(September 12, 2017 at 11:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote:Quote:Based upon the above described examination and study I am of the definite opinion that the negative submitted for examination, was not retouched nor was it a composite or double exposed negative.
Further, I am of the definite opinion that the light streak appearing above the head in a halo position was caused by the light striking the negative.
Respectfully submitted,
George J. Lacy.
*Emphasis mine*
This Lacy's objectivity/neutrality is made more questionable given his description "in a halo position". I pretty sure "halo" is specific to Christian mythology. That tells us we're hearing from someone immersed in that that tradition and looking at the photograph from that perspective.
That the 'spot' is the cause of light hitting the negative doesn't tell us that its source was immediately over the guy's head. Rather, the source was from a source in line with that spot over his head - that is all. It could have been light reflected off of something metallic on the ceiling. Of course, the light could also have hit the negative after the shot was taken when the camera was opened.
The account seems to argue for one possible interpretation and to make assumptions which support it without justifying those assumptions. I would tend to dismiss it as the work of an ardent believer.
