[Airthumbs (OP)]

So I took this picture at dusk, at the exact moment I took the picture I saw I flash of light that appeared to be coming from the sky, from the eye that was not looking through the view finder.  This light struck the camera at what I thought to be the top right of the camera and also struck my right hand that was holding the camera in what I interpreted to be static electricity as I received no shock or sensation apart from a mild tickling sensation across my right hand!

No one has ever been able to give me an explanation. [] This is the original picture and has not been changed in anyway or edited using some kind of software.

I am sure there must be a logical explanation for this and I admit it does look like I have done something to the picture with an editing programme.  I assume there are some digital experts who could verify the authenticity of this picture but I'm just looking for an explanation not verification.  []

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[SteveFish]

The photograph doesn't show anything extraordinary. The best explanation? You had a minor cerebral event. These sorts of visions are quite common and are related to the aura many migraine headache sufferers have, but without the pain. Nothing to worry about unless they become frequent.

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Wow Stevefish do you really think that's possible, an internal cerebral event that can project itself onto an image and manifest itself in the form of electricity emanating from the sky is incredible. Unfortunately it's also ridiculous, I am open minded, not a fool  [] Do you have a realistic explanation on a serious note or do I add it too the list of other  [)]'s

I respectfully ask people to look carefully at the picture before they jump to similar conclusions.

[RD]

It looks similar to a positive streamer which grow from the ground under electrical storms, (example ringed in green below) ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lightning_hits_tree.jpg

Lightning down-strikes follow the path of a positive streamer growing from the ground, but fortunately for you, not all positive streamers result in a lightning down-strike.

[Airthumbs (OP)]

RD Thanks so much for that response, this has been bugging me for years and that is the best answer I have had.

[RD]

Sharper version with higher contrast ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The apparent lightning does seem to be obscured by cloud at some points, which is against it being an in-camera effect or a double-exposure.

Were you standing under a tree ? (the dark bit in the top right corner)

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Now I see this image with the high contrast it really is quite odd. Do charged particles move like that, I mean look at the "A" top centre, it really looks like it was written.  I am not religious at all but I still find this image a little bit unsettling!  What is worse for me is that my name starts with an "A"  []  Still I have seen much more co incidental images such as the galaxy that looks like a smily face  []

RD, the dark bit top right corner is the overhang of the balcony from the block of flats above. I took this picture from the ground floor. The block of flats is situated on a piece of elevated ground called Holycroft Hill, which is in Hinckley, Leicestershire. I no longer know the people who live there as they moved out last year hence the reason I don't mind giving out the location.  []

One more thing that I feel I should mention, this was an old camera and it would not take the picture under the lighting conditions, I learned that if I fooled the camera by charging the flash and then closing the flash it would allow me to take pictures under these lighting conditions. I know someone would just say well that was the static from the flash discharging that caused this effect but I saw the light come from the sky not from the camera. I won't ever do it again though!!!!

[RD]

... I have seen much more co incidental images such as the galaxy that looks like a smily face  []

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18086.0

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Fascinating stuff  []

[RD]

Do charged particles move like that

Nice slow motion lightning (with upward streamers) here ...

and here ...

[Foolosophy]

  []

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

looks like an optical distortion closer to the lens rather than something in the sky.

you can get this picture analysed and the nature of the images or flashes can be determined (whether they are due to the optical system of the camera or something added etc)

good luck

[Geezer]

Aaron,

I'm wondering if the camera moved with a sort of "squiggly" motion, a bit like what happens when I write with a pen on paper.

I say this because there seems to be a great similarity between the two "Y" shaped squiggles in the upper half of the frame. I could see how this might have happened if you somehow managed to double expose the film. (Because you said it was an old camera, I'm assuming it used old-fangled emulsion film.)

[RD]

... there seems to be a great similarity between the two "Y" shaped squiggles in the upper half of the frame.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

From the image alone, (without the reference to electrical sensations), statistically an artifact like double exposure is more likely than recording lightning.

If the photo was taken through a window,  reflections in the window glass of point source lights in the room, combined with camera shake could explain the matching  “Y”s. 

NB: light trails from point sources can't fork like lightning.

[Geezer]

... there seems to be a great similarity between the two "Y" shaped squiggles in the upper half of the frame.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

If they are the same one "Y" could be a ghost image caused by reflections (of lightning) within the lens.

Well, yes, but I had an Agfa box camera, and just about every other shot I took was a double exposure, which could get to be pretty expensive, let me tell you.

[yor_on]

Yeah, maybe it was light leaking into the picture from somewhere?
Or a reflection inside the lenses?

And if you felt a mild tingling, your hand(s) might have moved just at the exposure. Do you remember the settings you had? And what it was for kind of camera?

[Airthumbs (OP)]

Thanks for all the questions folks I will try to answer them all to hopefully resolve the issue.

1. The photo was taken using an Olympus 1 mega pixel camera.

2. The photo was taken outside and not through any window, I deliberately went outside as otherwise I would have had a                  reflection in the window and I wanted to just take a picture of the clouds and not have any of the building in the picture although I failed slightly due to the balcony just visible top right.

3. I only took one photo and the event as I call it took place at the exact moment I pressed the button to take the picture.

4. I did not move as this happened so fast I had no time to react, it began and ended all in the time it took the shutter to function.

5. I only realised after I had taken the picture that it had captured the event.

6. If I had moved then surely the whole picture would have been out of focus?

7. The camera settings were on normal daytime so the exposure was pretty quick, milliseconds I would say.

8. The light source came from the sky and struck the top right hand corner of the camera, it was totally silent.

9. The focal settings on the camera were on infinity.

10. The camera does not have a double exposure feature and to verify that the shutter on clicked once. It was such an old digital camera that after each picture I would have to wait several seconds for the image to be written on to the memory card.

I hope this helps.

[SteveFish]

I have owned dozens of cameras, including one now ancient Epson that I shut down because it made some strange squiggles on top of the image I was trying to capture. Some squiggles were similar to yours, but some were also a delicate shade of pink. However, I have never had something come down out of the sky and strike my camera and my hand, and also write my first initial upside down in the sky. Actually I still own the camera, I wonder if it still works. Steve

[RD]

10. The camera does not have a double exposure feature

All digital cameras can suffer from "after images": a sort of double exposure.

[Airthumbs (OP)]

RD, So for this double exposure to work it requires an existing source of reference, meaning that the original image contains a double exposure of the event which would explain some of the other features in the photograph?

My eyes I trust, and that light came from the clouds! The fact the camera caught it digitally was either the cause of it or a chance in a million that this event should occur at the exact time I took the picture.

I guess at this rate it will remain a mystery, I am glad that I did capture it on camera as I would hate to have to explain this without a picture!  []

[Airthumbs (OP)]

By the way has anyone noticed the cloud that seems to be illuminated from underneath?