Blog

Sooner or later, anyone working in the paranormal field will be faced with a photograph which requires explanation, be it an ABC, UFO or ghost. The majority of images I receive are 'orbs', images of bright circular objects, discussion of which always divides the paranormal community. Some believe that orbs are spirits, appearing on cameras which are capable of recording objects that the human eye can not perceive.

I fall into the other camp, where it is believed that cameras are capable of recording objects that the human eye can not perceive, and in the case of orbs, these are dust, water droplets and airborne contaminants which reflect the light given off by a built-in camera flash (a technical issue known as backscatter). Hell, I may be wrong, and those glowing balls of light may actually be angels (as one southern county psychic argued with me on a Sunday afternoon radio show), but I want my evidence to be watertight, not open to debate, and undeniable - do I ask too much?

Chris from BBC Gloucestershire contacted us for an opinion on the photograph he had taken at the Edward Jenner Museum in Berkeley, Gloucestershire. The full image is a 360 degree panorama, but the interesting frame is here.

On first glance, the image does look spooky, and appears to be a figure reclining on a chair (although no chair is in sight). However, blowing the image up is a little more revealing.

The figure is out of proportion; the legs are long, the torso compressed, and the head tiny. Looking closer at this image, the figure's arm appears to be made from the edge of a table, while the head looks as if it is part of a shelf. The torso (and the point where it meets the legs) looks like part of the wall. The legs of the figure are a little harder to explain, but the same grey colour is also visible in the first image, emerging from the doorway and towards the camera - after another a look at the full panoramic shot the sceptic in me says a post-production lightened shadow of a tripod, as the 'legs' converge at the base of the camera. All these factors make up a simulacrum, a likeness of a person. Of course, this is MHO, and I would always welcome the opinion of others.

Many thanks to Chris for sharing the photograph with us, and the complete image can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/panoramas/jenner_attic_1_360.shtml.

Occasionally I receive fake images. This one was handed to me several years ago:

The accompanying story stated that a big hairy figure ran across the road in front of the witness's car; the driver pulled over and managed to take a photograph before the creature disappeared at great speed. I was all for going to the site to investigate further, but the witness confessed that the story was fabricated, and the figure was just a scarecrow. I was slightly disappointed, as it would be pretty cool to have a local Sasquatch, but it taught me a lesson on not accepting images or stories at face value.

To me, the single most important thing to bear in mind when analysing photographs has nothing to do with the image - it is regarding the person who submitted the photograph. Out of the dozens of images I have been sent over the years, only two or three stick in my mind as being difficult to reach a rational conclusion. There are no problems if the photograph is a unashamed fake - the difficulty is always how to broach what you believe to be a non-esoteric explanation to someone who wants to believe that their recently deceased grandmother has just appeared on a family photograph as an 'orb'. Some people need to hang on to their beliefs, it can be part of the grieving process, and for us to dismiss them all out of hand can be detrimental.