Ghost Photo
Del R. Mulroy
I even drew them on paper for years to show people.
It has been brought to light in recent years that ghosts/spirits can be captured on film. Although the light waves that they are at is too fast for the human range of site for most people, it is not fast enough to out run the shudder of a camera.
I have taken more then 50 photos in less then a 6 months time alone that have anomalies in them. I am now getting friends hooked on this and they are watching their photos as well.
I would like to submit to you a photograph for your review. I am not asking skeptics and believers alike that they believe in ghosts. I am asking simply that you review this photo and make a decision as to if it is real, or some other anomaly.
The photo was taken on Halloween night 1997 in Phoenix, AZ at my friend Monty Miller's home. He has a beautiful and very funny young daughter who is just starting to walk.
He snapped the photo of the baby crawling on the floor in her costume and got more then bargained for.
In the photo, there is a blue misty cloud that extends from the floor to the top of the ceiling. The misty anomaly has color, blue. No one was smoking in the room at the time the photo was taken, and I have seen many photos with cig smoke in them, and they are not dark blue as this anomaly is.
Also noticed was the baby looking right at the anomaly. I have seen over 5000 photos in the last 3 years with anomalies in them. In most cases when a baby or very young child is involved, they are looking right at the anomalies, as do dogs and cats. Could this be one more picture showing a child can see the anomalies much better then adults?
Also, one last note, I met Monty in my home town in South Dakota where we grew up together a few weeks ago. He showed me the picture and asked if I would forward it to the Ghost Hunters Society and I said I would.
I took a picture of him in his parents home with his young daughter with a brand new camera used only one night before. That picture has three anomalies clearly seen in the photo. This is going to be scanned and hopefully placed on my web site as I have the time to expand it. I will post that URL as well. One must ask that after two photos of the young baby with anomalies, could this be a guardian angel?
This is not flawed film, the negatives show the anomaly on this frame only meaning it was in front of the camera, and the anomaly is transparent over the baby.
Click and go to: International Ghost Hunters Society Photo of Blue Swirls
With a brand new high quality scanner I purchased last night, there will be more photos coming soon.
I am curious as to what others see in the photo. Any comments on the photo?
--
Sincerely,
PSI-WALKER, INC.
Del R. Mulroy
President
------
**Write to us on AMERICA ON-LINE at: PSIW...@aol.com
MEMBER OF:
INTERNATIONAL GHOST HUNTERS SOCIETY:
http://www.ghostweb.com
PSYCHIC FEDERATION:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8097/index.html
Enigma
>I am curious as to what others see in the photo. Any comments on the
>photo?
Hi Del, I do have a few comments.
BTW if anyone is having trouble finding the photograph that Del is
referring to I believe it's at:
http://www.ghostweb.com/mmiller1.html
I think this is an interesting photograph but I think it is difficult
to assess a single picture like that without a lot more information.
See my comments in the thread "Ghosts seen with Night Scopes?" for
more on why I think this. Maybe if there are some photography experts
out there reading this they might care to comment on the photo though.
Here are some ideas I have on what might help in making these types
of photographs easier to evaluate. You may already be doing much of
what I suggest here already for al I know, but I thought I would
mention it anyway for discussion purposes.
As I was saying in another thread, I think it would be very
helpful in evaluating these kinds of pictures to show preceding
and following photographs taken with the same view and camera
settings as well as from other vantage points. This could help in
determining if ordinary artifacts such as lens flare and dust or
condensation on the lens, etc. were a likely cause as well as provide
a frame of reference for comparison with the images that contain the
unusual effects. Also some photographs should probably be taken from
other vantage points showing the position of any overhead lights or
other objects that might have played a part in causing any unusual
effects. This of course is a lot more expensive as a lot more shots
would have to be taken. Also I realize that this doesn't apply to the
blue swirl photo you are referring to as that picture was not taken in
an organized investigation.
I also think it is very important to log as many details as you can
about such things as camera type, lens type, film type, flash type,
camera and flash settings. Also recording such things as the exact
time to the second for each shot so that the amount of time elapsed
between two shots can be considered when comparing two
photographs of the same view.
I also think that using good quality equipment to record environmental
variables at the time of a shoot such as air temperature, relative
humidity, and barometric pressure could be useful in determining if
things such as condensation might have been a likely factor in an
effect as well as possibly showing patterns in enviromental factors
that occur when certain types of unusual effects are photographed.
Also readings of magnetic and electric field strengths in the area
being photographed may provide useful information as well.
I realize that this can start getting pretty expensive though. :-)
IMO, taking such steps could go a long way in helping to come to
an understanding of what is actually appearing in these types
of photographs.
regards,
enigma
Del R. Mulroy
Enigma wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:11:42 -0500, "Del R. Mulroy"
> <ney...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> >I am curious as to what others see in the photo. Any comments on the
> >photo?
>
> Hi Del, I do have a few comments.
> BTW if anyone is having trouble finding the photograph that Del is
> referring to I believe it's at:
> http://www.ghostweb.com/mmiller1.html
>
> I think this is an interesting photograph but I think it is difficult
> to assess a single picture like that without a lot more information.
> See my comments in the thread "Ghosts seen with Night Scopes?" for
> more on why I think this. Maybe if there are some photography experts
> out there reading this they might care to comment on the photo though.
I would be very interested in hearing from any such experts in the field.
My friend who been in the field for almost 15 years shook his head on the
Blue Swirls an said he was puzzled. He ruled out the developing process
completely which means it was flawed film (which KODAK says that flawed
film always destroys multiple photographs if not the entire roll), or the
camera. I use the same identical camera and he said that his film was
normal on all shots, but only that one. He said that the swirls are
visible to the eye on the negatives. It obviously would appear to mean
that something was in front of the camera. His lens is clean and the
camera has two electronic doors that cover the lens when shut off. There
is no possible way to contaminate the lens from the inside as it is a
non-removable 80 mm zoom lens.
> Here are some ideas I have on what might help in making these types
> of photographs easier to evaluate. You may already be doing much of
> what I suggest here already for al I know, but I thought I would
> mention it anyway for discussion purposes.
You made some fantastic points and I respond to them below.
> As I was saying in another thread, I think it would be very
> helpful in evaluating these kinds of pictures to show preceding
> and following photographs taken with the same view and camera
> settings as well as from other vantage points. This could help in
> determining if ordinary artifacts such as lens flare and dust or
> condensation on the lens, etc. were a likely cause as well as provide
> a frame of reference for comparison with the images that contain the
> unusual effects.
I always use two different cameras, three rolls of film from two different
states, and then have the disposable camera and a roll of film developed
at one store, and the other two rolls of film at another store with
entirely different film developing machine. This control is incredible
for ruling out the evil three flaws which are "flawed camera, flawed film,
and flawed developing".
If I should have bad film, the other roll of film will prove that. If the
anomaly or flaw on the picture is on both rolls of film, then we either
have flawed film from two different states, two different dates of
manufacture, and two different shipment lots. This I am sure would be
enough bad film to order a recall. I have never heard of a multi-state
recall for bad film yet. If it is on both negatives from two cameras, we
have ruled out flawed film.
If it is a bad camera, the other camera will verify that. If such anomaly
is still on more then one roll of film from both cameras, then I have to
rule out a flawed camera and flawed film.
If it is the developer that is giving me the bad photos or pictures with
anomalies on them, then only one stores prints would indicate that. When
the anomalies are on the pictures from both stores, and both negatives, I
have set a protocol strong enough to have broken all three evil flaws.
I have more then 50 photographs that have been through this protocol that
show anomalies on the film, and negatives.
> Also some photographs should probably be taken from
> other vantage points showing the position of any overhead lights or
> other objects that might have played a part in causing any unusual
> effects. This of course is a lot more expensive as a lot more shots
> would have to be taken. Also I realize that this doesn't apply to the
> blue swirl photo you are referring to as that picture was not taken in
> an organized investigation.
In the case of the "Blue Swirls", my friend Monty was shooting a picture
for his scrap book and of course never expected this anomaly as you have
noted, and that is the way that many ghost pictures show up on the IGHS.
Family albums, and or shots they got back and they remembered what was on
the IGHS.
I use two cameras, and have at least one other person with me that has a
camera as well. I am having a very high success rate since I am working
with a national celebrity psychic and ghost buster who gets called to
clear a house. I get to go to the haunted site and record the session
with the psychic as she rids the entity from the home. That is a big plus
for me being able to go along with this person and document the events as
they happen. Really wild on some of these investigations.
> I also think it is very important to log as many details as you can
> about such things as camera type, lens type, film type, flash type,
> camera and flash settings.
I always use two cameras, one being a FUJI DISCOVERY 1000 with 0-80 mm
zoom, and a disposable $10 KODAK camera with 27 exp., day/night with
flash. I stick with those two since I never want to break this protocol
that I have set up. I use KODAK ASA 400 speed film in both cameras.
Consistency is the key to making a good investigation.
> Also recording such things as the exact
> time to the second for each shot so that the amount of time elapsed
> between two shots can be considered when comparing two
> photographs of the same view.
Interesting that you mention this. I took a series of two photographs at
a haunted high school in Minneapolis, Minnesota back on January 20th. I
took the pictures of the front door knowing that a spirit was there. The
two pictures were snapped within one second of each other because I seen
it move after the first shot.
When developed, this red ectoplasmic misty cloud about 2 feet off the
floor had moved in the photo more then 10 feet! Both pictures look
identical, except you can see where the anomaly moved. This red mist was
photographed 13 times between the four rolls of film developed at two
stores. We were being followed. ":)
To me, this is proof beyond all doubt that I captured something moving
around me.
> I also think that using good quality equipment to record environmental
> variables at the time of a shoot such as air temperature, relative
> humidity, and barometric pressure could be useful in determining if
> things such as condensation might have been a likely factor in an
> effect as well as possibly showing patterns in enviromental factors
> that occur when certain types of unusual effects are photographed.
Agreed. I use a electronic thermometer to get the outside temperature,
and I always make note of the weather in all investigations. I never
conduct an investigation in which there is any precip or high winds
outside, as even dust from the winds can be mistaken on film for
something. I use the Raytek laser equipped non-contact temperature
scanner as well for inside investigations in which I can scan temps of
rooms, walls, halls, etc.
> Also readings of magnetic and electric field strengths in the area
> being photographed may provide useful information as well.
My next toy is is going to be the top of the line EMF reader. Also have
plans very soon for a Video Camcorder to be used on site as well.
> I realize that this can start getting pretty expensive though. :-)
Your not kidding either. I have spent more then $3,000.00 on basic
equipment, and each investigation can run me on average $50-55 in film,
developing costs and gas expenses. I do the investigations for free by
the way. :)
> IMO, taking such steps could go a long way in helping to come to
> an understanding of what is actually appearing in these types
> of photographs.
>
> regards,
> enigma
Agreed. I have set a pretty strict protocol on the photograph end of
things to ensure the authenticity of the photos. I try to follow the same
identical routines to ensure that I don't make any mistakes. This means
that I usually travel to the site on two separate occasions in what I call
a HCC2 investigation. That means that I went back for another
investigation to see the results. I have done only three of those in
1997, but hope to do more in 1998. Most investigations in 1997, and all
in 1998 have been plain HCC investigations in which one trip to the site
was done. Reason being for this, is when the psychic/ghostbuster is done
with the home, the entity is gone from that home making a return trip
useless.
If anyone in photography can explain the "Blue Swirls" I would like to
hear from you, and or anyone that has a comment on how to make the
investigative protocol even more tighter.
Enigma
>I always use two different cameras, three rolls of film from two different
>states, and then have the disposable camera and a roll of film developed
>at one store, and the other two rolls of film at another store with
>entirely different film developing machine. This control is incredible
>for ruling out the evil three flaws which are "flawed camera, flawed film,
>and flawed developing".
That will definitely cover those problems. If the same anomalous
effect appears in both cameras from the same and different views,
that will also go a long way towards eliminating stuff like lens flare
and such as well. Sounds like you got it pretty well covered.
>Interesting that you mention this. I took a series of two photographs at
>a haunted high school in Minneapolis, Minnesota back on January 20th. I
>took the pictures of the front door knowing that a spirit was there. The
>two pictures were snapped within one second of each other because I seen
>it move after the first shot.
>When developed, this red ectoplasmic misty cloud about 2 feet off the
>floor had moved in the photo more then 10 feet! Both pictures look
>identical, except you can see where the anomaly moved. This red mist was
>photographed 13 times between the four rolls of film developed at two
>stores. We were being followed. ":)
Does the image that appears on the film look pretty much the way you
see it visually or does it look different?
>To me, this is proof beyond all doubt that I captured something moving
>around me.
Sounds pretty convincing.
>My next toy is is going to be the top of the line EMF reader. Also have
>plans very soon for a Video Camcorder to be used on site as well.
It would be interesting to see if this stuff shows up on the video as
well. The sensitivity of video to the light spectrum may well be
different than photographic film though. If what you are photographing
falls into the light spectrum in a range that video is not sensitive
to, then nothing may show up at all. There is even a fair amount of
difference between different types of 35 mm film. You may find that
certain types of film give better results than other types because of
this.
Pretty interesting stuff. Are you planning on putting up some of your
pictures on your web page?
regards,
Enigma