|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Supporting the
Paranormal |
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Vault |
| |
|
A Brief Look
Inside INFINITY's Released Residental Case Files |
 |
| Case: BluBoy
R1-1999 |
Photo analyzed by Sherry Boneau. Photo analyzed by Sherry Boneau. Inverted. Defining objects and proportions within the parameter that could or could not have influenced the anomaly found in the photo.
INFIN rules out all physical reasoning for the body shaped anomaly.
Recreation of the anomaly was not possible. INFIN decides the shape and size of the anomaly may be a supporting factor the residence owners were correct to assume the activity within their home with often sightings of a small boy were correct. Could this be the image of a manifestation of energy in progress? INFIN thinks the possibilty is supported. Although most photographs captured on location during this investigation showed no other supporting factors, INFIN calls the decision this residence may have been visited by what the owners refer to as "Danny". There have been multiple events that have taken place over the course of three years to support the possibility the entity also resides here with the family.
|
| |
|
Case: Atwell
L1-01 (Photo Analysis Tips) |
|
|
|
|
Photo Analysis Step 1. Marking unidentified objects. Increasing Luminosity and Contrasts. Inverting images and increasing contrasts. Analyzing photos isn't a "See & Speak" process. INFIN is unable to recreate the anomaly or entities found in this photograph. Another photo variation during analysis procedure. Highest definition through photo analysis.
During photo analysis, any anomalies or objects you are unsure of its nature should be marked so that during the post-investigation evaluation of your location, you can define if it is indeed an actual object you failed to recall or something perhaps you should be interested in trying to recreate or define through nonphysical reasoning. Nothing should be considered paranormal until you can otherwise rule out all alternatives. By removing the color in a photo and increasing contrast allows the photograph to show depth of an actual object. The farther away an object is in the photo, the lighter the shade. This supports the fact that objects found in photos are 3-dimensional and in the process rule the possibility of lense contamination in the photo. (ie. finger prints, debris, etc.) This process also is effective when reviewing anomalies. This process not so much shows definition or depth of an object in a photo but allows an anomaly or unidentified object to present its shape. The process helps define if there is more than one anomaly or object overlapping in an image. On many occasions, investigators lay claim to an entity or apparition when in fact it is only a compilation of several objects creating the image of an object. A better example of the often mistaken capture is when you find a face in tree leaves. Also known as "matrixing". There are several tips and tricks to use when analyzing photographs. Learning which light and layers and the effects they may have on a photo could be more time consuming but is efficient, effective and a required procedure to an proper image analysis. Looking at a photograph and stating what you see in the image is not a proper analysis, but instead only an opinion of the viewer. We believe these analysis photos help support the image hosts not one, but three seperate entities. Each with distinct characterisitics. This variation is not only showing the anomalies in better definition, but also supports there are three seperate apparitions. This image we believe supports the presence of three seperate apparitions or entities. The objects in the photograph do not blend with one object but instead shows they are between two solid and identified objects. These apparitions or entities appear to be approaching the photographer during an investigation at a cemetery. Photo taken by INFINITY Paranormal Investigations Network. 2001.
Photo Analysis Step 1. Marking unidentified objects.
During photo analysis, any anomalies or objects you are unsure of its nature should be marked so that during the post-investigation evaluation of your location, you can define if it is indeed an actual object you failed to recall or something perhaps you should be interested in trying to recreate or define through nonphysical reasoning. Nothing should be considered paranormal until you can otherwise rule out all alternatives.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|