Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
There are lots of real photographs. Just no photographs of real ghosts. None that have been convincingly shown to be such, at any rate.
Seeing you have yet to debunk or show evidence for fakery in even just one ghost photo, that pretty much means they are authentic captures of ghosts just as they appear to be,
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?
Because it's feasible that one or even three photos of a tornado could be fake. But hundreds of them taken by many different people in different locations over the years who have absolutely no reason to lie? Yeah.. that would be pretty persuasive. Just at it is with ghost photos.
If I showed you 100 photographs of unicorns, would that be sufficient to convince you that unicorns are real?
Along with hundreds of eyewitness accounts of unicorns from all over the world down thru the centuries? Yes.. that would convince me they are real though highly elusive for some reason. Just like ghosts are.
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.
Knowing what we do about the science of photography, hundreds of photos of the same thing is strong evidence for the existence of that thing. That there are movies with special effects simulating those things does not suggest the non-existence of those things in the least.
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?
Yes to everyone. Everyone knows those aren't real tornadoes in those films. But that in no way means that all photos of tornadoes are faked too. Just as faked photos of ghosts doesn't mean all photos of ghosts are faked.
No phenomenon is proven to exist by photos, other than the phenomenon of photography.
Really? So how did you learn about the existence of tornadoes? Or nebulae? Or the northern lights? Or erupting volcanos? Or barracudas? Or roughly 99 % of all the things you know to exist that you have never witnessed firsthand?
No. Photos can be faked. Eyewitness can tell lies and make mistakes. Neither of those things is sufficient to prove the existence of tornados.
And yet that's how most of us have learned about the existence of things outside of our experience our whole lives since we were kids. Why should we now suddenly make an exception for ghosts? Because you don't want to believe in them? Not a good enough reason.
It turned out that you couldn't understand the concept of a hill in a forest, or something like that.
How does a speculative hill in a forest made up by skeptics debunk the images of apparitions appearing there caught on camera? Oh wait. You're not really serious because you have no evidence the video was debunked at all. Got it!
Last edited: