Analysis No.: 001977
Batch: 01
Lot: O1
Total Runs: 04
Total Verification Runs: 02
Photo Analysis Results: Concerning the Photo Titled "Hantu UiTM(3).
Submitted By: University Technology of Mara Ghost (MALAYSIA)
Description: This is a picture of ghost carried a baby that i got through my friend studied at UiTM (University Technology of Mara). From said, he was photograph of his friend (3 of them) near the Universiti training hotel (UNITEKMA Resort Hotel).
Additional Comments: p/s : really hope to get your feed-back through this e-mail. Need your comment.....
Submitted By: syahnizam "syahrul" syahnizam@hotmail.com
Result of Analysis: On initial examination, this photograph appears to have been taken using passive night optic equipment of Generation I or II.The type of film used and exact type of equipment is unknown and undetermined.The subject of the photograph seems to represent a semi-materialized apparition of a woman, holding a small child.
After a general analysis of this photograph, involving examination under extreme magnification and enhancement, including a section by section scan of the photograph, which entailed an overall scan in sixteen sections as well as a separate scan of each major component of the photograph, it is our opinion that the photograph is, in fact, a composite of several photographs, compiled at different times during the processing procedure, or possibly a digital composite, which was assembled to be presented as a single photograph.
(1.) The background of the photograph is not distinct, and even for a photograph taken with passive night optic equipment, is clearly not within the focal range of the equipment, in relation to the target area. There is apparent "dodging" of the background which deliberately obliterates houses, or buildings which are, nevertheless visible through what should be consistent shrubbery or trees. Lights from houses, visible on the right central segment of the photograph, are of a brightness not consistent with the remainder of the photograph, and far too distinct, with respect to other background items.
(2.) The "bar" or "rays" which extend from the extreme right of the photo, to a point just short of the center, approximately half way from top to bottom, seem to indicate movement of some sort, most likely a small object, which was layered onto the photograph. It is not consistent with the most common cause of this phenomenon, which would be the movement of a small object, between the photographer and the target area, nor is it consistent with any known flaw in processing.This "bar" extends over the pole or support, and gives indications of having been "erased" as it "enters" the apparent anomaly, as it terminates suddenly, just short of the left shoulder of the apparent anomaly, rather than "fading" as normal lines of movement would otherwise do.
(3.) The target, which seems to be a female figure, partially materialized, and wearing either a shroud or a "sari" type costume, shows signs of being layered onto an existing background. The figure is not of consistent texture with other portions of the photograph, and is in some places, particularly, in the area of the head and upper torso, "outlined", although faintly, indicating that it has been applied to the base photo at a later time, and subsequently re-photographed, or copied to produce the effect of being a part of the original photo.. This is evident by comparing the supposed apparition with the image of what appears to be an electric or telephone pole or support, immediately to the right of the apparition, which is obviously of the same texture and consistency as the base photo.
(4.) The facial area of the primary apparition has apparently been "dodged" to erase the most predominate features of the woman. This is apparent by comparison of the immediate facial area to that of the clothing surrounding it.
(5.) Importantly, shadowing apparent on the apparition is not consistent with shadowing produced by the ambient light in the base photo.The source of light on the apparition is obviously coming from a higher angle, and different direction than that of the base. Light striking the apparent apparition is directed on it from slightly above and to the right, while lighting on the base photograph is from a point almost directly in front, and at a level parallel to the lens of the apparatus used to take the photograph.
(6.) The "child" held by the primary apparition appears to be a common child's doll of a type seen in any toy store. Magnification at 800x indicates that this doll is of a semi-rigid type, with legs either of cast plastic or of porcelain. The apparent apparition of the "child" is also not, under examination, of an age consistent with a child of the size portrayed.
(7.) While some background is visible "through" the apparent apparition, the consistency of this background is not in keeping with the degree of manifestation supposedly witnessed. There is a distinct "horizon" line apparent at what should be the level of the apparition's knees, which is consistent throughout the photograph, and remains sharp, not distorted by the apparition as it "passes through" the figure, while other aspects of the background, at the same level, are distorted.
(8.) The overall color and the consistency of the color seen in the photo is uneven. It varies widely, from point to point, being far brighter in the lower areas than at the top. However, a narrow, bright "stripe" at the top of the photo is clearly visible, as is one on the extreme left border of the photograph, extending approximately 2/3 of the way up the border, and visible, in a lower magnitude, completely to the top of the photograph. The portion of the photograph representing the roadway and apparent "curb" are lighted from directly in front, and at an intensity far greater than the remainder of the photo. However, this difference is unnatural, with no graduation into the darker portions of the photograph. The remainder of the photograph seems to have been either subjected to a common "wash", or "layering" to vary the intensity of the light.
Conclusion: This is a composite photograph, either assembled digitally or by a process of layering and re-photographing or re-copying a series of originals, possibly transparencies, in negative, with slight coloration added, either digitally or with a common wash, at some stage in the processing procedure, to give the appearance of being a single, coherent photograph, taken with Generation I or II passive night optical equipment. While it would seem to be a very complex effort, in light of analysis, it would seem to be a rather elaborate hoax. It does not, in fact, represent a true anomaly.
Analysis Conducted By: Ivan P. Podkriskin
Analysis Supervised By: Orel M. Gray
CPP&AL/MVD/RF/MOS/26RGT
WinterSteel Productions
