The Most Haunted House In America

[Lolipopkid]

Jerry, was that picture taken in the living room area? Was it close to the stair case? If so I just debunked your headless picture. I'm sorry I wanted it to be true, but if that is indeed where the photo was taken than I can tell you exactly what occurred in the photo.

[PerVirtuous]

If we look in the box near the bottom we see a reflection that appears to be in glass between the subjects

and the camera lense, because it covers her feet. If we look at the box over the chair, it also shows dust

and a hair defining a piece of glass between the subjects and the lense. It could be the glass of the scanner.

It obviously shows the pic is not completely authentic and has undergone some kind of change. I am not

saying it is intentional, but it is enough to show it is not just a straightforward pic.

If we look in her glasses we can see the reflection of something rectangular, which perfecly resembles

a flash in a window. Just a flash outdoors would look like a circle, not a square, wouldn't it?

If we look at the reflection in the squared area we can see that the reflection of the flash covers

her head a bit, indicating the reflection is in the foreground in front of the subject of the pic. The

same reflection can be seen in her glasses, so the logical conclusion is that there is something clear

between the subject of the pic and the lense. The flash is reflecting off of this clear surface and making

a round reflection, like you would expect a flash to make.

Taking all of these observations together, the evidence points to reflections rather than anomalies in the

film. At the very least, it raises enough questions about the photograph to make any paranormal claims suspect.

Edited May 8, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[JerryTalbert]

Jerry, was that picture taken in the living room area? Was it close to the stair case? If so I just debunked your headless picture. I'm sorry I wanted it to be true, but if that is indeed where the photo was taken than I can tell you exactly what occurred in the photo.

no it wasn't.

[JerryTalbert]

If we look in the box near the bottom we see a reflection that appears to be in glass between the subjects

and the camera lense, because it covers her feet. If we look at the box over the chair, it also shows dust

and a hair defining a piece of glass between the subjects and the lense. It could be the glass of the scanner.

It obviously shows the pic is not completely authentic and has undergone some kind of change. I am not

saying it is intentional, but it is enough to show it is not just a straightforward pic.

If we look in her glasses we can see the reflection of something rectangular, which perfecly resembles

a flash in a window. Just a flash outdoors would look like a circle, not a square, wouldn't it?

If we look at the reflection in the squared area we can see that the reflection of the flash covers

her head a bit, indicating the reflection is in the foreground in front of the subject of the pic. The

same reflection can be seen in her glasses, so the logical conclusion is that there is something clear

between the subject of the pic and the lense. The flash is reflecting off of this clear surface and making

a round reflection, like you would expect a flash to make.

Taking all of these observations together, the evidence points to reflections rather than anomalies in the

film. At the very least, it raises enough questions about the photograph to make any paranormal claims suspect.

I admit I had a bit of dust on my scanner, so I apologize. The square light in her glasses are very probable pixelation which occurs when you enlarge the picture. There was not any glass between the camera and the subjects, and that is fact....not conjecture. So take the shooting through glass out of the equation and try again. I have the negatives to back up what you see.

[+HerNibs]

I admit I had a bit of dust on my scanner, so I apologize. The square light in her glasses are very probable pixelation which occurs when you enlarge the picture. There was not any glass between the camera and the subjects, and that is fact....not conjecture. So take the shooting through glass out of the equation and try again. I have the negatives to back up what you see.

Jerry, was this picture taken by you at your home?

Can you recreate the picture? You don't need the subjects. Just the chair and get in the exact same place and take the picture.

THEN, take a picture of where you were standing when you took the picture.

HN

[Meiliken]

I admit I had a bit of dust on my scanner, so I apologize. The square light in her glasses are very probable pixelation which occurs when you enlarge the picture. There was not any glass between the camera and the subjects, and that is fact....not conjecture. So take the shooting through glass out of the equation and try again. I have the negatives to back up what you see.

Eh, I think the woman looks sexy, so I like the picture. Is that bad of me?

[JerryTalbert]

Jerry, was this picture taken by you at your home?

Can you recreate the picture? You don't need the subjects. Just the chair and get in the exact same place and take the picture.

THEN, take a picture of where you were standing when you took the picture.

HN

That is possible when my son comes home from college. I'll see if I can make it happen.

[+HerNibs]

That is possible when my son comes home from college. I'll see if I can make it happen.

We don't need your son or anyone else in the picture. Just take a picture of the chair from exactly where you took the one in question and then take a picture of where you were when you took the picture in question.

Thanks!

HN

[Lolipopkid]

no it wasn't.

Would you mind telling me what room you were in then? The only dark colored doors in the house are the front door and the kitchen. The rest of the interior doors are painted white.

[JerryTalbert]

Would you mind telling me what room you were in then? The only dark colored doors in the house are the front door and the kitchen. The rest of the interior doors are painted white.

Sorry, I thought you might have seen an earlier post. The photograph was taken looking in through the living room/dining room/whateverroom towards the kitchen. The door frame in the background is that of the kitchen.

[JerryTalbert]

We don't need your son or anyone else in the picture. Just take a picture of the chair from exactly where you took the one in question and then take a picture of where you were when you took the picture in question.

Thanks!

HN

I realize that but I don't know where the young lady lives at.

[+HerNibs]

I realize that but I don't know where the young lady lives at.

Oh, my bad. Sorry. For some reason I though the pic was at your house.

HN

[luvbug02468]

At first I agreed with the headless women but after looking after looking at the original it looks to me like two women standing side by side with the closer ones head bent- she has long hair and what looks like a flower behind her ear. The first woman that is farther seems to be comforting the closer woman with her arm around her shoulder. She is taller the farther one- but she may be headless ?? Both are wearing dark colored bodices and what look like red skirts. Looks like a doorway in the back

[Karma2678]

I have a picture that was taken in our previous home and I wish I knew more about photos so I could figure out if I can put it here on the board anywhere. I myself would like to know if something happened while the picture was being taken to cause what appeared in the picture. It REALLY looks like a ghost is standing beside the woman in the photograph. The thing that really makes me curious is that it looks so much like one of my relatives who actually did pass away in the house not too long before the picture was taken.

The nurse showed us the picture after it developed and you could see the person she was taking the picture of very clearly, but then beside her you could see what clearly looks as if it is a person standing beside her. Although, its misty white you can see a what looks exactly like a person and the actual features of that person. It looks very much like a relative who passed away and I think the fact that I can recognize who is in the photograph makes me wonder if she did actually capture a ghost.

I would like to post it on the board and see what others think. I know other people know about pictures and how they develop and could tell me if they think there was a problem in the picture. I just don't know if its possible to post here online, I am ingnorant about how to do so to say the least. See.. this picture isn't a digital photograph it was taken with a polaroid type camera it wasn't meant to become any sort of evidence or anything like that. I don't know if scanning it would really work right. If anyone is interested in seeing it and would like to - just let me know what would work (if anything) and I will try to get it online.

You surely do not have to worry about it being photoshopped or anything like that because I have never even used that sort of software.

[Last_Soul]

Hey Jerry, getting back to the reason i made this post i wanted to ask have you gotten to see the sallie house documentary? I have been wanting to know what you think.

Also they are premiering the movie in our town (Atchison) June 11. I heard they showed it in Indiana at a paranormal convention or something? Anyway they got some good reviews on the website

http://www.thesalliehousemovie.com/index.php

[First_Indigo_Child]

Wow, I'm surprised I haven't heard of this house before. I'll have to research it. Slightly off topic, I miss that "Sightings" show.

Thanks for posting this.

[Foxie]

Because none of you have even bothered doing any research on the place. Why would you assume that I am lying? Not one of you even considered for a moment that I wasn't.

I know more about that house than I want to know. And as stated before the house IMO is nothing to be tampered with.

I don't believe you, yourself, are lying. That video however I find it hard to believe. As I posted on the video, you NEVER put music over video recordings of an investigation. Also on the video it says "www.fraps.com" at the top.

[Last_Soul]

Hey Jerry, getting back to the reason i made this post i wanted to ask have you gotten to see the sallie house documentary? I have been wanting to know what you think.

Also they are premiering the movie in our town (Atchison) June 11. I heard they showed it in Indiana at a paranormal convention or something? Anyway they got some good reviews on the website

http://www.thesalliehousemovie.com/index.php

So appearantly there is some controversy about showing here which i personally think is bull. I have trouble understanding why people get so angered over a documentary sometimes.

[Lolipopkid]

I don't believe you, yourself, are lying. That video however I find it hard to believe. As I posted on the video, you NEVER put music over video recordings of an investigation. Also on the video it says "www.fraps.com" at the top.

I haven't seen the video, nor that documentary on the house. Are you talking about the video that was posted about the Pickmans faking the cut? I'm a little confused as to your post.

[Lolipopkid]

Wow, I'm surprised I haven't heard of this house before. I'll have to research it. Slightly off topic, I miss that "Sightings" show.

Thanks for posting this.

For the record, the sightings show was not entirely accurate. In fact I'm sure after speaking with the Pickmans that they embellished more than revealed.

[lovecraft777]

This is about the picture of the two in the chair. I’ve taken pictures for over 13 years now. We can see that the light source is coming from behind the photographer. If that person was behind glass, it would be reflected upon the wall in the background. Glass tends to have a tint to it when light is shown through it and onto something (hope that was clear). Light shining through glass would be visible upon the wall but it isn’t. Only the photographer is visible. My opinion is that there was a reflection of some sort. It may have been chrome or glass. I would say with the direction of the sun and how the white marks look, it would have been up high. It could possibly be above the two and to the right of the photographer. I also have to say that those disposable ones do seem to create problems like this. My mother uses them and she always seems to have marks like this on her pictures. This could also be a pre-existing issue with the film do to cheap manufacturing.

I’m glad we got back to talking about this in a more respectful manner… for the most part. Sorry if my opinion on the picture ruined any ideas. That is problem with film though, almost anything can go wrong because of the sensitivity of it. Digital seems to be better but it can have its own problems as well. Thanks for keeping this thing going. Do we have anything new with topic (further investigations, pictures, etc…)?

[Moonshine]

Any place that calls itself "The Most Haunted House in___" (fill in the blanks of it's location) automatically makes me suspiscious. To me it is creating a brand, and it is all part of the marketing. Then you find out they are making a movie on it, and you realize they have a lot at stake in making sure it stays 'Most Haunted'.

After Amityville, people realized what a goldmine having a good story and a creepy house can be.

If you can't get a movie out of it, you can always charge admission.

Of course I have never been inside so any opinions is based on past 'famous haunted houses'.

If anybody has capture anything remotely of interest themselves (not other people's findings) I would be interested in looking though.

The house made famous by the 1970s Amityville Horror film has gone on sale in Long Island, New York, with a price tag of $1.15m (£800,000). Read More >

In a sense you are right

[tendo]

That demon photo was BS...If you have to put that many effects on a photo just for it to even look like some kind of figure...it's nothing. It isn't a demon. It is a trick of light. The house may be haunted, I've never been there, nor have I seen this video. If there was video of a guy being thrown and scratched, though, I feel like it would have been circulated pretty well. If anyone has any of that to offer up, or if anyone owns this video and can offer some info, that would be great.