If you could...

Duke said:
I'm not a ghost guy, but I would like to go with qualified investigators to the site of the former Beverly Hills Supper Club in Southgate, KY., just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati. It burnt on 28 May 1977, killing 165 people. It was the Friday before finals week, and a group of us went to the roof of our dorm to see if we could see it. Couldn't see fire, but did see smoke and dozens of emergency vehicles heading south on I75.

The site is signposted "no trespassing" and from what I have heard the local police are quite aggressive in rousting anyone who goes in there. It is apparently open once a year for memorial purposes. Below are a couple videos about the tragedy, the first the live news coverage of the fire that night, the second what it looks like today.






Click to expand...
Watching that old news report is like a trip in time. Thanks Duke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7Critter
WitchAndShaman said:
Good Evening Lynne. So the Dufour-Baldwin House, back in 1996 when I stayed there, was a little dilapidated.

From what I saw on the internet, that building is apparently a church now instead of a bed and breakfast inn. And, from photos on the internet, it is in much better condition - at least cosmetically - than it was in the mid 1990s.

I did not stay in what seemed to be the main building. We checked in at one building, and we were ushered out a side or back door, across a very small courtyard, and up an exterior staircase of a second building. In more contemporary photos, it looks to me like an entire building is missing now.
Click to expand...
I was hoping to get a discription of the ghost :D
 
Lynne said:
I was hoping to get a discription of the ghost :D
Click to expand...

Oh, I posted about that in the past. But I can repeat. Three things are true:

1. I was in the bathroom (separate room a few short steps down the hall) from the bedroom where the ghost was seen. The friend I was with saw it first before I entered the room.

2. She saw it when she was looking through the viewfinder of her (not digit) camera. She handed me the camera and when I looked through the viewfinder, that was when I saw the ghost too. Neither of us saw the ghost with our unaided eyes.

3. The ghost we both saw was a woman in an antebellum period clothing - a very long dress with a hat. However, my friend saw what was essentially a full body - head to foot. But I only saw the outline of the woman - I could see a long dress but I could not see the details - I could see an outline of a hat but I could not see the details. Easiest way to understand my visual was that I could only see what would amount to a few inches inward from the outline; but, I couldn't see the details in the center of the form. So for example, I could not see any buttons which might be running down per blouse, I couldn't see the details of her nose, I couldn't see any pattern on her dress, etc. I only saw an outline.

I hope that helps some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke
WitchAndShaman said:
Oh, I posted about that in the past. But I can repeat. Three things are true:

1. I was in the bathroom (separate room a few short steps down the hall) from the bedroom where the ghost was seen. The friend I was with saw it first before I entered the room.

2. She saw it when she was looking through the viewfinder of her (not digit) camera. She handed me the camera and when I looked through the viewfinder, that was when I saw the ghost too. Neither of us saw the ghost with our unaided eyes.

3. The ghost we both saw was a woman in an antebellum period clothing - a very long dress with a hat. However, my friend saw what was essentially a full body - head to foot. But I only saw the outline of the woman - I could see a long dress but I could not see the details - I could see an outline of a hat but I could not see the details. Easiest way to understand my visual was that I could only see what would amount to a few inches inward from the outline; but, I couldn't see the details in the center of the form. So for example, I could not see any buttons which might be running down per blouse, I couldn't see the details of her nose, I couldn't see any pattern on her dress, etc. I only saw an outline.

I hope that helps some.
Click to expand...

Thanks for repeating the story, it was new to me and and I'm sure others who've joined the forum recently.

Seeing the image through only the viewfinder is fascinating to me. Was the camera a 35mm SLR type camera, an inexpensive point & shoot "instamatic", or a Polaroid?
 
Duke said:
Thanks for repeating the story, it was new to me and and I'm sure others who've joined the forum recently.

Seeing the image through only the viewfinder is fascinating to me. Was the camera a 35mm SLR type camera, an inexpensive point & shoot "instamatic", or a Polaroid?
Click to expand...


Of course Duke. Happy to do so. It wasn't an instamatic nor a Polaroid. It was some simplistic kind of 35mm.

Silly as it sounds - we both looked through the camera viewfinder twice - and neither of us actually snapped any photos. We were so focused on "seeing” the image and studying it visibly.
 
Last edited:
WitchAndShaman said:
Of course Duke. Happy to do so. It wasn't an instamatic nor a Polaroid. It was some simplistic kind of 35mm.

Silly as it sounds - we both looked through the camera viewfinder twice - and neither of us actually snapped any photos. We ere so focused on "see" the image and studying it visibly.
Click to expand...

I hear the same thing from people who see UFOs, so rapt in what they are seeing they don't think to take a photo.

I'm not a photography enthusiast, but I think 35mm SLR viewfinders use the actual camera lense optics to frame the photo to be taken. (As opposed to a separate optic for viewfinding on the instamatic and Polaroid cameras.) In theory, that means what is in the viewfinder is what the lense sees and will photograph. Would have been interesting to see if the same image you saw through the viewfinder appeared on film, and therefore in a photograph.
 
Duke said:
I hear the same thing from people who see UFOs, so rapt in what they are seeing they don't think to take a photo.

I'm not a photography enthusiast, but I think 35mm SLR viewfinders use the actual camera lense optics to frame the photo to be taken. (As opposed to a separate optic for viewfinding on the instamatic and Polaroid cameras.) In theory, that means what is in the viewfinder is what the lense sees and will photograph. Would have been interesting to see if the same image you saw through the viewfinder appeared on film, and therefore in a photograph.
Click to expand...

Yes but think about this. Would have been interesting-er if both me and my friend had taken separate photos. Since she say a full formed person and I did not. Would our photos have been different just like our visual perceptions were? Hum.
 
WitchAndShaman said:
Yes but think about this. Would have been interesting-er if both me and my friend had taken separate photos. Since she say a full formed person and I did not. Would our photos have been different just like our visual perceptions were? Hum.
Click to expand...

In theory, no, but then again (assuming both of you have healthy eyes and no vision issues) you should not have had different visual perceptions looking through the same lens. So who know what two different photos would have revealed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WitchAndShaman
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back