Back in September on the 2nd. 2001. I was with others at Borley church yard..taking photoes with my kodak camera . we stayed untill exactly midnight then set of f home to Leicester.Whilst we was there nothing much happened i sent my film to be developed.got them back and could find nothing. but a few months later .I was showing a relative the photoes of borley. using a magnifier when suddenly i looked away with shock!!.!...In the photo i can see a verry haunted looking face !. I just could not belive what i was looking at I keep looking at the photoe every day captivated by it.......CAN YOU SEE THE FACE! ? do you think it could be the monk???... I got that shot of the face from the corner of the cemetary in the bushes on the corner near to where the window is bricked up. the haunted look on its face !.......I cannot help but feel sad about it.! I have got the negative and it shows up on that too!..please let me know what you think about it.
Name on file.
I have studied the photo submitted of the Borley monk(?) and although it does give the appearance of a face if you could put the size of the face in respect to the size of the leaves and twigs of the trees it would be a very small face, I believe it is just an illusion of and the formation of the tree.
It as the same colouration as the branches and if it was anything else other than that it would be of a different colouring? so in my opinion it is just an illusion of the branches.
Gary Cooke
I presume, from what you say in your message, that the "monk" was seen after the photo was developed? In other words, you didn't see the monk and take a photograph specifically of him?
I have to say that, on the balance of probability, what we are looking at
in the photograph is nothing other than a trick of the light, an optical
illusion. I say this for a number of reasons:
1. Although there is a quite distinct outline - showing what could be seen
as a head - the main portion of the "head" is not distinctly different in
colour from some of the surrounding leaves, etc. Indeed, there are parts
of the picture that seem to have exactly the same colour. This would suggest
that it, the "head", is actually part of the tree or bush. When the
photograph is converted to a negative image, the "head" almost completely
disappears and all of that area of the photograph looks very similar. If the
"head" was a separate item and not part of the tree/bush it would still
stand out in negative, even if it didn't become any clearer. The negative
image shows that the "head" has the same colours and textures as the tree
and this must suggest that it's part of it. In other words, an illusion.
2. The "head" is something of a caricature, looking more like "Mr. Punch"
than anything else (note the protruding, almost beak-like nose and very
extended chin). From an anatomical point of view, it does not seem to have a
neck that is as visible as the head, although if there was a neck there it
should be just as visible. Perhaps even shoulders should be in view, but
they're not. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to think of this "head" as
belonging to a pixie or a gnome than to a monk.
3. From the historical point of view, the main stories associated with
Borley do not concern a monk but, rather, a nun.
4. From the photographic point of view, the "head" is very small. This
either means there was a very small head actually in the leaves of the
tree/bush or that it was a head of normal size but a long way from the
tree. Obviously, you're not suggesting that a tiny head was floating among
the leaves, so we have to assume that we are looking through those leaves at
a head that is some distance away. However, if that was the case, how is the
head illuminated by the camera's flash when other parts of the picture not
so far away are not illuminated? In other words, a normal-size head would
have to be maybe 20 feet or more away from the camera to appear that small
and the flash wouldn't reach that far, especially through the dense leaves
of the tree. Indeed, the flash doesn't even properly illuminate some of the
area on the left side of the picture that is only a few feet from the camera
and is not obstructed by trees or bushes. The fact that the head _is_
illuminated must suggest that it is close to the camera and therefore part
of the tree/bush.
I attach a four-part picture - created from your photo - showing a close-up of the area concerned, which I hope will be of some interest to you. The top left section shows the original picture. Top right shows it in colour negative. At bottom left it appears in black and white and, at bottom right, it is shown as a black & white negative. In particular, take a look at the negative images and the black area on side of the "head". Note how this black area is similar to other black areas in the picture. Broadly speaking, they are leaf-shaped. In other words, what we see as the side of the "head" is actually a leaf, not the side of a head at all. Again, this must suggest that the monk's "head" is an optical illusion created by the leaves.
Think of it like this... In your photograph, the shape of the leaf almost exactly fits the "head" without obscuring any of its features, e.g. eyes, nose, chin. If I were to take a similar photograph of you looking through some leaves, what are the chances of me finding a leaf that seemed to fit the contours of your face without blocking your features from view? I'd suggest the chances would be quite remote and I therefore believe that the reason why the leaf fits the "head" in your photograph is that it's part of the "head" because it is an optical illusion.
I'm sorry that I cannot say "Yes, this picture shows a monk at Borley" but I am a 99% sure that it does not. However, this is only my personal opinion - although I believe it to be founded on good evidence. Nevertheless, please don't let this discourage you from taking pictures at Borley if you're there again. You never know what may turn up on the film when it's developed and I, for one, would love to have concrete proof of the supernatural at Borley!
Thanks, again, for sending the picture. It certainly gave me something to think about and I enjoyed taking a good, hard look at it. If I can be of any further help or if you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
With best wishes,
Stephen D. Smith
