|
|
Post by ermine on Mar 13, 2011 4:30:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Mar 13, 2011 11:47:16 GMT
I think you explained it right there, it is a cloth hung from the ladder, but I do accept it does look humanoid
|
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Mar 13, 2011 13:27:56 GMT
As Admin says - Cloth/coat on a stick IMO as well. The only paranormal aspect is that it's claimed to have not been there when the pic was taken - however we only have the photographers word for this and evidentially anecdotes are pretty useless.
morganp
|
|
|
|
Post by lucan on Mar 13, 2011 13:37:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by romany on Mar 13, 2011 15:02:07 GMT
Is it just me or does it look like there are trails of loo roll around what would be the 'feet?' 'Ectoplasm?' Or at least, deliberately faked ectoplasm? Or am I imagining it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ermine on Mar 13, 2011 18:13:49 GMT
Thanks for the insights... it definitely looks like a coverall, which explains why it appears to have arms and legs. The fabric seems quite heavy so I'd guess it was canvas rather than Tyvek. (Did they even have Tyvek in the 70s?) The only paranormal aspect is that it's claimed to have not been there when the pic was taken - however we only have the photographers word for this and evidentially anecdotes are pretty useless. I tend to believe photographers when they say there was nothing strange on the site when the photo was taken - after all, the coverall-on-a-stick probably didn't look "ghostly" in person, only in the photograph, if that makes sense. Reminds me of the time I left a white Victorian-style dress hanging up to dry in the shower, definitely not thinking at the time that it looked like a ghost, and it nearly gave my roommate a heart attack! I think the stuff that looks like toilet paper is probably some sort of shop towel; painters use a lot of that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Mar 14, 2011 9:37:13 GMT
I tend to believe photographers when they say there was nothing strange on the site when the photo was taken Ermine
I'd agree with that to a large degree where digital photos are concerned and the shots can be reviewed as soon as the pic has been taken (although not everyone looks at every pic straight after it's been taken).
However with print films (like the one we're discussing) there is often a considerable gap between the shots being taken and the film being developed by a lab and the prints viewed. Once we have a delay between the time the photo was taken and the time that it's seen as a print we have to accept that errors of recall and memory will come into play and the longer the gap - the more the accuracy of what was or wasn't in the scene will be called into question.
In the 70's through to the late 90's I shot on both print and slide film and several months or more could pass between shots being taken and being seen as prints or slides.
morganp
|
|
