Hessdalen-esque Electroforms Appear Over Leeds, UK.

The Lynne Eastwood Sighting.

David Calvert

Part # 1

ORBS

foreword

It is not my intention to go into any great depth concerning several orb images taken by Lynne, just prior to her ‘filament’ images, as they have a prosaic explanation which rules out any paranormal explanation. However, I have chosen the best one to illustrate my point concerning their non-paranormal origins.

Brief Analysis.

eastwood7

The larger, brighter orbs that appear in this image, including their smaller counterparts, are caused by water droplets on and near the camera lens. They appear to glow because they are being illuminated by the full moon, visible in the top right quadrant of the picture. Their blurred appearance is because they are outside the camera’s depth of field i.e. out of focus.

The rainbow-like anomaly in the right lower quadrant is being generated by the house and street lighting which is just out of frame. Clearly, there was a very light rainfall in progress when this image was taken. This assumption is corroborated in Pt. #2 evidence. Their spherical appearance is due to the raindrop having reached terminal velocity on its earthward journey. Lynne also pointed out two unusual light sources adjacent to the houses. Initially I took them to be lens reflections, but on closer examination I’m not so sure.

Conclusion: Orbs created by natural environmental conditions.

Part #2 ELECTROFORMS.

 Historical Background

Since the 1930s, possibly earlier, unusual lights have been reported at Hessdalen, Norway. From December 1981 to the summer of 1984 lights were observed about 15-20 times per week. Since then activity has decreased to 10-20 times per year. The Hessdalen light is more often seen as a white or yellow bright light of unknown origin standing or hovering above ground level. Sometimes it can be seen for more than an hour. There are several other types of unexplained lights witnessed in the Hessdalen Valley. Scientific research of the lights began in 1983 and was initiated by Dr. Erling Strand and given the nickname “Project Hessdalen”. In 1998, the Hessdalen AMS automated scientific research station was built in the valley. It registers and records the appearance of lights, such as the one below.

Hessdalen 1

 THE EASTWOOD ELECTROFORMS

 Lynne Eastwood’s Testimony.

“On the 14th September 2011, at 4 a.m., I was awoken from my sleep and felt compelled to go look out of my back dining room window. Goodness knows why or how, but I just had the feeling that was telling me to go look out, and so I did. On doing so I saw a very beautiful sky. It was so beautiful that I went and got my camera to snap some shots of what I could see to show my friends. The camera I used was a basic Samsung D1070/10.2 mp/Zoom 6.18.9 mm. 

The flash was off when I took the photos – a full moon affording me the light I needed. As I snapped off the shots I noticed what I thought to be a ‘shooting star’ against the clear background sky. The clouds were receding by now. Without hesitation I made a wish and began photographing it. It was only later, as I viewed the photos, that I noticed that the ‘shooting star’ had changed shape several times. Based in Leeds, West Yorkshire, I had never seen such an unusual sky at such an early hour.”

hessdalen4‘shooting star’. This pic has been lightened and annotated by me for greater clarification.  Please note that the following images are now completely devoid of water droplets – inline with Lynne’s testimony that the clouds were receding. No clouds, no rain. The white arrow  points  out the object in question. At this level of zoom it appears nothing more than an amorphous white smudge. The blue arrow points out an anomalous blue point of light, whereas the green arrows point out anomalous green light sources.

Sequence # 1 This is taken from the same image above and magnified to show definite shape to object. Clearly, this is no ‘shooting star’. The former ‘amorphous white smudge’ appears to have a worm-like or filament-like structure to it.

eastwood3

Sequence # 2 The ‘S’ filament is now in a vertical position, indicating movement.

hessdalen 5

 Sequence # 3

hessdalen6

Note the faint and bright areas in the ‘filament’. These could suggest a single light source’s movement captured in the frame, leaving behind a ghost image of its erratic flight path in its wake.

Sequence # 4

eastwood2.jpg

The ‘filament’ now resembles a long ribbon of light as it streaks erratically through the sky. Highly reminiscent of a light phenomenon captured at Hessdalen, Norway (see below).

hessdalen8Image Comparison

Note the fainter and brighter areas within the ‘ribbon’ and the erratic flight path. They are incredibly similar to those in the above image.

EVIDENCE BASED CONCLUSION

As there was no EXIF data supplied with the photos it is impossible to say for certain what the shutter speed actually was at the time the images were taken. However, if the minimum shutter speed ( 8 secs. )was used when Lynne took her pics one would expect to see blurring of the entire images, but if you look closely at her first shot there is no evidence of this. If the snap was taken at 1/1500 th of a second this would imply that the object was travelling, albeit erratically, at an incredible speed, leaving in its wake a trail of light.

The Hessdalen lights were split into three groups. However, I will deal only with the first two of the group as they have greater relevance to this case:

  1. Small and strong white or blue flashes which could show up anywhere in the sky.
  2. Yellow or yellow-white lights, just over house rooftops, or on the ground. They can be stationary for more than an hour, move slowly around, and sometimes show large accelerations and speeds. They could also appear higher up in the sky.  They mostly travel on a north/south course.

There are commonalities between the Eastwood  images to the Hessdalen phenomenon. They are as follows:

  • In an email Lynne sent to me she said the object was stationary when she first saw it, but then began to move.
  • Blue flashes. In pic 4 for example the blue arrow indicates a blue anomalous point of light.
  • In the same pic can also be seen 2 green points of light
  • The erratic movements of the main object in pic  8, suggesting it is travelling at a high rate of speed.
  •  The majority of the  anomalies appear high in the sky.

hessdalen7This is how one of the green lights appears under higher magnification and with the auto levels fix on. It is much brighter than its surrounds. Might this be a light flash, similar to those also reported at Hessdalen?

Might all these similarities be purely coincidental? It’s possible, but unlikely. For me, there are just too many commonalities for this to be sheer coincidence.

I initially took the two lights below to be reflections from the adjacent houses. However, their shape and relative positions preclude such an interpretation.

It is worth  noting that the Hessdalen lights have been seen to take on various shapes, from ‘bullet-shaped’ to ‘inverted Christmas tree’ shapes.

CONCLUSION: Electroform phenomenon of unknown origin or cause

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

 

Advertisements

Water Spirit.

Child’s Ghost at Water’s Edge.

David Calvert.

water ghost1

Becky’s Testimony.

“I have an e-mail friend in Australia who sent me a series of photos that she had taken. When I looked at this one I immediately saw the image of a girl child sitting near the water’s edge. She has a white long-sleeved dress on, arm is bent at the elbow and her hand is resting on her chin. She has cropped curly blonde hair and a hat on. She almost looks like she is posing for the photo. What do you think?”

Evidence-Based Image Analysis.

water ghost1 - CopyThe features that Becky described in her testimony are non-existent. This is a prime example of pareidolia – the brains propensity to try to make sense out of random patterns. What this image is really showing is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow. The “white dress” is in actuality the sky reflected on the surface water through a break in the tree canopy. The “arm”, “hand” an “chin” are not real. They are merely the product of the observers brain trying to make sense of the random patterning. Under high magnification, you can see a water ripple in front of the “face”.

CONCLUSION: Pareidolia,  created by light and shadow illusion.

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

THE PACKHORSE BRIDGE GHOST.

The Devil’s in the Details.

bridge ghost original

‘Ghost hunters from Cheshire Paranormal Society (CPS) took this photo on a vigil of the historic Packhorse Bridge in the village of Caergwrle, near Wrexham.

At the time members hadn’t realised what was apparently standing on the bridge in front of them, said John Millington from the group, but some group members had reported feeling uneasy.

Also, other paranormal activity was a allegedly recorded, such as orbs of light, several of which can be seen in this photo in varying stages of luminosity.

Through further study and assistance from members of  Hope and Caergwrle Heritage Society, it’s thought that three ghosts haunt the bridge; a young girl and two women.

CPS members believe this photo shows the ghost of Squire Yonge who, the history books say, was well-known in the area 300 years ago.

The group also believe that the sighting of ghosts on the bridge could be to do with a former burial ground in the area and that the bridge was the access point.’

Image Analysis:

bridge ghost annotated

My annotations, thoughts and observations on this image read thus:

Top line notation: Possible water droplet(s) running down camera lens, being reflected by camera flash onto sensor? Fainter areas on figure may show the path taken by droplet(s) collecting at base of figure as brighter reflections.”

Second line notation: “To the immediate left of each red star there appears to be water droplet orbs illuminated by camera flash.”

Third line notation: “Damp patches, suggesting recent rainfall.”

Fourth line notation: “IMAGE CONSISTENT WITH ‘TOTAL INTERNAL REFLECTION’ PHENOMENON.”

Evidence-Based Conclusion.

When viewing this image one can easily understand how the ‘ghost’ interpretation can be easily accepted, especially by those who adhere to such beliefs. At first glance the image looks very impressive but, as they say, the Devil is in the details.

The damp patches on the ground, the light orbs, and the ghost figure itself are all created by the same thing – atmospheric water droplets.

Most of the orbs are faint, whereas one is much brighter. The reason for this is because the brighter orb is much closer to the flash and therefore reflects its light with greater intensity.

The figure itself has been created by water droplet(s). In this instance, however, they are on the camera lens and are being reflected onto the camera sensor creating a total internal reflection. The shape of the figure is purely coincidental. The fainter areas of the figure are where the droplet(s) have run down the lens leaving a residual track as they did so. The brighter areas are where the droplet(s) have much greater density and so reflect more light.

Further research into known images of total internal reflection support my hypothesis that the same phenomenon is occurring here.

Conclusion: Total Internal Reflection Camera Artefact

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

The Blue Ridge Parkway Ghost.

The Camping Spirit.

blue ridge ghost1

Marti Finizio’s Tesitmony.

Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. He took this picture with his iPhone and uploaded it to Facebook. A couple of weeks after returning home, a Facebook friend noticed the little girl standing behind his friends, on the left side. He emailed me this picture directly from his iPhone, the same one that took the picture.

You can see the corner of the tent through the little girl and the pixelation is the same throughout the picture.”

IMAGE ANALYSIS.

 

My initial notes concerning the image are as follows: 

‘The girl’s left arm appears to terminate just below the elbow (might this be from a cropped image?)’.

The eyes appear reminscent of  a ”Grey” alien, rather than human. They hav a V configuration and the mouth seems anatomically disproportionate to them. This figure reminds me of a chil’s doll – which gives me grounds for suspicion.’

Evidenced-Based Conclusion.

Along with this image came the statement that the pixelation is ‘the same throughout the picture.’ However, on closer examination, this wasn’t the case – suggesting the image had been photoshopped onto the original.

Following a fortuitous meeting with a friend, Karen Han of  Ghosts, Hauntings and the Paranormal contacted me and informed me that she may have found the source for the little girl, adding, “It’s a real girl after all!”

She had run into an old friend, Mary Walhstrom, from the Central Paranormal Research Society (Cprs) in Illinois, whose FB profile pick matches that of the ‘ghost girl’. Mary, apparently,  had modified a photo from a costume website for the image on her FB profile wall. Karen conjectured that the North Carolina ghost photo may have been lifted from the same costume website and photshopped onto the original image.

blue ridge ghost2Using this profile pic as a comparison, It was easy to determine that this was the picture used to perpetrate the hoax – right down to the missing portion of the left arm.

© David Calvert 2011

 

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.