Toys R' Us - Sunnyvale, CA

[asmith]

I believe this has to be one of the best photos of a haunting that was captured and documented.
Keep in mind, this was only captured on film. No one saw this at the time.

http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/toys_r_us.html

[PPI Karl]

A Toys 'R Us located in Sunnyvale, California was the scene of inexplicable events such as items falling off shelves, strange feelings by employees, cold spots and other strange paranormal happenings. The story made it's way to a television show called "That's Incredible" hosted by Fran Tarkenton, Kathy Lee Crosby and John Davidson. They contacted a local California psychic, Sylvia Brown and professional photographers to document a seance in the store. Using both infrared and high-speed film, a photographer from Alpha Labs took simultaneous pictures of the empty isle where Brown was attempting to contact the presence of Johnny Johnston, a young boy in love with a local girl. He bled to death after a farm accident and it's thought that his ghost now haunts the store's location. One infrared shot taken clearly shows a young man leaning against a counter with his hands in his pockets. It did not show up on the high-speed film taken at precisely the same instant!

I remember this!!  (Which means-- -- I'm old enough to have watched That's Incredible! when it was on network t.v.)  What a fantastic image.  Mind you, the wealth of reports about this place certainly make the location worthy of investigation, but . . .

Once again, I have to harp on the need for corroborating evidence.  I've never seen any of the corresponding stills from the high-speed film to prove the claim.  In fact, I've never even seen proof that there was high-speed film used during the sceance.  No one bothers to include it in their books and on the websites; in logic and reasoning, that's what we call "equivocation":  intentionally hiding or ignoring facts that would otherwise weaken one's case.  Without the high-speed film stills alongside this picture, we have only someone's opinion that the evidence is incontrovertible.  Now, I ask you, would we let ourselves get away with that?

Yours truly,
The Nattering Nabob of Negativism 

[Hyper]

Pretty Cool!

[PPI Karl]

Okay, admittedly this picture was starting to bother me by late afternoon, so I copied it over, did a blow-up and began looking at it more closely.  As I said in my earlier post, if there is corroborating evidence off the the high-speed film to prove this alleged ghost of Johnny Johnston is not actually a real person leaning up against the shelves, then all of the following analysis is a mute point and I defer to the proof positive.  If the high-speed film does not materialize, then let's consider what's actually before us in the picture. 

Obviously, I'm not qualified to offer the kind of analysis you might get with a media expert or a forensics lab.  (Rosie, if you have some experience with this, maybe you can help us out.)  But, honestly, even though I was impressed the first time around, I'm less convinced it's legitimate the more I look at it.  I'm not concluding that the Toys R Us isn't as haunted as they say it is, or that the specter of Johnny Johnston doesn't linger at the premises, but I'm a-wonderin' more and more about this image.

Other than the "spooky" vibe of the photo, can anyone suggest some concrete details and some practical reasons why this image might be considered to have captured evidence of a ghost?  Looking forward to responses . . .   

[dwalters]

I saw that episode of "That's Incredible" when I was home alone as a very young boy. I was home sick from school, and my mom just had to run to the store and post office very quickly...to me it seemed like an ETERNITY after watching this segment of "That's Incredible". This single story on the show straight up scared the living S**T out of me! It really made me realize that other people were aware of ghosts. Remember, I was a young boy, and my parents told me not to speak of our house being haunted so naturally I didn't know it was so "popular". I was amazed by the photo, and memories of the photo, for years to follow...I thought it was picture proof for sure. In time, my feelings about it being real started to fade. Karls little snipes on the photo are really right on. Why is a materialization casting a shadow? Why are there at least two people looking right at him, if they didn't know he was there until they saw the photo? If they were looking for a source of a possible noise, wouldn't everyone be looking? Also, why is the hallway so damn bright? Is that supposed to be a portal or something? Portals don't look like that! I think it's a very good hoax, it is such a good hoax that decades later...here we are talking about it. I would still like to investigate the location though...that would be cool. 


by the way...I wish they would've posted the "other shot" taken at "precisly" the "same" moment....hmmmm

[asmith]

Ouch, you guys make a good point.
I agree, I wish they would have posted the other shots. "That's Incredible" did a much more convincing job by showing the other photographs that were taken at the same moment. This shot was supposedly caught with 35 mm Infared film, I believe. On the show, the other shots showed a dark aisle with nothing visible.

[PPI Karl]

According to the imdb, the current distributor of That's Incredible! is either Universal TV or Studios USA Television.  I wonder how difficult it would be to procure a copy of the segment from their archives?  I'll go check YouTube.  (Hey, you never know.)  Surely someone out there has the corroborating evidence, if it exists. 

[Joshua]

This is one of the photos that I have always had problems with...tooooo grainy, and too many lighting issues.

[PPI Glenn]

I believe this has to be one of the best photos of a haunting that was captured and documented.
Keep in mind, this was only captured on film. No one saw this at the time.

http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/toys_r_us.html

If you like that one... try this - it was recently taken and discussed on Ghostly Talk back in January.

http://www.missourighosts.net/mansionapparition1105.jpg

[PPI Karl]

Thanks, Glenn.  This one is definitely interesting.  I came across this one last week, too, and paused to consider it more seriously than the  droves of obvious PhotoShop forgeries inspired by the boredom of high school study hall.  There's a companion shot, if memory serves, taken about ten seconds later that shows a vaporous anomaly; the figure had lost its cohesion by then.  Also, the window behind the figure is boarded, so whatever this is, it has nothing to do with outside lights.  Furthermore I respect the fact that the figure is not conveniently framed in the center, nor is it tarted up to look like an outtake from The Ring.

True to my nature, I do see a couple of troubling things about it.  Perhaps they're minor carping, but minor problems can belie big fakes, right?

First, the luminescence that shines onto the baseboard, on the landing to the far left of the figure, and onto the bannister immediately in front of the specter aren't quite right.  They imply that this figure was visible just the way we're seeing it in the photo.  I don't recall off hand if the report for this image said as much, but I'm incredulous nonetheless.  It almost seems as though there were a low-watt safety bulb hanging there about three feet from the floor to cast that kind of light onto those physical details.

Secondly, at the "foot" of the specter are some features that disturb me.  Not to put too fine a point on it, those "squiggles" look a lot like baking soda in a glass of water.  If you look at the image in its largest resolution, you can kind of make out the bits of soda that are venting off gas into the liquid (those white spatters that seem to blend in with the chipped paint of the staircase landing, but which are, in fact, distinctly incongruous).

Thirdly, the top of the baseboard behind the figure is also a convenient demarcation between its vaporous bottom segment and a slightly more substantial torso.  I can't say for sure, but if the other evidence points to this being a fake, then the top of the baseboard is also the "cut mark" for the bottom edge of the torso.

Finally, those telltale signs of image manipulation--which, granted, are harder to discern in the picture but which may just the same be there.  (You be the judge.)  Let's start with the right side of the "dress".  The darker folds near the hip are, in my opinion, stamped copies of just one of fold details.  (This is just an opinion.)  The upper body of the figure, however, possesses an uncharacteristic symmetry. (Again, this is just an opinion.)  The images below show the original context (on the left) with left and right mirror images.  It's not a perfect symmetry, but it's close enough to be suspicious, don't you think?

As graphics programs become more sophisticated at creating verisimilitude in imagery, these sorts of details make it harder and harder to tell the fakes from the original.  And, clearly, my interpretation doesn't conclude one or the other either.  I'd be interested in your opinions, just the same.  What do you all think?

[PPI Karl]

I just looked at the other pics on Ghostly Talk.  Apparently, there are more than one of these pics taken in sequence, and the negative has been posted alongside them.  That seems honest, at least.  Another bit o' skepticism to relay, however, is that, upon closer inspection of the full resolution image, one can definitely see that panes of glass--albeit broken ones--remain on this side of the boarded-up window, and that bits of broken glass are scattered on the floor.  That would explain how the flash bulb reflected light onto the bannister, and why the color of that light is "flash-bulb blue."  More importantly, though, is it possible that the photographer's own reflection is somehow interacting with something else in the environment?  Additionally, the intense "glow" of this figure is characteristic of overexposure. Hardcore photographers in the group, what do you think?

[asmith]

If you like that one... try this - it was recently taken and discussed on Ghostly Talk back in January.

http://www.missourighosts.net/mansionapparition1105.jpg

That was AWESOME  8).
As far as the camera flash theory, though, is that even possible? I'm not a camera expert, but I've never heard of someone capturing their own image from a flash....usually it's just a bright spot bounced back into the camera off of a reflective surface. And as far as the Adobe Photoshop goes, it's true ANYTHING can be "expertly" faked these days with the use of Photoshop or other such products. This makes it hard to validate actual items that are caught on film, especially digital photos. I seriously think that the equipment used on any investigation should be well chosen and documented before use.

[PPI Glenn]

I just looked at the other pics on Ghostly Talk.  Apparently, there are more than one of these pics taken in sequence, and the negative has been posted alongside them.  That seems honest, at least.  Another bit o' skepticism to relay, however, is that, upon closer inspection of the full resolution image, one can definitely see that panes of glass--albeit broken ones--remain on this side of the boarded-up window, and that bits of broken glass are scattered on the floor.  That would explain how the flash bulb reflected light onto the bannister, and why the color of that light is "flash-bulb blue."  More importantly, though, is it possible that the photographer's own reflection is somehow interacting with something else in the environment?  Additionally, the intense "glow" of this figure is characteristic of overexposure. Hardcore photographers in the group, what do you think?

Sure, he posted the negative - but was it a scan of a real negative or just a negative image?  I'd like to see a scan of the whole negative - or for that matter, I'd like to see the negative in person!

[PPI Karl]

Right on, Glenn.  Even resorting to such slippery semantics--the ambiguous use of the word "negative"--makes me want to discredit the pic as a hoax.  Nice catch! 8)

[PPI Glenn]

If you want to hear more about this picture, download the January 1 edition of Ghostly Talk.  They interviewed the person that took the picture.

[Hyper]

Thank you gpitcher 

[dwalters]

Yeah, the "negative" is an easy one step process in photoshop. Just go up to the Image menu and select "invert"...bingo, you have yourself a nice negative.

[Hyper]

Wow, i am learning all kinds of things in here!!!

[dwalters]

Wow, i am learning all kinds of things in here!!!

That's great to hear. We learn so much everyday, and every investigation. We learn from everyone and everything. It makes me happy.

[Hyper]

 

[dwalters]

This is something I learned just yesterday....the word HEAR, as the word EAR in it  :o

I never EVER put that together until just yesterday....s   l   o   w

[Hyper]

LOL it's OK!!!! Is funny though!

[PPI Brian]

I don't know, but I find this image suspicious. I downloaded it from the link, and it's of reasonably high quality (1.5 megs). However, when I played with the image in PhotoShop, I discovered some issues with the image that lead me to question its authenticity. (Hey, I'm a skeptic... what can I say?)

In summary, when the image is enhanced it appears to be a two dimensional composite on a three dimensional background. The "mist" at the "feet" of this "apparition" appears to be three dimensional, and there is some interesting texture that resembles a dress flowing down from the "waist" of the "apparaition", and the "arms" of the have a three dimensional quality, but the "head" and "back" are very flat. It would be reasonable to expect an authentic representation of a head to be round. There is a flat smeary kind of "aura" around the "apparition" that also looks contrived. The overall body proportions seem correct, but the angle of the "shoulders" appears exagerated to me.

In contrast to the two dimensional quality in the "body" of the the image, the railing in the photo is clearly three dimensional, and so are the windows, the base boards, the stairs, floor, etc. The walls have an awesome texture that also contrasts against the two dimensional "body" of the "apparition".

I will play with the image later this evening, but my initial review leads me to believe it's a fake.

Regards,

Brian Miller

[Irvine_Will]

I lived in Sunnyvale/Mountain View while stationed at Moffett Field...was actually married across the street from this Toys R Us and lived 3 blocks away from 1992-1998 and have always heard the "tales" of Crazy Joe or whoever haunts the place. I've gone to the store (around the Holidays/Birthdays for the young uns I knew then) and never noticed anything other than it was among the dumpiest Toys I've ever been in...

Can't wait to see your analysis Brian!

[PPI Brian]

I lived in Sunnyvale/Mountain View while stationed at Moffett Field...was actually married across the street from this Toys R Us and lived 3 blocks away from 1992-1998 and have always heard the "tales" of Crazy Joe or whoever haunts the place. I've gone to the store (around the Holidays/Birthdays for the young uns I knew then) and never noticed anything other than it was among the dumpiest Toys I've ever been in...

Can't wait to see your analysis Brian!

Hey Will,

As for the dumpiest Toys you've ever seen, have you ever been to La Mesa or National City?

I spent some time in the Sunnyvale area too, but I never went to that Toys R Us. You can bet your Bippy I will the next time I'm up there. (Yeah, I know I'm showing my age with that remark... who here even knows what a Bippy is? And who here has ever heard the song: "Lock the door, Hide the key; Here comes the Judge, and he's looking for me!")

Anyways, I downloaded the picture and spent a lot of time playing with it in Photoshop. After much analysis, I must say that the image is definitely a three dimensional object. It appears to be a male, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, with his thumbs hooked in his pockets, leaning against the wall. It does not appear to be "pasted" into the original image. The fact that he's wearing bell-bottoms doesn't mean anything, because this IS Sunnyvale for crying out loud, and the hair styles of the women in this picture lead me to believe that it was taken during back when bell-bottoms were still in style. The lighting in the photo leads itself to casting a surreal effect around the male figure, but I think it's just a coincidence. If I was present at the time the photo was taken, I would be willing to provide documentation and sworn affidavits from everyone in the photo that there was no one else there when this photo was taken, But alas! I was not! And therefore, all I can say is that it looks like a curious bystander watching the S?ance. I would like to believe that this is a photo of a spirit, because this is exactly how I would want a spirit to manifest itself in one of my photos. But they never have... at least not yet.

This is a very cool photograph, and it has inspired a lot of excellent comments.

Regards,

Brian Miller

[Tim]

Regarding the image in the picture,
I have concluded that the image is "JEFFERY"
Once a Toys R Us kid, always a Toys R Us kid.
Now can someone tell him where the restroom is?

Tim

[MichaelF (FPIE)]

Commenting on the Pic that Glenn posted.

Karl, I bow before your analysis.  I noticed two things that you pointed out as well, which in conjunction make it look fake.

1. At first, the image not centered makes it seem "real" because somebody was just taking a pic of the area, and caught something.  For there to be something visible there and them to get it offcenter so much is unlikely.

2. Now about the light the "figure" is radiating showing on the landing.  I'll buy that you couldn't see the figure with the naked eye, but I'm skeptical that if you couldn't see it, would it put light on the railing?

So leaving me with either you see it or you don't.  If you did see it, it's pretty dang offcenter.  However, if I was going to fake a pic, making it offcenter is a good start.

[PPI Glenn]

From what I remember, the person that took that photo did see the apparition (or at least that's what he stated on the podcast)