Another photo from the same place, taken 32 years ago, seems to show a ghost at a window too.
This link is a Yahoo news page, which tend to scroll away after a few days. I haven't found a more permanent link yet.
I'd like to visit the place and see whether there are any accessible areas behind those windows. It's a ruin so it's not certain from the photos, although the window in the earlier one (previous post) was barred, and there's no reason for that unless it's to stop visitors falling through it. So in that one, there probably is an accessible area. In the 'new' image, it's not so clear. Accessible areas raise the possibility of someone wandering past and being photographed unintentionally - or of someone fooling around.
There are similarities in the images, but neither is clear enough to be sure. Maybe better quality copies will appear eventually. I hope so because if the images are very similar and taken 32 years apart, it will be stronger evidence. With luck, more people will come forward with more images.
Anyway, must get back to my own investigations. I have been lax for too long!
4 comments:
It says this is the second photo. Where's the first?
btw, Happy Birthday!
It's confusing. The first one published is the recent one, the second one was taken 35 years ago and has only just come to light.
The scienceofhauntings site has both photos now, on the same page.
The birthday was good - I have a new tiny weather-station gadget, small enough to carry around and covering temperature, humidity and air pressure. Humidity and especially air (barometric) pressure could prove interesting. Humidity, in particular, will affect how conductive the air is to electrical signals.
The page is gone.
That happens a lot with Yahoo. I still don't see another copy anywhere.
Although the investigation of the first photo has been published here.
I hope I have that HTML right.
It's restricted to an attempt to replicate it as though the image was a live person. Really, there's not much else they could do so that's not a criticism. So they can replicate it.
However, assuming that because they can replicate it, it must be a live person, isn't the correct conclusion. It might be a live person but if a ghost looks like, and is the same size as, a live person, then it could equally be a ghost. No conclusion.
It's still open, and will remain so until someone is prepared to spend days or weeks there. No sceptic will do that because in science, not finding something is not proof of absence - especially if you start with the premise that what you're looking for might be invisible and undetectable by any means currently available.
A investigator like me might do it, but if I find something, the sceptics won't believe it anyway. So there'd be no point arguing with them.
The comments under that article are polarised into 'must be a ghost' and 'must be a natural explanation'. It's almost like reading a creation/evolution argument. Neither side will consider a middle ground of 'unproven but worth consideration'.
Well, one day...
Post a Comment