A Paranormal Photo Interpretted
Here’s an interesting photo we took last year as the beach. This is my brother-in-law Chris at a bonfire we had one night on the beach at Assteague. You can see the ghost of a hand just above his head while the rest of the phot remains normal. This photo was taken with my daughter’s digital camera. A cursory look at it reminds one of a ghostly hand getting ready to “Benny Hill” Chris; and this has always been interpretted by my wife and her family as her mother showing up for a family gathering despite being passed on since March of 2005.
For me I immediately interpretted it this way. Digital cameras scan channels as they they read the light coming in the lens. The battery on this particular camera was acting flaky so I always believed that this photo was nothing more than an artifact of the camera making slower scan of one of the channels and thus creating this double exposure effect. In fact my wife showed this photo to some ghost hunter friends of our just yesterday, and it was also their thought that this effect was caused by the camera. That’s when I doubted myself.
Now I know that sounds odd – someone agrees with you so that weakens the arguement? Let me give you my reasoning. These ghost hunters are great folks and good researchers; however, when I heard the scientific sort of explanation said aloud it sounded wrong to me. It just didn’t ring true so I decided to look a level deeper – mainly because their solutions as well as my own haven’t shook my own wife’s belief that this image was someohow caused by her mother. So I decided to take the position that maybe it was.
As an example of how that could be let me give this illustration. Each year around Christmas time my wife always manages to see some lady that reminds her of my deceased mother. It makes her think of all the good Christmas times we had and all the gifts my own mom used to buy for my kids. Does that mean that these women are my Mother – or her ghost? No. But I do not exclude the possibility that the events that lead to my wife seeing a woman that reminds her of good times aren’t somehow set into motion synchronistically by someone on the other side. This leads back to the photo above. It occurred to me after getting this photo interpretted that indeed it may be a phtographic artifact of the camera; however, it might just also be the end result of a series of events that lead up to the photograph appearing like this because of some supernatural intervention.
So, let miracles be miracles, and take your signs and omens how you choose. I don’t believe in accidents. Especially if it does no harm, and may in fact do me some good in the end.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:40 am
It can easily be a double exposure. Digital cameras have a time delay built into them.
With a digital camera you will sometime get the effect where the lens exposes for the ambient light first, staying wide open of an extended time. At the end of this time the Flash goes off.
Thus you can have the shadow of the hand against the brighter sky, then as your friend drops his hand down quickly, the Flash goes off catching it and freezing it in front of him in the picture.
You can see this is other pictures taken at twilight, where a moving person (such as walking) is blurred , but also shows up at the same time sharp in the Flash exposure.
March 24th, 2007 at 4:00 am
that pic is an obvious fake my 5 year old can spot that you projected a light at him and the background is fake as hell nice try
March 24th, 2007 at 4:42 am
The picture is easy to explain. I have lived on the beach for many years. Forty three to be exact. Huntington Beach, Ca. to be exact. There is fog in the picture. You can see it clearly in the haze that exists around the guy in the photo. When ever you take a flash photo with fog the light plays with the water content in the
air. I have almost the same photo while night surfing with a disposable waterproof camera. We went surfing at night, it was foggy, and the pics we took were exactly the same as yours. Sorry no ghosts. Try it again on a foggy night, then on a clear night and you will clearly see the difference. On a separate note not every thing is a ghost. Take time to investigate before you jump to conclusions. Everybody wants to believe that they have the photo to make us believe, but do a little research first.
March 24th, 2007 at 7:01 am
This is a trick photo. If you look closely you you can see a shadow of the guys head as well. The ‘ghost hand’ is in the same position as his hand.
This pic is a total fraud.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I am happy to report that comment are flowing in from this photo being posted on http://www.coasttocoastam.com – I will indeed allow them to be posted as long as they don’t get too vulgar. Here’s my response to them – enjoy.
I do believe that the physical explanation comes from a rather rational explanation, and I find it interesting that many folks would leave a comment on a blog post without reading it. I have received several explanation and all of them good. Digital cameras can leave artifacts and I do not believe I caught a ghost. If you read the entire blog you’ll see that is true; however, events mean whatever we want them too, and if it adds meaning to my wife and her family’s life to believe this effect was caused by her dead mother then so be it. It does them no harm, and who am I to say it wasn’t caused by someone on the other side. I, as some have tried to imply, did not “fake” this photo – it just came out this way and was indeed taken on the beach at Assateague. I just put it out on my blog for you and all my readers to enjoy.
Thanks for leaving a comment,
Patrick
March 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
You are looking at a double exposure. You can see the remainder the arm overlapping the face of this person and tailing down the arm. Notice the color change in the shirt, etc..
I do have to agree with sickmind freud there.. If this is a picture with a digital camera then it’s due to something very similar. though, I do have to say that the orange flecs near the shirt make it seem as though it’s a film camera. Or perhaps this is a scan of a print (digital or not).
For the person living on the beach, hate to burst your beach bubble, but the gray area above the head isn’t fog. It’s the remainder of the over exposure of the same picture that has the hand in it. That line of light is actually the hill shape you can see in the dominant photo. What I thought was a cloud bank at first is just the over exposed horizon behind him. the light being the sky. If you were to take this photo into photo shop and reduce the image down to about 10-15% of the original transparency rate and shift it around you would see the same effect. A haunting foggy cloud bank and a mysterous shadow.
Interesting, but check the technology of the equipment and the mistakes that can be encountered before making judgements … It only leads to great let downs.
March 24th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Wow – lot’s of logical explanations, but not one person has actually read my post or they’d see that I never said this was a ghost photo. So, let’s keep this going shall we? I bet people that actually read the post aren’t leaving comments – I’ll check my web stats and see how many folks actually came to this page and post them all later. I still don’t believe in accidents, and say that even though this photo can have a logical explanation that still doesn’t mean that all the events leading up to its creation are mere chance. Just my opinion and the way I choose to view the world.
March 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Whether it is a camera annomily or something “otherworldly” it somehow gave your wife and her family some comfort after a great loss. Maybe that is what was intended by whatever powers that be that caused or created it and we aren’t meant to question just be thankful for the comfort it provided. Therein lies the miracle.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Kudos to you Joyce. You got what I was trying to get across in the blog post
March 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Your picture so obviously a shadow of your own hand does not inspire confidence with C2C. I would like to think that for the
most part listeners are intelligent, sincere, & honest. Your obvious hoax does not place you in this category in my opinion.
March 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
You can see that the hand from the brother is the same as the `ghost hand`.It can also be that the cam is flaky or had a bad flash.Ehtier way the person who gave this photo,there is not enough to tell that the hand is a ghost.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
this is just a plump guy wanting some attention . plain and simple
March 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I see it clearly as a shot with an exposure for ambient light along with a flash exposure during which the subjects hand, arm, head and body are in motion creating the ’shadow’. If it makes someone feel better to think otherwise, or it’s useful to attract attention that’s OK too I guess. In some cultures, the hand over the head like this is a sign of death, however. Then again, if Mom actually had such big hands maybe there is more than meets the eye here.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Patrick,
I too, do not believe in accidents, whatever the explanations techical or otherwise. Information comes to each of us in many forms, and would consider this on of those “little whispers”. I second Joyce’s view 100%.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:21 am
And kudos to Pat! You got it. I obviously need to learn to write better, because I just didn’t get my point across on this post.
Simplified:
1. I believe this is an artifact of the camera and the enviroment and not an actual picture of a ghost.
2. I do not believe in accidents. Sychronistic events occur all the time.
3. I allow for the possibility that this photo is one of those events, and may indeed be the conclusion of a series of events created to produce this “weird” but explanable effect. Especially since it evokes such a strong emotional response from the family that was involved.
4. I also know that no person at the fire on the beach caused this photo, and it is not a fake or hoax because that would mean I am trying to pass it off as a ghost photo – which I am not. I am merely saying that the events leading up to its production could have been put into play by by supernatural means.
You be the judge and interpret it as you will. I would appreciate it if the particularly nasty and vulgar comments woud cease. l will not post those. Keep it clean and well-thought out, eh? Oh, and by the way. I pay for the bandwidth here so I can approve or disallow any comment I so choose – it’s my site after all. So those emails saying that I won’t post your comments are in a way true. But like I said, as long as it is not vulgar or just a cheap attack on me by people who do not know me – I call them twits – I will allow the comment to be posted. I do moderate all comments to avoid the usual spam for Viagra and Nigerian Bank Transfer Scams and such.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
People are funny aren’t they!
Why is everyone so quick to jump all over someone, without reading the information first? I too agree that this is most likely a anomaly from the camera itself or the effect of ambient moisture. I can follow the horizon in the shadow effect, but I can’t explain the differences in the hand position.
If it creates an emotional response, then maybe it was meant to create an emotional response, just as you have posted. Spirit comes to us in some odd ways at times, but there are always going to be people who want to intellectualize everything. That’s fine, what matters is what you believe, not what others believe.
Those who believe this man is trying to make a mockery of C2C listeners, give your head a shake! There are plenty of fakes and stolen fakes on C2C, some are set up just to try and fool C2C listeners, we all know that. I don’t think this is one of those instances, merely someone trying to get a feel for the situation and pose food for thought.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
To all out there that thinks this picture is a fake.I was there that
night.We all decided to meet there that night because my mom
liked to visit Assateque when she came to the beach.We all took
pictures but none came out like this one.It was kind of odd though that the first picture my sister took of our brother,whom she hadnt seen since our mothers death came out like this one.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Patrick,
You did indeed call it a ghost in your description to C2C. Unless they reworded what you actually wrote.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I m not an expert in the matter of photos but I think it is just a shadow being cast from the flash of the camera against the smoke from the bonfire.
I dont think it was meant as a hoax of any kind, different people see different things. Has and interestng effect thought
Peace.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I guess my only confusion lies in why did C2C even accept this photo and title it “Ghost Hand”? I understand the intent, but I fail to understand why C2C makes it out to be some hand of a ghost.
I think C2C has changed a lot since Art stopped hosting full time.
jay
March 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Do you think it is possible that the hand in the background is a shadow that is reflected on the smoke from the fire caused by the camera’s flash? I can see a slight shadow across the face of the man and the hand is exactly in the same position as the shadow, if taken at a slight angle. Just a thought, but I like the “otherworldly” explanation better.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
all though the photo may not be anything unusual, i appreciate and agree that there are bigger things in the universe at work. the true thing that is unusual is to stop and pay attention to those little blessings in everyday life.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
IF IT GIVES YOUR WIFE SOME PEACE LET IT BE. I LOST BOTH MY PARENTS AND I AM 54. BUT I AM STILL BROKEN UP ABOUT IT. THOUGH ITS BEEN 2 Yeqrs since my MOTHER DIED. THINGS THAT NEVER WAS SAID THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAID. MISTY BLUE
March 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
IF IT GIVES YOUR WIFE SOME PEACE LET IT BE. I LOST BOTH MY PARENTS AND I AM 54. BUT I AM STILL BROKEN UP ABOUT IT. THOUGH ITS BEEN 2 years since my MOTHER DIED. THINGS THAT NEVER WAS SAID THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAID. MISTY BLUE
April 13th, 2007 at 3:15 am
It’s not a shadow cast from the camera flash into a volume of mist of background, the flash is clearly above the lens from the shadow of the hand on the chest nd is incapable of this.
There may be another light source or secondary flash projecting a shadow but the shadow does not appear to cast onto the face…
I’d guess there is another light source or a secondary reflector involved and the background is smoke or mist illuminated by that, but it remains a bit of an enigma that the flash dominates the lighting on the face and eliminates the shadow you’d expect to see cast there from the secondary light or reflector.
Either that or there is someone actually behind the guy who wasn’t clearly visible until the flash lit the mist beyond them all, the similar hand gesture is then merely a coincidence, but not a huge coincidence since they’re not identical and may have been prompted by a similar event making both people raise their hand.
Hmmm….. I’m leaning towards the obscured person behind but wouldn’t rule out a secondary light.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:22 am
P.S. another factor reinforcing the secondary light is that he has has raised his hand to shield is eyes from it. When the flash fires it mostly obscures the shadow on his face he’s INTENTIONALLY casting with his arm. The flash also illuminates the mist but you don’t see the shadow from the body on the mist from the flash because it is much closer to the lens.
I’m very confident there is a light below the photographer, perhaps a car headlight which the subject is shielding his eyes from.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
No car headlights. We were on the beach and you can’t drive there.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Cool Picture! Thanks for sharing it. I’m a professional photographer – and have much experience with digital cameras and the regular ones as well. When I first saw this image I was perplexed by how it could have happened. I think one’s first assumption is that it is a shadow of the individual’s hand, but this can’t be because it would also be cast on the individual’s face. This assumption can really mess with your mind – because it is so clearly impossible. The “double-exposure” theory fits for me. The hand is a sillouette against the brighter sky (not a shadow) which was exposed on the ccd chip before the flash fired and created the rest of the photo. But what an interesting puzzle! I think this shot is one-in-a-million and probably would be very difficult to recreate with so many factors involved (positioning, exposing, background elements aligning perfectly, etc.)
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 am
I still am getting many rude comments. I don’t mind if you want to explain the photo. It would be nice if you might actually read and try to understand the post before you do. And comments abouts my brother-in-law are not appreciated. Therefore comments are now closed on this post. Go and find someone else to harrass.