "The oddest thing is these vitrified forts in Scotland. I just thought, how the hell? After all, lasers were not common in the Stone Age."

There are around 100 vitrified forts around the world, with over half in Scotland. They were built on strategic locations, and the stones were heated to such high temperatures that they fused together.

When Clarke’s team tried to recreate the vitrification process they concluded that the amount of heat needed to vitrify rocks was equivalent to an atomic bomb.

I know he's not implying we had WMD 1000's of years ago - and that excerpt is from a list of about 10 extremely far out claims made by woo-woos about Scotland, and is therefore presented here without proper context - but still.... can he really not figure it out?

*edited to provide proper context (http://heritage.scotsman.com/myths.cfm?id=41772005) *

[cran]

Turns out, I did photo analysis a while back (early 90s), and have long been an amateur photographer. I've involved with digital photography since I got into photo analysis, and I do digital photography as a (very) part-time job.

Having said that, I brought your images up and here's what I find:

It's a fake, for the following reasons:

1. The shadowing of the inside of the doorjamb should be uniform from top to bottom. It's in shadow - shaddows do not add! But the shadow of the forward, triangular appendage adds slightly to the shadow of the doorjamb.

2. The additional shadow on the inside of the doorjamb is of a different color set than the rest of the doorjamb. Darker shadows (more shading) along the same surface would be of the same colorset, just a darker shade of gray...
Whilst I agree with your conclusion, Gene, I don't fully agree with your first two reasons...
There are circumstances where shadows do add - and this is dependent upon the number and intensity of light sources, and the relative amount of light-scattering (roughly equates to relative distance) between object(s) casting shadow and surface(s) shadowed...
There are also circumstances where 'shadow-colouring' can occur, most of which are related to opacity and reflectivity of shadow-casting object, ditto of shadowed surface, but also due to nature of light source (spectrum), light-scattering (dust), lens quality, and image process (and age or era of film and process) ...

my experience is pre-digital - mostly 35mm emulsion film and natural light photography...

[genebujold]

Whilst I agree with your conclusion, Gene, I don't fully agree with your first two reasons...
There are circumstances where shadows do add - and this is dependent upon the number and intensity of light sources, and the relative amount of light-scattering (roughly equates to relative distance) between object(s) casting shadow and surface(s) shadowed...
There are also circumstances where 'shadow-colouring' can occur, most of which are related to opacity and reflectivity of shadow-casting object, ditto of shadowed surface, but also due to nature of light source (spectrum), light-scattering (dust), lens quality, and image process (and age or era of film and process) ...

my experience is pre-digital - mostly 35mm emulsion film and natural light photography...

Agreed - if there were multiple lighting sources for that scene.

However, there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that this is the case, hence my original conclusion.

[cran]

That's okay, Gene; I was simply voicing objection to what appeared to be a 'general principle'...

[Charlie in Dayton]

That tricorn hat stands out like a sore thumb...and do I see a plinth that the statue/mannequin in question is standing on?