Face in the window?

[nickspry]

Hope this hasn't been endlessly debated already, but I spotted this ghostly face peering out of one of the lower panes in the window.

[Brenda]

I can't remember if this photograph was taken on the day of the murder. If so, it could possibly be a real person, maybe one of the investigators sitting down and taking notes or something.

[Sam Flynn]

Hope this hasn't been endlessly debated already, but I spotted this ghostly face peering out of one of the lower panes in the window.

Hi Nick, and welcome. This has indeed been discussed previously, but before your time and before the server crash earlier this year. Here's a colourised version I did back in April '07, with the background faded out to enhance the contrast of the "face" itself:



It's almost certainly a trompe l'oeil, or some sort of photographic defect, in my view.

[Mike Covell]

Nothing more than a simulcra or matrixing.

It is lot's of randomness colliding to create a something, which is nothing.

[Mitch Rowe]

Ive spotted what appears to be a drip pan of some sort!

[Mike Covell]

Ive spotted what appears to be a drip pan of some sort!

Nothing more than a simulcra or matrixing.

It is lot's of randomness colliding to create a something, which is nothing.

[nickspry]

Different face?

Hi Sam,
thanks for the reply. The face I see is not the same as yours. I guess this goes to show that the brain is capable of interpreting a single image in more than one way. I did some messing around with contrast/colour in photoshop and here's my enhanced version. Let me know what you think...

Regards,

Nick

[nickspry]

Larger version

Sorry, that came out a little small. Hopefully this will be better...

[Sam Flynn]

The face I see is not the same as yours. I guess this goes to show that the brain is capable of interpreting a single image in more than one way.

I think you've just hit the nail on the head, there, Nick Cheers!

[Mike Covell]

Nothing more than a simulcra or matrixing.

It is lot's of randomness colliding to create a something, which is nothing.

[Graham]

The 'drip-pan' is without a doubt Diddles' cat-loo.

Graham

[Suzi]

Of course!!! hehe If there were 'something' in that window though I wouldn't be surprised!


Actually looking back at that pic- perhaps the row ended with Mary having her face shoved against the window left- hence the imprint on the dust!!!! NOT such a daft thought...................

Come on------there's NOTHING on the window! BUT- it could just be the reflection of the person taking it maybe!!!! Ho hum.........

[George Hutchinson]

Hi all.

Ah, the window photo - back to haunt us again!

Mitch - the drip-pan has been discussed at great length and the common view is that it is the photographer's (presumably Joseph Martin) developing pan. It is, after all, almost underneath the broken window pane through which he shot MJK1/2. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but isn't it true that the famous MJK shot was taken from outside before access was gained? Certainly, with the dimensions of the room, a full-length image from inside the door would have been impossible without extreme lens distortion.

Also, of course, Brenda, this would have ruled out the idea of someone being in the room when it was taken. Access came when permission was granted to open the locked room at 1:30pm and it is highly likely that Martin took this exterior image somewhere between 11:30am and 1:30pm.

In layman's parlance, the faces you are seeing are sometimes called 'The Man In The Moon Effect'. Anything vaguely round with two dots above a more central lower dot will make a face.

PHILIP

[Sam Flynn]

Anything vaguely round with two dots above a more central lower dot will make a face...

...something which baboons exploit to the fullest advantage when walking backwards.

[Bailey]

Mitch - the drip-pan has been discussed at great length and the common view is that it is the photographer's (presumably Joseph Martin) developing pan. It is, after all, almost underneath the broken window pane through which he shot MJK1/2. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but isn't it true that the famous MJK shot was taken from outside before access was gained? Certainly, with the dimensions of the room, a full-length image from inside the door would have been impossible without extreme lens distortion.

Didn't they remove the whole window frame to take the photo? I'm sure I've read that somewhere.

And while I know very little about old-fangled film photography, being a product of the digital age, surely there would be no need for a developing pan on-site? Doesn't that stuff need to be done in a darkroom? I may well know the answer to this somewhere in the clutter of my brain from my reading on the history of photography, but I assume someone like RJM or Mr Clack might be able to answer. Never mind what Hutchinson says, he's utterly unreliable, and not to be trusted

Cheers,
B.