Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[James R]

Magical Realist:

LOL! Well there ya have it. Another blind skeptic's handwaving away of compelling evidence. Could be faked. Could be the ship creaking. Could be this or that. What a crock of BS. A guy innocently telling us about hauntings in his own work space. Ofcourse he's lying. Ofcourse the actress is lying. She's on TV! And well, the CCTV video of the moving cake dish is most certainly faked as well. Can't you see the invisible fishing line? Cuz we all know ghosts don't exist. You'll never be persuaded James because you've already made up your mind. Debating you is about as useless as debating a creationist who claims all evidence for evolution is faked.

Well, there you have it! A blind believer handwaving away perfectly plausible mundane explanations of his supposedly "compelling" videos. Must be ghosts! Must be another ghost! Everything must be a ghost. They're all about us! What a crock of BS. (Right?)

I must say that I am rather disappointed that after I examined your videos in good faith as you requested, MR, you refuse to engage with me in an honest debate about what they show. Instead, you set out to distract myself and others by posting yet more, unrelated, photos, while in effect refusing to discuss the ones you said were so "compelling" in any real way.

It goes without saying, of course, that when you claim that the guy was "innocently telling us about hauntings" you have no way to know that he is "innocent". That's just a pre-formed conclusion you'd like to be true. Same with the actress telling her ghost story. You don't have a clue whether she regularly tells tall tales or whether she is a scrupulously honest non-believer in the supernatural in general. You assume that anything you'd like to be true must be the truth. You've decided that the ghosts story is true - every time - before you start looking at it.

If you could demolish my hypothesis about the fishing line on the broken glass plate, I assume you would have done it. Since there is no comment from you on that, it remains an open possible explanation for that video. Your attempt at argument by ridicule (LOL!) won't work. It won't make it any less possible that that video is a fake. You need to do a lot better than that.

If you feel that you can't effectively debate me, let me know and I'll stop engaging with you on these matters. I'm quite content to let you go on with your prejudices, because at this point it is quite clear that those are all you have when it comes to ghosts.

If, on the other hand, you have any actual points of objection to my suggestions regarding your videos, I would be most interested to hear them and discuss them with you.

It's interesting that I once posted a question here: what would you think if the ghost of your dead aunt appeared right in front of you? You know what everyone here said? They'd conclude that they were hallucinating rather than admit it was a ghost. I think that's your position James.

I would certainly investigate the possibility that I was hallucinating, among other possibilities. Such an occurrence would be so out of tune with my normal everyday life that I would want to try to get to the bottom of what occurred. What I wouldn't do is to jump to a hasty conclusion (OMG, it's the ghost of my dead aunt. LOL!) and then lose all interest, like you seem to prefer to do.

There really IS no evidence that would ever satisfy you is there?You'd just dismiss it as something else and move on.

I have dismissed nothing. I have merely attempted to start a discussion with you. You don't seem interested in getting to the bottom of any mystery. You just want an easy answer that you don't have to think about.

It is very interesting that you continually accuse me of "dismissing" your "evidence", and that you do this most of all when I have put in the most effort to carefully examine the evidence you have provided and to tell you what I think about it. Why is that? To me, it looks like you are the one dismissing my analysis of your ghost pictures and videos, without any reason for doing so other than your pre-formed prejudice that they must be ghosts because you want to believe they are.

It is a simple fact that ghosts exist James.

Simple facts have simple proof. Why is there no proof that ghosts exist?

Now go back to your safe little world of scientific causes and laws and forget about all this fakery and lying.

The fact is, you're scared to engage in debate with me about ghosts, aren't you? You'd rather you didn't have to deal with my pesky objections to your beliefs. You'd rather not have to think.

I'm not worried abit by your continuous allegations of lying and fakery with every piece of evidence I present.

I have made no accusations. In a few cases I have raised fakery and lying as possibilities. That is all. And you have not been able to show that fakery and lying are absent in those cases.

That's pretty much your default position it seems. I already showed you it isn't sufficient just to allege that and leave it at that.

You have argued consistently in this thread that it is sufficient just to allege that somebody is telling the truth, and leave it at that. Why the double-standard? Shouldn't you have to establish that they are telling the truth? Remember, some of these ghosts stories are literally incredible. When you hear something that sounds like it is made up, don't you ever ask questions?

You have to show some evidence of fakery. And that you never do.

They are your videos and photos. I would expect you to have a lot of relevant evidence. After all, you've checked that these things are real yourself before presenting them to me as "compelling", haven't you? But strangely, you never seem able to provide anything much else in terms of evidence or information about your photos and videos other than the things themselves.

It is interesting that, with so little available evidence, so many of these ghost videos are photos can still be proven to be faked or mistaken or whatever. Isn't it?

 

[James R]

None of the explanations offered have fit the facts yet.

Then you'll have no trouble going through the detailed explanations I have offered for your videos and showing exactly where I have made errors that do not fit the facts.

I await your response.

How long am supposed to wait around while you guys make up new stories about magical reflecting light, overexposures at night, and double exposed screaming teens? I've got a thousand different things I'm always checking out.

That's right. Never look too closely at anything, or you might risk spotting the hidden wires and the person wearing the sheet.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's right. Never look too closely at anything, or you might risk spotting the hidden wires and the person wearing the sheet.

At least I don't make up bullshit stories of people lying to make money and videos being faked for fame just to dismiss compelling evidence.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

"In 1984, a teenager was a victim of a fatal car accident. A photograph that was taken shortly after the incident includes an unexpected image that still affects the man who took it and provides further evidence of a force or existence beyond what is considered rational. ...

Questions:
1. Do you have a photo of the teenager who died, so we can compare his image to the "ghost" image? I'll be very surprised if you say "yes".
2. If this isn't a double exposure, how do you account for image of the police car or ambulance or whatever it is (the other car) in the bottom right of the enlargement you posted?
3. What is that bright thing sitting on the front of the car? Is that part of the "ghost" or is it a light source? Was there any light source (perhaps similar) sitting on top of the car?
4. There are numerous light sources reflected in the window of the partly-open front door of the car. What are they?
5. How do you know this isn't a double exposure?
6. What is wrong with the ghost's nose? Did the teenager have a deformed nose? (When you present his photo, if it turns out he had a deformed nose that could be an important an convincing piece of evidence.)
7. Has the lower photo been cropped from an original? If so, do you have the full original photo?
8. Are they any photos of the car and the scene taken from other angles?

I expect that we will get no extra photos of information from Magical Realist about this.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:


Well, there you have it! A blind believer handwaving away perfectly plausible mundane explanations of his supposedly "compelling" videos. Must be ghosts! Must be another ghost! Everything must be a ghost. They're all about us! What a crock of BS. (Right?)

I must say that I am rather disappointed that after I examined your videos in good faith as you requested, MR, you refuse to engage with me in an honest debate about what they show. Instead, you set out to distract myself and others by posting yet more, unrelated, photos, while in effect refusing to discuss the ones you said were so "compelling" in any real way.

It goes without saying, of course, that when you claim that the guy was "innocently telling us about hauntings" you have no way to know that he is "innocent". That's just a pre-formed conclusion you'd like to be true. Same with the actress telling her ghost story. You don't have a clue whether she regularly tells tall tales or whether she is a scrupulously honest non-believer in the supernatural in general. You assume that anything you'd like to be true must be the truth. You've decided that the ghosts story is true - every time - before you start looking at it.

If you could demolish my hypothesis about the fishing line on the broken glass plate, I assume you would have done it. Since there is no comment from you on that, it remains an open possible explanation for that video. Your attempt at argument by ridicule (LOL!) won't work. It won't make it any less possible that that video is a fake. You need to do a lot better than that.

If you feel that you can't effectively debate me, let me know and I'll stop engaging with you on these matters. I'm quite content to let you go on with your prejudices, because at this point it is quite clear that those are all you have when it comes to ghosts.

If, on the other hand, you have any actual points of objection to my suggestions regarding your videos, I would be most interested to hear them and discuss them with you.


I would certainly investigate the possibility that I was hallucinating, among other possibilities. Such an occurrence would be so out of tune with my normal everyday life that I would want to try to get to the bottom of what occurred. What I wouldn't do is to jump to a hasty conclusion (OMG, it's the ghost of my dead aunt. LOL!) and then lose all interest, like you seem to prefer to do.


I have dismissed nothing. I have merely attempted to start a discussion with you. You don't seem interested in getting to the bottom of any mystery. You just want an easy answer that you don't have to think about.

It is very interesting that you continually accuse me of "dismissing" your "evidence", and that you do this most of all when I have put in the most effort to carefully examine the evidence you have provided and to tell you what I think about it. Why is that? To me, it looks like you are the one dismissing my analysis of your ghost pictures and videos, without any reason for doing so other than your pre-formed prejudice that they must be ghosts because you want to believe they are.


Simple facts have simple proof. Why is there no proof that ghosts exist?


The fact is, you're scared to engage in debate with me about ghosts, aren't you? You'd rather you didn't have to deal with my pesky objections to your beliefs. You'd rather not have to think.


I have made no accusations. In a few cases I have raised fakery and lying as possibilities. That is all. And you have not been able to show that fakery and lying are absent in those cases.


You have argued consistently in this thread that it is sufficient just to allege that somebody is telling the truth, and leave it at that. Why the double-standard? Shouldn't you have to establish that they are telling the truth? Remember, some of these ghosts stories are literally incredible. When you hear something that sounds like it is made up, don't you ever ask questions?


They are your videos and photos. I would expect you to have a lot of relevant evidence. After all, you've checked that these things are real yourself before presenting them to me as "compelling", haven't you? But strangely, you never seem able to provide anything much else in terms of evidence or information about your photos and videos other than the things themselves.

It is interesting that, with so little available evidence, so many of these ghost videos are photos can still be proven to be faked or mistaken or whatever. Isn't it?

I have absolutely zero interest in hearing your repeated lies and groundless accusations about people you don't know lying to make money and hidden strings in stores and creaky ships that paranormal investigators have conversations with. Have you forgotten my point that you have to have a compelling reason to doubt people besides that their story is just amazing? And you have not once presented me with that.

Why should I believe your accounts of what these events were over the firsthand accounts of those who were there? Why should your making up shit to support your agenda of proving there's no such thing as the paranormal outweigh a thing they have said? These people have no reason to lie. You on the other hand lie continuously about things you couldn't possibly know and then expect that to be some sort of debunking of the cases. They aren't.

Again, you have to present some credible evidence for your side of the story. But we all know you don't have any. So why not just come clean like any normal sane person would and say, "Wow. That's amazing. Maybe there are ghosts out there." But you won't because I suspect I have already created enough suspicion in you that this shit is real to embolden you all the more to deny it and tell yourself a story about having seen nothing compelling at all. It's all such a convenient lie you tell yourself just to keep from admitting what is right before your eyes.

All 7 of these cases of firsthand accounts and videos and audio have done their job. They have made you doubt your own faith in science and in yourself. And that I am quite content with. Live well and prosper James. And let go of that anger. It will make you a better person.

 

[James R]

Hey, you're the one "pareidoliaing" the face and shoulders of this kid into some cloud that is floating over the car. That's not an explanation. That's seeing what you want to see. I see a face. I don't want to see a face. I just do.

And you don't want to see a face in a rock or in a cloud or on Mars. You just do.

Is the face in the cloud a ghost?

On another point: you and I both know that a few years you would have been marching with the squad who was insisting that the face on Mars is evidence of an ancient alien civilisation living there long ago.

I am interested. What changed your mind about the face on Mars?

Whose doing the wishful thinking here? And paranormal IS an explanation. It is invoking a specific cause and rationale for the appearance of a human face and shoulders on a photograph. It has a logic to it, it describes a physical phenomenon with specific properties and characteristics, and it is backed up by the experiences of thousands, perhaps millions of people. It is not equivalent to "I don't know."

Why do you dismiss other explanations that invoke specific causes and rationales, often with a "LOL" as if the very idea was laughable?

Mundane experiences are backed up by millions more people than ghosts are. Why is it acceptable for you to wave away the mundane every time?

Right..Because in with the police photos of the crime scene there just happened to be a photo of a male teen screaming his head off that got double exposed on another. No..I'm not buying that for one minute.

You have not established that there is a photo of a screaming male teen in any police photo you have shown us. You're assuming what you actually need to prove.

We know that cameras can detect ghosts because cameras do in fact detect ghosts.

We can assume that everything in the bible is true because the bible says it is true.
We can know that N-rays exist because some scientists (say they) detected them.
We know that Santa Claus exists because kids really do get presents on Christmas morning.

There's a rock or hill on Mars that has a few features of half a human face. I'm seeing exactly what is there. Nothing is being made up.

There's a blurry blob in a police photo that has a few features of a distorted human face. I'm seeing exactly what is there.

So, we are forced to conclude that the face on Mars is actually a giant person - maybe even a ghost! - and that the blur in the police photo is also a ghost. That makes sense.

It's a rock or hill with half a face features. Can't you tell? You really think it is a real human face?

It's a blurred slow-flash photo. You really think it is a real human face?

I already told you what I see. The apparition of a young man in a red checkered shirt. What do you see? Another face-shaped cloud? lol!

I'm with you. The face on Mar is a real, giant, ghost! And that face on the cliffside must be a real human being, or maybe another ghost. Probably it's a real human being with its facial features a little distorted by supernatural effects. Who knows how that could happen? In the spirit world anything is possible.

There is no preexisting blob of light that just happens to look like a young man screaming. It IS an apparition of that.

There is no pre-existing cloud that just happens to look like a man with a moustache. It IS an apparation of a moutached man. Probably a ghost!

No..I don't see other images in the photo. And a photo of a young man screaming would not be among the accident police photos. It makes no sense. There is no evidence of double exposure going on here at all.

I agree. It is impossible that among the many (perhaps hundreds) of photos of an accident scene, that anything could have gone wrong in one of them. I'm sure that every photo ever taken by police is taken with perfect camera settings, no extraneous camera movement, never a double exposure, etc. It's just not possible!

A bright reflection off of night mist. Makes perfect sense. You have explained it all Einstein. lol!

Was it a misty night? I see snow in the photo. What was the weather like at the time the photo was taken?

You can prove there was no mist, right?

At least I don't make up bullshit stories of people lying to make money and videos being faked for fame just to dismiss compelling evidence.

At least you don't make up bullshit stories that the face on Mars is just a rock, when we all know it must be a ghost.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:

Questions:
1. Do you have a photo of the teenager who died, so we can compare his image to the "ghost" image? I'll be very surprised if you say "yes".
2. If this isn't a double exposure, how do you account for image of the police car or ambulance or whatever it is (the other car) in the bottom right of the enlargement you posted?
3. What is that bright thing sitting on the front of the car? Is that part of the "ghost" or is it a light source? Was there any light source (perhaps similar) sitting on top of the car?
4. There are numerous light sources reflected in the window of the partly-open front door of the car. What are they?
5. How do you know this isn't a double exposure?
6. What is wrong with the ghost's nose? Did the teenager have a deformed nose? (When you present his photo, if it turns out he had a deformed nose that could be an important an convincing piece of evidence.)
7. Has the lower photo been cropped from an original? If so, do you have the full original photo?
8. Are they any photos of the car and the scene taken from other angles?

I expect that we will get no extra photos of information from Magical Realist about this.

1. No
2. What are you talking about?
3. No.
4. Who knows?
5. Because that would entail a photo of a screaming teen was taken and developed with this photo. That's ludicrous.
6. The whole image is warped. Can't you tell?
7. No
8. Who knows?

 

[Magical Realist]

On another point: you and I both know that a few years you would have been marching with the squad who was insisting that the face on Mars is evidence of an ancient alien civilisation living there long ago.

I am interested. What changed your mind about the face on Mars?

Does lying about people make you feel superior James? You have no idea what my position on that has always been do you? So it's just another James R lie about people he doesn't even know to prove a point he can't logically argue. Might as well smear the poster when you can't support your position, eh?

There's a blurry blob in a police photo that has a few features of a distorted human face. I'm seeing exactly what is there.

So, we are forced to conclude that the face on Mars is actually a giant person - maybe even a ghost! - and that the blur in the police photo is also a ghost. That makes sense.

Did you not hear me say that the rock on mars that resembles a face is a rock? Snip remaining straw men attacks that I ever believed it was a real face.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I have absolutely zero interest in hearing your repeated lies and groundless accusations about people you don't know lying to make money and hidden strings in stores and creaky ships that paranormal investigators have conversations with.

I have told no lies and I will thank you not to make baseless accusations that I have. I will accept your apology for making a false accusation against me, unless you can quote something from one of my posts where you have caught me in a deliberate lie.

As to your "interest", it is quite clear to me that you have no interest in examining whether your favorite "ghost" stories are true or false.

Have you forgotten my point that you have to have a compelling reason to doubt people besides that their story is just amazing?

You're wrong.

You need a compelling reason to accuse somebody of telling lies. To merely raise the possibility of lying is not the same as making an accusation. Is this point too subtle for you to understand?

Doubt, by the way, is a good attitude to have towards dubious claims.

Why should I believe your accounts of what these events were over the firsthand accounts of those who were there?

You shouldn't believe my accounts.

You should do your utmost to disprove my unbelievable accounts and to show that my explanations are completely untenable. By ruling out my accounts, the evidence for your ghosts becomes that much stronger than it was before.

Why should your making up shit to support your agenda of proving there's no such thing as the paranormal outweigh a thing they have said?

What makes you so convinced that I am the one "making up shit" and that the people telling the wacky stories are all honest paragons of virtue? How do you know they aren't the ones "making up shit"?

I'm only asking you for the evidence that proves that what they say is true. You see that, don't you?

These people have no reason to lie.

Wrong. I have given you several reasons over the course of this thread.

You on the other hand lie continuously about things you couldn't possibly know and then expect that to be some sort of debunking of the cases.

Then you will list at least one of my lies and point out exactly where I have lied.

If you cannot or will not do this, you will apologise to me for accusing me of lying. Won't you?

Again, you have to present some credible evidence for your side of the story. But we all know you don't have any.

You're the one alleging that ghosts exist. I'm alleging that the normal is all there is.

Surely it is up to you to present the credible evidence for your side of the story. The mundane is the default. You've weasled around and avoided (twice!) answering the question about this "default" that I put to you. Why is that? If you think the paranormal ought to be the default explanation for every photo or video, explain why you believe that.

So why not just come clean like any normal sane person would and say, "Wow. That's amazing. Maybe there are ghosts out there."

I've already said maybe there are ghosts out there. I just haven't seen any good evidence for them yet.

As to the amazingness of your "compelling" photos and videos, let's just say I haven't been amazed so far.

But you won't ...

Bah bowm! I just did (again).

...because I suspect I have already created enough suspicion in you that this shit is real to embolden you all the more to deny it and tell yourself a story about having seen nothing compelling at all.

What would motivate me to deny that your shit is real? My worry that I'd lose my job? My worry that my comforting worldview would be upset? My shame at being proven wrong by you? All of the above?

Honestly, if ghosts are real, they are real and I'll just have to deal with it. I'm really not overly upset at the idea that ghosts might be real. I don't for a moment think they are, though, based on the evidence (or lack of it) I have seen.

All 7 of these cases of firsthand accounts and videos and audio have done their job. They have made you doubt your own faith in science and in yourself. And that I quite content with. Live well and prosper James.

I'm come to doubt my faith in your ability and/or honest willingness to look objectively at such phenomena. At one point I thought you were making some progress, but it seems you've now regressed to a kind of obstinate denialism.

 

[James R]

1. No

No surprises there.

2. What are you taking about?

The other car in the bottom-right of the picture. Can't you see it? Downwards and right from the "face". It appears in the image to be just above the roof of the car and is partially cut off by the border of the image (I'm talking about the enlarged image, not the one that shows the full car).

3. No.

Huh? What is the bright thing?

4. Who knows?

Don't you think it is important to understand how this scene was lit?

5. Because that would entail a photo of a screaming teen was taken and developed with this photo. That's ludicrous.

What screaming teen? You're assuming what you need to prove.

6. The whole image is warped. Can't you tell?

The car doesn't look warped to me. Explain how you know it is warped. What photographic error would lead to such warping?

7. No

You mean "no, it hasn't been cropped" or "no, you haven't seen the original photo it was cropped from"?

8. Who knows?

Don't you think that other photos of the scene might be helpful - especially ones taken from other angles? Would you have any interest at all in such photos?

Does lying about people make you feel superior James? You have no idea what my position on [the face on Mars] has always been do you?

You could tell me, if you wanted to. It is always possible I have made an incorrect assumption about you. If I have, I will happily apologise to you - just like you would happily apologise to me if you made false accusations that I lied.

 

[Magical Realist]

I have told no lies and I will thank you not to make baseless accusations that I have. I will accept your apology for making a false accusation against me, unless you can quote something from one of my posts where you have caught me in a deliberate lie.

LOL! Where to begin? Telly Savalas is lying to make money from a TV show? The uploader of the castle video created a fake video just to get famous? The guy telling about paranormal incidents in his building is lying. The actress is lying. The ship is creaking even though it sounds exactly like a little girl speaking. The rescuer is lying. The voice is just the wind. And there's a string attached to the cake cover. All lies James until you can present evidence for them.

 

[Magical Realist]

You could tell me, if you wanted to. It is always possible I have made an incorrect assumption about you. If I have, I will happily apologise to you - just like you would happily apologise to me if you made false accusations that I lied.

LOL! Why should I share details of my life with someone who just lied about me to make me look like a nutcase?

 

[Daecon]

LOL! Why should I share details of my life with someone who just lied about me to make me look like a nutcase?

There's no need for a lie to do that. Your reputation speaks for itself.

What evidence would you accept to make you understand that it might not be a ghost?

 

[Magical Realist]

There's no need for a lie to do that. Your reputation speaks for itself.

What evidence would you accept to make you understand that it might not be a ghost?

Just show me how a warped image of a male teen in a red checkered shirt screaming can appear in a photo over a crashed car. Nothing put forth so far has come even close to that.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

LOL! Where to begin? Telly Savalas is lying to make money from a TV show?

I did not accuse Telly Savalas of lying. That is clear from my posts above. I posted several times to clarify this point. Lying is, however, one possibility. You see the difference, don't you?

The uploader of the castle video created a fake video just to get famous?

Possibly. That explanation has not yet been ruled out.

The guy telling about paranormal incidents in his building is lying.

I didn't really watch enough of that one to get a good sense of whether he might be lying or not. Also, a lot of his stories seemed to be second-hand accounts - him telling the camera what other people had told him. It is quite possible that he is being honest about what other people told him, but it does not therefore follow that what he was told is true.

The actress is lying.

In that case, it seems quite likely.

The ship is creaking even though it sounds exactly like a little girl speaking.

It doesn't sound exactly like a little girl speaking to me. I've commented in detail on that video. If you wish to discuss what I wrote, I suggest you quote my actual post on the matter and we'll go from there.

The rescuer is lying.

I did not claim that the rescuer is lying, and I think it is unlikely that he was lying, given the circumstances. His words do not prove that there was a ghost, though, even if he was telling the truth.

The voice is just the wind.

The possibility hasn't been ruled out.

And there's a string attached to the cake cover.

Seems like the most likely explanation to me. And this possibility has not been ruled out.

All lies James until you can present evidence for them.

No. They are just working hypotheses, open unless you can present evidence ruling them out as possibilities.

Obviously, if you somehow manage to eliminate all suggested mundane explanations, then we'll only be left with your paranormal explanation. That will be progress, won't it?

LOL! Why should I share details of my life with someone who just lied about me to make me look like a nutcase?

So you don't want to tell me whether you used to believe the face on Mars was good evidence of an alien civilisation. I understand.

 

[Daecon]

Why do you think the photo shows a teenager?

 

[James R]

Just show me how a warped image of a male teen in a red checkered shirt screaming can appear in a photo over a crashed car.

That's already been done, to some extent. Possibilities include: reflections in mist, double exposure and pareidolia. Outright fakery is possible, but unlikely in this case.

Of course, all this assumes that there is the warped image of a male teen in that photo. That remains to be proved; it should not be assumed from the start.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why do you think the photo shows a teenager?

That's what the image is of. A young man or teenager.

 

[Magical Realist]

Obviously, if you somehow manage to eliminate all suggested mundane explanations, then we'll only be left with your paranormal explanation. That will be progress, won't it?

Actually the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims. If you claim all these people are lying show me the evidence. You never did this. So they remain groundless lies. And just saying they're possibilities won't cut it. Either a person is lying or they aren't. Saying it is possible they're lying isn't enough. You have to show plausibility. You're like Donald Trump: "Well I never said Mrs Cruz messed around. I just said she COULD have."

 

[Daecon]

You're the one claiming to know for certain that the photo is definitely of some random unspecified young man. The burden of proof is on you.