What makes you think I’m being rude or sarcastic? (Then again, it is my website, so I can be sarcastic when I want to… though I like to think I’m never rude.)

I was being serious. The purpose of this website, from its beginnings in the 1990s, has been to provide information that encourages others to do their own, unique, and in-depth paranormal research. Our current theories and answers are generally unsupported in terms of the scientific method. That’s a problem when dealing with skeptics.

It’s also a major Achilles heel in continuing, extrapolative research in this field. We can’t decide what photographic anomalies are until we’re at least 90% certain what they aren’t.

In general, the more I research, the more I’m convinced that many of our current answers aren’t quite right. They may even be far afield of what’s really going on at apparently haunted locations.

I believe in ghosts and spirits. I believe that something is going on at many “haunted” locations. However, we cannot connect the dots between ghosts and hauntings… not with our current evidence, anyway.

We need more and better research, especially when there seem to be logical, normal explanations.

Dadeus’ explanations might be right. What I’d like to see (or at least encourage) is Daedus’ study of this area of paranormal research and “ghost” photography. I think we need far more serious, investigative research into the anomalies caused by curved and reflective surfaces. As you saw in my recent book about ghost photos, my own results were a startling contrast with what I’d believed, prior to more than three years of intensive study of anomalous photos, what causes them, and what we’ve blamed them on and — as it turns out — aren’t likely causes.

Though it’s easy to become dogmatic in this field, since we have so little hard evidence to work with, I’m dismayed when someone thinks I’m being rude or sarcastic.

It’s been over three years since I made that comment to Daedus.

He — or she — had said, “I haven’t experimented with this yet..,” which suggested that he was planning to. However, he also said, “All in all, this is a good example of some very nice craftsmanship, but that’s it.” (emphasis added) The latter suggests that he’d made up his mind before investigating the alternatives. To me, that also suggests a closed mind; I don’t have a lot of patience with that, but I do my best not to let that affect the dialogue.

I’m especially dismayed that no one has posted results from the kind of research I suggested. Curved and reflective surfaces are a topic of significant debate in this field, and my own research has only made this topic more confusing; I’ve merely documented the likelihood that our usual assumptions may be flawed.

We need more research related to ghost photos, and — in general — we need more serious researchers in this field.

Sincerely,
Fiona Broome

Meanwhile, whether the effect is subliminal or paranormal, the apparent “eyes” staring at us give us the chills. We’ve never seen this on any other gravestone, including others with eyes in deaths heads.

Whatever the reason for the eyes on that stone, it’s a “good scare” that we appreciate as something unusual after seeing thousands of photos with orbs and vortex-type streaks.