Return of the Shadow?

Back in November, we presented the now-famous Shadow Picture from the Florentine Ballroom, which has, thus far, held up to scrutiny. And this week, after months of inactivity (nothing’s active all time; places go in and out of active periods), the ballroom has seemed active again. We’ve heard footsteps in the room more than once, and the guards have heard it, as well (one has even heard a person humming in there).

It almost seems only natural that we’d get another shot remarkably similar to the one from November – this was taken by Krissy M, a guest on the tour:

As with most pictues of a back wall in a darkened ballroom, the light quality isn’t great. But, given the size of the silhouette and the position of the flash, it DOES seem like the shadow must be of someone standing right in front of the wall (this is the other side of the same wall from the November shot) My initial thought when seeing the pic on a camera lcd screen was that turning up the exposure, brightness, etc, would reveal it to be just a person from the tour standing against the wall. But this wasn’t the case. While it’s not as clearly defined as the November shot (it’s a mixture or red and black), it doesn’t seem to have been a person. After all, the flash should make a person look front-lit, not backlit. And, even more unusual, while his does seem to be the torso, neck and head of a person, it looks, in the closeup, as though it may not be a FULL silhoutte – there’s some space between the shadow and the table. Here’s a close-up (with the exposure turned up:

It’s tempting to look for faces or shapes in it (like, say “it looks like a woman looking up” or “the red and black makes it look like a person in a red hooded cloak” or “it kinda looks like Admiral Ackbar”), but I don’t really recommend that. In a shot this vague, trying to assign a gender or personality to the thing is just letting your imagination go nuts (nothing wrong with that, normally, but we’re doing SCIENCE here, folks!)(sorta).

So, is this a ghost? Is it the SAME ghost as the last one? Could this still be a person’s shadow? Obviously, there’s no one standing between the photographer and the wall. The flash on the wall COULD come from another camera held by a “second shooter” who was taking a picture of a person standing to the side, but I don’t think this is the case.

As always, we’re not saying this is truly a ghost – there is no such thing as good ghost evidence, only COOL ghost evidence. BUt this is shockingly similar to the November shot, and was noticed during the tour (albeit not until a few stops later), so it’s pretty much impossible for the photographer to have faked it digitally.

(Visited 83 times, 1 visits today)

3 thoughts on “Return of the Shadow?

  1. Anon – do you mean the tag? I don't think I have anything that I confess is a fake on there – several that I'm all too happy to say are probably natural phenomena or camera junk, but nothing where I can say that someone willfully put me on – I don't post those. The pic in the post you're commenting on may not be a dead guy, but it's certainly not "faked" – though all anyone can do is take my word for it, which is how this stuff works. I never say a picture is definitely a ghost – that's just not responsible. There are ALWAYS other explanations. But there's a difference between a "fake" and a "false positive."

    If you're going around looking for "ghost pictures" that couldn't possibly be faked or otherwise explained, you'll be looking for a long time.

  2. you really shouldnt post "Ghost pictures" as a tease. there are in fact, no ghost pictures under that post title, just what you confess as fakes, probably fakes and orbs. which we all know ned to change the post title. i just wasted 3 minutes of my life here. have a great day

Comments are closed.