• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Photographs Of Gnomes

Mr_Hermolle

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
130
This has puzzled me for a while. I was going to post it before, but the whole thing seemed so absurd I deleted it.
Anyway, here goes...
Back in 1993 I was an art student in Langley - East Berkshire College to give it it's proper name. It was a one year arts foundation course, and over the first term we got to do a small 'taster' of different disciplines - fine art, graphic design, textiles. One of these tasters was photography - and in the days before digital photography, this involved dark rooms, chemicals, rolls of negatives etc... The project that we were set was to do with mirrors. I dutifully took my mirror out into the back garden of the house in which I rented a room, leaned it against the fence, nestled it amongst weeds and took some very uninspired photographs.
I wasn't particularly good at photography and all its associated arcane darkroom practises, so somehow got one of my classmates to develop my film for me while I went and had a coffee and cigarette downstairs. At some point someone came down, and said that I should really check my negatives - as both myself and another friend, whom we'll call 'Andy' - had 'loads of figures' on them.
Somewhat puzzled by this, as there was no-one about when I took the photographs, I returned to the dark room and looked on the negatives. There certainly did seem to be a figure sat in a chair. Hard to tell as it was in negative. I set about developing the photograph, suddenly excited at the possibility of accidentally capturing a ghost...
...which of course turned out to be a disappointing case of simulacra in the weeds and plants surrounding the mirror.
Oh well.
Andy's turned out to be quite different.
He had taken his mirror out to some local woods near where he lived in Reading - rested the mirror in streams, on tree branches etc. Looking at his photographs as he developed them, it became apparent there seemed to be a number of figures in the photographs - actually in the mirror itself. I only remember two of the photographs - though I think there were more. One photograph seemed to show what appeared to be a slightly blurry image of what appeared to be a gnome - rather like a garden gnome - big nose, hat etc. Except this gnome looked pretty pissed off - pissed off and surprised - and pointing an angry figure toward the camera. The other one I recall (I think this may have been the mirror laid in a shallow stream) showed the head and shoulders of a 'giant' 'lifting' itself out of the mirror. I say 'giant' but that's not really accurate (and after a distance of 25 years, I really don't think 'accurate' is a term I can use for any of this) - imagine a very rudimentary head and shoulders sculpted out of rock or granite. I think the thing may have had a nose / eyes / mouth - but it was all very basic.
I really can't describe quite how strange these photographs seemed. Andy - very sceptical and unbelieving of anything supernatural - seemed a little bit shaken up by this - protesting his innocence, and saying there was nothing even remotely odd when he took the photographs.
We went downstairs for a coffee. The darkroom we left unlocked - was always left unlocked. When we returned to the darkroom a short while later, all of Andy's negatives and photographs were gone. We turned the darkroom upside down looking for them - nothing. They turned up again the next week - except all the photographs and negatives showing the figures were missing.
It sounds utterly ridiculous doesn't it? Even now, writing it, the whole thing seems utterly absurd and completely unbelievable. I'm not in contact with any of the people involved any more - I have no idea where the wood was that Andy took the photographs. Maybe it really was a hoax? (The thing I'm probably most certain of it not being a hoax is that nobody 'owned' up to it - and Andy's puzzled, slightly embarrassed - almost a bit angry - reaction seemed very genuine). Perhaps it was just a case of simulacra after all, as it had been in my photographs? These weren't high definition photographs taken with a digital camera after all - but the first uncertain forays into black and white photography by inexperienced art students. Plenty of scope for accidental patterns to appear. Then the photographs disappear, and turn up again later on? With all the photographs showing any 'evidence' conveniently gone?
It all seems a bit too story-shaped to me - a nice twist in the tale to give some sense of closure (too much like the denouement of those ghostly hitchhiker tales to me). It's been 25 years since those photographs now, and I think what might - probably - happened was that my imagination filled in those gaps in my memory over the years - made those gnomes and figures more real - added in the disappearance and appearance of those negatives / photographs, (except they did disappear though - but did the other photographs / negatives really turn up again?)
I don't trust my memory on this. I don't believe my own story - but this is what I remember happening anyway. I'm on the verge of deleting it again now, because having read through it, it just seems so absurd, so I'm going to post this before I change my mind.
 
Mr_Hermolle, have you been tempted to repeat the exercise ? Cos I think I know what I'll be doing over Christmas !
That would be interesting. A shame I don't know what patch of woodland it was in. Maybe the location doesn't matter... Maybe all that is needed is a wood, a mirror and a certain kind of atmosphere...
 
Mr_Hermolle:

How did Andy ascertain there were photos and negatives missing from the recovered set?
Had Andy finished developing the whole set before you two went for coffee?
Did you review the recovered set yourself, or did you rely on Andy's word that some photos / negatives were missing?
 
Mr_Hermolle:

How did Andy ascertain there were photos and negatives missing from the recovered set?
Had Andy finished developing the whole set before you two went for coffee?
Did you review the recovered set yourself, or did you rely on Andy's word that some photos / negatives were missing?

Much as I would love to be able to provide definitive answers after 25 years, I'm afraid there are too many gaps in my memory to really allow this, and a lot of what I do remember, I simply don't trust! I'll try my best though...
Andy had finishing developing the whole set before we went for a break - I do remember this. As for the recovered photographs - no, I didn't see the recovered set - as far as I recall - at least I don't think I did - and had to take Andy's word for it. Again though - I don't remember talking to Andy about this afterwards (but surely I must have done?) - I have a feeling that the information got passed round by word of mouth, rather than coming from a definite source. Really though, the phtographs / negatives turning up again is - to me - the sketchiest part of the whole story. Blanks in my memory, and I could well believe that my imagination / subconsciousness has just filled in the gaps to give everything a sense of closure. The photographs / strips of negatives that were found again showed no si signs of any figures on them, and certainly the photographs showing the figures themselves (or the two I really recall) I never saw again.
 
Photographs weren't mine remember - they were Andy's. As far as I remember (and I could well be wrong on this) the one with the 'giant' in was laid flat on the ground. I really can't remember though...
 
Intersting that the gnome appeared to be really "pissed off". The one I saw looked really hacked off as well, not a bit like the story book grumpy/smiley chaps you expect. I attributed his expression to the realisation that he had been seen and was being watched.
 
Intersting that the gnome appeared to be really "pissed off". The one I saw looked really hacked off as well, not a bit like the story book grumpy/smiley chaps you expect. I attributed his expression to the realisation that he had been seen and was being watched.

They can be rather short-tempered.
 
Intersting that the gnome appeared to be really "pissed off". The one I saw looked really hacked off as well, not a bit like the story book grumpy/smiley chaps you expect. I attributed his expression to the realisation that he had been seen and was being watched.
We'll need more details than that, I'm afraid.
 
Intersting that the gnome appeared to be really "pissed off". The one I saw looked really hacked off as well, not a bit like the story book grumpy/smiley chaps you expect. I attributed his expression to the realisation that he had been seen and was being watched.
i am interested, full description, please?
 
This has puzzled me for a while. I was going to post it before, but the whole thing seemed so absurd I deleted it.
Anyway, here goes...
Back in 1993 I was an art student in Langley - East Berkshire College to give it it's proper name. It was a one year arts foundation course, and over the first term we got to do a small 'taster' of different disciplines - fine art, graphic design, textiles. One of these tasters was photography - and in the days before digital photography, this involved dark rooms, chemicals, rolls of negatives etc... The project that we were set was to do with mirrors. I dutifully took my mirror out into the back garden of the house in which I rented a room, leaned it against the fence, nestled it amongst weeds and took some very uninspired photographs.
I wasn't particularly good at photography and all its associated arcane darkroom practises, so somehow got one of my classmates to develop my film for me while I went and had a coffee and cigarette downstairs. At some point someone came down, and said that I should really check my negatives - as both myself and another friend, whom we'll call 'Andy' - had 'loads of figures' on them.
Somewhat puzzled by this, as there was no-one about when I took the photographs, I returned to the dark room and looked on the negatives. There certainly did seem to be a figure sat in a chair. Hard to tell as it was in negative. I set about developing the photograph, suddenly excited at the possibility of accidentally capturing a ghost...
...which of course turned out to be a disappointing case of simulacra in the weeds and plants surrounding the mirror.
Oh well.
Andy's turned out to be quite different.
He had taken his mirror out to some local woods near where he lived in Reading - rested the mirror in streams, on tree branches etc. Looking at his photographs as he developed them, it became apparent there seemed to be a number of figures in the photographs - actually in the mirror itself. I only remember two of the photographs - though I think there were more. One photograph seemed to show what appeared to be a slightly blurry image of what appeared to be a gnome - rather like a garden gnome - big nose, hat etc. Except this gnome looked pretty pissed off - pissed off and surprised - and pointing an angry figure toward the camera. The other one I recall (I think this may have been the mirror laid in a shallow stream) showed the head and shoulders of a 'giant' 'lifting' itself out of the mirror. I say 'giant' but that's not really accurate (and after a distance of 25 years, I really don't think 'accurate' is a term I can use for any of this) - imagine a very rudimentary head and shoulders sculpted out of rock or granite. I think the thing may have had a nose / eyes / mouth - but it was all very basic.
I really can't describe quite how strange these photographs seemed. Andy - very sceptical and unbelieving of anything supernatural - seemed a little bit shaken up by this - protesting his innocence, and saying there was nothing even remotely odd when he took the photographs.
We went downstairs for a coffee. The darkroom we left unlocked - was always left unlocked. When we returned to the darkroom a short while later, all of Andy's negatives and photographs were gone. We turned the darkroom upside down looking for them - nothing. They turned up again the next week - except all the photographs and negatives showing the figures were missing.
It sounds utterly ridiculous doesn't it? Even now, writing it, the whole thing seems utterly absurd and completely unbelievable. I'm not in contact with any of the people involved any more - I have no idea where the wood was that Andy took the photographs. Maybe it really was a hoax? (The thing I'm probably most certain of it not being a hoax is that nobody 'owned' up to it - and Andy's puzzled, slightly embarrassed - almost a bit angry - reaction seemed very genuine). Perhaps it was just a case of simulacra after all, as it had been in my photographs? These weren't high definition photographs taken with a digital camera after all - but the first uncertain forays into black and white photography by inexperienced art students. Plenty of scope for accidental patterns to appear. Then the photographs disappear, and turn up again later on? With all the photographs showing any 'evidence' conveniently gone?
It all seems a bit too story-shaped to me - a nice twist in the tale to give some sense of closure (too much like the denouement of those ghostly hitchhiker tales to me). It's been 25 years since those photographs now, and I think what might - probably - happened was that my imagination filled in those gaps in my memory over the years - made those gnomes and figures more real - added in the disappearance and appearance of those negatives / photographs, (except they did disappear though - but did the other photographs / negatives really turn up again?)
I don't trust my memory on this. I don't believe my own story - but this is what I remember happening anyway. I'm on the verge of deleting it again now, because having read through it, it just seems so absurd, so I'm going to post this before I change my mind.

I'm going to approach this with honest scepticism: not hostile, but simply querying the evidence.

Genuine photographs of actual gnomes would be a matter of enormous scientific importane as the evidence would fundamentally change our perception of the world we live in and may challenge many scientific orthodoxies in many fields including biology and physics. Extraordinary claims require good evidence to support them, although I personally disagree with Sagan's requirement for "extraordinary evidence".

First, the OP joined the (earlier) forum in 2007. Although they have made only 13 posts (just over 1 a year) they have earned 62 likes (23 in respect fo the first post in this thread, at the time of writing) so, although they are not a prolific poster, they are clearly not a new member who has signed up just to troll us, as sometimes happens in forums. I infer that the original post was made in good faith.

Now, looking at the "factual" content, taking out all the asides and extraneous details.
  1. The incident was in 1993.
  2. At this time the OP was studying at East Berkshire College. My comment: This is susceptible to proof should the OP wish to submit it.
  3. In connection with the course, the OP was doing photography, including an outdoors assignment.
  4. This was using photographic film rather than digital.
  5. This was in the days before digital photography. My comment: Wikipedia confirms that the first commercially available digital cameras were available in the late 1990s.
  6. Someone else developed the negatives when the OP was not present. My comment: If I have read correctly, the friend who did the developing was not the same person as Andy, who took the pictures.
  7. Although this was only part of a "taster course" someone in the property possessed dark room equipment and chemicals, and knew how to develop negatives. My comment: This implies that they were already very keen on photography.
  8. The OP was shown what initially appeared to be a figure in his negative. He then identified this as a simulacrum.
  9. My comment: (6) above, coupled with the OP's own statement that he was excited at the possibility that he had photographed a ghost, implies the possibility that he was receptive to suggestion along these lines, at that time.
  10. A friend, "Andy", had taken some photos in the woods near Reading, Berkshire, England.
  11. The OP recalls only 2 unusual images in detail.
  12. Those 2 images, as described, were of different visible phenomena.
  13. One image was identified by the OP as an angry gnome. My comment: Why "gnome" rather than pixie, elf, fairy, leprechaun, etc.? The choice of "gnome" says more about the OP's perception of the figure than it does about the figure itself. Let's call it a small humanoid figure. Similarly, with the angry expression: the OP has interpreted the facial expression and body language of an unknown species. That interpretation could be mistaken.
  14. The second image was interpreted as a rudimentary head and shoulders. My comment: It is unclear why the OP thought this was a "giant".
  15. My comment: There may have been other images, but as these are neither described nor remembered, they are not evidential.
  16. The person who had taken the photos denied that he had perpetrated a hoax. My comment: This implies that the question was raised by the OP or by someone else who was present at the time — which seems only natural.
  17. They went downstairs for a coffee, leaving the photos unattended. My comment: This seems strange. I would have expected such unique and disturbing photos to have exerted more fascination on a group of young men: either the photos would have gone downstairs or the coffee would have gone upstairs!
  18. They went upstairs later and all the photos and negatives had gone — although there is no suggestion that anyone heard an intruder.
  19. A few days later, all the photographs except for the ones showing the unusual figures, turned up. Put simply: the physical evidence is absent.
  20. The OP remarks that these were not high definition digital photos, but merely black and white photos. My comment: In fact, in those days, very high definition was achievable with conventional film and good equipment. It was a long time before digital photography became good enough to be a valid option for serious photographers.
  21. The OP is not in contact with any of the potential witnesses.
I the absence of the photos, and the witnesses, or any way of identifying or contacting the witnesses, the only things susceptible to independent verification are the details of the course: proof of attendance, proof of the syllabus, etc.

In the absence of further evidence, I'm going to suggest that this is not evidence of the existence of gnomes, but evidence that the photography hobbyist who developed the pictures had some fun at the OP's expense, perhaps aided by "Andy".

Perspective is funny in reflections, and if you take a photograph of a mirror leaning against a tree in the wood, it may be possible to get a real human to reflect in it in such a way that they appear at first glance to be tiny, especially in a negative or a small print. This was after all, a group of creative people on an arts course.
 
I'm going to approach this with honest scepticism: not hostile, but simply querying the evidence.

Genuine photographs of actual gnomes would be a matter of enormous scientific importane as the evidence would fundamentally change our perception of the world we live in and may challenge many scientific orthodoxies in many fields including biology and physics. Extraordinary claims require good evidence to support them, although I personally disagree with Sagan's requirement for "extraordinary evidence".

First, the OP joined the (earlier) forum in 2007. Although they have made only 13 posts (just over 1 a year) they have earned 62 likes (23 in respect fo the first post in this thread, at the time of writing) so, although they are not a prolific poster, they are clearly not a new member who has signed up just to troll us, as sometimes happens in forums. I infer that the original post was made in good faith.

Now, looking at the "factual" content, taking out all the asides and extraneous details.
  1. The incident was in 1993.
  2. At this time the OP was studying at East Berkshire College. My comment: This is susceptible to proof should the OP wish to submit it.
  3. In connection with the course, the OP was doing photography, including an outdoors assignment.
  4. This was using photographic film rather than digital.
  5. This was in the days before digital photography. My comment: Wikipedia confirms that the first commercially available digital cameras were available in the late 1990s.
  6. Someone else developed the negatives when the OP was not present. My comment: If I have read correctly, the friend who did the developing was not the same person as Andy, who took the pictures.
  7. Although this was only part of a "taster course" someone in the property possessed dark room equipment and chemicals, and knew how to develop negatives. My comment: This implies that they were already very keen on photography.
  8. The OP was shown what initially appeared to be a figure in his negative. He then identified this as a simulacrum.
  9. My comment: (6) above, coupled with the OP's own statement that he was excited at the possibility that he had photographed a ghost, implies the possibility that he was receptive to suggestion along these lines, at that time.
  10. A friend, "Andy", had taken some photos in the woods near Reading, Berkshire, England.
  11. The OP recalls only 2 unusual images in detail.
  12. Those 2 images, as described, were of different visible phenomena.
  13. One image was identified by the OP as an angry gnome. My comment: Why "gnome" rather than pixie, elf, fairy, leprechaun, etc.? The choice of "gnome" says more about the OP's perception of the figure than it does about the figure itself. Let's call it a small humanoid figure. Similarly, with the angry expression: the OP has interpreted the facial expression and body language of an unknown species. That interpretation could be mistaken.
  14. The second image was interpreted as a rudimentary head and shoulders. My comment: It is unclear why the OP thought this was a "giant".
  15. My comment: There may have been other images, but as these are neither described nor remembered, they are not evidential.
  16. The person who had taken the photos denied that he had perpetrated a hoax. My comment: This implies that the question was raised by the OP or by someone else who was present at the time — which seems only natural.
  17. They went downstairs for a coffee, leaving the photos unattended. My comment: This seems strange. I would have expected such unique and disturbing photos to have exerted more fascination on a group of young men: either the photos would have gone downstairs or the coffee would have gone upstairs!
  18. They went upstairs later and all the photos and negatives had gone — although there is no suggestion that anyone heard an intruder.
  19. A few days later, all the photographs except for the ones showing the unusual figures, turned up. Put simply: the physical evidence is absent.
  20. The OP remarks that these were not high definition digital photos, but merely black and white photos. My comment: In fact, in those days, very high definition was achievable with conventional film and good equipment. It was a long time before digital photography became good enough to be a valid option for serious photographers.
  21. The OP is not in contact with any of the potential witnesses.
I the absence of the photos, and the witnesses, or any way of identifying or contacting the witnesses, the only things susceptible to independent verification are the details of the course: proof of attendance, proof of the syllabus, etc.

In the absence of further evidence, I'm going to suggest that this is not evidence of the existence of gnomes, but evidence that the photography hobbyist who developed the pictures had some fun at the OP's expense, perhaps aided by "Andy".

Perspective is funny in reflections, and if you take a photograph of a mirror leaning against a tree in the wood, it may be possible to get a real human to reflect in it in such a way that they appear at first glance to be tiny, especially in a negative or a small print. This was after all, a group of creative people on an arts course.
Anyone would think you are a skeptic mike.
 
Anyone would think you are a skeptic mike.
Your 666th post...

Yes, sceptical in the sense of assessing and considering the evidence and, where relevant, the absence of evidence before forming an opinion. Not sceptical in the sense of being immediately dismissive of things that don't fit my world view.

I've always tried— although not always succeeded — to be that way about "unexplained phenomena". Then a 10 or so year stint in fraud investigation taught me to be rigorous in extracting checkable facts from a discursive narrative. What evidence is there? What evidence would you expect to be available? If the expected evidence is absent, why? Remember that evidence suggests, but only proof proves.

Here, we started with a very discursive narrative, containing many details that were irrelevant to the core claim that was being made (that photographs showed gnomes) and a lack of detail and evidence to support the core claim. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the OP was deliberately misleading us.
 
Here, we started with a very discursive narrative, containing many details that were irrelevant to the core claim that was being made (that photographs showed gnomes) and a lack of detail and evidence to support the core claim. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the OP was deliberately misleading us.
Yep.
 
i believe that ihtm - first hand accounts of high strangeness - should not be subject to that level of fraud investigation scrutiny, thats not the point, look at all the content on this part of the forum, if you apply your rubric to it as a corpus it would evaporate, as would the posters themselves with first hand stories - no matter how half-assed - to share ... its not like these are claims which have been made with any vested interest
 
I'm going to approach this with honest scepticism: not hostile, but simply querying the evidence.

Genuine photographs of actual gnomes would be a matter of enormous scientific importane as the evidence would fundamentally change our perception of the world we live in and may challenge many scientific orthodoxies in many fields including biology and physics. Extraordinary claims require good evidence to support them, although I personally disagree with Sagan's requirement for "extraordinary evidence".

First, the OP joined the (earlier) forum in 2007. Although they have made only 13 posts (just over 1 a year) they have earned 62 likes (23 in respect fo the first post in this thread, at the time of writing) so, although they are not a prolific poster, they are clearly not a new member who has signed up just to troll us, as sometimes happens in forums. I infer that the original post was made in good faith.

Now, looking at the "factual" content, taking out all the asides and extraneous details.
  1. The incident was in 1993.
  2. At this time the OP was studying at East Berkshire College. My comment: This is susceptible to proof should the OP wish to submit it.
  3. In connection with the course, the OP was doing photography, including an outdoors assignment.
  4. This was using photographic film rather than digital.
  5. This was in the days before digital photography. My comment: Wikipedia confirms that the first commercially available digital cameras were available in the late 1990s.
  6. Someone else developed the negatives when the OP was not present. My comment: If I have read correctly, the friend who did the developing was not the same person as Andy, who took the pictures.
  7. Although this was only part of a "taster course" someone in the property possessed dark room equipment and chemicals, and knew how to develop negatives. My comment: This implies that they were already very keen on photography.
  8. The OP was shown what initially appeared to be a figure in his negative. He then identified this as a simulacrum.
  9. My comment: (6) above, coupled with the OP's own statement that he was excited at the possibility that he had photographed a ghost, implies the possibility that he was receptive to suggestion along these lines, at that time.
  10. A friend, "Andy", had taken some photos in the woods near Reading, Berkshire, England.
  11. The OP recalls only 2 unusual images in detail.
  12. Those 2 images, as described, were of different visible phenomena.
  13. One image was identified by the OP as an angry gnome. My comment: Why "gnome" rather than pixie, elf, fairy, leprechaun, etc.? The choice of "gnome" says more about the OP's perception of the figure than it does about the figure itself. Let's call it a small humanoid figure. Similarly, with the angry expression: the OP has interpreted the facial expression and body language of an unknown species. That interpretation could be mistaken.
  14. The second image was interpreted as a rudimentary head and shoulders. My comment: It is unclear why the OP thought this was a "giant".
  15. My comment: There may have been other images, but as these are neither described nor remembered, they are not evidential.
  16. The person who had taken the photos denied that he had perpetrated a hoax. My comment: This implies that the question was raised by the OP or by someone else who was present at the time — which seems only natural.
  17. They went downstairs for a coffee, leaving the photos unattended. My comment: This seems strange. I would have expected such unique and disturbing photos to have exerted more fascination on a group of young men: either the photos would have gone downstairs or the coffee would have gone upstairs!
  18. They went upstairs later and all the photos and negatives had gone — although there is no suggestion that anyone heard an intruder.
  19. A few days later, all the photographs except for the ones showing the unusual figures, turned up. Put simply: the physical evidence is absent.
  20. The OP remarks that these were not high definition digital photos, but merely black and white photos. My comment: In fact, in those days, very high definition was achievable with conventional film and good equipment. It was a long time before digital photography became good enough to be a valid option for serious photographers.
  21. The OP is not in contact with any of the potential witnesses.
I the absence of the photos, and the witnesses, or any way of identifying or contacting the witnesses, the only things susceptible to independent verification are the details of the course: proof of attendance, proof of the syllabus, etc.

In the absence of further evidence, I'm going to suggest that this is not evidence of the existence of gnomes, but evidence that the photography hobbyist who developed the pictures had some fun at the OP's expense, perhaps aided by "Andy".

Perspective is funny in reflections, and if you take a photograph of a mirror leaning against a tree in the wood, it may be possible to get a real human to reflect in it in such a way that they appear at first glance to be tiny, especially in a negative or a small print. This was after all, a group of creative people on an arts course.

Hello - thanks for your considered response. I'm more than happy to try and respond to the many interesting points you raise.
I have absolutely no great claims to make with this tale. I don't believe for a second that there are gnomes living in the woods outside of Reading (or indeed anywhere else) - I personally don't believe Andy took photographs of gnomes in woods at all. It's a weird story that I've written as best as I can recall - and through the various postings I have made, time and time again, I have stated that I don't trust my own memory on the matter - at all. The story is absurd - and yet, this is how I remember it happening. It's an odd story - the kind of story I've always loved reading here.

Point 2: I've got no wish to present any kind of proof that I was indeed attending East Berkshire College in 1993. I think I may have my old ID card somewhere but certainly got no wish to share that sorry! :)
Point 6: Andy developed his own negatives and photos. Someone else developed mine for me - or rather the negatives. I was the one who printed the photographs from the negatives. The person who developed mine for me was in the darkroom with Andy when he developed his. I wasn't with Andy when he developed his negatives or photographs. This may be one of the extraneous points. I thought it was interesting that both Andy and me had 'figures' in our photographs - just an interesting coincidence really - though mine turned out to be simulacra.
Point 8: A foundation course is indeed a 'taster' course. Over the 'autumn' term you do a month or so in different disciplines such as fine art, graphic design, textiles and photography. Then you specialise in your chosen subject until the end of the course the following summer - when you then go onto university / another college to pursue your degree at (usually) degree level. East Berkshire College was an educational facility that ran a LOT of different courses - it wasn't that 'someone' was into photography and had loads of equipment as a hobby. Photography was a vital part of many courses offered.
Point 9: Absolutely. I've been interested in Fortean subjects since I was a kid. I am absolutely primed to view things through a filter of the 'uncanny'.
Point 13: Why a gnome and not an elf / pixie etc? It looked like a gnome - as far as I can recall - with a hat, a big nose. It looked like a garden gnome to be fair. Was it a hoax then? A real garden gnome pictured? Possible. Far more probable than gnomes running about woods near Reading though... I tend to think not though - the image seemed too 'un-sharp' to be a real garden gnome. The thing looked annoyed - it looked like it was caught in mid-movement. It was pointing angrily at the camera. I honestly think it was a case of veryt striking simulacra.
Point 14: Like a giant. Harder to explain why. If I get the chance, I'll try to draw a sketch of it as much as I can remember. At this juncture though I'll be drawing memories of memories of memories though, and wouldn't expect it to be 'accurate' at all.
Point 15: None of this story is presented as 'evidence' at all. It's a ridiculous, though odd story. I've tried to include as much as I can in.
Point 16: Was it a hoax? Even though this is a very likely explanation, I still tend to think the images were more likely due to simulacra - a hoax is also a possibility of course.
Point 17. A very good point! I mean, what were we thinking, leaving these photographs unattended while we went for coffee? This kind of attitude when it comes to Fortean happenings isn't entirely without precedent though - I remember reading of witnesses of alleged lake monsters sometimes displaying a tendency to act in an oddly 'disinterested' way too. I've had this myself before, when I witnessed a box leap up into the air - apparently of it's own volition as no-one was near it (a tale for another time though). I looked at this even, shrugged, and just got back on with playing the guitar. It only struck me as odd a great deal of time later.
Point 18: East Berkshire College is quite a large building - a good two or three storeys high (imagine a large school) - the darkroom was a good few storeys up and the canteen was nowhere near even the base of the stairs. There was no way we would have heard an 'intruder' - and the door to the classrooms / darkrooms were unlocked. Anyone could have gone in at any time.
Point 19: Yep, the physical evidence is absent. Again, something that isn't without Fortean precedent. I read of comic writer Alan Moore having a similar thing happen to him - the story was in one of those It Happened To Me 'mag-books' that Fortean Times used to put out each year. As I've said though - this is the sketchiest part of the whole experience for me. Did they really disappear? Has my imagination just made things more story-shaped? Probably. Perhaps if those photos still existed I could sit here and look at them and go 'hahaha - how could I ever think these looked like gnomes'. I don't have those photographs though, and my memory (as all our memories do) are free to warp and distort to their heart's content.
Point 20: Basically, we were bad photographers. Fuzzy blurred images were the order of the day I'm afraid.

I don't present this story as an evidence for gnomes, or anything else - by any stretch of the imagination. It's a weird 'It Happened To Me Story' because it happened to me, and it's an interesting odd tale, written as truthfully as I can recall. I have to say there was no 'photography hobbyist' who developed the pictures - all of our tutors in all of the disciplines were also professional photographers / graphic designers etc.
Anyway, Andy developed all his negatives / photographs. A classmate of mine developed my negatives, and not the tutor, and it was me who made those negatives into photographs.
 
Last edited:
i believe that ihtm - first hand accounts of high strangeness - should not be subject to that level of fraud investigation scrutiny, thats not the point, look at all the content on this part of the forum, if you apply your rubric to it as a corpus it would evaporate, as would the posters themselves with first hand stories - no matter how half-assed - to share ... its not like these are claims which have been made with any vested interest
Totally agree with how you put it - I make no claims for this tale apart from 'it happened to me' - and I've tried to write it up as truthfully as I can recall. I have absolutely no problem though with answering any questions that are raised though!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top