Angel

“This picture was taken at Bachelors Grove Cemetery just outside of Chicago IL around noon in August 2005. The picture was taken with a Canon AE-1, 50mm lens with a hoya red filter and Kodak IR film. Also, just to note, double exposures are not possible on the AE-1 without significant modification and this camera has definitely not been modified. ”

angel

angel-closeup

What do you think?  Comment and vote now!

85 Responses to “Angel”

  1. Bryan Says:

    Is this the ghost of R2-D2?

  2. Kitsuné Says:

    This one is definitely interesting… It is possibly genuine, but there’s a lot of pixelation there, and it looks like there is a lot of sunlight (and i assume trees somewhere). It is possible that the sun is shining through the trees to cast shadows on the headstone, leaving the image of (what I think looks like) a little girl. She doesn’t seem to be taller than the headstone itself. Assuming it isn’t simply photoshopped! But this one looks quite good. I’m on the fence with this one.

  3. Sam Ting Says:

    R2D2, too funny, a ghost from the future.

  4. Pete Crapia Says:

    I’m not sure what they are trying to point out but if it is what I think it is… That would be the oldest headstone still remaining at the cemetery. It is from the 1800s and happens to be the actual stone that is claimed to move around “by itself.” It has also been in this current position for many years.

  5. Daniel Says:

    This image is so over-exposed it could be anything – there’s simply no dynamic range in the bright objects. How can anybody discern a shape without any contrast?

  6. Neil Says:

    I cannot see anything in the photograph, it is grainy, out of focus and bleached. Also, it is an IR film, all pictures look unworldly in IR.

  7. Holly Says:

    I think it’s just seeing something in random shapes. When I first looked at the top photo, I saw what appeared to be a kneeling woman looking up to the sky with hands together in prayer. I thought wow that is creepy. Then I looked down to the close up below, and the woman figure I saw had from neck up cut off.
    So I realized what I had seen at first wasn’t what the photo intended to show. Then I looked again and saw what I was suppose to see. Just shows that eye’s can and will deceive you. The mind will trick you and it’s easy to see things in shadows, shapes, reflections ect….

  8. jon Says:

    it’s far too overexposed and therefore white-washed to the extent that it could be anything…including a grave stone. The light floods the image and without any contrast there is very little depth. it’s almost like saying the leaves of the trees have been overcome with angelic light..but we know full well they have not but know they are leaves because we can see the tree!!

  9. Cly Says:

    Looks just like a gravestone to me. Pretty obvious.

  10. jackeline Says:

    É aterrorizante,acho que é uma menina ou a luz do sol refletindo em uma sepultura!!!!!!parece bem real!!!!!

  11. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    No one thought to see if a double exposure was possible? Come on, if you are going to use the word “science” you have to try just a little.

    “: Can you do a double exposure with a Canon AE1? If so, how do you do it.
    ————————————————–
    Easy, if you are careful and attentive to detail.
    You WILL need a tripod, the ability to measure and position subject location(s)and accurate light metering. Your camera has a film tension release button which you usually depress,when you want to rewind the film at the end of a roll.

    Position your camera on a tripod, and decide in advance where you want the subjects to be in your final picture. Measure and mark same with chaulk
    on the floor (out of camera view).

    Using a slow speed film, measure your light setting w/ the subject centered, then depending upon how many double exposures you plan per final photo,UNDEREXPOSE,each frame by 1/2 f stop; three
    images will be – 1/2 ; -1 then -1 1/2 f stop.”

    http://www.acecam.com/photography/7259.html

  12. Danny Says:

    I am the one who took and submitted the photo. Interesting how everyone thinks there is a headstone. There was no headstones present in that area. So the image is not of a headstone.

    There was other photos taken in the same area with the IR and two digital cameras.

    The reason it is grainy is because I scanned the picture on a scanner. I still have the negative somewhere.

    We also have images of what looks like a statue, but there are no statues in the cemetery. There is two pictures of it, one with the whole thing and another with only the legs visible.

  13. Joseph Says:

    @Clarence That camera used was mine and your steps definitely make sense for how to double expose. However I know for certain that those steps were not taken haha. That would have been a bit extreme and double exposing with normal film would work but with IR? Not sure because of the way light bleeds through it (no coating). So yeah, that could be possible but not in this instance.

    Anyway, this was submitted hoping for an honest examination of it and I’m kinda disappointed in the cookie-cutter answers.

    • Clarence Birdseye Says:

      Of course it would work with IR. The problem is that the word “science” is being used. Science demands verification. Impartial, disinterested verification. Having been assured that double exposures with the type of camera used “are not possible … without significant modification and this camera has definitely not been modified” and having found, with one quick search, that this is simply not true, you can see why such verification is necessary.

      The responses may seem cookie cutter to you but it sort of goes with the territory. BTW, you say the picture was taken noonish yet those shadows sure seen to suggest a time earlier or later.

      It seems that Mr. Wiseman has not done the minimal acceptable level of investigation. That is a pity. But, you know that even if your image could not be explained, that is all it would be: an unexplained image, not a ghost nor anything else.

      @Clarence That camera used was mine and your steps definitely make sense for how to double expose. However I know for certain that those steps were not taken haha. That would have been a bit extreme and double exposing with normal film would work but with IR? Not sure because of the way light bleeds through it (no coating). So yeah, that could be possible but not in this instance.

      Anyway, this was submitted hoping for an honest examination of it and I’m kinda disappointed in the cookie-cutter answers.

  14. Shayalon Says:

    Ok.

    First, Joseph, just because you don’t agree with the answers, doesn’t make them “cookie cutter.” You have a preconceived notion, and anything that falls outside of that notion is going to receive a negative review from you.

    As for the photo. It’s either a headstone in the cemetary, a trick of the light, or outright fraud.

    The person who said that headstones show up as black: No they do not. They only show up as black if no light is falling upon them. The reason the headstones in the back are showing up as black is that they are in the shade.

    In examining the focal point, the assumed “angel”: Why would an angel show up as painted or cartoon with a stylized cherubic face?

    With the limited information I have to work with, and the poor quality of the photo, I have to assume that it is either a photograph of a stone in the cemetary which had this strange likeness carved into it, or it’s just an outright fraud, someone has photoshopped an image of a cartoon person into a photograph of a cemetary. Alternatively, it could just be a light trick combined with pareidolia. The area of the photo in question is just too washed out to make out what it might be. It’s certainly ludicrous to assume that it’s an angel.

  15. Joseph Says:

    Haha yous guys is crazy! I actually don’t buy into anything supernatural. I’m more interested in the complex lighting effects or simple tricks-of-the-eye that could create this illusion. I’m not satisfied with the answers given because they require no examination of the source material and are just ‘go-to responses.’

    @Clarence I totally agree with you and I see now that it’s easy to double expose if a photographer went to the trouble. I had just never researched it before because I have other cameras that automatically allow double exposure without advancing the frame first.

  16. Danny Says:

    Why do the skeptics always claim fraud and say there is no proof, but have no proof themselves?

    Prove it was a headstone.

    Prove it was photoshopped.

    It can’t be proved one way or the other. No one is trying to say what it is other then it is an unusual photograph. So calm down guys and lets have a good discussion about what it could be without throwing around accusations.

    After all, I have the negative.

    • Clarence Birdseye Says:

      Does not work that way. I make no contention, least of all one of such enormous implications as something regarding the supernatural. You make the claim, you provide the proof of that claim. Also, you should know (and it is a real pity that critical thinking is not taught) that one cannot “prove” a negative. Cannot be done except in very limited and therefore trivial circumstances.

  17. Shayalon Says:

    Danny: I only supplied fraud as one of three things that it could be. I am not making an outrageous claim here, you are. The burden of proof is upon you to prove your allegation, not on me to debunk it.

    You say “no one is trying to say what it is other than an unusual photograph”. That’s not true. Apparently someone is trying to say that it’s an angel.

    If you’re looking at empirical evidence, we don’t have much to work with. I certianly did not state with any certainty that it was fraud, I’m just saying that it could be. From my point of view what else can I say? I don’t know how the picture was taken, when or by whom. All I have is your word. Your word and and about 4 bucks will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    Since we’ve got no proof that ghosts exist, and this photo is sketchy at best, then we have to conclude that it’s probably not a ghost or angel. So it has to be one of the three things (or some unconsidered fourth) that I mentioned.

    I’m not calling you a liar, but due to the amount of fraud that comes about in these types of photos, it has to be a possibility that I consider.

  18. Vicky Says:

    Why do some people think that any light anomaly caught on camera is a ghost? Orbs are not ghost… They could be dust, collected energy, light reflections, smudge on a lens…etc. The pic shows plenty of shadows and light playing on each other – looks like there is nothing more than light reflection going on in this pic.

  19. Danny Says:

    Funny, reading back trough it all, and I still don’t remember calling it an angel or ghost. The only think that was asked was for a discussion on what it could be. I really don’t understand why clarance and shayalon are so out to not have a discussion and still make claims that anyone was saying it is a ghost or angel. If you are beyond the capacity to discuss the photo without making claims of such then please refrain. But I hope you can get past that because the both of you seem very intelligent and I believe could bring some very interesting facts to the table and I would love to have your input on this.

    Moving on, Lets say for arguments sake it is not a head stone and not faked. What could it be? The lighting was at noon, I took the picture and remember it was noon, maybe the reason the lighting looked off to clarence is the area is in the middle of a forest preserve with trees all around. Not out in the open.

    What are some possible cause left, we will try to eliminate it down to see what could have caused the point of interest?

    • Vicky Says:

      Once again I stand corrected – The pic could be anything from dust, collected, light reflections, smudge on a lens…etc.

      Most likely light reflections disturbance. The pic shows a lot of shadows and light playing on each other caused by the Sun at high noon peeking through shrubs and trees. This could have easily affected the camera lens and the picture produced.

    • Clarence Birdseye Says:

      Let me just note that your file name for the image is Angel.jpg

      It seems that there is some ego involvement on your side. That is to say that you are not really a disinterested observer.

  20. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    Is it possible to get the original uploaded somewhere? The quality of the picture here is very poor.

    • Danny Says:

      Clarence

      Here is a copy of the photo I scanned and uploaded for the web.

      I just moved so I will look for it tonight and try to rescan it at a higher resolution and post it here.

  21. Shayalon Says:

    First of all, I never said that YOU said it was an angel. I said that there was a claim that it was an angel. The title of the post. This is why I commented in the first place.

    Secondly, you’re asking for an explanation. The problem is that the source material is of poor quality. I’m not saying that it’s not a good picture, I’m just saying it makes lousy source material.

    Everyone has made educated guesses as to what it could be, but it’s not possible to determine from this photograph, with any certainty, what it is.

    I could be an “orb”, which is to say that it could be dust reflected from a flash…but I suspect that you didn’t use a flash. It could be an error in film processing, it could be any number of things. No one can tell conclusively what it might be, and with the limited information that we have, it’s unlikely that anyone ever will.

    You’re expecting too much. What we see is a big white area, and adjacent to the big white area we see a smaller, ovoid shape that is also white, but appears to be in front of the darker area.

    There are simply too many things that it could be and not enough information to determine conclusively and scientifically which of those things that it is. Science doesn’t make claims to know everything. Science knows its limits and doesn’t try to fit a tag on something for which it does not have enough evidence to do so. We don’t have enough evidence here to make a claim.

    You claim that all your asking for is an explanation, but that is misleading. The photo is on a site called called “scienceofghosts”, every other photo on this website is claiming to be that of a ghost. The picture is labeled as an “angel”, you took the picture in the infamous “Bachelor’s Grove Cemetary” which is famous for at least one other purported ghost photo….

    If you aren’t making supernatural claims about your photo, then what is your point?

  22. keet Says:

    i dont think many of you understand the meaning of infrared photography; only infrared light is captured, thats why the tree leaves and grass are pure white and the tree bark is black. the photography is, i hate to say, very overexposed. there is no detail in anything, the grass, leaves, trees, etc. there are marks all over that you cant really tell what they are. this is just a badly taken photograph with poor results, leading to illusions.

    • Danny Says:

      Alright, now here we go, an honest opinion, very refreshing.

      Thanks keet.

      If you look at the area where the sunlight is not shinning directly on the image has lots of detail, now with that said the sunlight hitting the leaves of the trees and other bright areas do look over exposed.

      • Shayalon Says:

        I said that like 5 posts ago. It was my honest opinion then. You should divorce yourself from the ego trip you’re on and start trying to see things in an objective manner.

      • keet Says:

        badly taken sounds a bit too much of what i meant, sorry, badly exposed is a better way. the background exposure does have detail there however the interesting part is the foreground.

  23. Danny Says:

    Wow, you just don’t quit.

    • Shayalon Says:

      Why should I quit? I’ve spent hours examining your little photo and I give detailed responses only to get brushed off without any consideration of the responses I’ve given.

      I suppose I might come across as angry, but you asked for honest opinion, you’ve asked for scientific explanation and I’ve tried to provide it to you.

      You then attack me by saying that I have it in for you?

      I find you to be intellectually dishonest and apparently proud of it. You obviously have no interest in any opinion that doesn’t match your own preconceived notions, no matter how logical that opinion might be.

      With this, I do quit. Apparently, any furtherance of this discussion will be fruitless, as your requests for information are simply fishing missions to back your already formed opinion.

  24. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    Here is the deal. Whatever is shown in the photo cannot be ascribed to anything supernatural since there is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. The point is that because something cannot be explained, it does not logically follow that it is anything else.

    In the current case, we have a poor photo providing the moral equivalent of a Rorschach test. If the caption had said “tombstone” people would have seen a tombstone, say an angel or a ghost or what have you, that is what is seen. If it appeared as a bad example of overexposure on a photography site, it would have been taken for bad photography.

  25. harry Says:

    hi danny

    you say you have other pics of the same area taken with a standard digital camera – any chance you can post those as well just for a comparison and also to dispel any beliefs that there is a headstone there ? as i assume you would take both IR and digital pics in roughly the same area looking in roughly the same direction for your own comparisons

  26. harry Says:

    in everyone’s defence who thinks it looks like a headstone, it does strike a remarkable resemblance to the one in this photo of a headstone in bachelors grove – not that i’m saying it’s the same one, but you usually get similar styles of headstones running throughout a cemetry.

    i’ve looked at yours in photoshop and reversed the negative (yes i do know photoshop very well i have been a pro retoucher for the last 15 years) and it does look like a headstone in the shadow of the tree, so we just have to take your word that there was nothing there when the pic was taken.

    http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1469872938056466397RqlaLU

    • keet Says:

      inverting this photograph does not make it look like a gravestone, it looks like a black smudge with some of it being the same tone and texture of its surrounding ‘grassy’ area. like i say, no ‘trickery’ has been done by the person taking the photograph or by anyone else, its just what has occurred due to over exposing this part of the film.

  27. Shayalon Says:

    Well done, harry! I hadn’t considered to look at the IR photograph in negative. I’m now more convinced than ever that this is a tombstone of the kind you’ve shown in the photo you provided.

    For comparison purposes, I have illustrated the negative of the photo and compared it to the original…increased the quality of the photo as much as I could…

    You can see the carved sides of the tombstone quite clearly when you compare the IR photo and it’s negative, in my opinion.

    Guess I couldn’t stay quiet. 🙂

    • Shayalon Says:

      I don’t know why I said “illustrated” I meant..well I don’t know what I meant…but you get the picture… I have created a side by side with the photo and it’s negative…

      • keet Says:

        if the part you are on about is stone then that means the whole of the surrounding area at the front of it is stone. its just overexposure.

      • Shayalon Says:

        No it doesn’t mean that at all. In IR photography, the IR light falls upon what it falls upon. You seem to be saying that stone always shows up as white in an IR photograph. That’s not true. Anything that the IR light directly upon it shows up as white in an IR photo. The white part, which I have already said is overexposed, is simply an area in which a great deal of IR light is falling, An area open directly to the sun. That, combined with some overexposure, blows out that part of the photo. It has nothing to do with stone.

      • keet Says:

        not all light rays reflect off of every surface, if they did then there would be no such thing as colour. stone absorbs most light rays thats why it appears darker, leaves reflect green light rays thats why they appear green, on a normal film. film captures reflected light, due to photosynthesis occurring in the leaves and grass, it affects the appearance of them on film where brick does not. there would be no ‘real difference’ if you took a photo of a brick wall in infrared and in normal film.

  28. Nexus_Magic Says:

    Now I do not know much about IR but I noticed something in the trees amongst all the white. in the trees is a face looking pattern which I pointed out in the picture below. Now the sun is giving off IR so my theory for the strange face is that it is IR light going through the same pattern in the trees and being reflected on the ground making it look like the white spot has a face.

  29. keet Says:

    it doesn’t have to be something there at the time, it could just be a mark or a crease on the neg caused when either loading, developing or even printing the film, maybe it wasn’t agitated enough during the chemical process. the reasons could just keep going.

  30. Jobless Col Says:

    this is excellent!

  31. Berndettea Says:

    I have a ghost photo butit was taken on a 35mm camera and i have it on negative i do not like digital as they are very sensitive and orbes are dust dampness

    • keet Says:

      same can happen on film. dampness, dust particles etc can get onto films and sensors, i have had this problem with both before.

  32. Jack Says:

    I see nothing! Ugh I wish I took a picture of my hot chocolate yesterday it really creeped me out. There was a clear face in my whipped cream! That was something worth seeing.

  33. Sabra Says:

    It looks exactly like a tombstone to me, and between Harry’s normal photo of the area & Shayalon’s illustration (you were using the right word, by the way, “to illustrate” can also mean “to show”) it seems quite obvious that my first impression was correct.

    Honestly, when looking at the first photo in the post, what I thought I was supposed to see was what looks to me like a figure walking in the background (which I assume is actually a tree trunk). I didn’t even fixate on the object that’s got everyone so worked up.

    • keet Says:

      i can guarantee everyone that it is not possible to be a tombstone, if it was then it would be a dark tone like the other tombstones around it. it doesn’t matter that it is in daylight and the others are in the shadows because the only light source being captured on the film is the infrared rays above 730nm, which is outside of the human eyes visible spectrum. it you understand about physics and photography you’d be able to understand how infra red photography works. i will stick to my original conclusion stating that it could just be a mark or crease on the neg or due to over exposure of the film. nothing more

      • harry Says:

        Hi keet
        personally i don’t know much about IR photography – but i am assuming your points relate to the headstone showing up differently because stone is a different colour to the surrounding grass / leaves – because IR sees colour ranges/spectrums ? is this a correct assumption. Then could it be possible that “if” there is a headstone there and it was covered in lichen and moss, as a lot of old headstones seem to be, that it has enough of a coverage to turn the headstone a similar shade of green also ? eg:

        Not disputing what you are saying or trying to start a debate, just trying to understand IR photography a bit better.

      • keet Says:

        that could be possible, with the top part of the stone being under the shadow of the tree.
        your point is correct however, only IR is caught on the film, no colour is involved, and it is because of the high reflection of IR rays on plants, leaves and grass that they appear white whereas the IR rays take no effect on brick and stone. if you use a colour infrared film everything appears as a red tone.
        a very good point there though, it may be covered in plants.

  34. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    Here ya go: a real one.

    http://timesonline.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451586c69e201156ef80d78970c-pi

  35. chris Says:

    wow clarence that pic is so real i,m just amazed and now a true beleiver lol

  36. nicki Says:

    Just a brief comment, i have noticed that danny has kept quiet ever since harry posted the pic of the stone which looks identical to danny picture? just an observation…

  37. nicki Says:

    Just a brief comment, i have noticed that danny has kept quiet ever since harry posted the pic of the stone which looks identical to dannys picture? just an observation…

    • harry Says:

      hmm interesting that – although i’m sure there will be a good reason why – also interesting is to why Danny hasn’t replied to my earlier request:

      QUOTE:

      hi danny

      you say you have other pics of the same area taken with a standard digital camera – any chance you can post those as well just for a comparison and also to dispel any beliefs that there is a headstone there ? as i assume you would take both IR and digital pics in roughly the same area looking in roughly the same direction for your own comparisons

      • keet Says:

        i have noticed that Shayalon’s also kept quiet since i explain how infra red photography works!

  38. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    “When a person says he saw a miracle that falls outside the laws of nature, it raises a question in our minds. Which is more likely… that something happened outside the laws of nature, or that a man might tell a lie? We have never in our life seen nature break its own laws. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told. There is at least a million to one odds that the reporter of the miracle told a lie.”

    Tom Paine – The Age of Reason

  39. marmm Says:

    I’m not to sure, of this particular picture, but do believe anythngs possible. Some of the other photo’s on this site, sure look like they could be believable, and how can anybody really say, without being in that situation themselves

  40. Clarence Birdseye Says:

    “Anything” is not really possible. Avagodro’s number is Avagodro’s number. The lunacy of Homeopathy cannot change that. The forces of nature have been accounted for, we don’t need any more bogus claims of telepathy notwithstanding.

    We have looked really hard for paranormal stuff for 100 years, there is no proof, no Index Experiment (like we have in real science) that can demonstrate anything reliably. What we have are excuses “You can’t demand the supernatural to perform” blah blah blah. No proof. The man years of some fine minds wasted on pursuit of a will o the wisp when they might have been working on something important.

    Sorry, I have little patience for this stuff and I think that the basic problem is that we do a truly lousy job teaching science and critical thinking.

    • keet Says:

      dint they used to say that an atom was the smallest molecule untill they discovered you could split it open and find smaller particles of neutrons and protons? dint they think stomach ulcers were due to stress because it was impossible for any bacteria to live in an acid of pH2? dint they think that the sun revolved around earth? dint they think that future computers were going to be bigger than the first ever computer (that filled a whole room)?
      even science is known to be wrong at times, somethings can be explain but are then proven to be wrong.

      schools are terrible nowadays; they dont let children think for themselves at schools and kill their creativity. we tell them what to think rather than let them think for themselves. it makes them frightened of being wrong when they become adults. even if you are wrong, at least you have been thinking for yourself rather than letting others think for you. sometimes its good to be the black sheep.

      believe what you want to believe, not what others tell you to believe.

      • Clarence Birdseye Says:

        You define the nature of science: you follow the evidence, not blind belief. It is not a question of “right” or “wrong, it is a question of the hypothesis that best explains the data. If more data come in a better explanation might be necessary. I really am amazed at how our schools have failed us when people do not understand the most basic tenets of scientific principle.

        Unfortunately, belief is meaningless in the face of evidence.

      • keet Says:

        what evidence have you got that there is no such thing as paranormal activity?

      • keet Says:

        i have not defined the nature of science i am just saying and proving that science is not always right.
        our schools have failed us when people cannot think for themselves and have no creativity

      • Clarence Birdseye Says:

        Elementary Logic 101: you cannot prove a negative. However, when a person makes a dramatic claim, it is up to that person to prove his or her point. That is sort of the way it works in life, science simply codifies it.

        Look, if I accept your logic, I can make any half assed claim and you should accept it, right? If I tell you “hey, I can get you a 40% return on your money, give it to me” wouldn’t you think to ask for a little bit of proof? Science simply makes what is common sense routine. You don’t accept contentions without proof. And the proof has to be proof, not claims and contentions. Also, there are no excuses.

        It is exactly the way you conduct your real life. Your intellectual life should have a bit of the same rigor.

      • keet Says:

        so you say ‘proof has to be proof, not claims and contentions’, however you said that i quote, ‘it is a question of the hypothesis that best explains the data’. a hypothesis is a judgement not proof.
        i dont think this is a ‘ghost’ at all anyway, as you can read from my other comments that i left, giving explanations for what i believe it to be. i just think that people believe science too much; is it common sense to change your job career just because you have a stomach ulcer, er no, but not too long ago thats what you were told to do.

  41. Bernadette Says:

    I defentley want to see more of the older cameras that have ghost photography or the 35mm cameras disposable ones because the digital are known for the orbes mists and always have some thing to do with ghosts these cameras are very senseitive to dust damp small flying creatres where the other cameras do not get that so much you did not get this orb thing hype until digital came along

  42. ZeroCorpse Says:

    It’s a blob of light. Could be any number of anomalies from an old camera and a sunny day.

  43. Katarina... Says:

    This is scary, but if that are really angel, then picture was beutiful…

  44. Kelly Says:

    I can see another spirit directly above the “angels” head leaning against a tree wearing a white dress with dark hair

  45. Spook Scientist Says:

    Oh my God that’s soooooooooo cute! It looks a teensy bit fake but still it’s just so sweet! How cute!

  46. ANGELS 4 EVER Says:

    ITS NOT R2 D2 ITS BABEY.
    AND YEA I VOTED THETS ITS A GHOST.

  47. Gerda Says:

    Pete Crapia said: the actual stone that is claimed to move around “by itself.” OK so tell us the story why this happens and who told this.
    Thats interesting if there is a story. Cemetery’s are always a good jubject and there are apperences of people shown up on pics who have passed a way,or from a much older time. Light sure can play tricks so thats always hard to tell if its real or not, and have to looked closely at those pics.
    It has nothing to do with what kind of camera you have or what you do. Yes sometimes its the light sometimes something that has been reflecting,but that you can see. Old or new camera it happens on all of them. But people always blame the flash or the lights to soon. And I agree there are lots of hoax pics wich makes it a lot more difficult ofcourse. Poepl aways play with photo’s and do trick,but so can ghosts. So sometimes they relay are an appearence.

  48. Pete Crapia Says:

    The origin of the moving headstone story appears to have come from Richard Crowe in his 1985 documentary The Ghosts of Chicago. Here is a link for more information about the video:

    http://bachelorsgrove.com/documentaries/662-the-ghosts-of-chicago.html

  49. doomed Says:

    looks like someone has been messing with Tiffen Digital FX and copy n pasted anime characters, I mean seriouly look at it, the halo is a bit lame.

  50. Diana Says:

    Uau. Fake or real,it’s beautifull.

  51. Erkki Says:

    The picture was taken with a Canon AE-1, 50mm lens with a hoya red filter and Kodak IR film.
    Having a camera set-up like this and cannot even keep the camera straight.
    Further, making a picture of a cemetary with this camera set-up points to the fact that the photographer hopes for some ghosts, or other spooky things.
    If no ghosts can be found on the picture, you can easily add one in the DR (or in PS).

  52. Synthetic Grass Manufacturer Says:

    Synthetic Grass Manufacturer…

    […]Angel « Ghostly photographs from Hauntings[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: