On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:34 AM, cathy wrote:

> This was 1 out of 41 pictures I took that evening.It was around  
> 10pm on Oct,24,2004.
> . . . .


Hi Cathy :-)

The picture is very interesting!  Thanks for sending it to the list.   
You may have mentioned this before, but where is the location?  What  
kind of camera was it?  In particular, was it film or digital?

> It looks to me like the old vaudeville, & later movie star, Jimmy  
> Durante!
> . . . .
> I've heard of bones of old Indians being found during construction  
> of the surrounding area within a few blocks & my husband,who grew  
> up in this area says it's suppose to have been an old burial ground.
> . . . .
>


This is news to me.  I never knew that Jimmy Durante was Indian. ;-)

> I know that it wasn't cold enough to have any condensation in the air.
> . . . .

How do you know that?  It doesn't necessarily have to be cold to get  
condensation; it's a combination of temperature, humidity, and air  
pressure.  I don't suppose you happen to know what the dew point was  
that night?  Was the ground moist at all?  Were there any clouds in  
the sky?  Is it possible that someone standing nearby (including  
yourself) exhaled just as the shutter was snapped?

> All the rest of the pics were totally a black page. Like I had  
> taken pictures of nothing.
> . . . .

So, apparently there's some major difference in how this one picture  
was taken.  In this one, obviously, the tree in the foreground is  
illuminated.  Is that because you used a flash?  Or were the aperture/ 
shutter settings radically different on this one?

I notice that the illumination of the tree is also "blotchy" in  
appearance, similar to the "mystery substance" in the air.  This  
suggests to me that whatever's in the air is a real, physical object  
and it's weird appearance is caused by something unusual in the  
illumination.  Unless, that is, the tree is a ghost tree. ;-)

Was the tree illuminated in any of the 40 other pictures?  If not,  
why not?  Maybe the flash was on the verge of failing, or the battery  
was on the verge of being dead; which might account for the "blotchy"  
illumination.

> SO I can only assume it's a capture of a spirit or spirits.
> . . . .

Hmmm.  I'm not sure I follow your logic, which seems to go something  
like this: "I don't know what it is and I've ruled out a few  
possibilities, therefore it must be the spirit of a dead person."

> I also have a roll of film that when I had it developed came out  
> with so many different exposures on each frame it looked as if it  
> was a life time of our family pictures in the whole roll. It's hard  
> to explain, but I'll dig them up too. The strangest thing of all  
> was that there are things in the pictures & places we don't have a  
> clue as to where or what they are. BUT the STRANGEST thing of all  
> was the first photo when I opened the package after getting them  
> developed. It was a picture of my son's picture on one side & then  
> the oher half was of him standing in my Mom's kitchen (600 miles  
> away) & I know for a fact that this camera & film had never been  
> near my Mom's because they had both been dead for many years before  
> I developed the film.My son had committed suicide many years prior  
> to me even buying the film. & I haven't a clue as to who took a  
> picture of the last picture of him! Strange things happen for me in  
> pictures I'll tell you!
> Well I'll attach those pictures now & you can let me know what you  
> think.
> . . . .

Sounds very interesting.  Would love to see them!

Cheers,
Greg