Creepy things caught in photos

[James R]

Just so we know you aren't just making this up, how do you account for the thousands of photos available online of ghosts captured in photos that nobody has ever debunked?

Clearly, there is either insufficient circumstantial evidence available to debunk them, or perhaps in some cases nobody has tried to debunk them.

Meanwhile, there remains not a single confirmed existence of a ghost. Not. A. Single. One. Ever.

Just so we know you aren't just making this up, how do you account for the thousands of photos purported to be of ghosts that have been comprehensively exposed as fakes? And how do you know this isn't just one more fake?

Have you even perused the evidence that is out there?

You bring it all here, don't you? Or, you select the stuff that makes the strongest argument for your belief. If, for some reason, you haven't brought the best available evidence for ghosts, then you must be monumentally stupid to have failed in such a way in your self-appointed task here for so many years.

Come back when you have actually gone thru some the many photos that are out there.

Come back when you have some evidence for ghosts.

LOL

Getting nervous again? Understandable, in the circumstances.

The photo itself is evidence for a ghost

You have failed to prove that the photograph shows a ghost. In fact, you've made almost no effort to start trying to put an argument together to even start making the case that the photo shows a ghost.

So far, what are your best arguments for the ghost, here? Let me see if I can fairly summarise:
1. You claim the man in the photograph wasn't there when the photo was taken. But there's no evidence that establishes the truth of your claim.
2. You claim that all the people involved in the production and publication of the photo are trustworthy in all their statements. But there's no evidence that establishes the truth of your claim.
3. You claim that the existence of lots of other purported photographs of ghosts somehow shows that this one is a photograph of an actual ghost. But that's faulty reasoning. A non sequitur.

Did I miss anything?

... defined as a disincarnate and translucent entity that has been seen appearing and disappearing by eyewitnesses all over the world.

You've just added some new claims. Now you also have to prove:
1. That the guy in the photo was "disincarnate".
2. That the guy was "translucent".
3. That the guy in the photo has been seen appearing and disappearing all over the world.

You're making things harder for yourself, not easier.

And that matches exactly what we see in the photo.

1. We cannot tell from the photo whether the guy in it was "disincarnate". On the contrary, he looks normally incarnate if you ask me.
2. You have not established that the apparent translucency in the photograph is a real effect and not a fake or a photo artifact.
3. You have not established that even one actual ghost has been seen anywhere else in the world.

If you want to claim it is something else than what it appears to be, then provide evidence for that claim.

It appears to be a faked photograph generated using image manipulation software to combine two photographs.

If you want to claim that it is something else than what it appears to be, then provide evidence for that claim.

So far you have failed to do that. And I'm pretty sure you aren't able to.

See above for a brief list of your failures.

Therefore this one is fake?

I did not say that. Don't try to put words into my mouth, thank you.

It is your job to prove that it is legit. Maybe you should get started on that.

 

[Magical Realist]

1. You claim the man in the photograph wasn't there when the photo was taken. But there's no evidence that establishes the truth of your claim.

I didn't claim it. The people that were there claim it. That's my evidence. Where is your evidence that he was there?

2. You claim that all the people involved in the production and publication of the photo are trustworthy in all their statements. But there's no evidence that establishes the truth of your claim.

I simply take them for their word because I have no evidence they are lying. If you are claiming they are lying then support your claim with evidence.

3. You claim that the existence of lots of other purported photographs of ghosts somehow shows that this one is a photograph of an actual ghost. But that's faulty reasoning. A non sequitur.

Of course it does. Just as the existence of lots of purported photos of tornados would show to a tornado skeptic that a given photo of a tornado is an actual tornado. See how that works James?

It appears to be a faked photograph generated using image manipulation software to combine two photographs.

Oh really? So what tipped you off that it is a fake photo of a ghost as opposed to a real photo of ghost? Are you saying now it looks like a ghost except for some detail that proves it is really just a photoshopped ghost? What is that praytell?

 

[Magical Realist]

1. We cannot tell from the photo whether the guy in it was "disincarnate". On the contrary, he looks normally incarnate if you ask me.

He doesn't look like the incarnate brother right beside him. He is shadowy and discolored and translucent. Hence ghost.

2. You have not established that the apparent translucency in the photograph is a real effect and not a fake or a photo artifact.

The image is not fake per the people who were there and the girl who took it. Hence ghost.

3. You have not established that even one actual ghost has been seen anywhere else in the world.

Really? I posted a whole thread on celebrities who have seen ghosts. Remember Sting and his wife seeing the woman with her baby at the foot of their bed one night which then disappeared. That's a ghost. Remember that whole thread on people who see the apparitions of loved ones who have recently passed away? Those are ghosts. Remember that video of the ghost boy peeking around a corner in the abandoned house? That's a ghost. Remember that video of the civil war soldiers walking in and out of the distant tree line at night on the Gettysburg battlefield., Those are ghosts. Shall I go on?

 

[James R]

I didn't claim it.

Yes you did. You wrote "You also realize don't you that an image of a translucent black man captured on a cellphone who wasn't present when the photo was taken IS evidence for the existence of ghosts?"

That's not them claiming that the "translucent man" in the photo is a ghost. That's you making the claim.

The people that were there claim it.

If that's what they claim, they haven't shown that the guy in the photo was a ghost, any more than you have. If they had done that, and you were aware of it, you would have brought the evidence. But you didn't.

Where is your evidence that he was there?

I do not claim he was there.

I simply take them for their word because I have no evidence they are lying.

That's a mistake, because you also have no evidence that they are telling the truth, and you have no reason to trust that they are telling the truth. You only have the fact that you deeply want to believe them. But your desires are irrelevant to deciding the question of whether they are truthful.

If you are claiming they are lying then support your claim with evidence.

I am not claiming they are lying.

You are claiming there was a ghost, but you can't support your claim satisfactorily.

Of course it does. Just as the existence of lots of purported photos of tornados would show to a tornado skeptic that a given photo of a tornado is an actual tornado. See how that works James?

Have you seen the film Twister?

You're essentially arguing that all of the tornados in that film must be real tornados, because there are lots of other photographs and films of tornados. Some notes on that:

1. It's fallacious reasoning. The fact that we have hundreds of actual examples of X does not mean that every purported example of X is a legitimate, real X. (e.g. try this with "tornado", for example, and see point 2).
2. Lots of the tornados shown in the film Twister are CGI. i.e. fakes. This is a fact. Anybody who assumes they are all real is therefore as gullible as you are when it comes to ghosts. (Actually, that's not totally fair to them, since they might have a good excuse for making a mistake.)
3. Tornados are something that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to exist in reality. In comparison: Not. A. Single. Confirmed. Ghost. Ever.

Oh really? So what tipped you off that it is a fake photo of a ghost as opposed to a real photo of ghost?

I'll tell you, right after you tell me what tipped you off that it is a true photo of an actual ghost. Over to you.

And remember what you said: if you want to claim that it is something else than what it appears to be, then provide evidence for that claim. The photo appears to be a fake, so by your own standards, you have to provide the evidence that it isn't. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite with double standards - demanding of others what you do not require of yourself.

Are you saying now it looks like a ghost except for some detail that proves it is really just a photoshopped ghost?

It doesn't look like a ghost. It looks like a photoshopped image. Over to you to provide the evidence that it isn't. We're using your standards now.

He doesn't look like the incarnate brother right beside him. He is shadowy and discolored and translucent. Hence ghost.

Hence photoshop.

The image is not fake per the people who were there and the girl who took it. Hence ghost.

Another basic failure to reason correctly on your part.

Somebody making a claim doesn't automatically make the claim true. People tell lies.

Also, we have not heard from the "girl who took it". You don't have a clue what she said about it, other than some fourth-hand hearsay.

Really? I posted a whole thread on celebrities who have seen ghosts.

Yeah. And I posted on how celebrities are not specially immune to being suckered into fraud, or specially immune from making mistakes.

Remember Sting and his wife seeing the woman with her baby at the foot of their bed one night which then disappeared. That's a ghost.

Or a dream. Or an invented story. Or something. This is an even weaker try than your ghost photo. No physical evidence at all.

Remember that whole thread on people who see the apparitions of loved ones who have recently passed away? Those are ghosts.

You keep making empty claim after empty claim. In years here, you have never once managed to show that anything is an actual ghost. Not once. Not in years on this site. And now you're reduced to recycling old, empty claims - including this photo that we talked about before.

Remember that video of the ghost boy peeking around a corner in the abandoned house? That's a ghost.

I don't remember it. Nor do I remember you doing anything to demonstrate that it was a ghost. If you had managed to produce some convincing evidence for a ghost, I'm sure I'd remember it. In fact, you wouldn't be here having this conversation with me. You'd be famous as the guy who finally proved the thing.

Remember that video of the civil war soldiers walking in and out of the distant tree line at night on the Gettysburg battlefield., Those are ghosts.

We debunked that one, if I recall correctly. Remember?

 

[Magical Realist]

Remember that video of the civil war soldiers walking in and out of the distant tree line at night on the Gettysburg battlefield., Those are ghosts.

We debunked that one, if I recall correctly. Remember?

Here it is again. After the video I posted, a couple of posters claimed it was hikers hiking around at night without flashlights. lol
Nothing at all was debunked about it. It remains to this day one of the best captures of ghosts ever made.

Best Ghost evidence you have come across

Just two points need to be made...... [1] We have absolutely no conclusive empirical evidence for ghosts or goblins or Santa. [2] The supernatural and paranormal circus you push are unscientific concepts. And [3] - there is a LOT more 'evidence' for the various flavors of religion than there is...

www.sciforums.com

 

[James R]

Here it is again.

Thanks for the link. If there's nothing new to discuss, I guess that's all we need.

You're not trying to change the subject, are you? You were about to explain how you managed to conclude that the photo taken by the girl in the truck shows a real honest-to-goodness ghost. Weren't you?

And do you have any response to all the other stuff I wrote?

 

[Magical Realist]

You're not trying to change the subject, are you?

You claimed this:

You have not established that even one actual ghost has been seen anywhere else in the world.

I then gave you 4 clear examples of such I have posted, among many others. That's not even including the 3 examples posted in this thread. So you are simply wrong. And shrugging them off as hallucinations or what not does nothing to debunk them.

 

[James R]

After the video I posted, a couple of posters claimed it was hikers hiking around at night without flashlights. lol

For shits and giggles, I went back and took a look at that series of posts. I see that your ghostly claim was quickly debunked there. Then, like here, you tried to change the subject. Then you got yourself banned again for some other reason.

I guess the "lol" is because you remember how that went for you back then, and it's not a comfortable memory. It makes you nervous. That's all understandable. You dig yourself these holes and then you sort of feel like you need to keep going on with it, long after you've lost the battle and been shown up as a fool. Typically, it's about this time that you start with the seriously clowning. Then come the lies, until you get yourself banned again.

 

[James R]

I then gave you 4 clear examples of such I have posted, among many others.

You realised that your ghostly black dude in the baseball cap is not a winner, so you tried to distract and change the subject onto a completely different case (or four), like you always do.

I'm happy to accept your admission of defeat on the selfie ghost thing.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You claimed this:



I then gave you 4 clear examples of such I have posted, among many others. That's not even including the 3 examples posted in this thread. So you are simply wrong. And shrugging them off as hallucinations or what not does nothing to debunk them.

LOL

 

[Magical Realist]

Have you seen the film Twister?

You're essentially arguing that all of the tornados in that film must be real tornados, because there are lots of other photographs and films of tornados. Some notes on that:

Nice try, Nobody's talking about the special effects in a movie. We're talking real photos of tornadoes people took., Just like ghost photos.

1. It's fallacious reasoning. The fact that we have hundreds of actual examples of X does not mean that every purported example of X is a legitimate, real X. (e.g. try this with "tornado", for example, and see point 2)

The fact that there are tons of tornado photos in existence shows to a tornado skeptic that one more is a photo of a real thing., It confirms tornadoes as a real phenomenon that can be captured on film. Just like with ghosts..

2. Lots of the tornados shown in the film Twister are CGI. i.e. fakes. This is a fact. Anybody who assumes they are all real is therefore as gullible as you are when it comes to ghosts. (Actually, that's not totally fair to them, since they might have a good excuse for making a mistake.)

Tornadoes in films like Twister and the Wizard of Oz are all known instances of special effects in films, Just as ghosts in horror films are. We're not talking about that. We are talking about photos of a phenomenon that is real and proven to exist in photos.

3. Tornados are something that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to exist in reality. In comparison: Not. A. Single. Confirmed. Ghost. Ever.

If you were a tornado skeptic, tornadoes would be proven to exist thru photos and eyewitness accounts. Just as with ghosts.

For shits and giggles, I went back and took a look at that series of posts. I see that your ghostly claim was quickly debunked there.

Really? How was it debunked? Did someone confess it to be a hoax? When? How was it hoaxed? And why?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I guess you think there's a great conspiracy to keep all this really good evidence from the general public.

 

[Magical Realist]

Photo taken inside the notoriously haunted Waverly Hills Sanitarium. The apparition captured shows it in a half-formed state, an extraordinary catch in terms of conventional ghost photos.

"Over the span of more than 70 years, 63,000 people died while at the TB hospital. Many believe that the ghosts of the patients or staff that died there, remain. in the halls and on the grounds around the facility. Paranormal activity has been seen throughout the building, but two places seem to be the most active.

According to the Courier-Journal,

"The infamous 600-foot body chute, for instance, that was used to discretely move thousands of corpses through the facility has grown in infamy and is often cited as a place where ghostly experiences take place."

Room 50 is also notorious. The room in the rooftop chambers is believed to have housed tuberculosis patients with mental illnesses and was allegedly the site of a nurse's death by suicide.

Image in the doorway of Waverly Hills Room 50​

A couple of years ago, Maggie Clark unexpectedly captured a ghost-like image at Waverly Hills. I wrote about the photo earlier this year but didn't realize it was taken on the actively paranormal rooftop, Room 50. That revelation itself makes it worth publishing again. In case you missed it, allow me to show you the astonishing photo that Maggie captured.

It's a picture that is captivating and very hard to explain. The photo shows incredible ghost-like images moving around the outer doorway to the room.

Below is a rooftop view of Room 50 and the arrow points to where the photo was taken from inside the room, facing the doorway.

Dan Oshier Productions

Incredible photo of ghostly images taken at Waverly Hills​

If you look closely, you can see an image of a ghostly-body passing by the rooftop doorway.

Incredible Image of Ghost Figures Captured During Tour of Kentucky's Waverly Hills Sanatorium

I truly have no idea how to explain this photo. Of all of the photos that have been sent to me over the years, this is by far one of the top two that leaves me speechless.

wkdq.com

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Magic, right?

 

[Magical Realist]

As magical as the Big Bang and quantum entanglement and life and consciousness is...

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let's see, Big Bang, the origin of the universe as we know it. Some futzy photo with no provenance, same level. Got it.

 

[TheVat]

There are hypothesis problems beyond those James and Zilla have ably pointed out. In science, when you postulate the existence of something elusive, it is necessary to have some kind of coherent definition of what the postulated thing IS. In all this ghost chitchat, I have yet to see any scientific hypothesis as to what a "ghost" might be, beyond a vague allusion to something that floats out of dead people and puts in spooky appearances. Spirit? What is that? Is it conscious? Or is it just some sort of snapshot composed of exotic matter? What is it composed of? (ectoplasm, whatever that is? dust caught in EM fields ? dark matter? eucalyptus fumes ?) Do other living things have ghosts after they die? Etc.

At the present level of the hypothesis, one could as well postulate the existence of sentient unicorn farts. That's the level of coherence here. We can't really talk evidence until there's a specified "of" after evidence.

 

[James R]

Nice try, Nobody's talking about the special effects in a movie.

I was talking about them. I'm not nobody.

We're talking real photos of tornadoes people took., Just like ghost photos.

There are lots of real photographs. Just no photographs of real ghosts. None that have been convincingly shown to be such, at any rate.

The fact that there are tons of tornado photos in existence shows to a tornado skeptic that one more is a photo of a real thing.

No. Why would a tornado skeptic, who is presumably aware that there are tons of photos of things that believers claim are real tornados, be persuaded by yet another similar photo of a similar-looking thing?

Why should 100 photographs of tornados be any more persuasive than 3 photographs of tornados, or one?

If I showed you 100 photographs of unicorns, would that be sufficient to convince you that unicorns are real? Notice that this example is an exact parallel to the scenario you have put up regarding the tornados, not to mention the ghosts.

It confirms tornadoes as a real phenomenon that can be captured on film. Just like with ghosts..

No. It merely confirms that it is possible to produce a photograph of something that looks like a tornado (or a ghost). Like in the film Twister, which produced film footage of what looks like a tornado.

Tornadoes in films like Twister and the Wizard of Oz are all known instances of special effects in films,

Not to everyone.

Certainly, you're aware, at some level, that films can be faked and that photos can be faked. But you give a free pass to all shonky youtube videos and photographs that purport to show ghosts. Why is that?

Why do you not apply your tornado skepticism to ghosts?

We are talking about photos of a phenomenon that is real and proven to exist in photos.

No phenomenon is proven to exist by photos, other than the phenomenon of photography.

If you were a tornado skeptic, tornadoes would be proven to exist thru photos and eyewitness accounts.

No. Photos can be faked. Eyewitness can tell lies and make mistakes. Neither of those things is sufficient to prove the existence of tornados.

Really? How was it debunked? Did someone confess it to be a hoax? When? How was it hoaxed? And why?

It turned out that you couldn't understand the concept of a hill in a forest, or something like that. Then you gave up and changed the subject, as usual.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do we need more Cottingley Fairies?

 

[Magical Realist]

There are hypothesis problems beyond those James and Zilla have ably pointed out. In science, when you postulate the existence of something elusive, it is necessary to have some kind of coherent definition of what the postulated thing IS. In all this ghost chitchat, I have yet to see any scientific hypothesis as to what a "ghost" might be, beyond a vague allusion to something that floats out of dead people and puts in spooky appearances. Spirit? What is that? Is it conscious? Or is it just some sort of snapshot composed of exotic matter? What is it composed of? (ectoplasm, whatever that is? dust caught in EM fields ? dark matter? eucalyptus fumes ?) Do other living things have ghosts after they die? Etc.

At the present level of the hypothesis, one could as well postulate the existence of sentient unicorn farts. That's the level of coherence here. We can't really talk evidence until there's a specified "of" after evidence .

That's what happens when you have solid evidence for a phenomenon but no scientific theory defining its features. Take dark matter. What is that? Is it made of particles? Why doesn't it interact with light or regular matter? Where did it come from? Does it emit energy? Can it exist in phases like solid, liquid and gas? Are there dark matter planets? Stars? Lifeforms?

See...such is the case for any mysterious phenomenon. Our ignorance of its details in no way means the phenomenon doesn't exist. It just means we haven't learned enough about it yet to define it clearly.