The Dorset County Museum ghost

On the 20th September 2010. The BBC news website reported that a group of paranormal investigators from Weymouth called “The P.I.T.”(Paranormal Investigation Team), claimed to have captured the image of a “Ghost” inside the Dorset County Museum in Dorchester. The “Ghost” in question, was named by the group as being one “Hanging Judge Jeffreys”.

They also claimed to have additional photographs of a local fossil collector named “Mary Anning”. Both images were said to have been captured inside the museum’s main hall. Why the two alleged “spirits” would be at this particular Museum, is still quite baffling.

50-year-old Trudy Jordan, who’s given position is “Locations Manager/Assistant Case manager/Paranormal Investigator” for “The P.I.T.”, Was quoted as saying:

“What we’ve found now is amazing – we’re really chuffed, It wasn’t until we looked at the footage afterwards that you could actually make out the figure of a man. You can make your own mind up but it’s so detailed. We also have a photo of a woman with a cape going round her shoulders, and no head.”

Ms Jordan was also claimed the barrier alarms that “The P.I.T.” set up in the Victorian Hall part of the museum, went off repeatedly. She was quoted as saying:

“We’ve used them now since 2003 and never known anything affect them to make them go off unless someone actually goes through them.”

Beryl Smith who’s given position is “First aid/Investigator” said she experienced strange swings in measurements from her EMF meter. She was quoted as saying:

“I thought it was fascinating because somebody had come to me to want to talk through the meter.”

However, Dorset County Museum “Fundraising and Events” officer Nel Duke stated she remains “unconvinced”.She was quoted as saying:

“I haven’t had any paranormal experiences here”

Here is the image that “The P.I.T.” supplied to press.

Images taken using a Sony DSC W100. ISO of 400. Images dated: 29/10/2009 at 02:37:02AM. Exposure time = 1/40Sec Additional cameras used = Sony DSC-N2,Sony DSC-W190 and a Samsung S85. Settings for individual cameras are approximately equal.

The first thing that we noticed, is that the image was heavily cropped. A cropped image provides little context for what it is we are looking at. Realistically it could be anything at all, from an out of focus light, to a drop of water on a sheet of glass

We contacted “The P.I.T.” to ask for the full uncropped version of the image. It would be unfair to “The P.I.T.” to analyse the image if we were not able to see the original source material. We finally spoke to “Steve” who’s given title is Media Manager/Technician/Investigator. Steve sent the full unaltered versions, as per our request.

“The P.I.T.” did originally provide two reduced quality, and copyrighted images. However, they were unsuitable for purpose. They also thoughtfully provided a document to accompany the images, to assist press inquiry. Also included, is a listing of restrictions upon their use publicly. One important section is labled “A brief background to the photos”, which I shall reprint here, in full:

“The photos included where all taken by members of the P.I.T using digital cameras. The P.I.T does not claim to have conclusive proof of ‘ghosts’ within these photos merely that we have attempted to explain them using known science and have been unsuccessful in doing so. Not only where the photos analysed by experienced members of the P.I.T experienced in distinguishing  reflection from dust insects and moisture etc. as well as various forms of light refraction and reflection. But when these could not be explained as such they where shown to a number of ‘experts’ within the photography industry who again could not explain the light patterns etc as a malfunction of multiple cameras.

For this reason we have forwarded the photos to the wider public for them to be analysed and dissected as would be seen fit.”

“The P.I.T.” claim to have been unsuccessful in reaching a satisfactory conclusion using “known science”. Exactly which scientific process was applied, still remains unclear. They also claim to have had the images examined by “experienced team members”, and a “number of experts” in the field of photography. Neither of which could apparently explain the source of the “anomaly”. A 2009 interview with the Dorset Echo, lists this “expert source” as a professional “photographic shop”.

“Steve” also responded to a similar article on ghosttheory.com. He stated:

“further background to this photo is that it was one of a few photos we captured on multiple cameras from varying angles( the camera people where spread along the end of the upper balcony. the ground floor level was been focused on due to motion sensors activating without any visible cause.the reason we mention judge Jeffreys is two fold not only is his chair on display in that gallery but also Dorchester and Dorset as a whole are linked to him. since the date the photos where taken we have since found references that he may have drunk at the inn that once stood on the site of museum.”

Our advice to “The P.I.T.” is to simply use better qualified experts. If they had, then perhaps they would understand what it was they actually took photographs of.

The images taken that night at the Dorset County Museum, are simply reflections of the camera flash, on a glass fronted display case/mirrored surface. You can clearly see this display case illuminated by the flash, to the north position of the “anomaly”. Here is a similar display case, also in that area at the Museum.

The “anomaly” referred to as “Judge Jeffreys”, is actually the flash reflected onto the floor of the Museum. The reason it looks vaguely person shaped, is because the reflective surface (glass) is uneven. This creates a “lensing” effect”, like similar to a Plano-Concave lens. This pattern of light is a reflection from a concave surface.

Of course, the rest of the image was also cropped away from that area. Seemingly to focus attention soley on that one small area. This is very misleading to the viewer, and it does not look like a human figure when viewed unedited (as it is obviously spread across the floor).

If the the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence, and the light returned is a diffused reflection, then the focal point is determined by the curvature of the reflective surface.

There are some helpful diagrams to explain the process here:

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch24ML/CrvMr.html

The second image that “The P.I.T.” claimed to have captured that night, one “Mary Anning”, is exactly the same phenomena. The reason why it appears to be “missing it’s head”, is simply because the image was taken at a slightly different angle and position. Thus the reflection became a slightly different relative focal point.

We think it would be unfair to “The P.I.T.” to leave this report here, without addressing the other “unusual phenomena” that allegedly happened that night. Perhaps they will take our advice, or perhaps they might ignore it? Only time will tell, but we know which decision will benefit them more.

The most likely reason Trudy Jordan believes the photographs contain the image of a man is classic  Pareidolia, but we think perhaps artistic licence is mainly responsible for the headless woman claim. It would take some serious “mental juggling” to create that specific shape from that reflection.

The claim that the P.I.R. (passive infrared) sensors that “The P.I.T.” deployed (barrier alarms), kept “going off” is not in itself unusual. There are many reasons why a P.I.R. might trigger. Everything from extreme temperature changes due to central heating, to flying insects and intermittent power supply (dying batteries) could be responsible. It may even be a hardware issue, depending on the condition of the P.I.R. units.

Beryl Smith’s experience can be explained by the “Subject Expectancy effect”. She believed that E.M.F. detectors somehow register “spirit energy”. The subsequent needle movement reinforced her belief that there was a spirit present and attempting to communicate.

There is more information about that particular psychology available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect

“The P.I.T.” did supply several other “images of interest” taken that night. Unfortunately, they are no more unusual than the others supplied to the press.

For those of you who may be interested. “The P.I.T.” claims to have 50 years experience in the paranormal, (we assume this means the total combination of experience from it’s 14 members). We consider this to be an odd way to calculate overall experience. I know I could not trust 100 surgeons who each had one year of training, to perform an operation on me.

In an interview given to the Dorset Echo, “The P.I.T.” compared themselves to The Atlantic Paranormal Society (T.A.P.S.). Unfortunately, T.A.P.S. is to ghost hunting, what Pope Benedict is to child safety. T.A.P.S. are nothing more than entertainers, they are not scientific researchers. We think that is indicative of the level of expertise they (“The P.I.T.”) currently seem to possess as a team.

NB: A Plethora of ill suited equipment, spurious connections, outdated theory, peer review via media etc, etc. Where they differ from T.A.P.S. is that they also use alleged mediums as an evidence gathering resource.

Our impartial advice to “The P.I.T.” is simply to study past experiments, and do not repeat the failures. Design new experiments, and test those. Lose the equipment, it has little to no scientific use on an investigation of this nature. Learn basic physics, as that branch of science that can help explain a lot of “perinormal” phenomena. Learn basic psychology, this can help determine the human element of alleged hauntings. Have your “mediums” perform other duties. Last but not least, investigate using the scientific theory.
Scientific theory construction:

1. Observation/description of phenomena or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

BARSoc would like to thank “The P.I.T.” for their cooperation in this matter, and we hope they will improve their operation over time.

References:

http://www.thepit08.co.uk/rec-investigations.html

http://www.dorsetcountymuseum.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/dorset/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9010000/9010706.stm

http://gnorml.com/paranormal/ghost-of-judge-captured-in-museum/

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/09/20/team-captures-image-of-ghost-judge

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/4345484.It___s_ghost_to_coast_as_paranormal_investigators_celebrate_successful_first_year/

Advertisements

Posted on September 28, 2010, in article, feature, ghost, irrational, media, misattribution, paranormal, pop culture paranormal and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 60 Comments.

  1. This is an excellent article. I completely agree with your analysis of these photos. The image does look convincing at first glance and I can understand how excited PIT would have been to have taken this picture but (and I no expert on photography at all) my most likely explanation would be that the image is caused by reflection and pareidolia. I really like your ideas about scientific investigation and I hope that serious paranormal investigators do move away from pseudo scientific equipment and pay more attention to their observations. I hope PIT and other groups will find this article enlightening.

  2. This is an excellent article. I completely agree with your analysis of these photos. The image does look convincing at first glance and I can understand how excited PIT would have been to have taken this picture but (and I no expert on photography at all) my most likely explanation would be that the image is caused by reflection and pareidolia. I really like your ideas about scientific investigation and I hope that serious paranormal investigators do move away from pseudo scientific equipment and pay more attention to their observations. I hope PIT and other groups will find this article enlightening.

  3. The P.I.T wish to state that they are disappointed at the quality of this article. it is clear there a vague attempts to discredit the P.I.T and thereby the photos by use of outdated information from previouse reports. which has then not been confirmed with myself or any attempt made to check which seems a shame as I was in communication with Hayley Stevens a number of times via email during ‘Barsoc’s’ analysis of the images.

    What the P.I.T had hoped for from barsoc was a open minded review and not something that appears more as journalism. however the P.I.T apologise if this is not how Bar soc intended the article to appear

    In response to the theory represented

    The P.IT would like to thank Bar soc for there time and the theory they have put forward, and I refer to it as a theory and not a scientific theory in the greatest respect. as Bar soc where not at the location at the time and did not observe the images been taken nor indeed have they had the opportunity to survey the location to make measurements of distances and light etc. so therefore nothing more then a suggested theory is possible and the above should be read as such.

    For clarification
    ‘As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.’

    .-In fact this was one of the first thoughts we had however we where unable to ‘replicate’ the light pattern using the camera flash. it should also be noted that there are numerous display cabinets in the hall and no other significant anomalies appear despite several been closer to the flash and containing more glare. and also that one would expect more glare from a object reflecting enough light to project a image some 15′ approx across the room ( it has now been suggested to us by gnorml.com amongst other that we try using a spotlight and or laser pointer, in a attempt to prove or disprove this theory, while not strictly scientific as neither of these where in use when the images were taken it may help to confirm or dismiss this theory

    I would also like to reiterate that the P.I.T are not saying these images are caused by paranormal only that we feel they maybe, and that we are still attempting to find the answer.

    This theory among other new theories put forward to the P.I.T will be put to the test in due course. and the findings will be published in full. along with documentation of the ‘experiments’ carried out.

    once again I would like to thank the for there time and effort

    Steve

    • In the newspaper article on the BBC website (and various others) your team claimed that this oddity was a ghost. You are therefor presenting a concolusion, Steve.

      As I told you when we spoke in email, if you hadn’t reached a conclusion on what the cause of the photo was (as you stated above) then you wouldn’t have made those claims, you would have said that the results were inconclusive or still under study.

      I didn’t write this article, but I can guarentee you that it was not written with the intent to discredit you or P.I.T at all. It is a clear portrayal of the fatcs of this case. Over all, any paranormal team who truly used a scientific method of investigation rather than making it sound like they do to appear legit would have come to the same conclusion as BARsoc researchers did.

      This article was not something written after a few minutes of looking around.

      If you were truly open minded you wouldn’t take this article written by Bob as an attack or an attempt to discredit your team. You would consider the points we made and potentially adjust your view, or counter the points we made rather than just givine excuses.

      As for you trying to replicate the effect – that’s a great start. However, simply because you cannot replicate it by using cameras as you did before does not mean that this cannot be explained. It can. We just explained it for you.

      The problem with photographs is that it is really hard to replicate an effect once the initial photos have been taken. So many factors could have changed.

      – You might not be in the exact spot the photos were taken from
      – The display case thing may have moved slightly
      – Lighting may have changed (natural light changes with the seasons)

      We are not attempted to discredit anybody, this is simply an article detailing what we have taken from this case. This is peer review, and if you don’t like it then perhaps you need to consider just how open minded an organisation you really are and whether you really are willing to accept peer review on cases before going to the press.

  4. The P.I.T wish to state that they are disappointed at the quality of this article. it is clear there a vague attempts to discredit the P.I.T and thereby the photos by use of outdated information from previouse reports. which has then not been confirmed with myself or any attempt made to check which seems a shame as I was in communication with Hayley Stevens a number of times via email during ‘Barsoc’s’ analysis of the images.

    What the P.I.T had hoped for from barsoc was a open minded review and not something that appears more as journalism. however the P.I.T apologise if this is not how Bar soc intended the article to appear

    In response to the theory represented

    The P.IT would like to thank Bar soc for there time and the theory they have put forward, and I refer to it as a theory and not a scientific theory in the greatest respect. as Bar soc where not at the location at the time and did not observe the images been taken nor indeed have they had the opportunity to survey the location to make measurements of distances and light etc. so therefore nothing more then a suggested theory is possible and the above should be read as such.

    For clarification
    ‘As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.’

    .-In fact this was one of the first thoughts we had however we where unable to ‘replicate’ the light pattern using the camera flash. it should also be noted that there are numerous display cabinets in the hall and no other significant anomalies appear despite several been closer to the flash and containing more glare. and also that one would expect more glare from a object reflecting enough light to project a image some 15′ approx across the room ( it has now been suggested to us by gnorml.com amongst other that we try using a spotlight and or laser pointer, in a attempt to prove or disprove this theory, while not strictly scientific as neither of these where in use when the images were taken it may help to confirm or dismiss this theory

    I would also like to reiterate that the P.I.T are not saying these images are caused by paranormal only that we feel they maybe, and that we are still attempting to find the answer.

    This theory among other new theories put forward to the P.I.T will be put to the test in due course. and the findings will be published in full. along with documentation of the ‘experiments’ carried out.

    once again I would like to thank the for there time and effort

    Steve

    • In the newspaper article on the BBC website (and various others) your team claimed that this oddity was a ghost. You are therefor presenting a concolusion, Steve.

      As I told you when we spoke in email, if you hadn’t reached a conclusion on what the cause of the photo was (as you stated above) then you wouldn’t have made those claims, you would have said that the results were inconclusive or still under study.

      I didn’t write this article, but I can guarentee you that it was not written with the intent to discredit you or P.I.T at all. It is a clear portrayal of the fatcs of this case. Over all, any paranormal team who truly used a scientific method of investigation rather than making it sound like they do to appear legit would have come to the same conclusion as BARsoc researchers did.

      This article was not something written after a few minutes of looking around.

      If you were truly open minded you wouldn’t take this article written by Bob as an attack or an attempt to discredit your team. You would consider the points we made and potentially adjust your view, or counter the points we made rather than just givine excuses.

      As for you trying to replicate the effect – that’s a great start. However, simply because you cannot replicate it by using cameras as you did before does not mean that this cannot be explained. It can. We just explained it for you.

      The problem with photographs is that it is really hard to replicate an effect once the initial photos have been taken. So many factors could have changed.

      – You might not be in the exact spot the photos were taken from
      – The display case thing may have moved slightly
      – Lighting may have changed (natural light changes with the seasons)

      We are not attempted to discredit anybody, this is simply an article detailing what we have taken from this case. This is peer review, and if you don’t like it then perhaps you need to consider just how open minded an organisation you really are and whether you really are willing to accept peer review on cases before going to the press.

  5. Two things puzzle me about this case and they both concern the ‘Judge Jeffries’ (JJ) patch of light. Firstly, there is its shape and, secondly, its unusual diffuse look.

    I decided to test the reflection idea with a collection of mirrors and a bright torch in a darkened room. I bounced the torchlight off the mirrors so that each threw a patch of light on the floor or walls.

    I found that it is easy to reproduce the ‘bell’ shape of the JJ light. It simply depends on the angle of the torch to the mirror and the mirror to the surface onto which it is projecting a light patch. Both round and rectangular mirrors can both produce the bell shape quite easily.

    I also found it is easy to produce a diffuse patch of light, just like the one in the JJ photo. All you need to do is to project the reflected torchlight, using the mirror, onto a smooth surface that is not itself too reflective. A rough surface, like carpet or wallpaper, will not work. But a smooth surface, like plastic, wood, tiles or a plastered wall produces the effect easily. It also helps if there is not a strong pattern on the surface. The mirror does, however, need to be a reasonable distance from the wall or floor where the light patch is being projected. Too close and the light patch loses its diffuse look. Too far away and the diffuse patch is too faint to see.

    I found that using a concave mirror made it almost impossible to get the right shape or the diffuse look. It concentrated the image of the torch too much. A plain, flat mirror worked much better.

  6. Two things puzzle me about this case and they both concern the ‘Judge Jeffries’ (JJ) patch of light. Firstly, there is its shape and, secondly, its unusual diffuse look.

    I decided to test the reflection idea with a collection of mirrors and a bright torch in a darkened room. I bounced the torchlight off the mirrors so that each threw a patch of light on the floor or walls.

    I found that it is easy to reproduce the ‘bell’ shape of the JJ light. It simply depends on the angle of the torch to the mirror and the mirror to the surface onto which it is projecting a light patch. Both round and rectangular mirrors can both produce the bell shape quite easily.

    I also found it is easy to produce a diffuse patch of light, just like the one in the JJ photo. All you need to do is to project the reflected torchlight, using the mirror, onto a smooth surface that is not itself too reflective. A rough surface, like carpet or wallpaper, will not work. But a smooth surface, like plastic, wood, tiles or a plastered wall produces the effect easily. It also helps if there is not a strong pattern on the surface. The mirror does, however, need to be a reasonable distance from the wall or floor where the light patch is being projected. Too close and the light patch loses its diffuse look. Too far away and the diffuse patch is too faint to see.

    I found that using a concave mirror made it almost impossible to get the right shape or the diffuse look. It concentrated the image of the torch too much. A plain, flat mirror worked much better.

  7. The P.I.T would like to reply saying it apologises if there has been any misunderstanding the P.I.T intend to attack your theory only to state that we will treat it as such until we can either confirm or disprove it, The P.I.T believe it would be foolhardy to dismiss the photos based on a theory which has not been tested(which we intend to do so) We would also like to state that the question over whether the P.I.T had come to any conclusion was addressed in a email to hayley early on. where she raised this very subject, I clarified with her that the statement made by Trudy to the BBC was intended as a personal one based on her own beliefs on the images, While we support Trudy in making her own mind up this is in no way indicative of a conclusion by the P.I.T. and we apologise if the statements made where misleading to anyone in there source and since then statements have been made by the P.I.T to clarify that the P.I.Ts stance as a group is that we are not sure 100% what is captured in these photos and again within the press release photos was a word document that you mention that again clarifies the P.I.T’s stance stating the ‘P.I.T does not claim to have conclusive proof of ghosts within these photos’
    I would therefore appreciate it if your piece included this statement so as to truly represent the P.I.Ts stance on this case as it stands at present

    The P.I.T is unbiased in its assessment of paranormal events something which the P.I.T will continue to do. however to be unbiased means we have to be open to all possibilities and then rule out each possibility as appropriate this means it has to apply the same rules either way in this case if we need 100% proof to prove paranormal then the same should be required to prove as not, or at least strong evidence which can be replicated documented and reproduced, in order to understand ;as is the basis of understanding all sciences

    I should make it clearer as there seems to be some misunderstanding we are not attacking you or your theory and indeed welcome it, and the other ones brought forward including everything from people in sheets(all though would have been difficult to miss them crossing the hall :s) to falling plaster dust and ‘Localised misting’ amongst others which will all be assessed fully.

    We (the P.I.T) would again like to thank the people at Bar soc for there time and the information they have provided which will be assessed on its own merits, we thank you for your theory and respect your opinion,but we are not interested in getting into a drawn out debate as to whether the theory is fact or not as I am sure Barsoc are not either. we will put there theory to the test and publish our findings in fact on this and all the theories presented to us, and hopefully get to the bottom of what is in the images be it natural or paranormal. If our belief that theories should be tested and proved means we agree to disagree with Barsoc then in all due respect this is the price of a unbiased investigation into the photos.

    • Can I make a suggestion regarding testing the reflection theory? The most difficult thing will be locating the exact position for the camera so that the effect can be seen. A littlle way in any direction may stop the effect appearing.

      The easiest way to do this would be to go to the approximate position where the original photo was taken and use a laser pointer, as mentioned before. Use the pointer to reflect a light off the cabinet (as per the theory) so that it projects a reflection onto the position on the floor where the Judge Jeffries shape appeared in the photo. Once that is done, photos can be taken from that exact position, with the original camera, to see if the shape appears again.

  8. The P.I.T would like to reply saying it apologises if there has been any misunderstanding the P.I.T intend to attack your theory only to state that we will treat it as such until we can either confirm or disprove it, The P.I.T believe it would be foolhardy to dismiss the photos based on a theory which has not been tested(which we intend to do so) We would also like to state that the question over whether the P.I.T had come to any conclusion was addressed in a email to hayley early on. where she raised this very subject, I clarified with her that the statement made by Trudy to the BBC was intended as a personal one based on her own beliefs on the images, While we support Trudy in making her own mind up this is in no way indicative of a conclusion by the P.I.T. and we apologise if the statements made where misleading to anyone in there source and since then statements have been made by the P.I.T to clarify that the P.I.Ts stance as a group is that we are not sure 100% what is captured in these photos and again within the press release photos was a word document that you mention that again clarifies the P.I.T’s stance stating the ‘P.I.T does not claim to have conclusive proof of ghosts within these photos’
    I would therefore appreciate it if your piece included this statement so as to truly represent the P.I.Ts stance on this case as it stands at present

    The P.I.T is unbiased in its assessment of paranormal events something which the P.I.T will continue to do. however to be unbiased means we have to be open to all possibilities and then rule out each possibility as appropriate this means it has to apply the same rules either way in this case if we need 100% proof to prove paranormal then the same should be required to prove as not, or at least strong evidence which can be replicated documented and reproduced, in order to understand ;as is the basis of understanding all sciences

    I should make it clearer as there seems to be some misunderstanding we are not attacking you or your theory and indeed welcome it, and the other ones brought forward including everything from people in sheets(all though would have been difficult to miss them crossing the hall :s) to falling plaster dust and ‘Localised misting’ amongst others which will all be assessed fully.

    We (the P.I.T) would again like to thank the people at Bar soc for there time and the information they have provided which will be assessed on its own merits, we thank you for your theory and respect your opinion,but we are not interested in getting into a drawn out debate as to whether the theory is fact or not as I am sure Barsoc are not either. we will put there theory to the test and publish our findings in fact on this and all the theories presented to us, and hopefully get to the bottom of what is in the images be it natural or paranormal. If our belief that theories should be tested and proved means we agree to disagree with Barsoc then in all due respect this is the price of a unbiased investigation into the photos.

    • Can I make a suggestion regarding testing the reflection theory? The most difficult thing will be locating the exact position for the camera so that the effect can be seen. A littlle way in any direction may stop the effect appearing.

      The easiest way to do this would be to go to the approximate position where the original photo was taken and use a laser pointer, as mentioned before. Use the pointer to reflect a light off the cabinet (as per the theory) so that it projects a reflection onto the position on the floor where the Judge Jeffries shape appeared in the photo. Once that is done, photos can be taken from that exact position, with the original camera, to see if the shape appears again.

  9. apologies for the typo the first sentance should read ‘The P.I.T would like to reply saying it apologises if there has been any misunderstanding the P.I.T— DID NOT — intend to attack your theory only to state that we will treat it as such until we can either confirm or disprove it,

  10. apologies for the typo the first sentance should read ‘The P.I.T would like to reply saying it apologises if there has been any misunderstanding the P.I.T— DID NOT — intend to attack your theory only to state that we will treat it as such until we can either confirm or disprove it,

  11. We are still working on what methods to use to test this, ( we will hopefuly be filming and documenting these ‘experiments or theories been tested also). but methods decided on so far include using a laser pen to test the amounts of reflection and direction of any reflection. in order to pin point the area of floor any reflections from the flash source might cover. we will also attempt introducing a artificial light source to the reflective area high lighted to assess any light patterns given off as well as intensity. since a flash camera spreads out the light it emits to light up the whole picture frame and not specific areas this may on its own bring answers,

    we will also be recording the exact size and angles of the building in order to proof a 3d simulation similar to the one created by Gnorml.com in there great write up….this is to ensure the angles are correct.

    we are also able to use software to ensure that attempts to recreate the image via the original cameras used are from the same location and same angle .(this is done by overlaying multiple images and keying specific objects and lines) however we will also be taking pictures from varying positions to discover if any other light patterns arise from other positions. ( on a personal level since more then one shots exist showing varying angles to the relective object. we feel it we would be extremely unlucky if after 100s of images the same or similar does not occur)

    there was a question of natural lighting conditions raised . luckily the gallery area has blackouts which where in place at the original investigation and will be again. since it was night time also, while there may be a minute difference it would not be enough to white out a reflection of the same intensity.

    there have been questions raised over the source of the reflection and also whether it may have moved between now and then. the reflective item will be documented so as to allow you to make your own mind up on that.

    We are also happy to take any suggestions anyone might have on ways to test the reflection or any other theory. these can be sent to me directly at steve@thepit08.co.uk.

    It should be noted the P.I.T will not be there to disprove this or any theory (well maybe we will disprove the man in a sheet thing .lol 🙂 ) We intend to find out what the actual cause is,and if we find it to be one of the theories suggested here or elsewhere, then we will have found the answer we where looking for when we released the photos. The P.I.T aim to find evidence of paranormal activity where it exists( and not where it doesn’t, and as the P.I.T have already stated several times we are not sure in this case)

    @HGW while we are happy to test your theory using mirrors HGW it should be noted that use of hand mirrors was not in effect nor where any torches in use . if nothing else it may provide some comparison though.

    subject to Dorset County museum giving the ok once they have seen the information we gather.Then we intend to provide all the data we have gathered to our respected colleagues that have reviewed the images where appropriate.

  12. We are still working on what methods to use to test this, ( we will hopefuly be filming and documenting these ‘experiments or theories been tested also). but methods decided on so far include using a laser pen to test the amounts of reflection and direction of any reflection. in order to pin point the area of floor any reflections from the flash source might cover. we will also attempt introducing a artificial light source to the reflective area high lighted to assess any light patterns given off as well as intensity. since a flash camera spreads out the light it emits to light up the whole picture frame and not specific areas this may on its own bring answers,

    we will also be recording the exact size and angles of the building in order to proof a 3d simulation similar to the one created by Gnorml.com in there great write up….this is to ensure the angles are correct.

    we are also able to use software to ensure that attempts to recreate the image via the original cameras used are from the same location and same angle .(this is done by overlaying multiple images and keying specific objects and lines) however we will also be taking pictures from varying positions to discover if any other light patterns arise from other positions. ( on a personal level since more then one shots exist showing varying angles to the relective object. we feel it we would be extremely unlucky if after 100s of images the same or similar does not occur)

    there was a question of natural lighting conditions raised . luckily the gallery area has blackouts which where in place at the original investigation and will be again. since it was night time also, while there may be a minute difference it would not be enough to white out a reflection of the same intensity.

    there have been questions raised over the source of the reflection and also whether it may have moved between now and then. the reflective item will be documented so as to allow you to make your own mind up on that.

    We are also happy to take any suggestions anyone might have on ways to test the reflection or any other theory. these can be sent to me directly at steve@thepit08.co.uk.

    It should be noted the P.I.T will not be there to disprove this or any theory (well maybe we will disprove the man in a sheet thing .lol 🙂 ) We intend to find out what the actual cause is,and if we find it to be one of the theories suggested here or elsewhere, then we will have found the answer we where looking for when we released the photos. The P.I.T aim to find evidence of paranormal activity where it exists( and not where it doesn’t, and as the P.I.T have already stated several times we are not sure in this case)

    @HGW while we are happy to test your theory using mirrors HGW it should be noted that use of hand mirrors was not in effect nor where any torches in use . if nothing else it may provide some comparison though.

    subject to Dorset County museum giving the ok once they have seen the information we gather.Then we intend to provide all the data we have gathered to our respected colleagues that have reviewed the images where appropriate.

  13. Hello Steve,

    Thank you for reading this article. I would like to respond to your reply if I may?
    You raise a few issues which I feel must be addressed for clarity. I am sorry that “The
    P.I.T.” are dissapointed in the article, but I dont think there is anything wrong with the
    “quality” of it. The information is concise, easy on the eye, well considered and even
    courteous. I could have been much worse, even cruel. However, it was my intent to help make
    “The P.I.T.” a better group by offering an honest peer review of their work. There are no
    vague attempts to discredit “The P.I.T.” contained within the article. That would be “special
    pleading”, and we do not really use logical fallacies if we can help it.

    I did not try to “debunk” the photographs by destroying the reputation of “The P.I.T.”. The
    thought did not occur to me, nor would It make any sense for an impartial peer review. If I
    had chose to use that option, then surely my reputation (such as it is) would also suffer? I
    am afraid your assertion makes no sense.

    If by “outdated information” you are referring to the 2009 Dorset Echo article, then I feel I
    should remind you that the Image “The P.I.T.” claimed to be Judge Jeffreys, was also captured
    in 2009. The reason for it’s inclusion was to show publicly that “The P.I.T.” had made an
    effort to have the images verified. I think I have demonstrated that quite well. I did not
    need you to verify the previous reports, as they are publicly available, and have been for a
    long time. I believe that if the reports were incorrect, then you would have had ample
    opportunity to contact the Dorset Echo to retract the article (or ammend it). As far as I
    know, you did not.

    Barsoc has provided you with an objective and impartial review to the best of our ability. Our
    approach is always “open minded”, but we fully understand what “open minded” actually means.
    Definitions are extremely important to me, as I need to be as clear as I can while reporting
    on any issue. I am sorry If my work appears to be “Journalism”, I do not really understand
    what you were expecting. I am (amongst other things) a “Journalist” after all. I felt you may
    have been insulted by a web comic interpretation of events.

    Our theory as presented, is based upon good solid science. There is a plethora of evidence
    gathered by scientists worldwide, that confirmed the science included in this article. While I
    appriciate that I was not personally “there at the time” , the science works regardless of
    location. If you make a cup of tea in London or China, the water will still boil at 100°C or
    212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (at sea level, with no impurities). My point is, the
    science works, even if I am not present.

    I do not feel that surveying the location would assist in reaching a different conclusion. I
    can quite clearly see the interior of the building from the photographs, and I know that the
    light from the flash has an unobstructed path to the display case. How would my attendance
    change those facts? Also the measurment of distance has no bearing. The average distance of
    the Sun from Earth is 93, 000, 000 miles. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second, and those
    rules still apply while inside a building. This article is only a suggested theory, it does
    not pretend to be something more. There are always other options, “The P.I.T.” could have used
    photoshop (you didn’t, I checked) or they could have had a person just off camera shining a
    torch on the glass (unknown, but unlikely). All I offer is the most likely and reasonable
    chain of events.

    Your insistance that you were unable to replicate the effect, and that there are several other
    display cabinets in that area, have also been taken into consideration. The failure to
    replicate could just be that the photographer was in a slightly different position. The reason
    why this particular reflection was displayed so prominently is based upon the “angle of
    incidence”. If you replicate the same angle you should get the same effect. This would not
    work on display cases where the “angle of incidence” is too shallow or too steep (like the
    flash on the display case seen in images DC 1 (17) and DC 1 (18) and Dorset County 187 and
    188). The reason the reflection is so long is due to “falloff”. Light will gradually decrease
    in intensity over distance, due to the inverse square law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

    The method suggested by “Gnorml” seems like a good idea. It does not matter if a spotlight or
    laser was used that night, The idea is that you can see the reflected beam’s angle. Not that
    it would or could recreate the exact conditions on the night. By following the beam, you can
    approximate the position that you need to be in, to take additional photographs. You must bear
    in mind, that the original photograph flash lasted 1/40th of a second.

    We are looking forwards to the following updates from “The P.I.T.”.

  14. Hello Steve,

    Thank you for reading this article. I would like to respond to your reply if I may?
    You raise a few issues which I feel must be addressed for clarity. I am sorry that “The
    P.I.T.” are dissapointed in the article, but I dont think there is anything wrong with the
    “quality” of it. The information is concise, easy on the eye, well considered and even
    courteous. I could have been much worse, even cruel. However, it was my intent to help make
    “The P.I.T.” a better group by offering an honest peer review of their work. There are no
    vague attempts to discredit “The P.I.T.” contained within the article. That would be “special
    pleading”, and we do not really use logical fallacies if we can help it.

    I did not try to “debunk” the photographs by destroying the reputation of “The P.I.T.”. The
    thought did not occur to me, nor would It make any sense for an impartial peer review. If I
    had chose to use that option, then surely my reputation (such as it is) would also suffer? I
    am afraid your assertion makes no sense.

    If by “outdated information” you are referring to the 2009 Dorset Echo article, then I feel I
    should remind you that the Image “The P.I.T.” claimed to be Judge Jeffreys, was also captured
    in 2009. The reason for it’s inclusion was to show publicly that “The P.I.T.” had made an
    effort to have the images verified. I think I have demonstrated that quite well. I did not
    need you to verify the previous reports, as they are publicly available, and have been for a
    long time. I believe that if the reports were incorrect, then you would have had ample
    opportunity to contact the Dorset Echo to retract the article (or ammend it). As far as I
    know, you did not.

    Barsoc has provided you with an objective and impartial review to the best of our ability. Our
    approach is always “open minded”, but we fully understand what “open minded” actually means.
    Definitions are extremely important to me, as I need to be as clear as I can while reporting
    on any issue. I am sorry If my work appears to be “Journalism”, I do not really understand
    what you were expecting. I am (amongst other things) a “Journalist” after all. I felt you may
    have been insulted by a web comic interpretation of events.

    Our theory as presented, is based upon good solid science. There is a plethora of evidence
    gathered by scientists worldwide, that confirmed the science included in this article. While I
    appriciate that I was not personally “there at the time” , the science works regardless of
    location. If you make a cup of tea in London or China, the water will still boil at 100°C or
    212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (at sea level, with no impurities). My point is, the
    science works, even if I am not present.

    I do not feel that surveying the location would assist in reaching a different conclusion. I
    can quite clearly see the interior of the building from the photographs, and I know that the
    light from the flash has an unobstructed path to the display case. How would my attendance
    change those facts? Also the measurment of distance has no bearing. The average distance of
    the Sun from Earth is 93, 000, 000 miles. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second, and those
    rules still apply while inside a building. This article is only a suggested theory, it does
    not pretend to be something more. There are always other options, “The P.I.T.” could have used
    photoshop (you didn’t, I checked) or they could have had a person just off camera shining a
    torch on the glass (unknown, but unlikely). All I offer is the most likely and reasonable
    chain of events.

    Your insistance that you were unable to replicate the effect, and that there are several other
    display cabinets in that area, have also been taken into consideration. The failure to
    replicate could just be that the photographer was in a slightly different position. The reason
    why this particular reflection was displayed so prominently is based upon the “angle of
    incidence”. If you replicate the same angle you should get the same effect. This would not
    work on display cases where the “angle of incidence” is too shallow or too steep (like the
    flash on the display case seen in images DC 1 (17) and DC 1 (18) and Dorset County 187 and
    188). The reason the reflection is so long is due to “falloff”. Light will gradually decrease
    in intensity over distance, due to the inverse square law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

    The method suggested by “Gnorml” seems like a good idea. It does not matter if a spotlight or
    laser was used that night, The idea is that you can see the reflected beam’s angle. Not that
    it would or could recreate the exact conditions on the night. By following the beam, you can
    approximate the position that you need to be in, to take additional photographs. You must bear
    in mind, that the original photograph flash lasted 1/40th of a second.

    We are looking forwards to the following updates from “The P.I.T.”.

  15. Hello again Steve,

    There is no need to apologise. I am more than happy that you will test the theory. We

    understand that Trudy’s interview was an opinion piece (realistically, it could be nothing but

    an opinion piece). However, we reported on how the press reported on this article. The

    inference of Trudy’s, and the BBC’s article, was clearly that “The P.I.T.” were quite excited

    to have photographed “the ghost of Judge Jeffreys”. If this view does not match what “The

    P.I.T.” believe, then perhaps you could ask the BBC to ammend the original article to reflect

    what “The P.I.T.” believe?

    I understand that you released a “press pack” with the images, however I am unaware if the BBC

    also received that. If they did, then perhaps you have grounds to force a retraction? Your

    request to have the statement from the “press pack” included in the article (as a point of

    balance) is superflous, as It was already included in the original article (see above).

    We are all subject to bias, and “The P.I.T.” is no exception. We all have our inate belief

    systems firmly rooted in place. Looking at other images on “The P.I.T.” website, there are

    images of “spirit lights” and “orbs”. Both of these “phenomena” have long established

    explanations, and yet “The P.I.T.” does not offer those explanations. What is this if not

    bias? The only other reasonable explanation is wilful ignorance.

    Please feel free to disgree with this theory, it is after all your perogative to do so. I am

    not upset or in any way bothered that you did not accept it immediately. Sceptics are not like

    “believers” in that respect. We do not throw our rattle out of the pram when people do not

    accept what we say. We usually just try a different approach. I can guarantee you that this

    was not a person in a sheet, nor falling plaster, nor a “localised mist” whatever that is.

    Please feel free to test those theories however, to exclude them fully.

  16. Hello again Steve,

    There is no need to apologise. I am more than happy that you will test the theory. We

    understand that Trudy’s interview was an opinion piece (realistically, it could be nothing but

    an opinion piece). However, we reported on how the press reported on this article. The

    inference of Trudy’s, and the BBC’s article, was clearly that “The P.I.T.” were quite excited

    to have photographed “the ghost of Judge Jeffreys”. If this view does not match what “The

    P.I.T.” believe, then perhaps you could ask the BBC to ammend the original article to reflect

    what “The P.I.T.” believe?

    I understand that you released a “press pack” with the images, however I am unaware if the BBC

    also received that. If they did, then perhaps you have grounds to force a retraction? Your

    request to have the statement from the “press pack” included in the article (as a point of

    balance) is superflous, as It was already included in the original article (see above).

    We are all subject to bias, and “The P.I.T.” is no exception. We all have our inate belief

    systems firmly rooted in place. Looking at other images on “The P.I.T.” website, there are

    images of “spirit lights” and “orbs”. Both of these “phenomena” have long established

    explanations, and yet “The P.I.T.” does not offer those explanations. What is this if not

    bias? The only other reasonable explanation is wilful ignorance.

    Please feel free to disgree with this theory, it is after all your perogative to do so. I am

    not upset or in any way bothered that you did not accept it immediately. Sceptics are not like

    “believers” in that respect. We do not throw our rattle out of the pram when people do not

    accept what we say. We usually just try a different approach. I can guarantee you that this

    was not a person in a sheet, nor falling plaster, nor a “localised mist” whatever that is.

    Please feel free to test those theories however, to exclude them fully.

  17. Hi Bob.
    Thanks for your reply. I am pleased we seem to have cleared the misunderstanding and that you are happy to test the theory of reflection that you and others have put forward, I have also taken your comments regarding the orb and spirit light photos that are on the site,accept that it could give the impression of a bias towards the belief of paranormal in all phenomenon. Our intention was to ‘voice both sides of the coin’ however since the site is still expanding we have perhaps not represented that as well as we might have on the site.however as I said I have taken your comments on board and will work on addressing these as when I have the opportunity to do so.

    as I said I (and the P.I.T) apologise if we misunderstood your piece or the motives behind it. and accept that your piece was your attempt to gather the background around the photos as well as to voice the theory/probable cause in your opinion. a opinion that we respect as well as we would those made by any other,

    I am sending a personal to Hayley and would have done to yourself if I had your email address.

    Regards Steve

  18. Hi Bob.
    Thanks for your reply. I am pleased we seem to have cleared the misunderstanding and that you are happy to test the theory of reflection that you and others have put forward, I have also taken your comments regarding the orb and spirit light photos that are on the site,accept that it could give the impression of a bias towards the belief of paranormal in all phenomenon. Our intention was to ‘voice both sides of the coin’ however since the site is still expanding we have perhaps not represented that as well as we might have on the site.however as I said I have taken your comments on board and will work on addressing these as when I have the opportunity to do so.

    as I said I (and the P.I.T) apologise if we misunderstood your piece or the motives behind it. and accept that your piece was your attempt to gather the background around the photos as well as to voice the theory/probable cause in your opinion. a opinion that we respect as well as we would those made by any other,

    I am sending a personal to Hayley and would have done to yourself if I had your email address.

    Regards Steve

  19. @steve

    I never suggested that the image in the photo was made using mirrors or torches. It was purely a simulation to see if i could reproduce the precise shape and diffuse lighting effect in Judge Jeffires purely by reflection. If you substitute glass for mirror and flash for torch, the same principle applies. It’s just much easier to use a torch to do such experiments rather than taking hundreds of flash photos (though now I know the right conditions it would easy to reproduce with a camera). I was interested in understanding the general principle involved because it may happen again in other cases elsewhere and almost certainly already has. I might look through some old ‘ghost photos’ to see if there are any similar to it.

    The shape was easy to reproduce, just a question of getting the right angles. I believe I’ve identified the main factors involved in producing the diffuse light. It is a question of projecting the reflection onto the right sort of surface over the right kind of distance. Also, a flat reflecting surface works best.

  20. @steve

    I never suggested that the image in the photo was made using mirrors or torches. It was purely a simulation to see if i could reproduce the precise shape and diffuse lighting effect in Judge Jeffires purely by reflection. If you substitute glass for mirror and flash for torch, the same principle applies. It’s just much easier to use a torch to do such experiments rather than taking hundreds of flash photos (though now I know the right conditions it would easy to reproduce with a camera). I was interested in understanding the general principle involved because it may happen again in other cases elsewhere and almost certainly already has. I might look through some old ‘ghost photos’ to see if there are any similar to it.

    The shape was easy to reproduce, just a question of getting the right angles. I believe I’ve identified the main factors involved in producing the diffuse light. It is a question of projecting the reflection onto the right sort of surface over the right kind of distance. Also, a flat reflecting surface works best.

  21. @HGW sorry I didnt mean that you had sugested mirrors/torches where used in the actual photos just meant to clarify that for anyone that may have only read that comment and not bothered to read up…..it happens.

    I havent yet tried your method of torches and mirrors. but will do so…. the only variables I would say should be considered are that when using this to simulate the effect.(and these are not necessarily aimed at you HGW
    are that –
    a) some have commented that the ‘reflective object’ appears warped in the photo so may have a effect on this. also while it does show some reflection it is not a mirror and would have received relatively little light from the camera flash as the fall off is a fair distance in the foreground,
    I will be checking this and if I can get the surface to show accurately in a photo will document this also as well as test the ammount of light needed in the ‘sweet spot’ to create a image of similar intensity

    b) the surface the ‘light pattern?’ is reflected on to is in fact a part of a actual Roman mosaic flooring and hense is not very even nor is it particularly smooth or reflective
    again this is something I will try to document and assess if this makes any difference.

    while I realise it is not the intention of your simulation to cover all the aspects it is important to compare it to the actual scenario to consider those effects

    I thank you for your sugestions and welcome any others you might have

    Stev

    • Steve, I am really confused by your response to the suggestions put forwards because you say you want to be able to dismiss this oddity as not paranormal and yet with every possibility given you knock it down as being improbable. You need to introduce yourself to Occams Razor.

      • @hayley. perhaps personally I sometimes play the devils advocate a little too well……maybe thats something I need to work on…
        ahmy point is that while I respect and acknowledge the views I am given there is always a alternate view that should in its very least be considered

        ahhh……lex parsimoniae… (ok ok i looked it up) 😛
        however I could follow …..the simplest explanation is always the best”, the reverse corollary — that the best explanation is not always the simplest? or as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (via)the great (but fictional) sleuth sherlock homes put it “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” or the more cynical view of “Crabtree’s Bludgeon, ‘No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.’

        however in truth I personal go with none of these as a set in stone rule- my point is that while I respect and acknowledge the views I am given there is always a alternate view that should in its very least be considered and acknowledged and in this case simply want to prove the ‘actual cause’ within reasonable doubt beyond evidence that may or may not be visible in the very images that are in question, and where there are variables that come into play, then to prove or dismiss them as having a effect. the initial intention of the testing of the theories given , all of them including the paranormal explanation
        (although paranormal explanations would be the hardest if not impossible to actually prove- we might be able to disprove it by ilimination)
        -as a theory is neither to prove or dismiss them as if I went with that in mind one could say the findings would be biased. the intention is to prove and record the outcome whatever that will be. ( I hope I have explained that correctly ..but I know what I mean in my head :S )

        I did not mean to dispute the simulation HGW has provided which is usefully in its self . but to open up factors and variables that he could try to simulate the effect of, and see if it makes any difference to his out come. perhaps more as a interest to him then anything but also to allow others to try to recreate the images ‘in as similar environment as possible. after all beyond testing theories we all share a ultimate goal… to find the ‘Truth’ or to provide as much evidence to point to the truth as possible,whatever that truth be.

        I do actually remain open to reflection been the cause as does the P.I.T however prior attempts had failed to recreate it but we have taken on board the suggestions about narrow positioning margin and the need to get exactly the same angle and also the possibility that objects may have moved since. we will also as suggested use ‘artificial lighting ‘ie torches and laser pen and as suggested elsewhere if all that fails introduce another reflective surface possibly a mirror at the required angle to compare the images.

        Thanks steve

    • @steve

      Firstly, the reflection off the glass in the ‘Judge Jeffries’ photo is surprisingly strong. Nothing else in the area comes close to it in terms of brightness. I’m not sure why it is so bright but the evidence is there of high reflectivity. Possibly it is shiny metal or even a small mirror. Warping might affect the shape of ‘Judge Jeffries’ but the relative angles of the light source, reflective surface and floor can explain on their own the shape (as my experiments show)

      Secondly, looking at a photo of the same scene on Flickr (search for Dorset County Museum), the floor where the Judge Jeffries ‘image’ appears looks to be ordinary red and white floor tiles.There is a Roman mosaic in the foreground but that is some distance way from area we are talking about. I belive the JJ image is on the red and white tiles just outside the hall. There are then a set of black tiles in front of them, inside the hall, and finally in front of them, the mosaic, well inside the hall.

      Given these points, I don’t see there is any major difference between my simulation and the actual situation on the ground. What would be very useful is some ordinary close up daylight photos of the whole area where the reflective surface and ‘ghost’ appear? Do you have any, or could you obtain some, please?

      The crucial point for me was explaining the diffuse light shape. I believe this is caused by the fact that the projected light is some way from the reflector. This spreads the reflected light out over a large area, literally diffusing it! I’m sure there are other such ‘ghost’ phiotos around with the same explanation.

  22. @HGW sorry I didnt mean that you had sugested mirrors/torches where used in the actual photos just meant to clarify that for anyone that may have only read that comment and not bothered to read up…..it happens.

    I havent yet tried your method of torches and mirrors. but will do so…. the only variables I would say should be considered are that when using this to simulate the effect.(and these are not necessarily aimed at you HGW
    are that –
    a) some have commented that the ‘reflective object’ appears warped in the photo so may have a effect on this. also while it does show some reflection it is not a mirror and would have received relatively little light from the camera flash as the fall off is a fair distance in the foreground,
    I will be checking this and if I can get the surface to show accurately in a photo will document this also as well as test the ammount of light needed in the ‘sweet spot’ to create a image of similar intensity

    b) the surface the ‘light pattern?’ is reflected on to is in fact a part of a actual Roman mosaic flooring and hense is not very even nor is it particularly smooth or reflective
    again this is something I will try to document and assess if this makes any difference.

    while I realise it is not the intention of your simulation to cover all the aspects it is important to compare it to the actual scenario to consider those effects

    I thank you for your sugestions and welcome any others you might have

    Stev

    • Steve, I am really confused by your response to the suggestions put forwards because you say you want to be able to dismiss this oddity as not paranormal and yet with every possibility given you knock it down as being improbable. You need to introduce yourself to Occams Razor.

      • @hayley. perhaps personally I sometimes play the devils advocate a little too well……maybe thats something I need to work on…
        ahmy point is that while I respect and acknowledge the views I am given there is always a alternate view that should in its very least be considered

        ahhh……lex parsimoniae… (ok ok i looked it up) 😛
        however I could follow …..the simplest explanation is always the best”, the reverse corollary — that the best explanation is not always the simplest? or as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (via)the great (but fictional) sleuth sherlock homes put it “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” or the more cynical view of “Crabtree’s Bludgeon, ‘No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.’

        however in truth I personal go with none of these as a set in stone rule- my point is that while I respect and acknowledge the views I am given there is always a alternate view that should in its very least be considered and acknowledged and in this case simply want to prove the ‘actual cause’ within reasonable doubt beyond evidence that may or may not be visible in the very images that are in question, and where there are variables that come into play, then to prove or dismiss them as having a effect. the initial intention of the testing of the theories given , all of them including the paranormal explanation
        (although paranormal explanations would be the hardest if not impossible to actually prove- we might be able to disprove it by ilimination)
        -as a theory is neither to prove or dismiss them as if I went with that in mind one could say the findings would be biased. the intention is to prove and record the outcome whatever that will be. ( I hope I have explained that correctly ..but I know what I mean in my head :S )

        I did not mean to dispute the simulation HGW has provided which is usefully in its self . but to open up factors and variables that he could try to simulate the effect of, and see if it makes any difference to his out come. perhaps more as a interest to him then anything but also to allow others to try to recreate the images ‘in as similar environment as possible. after all beyond testing theories we all share a ultimate goal… to find the ‘Truth’ or to provide as much evidence to point to the truth as possible,whatever that truth be.

        I do actually remain open to reflection been the cause as does the P.I.T however prior attempts had failed to recreate it but we have taken on board the suggestions about narrow positioning margin and the need to get exactly the same angle and also the possibility that objects may have moved since. we will also as suggested use ‘artificial lighting ‘ie torches and laser pen and as suggested elsewhere if all that fails introduce another reflective surface possibly a mirror at the required angle to compare the images.

        Thanks steve

    • @steve

      Firstly, the reflection off the glass in the ‘Judge Jeffries’ photo is surprisingly strong. Nothing else in the area comes close to it in terms of brightness. I’m not sure why it is so bright but the evidence is there of high reflectivity. Possibly it is shiny metal or even a small mirror. Warping might affect the shape of ‘Judge Jeffries’ but the relative angles of the light source, reflective surface and floor can explain on their own the shape (as my experiments show)

      Secondly, looking at a photo of the same scene on Flickr (search for Dorset County Museum), the floor where the Judge Jeffries ‘image’ appears looks to be ordinary red and white floor tiles.There is a Roman mosaic in the foreground but that is some distance way from area we are talking about. I belive the JJ image is on the red and white tiles just outside the hall. There are then a set of black tiles in front of them, inside the hall, and finally in front of them, the mosaic, well inside the hall.

      Given these points, I don’t see there is any major difference between my simulation and the actual situation on the ground. What would be very useful is some ordinary close up daylight photos of the whole area where the reflective surface and ‘ghost’ appear? Do you have any, or could you obtain some, please?

      The crucial point for me was explaining the diffuse light shape. I believe this is caused by the fact that the projected light is some way from the reflector. This spreads the reflected light out over a large area, literally diffusing it! I’m sure there are other such ‘ghost’ phiotos around with the same explanation.

  23. I feel a good example of why explanations and sciences should questioned and not taken for granted i my own opinion lays within a reply by bob earlier on where he states

    “, the science works regardless of
    location. If you make a cup of tea in London or China, the water will still boil at 100°C or
    212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (at sea level, with no impurities). ”

    I do not dispute the science here and in general would agree. however if I question what’s said to me and use the information bob has provided he seems to be right…..
    I cant add salt or any other chemical since he specifies – no impurities and he also specifies sea level so I cant use a increase/decrease in atmosphere, to argue his statement. but if I was to accept it as fact without looking into the variables then I would have completely ignored super heating of water which can be done easily in a microwave( strongly recommend you don’t try this unless you want to be scolded!) see http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/superheating.htm I am sure there are probably other variables that could also be brought into play…

    I have included bobs statement purely as a example of how we all sometimes assume a result based on what we know..and how this can lead us to the wrong conclusion unless we test the theory and question the variables.

    I do not mean to discredit bobs information or bob by this I am aware his statement was to provide a specific demonstration which it did and was not meant as a science lesson. and I hope he takes no offence

    Steve

  24. I feel a good example of why explanations and sciences should questioned and not taken for granted i my own opinion lays within a reply by bob earlier on where he states

    “, the science works regardless of
    location. If you make a cup of tea in London or China, the water will still boil at 100°C or
    212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (at sea level, with no impurities). ”

    I do not dispute the science here and in general would agree. however if I question what’s said to me and use the information bob has provided he seems to be right…..
    I cant add salt or any other chemical since he specifies – no impurities and he also specifies sea level so I cant use a increase/decrease in atmosphere, to argue his statement. but if I was to accept it as fact without looking into the variables then I would have completely ignored super heating of water which can be done easily in a microwave( strongly recommend you don’t try this unless you want to be scolded!) see http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/superheating.htm I am sure there are probably other variables that could also be brought into play…

    I have included bobs statement purely as a example of how we all sometimes assume a result based on what we know..and how this can lead us to the wrong conclusion unless we test the theory and question the variables.

    I do not mean to discredit bobs information or bob by this I am aware his statement was to provide a specific demonstration which it did and was not meant as a science lesson. and I hope he takes no offence

    Steve

  25. @steve

    I have no problem at all with you coming up with points to show my simulation may not apply in this case. As you will see, in my previous remarks,however, I believe I answered your points to show that, in my opinion with the information I currently have available, my simulation DOES apply here.

    In general, however, you are completely right to challenge what others say. If all scientists just agreed with all existing scientific theories, there would never be any progress in science at all. There will always be things that I didn’t think of and things you didn’t think of. By discussing them together we can move towards a better idea of what is actually happening out there in the real world. So please go ahead and put your case and I’ll reply to it. Every point discussed and agreed is one more step towards the truth.

    If we just say ‘oh it looks like a reflection’ that doesn’t achieve anything useful. Firstly, it needs to be replicated to confirm. Secondly, it needs to be understood how it happened in detail. It gives us a ‘signature’ to look out for in future cases making reflection something much quicker and easier to eliminate. That is the true value of such a study.

  26. @steve

    I have no problem at all with you coming up with points to show my simulation may not apply in this case. As you will see, in my previous remarks,however, I believe I answered your points to show that, in my opinion with the information I currently have available, my simulation DOES apply here.

    In general, however, you are completely right to challenge what others say. If all scientists just agreed with all existing scientific theories, there would never be any progress in science at all. There will always be things that I didn’t think of and things you didn’t think of. By discussing them together we can move towards a better idea of what is actually happening out there in the real world. So please go ahead and put your case and I’ll reply to it. Every point discussed and agreed is one more step towards the truth.

    If we just say ‘oh it looks like a reflection’ that doesn’t achieve anything useful. Firstly, it needs to be replicated to confirm. Secondly, it needs to be understood how it happened in detail. It gives us a ‘signature’ to look out for in future cases making reflection something much quicker and easier to eliminate. That is the true value of such a study.

  27. @ HGW. I do think that your model applies in principle (although I still want to try it ‘on location’) but just wanted to point out some factors that I felt could effect your simulation as I say more out of interest then to point holes in your simulation, I am pleased you appreciate my position on questioning the sciences used. It is often mistook for disrespect of the informant or information provided. however nothing could be further from the truth, if I question a theory it is because I am putting it to the test to validate it in my own mind or to find the holes in the argument that others may find at a latter date when its not possible to confirm or research accurately.

    after all if I didn’t think the theory was worth piddly, I wouldn’t credit it with my time in exploring it in such detail.

    In respect of the daylight photos you requested I don’t have any however, I am happy to see if I can make a appointment with Dr jon Murdon director of Dorset County Museum to visit the site next week to get the requested images….. assuming they authorise our distributing those,,,

  28. @ HGW. I do think that your model applies in principle (although I still want to try it ‘on location’) but just wanted to point out some factors that I felt could effect your simulation as I say more out of interest then to point holes in your simulation, I am pleased you appreciate my position on questioning the sciences used. It is often mistook for disrespect of the informant or information provided. however nothing could be further from the truth, if I question a theory it is because I am putting it to the test to validate it in my own mind or to find the holes in the argument that others may find at a latter date when its not possible to confirm or research accurately.

    after all if I didn’t think the theory was worth piddly, I wouldn’t credit it with my time in exploring it in such detail.

    In respect of the daylight photos you requested I don’t have any however, I am happy to see if I can make a appointment with Dr jon Murdon director of Dorset County Museum to visit the site next week to get the requested images….. assuming they authorise our distributing those,,,

  29. since much of my discussion now is becoming more from a personal stand point I decided perhaps I should make that clearer by using a alter ego 😛 but will revert to steve (P.I.T) if I need to make a statement on behalf of the team

    @ HGW as previously noted I am workin on getting the daylight photos for you, however I did also realise that the composite image entitled ‘Daylight with “Judge Jeffreys” Overlay’ on the ghost theory site does appear to show the what could be described as just below waist down is on the mosaic floor however this area is very faint and the appearance could be due to pareadolia effect. what might prove noteworthy is that the image appears stronger/clearer at what could be described as the head and top body which is on the differing floor type…..however if the image is reflection then that could be accounted by the fall off from the reflected light.

    • Thanks Steve

      I look forward to seeing the daylight photos and the results of your tests when you do them. You can tell a lot from a photo but more research on the ground is always the way to go when possible.

  30. since much of my discussion now is becoming more from a personal stand point I decided perhaps I should make that clearer by using a alter ego 😛 but will revert to steve (P.I.T) if I need to make a statement on behalf of the team

    @ HGW as previously noted I am workin on getting the daylight photos for you, however I did also realise that the composite image entitled ‘Daylight with “Judge Jeffreys” Overlay’ on the ghost theory site does appear to show the what could be described as just below waist down is on the mosaic floor however this area is very faint and the appearance could be due to pareadolia effect. what might prove noteworthy is that the image appears stronger/clearer at what could be described as the head and top body which is on the differing floor type…..however if the image is reflection then that could be accounted by the fall off from the reflected light.

    • Thanks Steve

      I look forward to seeing the daylight photos and the results of your tests when you do them. You can tell a lot from a photo but more research on the ground is always the way to go when possible.

  31. Hi HGW and All., I just wanted to let you know We probably wont be back to the museum for quite some time because they have now decided to charge approx £300 for paranormal teams to investigate there. I cant help feeling we have been let down by them but it seems this is the way it often goes when a team makes a location popular, whether it be due to financial potential or wanted fame is for the individual to decide and certainly not one I or the P.I.T would make judgement on.

    However maybe another team with more funds will be able to try out the ideas that where put forward here and elsewhere………a pity because obviously The PIT had wanted to be the ones that got to the bottom of those images,,,,,not to be though

    I felt I should get back to you on this as you have all been very constructive and helpful

    Steve

    • Did you honestly not see that coming though, Steve? I certainly did.

      • Hi Hayley. Thanks for your comment, Yes we did kinda see it coming its not the first time for a paranormal group to have it happen, however we had hoped they would have allowed us an hour to carry out the experiments suggested. In my personal view I can see that there may be a temptation to protect the unconfirmed element of the images but since any paranormal group following this will probably aim to debunk/confirm the photos anyway….I dont know…..but that is my own view and admittedly just me guessing at the timing,

        anyway thanks again for your help on this

        steve

  32. Hi HGW and All., I just wanted to let you know We probably wont be back to the museum for quite some time because they have now decided to charge approx £300 for paranormal teams to investigate there. I cant help feeling we have been let down by them but it seems this is the way it often goes when a team makes a location popular, whether it be due to financial potential or wanted fame is for the individual to decide and certainly not one I or the P.I.T would make judgement on.

    However maybe another team with more funds will be able to try out the ideas that where put forward here and elsewhere………a pity because obviously The PIT had wanted to be the ones that got to the bottom of those images,,,,,not to be though

    I felt I should get back to you on this as you have all been very constructive and helpful

    Steve

    • Did you honestly not see that coming though, Steve? I certainly did.

      • Hi Hayley. Thanks for your comment, Yes we did kinda see it coming its not the first time for a paranormal group to have it happen, however we had hoped they would have allowed us an hour to carry out the experiments suggested. In my personal view I can see that there may be a temptation to protect the unconfirmed element of the images but since any paranormal group following this will probably aim to debunk/confirm the photos anyway….I dont know…..but that is my own view and admittedly just me guessing at the timing,

        anyway thanks again for your help on this

        steve

  33. What a shame! It’s just the way things go these days.

  34. What a shame! It’s just the way things go these days.

  1. Pingback: Ghost of Hanging Judge: Hi-Res Photos Released | Gnorml

  2. Pingback: Ghost of Hanging Judge: Hi-Res Photos Released | Gnorml

  3. Pingback: The Worst 5 Ghosts of 2010 « BARsoc.org

  4. Pingback: The Worst 5 Ghosts of 2010 « BARsoc.org

  5. Pingback: The 5 Worst Ghosts of 2010 « BARsoc.org

  6. Pingback: The 5 Worst Ghosts of 2010 « BARsoc.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: