I was recently referred by a friend to a woman living in rural Michigan with strange tales about her haunted home. For the past two years, she and her daughter have experienced countess unexplainable phenomena in the 130-year-old house. While she has been too terrified to attempt any audio recordings, she has taken hundreds of photographs hoping to gather some evidence to support her claims.
As is often the case, many of the images relayed to me by the owner are too difficult to judge as "paranormal" in nature. She does not use a flash, afraid that it could adversely effect any ghostly phenomena, therefore many of the images are darkened beyond recognition. Yet one stands out above the rest. After her dog began reacting to some unseen presence, she snapped a photograph in her living room in the direction of her dog's agitation.
What appeared on the left side of the image was the figure you see here* to the left of the text. No one else was in the home at the time. It might appear menacing to some, though I feel it could easily be a teenage boy dressed in Goth clothing.
As I help her find a local investigation team to explore her case, I can't help but wonder about the effects of camera flash in investigation techniques. Perhaps she's on to something. Would the same results have occurred with a flash? Everyone has their own unique methods of capturing evidence. It might be something interesting to try in the future... even though I loathe the digital camera and its use in investigations.
So, just what else have we been missing while blinding each other with brilliant halogen flashes? Instead of highlighting dust "orbs" and mosquito "faeries", could we be missing the good stuff?
*The image was brightened for this post for clarification.