Who Ya Gonna Call? Ghost Hunters & Hunting

titch said:
And that is a major gripe I have with "sensitives" who hog all the attention, potentially masking anything unusual.

The report from hedingham castle was sent out a few days ago, it was all "sensitives " sensing a spirit there, a spirit there a spirit every bloody where. It can wear down my errr.... spirit.

This is a photo from hedingham castle, about 40 minutes into the first vigil, the "sensitive" is in full flow, I am in the background, losing attention and plotting murder.
Click to expand...
What the heck has he got on his head?
 
titch said:
And that is a major gripe I have with "sensitives" who hog all the attention, potentially masking anything unusual.

The report from hedingham castle was sent out a few days ago, it was all "sensitives " sensing a spirit there, a spirit there a spirit every bloody where. It can wear down my errr.... spirit.

This is a photo from hedingham castle, about 40 minutes into the first vigil, the "sensitive" is in full flow, I am in the background, losing attention and plotting murder.
Click to expand...
I had to put up with three mediums once at a house that was supposed to have poltergeist activity. There was zero poltergeist activity, two mediums talking bollocks, one of them scowling at me when I made the mistake of saying "Hello" to her when we first met. The owner of the house decided to neck two bottles of red wine then months later decided to accuse me to my face of abusing her somehow?. When our team leader asked her in private exactly how I'd abused her, she just refused to answer. The third woman was pretty cool, I was only there as a cameraman but I refused to having anything else to do with the rest of that group from then on.
 
titch said:
And that is a major gripe I have with "sensitives" who hog all the attention, potentially masking anything unusual.

The report from hedingham castle was sent out a few days ago, it was all "sensitives " sensing a spirit there, a spirit there a spirit every bloody where. It can wear down my errr.... spirit.

This is a photo from hedingham castle, about 40 minutes into the first vigil, the "sensitive" is in full flow, I am in the background, losing attention and plotting murder.
Click to expand...
Was that the place with absolutely no history of being haunted whatsoever?
 
titch said:
This is a photo from hedingham castle, about 40 minutes into the first vigil, the "sensitive" is in full flow, I am in the background, losing attention and plotting murder.
Click to expand...
And then the psychic could haunt the place and yak her fool head off and you could visit and say "oh, there's nothing here". Revenge dream:chuckle:
 
Swifty said:
A bit of good news (for our team anyway), we've decided to visit Worstead Church very soon, the scene of this famous photo ..

View attachment 50685

I seem to remember that the lady in yellow in the photo (Diane Berthelot) wrote to Fortean Times a short while before she passed away (I could be wrong so I'll have to thumb through my back issues unless anyone here can point me to the exact issue please?), the location is only about 12 miles from our base so it's ideal. Shadow figures have been reported inside the church to date as well as other light anomalies so it could be worth a poke around inside, we'll also be conducting a short interview at the local pub with the owner that's since been renamed The White Lady. The Eastern Daily Press newspaper reported that Diane was delighted to have learned the pub's name change ..

More details can be found on the circumstances surrounding this picture about half way down in this link ..

https://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/heritage/weird-norfolk-worstead-white-lady-ghost-photo-6854198

This is a picture of Diane in her later years, her husband holding the camera used to take the picture ..

View attachment 50687

The original photo is framed and hanging on a wall in The White Lady pub in Worstead ..

https://www.thewhitelady.co.uk/story
Click to expand...
For want of anything better to do today, me and the Mrs decided to go back to Worstead's Snt. Mary's Church today to see if we could line up the classic photo for ourselves. The village square was completely deserted and 'The White Lady' pub was shut making for an atmospheric visit. We worked out exactly where Dianne had sat for that shot and recreated it ....

aworsteadtoday001.jpg


aworsteadtoday002.jpg


We got Dianne's seated position correct by lining up the black flagstones aligned with the edge of the bench she was seated on. She was/the position is central to looking down the church to the front altar.
 
Swifty said:
For want of anything better to do today, me and the Mrs decided to go back to Worstead's Snt. Mary's Church today to see if we could line up the classic photo for ourselves. The village square was completely deserted and 'The White Lady' pub was shut making for an atmospheric visit. We worked out exactly where Dianne had sat for that shot and recreated it ....

View attachment 81139

View attachment 81140

We got Dianne's seated position correct by lining up the black flagstones aligned with the edge of the bench she was seated on. She was/the position is central to looking down the church to the front altar.
Click to expand...
With all of the furniture removed, it really looks like a smaller space.
 
In the original, 'ghost' photo the supposed ghost has no legs...and not even in the 'ghost-with-no-legs' tradition. So maybe it's a statue-type thing...or else the Return of Amy Hobnob, the Very Short Rag/Bag/Statue Ghost of Olde Eyeworth Village. And the other person is Elvis in a dress, with a failed parachute or unusual airbag.
 
I take it that the second 'stone' from the door in the original (green) is shadow, or else something doesn't fit. ?

Also, in the original her feet seem to be square on to the stone not to one side and an extra stone has appeared (red). ?

swi.jpg
swi2.jpg
 
Floyd said:
I take it that the second 'stone' from the door in the original (green) is shadow, or else something doesn't fit. ?

Also, in the original her feet seem to be square on to the stone not to one side and an extra stone has appeared (red). ?

View attachment 81183View attachment 81184
Click to expand...
The stone you've put the red spot on is where the bench Dianne was sitting on 'starts'. The chair we placed (now I look back at it) should have been placed about 3 bricks to the right so the Mrs's feet should have been more central to the black slab in front of her. As for the stone (or shadow) you've put the green spot on, we took some pics of me sitting in the chair instead so I'll edit and add to this post with those ..
 
I think you were just closer in, that's what makes it look different.

And I STILL think it's just an old lady/man who moved when the picture was being taken. I never give any credence to the 'there was nobody else in the church' talk. See, once again, my 'knickers in shot' posts for reference.
 
Floyd said:
That style of brick paving is called 'basket weave'.
Sorry, carry on.
Click to expand...
The church was built from the proceeds of wool weaving, Worstead was famous for sheep farming and prosperous because of it so that might be why they chose that brick paving pattern now you mention it. I've had a look at the pics with me in them instead and they don't offer different angles.
 
catseye said:
I think you were just closer in, that's what makes it look different.

And I STILL think it's just an old lady/man who moved when the picture was being taken. I never give any credence to the 'there was nobody else in the church' talk. See, once again, my 'knickers in shot' posts for reference.
Click to expand...
Show us your 'knickers in shot' post :chuckle:. I reckon Dianne's husband was a short man so we couldn't recreate the angle exactly, it's definitely 100% the right corner of the church though because that's the only corner with the diamond shapes (3 of them) over the dark door shaped like it is.
 
To nobody's surprise, I got everything wrong. Especially the fact that the 'ghost' is actually facing the living person, not facing in the opposite direction. This lunacy explains why I originally thought that the ghost was legless.
 
I've had a look but can't find it immediately, so I will recap.

And this is just the latest version because I keep doing it!

I have to make videos for book launch days, so I have to film myself (there's nobody about with sufficiently strong constitution to record me). So I set up my video camera, making sure that I'm in front of a picturesque backdrop (usually my kitchen dresser, when I've blown the dust off) and record my 30 second spiel. And it's all lovely and the dresser is all attractively 'country kitchen' and my hair doesn't look dreadful and I speak coherently and it's all fine.

So I send the video off to my publisher. And ONLY THEN do I notice that, very clearly in shot but off to the side in my middle room, you can see the very unattractive sight of my washing hanging on the airer.

Despite my checking and rechecking my background. BECAUSE I WAS ONLY CONCENTRATING ON WHAT WAS IMPORTANT AT THE TIME. ie, not my pants.
 
catseye said:
I think you were just closer in, that's what makes it look different.

And I STILL think it's just an old lady/man who moved when the picture was being taken. I never give any credence to the 'there was nobody else in the church' talk. See, once again, my 'knickers in shot' posts for reference.
Click to expand...

I agree with catseye. I can't see a ghost in this picture, unless we assume that the "white lady" wears black shoes (which are clearly visible below the bench). The whiteness of the figure is purely an effect of the sunlight coming from the back and overexposing it. If you zoom on the ghost's buttocks, you can see the change in colour between the overexposed area and a brownier zone corresponding to the trousers of the "ghost".

If it's a ghost, it means that it has a body reflecting light in the same way as a living person. Therefore his/her whiteness can't be an argument for he/she being a ghost.

The witnesses may have thought they were alone in the church, or reconstructed a memory that they were alone, while they weren't. I personnally surprised countless people by appearing in their backs out of nowhere, and I am not (not yet) a ghost.
 
Steven said:
To nobody's surprise, I got everything wrong. Especially the fact that the 'ghost' is actually facing the living person, not facing in the opposite direction. This lunacy explains why I originally thought that the ghost was legless.
Click to expand...
Actually you've made the same astute observation a few other people have made, some people argue convincingly (IMO) that the figure, ghost or not, seems to be sat either with it's back to her or instead sideways and facing the back wall.
 
Is it suspicious, or not, that the figure is apparently within such blindingly white light? Church interiors, even those with marvellous lighting via large windows, simply aren't like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top