Shadow Person Caught On Camera?

Theo

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
9
Reaction score
9
Points
3
Age
26
A bit back I posted about my experiences on a ghost hunt. I thought I'd share an odd photo I also got on that hunt. It's been almost 4 years and I still have no answers for it. Maybe someone can help.

The photo was taken during a ghost hunt in a town hall. The room was dark aside from the flash used in these photos. We were able to split off into our own groups and I was in a group of 3 other people. I know there was no one else around as we wasn't really meant to go into this area. So everyone was accounted for and there was really no light source aside from the street lights outside and the flash on my phone camera (hence the poor quality). We were on the 3rd floor. The room we was in was not part of the ghost hunt. It was a small, quiet meeting room with a door towards the back that lead to some old dressing rooms from when the place held a theatre of some kind. So there was no one around and I doubt it was anything set up by the team hosting the hunt due to it being in a place they told us to stay out from. (The door was open, it's not like we broke in).


There are no ghost stories about that particular bit. They mostly connect to the main ballroom or the prison cells in the basement. There was nothing odd at the time. No one felt anything. No negative or positive energy. I took a series of photos and only got it on one.

The first photo is one taken just before without anything in it. The second has. If you look towards the door I've circled on the second one you'll see this black shadow. It look human in shape but there are no features. There are no other shadow in the area. It looks like a shadow but it doesn't seem to be cast as one. If you look at the metal plating on the bottom of the door in both photos you'll see what looks like the back of a foot in the second one that isn't there in the first. The figure seems to have no hair or clothes which makes me think it isn't someone who walked by quickly.

Idk, I'm interested if anyone has any explanations paranormal or scientific.
 

Attachments

  • Polish_20210319_162540432.jpg
    Polish_20210319_162540432.jpg
    656.5 KB · Views: 48
  • Polish_20210319_161022465.jpg
    Polish_20210319_161022465.jpg
    642.3 KB · Views: 46
  • Polish_20210319_160931687.jpg
    Polish_20210319_160931687.jpg
    405.4 KB · Views: 49

Debi

Owner/Admin
Staff
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
201,322
Reaction score
153,486
Points
315
Location
South of Indy
Interesting catch. Not really sure what to make of it, but high on the list might be a shadow person.
 

titch2k6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
356
Points
63
Age
49
Location
Nottinghamshire, UK
Idk, I'm interested if anyone has any explanations paranormal or scientific.

Hi Theo.

You have caught something, but I do not believe it is a shadow person. Let's look at your picture in detail and I will explain my thought on this.

sample.jpg


There are two striking things noticed about the figure that is apparent during analysis. Firstly, there are different shades to the figure - 24 to be precise. Clearly darker at the 'head', with some darkening around the 'torso', 'shoulder' and 'legs'. You can even speculate that you can see the lighter coloured 'arm' down by the side. This does not fit a shadow person and what we understand them to be. If this was a shadow person, there should be no shading differences to the figure, as they absorb light at a constant throughout their form. However, in contrast to what I have just said, we must account for pixelation and other wonderful digital imagery processes - especially on mobile phones. It IS solid though, as you can clearly see that it breaks the definition of the two 'levels' of the back wall (the lighter top, and the darker bottom).

However, the image presents another strong piece of evidence in support of my earlier statement that this is potentially not a shadow person.

If you look closely at the metal plate you have previously mentioned, you do indeed see a foot and potentially a leg. You also clearly see the shadow that this figure is casting..........

The problem I have here is that the shadow cast is darker than the alleged shadow person, which is in fact considerably lighter in shade than the shadow on the floor. Again, it just does not fit into our understanding of shadow people and we would expect any shadow thrown by such to merge in with the figure caught - not stand out.

Now, you could argue that the person wearing the light top (on the right of the image) is casting this shadow. However, looking at the position of the photographer and the flash illuminance, this person's shadow would not fall within that direction. However, the figure captured would cast a shadow in the direction seen, and as captured, in the image.

My initial thought when I first looked at both photos was, 'Where did the person in the light trousers, dark top go?'. If these pictures were taken a short time apart, is it not possible that this figure is that person, right at the back of the hall where the light levels of the flash are at their lowest.

So, yes. I do not believe this is a shadow figure, but it still has me stumped as to what it is 100% if it is not the person previously mentioned.......
 
Last edited:

Duke

Open-minded critical thinker
Staff
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
6,200
Reaction score
9,249
Points
203
Location
Dayton, OH
Hi Theo.

You have caught something, but I do not believe it is a shadow person. Let's look at your picture in detail and I will explain my thought on this.

View attachment 31189

There are two striking things noticed about the figure that is apparent during analysis. Firstly, there are different shades to the figure - 24 to be precise. Clearly darker at the 'head', with some darkening around the 'torso', 'shoulder' and 'legs'. You can even speculate that you can see the lighter coloured 'arm' down by the side. This does not fit a shadow person and what we understand them to be. If this was a shadow person, there should be no shading differences to the figure, as they absorb light at a constant throughout their form. However, in contrast to what I have just said, we must account for pixelation and other wonderful digital imagery processes - especially on mobile phones. It IS solid though, as you can clearly see that it breaks the definition of the two 'levels' of the back wall (the lighter top, and the darker bottom).

However, the image presents another strong piece of evidence in support of my earlier statement that this is potentially not a shadow person.

If you look closely at the metal plate you have previously mentioned, you do indeed see a foot and potentially a leg. You also clearly see the shadow that this figure is casting..........

The problem I have here is that the shadow cast is darker than the alleged shadow person, which is in fact considerably lighter in shade than the shadow on the floor. Again, it just does not fit into our understanding of shadow people and we would expect any shadow thrown by such to merge in with the figure caught - not stand out.

Now, you could argue that the person wearing the light top (on the right of the image) is casting this shadow. However, looking at the position of the photographer and the flash illuminance, this person's shadow would not fall within that direction. However, the figure captured would cast a shadow in the direction seen, and as captured, in the image.

My initial thought when I first looked at both photos was, 'Where did the person in the light trousers, dark top go?'. If these pictures were taken a short time apart, is it not possible that this figure is that person, right at the back of the hall where the light levels of the flash are at their lowest.

So, yes. I do not believe this is a shadow figure, but it still has me stumped as to what it 100% is if it is not the person previously mentioned.......
Well done. Can you do a similar analysis on whether it's a ghost, based on what you understand them to be?
 

titch2k6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
356
Points
63
Age
49
Location
Nottinghamshire, UK
Well done. Can you do a similar analysis on whether it's a ghost, based on what you understand them to be?

I will certainly do that. Unfortunately, it won't be tonight. I took my night meds a little while ago and will be comatose soon ;bg3
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke

titch2k6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
356
Points
63
Age
49
Location
Nottinghamshire, UK
Okay, so to analyse this as to whether it is a ghost or not is a lot more difficult, believe it or not. The biggest issue is that there have been lots of studies on shadow people and there are some good hypotheses out there as to what they are. One of the best well-known (in the paranormal world, anyway) investigators of shadow people is a gent named Mike Ricksecker and he wrote a book called 'A Walk In The Shadows: A Complete Guide To Shadow People', which is a brilliant read by the way (available on Amazon for Kindle).

Unfortunately, there has never been an in-depth study into ghosts, and as such, we still do not have any hypotheses on them, just theories. This is because, unlike shadow people (which is one of the most commonly recorded paranormal phenomena in today's world when it comes to sightings), there is just no solid evidence they actually exist. There are, unfortunately, lots of hoaxes and this factors into the issue of evidence and believability.

The following are my own definitions and not those shared by the paranormal community in general.

Entities can 'appear' to us in one in three forms - non-visually, translucent or full apparition.

  1. Non-visually - the most common form of haunting today. Things are heard, felt, sensed and objects may be seen moving, but at no time can the entity responsible for the activity be seen by witnesses.
  2. Translucent - what we typically think of when we visualise what a ghost would look like. A semi-transparent form either in full-body, or just a body part, barely visible to the witness, but can be clearly defined on digital imagery devices.
  3. Full-apparition - for all intent and purposes, this is like facing another person in the 'living' world. The witness can clearly define the figure as a person, and to some extent, make out fine details about the figure seen as well as describe clothing worn.
Now, looking back at the image posted, the figure is clearly visible, so this rules out a 'non-visual' entity. I would, looking at the image, also rule out a translucent figure. Translucents generally allow light to pass through their mass and as such, the shadow would not be as defined as it is, if it existed at all. Also, we should be able to define the change of wall 'levels' on the back wall. We cannot and this is due to the figure being solid in origin.

So, this leads us to consider the possibility of a full apparition. If people have reported sitting down and talking to someone in plain daylight (or even in the evening) before the discovery of that person's death hours, if not days, prior to the encounter, how can we differentiate between the living and a full-apparition from a photo? Honestly, we can't......

To summarise, the figure in the photo is not, in my opinion, a shadow person as previously stated and for the reasons outlined in my first post on this topic. However, is it a living person or a full-apparition of a lost soul, or someone from time re-living their usual day-to-day activities? I cannot say with any certainty and why an in-depth investigation should be conducted to gain additional evidence to make an educated conclusion.

If I was pressured into making a statement, which I really hate doing and avoid like the plague, I would say that based purely on the evidence presented in the photos (I cannot consider the statements made by Theo - and no offence meant, Theo. It's just the way the 'wheels grind' in the paranormal world and simply because your statements are not fully substantiated by anyone else. We only have your description of what happened that night. It is not that I do not believe you - it is all about what we can prove and that is the major difference when making conclusions with regards the paranormal), I would have to believe at this point that the figure is the person in the dark top, heading towards the back of the hall, shown in the first photo, distorted and darkened by the lack of illuminance from the flash and the effects of such on mobile phone images.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Duke and Debi

Lynne

Art Bell fan
Tier-1 Mod
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
74,073
Reaction score
40,677
Points
223
Age
60
Location
Michigan
Okay, so to analyse this as to whether it is a ghost or not is a lot more difficult, believe it or not. The biggest issue is that there have been lots of studies on shadow people and there are some good hypotheses out there as to what they are. One of the best well-known (in the paranormal world, anyway) investigators of shadow people is a gent named Mike Ricksecker and he wrote a book called 'A Walk In The Shadows: A Complete Guide To Shadow People', which is a brilliant read by the way (available on Amazon for Kindle).

Unfortunately, there has never been an in-depth study into ghosts, and as such, we still do not have any hypotheses on them, just theories. This is because, unlike shadow people (which is one of the most commonly recorded paranormal phenomena in today's world when it comes to sightings), there is just no solid evidence they actually exist. There are, unfortunately, lots of hoaxes and this factors into the issue of evidence and believability.

The following are my own definitions and not those shared by the paranormal community in general.

Entities can 'appear' to us in one in three forms - non-visually, translucent or full apparition.

  1. Non-visually - the most common form of haunting today. Things are heard, felt, sensed and objects may be seen moving, but at no time can the entity responsible for the activity be seen by witnesses.
  2. Translucent - what we typically think of when we visualise what a ghost would look like. A semi-transparent form either in full-body, or just a body part, barely visible to the witness, but can be clearly defined on digital imagery devices.
  3. Full-apparition - for all intent and purposes, this is like facing another person in the 'living' world. The witness can clearly define the figure as a person, and to some extent, make out fine details about the figure seen as well as describe clothing worn.
Now, looking back at the image posted, the figure is clearly visible, so this rules out a 'non-visual' entity. I would, looking at the image, also rule out a translucent figure. Translucents generally allow light to pass through their mass and as such, the shadow would not be as defined as it is, if it existed at all. Also, we should be able to define the change of wall 'levels' on the back wall. We cannot and this is due to the figure being solid in origin.

So, this leads us to consider the possibility of a full apparition. If people have reported sitting down and talking to someone in plain daylight (or even in the evening) before the discovery of that person's death hours, if not days, prior to the encounter, how can we differentiate between the living and a full-apparition from a photo? Honestly, we can't......

To summarise, the figure in the photo is not, in my opinion, a shadow person as previously stated and for the reasons outlined in my first post on this topic. However, is it a living person or a full-apparition of a lost soul, or someone from time re-living their usual day-to-day activities? I cannot say with any certainty and why an in-depth investigation should be conducted to gain additional evidence to make an educated conclusion.

If I was pressured into making a statement, which I really hate doing and avoid like the plague, I would say that based purely on the evidence presented in the photos (I cannot consider the statements made by Theo - and no offence meant, Theo. It's just the way the 'wheels grind' in the paranormal world and simply because your statements are not fully substantiated by anyone else. We only have your description of what happened that night. It is not that I do not believe you - it is all about what we can prove and that is the major difference when making conclusions with regards the paranormal), I would have to believe at this point that the figure is the person in the dark top, heading towards the back of the hall, shown in the first photo, distorted and darkened by the lack of illuminance from the flash and the effects of such on mobile phone images.
I love your thorough evaluation. Nicely presented.