Photographic Analysis P09-0001

Submitted Information on Photo:

Close to five years ago I asked my friend to take a picture of the beautiful sunset while I was driving on 208 towards Ringwood, NJ.  She did and it wasn't at all the sunset.  It's the scariest picture that I've ever seen. I didn't believe in ghosts and I just wanted to forget about the picture but I found it on my old camera.  In the middle of the picture it looks like a skull, it also has clusters of those neon things , and finally the scariest thing about the picture is the 3 faces on the left. Two of the people look like the kid from the movie the Grudge and the third one is a real boy..Like I took a picture of him, he's looking straight at the camera.  I'm not making this up this is what happened when we took the picture of the sunset.  Everyone told me to contact somebody years ago but I was afraid and just wanted to forget about it but now I'm interested in it. I think its real because I didn't fabricate anything but I want to learn more about it.

PSIRO ANALYSIS

Based off the initial response about the photograph we were actually a little stunned to see the actual photograph that was submitted. Quickly we realized that the most probable explanation for this photograph was not of a supernatural nature, but rather the result of misuse of the camera itself. First, we see that the entire photograph is blurry, this is most likely caused because the person is in a moving vehicle attempting to take a photo of the sunset.You will notice that in the middle of the photograph is a very blurry outline of a green highway sign. This helps confirm that the car is actually moving. Also, based off the photograph, we believed that the flash had not been used and the shutter speed was set to a slower speed (most likely default or automatic) causing the light streaks and the extreme blur of the camera. After reviewing the EXIF Data from the digital photograph, we confirmed our assumptions that the camera and the image that was taken is most likely the result of the settings of the camera itself and not the cause of paranormal or supernatural entities.

We have included a copy of the EXIF Data below and highlighted the specific areas of interest that helped to determine our analysis of the photograph.

------

Camera Make = EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

Camera Model = KODAK C330 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA

Picture Orientation = normal (1)

X-Resolution = 230/1 ===> 230

Y-Resolution = 230/1 ===> 230

X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)

Software / Firmware Version = Version 1.0700

Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 2000000/1000000 second ===> 2 second

Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode

Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 870/100 ===> ƒ/8.7

Exposure Program = normal program (2)

ISO Speed Ratings = 80

Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr

Compressed Bits per Pixel = 320/100 ===> 3.2

Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = -100/100

Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/0.5 second

Aperture Value (APEX) = 624/100

Aperture = ƒ/8.69

Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/10 ===> 0

Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 440/100 ===> 4.4

Max Aperture = ƒ/4.59

Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)

Focal Length = 1680/100 mm ===> 16.8 mm

FlashPix Version = 0100

Colour Space = sRGB (1)

Image Width = 2304 pixels

Image Height = 1728 pixels

Exposure Index = 80/1

Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)

Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)

Scene Type = directly photographed image

Custom Rendered = normal process (0)

Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)

White Balance = manual (1)

Digital Zoom Ratio = 22/10 ===> 2.2

Focal Length in 35mm Film = 102

Scene Capture Type = standard (0)

Gain Control = n/a (0)

Contrast = normal (0)

Saturation = normal (0)

Sharpness = normal (0)

Subject Distance Range = distant view (3)

 

--------

In regards to the photograph and the claims of a skull and other strange entities in the photograph, we concluded that they are nothing more than pareidolia and the human ability to spot patterns and faces in random shapes and environments, much like looking at the clouds and seeing rabbits, dragons, or any other familiar looking shape. Overall, we do not believe that this photograph has anything supernatural or paranormal taking place. Just simple user error.

Comments  

 
0 #1 2010-01-29 16:01
you were driving an wen the pic was takin there had to of ben some kind of light source in the pic. as you drove by it all blurred all together, iv takin pics like this b4
 
 
0 #2 2010-02-03 16:03
Quoting johnathan:
you were driving an wen the pic was takin there had to of ben some kind of light source in the pic. as you drove by it all blurred all together, iv takin pics like this b4


Thank you for the comment, but you will notice that our analysis is similar to yours. This is not our photo, but rather one that was submitted to us for analysis. Based off the information give, we realized that this photo was not paranormal.
 
 
0 #3 2010-02-09 15:47
Easily replicated via use of long exposure with mild camera shake whilst focusing on several light sources.

Could also be an optical fault in the camera.
 
 
0 #4 2010-02-21 02:16
With all due respect, to conclude there is no "paranormal" aspects to the photo implies you have something "paranormal" to compare it too. If we can't answer the first question we really shouldn't draw conclusions AT ALL. To say the images are just imaginary is a statement that is just as unsubstantiated as saying it is definitely paranormal. What makes something paranormal? When we answer that then we have a basis that will lead us to the most probable answers...I am just not sure we will ever answer it empirically.
 
 
0 #5 2010-02-21 05:47
Pretty obvious Joseph, that if you can easily replicate the photograph, then simply via use of occams razor the most feasible explanation is more than likely the correct one, without having to stretch your opinion so much to conclude its paranormal in origin. One does not require a comparison to be drawn when you have common sense...
 
 
0 #6 2010-02-22 12:53
It would be "obvious" if we had something to observe. So if it is obvious to you then you must have replicated the photo correct? See observation does not draw conclusions before but after the observation. If someone has replicated the photo then yes we can conclude it is an optical illusion, however we cannot conclude it is not paranormal. The test or the observation is not looking for the paranormal. If I draw a separate conclusion, "This is not paranormal" that too must be substantiated. It has not been.
 
 
0 #7 2010-02-22 14:38
If you want to call it paranormal then go ahead. I much prefer to presume rational explanations. There should be no need to prove what it isn't. What form of science does that? I understand deductive measues but it can be taken a little too far. No need to debate on the subject of this photo. It can be replicated very easily. Why should you presume its paranormal. Sounds like a reverse method of investigation to me...
 
 
0 #8 2010-02-22 15:20
When did I call it paranormal? I don't want to call it paranormal or not based on what I want to believe about it.

Wee Topher needs to also recognize that much of the problems with "research" in regard to the paranormal comes with assumptions being made by everyone involved.

Science does not draw conclusions based on presumption. Have you replicated the photo? I don't see in the analysis above that anybody has and even if they have the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the photo is a result of light and image variations. There are no observations made to conclude it is NOT paranormal.
 
 
0 #9 2010-02-22 15:28
You cannot prove a negative : Basis of all science...
 
 
0 #10 2010-02-22 15:38
What the hell are you talking about? What negative have I tried to "prove"?

Nobody has "proved" anything as far as I can tell with this photo, most especially that it is NOT paranormal. The conclusion was drawn without any proof AT ALL.