Home Investigations Disclaimer FAQS Contact Us


Unexplained Photographs!


Fort Amherst - 26th November 2006


The series of photographs below were taken with a Fuji Fine Pix S5000.

The series of pictures were taken in sequence one after the other in quick succession. The first photograph fired correctly, the second the flash misfired and the third resulted in a black mass.

We forwarded our pictures to other sources for comments, please read their comments below.


Exif Data from photographs below -


Bob Dezon from Bad Psychics gives his explanation -

Interesting for sure, although unfortunately not paranormal I think. Its probably caused by a flash misfire. When you take flash photography there is a device called a capacitor which holds a charge of electricity. This charge is an accumulation of charge, far in excess of the actual battery strength. It needs to be very high voltage to trigger such a bright light, even for a moment. It looks like the capacitor misfired, and what you can see here is a half arsed attempt at flashing. The light only illuminated the area over a much smaller distance than a regular flash would have.

What at first appears to be a free standing black mass, is actually a regular shadow which is extending away from the camera, quite possibly on a 45 degree angle (hard to gauge exactly here, so best "guestimation") Looking at the Exif, reveals more important data. Here is a sample of exif data for images ranging from 1 to 3

Image 1

Time taken: 02:59:04
ISOSpeedRatings 200
ShutterSpeedValue 1/64Sec
Flash : Fired(Auto)
Flash strength : -876595906/-1002605773

image 2

Time taken: 02:59:10
ISOSpeedRatings 200
ShutterSpeedValue 1/4Sec
Flash : Not fired(Auto)
Flash strength : 744904719/-976027393

image 3

Time taken: 02:59:18
ISOSpeedRatings 400
ShutterSpeedValue 1/60Sec
Flash : Fired(Auto)
Flash strength : -328372497/1557029998

So what does this tell us?

Well on the third image (the shadow) the ISO speed had changed.
The second image has a longer exposure time because it was in complete darkness.
The exposure time was oddly, not 1/64th of a second on image 3. Instead a different setting altogether.
The flash strength settings on images 1+2+3 show a decrease over time in strength.

It is my opinion, that it is simply a flash misfiring, due to a dodgy capacitor charge. Although I must admit it does look very cool. It might be worth sending that image to Fuji, so they can ascertain the actual fault caused by the camera in that shot. It may be due to a broken part. One thing you might find interesting though, I can prove there is nothing between Ian and Dave at the end of the tunnel.

Take a look at the image below. I have software which can examine the image as directly captured on the CCD chip. It will plot each point of light from 0 to 255 (the full range from absolute black to pure white) It presents it as an Isometric view (think of it like a picture that was on the wall, now taken down and lying flat on the floor and turned slightly to the left as you view it) This shows both walls, the arched ceiling, and the single point of light (I assume infra red?) from the camera on the tripod Dave set up. The single spike or peak of light is what is interesting here. The fact it is the same length as the surrounding walls proves that nothing impeded its journey to Ians camera, ergo nothing was between the light source and the camera. The height spikes on the sides and top are the actual walls, the blacked depressed area is the absence of light, and the spike in the middle/bottom area is the IR

We thank Bob for his time and comments.

Dr. J. Lee Choron Phd former senior executive with the Eastman Kodak Company gives his explanation -

I've seen several examples of portals in photographic analysis. Primarilly they are a form of energy and not an object but the energy field is so intense that it shows up in a photo as a semi-solid object. The reason that it shows in photos and is not visible to the eye is that the energy in question is in a spectrum that we are not receptive to. I was trained as an engineer and we constantly saw anomolies like this during analysis of photographs. It's not exactly "common" but it's common enough to be known. Most people write it off as a simple energy anomoly.

The way I analyze photos is something that you should understand. First of all, my software is not designed to identify the paranormal. It is designed to eliminate any flaw, defect, error or unusual conditions that can be identified by a database that Eastman Kodak has developed over a period of over 40 years and updates regularly. I kept my copy of the software when I retired from Kodak.It is not available commercially and it requires a second computer (for me) simply to run those programs since the memory capacity necessary is extensive. I still recieve the updates from Kodak since I was a rather senior executive in the Overseas Division when I retired.

Now... I have also assembled a database over the past 25 years or so that contains known paranormal phenomenon and examples of verified incidents. What I do is first run the photo through the software to eliminate any chance of flaw or error of any kind that could exist. I then re-run it and compare to the existing database on known paranormal phenomenon. My goal is not to "prove" or "disprove" anything but to actively identify what is actually in the photo. There are many cases in which all I can say is that "it is not a flaw, error or any kind of defect" but it is "unknown in origin and composition". In this particular case, I had several fairly good examples of portals in various stages of manifestation in my database and that is what this most closely matches. My evaluations are always within a 5% factor +/-.

Even magnified to 1,200x it is impossible to tell exactly what you have in that photo. However I can tell you this. Whatever it is, my software indicates that it is a semi-solid object or mass of an "indeterminate" form of energy. It is well within the focal range and limits of the camera. It seems to be in the process of either materializing or dematerializing,

Likewise, analysis indicates that it is definitely an object that is part of the photo and not any known flaw, defect or error. The software that I use is designed to eliminate all known flaws, errors and defects as well as identify any known user error. None of these register in analysis. This is a genuine anomoly.

We thank Doctor Choron for his time and comments.

What Fuji Says -

Thank you for sending the sample images It would appear from the images that the image sensor on the camera has developed an intermittent fault causing the black area on the image.

We have contacted Fuji again and asked them to explained themselves in more detail! Their next reply;

The image sensor (CCD) is the light capturing sensor on the camera, when the image sensor becomes defective, one of the symptoms can be a complete or partial black image. Image sensors can develop intermittent faults so although you have only experienced this problem once it is possible it can happen again.

We were expecting a more substantial reply!

<< Back


2004/2020 Ghost Connections UK