Amazing photo

No i see what your saying Ian,, but if you look at what ive circled above then you can see what i was saying when i said Darth vader, its the helmet shape with the slight kick out at the bottom edge and then when i looked at the Link that extralian gave us i can see what is being pointed as being the cape, i dont think the figure is hooded, its more like a helmet and the haze around could be that the manifestation wasnt complete but shrouded in like a mist ?? Im no expert in photography in anyway but this picture really does leave allot unexplained, im just saying what i personally think i can see and i believe arwen hit the nail on the head with her post.

totally agree with Ian, think this is a case of wanting to see things. as I've said before, the camera does not give a true representation of reality. the shadow outline is too far beyond the margin of coincidence, but the kind of detail people seem to be searching for is beyond the capabilities of a camera of this kind. the level of noise apparent in the image will distort any kind of detail and is a primer for parodelia (sp). in this case the filters are going to obscure and morph the information in the image even further and fundamentally a digital image is just that, information. I would also argue that shadow cannot contain detail of any kind and if its not a shadow (which it clearly isn't) then whatever the black mass is it has to be a thing that absorbs or simply does not reflect light, like a black hole. there is simply no other way for a powerful flash not too penetrate any kind of darkness. with this in mind, there can be no detail, a camera produces images through reflected photons, no reflection, no detail, simply nothing but a void of darkness, which is precisely what we see (or don't) in the image. All we will see from a digital image perspective in such conditions is lots if noise and irregularities of all sorts as the camera tries to make sense of what it sees. a camera is always going to try and see something because that's exactly what its designed and programmed to do.

in exactly the same way we are programmed to see faces.

Fair Comment Robb,, I have zero understanding of photography in my defence untill its explained like that,, when its explained like that i can understand. this still leaves the question as to what is it or what caused it!? guess thats the golden question.

Sorry if my post lacked any emotional sustenance, I actually wrote it with one hand driving along the M3... not cool.

Your right tobz. Whatever it is, it's genuinely unexplainable and in my opinion it's compelling evidence of something paranormal going on.

However, like Ian says, it will likely remain unexplained. We really need much more accurate data from the scene at that exact moment in time. Nature of the game however is that we can't really have locked down controlled experiments on an investigation, not to the extent that would produce irrefutable scientific evidence. But things like this are very invaluable and I suppose one of the most important things it brings, and the investigations themselves, is the constant reminder and personal confirmation to individuals, that this stuff is real. Sometimes personal acceptance and belief is much more important than establishing a scientific truth... but it all depends on what your goals are...

Regards,

Robb

Hi guys,

The PFN went back to the casemates and captured another shadow on one of their photos.



This time it was taken somewhere else in that location, but not far away from the area where the first shadow was captured.



I find this very interesting.

I've checked this picture, too and couldn't find any differences in the pixels.
I think we can also exclude camera failure, because on BOTH pictures the shadow is standing partially BEHIND a wall.

Again, there was nobody standing at the spot where the shadow is... so what is it????

Now that is weird. I must admit I've been struggling to make head nor tail of the first photograph. It reminds me so much of photos that we've captured or had sent to us from the HFC buy that second photo is just bizarre. What is that looks like a hunched figure moving as if going through the wall. Could that be residual ? Has the building changed at all over the years?

I have no idea , and cannot make head nor tail of it either , i must admit i was getting quite sick and tired of discussing the first one but this is even more interesting than the first one , there is nothing there that could cause the shadow so i have no idea what it could be .

Hi John,

as far as I know, nothing has been changed there, except of adding electric cables.

Canadian soldiers were stationed there, i would have to find out until when, but now it is some sort of military museum.

Hella

I still cant help but think of monks everytime i see either image..

for example..in this second image we now have...compare its outline to the right sides of these two monks..

LOL Steve, I like the Dom Perignon monk

But i can assure you, that there were never any monks or other clerics present there, other than the odd military priest.

I will try and find out more about it's history, but as far as I know that it dates further back than the thirty Years' War.

That "humped figure looks to me, as if it is a person darting off around the corner, a bit stooped, so one can only see it's back, but the head is already out of sight. the "hump" could be a backpack, the way German soldiers used to carry... it could also be a helmet, but as far as I know, they had to wear it as soon as they were on duty and weren't allowed to carry it on the back.

Here's such a backpack (tornister)



The reason why we can't see a coat is, that soldiers also used to wear coats in WW1 and 2



LOL couldn't find a better pic, but I think it gives you an idea