lets pick a pic
Freddy Jackson's Comeback
do a critical analysis
i wish to learn
you show me how
Why can't ghosts exist?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
lets pick a pic
Freddy Jackson's Comeback
do a critical analysis
i wish to learn
you show me how
And, of course, scientifically-minded people will also check to see what's been said by both sides of the argument.
For example:
(This from the ever-so difficult to find Wiki page on the Wem Town Hall photo).
And, just for information, that's the only one I've bothered checking, and it took all of five minutes...
I have done such things accidentally by double exposure, or it can be done in the developing process.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
History is not science. The evening news is not science. Travel magazines are not science. Biographical accounts are not science. Do you doubt these too?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wow...You can create pictures of dead people using double exposure? That's quite a talent!
Yes.
Thanks, A got a BS in Graphic Design and Photography.Wow...You can create pictures of dead people using double exposure? That's quite a talent!
It would not be that much of a challenge to take a picture of the man, forget to wind the film, then take another photo 2 days later to result in something like this.
On double exposures, I wonder if down the road we'll see less of those kinds of ghosts due to digital photography. Although digital has its own artifacts. Don't know how many times I've seen claims of life on Mars, and it's due to pixelation.
There's a few photos there that, knowing enough background of the place and time, could be examined further. But by themselves they're just curiosities. It's like any other unexplained case, you have to have correlating data...one data point is not enough for any conclusive result.
There's a few photos there that, knowing enough background of the place and time, could be examined further. But by themselves they're just curiosities. It's like any other unexplained case, you have to have correlating data...one data point is not enough for any conclusive result.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Here's another pic. Pretty creepy:
WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00765/WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg
WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00765/WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Kinda hard to take a picture of a dead man isn't it?
Oh that's right..They knew the pilot was GOING to die so they took his pic while he was alive so they could double expose it behind this one after he died.
It was during the course of WWI, people died all the time, it would not be unusual to take a picture of someone who ended up dead soon after.
Very interesting. Also interesting is that so many images are very old, which i think is a clue. Here is why: Photography and mainly film has many tricks and some people wouldnt even know about today since people dont use film or develop images in their homes any longer.
I would imagine an old timer\pro photographer can explain how those were done.
Or maybe not.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Well ofcourse if they were new photos then the argument would become that they were photoshopped digitally. So really, unless you take the professional photo analysts who have analyzed them to be complete liars, these are pretty convincing evidence.
i said 'so-called ghosts' meaning i don't know what they are. they vary which aren't all 'ghost' related or sightings.
excuse me?? what i did point out is the hostility against the idea of a soul as if it was ridiculous. in the other thread you were blunt that everyone knows what cruelty is.
well, i can be blunt and tell you that most people do have a sense of soul as it being a living sense of self. it's not abstract to them but very real like a three-dimensional unseen being which is them and their body is a container
whether it can be proven or disproven is another matter.
i saw that too. unfortunately, it can't currently explain away all of them since they don't all have to do with infrasound or 'ghosts'.
i already posted an example that science cannot explain or doesn't consider real such as two people separated in physical distance but connected somehow. they see that as being untrue but even from personal experience i know it isn't. still, i also know i can't physically or concretely prove it either. but it's important to keep in mind that just because something can't be concretely proven or shown at this time doesn't mean it's untrue.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
That's a false dichotomy - very bad reasoning.
Your reasoning is "Either it is a hoax or it is ghosts". False dichotomy. It may be neither. It may be a camera artifact. It may be misperception. It may be self-delusion. It may be a simple mistake of seeing an ordinary thing and mistaking it for something else.
If your answer from all the available evidence is "We can't explain this", that doesn't mean you all of sudden default to "It must be ghosts". That's a huge leap of logic, and totally unjustified.
Do you believe in witches? I asked you before but you didn't answer.
Do you believe in alien spacecraft UFOs?
Suppose I see a bright light in the sky early in the morning and I take a photo that clearly shows it, and I don't know what it is. I show you the photo, and you're not sure what it is either, but you have the photo analysed and it isn't faked in any way. What's a reasonable conclusion here? Answer: "We don't know what the light in the photo is". It is NOT reasonable to say "We can't explain the light in the photo, so it must be a flying saucer".
Suppose that 6 months later somebody looks at my photo and says "You, know, I think that might be the planet Venus." He goes away and checks the position of Venus in the sky on the day I took the photo, and what do you know? It turns out that Venus was exactly where it appears in the photo. Now, finally, 6 months later, we can put this mystery to rest. We've solved it, beyond any reasonable doubt (barring new evidence of course). It's a good thing we didn't simply conclude that it was a flying saucer at the start, or we might never have learned that sometimes you can mistake an ordinary planet for a UFO.
I don't assume ghosts don't or can't exist. I just look at the evidence. Show me some good evidence for the existence of ghosts. So far, you've presented nothing really convincing.
Who? On what basis could you be banned?
We don't generally ban people for holding particular views here. If you believe in ghosts, that's just fine. It won't stop people trying to explain why you might be wrong, but there's no reason you should be banned just for being wrong.
That's a false dichotomy - very bad reasoning.
Your reasoning is "Either it is a hoax or it is ghosts". False dichotomy. It may be neither. It may be a camera artifact. It may be misperception. It may be self-delusion. It may be a simple mistake of seeing an ordinary thing and mistaking it for something else.
If your answer from all the available evidence is "We can't explain this", that doesn't mean you all of sudden default to "It must be ghosts". That's a huge leap of logic, and totally unjustified.
Do you believe in witches? I asked you before but you didn't answer.
Do you believe in alien spacecraft UFOs?
Suppose I see a bright light in the sky early in the morning and I take a photo that clearly shows it, and I don't know what it is. I show you the photo, and you're not sure what it is either, but you have the photo analysed and it isn't faked in any way. What's a reasonable conclusion here? Answer: "We don't know what the light in the photo is". It is NOT reasonable to say "We can't explain the light in the photo, so it must be a flying saucer".
Suppose that 6 months later somebody looks at my photo and says "You, know, I think that might be the planet Venus." He goes away and checks the position of Venus in the sky on the day I took the photo, and what do you know? It turns out that Venus was exactly where it appears in the photo. Now, finally, 6 months later, we can put this mystery to rest. We've solved it, beyond any reasonable doubt (barring new evidence of course). It's a good thing we didn't simply conclude that it was a flying saucer at the start, or we might never have learned that sometimes you can mistake an ordinary planet for a UFO.
I don't assume ghosts don't or can't exist. I just look at the evidence. Show me some good evidence for the existence of ghosts. So far, you've presented nothing really convincing.
Who? On what basis could you be banned?
We don't generally ban people for holding particular views here. If you believe in ghosts, that's just fine. It won't stop people trying to explain why you might be wrong, but there's no reason you should be banned just for being wrong.
Here's another pic. Pretty creepy:
What's the background to that photo? Without any information on when it was taken, by whom, where, etc. it is hard to say anything about it. At least this one does show a ghostly-looking figure.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Gawd! Don't be so anal. Okay--when I see something that is not hoaxed or a trick of the light or a jpeg artifact or a natural object or smoke or camera flare or my own hallucinating mind or anything ELSE pretending to look like a transparent human form I THEN conclude it to be paranormal. Snip entire torturous belaboring of an unnecessary point. Geezz..
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Well, the background of the picture looks to be a line of trees with the ghost of a man sitting in them. Anything else you need to know?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Here's another ghost pic. And no I don't have the telephone numbers of the girls or the phase of the moon at the time or even where it was shot. It's just an innocent picture of some girls with an unexpected transparent humanoid form beside them.
filipino-ghost-788648.jpg
http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/filipino-ghost-788648.jpg
filipino-ghost-788648.jpg
http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/filipino-ghost-788648.jpg
Magical Realist:
You're right. All these inconvenient demands for evidence and information are anal, aren't they? I should really just stop being a party pooper and start believing that every photo, however produced, that shows a fuzzy person in it is a real ghost photo. It's much easier that way, and more fun too! Wow, look at all those ghosts! Creepy! Spooky! Ooh Errr!
I'm sorry you find the scientific method anal. I'm sure you're comfortable living in a fantasy land of pixies and ghosts and witches and flying saucers. Good luck to you, but don't you dare start bashing those anal scientists as if you cared about evidence.
You're still wrong. Paranormal is not the default option once you've exhausted all the other things you can think of. There may well be things that you just haven't considered that might explain the thing without resorting to the paranormal.
What you need is not a bunch of negative evidence - it can't be X, it can't be Y, it isn't Z. No amount of negative evidence will establish that "It is a ghost". What you need is positive evidence that it is a ghost. And your definition of "ghost" has to be more than "Anything I don't have an alternative explanation for".
You betcha.
I need to know if the photo has been faked, for a start. To determine that, I need to either examine it in detail myself or else determine if any experts have examined it in detail. I need to know if the person who purported to take the photo is trustworthy, or does he or she have a history of faking things? I need to know whether any other photos of that location were taken. In particular, I'd like to see the same trees from a slightly different angle or under slightly different light conditions. I'd like to know where the photo was taken. I would like to know how difficult it would be to photoshop the image.
In short, there's a lot of questions I'd ask regarding that photo before I started to think it might actually show a real ghost.
My impression is that the shot shows a reflection in something like a shop window, at an angle that shows the girls but not their companion (in full). Or, it could be faked. Or there could be some other explanation. There's really no way to tell without more information.
You're right. All these inconvenient demands for evidence and information are anal, aren't they? I should really just stop being a party pooper and start believing that every photo, however produced, that shows a fuzzy person in it is a real ghost photo. It's much easier that way, and more fun too! Wow, look at all those ghosts! Creepy! Spooky! Ooh Errr!
I'm sorry you find the scientific method anal. I'm sure you're comfortable living in a fantasy land of pixies and ghosts and witches and flying saucers. Good luck to you, but don't you dare start bashing those anal scientists as if you cared about evidence.
You're still wrong. Paranormal is not the default option once you've exhausted all the other things you can think of. There may well be things that you just haven't considered that might explain the thing without resorting to the paranormal.
What you need is not a bunch of negative evidence - it can't be X, it can't be Y, it isn't Z. No amount of negative evidence will establish that "It is a ghost". What you need is positive evidence that it is a ghost. And your definition of "ghost" has to be more than "Anything I don't have an alternative explanation for".
Well, the background of the picture looks to be a line of trees with the ghost of a man sitting in them. Anything else you need to know?
You betcha.
I need to know if the photo has been faked, for a start. To determine that, I need to either examine it in detail myself or else determine if any experts have examined it in detail. I need to know if the person who purported to take the photo is trustworthy, or does he or she have a history of faking things? I need to know whether any other photos of that location were taken. In particular, I'd like to see the same trees from a slightly different angle or under slightly different light conditions. I'd like to know where the photo was taken. I would like to know how difficult it would be to photoshop the image.
In short, there's a lot of questions I'd ask regarding that photo before I started to think it might actually show a real ghost.
Here's another ghost pic. And no I don't have the telephone numbers of the girls or the phase of the moon at the time or even where it was shot. It's just an innocent picture of some girls with an unexpected transparent humanoid form beside them.
My impression is that the shot shows a reflection in something like a shop window, at an angle that shows the girls but not their companion (in full). Or, it could be faked. Or there could be some other explanation. There's really no way to tell without more information.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Oh get off your high horse. I meant quit being anal about my statements. You are pretty much splitting hairs about things I say and offering not one valid explanation for these photos. Face it..You simply cannot accept the existence of the paranormal as in ANYTHING unexplained in terms of conventional science. Like I said, I'm not here to persuade someone who's already made up their mind that the paranormal cannot in principle exist. You've made it totally clear that even if you CAN'T explain these pics away you STILL won't admit they could be paranormal. Oh sure...MAYBE it's some phenomenon that isn't understood now but will be in the future. Perhaps time traveling holograms from the future? Or maybe interdimensionals? Or perhaps thought forms of a collective cutural conscious? HELLO! All THAT falls under the paranormal! Welcome to the club bub.