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

The Hoo Lake Apparition: The Best Ghost Picture Ever?

Spookdaddy said:
It's paranagramanormal. :shock:
Click to expand...
I bet you can't say that after a couple of pan-galactic gargle blasters in the Neverending Circle! ;)

(Unless you have Asian ancestry, of course - Goodness Gracious Me!)
 
rynner2 said:
Spookdaddy said:
It's paranagramanormal. :shock:
Click to expand...
I bet you can't say that after a couple of pan-galactic gargle blasters in the Neverending Circle! ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, I can't say it at all. I think I may have invented a word that's unpronounceable...and I claim my five pounds.
 
Atcherly, it's not so hard;

try

Par-anagram-a-normal :D

So I'll have the £5, thank you! ;)
 
Hi guys.

Firstly, sorry for 'going off in a huff' in the way that I did. I suppose I took offence at not being taken at face value... but then again, I am an internet stranger and I suppose human nature is to automatically distrust strangers (???).

My illness affects me in many ways, and especially when fatigued, I can act irrationally. I didn't have the energy to keep going back on points that have already been explained, and I became frustrated at people automatically crying 'fake' or for questioning my integrity... so, I'm sorry. Its one reason why I only hang out on a few places on the net these days.

Back to the image:

I am looking for all avenues to be explored with this image, and I will state for the last time that I am certain that it would have been impossible for someone to walk into the building for that frame without alerting the two people who were there, and I am absolutely certain that Tim was not the sort of person who would pull a prank. It just doesn't make sense... (why didn't he keep in contact to see the 'prank' come to fruition?)....

Anyway - I've uploaded a zip of the scanned negatives here - http://rapidshare.com/files/219343354/G ... s.zip.html [100MB].

They are in the same sequence as they were taken, and show the building from different angles, photo's taken from inside the building (including one taken from the rough location of where the figure is standing, looking back out the arch). It also includes a few shots taken from very similar angles to the 'ghost' image.

As for the simulacrum theory, someone did a gif animation of the 'ghost' shot, and lined up a shot from the same angle from another frame (I think Frame 31?)

ghost.gif


The image is being analysed in a few places. I haven't posted it on any sites where the automatic reaction would be 'OMG ITS A GHOST'.... The current conclusion by many (including myself) is that it neither proves nor disproves that it is a ghost, and the image will probably remain as 'unexplained'....

Thanks for the interest in this, and thanks for your theories.

And again, apologies for my hissy-fit.

-Stu


[Edit] One thing that I can't explain is the blurring/fading in the bottom left of the image. Everything else in the frame is in focus... but that just totally stands out. Any theories?
 
stuwyatt said:
..Firstly, sorry for 'going off in a huff' in the way that I did. I suppose I took offence at not being taken at face value... but then again, I am an internet stranger and I suppose human nature is to automatically distrust strangers (???).

My illness affects me in many ways, and especially when fatigued, I can act irrationally. I didn't have the energy to keep going back on points that have already been explained, and I became frustrated at people automatically crying 'fake' or for questioning my integrity... so, I'm sorry. Its one reason why I only hang out on a few places on the net these days.
Click to expand...
No need to apologise, and thank you for coming back. It's fair to say some were overly harsh in their attitude, which is a wider issue that we are now addressing. Honest and open criticism of the pic is what we're here for, not character assassination.
The image is being analysed in a few places. I haven't posted it on any sites where the automatic reaction would be 'OMG ITS A GHOST'.... The current conclusion by many (including myself) is that it neither proves nor disproves that it is a ghost, and the image will probably remain as 'unexplained'....
Click to expand...
Very wise to steer clear of the woo woo sites as TBH they're no real help if you want anything approaching cogent or impartial discussion. And the conclusion you've drawn is the most reasonable. To most of us on here an indisputable ghost pic (or ufo pic or bigfoot pic) is the Holy Grail - but having been promised so many grails in the past, we are perforce very wary. It's nothing personal, so thanks again for returning to continue the discussion.

Hope the animation helps: back to the image analysis.
 
I can't help but see a topless old man with a knotted hanky on his head and a towel over his arm. Maybe you disturbed a sunbather who then slipped away unnoticed?
 
stuwyatt said:
Firstly, sorry for 'going off in a huff' in the way that I did. I suppose I took offence at not being taken at face value... but then again, I am an internet stranger and I suppose human nature is to automatically distrust strangers (???).
Click to expand...
Your timing was perhaps a bit unfortunate, posting here not long after we'd had another ghost pic to deal with: see this thread
http://www2.forteantimes.com/forum/view ... sc&start=0

That one was comprehensively debunked, and the opening poster realised he had been conned.

Anyway, welcome back! :)
 
I didn't realise that the zip file had a limit as to how many times you can download it. I'm re-uploading at the moment, and it will be available first-come first-served....

Ringo_ said:
I can't help but see a topless old man with a knotted hanky on his head and a towel over his arm. Maybe you disturbed a sunbather who then slipped away unnoticed?
Click to expand...

The shots prior to the 'ghost' shot were taken from many different positions... including inside the shell of the building. If anyone was lurking there, they would have been discovered long before the pic was taken.

rynner2 said:
Your timing was perhaps a bit unfortunate, posting here not long after we'd had another ghost pic to deal with: see this thread
Click to expand...

My timing was also unfortunate with the whole April 1st thing lol.... In retrospect, I really wish I'd waited a few days. :)
 
You say you are sure no one could have entered or left without being seen. Thats fair enough, you've visited the site and I have not - however - in some of the other pictures there does appear to be another opening to the building through which trees and vegetation are visible, could be a window or door. Could you just clarify how you can be so sure no-one else was there? In my theory about it being a lady relieving herself, she would have probably being embarassed so would have wanted to leave quickly and without being seen . She might have got out through the back? Just asking.
 
rushfan62 said:
You say you are sure no one could have entered or left without being seen. Thats fair enough, you've visited the site and I have not - however - in some of the other pictures there does appear to be another opening to the building through which trees and vegetation are visible, could be a window or door. Could you just clarify how you can be so sure no-one else was there? In my theory about it being a lady relieving herself, she would have probably being embarassed so would have wanted to leave quickly and without being seen . She might have got out through the back? Just asking.
Click to expand...

ghosthouse.jpg


The main entrance to the house (where you can see the empty doorway) is at the south-side of the building. (ignore the arrow pointing from the east - they are indicating the windows). To get to that doorway, you would have had to walk up the path (which is the only way to access the site - entrance is the bottom arrow), and then just before the building, cut across the trodden-down small path leading into the doorway. It would have been very difficult to sneak out of sight of the photographer to get into the building due to the thick brambles on the side of the path.

The big red blob is the rough location where the photographer was standing for the 'ghost' shot. As you can see he would have had full view of the path, and easily notice anyone walking along it.
 
OK, I have managed to download the pics (Had to wait a while as I wasn't a premium customer, and then the download took several minutes more..)

They're all big pics, 2048 x 3089 px, and yes there are several openings.
No time for more now, and I have pics of my own to deal with later, so will comment more probably tomorrow.
 
Im glad the link is working. I uploaded the images in exactly the same format I received them from Spectrum labs. That way, then everyone has the full information and are able to zoom in on plants/walls... and work out angles. There also might be the chance that another photo contains something interesting that I have missed... (as what happened in the derelict school thread).

I will try to get the images uploaded and hosted in a smaller format some time soon.

Just to give an idea of the building: [Rough guide only. All arrows etc are approximate]

ghostsatelite.jpg


The main doorway (to the south)

doorway.jpg


The area from the path to just in front doorway was trodden down (a rough path), but before that point, there were thick brambles and weeds.

A panoramic showing the view from a similar position to where the 'ghost' pic was taken from - just to give an idea of the view he would get:

housepanoramic.jpg


While I believe the 'ghost' pic was taken from a position more to the right, the photographer would have still had a good view of the path.

One other interesting view is this. Its almost exactly the same view the 'ghost' would have had... looking towards the archway that leads into what used to be the north part of the boathouse (now its just a series of crumbling walls)... lines of which are visible on the satelite view I posted above.

ghostview.jpg


[Edit] I've just created a Flickr account, and the images are being uploaded as I write. The link to the gallery should be here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23921876@N ... 770306444/
 
It's good to see this thread is still going on with new photographs. It's a shame that I live nowhere near it else I'd probably visit and take some photographs myself.

I have to say, the animated gif is impressive. Looking at it, it really does make it look like a figure, as the vegetation we see in the empty doorway (some of it in an identical position in each photograph) just doesn't look like it could have created the image of a figure.

I realise you can't get in touch with the director of the film but can't you get in touch with the photographer somehow? Being a photographer, you'd have thought he would have shared a similar interest to yourself in the photographed anomaly.
 
Dandelo_ said:
I realise you can't get in touch with the director of the film but can't you get in touch with the photographer somehow? Being a photographer, you'd have thought he would have shared a similar interest to yourself in the photographed anomaly.
Click to expand...

Sadly not without getting in contact with Tim (the film maker). From what I remember, the photographer was just a student who responded to Tim's ad at the art college, and was just hired for the two location shoots. I am on the hunt though, and will try and trace him through the electoral register and other means.
 
Well, I haven't got as far as I'd hoped, but I have finally copied all the original pics (with +/- 90 degree rotation if needed) into a separate folder.

This has given me a better feel for the place (which I like very much), so I can now attack the 'ghost' tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I'm fascinated by the stone basin that appears in pics 69560016-19. It looks a little like a cider press, but it seems too low on the ground for that. Given the location, it might be something nautical, but I can't think what.

Otherwise, I'll have to assume it's for collecting the blood from human sacrifices!!!! ;)
 
rynner2 said:
Meanwhile, I'm fascinated by the stone basin that appears in pics 69560016-19. It looks a little like a cider press, but it seems too low on the ground for that. Given the location, it might be something nautical, but I can't think what.
Click to expand...
I think its a mill-stone for grinding corn... but the grinding stone and mechanism have long since been dislodged. Thats the only theory I have.
 
In the animated GIF, in the frame that shows the figure (which looks to me like a statue), look at about where the figure's left elbow would be. There's a spray of foliage in front of the archway.

I see no spray of foliage in that spot in the frame that shows no figure. Instead, there's an apparently shorter spray of foliage to the left, that I don't see in the frame that shows the figure.

It's what I'd expect to see if the photo with the figure were taken first, then someone walked into the archway, pushing the spray of foliage down and to the left, and moved the figure out of shot.

How do you explain it?
 
To me it looks like the brightness of the flowers is more a reflection of light than their actual colour being bright. If the photographer is at even a slightly different angle in another frame (which he is) then the light may not be at the right angle to produce a bright reflection.

Or there could have been a breeze.

Or if it was a person that was captured, they could have walked on it.

Or someone could have stood there between taking the two photos (I don't know how long the time lapsed between taking the two gif shots, but it looks like such a similar angle that they must have been taken seconds apart, but you never know).
 
Yes, the angle is different; but I'm not seeing sprays of foliage (dis)appearing elsewhere in shot (except where the edge of the frame is repositioned), which I would expect to see if the (dis)appearance were due to a general phenomenon like reflection. I see it only in that one spot.

Yes, there could have been a breeze; but again, I don't see the rest of the foliage affected similarly. Just that spot.

LaurenChurchill said:
Or if it was a person that was captured, they could have walked on it.

Or someone could have stood there between taking the two photos....
Click to expand...
Yes. It does look to me as if someone has been there between shots.
 
I've now had a closer look at the images StuW uploaded.

There are 19 in all, although really only nos. 14 and 15 concern us here.
They appear to have been taken from almost the same spot.

But 15 is fairly upright, while 14 is twisted anticlockwise. 14 was landscape format, the other portrait. There was also a distinct difference in brightness/contrast. (This is to be expected if the photographer was trying different settings.)

I tweaked the rotation and other parameters as well as I could (without spending a lifetime at it!) and cropped the results to near identical sizes.

Here's a comparison of my tweaked images:

Compare.jpg


In more detail

69560014b.jpg


69560015b.jpg


Zooming in on the 'ghost' window, we get

69560014c.jpg
.
69560015c.jpg


EDIT: Image captured, transformed into a single JPG file, and attached to this post so it won't go MIA.

Much the same as we've seen already, but at least it's independently derived.

Someone earlier mentioned another face: interestingly, this appears on both the non-ghost and ghost pics:

69560014d.jpg
. . .
69560015d.jpg


Probably doesn't get us much further, but that's my lot for tonight!
 

Attachments

  • SWyatt-Foto-RynPost-2-0904.jpg
    SWyatt-Foto-RynPost-2-0904.jpg
    195.4 KB · Views: 11
Last edited by a moderator:
Well it does get us a bit further actually.
Looking at the stuff that is non-ghost we can see the leaves, plants and foliage do not differ greatly unless they're within the area of the immediate area of the 'ghost' where you can see a clear difference from the previous frame.
In one area it is occluded by the phantom yet also there appears to be foliage where there was none before.
 
rynner2 said:
Much the same as we've seen already, but at least it's independently derived.

Someone earlier mentioned another face: interestingly, this appears on both the non-ghost and ghost pics....
Click to expand...
Thanks for the independent confirmation regarding the pics.

I saw that other little face too, and went, "Okay, now I'm seeing the face of Jesus in an abandoned archway." ;)

That little face occurs to the lower right of a long, heavy-browed, Easter Islandish profile that I think of as Thog. Thog appears to be musing on the figure in the photo - or empty space, depending on which frame you're looking at.
 
I've now been through all of Stu W's photos in more detail, and haven't discovered any more anomalies. So nothing more to discuss, really.

The Cosmic Joker is giving us glimpses of an alternate reality (or fantasy), while making sure we can never actually prove anything....
 
Thanks for taking the time looking at the photo's... Re: the foliage, I think it might just be a trick of the light/wind... If you look in detail at the archway in the final 3 photo's (taken from a similar location to the 'ghost' pic), you can see a load of foliage that isn't apparent in the earlier frames...

So I take it the picture remains unexplained/one of those things?... I agree that it shows nothing that can be attributed to a ghost... its just a strange picture that doesn't make sense and will probably never make sense... one of many.

Thanks again for your interest. If anything new turns up, I'll let you know.
 
Despite initial scepticism (which isn't a bad thing), after seeing all the pictures and reading all the debate and analysis in this thread I come down on the side of it being one of the best unexplained images I have seen. Better by far than many more famouse ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top