I received a call one night from my colleague Ben Radford asking if I’d be interested in working on a project with him. He was working on a piece concerning the Doris Bither haunting, better known as The Entity case (see the preceding article). While focusing on the facts behind the story, he asked if I would look at several well-known photographs associated with the case and write up a companion piece. This being one of the cases on my paranormal bucket list, I enthusiastically agreed.

There are two sets of photographs associated with this case: a series of Polaroids shot during one visit to the Bither house by parapsychologists Kerry Gaynor and Barry Taff and two 35 mm print photos taken during a later visit. The Polaroids were captured first, so I will begin with those. On their second visit to Bither’s residence, Gaynor and Taff brought two cameras with them: a Polaroid SX-70 instant camera and a Honeywell Pentax SLR loaded with high-speed infrared film (Taff 2011). The infrared film in the Pentax SLR was inadvertently exposed due to the duo’s own acknowledged carelessness (Taff 2011), so our focus will be on the Polaroid photographs they took.

The first issue is the identity of the woman who appears in these images. Many paranormal-themed websites identify the woman as Bither herself, such as in this quote from best-selling mystery author Stacy Green (2012): “Gaynor also shows the famous Polaroids he snapped when Doris claimed the entity was in front of her face.” However, this is incorrect. In Taff’s book Aliens Above, Ghosts Below, he identifies the woman as Candy, a “psychic” friend of Bither who was visiting on this day (Taff 2011).

According to Taff’s account, Candy shouted out several times during the night, indicating to others where the alleged entity was. Each time Taff or Gaynor would fire off the Polaroid camera. These photographs, six out of the thirteen mentioned, were overexposed when fully developed. Six additional photos, claimed to have been taken as “control” images (that is, when there was no indication of an entity), came out normal. Is this evidence of a supernatural entity? Nope, it’s more likely just poor photography.

Three Polaroids from this series really stood out to me after watching Kerry Gaynor showcase them on an episode of Sightings (Cowen 1993). Gaynor explains that Candy had shouted out, “It’s right in front of my face!” twice, referring to a spirit only her keen psychic powers could detect. Both times a Polaroid photograph was taken, and both times the resulting photograph was overexposed. Candy’s face, according to Gaynor, was “completely obliterated.” However, the control photo (which he took when Candy said the entity was gone) came out normal.

There is an obvious problem when comparing the three images side-by-side: the two “entity” photos made use of the flash, while the control image used only the ambient light in the room. In the two entity photos, we can clearly see hard shadows cast by Candy’s silhouette. Hard shadows are very distinct, appearing in sharp contrast to the subject and the background. In the first image (above left), a hard shadow appears along the right side of Candy. In the second image (above right), the hard shadow appears to the left of Candy. Both hard shadows are consistent with the use of a flash bar on the Polaroid camera, which features single-use bulbs (five on each side). However, the “control” image is dark overall. Although it contains some soft shadowing from ambient light, there are no indications a flash fired. In a nutshell, the three photographs were not taken under the same conditions, making comparisons difficult or impossible—and invalidating their use as “controls.”

I wanted to get a second opinion on this, so I reached out to my friend Paul Michael Kane, an award-winning professional photographer. After reviewing the photos, he agreed that the two “entity” photos used a flash and were overexposed, while the control image was lit only by ambient light, causing it to be underexposed. Kane pointed out the lack of bright highlights in the control photo, which indicates a flash bulb either did not fire or was not used.

We also discussed the “electric eye” of the Polaroid SX-70 camera. According to the owner’s manual, this “sets short exposures in bright light and longer exposures in dim light.” Although this means exposure control is automatic, a user can still manually adjust the exposure via a black and white dial directly above the electric eye. Rotating toward the black side darkens the exposure; rotating to the white side will lighten the exposure.

I bring up this point because the location of the dial would allow for easy—even accidental—manipulation of the exposure. A similar dial (all black) on the other side of the camera’s face is used to control focus. Someone who is unfamiliar with the camera might inadvertently adjust the wrong dial. According to Barry Taff’s own account, they had already ruined the infrared film through their own carelessness, so improper handling is clearly a possibility. Because only the alleged “entity” photos were overexposed (with flash), I suspect the change in exposure and flash use was not entirely due to carelessness.

I noted that during an episode of Sightings, Gaynor makes an interesting comment while displaying the Polaroid photos to the camera. When he shows the control photo, he states, “I waited until she said it [the entity] was gone, and I took the final picture. And this is a perfect, normal picture. It’s just dark because we didn’t adjust the setting” (Hall and Cowen 1992). As noted, if he were taking a control photo, it should have been taken under the same settings as the previous photos; Gaynor’s statement suggests they may have been changing the exposure setting between shots, because that is the only adjustment setting (besides focus) they could change.

I contacted Gaynor concerning this odd comment. He responded, “The pictures were shot within about thirty seconds of each other. No adjustments were made. Also remember her exact words were ‘it’s right in front of my face.’ The face was obliterated, but the rest of her body was not. In addition, we could see the curtains behind her at the same level as her head.” Despite his opinion, the curtains are overexposed as well, but due to their darker color scheme and slightly farther distance, they are not completely washed out. Also, Candy’s skin is one of the lightest colors in the scene and therefore would be washed out more than her dark blue dress. I requested clarification about these concerns with Gaynor but received no further response.

Taff and Gaynor describe a steady increase of activity over the next few visits to Bither’s home, mainly the manifestation of multiple light anomalies. These lights are described as “moving, pulsing flashes of light … lime green in color … three-dimensional in nature … which were not stable in size or luminosity” (Taff 2011). The focus of the parapsychology group, which at this point had grown to over thirty individuals, had switched to photographing these strange lights.

Taff also describes a much larger operation being implemented by his group. In his report Taff states:

Our fifth visit to Doris’ house resulted in a large-scale magnification of all phenomena. We began by duct taping large black poster boards up on the walls and ceiling of the bedroom, all of which were numbered and identified with a magnetic orientation. White duct tape was placed between the dark panels that formed a grid network, like graph paper, therein providing us with a reference for further attempts at photographing the lights. Black poster boards were also used to seal off all the light entrances into the bedroom that rendered the environment almost pitch black. (Taff 2011)

He describes this same setup in The Entity Files, a featurette included on the DVD release of the film (based loosely on the story).

Two photographs from this visit are presented as evidence of the supernatural lights. Both images, taken inside Bither’s bedroom, show two “brilliant arcs of light, one essentially framing Doris” (Taff 2011). During his interview on The Entity Files, Taff states that Bither was “cowering on the bed beneath the lights that were flying around her in a mad fray” (Martin 2005). Yet the photo does not in fact show Bither “cowering” but rather sitting on the bed looking, if anything, a bit uninterested as other team members sit idly.

Taff points out that one of the arcs of light crosses over a ninety-degree corner in the bedroom—yet the light does not in fact bend with the corner. This indicates the arc of light is floating in space rather than being light cast onto the walls. Taff and Gaynor both agree these arcs of light are the result of the three-dimensional, free-floating lights that were moving too fast for the camera’s set shutter speed. What they fail to point out is that in this photograph, the arcs of light also cross over several people in the room, most notably the small arc on the left appearing before the woman’s head. This indicates the arcs of light are in the space between these people and the camera lens—not floating above Bither on the bed.

After reading Taff’s report, I noticed a huge discrepancy between his description of events on this visit and the resulting photographs: there are no black poster boards, white duct tape (creating grids), or numbers and magnetic orientation identifications on the walls. Taff told us these objects were installed prior to the supernatural light show (and they were still up when they left that night), yet they are curiously nowhere to be found in the photographs.

I focused my attention on the two arcs of light within each of the photographs. My first impression was that these were strands of hair caught in the flash, which would cause the same effect when photographed too close to the lens. The hair is out of focus and therefore shows up much thicker than it really is. Using a strand of my wife’s hair, I recreated the effect, shown below.

Taff states, both in his report (2011) and on The Entity Files, that there were over thirty people crammed into this small house, mostly within this bedroom. He also notes in his book how they “became increasingly aware of the broken-down, shabby nature of the wooden dwelling that had been twice condemned by the city” (Taff 2011). These two details bring up the possibility of hair, fibers, or other similar debris getting onto and/or in front of the equipment, especially when thirty-plus people are moving about in such an enclosed space.

In the episode of The Entity Files, Taff states these photographs were sent to Adrian Vance, the West Coast editor of Popular Photography magazine, who could not explain how the arcs of light were produced. Also, in an episode of Sightings: Ghost Contact, the narrator (Tim White) goes a bit further, stating, “the negative of this photo was authenticated by Popular Photography and was the only alleged ghost photo ever published in the magazine.” Vance published an article in the May 1976 issue of Popular Photography that included one of these photographs, but the article failed to mention whether the magazine “authenticated” the negative. As for Vance giving his opinion on whether the photo shows an apparition, he merely writes, “it now appears (to them) that they had some success” (Vance 1976). This does not appear to be an enthusiastic endorsement of the photo’s authenticity as depicting some unknown energy.

I again reached out to Paul Michael Kane for his expert opinion. He mentioned the “arcs” could also be caused by poor film processing methods, specifically if part of the film strip made contact with another part during development. However, if Vance did inspect the negatives, this should have been something he would have picked up on. After further discussion, Kane agreed that these arcs were most likely caused by a thin object close to the camera, due to the overexposure and out-of-focus nature of the anomalies. The way the light fades at the ends of the arcs is also indicative of the ends falling out of view of the lens.

In closing, the photographic evidence presented for this case suffers from operator error and/or equipment misuse and possibly of deliberate manipulation of data. The photos contain sufficient clues as to how they were created and do not support the hypothesis that supernatural entities were captured on film in Doris Bither’s home.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Ben Radford for locating a copy of the Popular Photography article and Paul Michael Kane for sharing his extensive knowledge of photography.

References

Cowen, Mark. 1993. Sightings S2E15. Paramount Television.

Green, Stacy. 2012. Thriller Thursday: The Entity—when the paranormal attack. Available online at https://stacygreenauthor.com/archives/1220.

Hall, Paul, and Mark Cowen. 1992. Sightings S1E02. Paramount Television.

Martin, Perry. 2005. The Entity Files. Anchor Bay Entertainment.

Taff, Barry. 2011. Aliens Above, Ghosts Below: Explorations of the Unknown. Bridgeville, DE: Cosmic Pantheon Press.

Vance, Adrian. 1976. UCLA group uses camera to hunt ghosts. Popular Photography (May).