Creepy things caught in photos

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some posts should be "seen by direct request only."

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Is it just a coincidence the surname is Ogletree? Seems obvious they’re saying, “look at the tree and tell me what you see.”

What it really could be….lol:
1. US military growing trees that look like humans to fool enemy reconnaissance
2. US military testing new camo that can make soldiers look like trees or an entire forest to confuse enemy
3. A black family took a photo of Dad and some white kid appeared in the image
4. The white kid is actually painting a mural on a wall right in front of him and he’s really good
5. Man just had the black eye ring telescope prank played on him and everyone having a good laugh

 

[James R]

Well it's certainly a fact that people witness ghosts and capture ghostly apparitions of dead people in photographs.

No! If it was "certainly a fact" you wouldn't be constantly here trying to convince us all that it's a fact.

There are very probably no actual ghosts.

Those aren't facts I'm making up.

You're not making up the fact that some photographs have things in them that look like the archetypal "ghost".

You're making up that you somehow know the things in the photos represent actual images of real-world ghosts. But time and again you have failed to make a convincing argument for that conclusion. Instead, you trot out the same tired three or four arguments that fail to make your case, like "But there are so many photographs!" or "People almost always tell the truth, and never make mistakes!". And you tell what you know are lies, like "There's no other plausible conclusion anyone could reach about this photo, other than that it is a photo of a ghost!"

And as far as prior belief goes, yes I believe in ghosts.

Call the new stations! An astounding revelation. Not.

The evidence has convinced me of it over the years...

No it hasn't. You started convinced.

..., just as it should for every empirically-minded soul.

LOL. Keep on clowning, MR.

One might even say I know ghosts exist.

If one did, then one would be wrong about that. Knowledge is a justified, true belief, which is different from just a belief.

So if knowledge influences how I perceive the facts, as indeed it does and should for everybody, I'm certainly not going to worry about it.

Not surprised that you're not going to worry about knowledge.

 

[James R]

And it makes an even smarter person careful not to dismiss a whole field of knowledge and practice based on the charlatans that have been exposed in that field.

There's no knowledge about ghosts. See above.

But you've got the wrong end of the stick, as usual. I haven't "dismissed" the possibility that, one day, good evidence for ghosts might come to light. I haven't dismissed the "whole field".

On the contrary, here I am, discussing the "field" with you. If I was dismissive, we wouldn't be having this congenial chat.

Have you even researched what has been learned in the field of parapsychology over the years? No?

Yes. The field of parapsychology is rife with poor experimental design and shoddy investigation practices.

The best studies that have attempted to confirm effects like ESP have obtained results that are either on the very edges of detectability (due to the instruments used etc.) or else can be accounted for as statistical outliers.

You make the common skeptic's mistake of thinking asking questions about something makes that something questionable.

That's not a mistake.

Anybody can come up with unanswerable questions about any phenomena.

Maybe. So what?

How does it happen? Why does it happen in this way? Why does it happen at all? etc. But that in no way entails that the phenomenon is therefore nonexistent or even dubious.

There is usually convincing evidence for phenomena that are generally agreed to be real. There is no requirement that all aspects of a phenomenon must be understand before it is acknowledged to be real. But there must be sufficient evidence to establish that there's a "there" there.

It just shows that it is largely unknown and in need of continuing exploration.

Why aren't you out there searching for better evidence for ghosts than fuzzy photos and videos of dubious provenance trawled from the interwebs, then?

So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence fraudulent people are pushing ghosts and paranormal phenomena on the general public.

Are you unaware of such evidence? Forgive me. I have overestimated you again, even taking into account your clowning. Would you like me to dig up a few examples of fraudulent people pushing ghosts and the paranormal on the general public?

Let me ask you this, first:

Is there anything that could convince you that ghosts are not real?

If your answer to this is "no", then clearly I will be wasting my time, because then your belief cannot be evidence-based. If, on the other hand, your answer is "yes", let me know what you would require.

All the photos posted in this thread so far are of people who quite innocently captured something extraordinary in them and so posted them online.

You are assuming all those people are "quite innocent". But that is just your assumption. And it's a mistake to make that assumption all the time. You're also assuming that the things in the photos are "quite extraordinary", before putting any effort at all into evaluating them. That's confirmation bias writ large.

There's nothing wrong with that.

See above. I just told you what's wrong with that. But I've told you before, and not just me. It's all in one ear and out the other with you, if we're to believe your clown act.

If that pisses you off somehow then that means you are assuming things about people you don't even know.

You've got it exactly backwards. You are the only one of the two of us who is assuming things about people you don't even know.

And that's a sign of projection---typically vilifying anonymous people to serve some psychological hang-up you have.

I have vilified nobody, other than confirmed fraudsters and other liars.

You should stop telling lies, too.

Provide one instance where I have claimed something to be true that I knew to be false.

"All the photos posted in this thread so far are of people who quite innocently captured something extraordinary in them."

That's just from this post that I'm replying to. You tell lies so regularly and unashamedly, it's not hard to find recent examples.

Yes..no doubt you fancy yourself quite the crusading knight ever at war slaying the goblins and dragons of superstitious woo.

I fancy myself as an educator, bringing the light of the candle of knowledge to the ignorant, while shining the same light on those who are less than honest about their woo.

I wouldn't call that an admirable trait though. I'd call it religious zealotry dressed up in the garb of science and critical thinking.

That's because, if we are to take your clown act at face value, you're unable to distinguish science and critical thinking from religion. You have a religion, but you don't call it that. And, again if we are to take the clown act at face value, you wouldn't know a critical thought if it came up and bit you on the bum.

Hence your righteous indignation and wrathful hypervigilance against all alleged deceivers, always scanning the horizon for looming threats against your precious little kingdom of neat black-and-white rationality.

You keep making the same basic mistake. Neither you nor your ghosts nor any of the other woo you peddle represents any kind of perceived "threat" to me or to my "precious little kingdom".

I'm not afraid of your ghosts, Magical Realist. I'm not afraid of clowns.

You do it every time you try to debunk some evidence I post, unwarrantedly accusing the witnesses or photographers of treacherous deceit and greedy motives just so you can dismiss it all.

Point to one place where I have "unwarrentedly" accused somebody of treacherous deceit and greedy motives, if you can.

If you can't, stop telling lies.

Somehow you seem to think making up some outlandish story about how the photo was really all a clever hoax doesn't need defense or evidence at all.

It needs no more evidence or defence than some outlandish story about how the photo really shows an honest-to-goodness ghost.

And you never provide any of that.

I don't need to. You're the one with the extraordinary claims. The onus is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence for them.

It is an established fact that some people make up outlandish stories. It is an established fact that some photos are faked. We know it is possible to fake a photo or video of a ghost - in fact, these days it's easy. It's also easy to make stuff up and tell lies about how it is all real.

Your job, as the guy who claims the woo is real, is to bring the facts that establish your claim. But you keep failing to provide sufficient evidence. Worse, most of the stuff you bring is scrapings from the bottom of the interweb barrel, essentially. Stuff that nobody should take at face value, without additional corroborating evidence (which you do not have).

Oh but it's possibly true is it not? Sure, and it's possibly not true as well.

Just like the ghosts. The onus is on the claimant to make his case.

IOW, you have provided nothing of substance at all.

Again, I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims. I just state the obvious: people make mistakes, photographic errors happen, some people are motivated to lie, etc. etc. Nothing extraordinary about any of that.

And so, as Hitchens decreed, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Exactly. Which is why I dismiss much of what you claim about the woo.

 

[James R]

That need for being unbiased and objective in our looking at evidence applies as much to the skeptic as to the believer.

Yes.

That's because the typical online skeptic out to debunk everything otherwordly has his own set of personal beliefs (or really disbeliefs) about the world and what does and can happen in it.

Everybody has his own beliefs about what the world is like and about the things that are and aren't in it.

When it comes to the woo, the difference between you and me is that I have an open mind, whereas you have your mind already well and truly made up.

Have I ever asserted that ghosts can't be real? Have I ever said that it's impossible for ghost to appear in a photo? I have not.

But you claim that you know that ghosts are real.

Remind me, then, which of the two of us is objective and which of us is hopelessly biased?

If we are really to set aside our respective biases, we must confront evidence for an anomalous phenomena with the neutrality of the agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves in it but remains open to both equal possibilities---that it is real or that it is not real.

If only you weren't such a hypocrite, you could not only say this sort of thing, but actually try to live it. Unfortunately, it's all just lip service, as far as you're concerned.

The evidence or data should itself drive the analysis as much as possible, not our assumptions about what is real and probable in the world.

Bravo! Well said, MR.

But by the time you post your next post, you will have forgotten all of that. You'll be back to making silly claims about how somebody you don't know can for sure be 100% trusted because they say took a photo of a real ghost.

 

[TheVat]

C'mon James, you ol' party pooper! STING SAW A GHOST! We are spirits in the material world.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R said: But by the time you post your next post, you will have forgotten all of that. You'll be back to making silly claims about how somebody you don't know can for sure be 100% trusted because they say took a photo of a real ghost.

Still not seeing any evidence from you that any of these people are lying and not to be trusted. The default mode for all social interaction is to assume that the person is being honest about what they claim they did and saw. It's called "good faith". It isn't my job to prove that they aren't lying and aren't merely playing a prank on everyone. A negative can never be proven. If I show you a fossil of some ancient extinct creature it isn't my burden to prove it isn't fake. As the skeptic claiming it is, it is up to you prove that. Likewise, if you claim the people who took these pictures are lying and fabricating the evidence then simply back up that claim with evidence. That's all I ask,..

Scared red neck catches photo of a little boy in his truck.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So no negative evidence that they aren't lying equates to impossible beings running around the world. LOW standards. You sound desperate.

 

[Magical Realist]

"When the photographer, Neil Sandbach, was developing the various photographs he had taken of a farm in Hertfordshire, England, he was surprised to see something extra in one of the photographs. There appeared to be the figure of a child in one of the pictures. He called the farm owners to ask them some questions about their farm and their experiences and they confirmed that a little boy dressed in an old fashioned nightgown had been haunting the farm and they had seen him several times."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You keep urinating to windward.

 

[TheVat]

The default mode for all social interaction is to assume that the person is being honest about what they claim they did and saw.

That's a default mode for etiquette, not scientific investigation of anomalies.

It isn't my job to prove that they aren't lying and aren't merely playing a prank on everyone

But it is the job of a scientific investigation to rule out trickery. Especially in the era of Photoshop, drones, laser holography, etc.

A negative can never be proven.

Incorrect. A negative claim can be proven if it concerns a well-defined domain that can be subject to comprehensive examination or search. I can drain Loch Ness and prove there is no Loch Ness monster. I can plant recording cameras in my living room, covering all areas, and prove no leprachauns are coming in while we sleep and knocking stuff on the floor (while proving an allied positive, that our cats are doing it). Indeed, many negatives are proven simply by proving a positive which excludes the negative. Proving no Scotsmen attended a meeting needs only security staff who require a birth certificate and US passport to be shown. You might also look up modus tollens.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

MR's preparation for any scientific investigation is the preparation that comes right after "G".

 

[Magical Realist]

I can drain Loch Ness and prove there is no Loch Ness monster.

Well.. I don't think that would necessarily prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. It could have been swimming in another connected loch or sea or river. But besides that, who could possibly drain Loch Ness of all its water? It would require a superhuman ability that you simply don't have.

I can plant recording cameras in my living room, covering all areas, and prove no leprechauns are coming in while we sleep and knocking stuff on the floor (while proving an allied positive, that our cats are doing it).

Actually you've only proven there were no leprechauns knocking stuff on the floor at that time. Who knows about all the other nights. Maybe they are clever enough to not do it while you're filming the house.

In the case of proving a ghost photo isn't fake, the only way I could prove it to you is if we were both there when the photo was taken and observed it immediately afterwards and then could see if the apparition was there. But that's clearly beyond my abilities.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Your butt is full of yeah.