VGHRS Investigation of the Civil War Museum at the Exchange Hotel
Additional Commentary

 

Expert Analysis of the AWFUS (Anomalous Wave From Unknown Source) Photograph from the Exchange Hotel
Submitted 11/24/03 by "Mr. E" - -

NOTE: "Mr. E" is a British authority on UV photography whose opinion was solicited re the anomalous image that was obtained at the Exchange using a 35mm camera fitted with a UV transmission filter. His analysis and commentary are presented below in condensed form.
For background details about the photograph in question please see:
http://users.nexet.net/hale/AWFUS.html

>>>
UV radiation is very energetic so far as film is concerned (as is evidenced by my experiences in London Hospital which I cited). There, we found that the response of Ilford Pan F film to "visible" light which normally required a photographic exposure of about 1 second, had been transformed into one requiring 1/500th second. Therefore, if the UV source which we
were using required an exposure of 1/500th second with a film of 50ASA then, had the film speed been 800ASA, the correct exposure would have become 1/16 of 1/500th second or 1/8000th of a second. Therefore, even an exposure of 1 second would have totally over-exposed the film, completely irradiating all the silver emulsion grains. Once this has happened, no amount of additional exposure will produce any further effect.

This is exactly what appears to have happened in the case of the AWFUS image. I have opened this in Adobe Photoshop so that I can make some measurements. Essentially, the image is of three high-intensity blobs.What I will call the left-hand one (adjacent to the wavy purple trace) is slightly less intense than is the next one over towards the right. Using this Program, I can measure the intensity in the three colour channels (R, G, B) on a scale of 0 - 255. The brightest/whitest reading that I can get for the LH blob is âEUR" R = 236, G = 254, B = 254 whilst for the middle blob, these values a re âEUR" R = 253, G = 255, B = 252. Now, if the readings had been 255 in all three channels, then the colour would have been white at the maximum intensity which this particular film can reproduce. True white will never be achieved in practice because of the colour of the gelatine emulsion and the film base, together with some light scatter by the dye stuff grains all taken together with the limitations of the scanner, my computer monitor, etc., etc., etc.. I think that when all these inherent process limitations are
taken into account, the values obtained do indeed indicate total over-exposure.

I will elaborate further so as to clear up any misunderstandings. The energy of short wavelength light is absorbed by the atoms of the material irradiated. When this happens, electrons in the target atoms are raised from some inner and less-energetic orbit to one which is further out and in which they travel at higher speed. They then spontaneously slow up again and fall back to their original orbit, rel easing the energy previously absorbed as a pulse of light (actually called "a quantum of energy"). This emitted light will always be at a longer wavelength than that of the original irradiating light because
some of the energy which was absorbed was used up in moving the electron up to the higher orbit and only a lesser fraction is available for re-emission.

To illustrate, let us consider the typical situation when protein molecules are irradiated with light from a mercury arc lamp using the 365 nm line of the mercury spectrum. The irradiating light is below the lower limit of sensitivity of the human eye, so the background appears black. The protein material, however, absorbs the short UV radiation and then re-emits light of longer wavelength which is a green/cyan colour with a wavelength of about 480 - 500 nm. Note the change in wavelength âEUR"365 to (say) 490 nm.

This phenomenon is called "fluorescence" and should not be confused with "luminescence", as exhibited by algae and planktonic organisms in the sea. The light emitted by such organisms is produced chemically, usually as a result of some mechanical action, such as the passing of a boat, the stroke of an oar or the body movements of a swimmer. Often, the
colour produced is very similar to that described above for protein molecules in UV light but the mechanism is very different
UV light is not the only waveband which will produce fluorescence. The compound fluorocein iso-thiocyanate can be excited by the short VISIBLE wavelength of 485 nm (deep violet) and fluoresces a bright apple green colour at 550 nm. The dye stuff known as Texas Red, can be excited at a wavelength of 550 nm and emits a beautiful red light at 570 - 580 nm.
These are just two of many possible examples The important point, however, is that in every case, the exciting wavelength is considerably shorter than is that of the emission.

Now to consider the "optical brighteners" incorporated into household detergents. Ordinary sunlight contains some small amount of UV radiation. Fortunately, the amount is very small (or life would not be possible on this planet) but at sea level it is sufficient to provoke weak fluorescence of the optical brightener at a wavelength equivalent to a bluish colour. This makes white clothes appear more reflective and therefore, whiter.

Now to the so-called "black lights" used in discos. The filaments of these lamps are "over-run" ... a rather high current density is applied to them so that they become hotter than normal and reach a temperature of about 3500 degrees Kelvin. (The zero point of the Kelvin temperature scale is at MINUS 273 degrees Celsius. This is the temperature at which all atomic vibration ceases and it is known as "absolute zero", for obvious reasons). A tungsten filament heated to about 3500 deg K begins to emit a small amount of UV radiation although the bulk of the emission (about 90 - 95%) is in the visible and Infra Red regions. All of these longer wavelengths are filtered out by means of a suitable coating on the envelope of the bulb so that only the UV component is radiated.

The ambient illumination in the disco is usually rather low so a person's eyes become somewhat dark-adapted, the pupils expanding and the sensitivity switching automatically to deal with low light intensities. As previously mentioned, the human eye is not sensitive to UV radiation, so the visible ambient illumination is apparently unchanged but ... the small amount of UV radiation does excite fluorescence of the optical brightener residual in the clothes of the patrons. Since their eyes are
dark-adapted, this emission appears to be rather bright.

When I wrote my original reply. I had not seen the image photographed and I assumed that it was a nebulous blue blob. If a "black light" bulb were shone onto a piece of cloth which had been washed in detergent, the cloth would fluoresce and thus rather mysteriously "glow in the dark". This, I suggested, was one way in which such an image could be faked.

I thank you for your fairly detailed information regarding the photograph of the blobs but I'm afraid that it doesn't help me very much. I am afraid that I just cannot see how this could be of a naturally-occurring event. I am loath to impugn the integrity of anyone but this image just cannot be reconciled with what I know of photographic materials, the physics of these and the scenario as you describe it.

UV radiation is produced by a hot source at a temperature of 3500 deg K or higher ... the higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelength of the emitted radiation. Now, a source is NEVER completely homogeneous either with regard to its chemical composition or the distribution of energy within it, so wavelengths longer than those of the UV band are always produced. Most of the energy appears in the Infra Red or as heat, at wavelengths longer than say 800 nm. The only way that a source can APPARENTLY emit selectively is if a filter of some sort is interposed between it and the detector. This is precisely the situation in the case of the black-light bulbs mentioned above ... they are coated with a filter material and APPARENTLY emit only in the UV and IR regions, since the visible wavelengths from say 400 - 800 nm are being absorbed by the
filter coating. You mentioned that the filter placed over the camera lens had very similar properties. However ... the filament of such a lamp is glowing white hot and if the envelope of the lamp were not coated with the filter material, the room would be brilliantly illuminated by "white" light. Yet ... you tell me that it remained in almost total darkness.

I'm sorry, but this is just not possible. No "cold" source can emit solely in the UV region whilst, if it is hot enough to emit UV, then it MUST emit longer wavelengths also, some of which will be visible to human eyes. Since the image as presented contradicts known and well-established physical laws, we are left with the conclusion that it is probably faked.

You may well argue that it is precisely because this image does contradict known laws that then it MUST be of some hitherto unknown phenomenon. I cannot refute that argument for there is insufficient evidence but I would remind you of the philosophical/rhetorical principle known as "Occam's Razor". First expounded by Roger of Occam in the 12th/13th Century, this states that it is unwise to seek more complex explanations for phenomena when a simple explanation will fully
suffice. In the cruder jargon of our modern world, it is embodied in what is known as "The KISS philosophy ... Keep It Simple, Stupid !"

In my previous letter I postulated that a fake image could be produced by shining light from a "black" bulb onto some previously-washed cloth material, which would then "glow in the dark" as it fluoresced. The image you present seems to have been produced in a much cruder manner. The image is completely explainable as being produced by the operator
shining a "black" bulb directly into the lens whilst the shutter was held upon in a dark room. The wavy trace coming in from the left is commensurate with the bulb being moved towards the lens immediately after it was switched on. The burned out over exposed areas would result from holding the bulb close to the lens. The strong trace moving towards the upper boundary would result from moving the lamp slowly upwards. The purple halo around the image could well result from the small leakage of longer wavelengths (just inside the visible region) which is a characteristic of these lamps.

You state that the lens was set to an aperture of f/2 and was focussed at a distance of six feet. Why was such a limiting set of conditions chosen ? Presumably, the room was fairly large (since you state that it was part of some sort of museum and contained glass display cases) When a lens having a focal length of 58mm and with the aperture set at f/2, is focussed at six feet distance, the depth of field is extremely shallow and extends from 5.79 - 6.22 feet; a range of 0.43 feet ... or just over 5 inches. Why, in a room of considerable size, did the photographer choose to use such a shallow depth of field, thereby
ensuring that anything not located in this narrow spatial range would be rendered un-sharp ? It just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps the photographer might possibly advance the argument that he chose an aperture of f/2 as being the largest available and thus best suited to the capture of weakly-illuminated objects. This is indeed true but only partially so for films having speeds up to 1600ASA are available and by "push processing" their speed can be increased by two stops (to an effective speed of 6400ASA), although image sharpness will then be degraded. The point, however, is that the photographer was
prepared to make very long time exposures (you cite as long as 15 minutes, in one instance). He thereby completely circumvented the limitation of film sensitivity.

However, even if we allow that the photographer was justified in using the largest aperture available, he could have maximised the depth of field (and thus the chances of capturing an image) by setting his focus to the hyperfocal distance which, at these settings, is 167 ft. At this distance setting, the depth of field is at its maximum and extends from half the hyperfocal distance (say 84 feet) to infinity. If a distance setting of 167 feet was too large for the room then a distanc e of half
the hyperfocal distance (84 feet) would give a depth of field extending from 56 to 169 feet .. the narrow field some 5 inches deep at a six-foot distance setting has expanded to 113 feet.

If even 84 feet was too large then setting the camera focus upon a distance half way between the camera position and the furthest extent of the field of view would give the best chance of capturing an image which was nearly in focus. By choosing a distance of six feet with the lens aperture set at f/2, the photographer was reducing the probability of securing a sharp image of a randomly-positioned event to some vanishingly-small value. I must say that I am highly suspicious that any photographer would make such a fundamental mistake in camera operation unless, of course, his intention was to deliberately create out-of-focus images which could not be positively identified.

All the evidence seems to me to indicate that you hav e been the victim of some sort of hoax. I must observe that I find this sort of activity (faking phenomena in this way) to be particularly reprehensible. There are many strange and wonderful things in this world (and indeed, the universe itself) which deserve serious investigation. However, such matters are outside the mainstream of scientific research. The small minority of hoaxers bring such unconventional investigations into disrepute and seriously impede them. They also serve to act as a brake to anyone contemplating such investigations who might well fear for
their scientific reputation and career prospects should their unconventional interests become common knowledge.

I am sorry to end on this somewhat sour note but the initial description and the image you subsequently kindly supplied just cannot be reconciled with my limited knowledge of physics or photography and so it is not possible for me to reach any other conc lusion than that of attempted hoax by person or persons unknown.

With that said, I trust that you have found my analysis to be sympathetic to your endeavours. Since I am now retired, I have no reputation to hazard and I would therefore be prepared to place such expertise and photographic equipment as I possess at the disposal of any group undertaking serious investigation of paranormal phenomena.

I would like to close by wishing you and your co-workers good fortune in your future investigations.

Best regards,
--

 

Response to "Mr. E's" Analysis and Conclusions
Submitted 11/26/03 by Gabe Stempenski for the VGHRS

I hope you don't mind me adding my two cents but from what I gather the picture was taken with a UV pass filter and the shutter was open for three seconds.  The actual event in the photograph was quite small and seemed fairly far away (like across a room).  Now I'm no pro photog but three seconds of exposure is quite a good long time and if our British examiner thinks that a low level UV source would emit lots of visible light and heat I think he needs his head examined.  

UV is a fairly "cold" wavelength.  Go touch a 100 watt UV bulb then go touch a 100 watt Infrared bulb.  Come back and tell me which one made your hand blister.  The only real heat emitted from a UV light source is usually a result of the resistance in the electrical circuit being conducted through the rest of the materials.  Like I said I'm no world class photog but a good solid number of years using any number of high intensity multi spectrum lights for my little gardening experiments and a bit of a physics background lead me to think the Brit is either confusing IR with UV or he is just completely lost.  

It's VERY possible for a low level UV source to not produce any measurable heat and, by definition, pure Ultra Violet wavelength is NOT visible to the human eye.  Now UV interactions with matter do create heat (hence how warm your skin gets in a tanning bed)  but that's mostly attributed to the photoelectric effect that takes place when high energy gamma's (around 1Mev) slam into an atom.  The gamma puts all that energy into the electron that it crashes in to.  That electron then most likely jumps to a higher energy level (with enough energy the gamma can cause the electron to bust free of the weak nuclear force all together).  When the force of repulsion from the other electrons and the attraction back down to a low energy level finally take the electron from the high energy level it will emit another lower energy gamma particle also known as a "photon".  Thus explaining why things seem to "glow" under high levels of UV radiation. But once again, the UV itself is not visible to the naked eye.  The Atom gains more over all energy through the process and that is seen in its increased excitation which results in heat.  

It is wholly possible to emit UV wavelengths without any visible light.  Go to your local antique store and find some "Vaseline Glass". It's an old style of glass that actually used a small bit of Uranium for coloring.  Go into a dark room and take another UV picture of it.  The Gamma, X and yes even a small bit of the lower frequency UV are all emitted from the uranium and it should show up on the picture even in a completely dark room.  The glass will be cold to the touch and will emit no other visible light.  

So either this guy is very sloppy in his research, or he's the hoax in my opinion. His first line discredits his whole mindset anyway.  "I just don't see how this could be a Naturally occurring event..."  Well Duh..   That's what we're trying to investigate.  The PARA-normal.