Ghost photo puzzle

Here's a better quality photo from the Daily Mirror. It seems to show part of the background wall under the figure, so it doesn't appear to be someone dressed up as a monk. There's also the suggestion of a pattern within the figure, including some vertical lines:

[Image: ghost4.jpg]

Rob Lea now says one Kenny Biddle has convinced him his explanation was wrong. It sounds as though Kenny Biddle has his own theory about this photograph, which he will be revealing in due course.

[Pollux]

The second photo was taken at a different angle than the first, but you can see the top of the niche or whatever it is (the dark object) to the right of the stairs in the second photo. If the photographer moved to the left and took a picture the dark object would be centered behind the stairs.

Look at how the right edge far wall lines up with the wall at the top of the stairs and you will see the two photos are at different angles.

I can kinda see what you mean. But if one look at the areal photo this would mean that the archway/doorway/aperture would have to be this opening:



Well, perhaps. But the hue of this unknown "object" seem to be really distinctly black compared to the other small opening seen in the upper right corner of the original picture. But, who knows...

Chris picture (from Daily Mirror) shows that streak across the black "figures" back that makes one imagine it might be a cloaked individual, facing away, with a longbow across his back.

 

If Chris can get on site (since he lives nearby) he can probably clear this up for us.
Either way, its not a really spectacular photo of a proposed apparition, since it's pretty unclear image of something/"someone" with a human figure. But it would be interesting to know.

---------------------------------------------------

PS: Another cloaked proposed apparition was this one, at Hampton Court



As they say in the clip; they had problem with these doors opening by themselves 3 nights before, without anything showing, but then caught this on the fourth night. That is not just an "aperture" in an aperture.

If Chris can get on site (since he lives nearby) he can probably clear this up for us. 

I'm satisfied now from the comparison of photos that this isn't an aperture in the wall, so I'm not really tempted to visit the site.

I hope this Kenny Biddle can explain what's shown in the photo. Perhaps he has worked out what that diagonal line across the figure is.

I’m (for a change) with Jim Smith on this one.

I’m (for a change) with Jim Smith on this one.

You really don't believe those two red circles I made are indicating the same part of the wall?
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-gh...3#pid13893

I'm satisfied now from the comparison of photos that this isn't an aperture in the wall, so I'm not really tempted to visit the site.

I hope this Kenny Biddle can explain what's shown in the photo. Perhaps he has worked out what that diagonal line across the figure is.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's Kenny Biddle's suggested explanation of the photo:
"This alleged ghost is most likely a tourist wearing a satchel and admiring the large stone wall in front of them."
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s...om_tourist

He thinks the diagonal line is the strap of a satchel or purse (i.e. handbag?).

That seems perfectly plausible to me, except that I still think it looks as though part of the wall is visible underneath the figure. But perhaps what we're seeing at the bottom of the photo is not the far wall, but a low ruined wall between the camera and the figure. I suppose only a visit to Eynsford would clarify that.

[Image: ghost4.jpg]

[Laird]

But I perhaps what we're seeing at the bottom of the photo is not the far wall, but a low ruined wall between the camera and the figure.

That seems plausible - it seems to me that the stones under the figure look larger than those above them, suggesting that they are closer, and it also seems that a rough line can be seen running across which marks the contiguous top of the low ruined wall.

That seems plausible - it seems to me that the stones under the figure look larger than those above them, suggesting that they are closer, and it also seems that a rough line can be seen running across which marks the contiguous top of the low ruined wall.

Yes - the photo below shows the area where the figure would have been standing. The "ghost" photo was taken from a position down the steps and away to the right, looking towards the left. Beyond the top of the steps there is indeed a low ruined wall, which looks as though it would produce the effect seen in the photo, with the appearance of the figure floating above the ground. 

[Image: ghost5.jpg]

If that interpretation is correct, by sheer chance the low ruined wall has a couple of high points in exactly the right places to produce the illusion of the floating monk's feet poking out from under his habit!