what do you think?

Hi team
came across theses pictures feel free to leave your comments please... ....what do you all think
The last two pictures are from me in the 3rd one there seems to be a ribbon of light coming from the gate in the 4th one is a pitures of the entrance to hellfire caves can anyone see what i think is there or is this just a trick of the light?

1.


2.


3.


4.

Hi Phil


1) I think the 1st photo is some old granny who has just been woken up by the sound of construction work on the roof opposite.

2) This is the famous staircase ghost I know the history behind this and where it was taken and the year.I will allow others to make up there mind regarding this one

3) The hellfire one looks as though it could be a torch light coming up the path way towards the arch area.

4) If i am not mistaken the lower right in the arch looks like shadow but i actually think it is the lighting causing that.



Steve

Hi Phil

I think that the guy is going to fall off the roof if he is not carefull , the last picture from the hellfire cave is a shadow , we noticed this last time that wer were there and discovered that it was the light reflecting .

Hi Phil,

I'd be inclined to agree with Steve on these pics. The top one is either an old dear looking out of the window (or a photoshopped attempt at a ghost photo). The second is
the famous Tulip Staircase pic by the Reverend Hardy which probably shows two ghosts and is one of the most convincing ghost pics ever published but in reality we can't rule out
that it's a hoax. The last two I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at so I can't really comment.
The problem with most pictures purported to show ghosts (or anything paranormal) is that there's usually only one of them ie there's no supporting pictures published showing
the location in a wider visual context which hinders proper investigation unfortunately. We usually get no information other than the merest details and the originals are rarely
available for professional analysis.

Occam's Monkey

Occam's Monkey wrote:

Hi Phil,

The last two I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at so I can't really comment.
The problem with most pictures purported to show ghosts (or anything paranormal) is that there's usually only one of them ie there's no supporting pictures published showing
the location in a wider visual context which hinders proper investigation unfortunately. We usually get no information other than the merest details and the originals are rarely
available for professional analysis.

Occam's Monkey

Very true! Which is why we are usually very careful about saying fake or not. We don't know all the circumstances about a picture and because they are only snippets of a split second of a moment it is very easy to misinterpret them.

The last two pictures were taken on one of our several investigations at the Hellfire Caves in West Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. By now we have thousands of photos from that location, some of them similar to the two above.
I am a believer in long term investigations. They are the best way of gathering enough credible evidence to say whether or not a place is haunted.

Cheers,
Hella

Hi Arwen,

What would you class as credible evidence?. Using the Hellfire Caves as an example, if one person photographs an orb would you class that as credible?.
Conversely if a hundred people (over a period of time - say a month) photograph orbs in the caves is that even more credible and would you say it gave support to the contention that
the caves are haunted?.

I agree totally that it's wrong to jump to a conclusion either way by saying 'it's fake' or 'it's a ghost' without at least trying to getting the bigger picture so to speak. Certainly, long term investigation - provided
it's done scientifically is the way to go - if it's not done scientifically (as most investigations are not) then IMO it's credibility as evidence is nigh on useless.

Occam's Monkey

Occam,

If you ask me then I would say credible evidence is a matter of perception. Some people don't need much evidence at all, while others, like myself and probably you by the sounds of things, will likely never be completely satisfied!
From a scientific perspective, credible evidence for the existence of ghosts seems to be totally elusive... and if I were a scientist I would not consider 99% of evidence gathered by paranormal groups as scientific at all, therefore making it non credible. But then again the scientific community tend to generally shy away from anything that suggests that their interpretation of the world might not be as solid as they would think...

Orbs and photos of anomalies, EVPs, EMF and temperature fluctuations etc are all examples of things unexplained, some times their occurrences can be uncanny and sometimes not. For me, good evidence would be to measure and record all of these unexplainables manifesting at one precise point in time in a controlled, locked down environment. This would be good evidence to prove that something unexplained is happening. However it would not prove to me that ghosts existed.

I have had personal experiences that suggest that they might and I believe that it is possible, but I don't think current evidence can prove anything, not to me anyway.

Occam's Monkey wrote:

Hi Arwen,

What would you class as credible evidence?. Using the Hellfire Caves as an example, if one person photographs an orb would you class that as credible?.
Conversely if a hundred people (over a period of time - say a month) photograph orbs in the caves is that even more credible and would you say it gave support to the contention that
the caves are haunted?.
Occam's Monkey

I am not a great believer in orbs, especially not those on photos. Even if it is not absolutely clear that it is a bug, pollen, dust particle or whatever, there is still a strong doubt for me, that an orb is paranormal.

As long as technology is not advanced enough to exclude orbs of natural cause, then it is unnecessary to me to even discuss them (call me ignorant, if you like )

Occam's Monkey wrote:

I agree totally that it's wrong to jump to a conclusion either way by saying 'it's fake' or 'it's a ghost' without at least trying to getting the bigger picture so to speak. Certainly, long term investigation - provided
it's done scientifically is the way to go - if it's not done scientifically (as most investigations are not) then IMO it's credibility as evidence is nigh on useless.

Occam's Monkey

The problem with approx. 98% of so called scientific paranormal investigation teams is, that they don't think out of the box and don't make any effort at all to improve their techniques. A lot of those teams work with old techniques and most of them have an embarrassing lack of background knowledge, such as theories, scientific facts, analysing skills etc.... name it and it's (not) there. IMO this is a form of ignorance... but still they wonder why they won't be acknowledged in the scientific world.