# Paranormal Photography



## Luke345678

First let me say I am asking this completely out of curiosity. 

I was chatting with a friend the other day about a stop motion we were making for school and like always our conversations brought us to some very strange things. He said he watned to try light painting and some how he ended up talking about "paranormal photography." 

I looked at him kind of weird and later that night I did a google search and found some pretty interesting things. Now I always knew there were people out there trying to capture ghost or what ever on camera but I never realized how much of a big thing it was. I'm not the biggest believe in ghost but there are tons of pictures. (Please respect my opinion of not believing)

As I was going through these pictures I asked myself, how do I know these are real at all, photoshop can do some pretty amazing things. Since I don't believe in Ghost I don't really consider this a type of photography as I think it is all editing. 

Have any of you guys ever tried paranormal photography? 

Do you guys know any easy ways to determine if it is photoshopped?

Is there any credible photos in your opinion?

I did not create this thread for people to argue about Ghost being real, I know it's a very controversial topic that I don't really think NEEDS to be discuessed although a quick opinion is fine. Just please no arguing. 

Thanks,

-Luke


----------



## Luke345678

Paranormal Photography- The practice of attempting to capture film or digital images of ghostly phenomena.


----------



## Mully

There is a really good book on ghosts ...  oddly enough titled Ghosts by Hanz Holzer  It is not a photography book but a book about ghosts,hauntings, and other paranormal.  Do a search it is about 800 pages so lots of info if you have an interest.  Most of the photos in the book are pre photoshop


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Mully said:


> Most of the photos in the book are pre photoshop


Are they pre darkroom too?


----------



## Luke345678

Mully said:


> There is a really good book on ghosts ...  oddly enough titled Ghosts by Hanz Holzer  It is not a photography book but a book about ghosts,hauntings, and other paranormal.  Do a search it is about 800 pages so lots of info if you have an interest.  Most of the photos in the book are pre photoshop



I'm not quite sure why but conspiracies and stuff like ghost have also intrigued me. 

Thanks for the book, I'll be sure to check it out.


----------



## Steve5D

I believe it can, and has, been done.

This is a picture I took in the Old Town section of San Diego, in the El Campo Santo Cemetery, On June 2, 2010. It was about 11:30pm when I too the shot. A buddy and I were the only ones in the cemetery at the time. This is a 15 second exposure, taken with a Canon G10:







If I recall, the only editing I did on this was resizing it.

I'm not presenting it as evidence of ghosts. In fact, I've no idea what it is. What I know is that it wasn't there when I took the photo, and I know that we were the only two people there when I shot it, and my buddy was off about 30 feet to my left when I took it. What I find most interesting about this is that, despite being such a long exposure, the figure seen is pretty crisp and sharp. I don't know what that means, but I do find it interesting.

I've had the photo reviewed by a paranormal group in San Diego. They, too, don't know what it is. 

Now, is it "real"? Well, yeah, it is. I didn't use Photoshop to create the image you see here. It's simply what came out of the camera. Also, consider that I have absolutely zero to gain by creating a fake ghost picture and, in fact, wouldn't even really know how. I'm just not that good with Photoshop. I also have absolutely nothing to gain by creating a fake image.

I believe it can be done, and I'd like to try to do more of it...


----------



## PixelRabbit

Funny, I'm going "winter stir crazy" and Mr Rabbit and I were brainstorming things to do today that cost nothing, one option is finding abandoned places and oddly enough there is a "murder house" across the road from us that I have not stepped foot near yet.
I really have no stance other than open minded and quite enjoy the thought of capturing an "anomaly" at that kind of location.


----------



## runnah

This has been a thing ever since photography was invented. 

At the end of the day photos can not prove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist by other means. Same goes for bigfoot, loch ness monster etc...


----------



## Mully

Rabbit .... go at midnight... that is when it can make you really creep out


----------



## PixelRabbit

Mully I keep thinking about going across the road at night, the guy next door to us still uses the place to store hay for the horses etc... while the guy is in jail... but I haven't found a willing participant to go with me yet and I'm not sure I want to go alone... he killed his wife


----------



## runnah

PixelRabbit said:


> Mully I keep thinking about going across the road at night, the guy next door to us still uses the place to store hay for the horses etc... while the guy is in jail... but I haven't found a willing participant to go with me yet and I'm not sure I want to go alone... he killed his wife



I ain't afraid of no ghost.


----------



## rlemert

The problem I have with pictures like these is that people are jumping to a conclusion without having sufficient evidence or reasoning to back it up. They see something in a picture that they can't explain - and they immediately conclude it's a ghost. Sorry, but without corraborating evidence (or eliminating all other possible explanations) I'm not buying it.

  The same problem exists with UFO's as well - where people assume that "UFO" means "alien space ship".


----------



## 480sparky

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Mully said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the photos in the book are pre photoshop
> 
> 
> 
> Are they pre darkroom too?
Click to expand...



Exactly!


----------



## ceejtank

All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.


----------



## BobSaget

I was watching a really bad program on ghost detectives.  One of the "Detectives" told of a phenomenon of floating glowing orbs that would show up in photos he took at night in creepy abandoned homes. I thought to myself, he's using a flash and the place is dusty as hell.  This led to me making my own floating orb photo which you guys can try yourself. Go in a dark room, turn flash on, shake a dusty rag or similar right in front of your lens and take a shot. there will be a great amount of light reflecting off the dust particles which will be out of focus therefore creating a bright soft halo floating orb in your shot.


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.



Until you live in a haunted house. I'm so glad we bought our new house... I HATED our old one lol.


----------



## sm4him

I am a skeptic by nature, and while I have seen some photos with weird stuff in them, like Steve's above, I have never seen one that convinced me it was anything paranormal. Not saying there are, or aren't any pictures of "ghosts" or spirits, just that I can't imagine the circumstances under which I would actually BELIEVE it was a ghost. EVEN if I took the photo. 

That said, I had two personal experiences as a kid that make me believe that there ARE "ghosts" or "spirits" or something of that nature on this earth.  One experience was a many-months-long nightly encounter. We lived in a house in a small town in upper East Tennessee. Every night, I would climb into my bed, pull the covers up around me and fall peacefully asleep. Every morning, I would wake up with the covers still pulled up around me...UNDER my bed.  Could I have been "sleep walking"? Yes. But it never happened in any other place we lived, not even once.  Just the year that we lived in THAT house.  And no one ever SAW me sleep walk, even in that house.  But my mother would hear someone walking out in the hall; she'd get up and look and no one was there; a few times, just to be sure, she'd check each of our rooms. I was always still sound asleep (though sometimes I WAS already under the bed, covered up.)
To be honest, even that would not convince me, even though it happened TO me. I can think of a lot of "explanations" to cover how it might have happened. But what I can't explain are the three separate occasions when I remember quite distinctly (though, to be fair, I was only six years old), waking up just enough to realize someone was lifting me out of bed, but I couldn't SEE anyone, not a hand, not a shadow, nothing. I remember trying to speak but not being able to (a phenomenon I still experience frequently today; I wake up in the middle of the night and if I try to speak, I literally can't MAKE any words come out--so that's not a "supernatural" thing, just the way I am). But I don't remember being scared; just the sensation of being lifted and placed back down. 

Some time AFTER we moved, we learned the history of that house, and the story was that two spinster sisters had lived there. One finally died and the survivor was so bereaved that she basically locked herself upstairs and starved herself to death. Her bedroom, the one she died in, was MY room.

Honestly? I'm STILL a bit of a skeptic even about THAT, and it happened TO ME.   I still realize that there COULD be other things that explain it. But it keeps me from being absolutely hard-core in my skepticism of reported paranormal activity.


----------



## ronlane

Bottom line is that we don't know whether there is or isn't ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot.. In today's age, it is so easy to "produce" images that "prove" their exsistence.

Do I believe or am I skeptical? I'm not sure. If you think you can do it, then go out and try, if not, then don't.

For the record, I don't believe there is a Bigfoot. I have no idea about a L-N Monster. As for ghosts/spirits, I know we all have them and I know what I believe religiously but that is not something that is debateable for me.


----------



## runnah

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

Giant primate lurking in the woods? Show me more than a blurry photo and some foot prints.
Spirits of the dead roaming the halls? Don't misuse electronic equipment and call it proof.
Giant extinct dinosaur in a lake in Scotland? Ripples in the water don't prove anything.


----------



## Bram

Yeah lets all argue opinions..... :meh:


----------



## runnah

Bram said:


> Yeah lets all argue opinions..... :meh:



What opinions?


----------



## Mach0

Ill share my story. At the old house, I was walking  up the walkway and the bathroom light was on and someone was sitting on the toilet. I opened the door and walked in the house, everyone was sleeping and lights were off. I was scared as can be. We moved out a couple of months later.


----------



## runnah

Mach0 said:


> Ill share my story. At the old house, I was walking  up the walkway and the bathroom light was on and someone was sitting on the toilet. I opened the door and walked in the house, everyone was sleeping and lights were off. I was scared as can be. We moved out a couple of months later.



Everybody poops, even ghosts.


----------



## sm4him

Mach0 said:


> Ill share my story. At the old house, I was walking  up the walkway and the bathroom light was on and someone was sitting on the toilet. I opened the door and walked in the house, everyone was sleeping and lights were off. I was scared as can be. We moved out a couple of months later.



I apologize in advance for the derailment--or if not an outright derailment, at least a bit of a track-switch--BUT, I simply can't resist:

You mean GHOSTS have to POOP?? Who knew?!? 
OP: Your new mission is to photograph Ghost Poop! Now there's some REAL evidence they exist! :lmao:


----------



## runnah

sm4him said:


> You mean GHOSTS have to POOP?? Who knew?!?





runnah said:


> Everybody poops, even ghosts.



Everybody


----------



## 480sparky

runnah said:


> Everybody poops, even ghosts.


----------



## sm4him

480sparky said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody poops, even ghosts.
Click to expand...


Well, THAT does it!! I am now a TRUE Believer! :lmao:


----------



## Mach0

sm4him said:
			
		

> I apologize in advance for the derailment--or if not an outright derailment, at least a bit of a track-switch--BUT, I simply can't resist:
> 
> You mean GHOSTS have to POOP?? Who knew?!?
> OP: Your new mission is to photograph Ghost Poop! Now there's some REAL evidence they exist! :lmao:



Hahahaha. I honestly thought it was my lady until I walked in the room and she was snoring away lol. I woke her up and said ( at that time we were with her mom who was sleeping as well) " babe... Who the h3ll was downstairs? I just saw a lady in the toilet from outside with a pony tail." I freaked out because it was none of them. I couldn't fall asleep for $#@% !!!!!!


----------



## JacaRanda

Casper spoke to me all the time when I was a child.  Trust me; ghost are for real and they are cute, fun and cuddly!


----------



## oldhippy

Have any seen Kirlian Photography. I've seen images done, that show the image of a severed limb, as a part of the photo of that persons leg or arm.  the severed part showed up as energy paterns.  suposedly supporting the fact that we exist on an energy level concurrently


----------



## Steve5D

ceejtank said:


> All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.




Well, that might have merit, if that's what happened. 

As I've explained, though, that's _not _what happened.

What is your proof that ghosts don't exist? Since you're stating it as a fact, surely you have evidence to support that...


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof that ghosts don't exist? Since you're stating it as a fact, surely you have evidence to support that...
Click to expand...


The burden of proof on the ones making the claim, not those refuting it.


----------



## Steve5D

I'm always quite careful to _never _present my photo as a photo of a ghost. 

I simply post it and let people suspect and/or conclude what they will. I've lost count of the number of people who believe it's a person who stood in front of the camera. That's fine. That's _wrong_, but it's fine if someone wants to believe that incorrect explanation in lieu of no explanation at all. Honestly, I would love for someone to satisfactorily explain what's in the image and, two and a half years in, that just hasn't happened, and some rather learned individuals have examined it.

I stand to gain nothing from "faking" a ghost photo, so the suggestion that I would is kinda' silly...


----------



## Steve5D

runnah said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof that ghosts don't exist? Since you're stating it as a fact, surely you have evidence to support that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the ones making the claim, not those refuting it.
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree with that.

Ceejtank made a statement of fact, that being that all paranormal photos are fakes, and that ghosts don't exist.

If you'll review my posts in this thread, _nowhere _will you see where I've made the claim that what's present in my image is a ghost. I don't know enough about such things to say one way or another. What I'm saying is that it's weird. Nothing more, nothing less.

But, Ceejtank has essentially made the statement that it's a fake, because ghosts do not exist. I'm merely asking for him to provide some evidence to back up that claim. Since you believe that the person making a claim bears the burden of proof, I'm sure you'll join me in believing that the burden here is on him...


----------



## ceejtank

Have you seen one? Is there any proof they are real? The answer is no.  Theres no evidence supporting that there are ghosts.  The lack of evidence for ghosts is itself proof there is no ghosts. If you're stupid enough that I have to explain that to you - no amount of science will save you.


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> Have you seen one? Is there any proof they are real? The answer is no.  Theres no evidence supporting that there are ghosts.  The lack of evidence for ghosts is itself proof there is no ghosts. If you're stupid enough that I have to explain that to you - no amount of science will save you.



Lol.... There's plenty of things that can't be explained that many people believe. Our origin being one of them. Just keep an open mind. Crap happens.


----------



## runnah

Mach0 said:


> Our origin being one of them.



Actually, that could not be explained better.


----------



## Mach0

runnah said:
			
		

> Actually, that could not be explained better.



In which way? Last time I checked it was still a theory.


----------



## ceejtank

Steve5D said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> All paranormal shots are fakes. Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that. The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that might have merit, if that's what happened.
> 
> As I've explained, though, that's _not _what happened.
> 
> What is your proof that ghosts don't exist? Since you're stating it as a fact, surely you have evidence to support that...
Click to expand...




Going by a scientific approach.. rule out what didn't happen, whatevers left, no matter how improbable is the answer.

What we have here is you going with you and a friend to a place, taking a picture of something that's rather bland, and there just happens to be a "ghosting" effect. Maybe your sensors bad and it recorded the image.

Lets start with this, assuming ghosts are real, why would they be translucent? If they exist in a realm(like here on earth), unless theyre light particles themself, they need to be reflecting light in order for us to see them(or generating light - which would produce heat.. which is measureable). That's how vision works(just like a camera), light is reflected into our eyes, the rods and cones take the light waves, and transmit them to our brains who tell us what we're seeing. Absense of light = absense of vision. If they don't have particles large enough to be whole, then they can't possible reflect light. Ok so assuming that ghosts are real, and theyre translucent, that means theyre held together by... what.. nothing? huge gaps? If they were real they wouldn't disappear. It just wouldnt happen. Perhaps they move from a gaseous vs liquid (or solid) state. Lets assume that - then shifting in between phases would require either a temperature increase or decrease or a pressure increase or decrease. Both of which are easily measureable by instruments. Why haven't we been able to pick up on this?

I can go on and on and on. But I won't. Logic dictates ghosts can't exist, and until some actual evidense is submitted that they do exist - then anyone who's dumb enough to believe in ghosts should send me 100,000 in the mail.. becuase I'm the long lost cousin of a nigerian king who's waiting to move even MORE money into your account.


----------



## ceejtank

Mach0 said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen one? Is there any proof they are real? The answer is no. Theres no evidence supporting that there are ghosts. The lack of evidence for ghosts is itself proof there is no ghosts. If you're stupid enough that I have to explain that to you - no amount of science will save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.... There's plenty of things that can't be explained that many people believe. Our origin being one of them. Just keep an open mind. Crap happens.
Click to expand...


There are things that can't be explained, but then there are things that can be explained.  Origins can be explained, its whether you believe the explanation that's at question.


----------



## runnah

Mach0 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that could not be explained better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which way? Last time I checked it was still a theory.
Click to expand...


Please don't bring out that old trite comment. Gravity is a theory and no one disagrees with that? Scientific theory allows for, no pun intended, evolution of the theory as more evidence becomes available.



> A *scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.*


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> There are things that can't be explained, but then there are things that can be explained.  Origins can be explained, its whether you believe the explanation that's at question.



Same can be said for ghosts or paranormal activities. There were tons of other random stuff like 2012 and the world ending etc... The so called discovery of Noah's ark... There are so many things that anyone can go on and on. I will say this, a theory is a widely accepted hypothesis and a hypothesis is an educated guess. What side of the fence you are on is up to you. But I can respect your opinion. I would never force anything upon anyone. My thoughts are always this- 
Some things are just better left unsaid and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that could not be explained better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which way? Last time I checked it was still a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't bring out that old trite comment. Gravity is a theory and no one disagrees with that? Scientific theory allows for, no pun intended, evolution of the theory as more evidence becomes available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A *scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Actually runnah - there have been some advancements in the law of gravity... the one you're referringt o and is most commonly believed is referred to as newtonian gravity.

Here's a summation of the debate "However there are still holes in the universaal law of gravitation. First we don&#8217;t know what gravity is. It is a question similar to whether light is a particle or a wave. The question is whether gravity has a particle like other fundamental forces in the standard model or is simple the shape geometry of space time near objects with mass. The reason for the debate is that at high energies the law of gravity doesn&#8217;t behave properly and give the expected values. One explanation is that physics uses to different types of theories that are not usually linked together well. Classical mechanics deals with the large scale movements of objects while quantum physics deals with motions on the atomic and subatomic level. Each of these different frames of reference have different rules so don&#8217;t always act the same. Gravity is on of the forces yet to fit neatly into both points of view. 


Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/84957/universal-law-of-gravitation/#ixzz2Hbtm4GIS"


----------



## ceejtank

Mach0 said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things that can't be explained, but then there are things that can be explained. Origins can be explained, its whether you believe the explanation that's at question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for ghosts or paranormal activities. There were tons of other random stuff like 2012 and the world ending etc... The so called discovery of Noah's ark... There are so many things that anyone can go on and on. I will say this, a theory is a widely accepted hypothesis and a hypothesis is an educated guess. What side of the fence you are on is up to you. But I can respect your opinion. I would never force anything upon anyone. My thoughts are always this-
> Some things are just better left unsaid and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Click to expand...


How is the year 2012 unexplained? It comes after 2011.  Its not actually the eyar 2102, but is a relative measurement since time has been tracked.  The world ending isn't proven or a theory, anyone who believed that is retarded.  Noahs ark cant bee confirmed that its found.


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> How is the year 2012 unexplained? It comes after 2011.  Its not actually the eyar 2102, but is a relative measurement since time has been tracked.  The world ending isn't proven or a theory, anyone who believed that is retarded.  Noahs ark cant bee confirmed that its found.



I actually read an article on national geographic on it. I found it interesting. Sure it couldn't be confirmed but Its very interesting to find a large boat on the side of some mountain. In any event, carry on. I will not continue here. Arguing online will never go anywhere. 

Btw I understand your argument of 2012- but my case was many people believed we will be dead  already and yet there's a few on here still arguing in this thread lol.


----------



## runnah

Mach0 said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things that can't be explained, but then there are things that can be explained.  Origins can be explained, its whether you believe the explanation that's at question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for ghosts or paranormal activities. There were tons of other random stuff like 2012 and the world ending etc... The so called discovery of Noah's ark... There are so many things that anyone can go on and on. I will say this, a theory is a widely accepted hypothesis and a hypothesis is an educated guess. What side of the fence you are on is up to you. But I can respect your opinion. I would never force anything upon anyone. My thoughts are always this-
> Some things are just better left unsaid and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Click to expand...


What? A theory is a PROVEN hypothesis.


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are things that can't be explained, but then there are things that can be explained. Origins can be explained, its whether you believe the explanation that's at question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for ghosts or paranormal activities. There were tons of other random stuff like 2012 and the world ending etc... The so called discovery of Noah's ark... There are so many things that anyone can go on and on. I will say this, a theory is a widely accepted hypothesis and a hypothesis is an educated guess. What side of the fence you are on is up to you. But I can respect your opinion. I would never force anything upon anyone. My thoughts are always this-
> Some things are just better left unsaid and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? A theory is a PROVEN hypothesis.
Click to expand...


That's not true.  A theory CAN be a proven hypothesis.  A theory just hasn't been proven wrong YET, or confirmed to be correct in every scenario.


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> That's not true.  A theory CAN be a proven hypothesis.  A theory just hasn't been proven wrong YET, or confirmed to be correct in every scenario.



Correct. Otherwise, it would be scientific law if it was correct every time in every scenario.


----------



## Steve5D

ceejtank said:


> Have you seen one? Is there any proof they are real? The answer is no.  Theres no evidence supporting that there are ghosts.  The lack of evidence for ghosts is itself proof there is no ghosts. If you're stupid enough that I have to explain that to you - no amount of science will save you.



Have you ever seen wind?

No, you haven't. What you've seen is the effects of wind, but not wind itself. Yet wind, as we know, is certainly real.

You're asking me to prove a claim I've never made. If you'd like to discuss being stupid, that would certainly lead the way.

Are you a person of faith? Do you believe in God? Why or why not?


----------



## runnah

ceejtank said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same can be said for ghosts or paranormal activities. There were tons of other random stuff like 2012 and the world ending etc... The so called discovery of Noah's ark... There are so many things that anyone can go on and on. I will say this, a theory is a widely accepted hypothesis and a hypothesis is an educated guess. What side of the fence you are on is up to you. But I can respect your opinion. I would never force anything upon anyone. My thoughts are always this-
> Some things are just better left unsaid and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? A theory is a PROVEN hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true.  A theory CAN be a proven hypothesis.  A theory just hasn't been proven wrong YET, or confirmed to be correct in every scenario.
Click to expand...


I submit to this fact but I also realize that the practical application of apply a theory to every imaginable scenarios is impossible.


----------



## ceejtank

Mach0 said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the year 2012 unexplained? It comes after 2011. Its not actually the eyar 2102, but is a relative measurement since time has been tracked. The world ending isn't proven or a theory, anyone who believed that is retarded. Noahs ark cant bee confirmed that its found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually read an article on national geographic on it. I found it interesting. Sure it couldn't be confirmed but Its very interesting to find a large boat on the side of some mountain. In any event, carry on. I will not continue here. Arguing online will never go anywhere.
> 
> Btw I understand your argument of 2012- but my case was many people believed we will be dead already and yet there's a few on here still arguing in this thread lol.
Click to expand...


You can put an article about anything.  There are ways to test things scientifically.  They didn't find a boat, they found a large rectangular object in.. turkey? Either way - not confirmed. The government won't let them do testing.

If anyone believed we would be dead it was based on nothing.  There were 0 actual facts supporting it.  People should need to be educated on a topic prior to speaking on it.  (I know that's not the case) but seriously - if theyre that dumb.. lets let survival of the fittest take over, because we don't want their genes passed on.


----------



## ceejtank

Steve5D said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen one? Is there any proof they are real? The answer is no. Theres no evidence supporting that there are ghosts. The lack of evidence for ghosts is itself proof there is no ghosts. If you're stupid enough that I have to explain that to you - no amount of science will save you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen wind?
> 
> No, you haven't. What you've seen is the effects of wind, but not wind itself. Yet wind, as we know, is certainly real.
> 
> You're asking me to prove a claim I've never made. If you'd like to discuss being stupid, that would certainly lead the way.
> 
> Are you a person of faith? Do you believe in God? Why or why not?
Click to expand...


Incorrect. Wind is created by different pressures, you can see it using a heat sensing capture device, or measure it using a multiple of tools that compute force. You're thinking that seeing something that falls withing the visible spectrum as the only source of proof.

I do believe in God. Because it is faith, and I believe he exists.


----------



## Mach0

ceejtank said:
			
		

> Either way - not confirmed. The government won't let them do testing.



Funny how that works lol



> lets let survival of the fittest take over, because we don't want their genes passed on.



That actually made me chuckle


----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? A theory is a PROVEN hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. A theory CAN be a proven hypothesis. A theory just hasn't been proven wrong YET, or confirmed to be correct in every scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I submit to this fact but I also realize that the practical application of apply a theory to every imaginable scenarios is impossible.
Click to expand...


Correct, which is why theories and laws often remain theories and laws.  But as I just explained to you - even the law of gravity is debatable.


----------



## ceejtank

Mach0 said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way - not confirmed. The government won't let them do testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how that works lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lets let survival of the fittest take over, because we don't want their genes passed on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That actually made me chuckle
Click to expand...


As Joe Rogan said - "everyone wants to believe in survival of the fittest, no one wants to apply it to humans"  Not a direct quote.. but close enough


----------



## runnah

ceejtank said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. A theory CAN be a proven hypothesis. A theory just hasn't been proven wrong YET, or confirmed to be correct in every scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I submit to this fact but I also realize that the practical application of apply a theory to every imaginable scenarios is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why theories and laws often remain theories and laws.  But as I just explained to you - even the law of gravity is debatable.
Click to expand...


Honestly i just picked it because it was the one theory that people can try at home. 

But I will go back to drinking my wheatgrass juice on my way to the chiropractor because my energy centers are out of alignment from working on my perpetual motion machine.


----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I submit to this fact but I also realize that the practical application of apply a theory to every imaginable scenarios is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why theories and laws often remain theories and laws. But as I just explained to you - even the law of gravity is debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly i just picked it because it was the one theory that people can try at home.
> 
> But I will go back to drinking my wheatgrass juice on my way to the chiropractor because my energy centers are out of alignment from working on my perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...


HAHAHHAHA. That was well put sir. Well put.

I cannot stress enough how people who aren't nerdy might not get all those references.. but well done sir. If I had a top hat. I'd be tipping it to you right now.

Did you used to browse the mythbuster forums?


----------



## runnah

ceejtank said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why theories and laws often remain theories and laws. But as I just explained to you - even the law of gravity is debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly i just picked it because it was the one theory that people can try at home.
> 
> But I will go back to drinking my wheatgrass juice on my way to the chiropractor because my energy centers are out of alignment from working on my perpetual motion machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHAHHAHA. That was well put sir. Well put.
> 
> I cannot stress enough how people who aren't nerdy might not get all those references.. but well done sir. If I had a top hat. I'd be tipping it to you right now.
> 
> Did you used to browse the mythbuster forums?
Click to expand...


I go on jref forums personally.


----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly i just picked it because it was the one theory that people can try at home.
> 
> But I will go back to drinking my wheatgrass juice on my way to the chiropractor because my energy centers are out of alignment from working on my perpetual motion machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHHAHA. That was well put sir. Well put.
> 
> I cannot stress enough how people who aren't nerdy might not get all those references.. but well done sir. If I had a top hat. I'd be tipping it to you right now.
> 
> Did you used to browse the mythbuster forums?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I go on jref forums personally.
Click to expand...



Oh man - I used to help monitor/admin their physics forum.. and once a week(if not daily) people would bring up perpetual motion machines.  Your quote made me think back to all those idiots.  Well done sir. WELL DONE.


----------



## runnah

ceejtank said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHHAHA. That was well put sir. Well put.
> 
> I cannot stress enough how people who aren't nerdy might not get all those references.. but well done sir. If I had a top hat. I'd be tipping it to you right now.
> 
> Did you used to browse the mythbuster forums?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I go on jref forums personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man - I used to help monitor/admin their physics forum.. and once a week(if not daily) people would bring up perpetual motion machines.  Your quote made me think back to all those idiots.  Well done sir. WELL DONE.
Click to expand...


Ever listen to Skeptoid?


----------



## ceejtank

runnah said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go on jref forums personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man - I used to help monitor/admin their physics forum.. and once a week(if not daily) people would bring up perpetual motion machines. Your quote made me think back to all those idiots. Well done sir. WELL DONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever listen to Skeptoid?
Click to expand...


I have not.  Haven't even heard of him.


----------



## Steve5D

ceejtank said:


> Going by a scientific approach.. rule out what didn't happen, whatevers left, no matter how improbable is the answer.



Okay, what didn't happen is this: Nobody stepped in front of the camera during the exposure. 


> What we have here is you going with you and a friend to a place, taking a picture of something that's rather bland, and there just happens to be a "ghosting" effect. Maybe your sensors bad and it recorded the image.



And then the sensor magically repaired itself. No other image I've ever taken has anything remotely similar to that...



> Lets start with this, assuming ghosts are real, why would they be translucent? If they exist in a realm(like here on earth), unless theyre light particles themself, they need to be reflecting light in order for us to see them(or generating light - which would produce heat.. which is measureable). That's how vision works(just like a camera), light is reflected into our eyes, the rods and cones take the light waves, and transmit them to our brains who tell us what we're seeing. Absense of light = absense of vision. If they don't have particles large enough to be whole, then they can't possible reflect light. Ok so assuming that ghosts are real, and theyre translucent, that means theyre held together by... what.. nothing? huge gaps? If they were real they wouldn't disappear. It just wouldnt happen. Perhaps they move from a gaseous vs liquid (or solid) state. Lets assume that - then shifting in between phases would require either a temperature increase or decrease or a pressure increase or decrease. Both of which are easily measureable by instruments. Why haven't we been able to pick up on this?



I don't know the answers to any of your questions. Then again, and I guess I have to repeat this, I'm making no claim that what's in my image is a ghost. I've never made such a claim, simply because I'm quite aware that, based solely on the photo, such a thing can certainly never be proven.

But it's equally ignorant to say that something doesn't exist simply because there's no evidence of it. 



> I can go on and on and on. But I won't. Logic dictates ghosts can't exist, and until some actual evidense is submitted that they do exist - then anyone who's dumb enough to believe in ghosts should send me 100,000 in the mail.. becuase I'm the long lost cousin of a nigerian king who's waiting to move even MORE money into your account.



Logic once dictated that the world was flat. Logic once dictated that bleeding a person was a sound way to rid someone of disease.

Electricity, for instance, has always existed. The fact that it was onlt discovered relatively recently means little. There was no evidence for it 10,000 years ago, yet it existed...


----------



## ceejtank

Steve5D said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going by a scientific approach.. rule out what didn't happen, whatevers left, no matter how improbable is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, what didn't happen is this: Nobody stepped in front of the camera during the exposure. You're right - You've discovered a ghost. Very logical.  Someone stepped in front and youre just saying they didn't.  You said your friend was 30 feet away - what about you? Where were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we have here is you going with you and a friend to a place, taking a picture of something that's rather bland, and there just happens to be a "ghosting" effect. Maybe your sensors bad and it recorded the image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then the sensor magically repaired itself. No other image I've ever taken has anything remotely similar to that...Could very easily happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with this, assuming ghosts are real, why would they be translucent? If they exist in a realm(like here on earth), unless theyre light particles themself, they need to be reflecting light in order for us to see them(or generating light - which would produce heat.. which is measureable). That's how vision works(just like a camera), light is reflected into our eyes, the rods and cones take the light waves, and transmit them to our brains who tell us what we're seeing. Absense of light = absense of vision. If they don't have particles large enough to be whole, then they can't possible reflect light. Ok so assuming that ghosts are real, and theyre translucent, that means theyre held together by... what.. nothing? huge gaps? If they were real they wouldn't disappear. It just wouldnt happen. Perhaps they move from a gaseous vs liquid (or solid) state. Lets assume that - then shifting in between phases would require either a temperature increase or decrease or a pressure increase or decrease. Both of which are easily measureable by instruments. Why haven't we been able to pick up on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the answers to any of your questions. Then again, and I guess I have to repeat this, I'm making no claim that what's in my image is a ghost. I've never made such a claim, simply because I'm quite aware that, based solely on the photo, such a thing can certainly never be proven.
> They can be proven or disproven.  Yours is a ghosting effect created by an object that was in the frame. It's pretty simple.
> But it's equally ignorant to say that something doesn't exist simply because there's no evidence of it. Actually that's one of the best reasons to think something doesnt exist... because there is no evidence of it.  Why would you think something exists if there's no evidence?  Thats probably the definition of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can go on and on and on. But I won't. Logic dictates ghosts can't exist, and until some actual evidense is submitted that they do exist - then anyone who's dumb enough to believe in ghosts should send me 100,000 in the mail.. becuase I'm the long lost cousin of a nigerian king who's waiting to move even MORE money into your account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic once dictated that the world was flat.  Logic didn't dictate the world was flat.  A person theorized the word was flat because they can't see around a bend.  Its the properties of light.  it wasn't understood.   Logic once dictated that bleeding a person was a sound way to rid someone of disease. Some diseases - bleeding is the cure, or if not the cure the treatment - example: Hemachromatosis.  It may have been over-used, but science has disproved all the things you're mentioning. Ghost theories have been around for centuries and are unable to be proven, even with all our scientific data now.
> 
> Electricity, for instance, has always existed. The fact that it was onlt discovered relatively recently means little. There was no evidence for it 10,000 years ago, yet it existed...
Click to expand...

 Electricity had evidence 10,000 years ago, it just wasn't named that, and wasn't harnessed or utilized.  

Thanks for giving me statement after easy statement to easily disprove.


----------



## KmH

Steve5D said:


> Have you ever seen wind?


I have. People living in deserts see wind regularly when the wind blows dust or forms an eddy commonly called a 'dust devil'.

Scientist use many methods to see wind.

Have you eve seen the use of smoke in a wind tunnel?

Thus far, no so called paranormal phenomena has ever been conclusively proven to be real. Maybe one day, but by now proof should have been established.
No doubt, humanity has only scratched the surface of what can or will be known as fact, and our perception is limited in various ways. 

But many people are comforted by believing that such things are not only possible, but reality.


----------



## Luke345678

Well my goal for no debating whether things are real or not obviously did not work out. 

Thank you everyone for the post and thank you Steve for that quite interesting photo. 

I have a creepy cemetery near by and might have a little shoot.

Also thank you Sm4him for that very interesting story, this thread alone has made me approach this topic with a bit more of a open mind. 

Thank you everyone else for you response, means a lot. 

-Luke


----------



## Luke345678

Also Steve, I'm very sorry that some people can't seem to comprehend that you never said you captured a ghost. 

Thanks for the interesting picture though! Got me thinking....


----------



## rlemert

First, regarding where the burden of proof about ghosts lies. It is impossible to prove a negative - i.e. that ghosts don't exist. To do so we would have to examine every known and unknown example that has ever been or ever will be presented, and that is obviously impossible. It is conceivable, however, that someone could prove that they do exist. All they would have to do (conceptually) is present concrete, verifiable evidence of something that fits the generally-accepted definition of ghost. Science therefore sets the non-existence of ghosts as the null hypothesis and puts the burden of proof on those who argue for their existence. Demands to "prove they don't exist" may make someone feel good, but they're really just useless bursts of hot air.

  Second, regarding theories and hypotheses: The general public tends to use the term "theory" as if it were the same thing as "hypothesis" - i.e. a potential explanation for some observation. Science, however, has a precise definition for the term. A theory is much more than just a collection of "verified" hypotheses. It is a coherent description of nature that explains all observations made within its constraints, enables predictions of future observations, and is falsifiable. Thus, the theory of Newtonian Gravity is an adequate description of affair here on earth and allows one to predict e.g. the path of cannon balls, but eventually scientists found that they needed a broader theory to describe additional observations that were unknown to Newton. It's kept around, though, because it is more than adequate within the realm in which it applies.

  By the way, no scientific theory can ever be proven true. Once again, to do so we would have to examine every possible variation known and unknown. The best we can do is say that a theory has not yet been proven wrong. A theory becomes stronger as it passes more tests and challenges, but even gravity could conceivably be proven wrong some day (I wouldn't bet the house on it, though).

  Sorry for the rant, but this is a very big pet peeve of mine.


----------



## bunny99123

Theory proven becomes a Law.


----------



## Redeyejedi

Steve5D said:


> I believe it can, and has, been done.
> 
> This is a picture I took in the Old Town section of San Diego, in the El Campo Santo Cemetery, On June 2, 2010. It was about 11:30pm when I too the shot. A buddy and I were the only ones in the cemetery at the time. This is a 15 second exposure, taken with a Canon G10:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall, the only editing I did on this was resizing it.
> 
> I'm not presenting it as evidence of ghosts. In fact, I've no idea what it is. What I know is that it wasn't there when I took the photo, and I know that we were the only two people there when I shot it, and my buddy was off about 30 feet to my left when I took it. What I find most interesting about this is that, despite being such a long exposure, the figure seen is pretty crisp and sharp. I don't know what that means, but I do find it interesting.
> 
> I've had the photo reviewed by a paranormal group in San Diego. They, too, don't know what it is.
> 
> Now, is it "real"? Well, yeah, it is. I didn't use Photoshop to create the image you see here. It's simply what came out of the camera. Also, consider that I have absolutely zero to gain by creating a fake ghost picture and, in fact, wouldn't even really know how. I'm just not that good with Photoshop. I also have absolutely nothing to gain by creating a fake image.
> 
> I believe it can be done, and I'd like to try to do more of it...



i think it's light from venus reflecting off swamp gas.



  so, what were actually TRYING to photograph here?


----------



## Steve5D

ceejtank said:


> Thanks for giving me statement after easy statement to easily disprove.



You've disproved nothing.

Again, I've not made the claim that there's a ghost in my photo. Asking me to prove that it is is pretty stupid.

You've made the claim, as a statement of fact, that all paranormal photos are fakes, and that ghosts do not exist.

I respect that you hold that opinion.

I'm just wondering why you're so afraid to back up, with some form of actual evidence (sorry, your opinion doesn't count), your position...


----------



## Steve5D

I have. People living in deserts see wind regularly when the wind blows dust or forms an eddy commonly called a 'dust devil'.[/quote]

You're not seeing the wind, you're seeing the dust.

Wind is invisible. You can't see it. You can only see what is mixed with it...



> Scientist use many methods to see wind.
> 
> Have you eve seen the use of smoke in a wind tunnel?



I absolutely have. And what you see when smoke is used in a wind tunnel is nothing more than smoke. You cannot see what makes the smoke move...



> Thus far, no so called paranormal phenomena has ever been conclusively proven to be real. Maybe one day, but by now proof should have been established.



if it weren't destined to upset a lot of people, we could use that statement to illustrate that God; any God, is not real, and does not exist. I'd imagine that many here are people of faith, however, and such a discussion would derail rather quickly...



> But many people are comforted by believing that such things are not only possible, but reality.



You have just referenced every single religion ever known...


----------



## Steve5D

Luke345678 said:


> Also Steve, I'm very sorry that some people can't seem to comprehend that you never said you captured a ghost.



And the reason for that is a simple one. When someone sees an image like that, they immediately conclude that they only have two choices: It's a ghost, or it's not a ghost. If they don't believe, they'll argue until the day they die that it's not a ghost. The reason that's a stupid choice is because it was never presented as a ghost in the first place...


----------



## Steve5D

Redeyejedi said:


> so, what were actually TRYING to photograph here?



Um, part of the cemetery. That should've been obvious.

How that matters, though, is a mystery...


----------



## Steve5D

rlemert said:


> First, regarding where the burden of proof about ghosts lies. It is impossible to prove a negative - i.e. that ghosts don't exist. To do so we would have to examine every known and unknown example that has ever been or ever will be presented, and that is obviously impossible.



Who should have the onus of proving his statement?

Person A, who says "I took this picture in a graveyard. I don't know what it is, but it's weird"

- OR -

Person B, who says "All ghost photos are fakes, and ghosts don't exist"?

Only person B is making a statement of fact and, therefore, shoulders the responsibility for proving his point...


----------



## Steve5D

ceejtank said:


> You're right - You've discovered a ghost. Very logical.  Someone stepped in front and youre just saying they didn't.  You said your friend was 30 feet away - what about you? Where were you?




I defy you to show where I said I "discovered a ghost". In fact, I've been quite careful to _not _make such a claim. Your persistence in insisting I have only make you look silly...



> They can be proven or disproven.  Yours is a ghosting effect created by an object that was in the frame. It's pretty simple.



There was no object in the frame. I think most of the reasonable folks here understand that. You, on the other hand, seem intent on arguing against a claim I never made...



> Thats probably the definition of stupidity.



No, the definition of stupidity is arguing a claim that was never made. You will never, ever find a post of mine in which I say "I shot a ghost", or anything similar...



> Logic didn't dictate the world was flat.  A person theorized the word was flat because they can't see around a bend.  Its the properties of light.  it wasn't understood.




Right.

And that misunderstanding led to a logic which we _now _know to be flawed but, 600 years ago, made perfect sense...



> Some diseases - bleeding is the cure, or if not the cure the treatment - example: Hemachromatosis.  It may have been over-used, but science has disproved all the things you're mentioning. Ghost theories have been around for centuries and are unable to be proven, even with all our scientific data now.



And, even with all of our scientific data, we've not been able to prove that they _don't _exist. If what you're saying is true, we would be able to point to absolute, irrefutable, hard scientific evidence and be able to say "THIS is why they don't exist", and base that statement on something more than a mere belief...




> Thanks for giving me statement after easy statement to easily disprove.



You've disproven nothing, but you've been good for a few laughs.

Are you a man of faith? Do you believe in God, or some other "higher power"?


----------



## paigew

dang, I was hoping to see some good ghost pics on this thread.


----------



## thetrue

paigew said:


> dang, I was hoping to see some good ghost pics on this thread.


Do you have any, Paige?


----------



## paigew

no. but I'm on another forum and there was a similar thread with lots of photos.really good ones too.


----------



## rlemert

Steve5D said:


> rlemert said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, regarding where the burden of proof about ghosts lies. It is impossible to prove a negative - i.e. that ghosts don't exist. To do so we would have to examine every known and unknown example that has ever been or ever will be presented, and that is obviously impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who should have the onus of proving his statement?
> 
> Person A, who says "I took this picture in a graveyard. I don't know what it is, but it's weird"
> 
> - OR -
> 
> Person B, who says "All ghost photos are fakes, and ghosts don't exist"?
> 
> Only person B is making a statement of fact and, therefore, shoulders the responsibility for proving his point...
Click to expand...


Any efforts person B makes would be the equivalent of tilting at windmills since it is impossible, as I discussed earlier, to prove that ghosts don't exist. Science demands a lot of its practitioners, and many times they do chase lost causes, but science doesn't require them to do so when the cause is known in advance to be lost.

Person B is also not "making a statement of fact." At best he is using a poor shorthand way of saying  "there is no generally accepted, uncontested evidence for their existence." More likely, he is stating his opinion as if it were fact.


----------



## Steve5D

rlemert said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rlemert said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, regarding where the burden of proof about ghosts lies. It is impossible to prove a negative - i.e. that ghosts don't exist. To do so we would have to examine every known and unknown example that has ever been or ever will be presented, and that is obviously impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who should have the onus of proving his statement?
> 
> Person A, who says "I took this picture in a graveyard. I don't know what it is, but it's weird"
> 
> - OR -
> 
> Person B, who says "All ghost photos are fakes, and ghosts don't exist"?
> 
> Only person B is making a statement of fact and, therefore, shoulders the responsibility for proving his point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any efforts person B makes would be the equivalent of tilting at windmills since it is impossible, as I discussed earlier, to prove that ghosts don't exist. Science demands a lot of its practitioners, and many times they do chase lost causes, but science doesn't require them to do so when the cause is known in advance to be lost.
> 
> Person B is also not "making a statement of fact." At best he is using a poor shorthand way of saying  "there is no generally accepted, uncontested evidence for their existence." More likely, he is stating his opinion as if it were fact.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but "they're all fakes" and "they don't exist" are statements of facts. Spin it any way you want, but that's the reality of it.

If someone can't prove something they're saying, such as Person B, he should offer it with a lead in of "In my opinion..."

Anything else is silly...


----------



## Steve5D

Luke345678 said:


> Also Steve, I'm very sorry that some people can't seem to comprehend that you never said you captured a ghost.



Hey, some people just have a hard time wrapping their heads around simple concepts...


----------



## unpopular

Steve-look-at-me-i-got-a-5D is the TPF fun vampire.

---

I love how paranormal photographers will often use both EMF detection AND IR imaging, I guess ghosts spew radiation in all frequencies EXCEPT the visible band?

I've had film sensitive to x-ray, not your typical orthosensitive x-ray film, this stuff actually measured from blue through to x-ray and, iirc, even had some sensitivity all the way to Gamma radiation. That's the stuff you'd use to catch a ghost!

Of course, you'd have to use a pinhole for everything, making diffraction absolutely impossible to predict with such a wide bandwidth.


----------



## thetrue

unpopular said:


> Steve-look-at-me-i-got-a-5D is the TPF fun vampire.
> 
> ---
> 
> I love how paranormal photographers will often use both EMF detection AND IR imaging, I guess ghosts spew radiation in all frequencies EXCEPT the visible band?
> 
> I've had film sensitive to x-ray, not your typical orthosensitive x-ray film, this stuff actually measured from blue through to x-ray and, iirc, even had some sensitivity all the way to Gamma radiation. That's the stuff you'd use to catch a ghost!
> 
> Of course, you'd have to use a pinhole for everything, making diffraction absolutely impossible to predict with such a wide bandwidth.


Does Canon make a pinhole lens? Is it focusable? Does it come in different focal lengths? Can I order it new from Amazon for a used-from-Craigslist price? Does it come with a "working girl?" 

Can I take X-rays of my broken fibia? Will it be 3D if I take two, slightly off centered photos and stack them? Will three UV filters stacked in direct sunlight help with any of these things?

Thanks so much for answering, I have a NatGeo photoshoot tomorrow with my brand new T2i and EF-S 18-55IS II lens. I figure if I get a good ghost pix, I can put it on my Facebook and go pro like YESTERDAY!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay bye


----------



## Steve5D

unpopular said:


> Steve-look-at-me-i-got-a-5D is the TPF fun vampire.



I'm not entirely sure what this gibberish is supposed to mean, but it seems pretty nonsensical...


----------



## Judobreaker

Steve5D said:


> rlemert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who should have the onus of proving his statement?
> 
> Person A, who says "I took this picture in a graveyard. I don't know what it is, but it's weird"
> 
> - OR -
> 
> Person B, who says "All ghost photos are fakes, and ghosts don't exist"?
> 
> Only person B is making a statement of fact and, therefore, shoulders the responsibility for proving his point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any efforts person B makes would be the equivalent of tilting at windmills since it is impossible, as I discussed earlier, to prove that ghosts don't exist. Science demands a lot of its practitioners, and many times they do chase lost causes, but science doesn't require them to do so when the cause is known in advance to be lost.
> 
> Person B is also not "making a statement of fact." At best he is using a poor shorthand way of saying  "there is no generally accepted, uncontested evidence for their existence." More likely, he is stating his opinion as if it were fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "they're all fakes" and "they don't exist" are statements of facts. Spin it any way you want, but that's the reality of it.
> 
> If someone can't prove something they're saying, such as Person B, he should offer it with a lead in of "In my opinion..."
> 
> Anything else is silly...
Click to expand...



The most advanced details of our science are usually based on 'models which have yet to be proven but are most likely to be correct in the opinion of most scientists'.
One of the most important particles in the current model (which has been used for years already) has only been proved to exist somewhere last year (I'm talking about the Higgs boson of course).
Yet, as long as there is no other model which is more likely to be true, people constantly claim this model to be true and create so-called facts around it. 

That being said, I do not believe in the slightest that any of those ghost photos contain real ghosts. I can think of a way or two to create them without the need of Photoshop or anything like that.


----------



## joylyn

Very interesting thread .I for one believe that ghost do exist tho I haven't seen one I have captured some rather odd images of what I believe to be ghosts. I also believe that as adults we loose our innocence that allows us to see such things. children are more pure,innocent,and still connected to spirit,and have not been corrupted by life yet , they have a more open mind and are free of all the clutter as adults we endure on a daily basis. 
this picture I posted is about 8 years ago the day I bought my rebel xt I was so damn excited lol I traveled to one of my favorite spots just to play around with the camera no one else was with me and I didnt see anything while i was there , but once I uploaded the pictures a mist that was coming off the platform in the picture caught my eye. Also some thing else stood out there is a perfect black outline of a person standing behind the trench I cant explain it I have tried zoomed in zoomed out but the pixels are clearing outlining something. Go ahead tear it up I would love to hear some ideas on what that mist may be and the black outline of a person is . Picture is unedited of course just resized .


----------



## The_Traveler

joylyn said:


> Very interesting thread .I for one *believe *that ghost do exist tho I haven't seen one I have captured some rather odd images of what I *believe* to be ghosts. I also *believe *that as adults we loose our innocence that allows us to see such things. children are more pure,innocent,and still connected to spirit,and have not been corrupted by life yet , they have a more open mind and are free of all the clutter as adults we endure on a daily basis.
> 
> this picture I posted is about 8 years ago the day I bought my rebel xt I was so damn excited lol I traveled to one of my favorite spots just to play around with the camera no one else was with me and I didnt see anything while i was there , but once I uploaded the pictures a mist that was coming off the platform in the picture caught my eye. Also some thing else stood out there is a perfect black outline of a person standing behind the trench I cant explain it I have tried zoomed in zoomed out but the pixels are clearing outlining something. Go ahead tear it up I would love to hear some ideas on what that mist may be and the black outline of a person is . Picture is unedited of course just resized .



I see OOF shadows


----------



## o hey tyler

Steve, I looked at your photo. I have seen some pretty convincing paranormal photos... However I don't believe yours to be (and yes I know that you weren't claiming it to be). 

What I see, and I am fairly certain it is... Is a man in a blue shirt facing towards the left side of the frame with their hand at his or her side. You can pretty easily see it if you zoom in. At first, I can see how it would look like a white gown or something similar.


----------



## rlemert

One other thing about seeing "ghosts". Our minds have been hard-wired by evolution to recognize other people very quickly. This makes sense since the ability to tell "friend" from "man-eating tiger" has an obvious survival implication. The result of this is that we tend to see people where there are none - hence all the images of Jesus on a piece of toast or an old man in a pile of rocks. I'm sure many "ghost" images are really just random blotches that people's minds are morphing into human images.


----------



## o hey tyler

rlemert said:
			
		

> One other thing about seeing "ghosts". Our minds have been hard-wired by evolution to recognize other people very quickly. This makes sense since the ability to tell "friend" from "man-eating tiger" has an obvious survival implication. The result of this is that we tend to see people where there are none - hence all the images of Jesus on a piece of toast or an old man in a pile of rocks. I'm sure many "ghost" images are really just random blotches that people's minds are morphing into human images.



Dude, Jesus really was on my breakfast! I'm serious! So was Pope Benedict. The patron saint of Hollandaise Sauce.


----------



## runnah

That is call pareidolia. It evolved to help us make order out of chaos, to help us see the leopard in the leaves so we wouldn't get eaten.

A classic case of evolutionary adaptations conflicting with modern social intelligence.  

This same idea can be applied to racism, homophobia and other prejudice. As much as modern society tells people that we are all the same and should be treated as such, the animal instinct inside all of is telling us to be wary of those different than us so we can protect the tribe.

For all our swagger, we are just dumb animals wearing fancy clothes.


----------



## The_Traveler

'Human nature, Mr. Allnut, is something we must all strive to rise above.'

Katherine Hepburn, 'the African Queen'​


----------



## runnah

The_Traveler said:


> 'Human nature, Mr. Allnut, is something we must all strive to rise above.'
> Katherine Hepburn, 'the African Queen'​



How apt!


----------



## PixelRabbit

Ok now I'm scared, even the spam is taunting me....


----------



## runnah

PixelRabbit said:


> Ok now I'm scared, even the spam is taunting me....




*GET OUT*...your credit card and take advantage of these great saving!


----------



## o hey tyler

PixelRabbit said:
			
		

> Ok now I'm scared, even the spam is taunting me....



I'm actually not convinced he's a spammer. He was banned under the name James554 or something, and then remade an account with an additional number in it and continues to post marginally relevant posts with kung fu panda images.

ETA: I take that back. He's a copy/paster flavor of spam, I guess. I'm surprised he's so persistent.


----------



## PixelRabbit

I recognized the name too and went hmm.. Went back to confirm he quoted that before I called him out


----------



## PixelRabbit

Just realized that my post is going to go from a little joke provided by a spammer to "Pixel is hearing voices again" when the spam is removed lol!


----------



## unpopular

runnah said:


> This same idea can be applied to racism, homophobia[...]



and particle physics!


----------



## runnah

unpopular said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same idea can be applied to racism, homophobia[...]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and particle physics!
Click to expand...


String theory baby!


----------



## Steve5D

Judobreaker said:


> That being said, I do not believe in the slightest that any of those ghost photos contain real ghosts. I can think of a way or two to create them without the need of Photoshop or anything like that.



For me, one of the most compelling arguments against someone doing that is, very simply, "Why?"

Why would someone go to the trouble of doing it? I've certainly never said "I have a real ghost picture!". I've never tried to profit from it or promote myself with it. Given the circumstances under which it was shot, I think it's unusual, so I share it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wouldn't even waste time trying to create it in Photoshop. I can't imagine wanting to create it _without _Photoshop...



o hey tyler said:


> Steve, I looked at your photo. I have seen some pretty convincing paranormal photos... However I don't believe yours to be (and yes I know that you weren't claiming it to be).
> 
> What I see, and I am fairly certain it is... Is a man in a blue shirt facing towards the left side of the frame with their hand at his or her side. You can pretty easily see it if you zoom in. At first, I can see how it would look like a white gown or something similar.



You're not the first person to see that. There was not, however, anyone standing there, for even the briefest moment, while I took the picture. The place was empty except for me and my buddy. Neither of us were in front of the camera.

Again, I don't know what it is, but I do know what it _isn't_, and it's certainly not a person standing in front of the camera...


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> You're not the first person to see that. There was not, however, anyone standing there, for even the briefest moment, while I took the picture. The place was empty except for me and my buddy. Neither of us were in front of the camera.
> 
> Again, I don't know what it is, but I do know what it _isn't_, and it's certainly not a person standing in front of the camera...



What lens where you using?


----------



## Steve5D

Judobreaker said:


> What lens where you using?



If you're not going to pay attention, I can't find a reason to engage in further conversation on this topic with you...


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lens where you using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not going to pay attention, I can't find a reason to engage in further conversation on this topic with you...
Click to expand...


In the time you took to be a smartass you could have just told me. But instead I will look back through 7 pages to try to find that little tidbit.

Well since it's was with a point and shoot I am much more likely to believe it was some sort of issues based on lens quality.


----------



## Steve5D

runnah said:


> In the time you took to be a smartass you could have just told me. But instead I will look back through 7 pages to try to find that little tidbit.
> 
> Well since it's was with a point and shoot I am much more likely to believe it was some sort of issues based on lens quality.



Golly, I'm sorry. I guess the concept of actually reading the post which contains a photo you wish to discuss is a concept which is lost on you.

"Some sort of issues" is hardly a convincing explanation. 

No other images from that night had anything remotely similar to what's seen in the image I posted. No other images I'd ever taken, in fact, ever had anything remotely similar to what's seen in the photo. I can allow for the possibility that there's a reasonable explanation, but "some sort of issues" hardly suffices. What lens issues? What issues would manifest themselves for only a single image, that would result in what's seen?

If "some sort of issues" is all you've got, that's fine, but don't expect to be taken seriously...


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the time you took to be a smartass you could have just told me. But instead I will look back through 7 pages to try to find that little tidbit.
> 
> Well since it's was with a point and shoot I am much more likely to believe it was some sort of issues based on lens quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golly, I'm sorry. I guess the concept of actually reading the post which contains a photo you wish to discuss is a concept which is lost on you.
> 
> "Some sort of issues" is hardly a convincing explanation.
> 
> No other images from that night had anything remotely similar to what's seen in the image I posted. No other images I'd ever taken, in fact, ever had anything remotely similar to what's seen in the photo. I can allow for the possibility that there's a reasonable explanation, but "some sort of issues" hardly suffices. What lens issues? What issues would manifest themselves for only a single image, that would result in what's seen?
> 
> If "some sort of issues" is all you've got, that's fine, but don't expect to be taken seriously...
Click to expand...


How rude.

"Some sort of issue" is the best I have. I am not an expert when it comes to the various issues that arise in the world of photography. What I do know is that there is a long list of explanations that would have to be eliminated before you see me call that a photo of a ghost.


----------



## thetrue

Who even said that was a photo of a ghost???


----------



## rlemert

I'm getting confused.

  You post a picture that may be showing a ghost, and you very carefully add a disclaimer that says you are NOT claiming that this is what the image is showing. In fact, you repeat this disclaimer in just about every one of your responses in this thread. HOWEVER, at the same time you seem to be challenging anyone who suggests any alternate explanation for the image. If you are really claiming this is not a ghost, then why is it so important to you to debunk anyone who suggests otherwise?

  It also appears that you are laboring under the impression that if an alternative explanation cannot be provided for the image that it must therefore be a ghost. The fact that we can't prove that it isn't doesn't mean it is - it just means that we a) don't have sufficient information, and/or b) haven't thought of all possible explanations. Why is "we don't know what it is" such an unacceptable answer?


----------



## o hey tyler

Steve5D said:
			
		

> If you're not going to pay attention, I can't find a reason to engage in further conversation on this topic with you...



If you aren't going to quote the right person...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

rlemert said:


> I'm getting confused.
> 
> You post a picture that may be showing a ghost, and you very carefully add a disclaimer that says you are NOT claiming that this is what the image is showing. In fact, you repeat this disclaimer in just about every one of your responses in this thread. HOWEVER, at the same time you seem to be challenging anyone who suggests any alternate explanation for the image. If you are really claiming this is not a ghost, then why is it so important to you to debunk anyone who suggests otherwise?
> 
> It also appears that you are laboring under the impression that if an alternative explanation cannot be provided for the image that it must therefore be a ghost. The fact that we can't prove that it isn't doesn't mean it is - it just means that we a) don't have sufficient information, and/or b) haven't thought of all possible explanations. Why is "we don't know what it is" such an unacceptable answer?





You've been trolled!


----------



## runnah

Bitter Jeweler said:


> rlemert said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting confused.
> 
> You post a picture that may be showing a ghost, and you very carefully add a disclaimer that says you are NOT claiming that this is what the image is showing. In fact, you repeat this disclaimer in just about every one of your responses in this thread. HOWEVER, at the same time you seem to be challenging anyone who suggests any alternate explanation for the image. If you are really claiming this is not a ghost, then why is it so important to you to debunk anyone who suggests otherwise?
> 
> It also appears that you are laboring under the impression that if an alternative explanation cannot be provided for the image that it must therefore be a ghost. The fact that we can't prove that it isn't doesn't mean it is - it just means that we a) don't have sufficient information, and/or b) haven't thought of all possible explanations. Why is "we don't know what it is" such an unacceptable answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been trolled!
Click to expand...


There has never been any proof regarding the existence of trolls, goblins or elves.


----------



## o hey tyler

runnah said:
			
		

> There has never been any proof regarding the existence of trolls, goblins or elves.



He's not saying that anyone is trolling, but he'll fight about anyone who says that there's no trolling taking place.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler




----------



## Robin_Usagani

8 pages and topic started yesterday?

P.S. My new 5D3 can do multi exposures.. maybe I will do some "Paranormal" photos


----------



## runnah

Robin_Usagani said:


> 8 pages and topic started yesterday?



Slow work day.


----------



## bunny99123

There is a hypotheses and then a null or alternative hypothesis? Hypotheses, ghost exist and null hypothesis no ghost exist. Now prove one of them. To my knowledge neither has scientifically been proven, so it is more subjective matter. 

On another note, I would not go looking for something, because you never know what you might find.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

How do you prove something does not exist, that has never been proven to exist? If it has never been proven to exist, isn't that proof of non-existance?


----------



## Judobreaker

Steve5D said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, I do not believe in the slightest that any of those ghost photos contain real ghosts. I can think of a way or two to create them without the need of Photoshop or anything like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, one of the most compelling arguments against someone doing that is, very simply, "Why?"
> 
> Why would someone go to the trouble of doing it? I've certainly never said "I have a real ghost picture!". I've never tried to profit from it or promote myself with it. Given the circumstances under which it was shot, I think it's unusual, so I share it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I wouldn't even waste time trying to create it in Photoshop. I can't imagine wanting to create it _without _Photoshop...
Click to expand...


The answer someone would give you is probably just as simple as your question... "Because I can."

Some people on the internet (okay, a lot of people on the internet) seem to take a fondness in making up bull****, trolling or various other pointless (and in some eyes annoying) practices.
Where's the fun in it you ask? Well, they probably just like the idea they got someone wondering whether it is real or not. Either just to feel superior or to have a bit of a laugh (I'd find it brilliantly hilarious if whole groups of people would try to use my fakes as proof, although I'd probably disprove it after a little while ).




Bitter Jeweler said:


> How do you prove something does not exist, that has never been proven to exist? If it has never been proven to exist, isn't that proof of non-existance?



If something has not been proven to exists that does not mean that is proof of its non-existance.
You can prove something does not exist, but it's not proven just by the lack of proof saying the opposite.
In most cases however it is easiest to assume something does not exist if the existance has never been proven, both because it involves less hassle and because the chances are probably bigger it actually doesn't exist. 




Steve5D said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lens where you using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not going to pay attention, I can't find a reason to engage in further conversation on this topic with you...
Click to expand...


Someone explain to me how that is a quotation of something I asked because I definitely didn't...
Now that I think of it... I'm starting to feel like this thread leads its own life......


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Judobreaker said:


> If something has not been proven to exists that does not mean that is proof of its non-existance.
> You can prove something does not exist, but it's not proven just by the lack of proof saying the opposite.
> In most cases however it is easiest to assume something does not exist if the existance has never been proven, both because it involves less hassle and because the chances are probably bigger it actually doesn't exist.



What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?


----------



## Steve5D

rlemert said:


> You post a picture that may be showing a ghost, and you very carefully add a disclaimer that says you are NOT claiming that this is what the image is showing. In fact, you repeat this disclaimer in just about every one of your responses in this thread. HOWEVER, at the same time you seem to be challenging anyone who suggests any alternate explanation for the image. If you are really claiming this is not a ghost, then why is it so important to you to debunk anyone who suggests otherwise?



Well, when someone says "it's someone standing in front of the camera", and I know that no one was standing in front of the camera, I certainly feel justified in pointing that out. Someone mentioned a problem with the lens. Well, I just don't buy it. That was the only image I ever shot which showed that anomaly. Someone even suggested that the sensor could "magically" repair itself.

I'll challenge that which I know to not be true. It has nothing to do with the need to debunk anything, but rather to point out what is factual and what is not...



> It also appears that you are laboring under the impression that if an alternative explanation cannot be provided for the image that it must therefore be a ghost. The fact that we can't prove that it isn't doesn't mean it is - it just means that we a) don't have sufficient information, and/or b) haven't thought of all possible explanations. Why is "we don't know what it is" such an unacceptable answer?



That would be true only if I said "Hey, this is a ghost!"

If you can show me where I have said that, I'd love to see it.

Basically, people who weren't there are offering opinions (some even state them as fact) as to what caused the anomaly in my image.

There was no one in front of the camera when I took that picture. That's fact.

Like I said, I'm open to other possibilities, but not if it's something that I know is not the case...


----------



## Steve5D

runnah said:


> How rude.



Yes, because you're the model of politeness and decorum...



> "Some sort of issue" is the best I have. I am not an expert when it comes to the various issues that arise in the world of photography. What I do know is that there is a long list of explanations that would have to be eliminated before you see me call that a photo of a ghost.



Who said it was a photo of a ghost?


----------



## Judobreaker

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something has not been proven to exists that does not mean that is proof of its non-existance.
> You can prove something does not exist, but it's not proven just by the lack of proof saying the opposite.
> In most cases however it is easiest to assume something does not exist if the existance has never been proven, both because it involves less hassle and because the chances are probably bigger it actually doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?
Click to expand...


Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Judobreaker said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something has not been proven to exists that does not mean that is proof of its non-existance.
> You can prove something does not exist, but it's not proven just by the lack of proof saying the opposite.
> In most cases however it is easiest to assume something does not exist if the existance has never been proven, both because it involves less hassle and because the chances are probably bigger it actually doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
> A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
> The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.
Click to expand...

That means having no proof of the stars existence proves a star doesn't exist, and you have reinforced my statement.

Still no metrics to use to prove something doesn't exist...


----------



## manaheim

Challenge Info


----------



## manaheim

Oh and I should probably mention:

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Judobreaker

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
> A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
> The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That means having no proof of the stars existence proves a star doesn't exist, and you have reinforced my statement.
> 
> Still no metrics to use to prove something doesn't exist...
Click to expand...


No that's not what I said. 
The star exists. We can see it. The possible existence of planets around it is what's the problem.
We can prove the non-existence of those planets by looking at the movement of the star. Whether a star moves in a certain way or not is fact, as we can simply see it.
So there's your metrics. Kilometers of movement.
By looking at how many kilometers the star moves in various directions you can tell whether planets around it exist or not.
Doesn't really get any more metric than that does it.


----------



## runnah

Judobreaker said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something has not been proven to exists that does not mean that is proof of its non-existance.
> You can prove something does not exist, but it's not proven just by the lack of proof saying the opposite.
> In most cases however it is easiest to assume something does not exist if the existance has never been proven, both because it involves less hassle and because the chances are probably bigger it actually doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
> A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
> The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.
Click to expand...


astonomers do that. Astrologists make up horoscopes.


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because you're the model of politeness and decorum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some sort of issue" is the best I have. I am not an expert when it comes to the various issues that arise in the world of photography. What I do know is that there is a long list of explanations that would have to be eliminated before you see me call that a photo of a ghost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was a photo of a ghost?
Click to expand...


if you look back I was never rude. Disagreeing with your opinions is not rudeness.

And I repeat, by placing said photo into this particular thread the implication is that you think it is a photo of something paranormal. That fact that you sent it to "paranormal experts" once again solidifies your opinion on the photos contents.

but we are all entitled to our opinions, mine just happen to be backed up by testable evidence.

Friends?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Judobreaker said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
> A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
> The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.
> 
> 
> 
> That means having no proof of the stars existence proves a star doesn't exist, and you have reinforced my statement.
> 
> Still no metrics to use to prove something doesn't exist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that's not what I said.
> The star exists. We can see it. The possible existence of planets around it is what's the problem.
> We can prove the non-existence of those planets by looking at the movement of the star. Whether a star moves in a certain way or not is fact, as we can simply see it.
> So there's your metrics. Kilometers of movement.
> By looking at how many kilometers the star moves in various directions you can tell whether planets around it exist or not.
> Doesn't really get any more metric than that does it.
Click to expand...


I meant planets.

You are still using the metrics of knowledge of the existence of something and looking for its effects, and if you don't find them, lacking those effects proves non-existence.

Look at God, and Ghosts. There is no proof that they exist. What metrics do you use to prove their non-existence? Are they the same metrics you would use to prove their existence, like you are with looking for planets? And after using those metrics, you find there is a lack of evidence for existence, so, is there being no proof of existence, proof of non-existence?


----------



## runnah

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means having no proof of the stars existence proves a star doesn't exist, and you have reinforced my statement.
> 
> Still no metrics to use to prove something doesn't exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what I said.
> The star exists. We can see it. The possible existence of planets around it is what's the problem.
> We can prove the non-existence of those planets by looking at the movement of the star. Whether a star moves in a certain way or not is fact, as we can simply see it.
> So there's your metrics. Kilometers of movement.
> By looking at how many kilometers the star moves in various directions you can tell whether planets around it exist or not.
> Doesn't really get any more metric than that does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant planets.
> 
> You are still using the metrics of knowledge of the existence of something and looking for its effects, and if you don't find them, lacking those effects proves non-existence.
> 
> Look at God, and Ghosts. There is no proof that they exist. What metrics do you use to prove their non-existence? Are they the same metrics you would use to prove their existence, like you are with looking for planets? And after using those metrics, you find there is a lack of evidence for existence, so, is there being no proof of existence, proof of non-existence?
Click to expand...


discovering new planets is actually very cool. Astronomers will measure the amount of light coming from a distant star and if it dims it mean a planet is passing in front of it. By measuring the difference they are able to judge size.

anyways more to your thoughts. We can only measure the measurable. Our measurements are based on our knowledge of what we are measuring. We can only base our systems of evidence based confirmation by using the systems we already know. For example if there are spirits they would emu ate some measurable qualities. Of course it would not be like you see on tv. 

Our entire knowledge base is based on repeatable experiments that yield the same result.

Like I said, extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. But I think you'll find the skeptic more open minded than the true believer, because a skeptic will admit the are wrong if presented with enough good evidence.

sorry phone auto corrected all over the place


----------



## Steve5D

runnah said:


> And I repeat, by placing said photo into this particular thread the implication is that you think it is a photo of something paranormal.



Again, there was no "implication". I was quite clear  when I presented it that I was not saying is was a ghost or anything else paranormal...



> That fact that you sent it to "paranormal experts" once again solidifies your opinion on the photos contents.



It was sent to them, and reviewed by them, at _their _request, not mine. I didn't think I had a picture of something paranormal; _they _did. A friend who saw the photo contacted the group, and the group contacted me. I didn't seek them out. I was content knowing that it was simply an odd photo.

So, while you might like to think you've made a point, you haven't. I had no intention of sending it to anyone...


----------



## Judobreaker

runnah said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What metrics does one use to provide proof of non-existance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, astrologists for example prove and/or disprove the existence of planets circling around very distant stars by looking closely at the movements of that star.
> A planet circling around a star would cause minor movement of the star because of gravity.
> The lack of these kinds of movement would prove a non-existence of planets circling that star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> astonomers do that. Astrologists make up horoscopes.
Click to expand...


Uhh right, I tend to mix those up every once in a while... xD




Bitter Jeweler said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means having no proof of the stars existence proves a star doesn't exist, and you have reinforced my statement.
> 
> Still no metrics to use to prove something doesn't exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that's not what I said.
> The star exists. We can see it. The possible existence of planets around it is what's the problem.
> We can prove the non-existence of those planets by looking at the movement of the star. Whether a star moves in a certain way or not is fact, as we can simply see it.
> So there's your metrics. Kilometers of movement.
> By looking at how many kilometers the star moves in various directions you can tell whether planets around it exist or not.
> Doesn't really get any more metric than that does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant planets.
> 
> You are still using the metrics of knowledge of the existence of something and looking for its effects, and if you don't find them, lacking those effects proves non-existence.
> 
> Look at God, and Ghosts. There is no proof that they exist. What metrics do you use to prove their non-existence? Are they the same metrics you would use to prove their existence, like you are with looking for planets? And after using those metrics, you find there is a lack of evidence for existence, so, is there being no proof of existence, proof of non-existence?
Click to expand...



We understand distance. We can measure it.
'No distance' is measurable in metrics, it's simply 0 km. So you can prove the non-existence of moving distance caused by circling planets by looking at the star. That in itself already is proving that something does not exist (in this case the moving distance).
Using that knowledge we can also deduct that planets around the star do not exist. It's all really a simple chain (although the actual work is harder I imagine or else those people would get paid very much ).

Problem is, to prove whether something exists or not you need to know what to look for.
What do we need to look for with ghosts? I haven't a clue so I can neither prove nor disprove their existence.
This story is about the same for God... How can any man prove God exists when you can not measure him? Us humans do not have enough knowledge for that, we have no idea what metrics we should use to measure whether God exists or not.



Ps. Anyone reading this please don't get offended or anything. I'm not trying to offend, in fact I'm quite certain God exists. I'm merely looking at this from a human rational point of view.


----------



## silvergrhm

In general I don't buy it. I have, however, seen at least one good example from devils den in Gettysburg, PA.


----------



## Gary_A

After reading everything is this thread I have come to the conclusion that every needs to shut up and just post some damn pictures. This isn't a debate forum! 

With the technology available you will never prove anything on this subject via a picture or video PERIOD, EVER, IT WON'T HAPPEN. So how about we just post some pictures for amusement, I don't even care of they are real or not because everyone will assume that they aren't real anyway.

A ghost experience has to happen in real time and even then the person will doubt it.

So just post some damn picture, this is photo forum right?


----------



## o hey tyler

Gary_A said:


> After reading everything is this thread I have come to the conclusion that every needs to shut up and just post some damn pictures. This isn't a debate forum!
> 
> With the technology available you will never prove anything on this subject via a picture or video PERIOD, EVER, IT WON'T HAPPEN. So how about we just post some pictures for amusement, I don't even care of they are real or not because everyone will assume that they aren't real anyway.
> 
> A ghost experience has to happen in real time and even then the person will doubt it.
> 
> So just post some damn picture, this is photo forum right?



Why did you bump this just to tell everyone to shut up?


----------



## Gary_A

o hey tyler said:


> Why did you bump this just to tell everyone to shut up?



I said they "need to" I didn't tell them to. 

I bumped it and "told them" to post some pictures, I would like to see what they can create, real or fake.


----------



## cynicaster

Last week I was hanging out with a friend who kept getting texts from this other friend about how she was getting freaked out over some noises in her house.  Then, she said she saw her bedroom door opening and closing, and took some pictures with her phone.  She sent a photo over SMS and when we looked at it we could see this face in the doorway with this big grin, but no visible body.  I usually err on the side of skepticism with this stuff, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit freaked out by it.  

Now, was it some kind of fake?  Could be, but the main problem I have with that explanation is that I know both of these girls well and... I suppose I can say this here because they'll never read it... they're just not nearly savvy enough with any kind of gadget or computer to fake an image like that.  Plus, I know the image must have come right from the camera on the phone that sent the text, because I know that girl would not know how to transfer a file from her computer to her phone.  Is there an app for making convincing-looking ghost faces in photos taken right on the phone?  I'm thinking there has to be, based on what I saw.

I should ask my friend to send me the photo... it'd be nice to see it on a computer screen rather than on her phone.


----------



## starsbutnosigns

I've caught orbs in photos before. Not on purpose. I was only taking photos of my room when I felt creepy, and then when I looked at the photos there were little white things floating around. It didn't really look like dust though. I don't know what it is. It's probably rays from the sun.


----------



## Ballistics

Necro thread


----------



## DTB58

PixelRabbit said:


> Mully I keep thinking about going across the road at night, the guy next door to us still uses the place to store hay for the horses etc... while the guy is in jail... but I haven't found a willing participant to go with me yet and I'm not sure I want to go alone... he killed his wife


Well, we would all like to see any photos you might be able to get...maybe we should take up a collection to entice you a little more? lol


----------



## manaheim

cynicaster said:


> Last week I was hanging out with a friend who kept getting texts from this other friend about how she was getting freaked out over some noises in her house.  Then, she said she saw her bedroom door opening and closing, and took some pictures with her phone.  She sent a photo over SMS and when we looked at it we could see this face in the doorway with this big grin, but no visible body.  I usually err on the side of skepticism with this stuff, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit freaked out by it.
> 
> Now, was it some kind of fake?  Could be, but the main problem I have with that explanation is that I know both of these girls well and... I suppose I can say this here because they'll never read it... they're just not nearly savvy enough with any kind of gadget or computer to fake an image like that.  Plus, I know the image must have come right from the camera on the phone that sent the text, because I know that girl would not know how to transfer a file from her computer to her phone.  Is there an app for making convincing-looking ghost faces in photos taken right on the phone?  I'm thinking there has to be, based on what I saw.
> 
> I should ask my friend to send me the photo... it'd be nice to see it on a computer screen rather than on her phone.



Post the pic!


----------



## Edsport

I posted this along time ago. I'll copy and paste the text and pic below so you don't have to go looking for it. Here is the link where i made the post.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/dark-side-gallery/252152-ghost.html

My sister and her husband has been saying that their house has ghosts  for years. They say that sometimes they see a kid walking through the  house, things moving and things breaking in the basement for no reason  etc. Anyways, i told them i would come with my camera and go through the  house and take a few shots. Mostly i just pointed the camera to  different places in the rooms, hallway and kitchen and hit the shutter  button. I came home and put my card in the computer and started going  through them, deleting as i went and then i came to this photo and i  pretty much frooze in my chair. After a few secs i got up and went  outside to kinda grasp what i just saw and to get someone to come in and  look at it. I was actually kinda afraid to come back in the house by  myself. I'ts like whatever was on the photo was shaking hands with me or  wanted to shake hands. The next morning when i woke i was giving this  some deep thought of what this could be and i'm a pretty tough guy but i  actually cried before getting out of bed thinking that this was  something that wanted to shake my hands or something. It had me freaked.  Anyways, here's the photo and i have no idea how this arm got on the  photo...


----------



## leighthal

Just because a person doesn't remember walking in front of the camera doesn't mean it didn't happen. We have all driven down that stretch of road and 10 minutes later wonder how we got there. It's called inattentional blindness.
I'm firmly in the "there is no such thing as ghosts" camp. With no religious beliefs it's easy to imagine no future beyond death. I do not doubt that some people need that escape clause. Their death and life is for naught and all that. It's what they believe. You can't change their belief.
 My mother is a believer. Swears she has seen 2 kids in her house on multiple occasions. For her it is real. For me it's that last unknown explored territory of the brain. You get one overloaded sensory nerve and now the brain tries to make sense out of it so fills in the gaps with the familiar. Your brain sends a weird flashy signal to your eyes that look like a blob with two arms. Your brain fills in the picture, that's all.
It's the same brain that forces me to sleepwalk. Stealing 100 tire valve caps in a night. Making me wake up 2 miles from home buck naked on someones porch. The brain that makes me eat peanut butter (which I hate)and arrange forks and knives into daisy patterns on the floor. I just don't trust my brain to send me the right signals some times.


----------



## Gary_A

leighthal said:


> It's the same brain that forces me to sleepwalk. Stealing 100 tire valve caps in a night. Making me wake up 2 miles from home buck naked on someones porch. The brain that makes me eat peanut butter (which I hate)and arrange forks and knives into daisy patterns on the floor. I just don't trust my brain to send me the right signals some times.



I'd like to party with your brain sometime. :lmao::lmao:


----------



## runnah

Edsport said:


>



Wait is that a ghost arm or a ghost's arm? Because I would be more scared of just a ghostly arm floating around.


----------



## jake337

ceejtank said:


> All paranormal shots are fakes.  Ghosts aren't real. Simple as that.  The picture posted above is easily done through leaving the shutter speed open for a long time, and having a person stand in the frame for a portion of that.



Wow.  

Your word is the truth.  All other words or opinions cease to exist once your word is spoken. 



 Amen.





I know a quite a few people who would not agree with your words.


----------



## Gary_A

runnah said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait is that a ghost arm or a ghost's arm? Because I would be more scared of just a ghostly arm floating around.
Click to expand...


Unless it is bringing me a beer on the couch, because then it would be cool.


----------



## leighthal

Gary_A said:


> I'd like to party with your brain sometime. :lmao::lmao:



You and me both, since I only remember what I did by the nice cops who found me on the porch, or the valves in my bed, or the peanut butter hangovers.


----------



## jake337

leighthal said:


> Just because a person doesn't remember walking in front of the camera doesn't mean it didn't happen. We have all driven down that stretch of road and 10 minutes later wonder how we got there. It's called inattentional blindness.
> I'm firmly in the "there is no such thing as ghosts" camp. With no religious beliefs it's easy to imagine no future beyond death. I do not doubt that some people need that escape clause. Their death and life is for naught and all that. It's what they believe. You can't change their belief.
> My mother is a believer. Swears she has seen 2 kids in her house on multiple occasions. For her it is real. For me it's that last unknown explored territory of the brain. You get one overloaded sensory nerve and now the brain tries to make sense out of it so fills in the gaps with the familiar. Your brain sends a weird flashy signal to your eyes that look like a blob with two arms. Your brain fills in the picture, that's all.
> It's the same brain that forces me to sleepwalk. Stealing 100 tire valve caps in a night. Making me wake up 2 miles from home buck naked on someones porch. The brain that makes me eat peanut butter (which I hate)and arrange forks and knives into daisy patterns on the floor. I just don't trust my brain to send me the right signals some times.



Just because one believes in spirits or energy does not mean they are religious in any way.


----------



## TCampbell

While there may or may not be ghosts... this thread appears to have life after death.

Just when we thought it was gone.... it's baaaa-aaack. :banghead:


----------



## 480sparky

TCampbell said:


> While there may or may not be ghosts... this thread appears to have life after death.
> 
> Just when we thought it was gone.... it's baaaa-aaack. :banghead:


----------



## runnah

I knew you were going to post that because of my psychic abilities.


----------



## samm

How can you tell if Ghost's are real or not ?Now i believe in spirits and soul,but not ghost's.

Booo Booo


----------



## 480sparky

runnah said:


> I knew you were going to post that because of my psychic abilities.



Kewl.  What are next week's winning lottery numbers?


----------



## runnah

480sparky said:


> Kewl.  What are next week's winning lottery numbers?



17 4 87 B niner  $


----------



## cynicaster

manaheim said:


> cynicaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last week I was hanging out with a friend who kept getting texts from this other friend about how she was getting freaked out over some noises in her house.  Then, she said she saw her bedroom door opening and closing, and took some pictures with her phone.  She sent a photo over SMS and when we looked at it we could see this face in the doorway with this big grin, but no visible body.  I usually err on the side of skepticism with this stuff, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit freaked out by it.
> 
> Now, was it some kind of fake?  Could be, but the main problem I have with that explanation is that I know both of these girls well and... I suppose I can say this here because they'll never read it... they're just not nearly savvy enough with any kind of gadget or computer to fake an image like that.  Plus, I know the image must have come right from the camera on the phone that sent the text, because I know that girl would not know how to transfer a file from her computer to her phone.  Is there an app for making convincing-looking ghost faces in photos taken right on the phone?  I'm thinking there has to be, based on what I saw.
> 
> I should ask my friend to send me the photo... it'd be nice to see it on a computer screen rather than on her phone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post the pic!
Click to expand...


I hate to keep bumping this thread, but I was hanging out with that friend again last night at a party and I got her to send me the picture.  She said she has no idea how to get a photo off of her phone, and since we were nowhere near a computer, she sent it to my phone via SMS.  Unfortunately, this process must have shrunk the image significantly because there were details I could see when looking at the pic on her phone that I cannot see in the file she sent, plus the picture is fewer than 200k pixels.  

Anyway, please don't jump down my throat for being gullible or perpetrating a hoax... I can't say there is no chance of monkey business here, all I can do is tell you what I know and what I have personally seen.  The conversation in SMS that yielded this picture originally was fairly long and I had another look at that last night.  I have no idea why this girl would go to the trouble of making this up, and I definitely know there is no way on earth she'd be able to pull this off in photoshop or whatever. 

I'm sure I don't even need to describe where to see the face, as it's plain as day.  When looking at the photo on my friend's phone, that little blob above the face actually looked like a younger child wearing a hood of some sort, looking downward.  But in this version all of those details are too pixellated to see.  I tried screwing with it in photoshop to brighten it up and enhance the contrast but nothing I did made it show anything more, so I'm posting the pic as I received it.


----------



## DTB58

gulp...


----------



## runnah

Right...


----------



## Dikkie

IMHO, AFAIK, it's a GHOST.


----------



## ceejtank

There's no logical reason for an adult to believe in ghosts.  Simple as that.  That's just like believing in mind readers, miss cleo and prince of Nigeria scams.  If you believe in that stuff - it's your right. There's 0 empirical evidence to support your claims, just like big foot, nessie and vampires.


----------



## runnah

At least it's a happy ghost.


----------



## jwbryson1

ceejtank said:


> There's no logical reason for an adult to believe in ghosts.  Simple as that.



Until you've seen one, and I've seen one.  In person.  Most terrifying thing I've ever encountered in my life...

NOTE:  I have not read this thread, so not trying to derail the OP.


----------



## terri

All: Express your opinions without lobbing out personal insults.   Keep it pleasant!

Thanks.


----------



## Ballistics

I don't believe in ghosts per se'. I definitely don't believe that any of the images in this thread are ghosts, but for you to bring logic into this and say "There's no logical reason for an adult to believe in ghosts." is a very uneducated statement. There are MANY logical reasons for adults and scientists to believe that ghosts exist. You are saying that is impossible for the energy of a living thing to exist beyond it's physical body. There's no scientific evidence saying that this is impossible. 

Not to mention there are billions of individuals who believe in religion.

Beyond that, saying that people shouldn't pass their genes on because they believe in something that you deem fantasy is a bit ridiculous and immature. Live and let live.


----------



## runnah

I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen. If you see something on a photo that you didn't see through the view finder it is an aboration of the lens or the sensor.

Cameras don't magically capture images that aren't on the same visible spectrum as our eyes. In fact cameras are no where near the level of our eyes as far as dynamic range.

So every time you hear someone say "it wasn't visible until I developed/processed the image" be skeptical.


----------



## Tiller

I agree that there's no logical reasoning to support it. You can't say, oh just because you can't disprove it means it's probably real. You can't disprove that I am overlord of the universe, but you can be logical in reasoning that I am not.

With as long as ghost stories have been around, people have been trying to prove their existence, and yet no-one can. To me, logically, that's a good reason to say they're not real.

YMMV

P.S.- I LOVE a good horror story though


----------



## tirediron

Tiller said:


> ...You can't disprove that I am overlord of the universe, ...


Of course I can!  *I'm* THE overlord of the universe!


----------



## Ballistics

runnah said:


> I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen. If you see something on a photo that you didn't see through the view finder it is an aboration of the lens or the sensor.
> 
> Cameras don't magically capture images that aren't on the same visible spectrum as our eyes. In fact cameras are no where near the level of our eyes as far as dynamic range.
> 
> So every time you hear someone say "it wasn't visible until I developed/processed the image" be skeptical.



You mean like galaxies, billions of lightyears away that takes a camera sensor days to reveal? Or star trails? Or infrared?


----------



## snowbear

I happen to have a very blurry photo of a blobsquatch!



runnah said:


> I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen. If you see something on a photo that you didn't see through the view finder it is an aboration of the lens or the sensor.


If I'm not mistaken, near IR can be picked up by digital sensors and has to be filtered out; color film was (is) also sensitive to portions of the UV spectrum.


----------



## Ballistics

Tiller said:


> I agree that there's no logical reasoning to support it. You can't say, oh just because you can't disprove it means it's probably real. You can't disprove that I am overlord of the universe, but you can be logical in reasoning that I am not.
> 
> With as long as ghost stories have been around, people have been trying to prove their existence, and yet no-one can. To me, logically, that's a good reason to say they're not real.
> 
> YMMV
> 
> P.S.- I LOVE a good horror story though



You purposely misconstrued and twisted my point. I said:



> You are saying that is impossible for the energy of a living thing to exist beyond it's physical body. There's no scientific evidence saying that this is impossible.



In other words, there's no evidence saying that it is impossible, so therefore it could be possible, not that it must be true.
Just like there's no evidence of UFO's and alien life, but there is logic behind believing that they exist.

With hundreds of scientific theories accepted by very intelligent individuals (Big bang theory) that are unable to be proved true or real, it makes me wonder how people can draw conclusions about ghosts being an irrational belief. 

To say that there is no logic behind believing in ghosts/spirits/life forces/human energy etc is a very shallow concept with no thought applied. Our logic is the exact reasoning for believing in such things.
It's actually quite rational and the fact that it dates back since the dawn of communication means something.


----------



## runnah

Ballistics said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen. If you see something on a photo that you didn't see through the view finder it is an aboration of the lens or the sensor.
> 
> Cameras don't magically capture images that aren't on the same visible spectrum as our eyes. In fact cameras are no where near the level of our eyes as far as dynamic range.
> 
> So every time you hear someone say "it wasn't visible until I developed/processed the image" be skeptical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like galaxies, billions of lightyears away that takes a camera sensor days to reveal? Or star trails? Or infrared?
Click to expand...


Those cameras are designed with capturing those things in mind. Saying something that is designed for one purpose can suddenly capture something that it wasn't designed for is fool hardly. Oh like this forked stick can find water, or tea leaves can tell the future.

Watch all those ghost hunting shows, they all misuse the instruments soo badly. Not to mention the whole premise is flawed to expect to use a tool to measure something that hasn't shown to even emit a measurable value. For example waving around EMF detectors, how do we even know ghost emit such a signature?

also the mere fact that there is a video camera near by ruins ay measurable emf data anyways.


----------



## Ballistics

runnah said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen. If you see something on a photo that you didn't see through the view finder it is an aboration of the lens or the sensor.
> 
> Cameras don't magically capture images that aren't on the same visible spectrum as our eyes. In fact cameras are no where near the level of our eyes as far as dynamic range.
> 
> So every time you hear someone say "it wasn't visible until I developed/processed the image" be skeptical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like galaxies, billions of lightyears away that takes a camera sensor days to reveal? Or star trails? Or infrared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those cameras are designed with capturing those things in mind. Saying something that is designed for one purpose can suddenly capture something that it wasn't designed for is fool hardly. Oh like this forked stick can find water, or tea leaves can tell the future.
> 
> Watch all those ghost hunting shows, they all misuse the instruments soo badly. Not to mention the whole premise is flawed to expect to use a tool to measure something that hasn't shown to even emit a measurable value. For example waving around EMF detectors, how do we even know ghost emit such a signature?
> 
> also the mere fact that there is a video camera near by ruins ay measurable emf data anyways.
Click to expand...


You said:



> _I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen_



Our eyes cannot see a 30 minute exposure of the sky. My naked eye can see maybe 100 stars. A 30 minute exposure shows me thousands.


----------



## runnah

Ballistics said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like galaxies, billions of lightyears away that takes a camera sensor days to reveal? Or star trails? Or infrared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those cameras are designed with capturing those things in mind. Saying something that is designed for one purpose can suddenly capture something that it wasn't designed for is fool hardly. Oh like this forked stick can find water, or tea leaves can tell the future.
> 
> Watch all those ghost hunting shows, they all misuse the instruments soo badly. Not to mention the whole premise is flawed to expect to use a tool to measure something that hasn't shown to even emit a measurable value. For example waving around EMF detectors, how do we even know ghost emit such a signature?
> 
> also the mere fact that there is a video camera near by ruins ay measurable emf data anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our eyes cannot see a 30 minute exposure of the sky. My naked eye can see maybe 100 stars. A 30 minute exposure shows me thousands.
Click to expand...


Youd be surprised how much our eyes can see. I live in a area with no light pollution and if I stand outside for a bit and light my eyes adjust I can seem just as much as my camera does.

But the point is that a camera work on visible light. If you camera can see if your eyes can see it. If you see a ghost and take a picture it will show up on the image. But if you can see a ghost it wont show up on camera either.


----------



## table1349




----------



## Ballistics

runnah said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those cameras are designed with capturing those things in mind. Saying something that is designed for one purpose can suddenly capture something that it wasn't designed for is fool hardly. Oh like this forked stick can find water, or tea leaves can tell the future.
> 
> Watch all those ghost hunting shows, they all misuse the instruments soo badly. Not to mention the whole premise is flawed to expect to use a tool to measure something that hasn't shown to even emit a measurable value. For example waving around EMF detectors, how do we even know ghost emit such a signature?
> 
> also the mere fact that there is a video camera near by ruins ay measurable emf data anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I just want to point out that a camera can only see things that your eyes can seen_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our eyes cannot see a 30 minute exposure of the sky. My naked eye can see maybe 100 stars. A 30 minute exposure shows me thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youd be surprised how much our eyes can see. I live in a area with no light pollution and if I stand outside for a bit and light my eyes adjust I can seem just as much as my camera does.
> 
> But the point is that a camera work on visible light. If you camera can see if your eyes can see it. If you see a ghost and take a picture it will show up on the image. But if you can see a ghost it wont show up on camera either.
Click to expand...


I know, I have eyes, and my eyes can't see as many stars here in NY as my camera can. 

And I've taken pictures and noticed things (explainable things) in my photos after I've taken them, that I didn't notice before. Doesn't mean that they weren't there to begin with, just means they didn't catch my attention.


----------



## runnah

Ballistics said:


> I know, I have eyes, and my eyes can't see as many stars here in NY as my camera can.
> 
> And I've taken pictures and noticed things (explainable things) in my photos after I've taken them, that I didn't notice before. Doesn't mean that they weren't there to begin with, just means they didn't catch my attention.




Who hasn't? What I am talking about is those people who say they took a photo of something that wasn't there because cameras are magical portals to the spirit world.


----------



## Ballistics

runnah said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I have eyes, and my eyes can't see as many stars here in NY as my camera can.
> 
> And I've taken pictures and noticed things (explainable things) in my photos after I've taken them, that I didn't notice before. Doesn't mean that they weren't there to begin with, just means they didn't catch my attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who hasn't? What I am talking about is those people who say they took a photo of something that wasn't there because cameras are magical portals to the spirit world.
Click to expand...


Not to the spirit world, but definite a magical portal to Dalaran at least.


----------



## DTB58

Ballistics said:


> You are saying that is impossible for the energy of a living thing to exist beyond it's physical body. There's no scientific evidence saying that this is impossible.


Is "scientific evidence" supposed to be the final say so? lol, just wondering. couldnt resist throwing a stick into the fire...now back to photography


----------



## Ballistics

DTB58 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that is impossible for the energy of a living thing to exist beyond it's physical body. There's no scientific evidence saying that this is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Is "scientific evidence" supposed to be the final say so? lol, just wondering. couldnt resist throwing a stick into the fire...now back to photography
Click to expand...


I don't get it.


----------



## DTB58

You have to be a ghost like us to get it. 





Ballistics said:


> DTB58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that is impossible for the energy of a living thing to exist beyond it's physical body. There's no scientific evidence saying that this is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Is "scientific evidence" supposed to be the final say so? lol, just wondering. couldnt resist throwing a stick into the fire...now back to photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get it.
Click to expand...


----------



## runnah

I think he is trying to instigate.


Science is a fluid thing. There is no right and wrong. There is just very strong evidence for or against. Science loves to be proven wrong about thing because it opens the door for more learning and understanding.

The problem is that extraordinary claims of ghost need extraordinary evidence to support the claims. Photos and wildly jumping dials on various devices do not amount to a compelling enough argument to make such a huge claim. What it would take would be a testable encounter that was repeatable by more than one group in a controlled environment, then have those findings reviewed by a third party... Or some idiots running around with cameras on TV.

Read up on the null hypothesis. Basically what is more likely, you took a photo of an unknown energy source of unknown orgin that some how is able to generate enough light to show up on your camera sensor or you have dust on your lens.


----------



## Dikkie

Ballistics said:


> With hundreds of scientific theories accepted by very intelligent individuals (Big bang theory) that are unable to be proved true or real, it makes me wonder how people can draw conclusions about ghosts being an irrational belief.


+1

Human beings haven't discovered everything, yet. Science cannot proove that there are no rays we still cannot measure.


The question is not if we did shoot a ghost... the question is why that ghost is hiding there, alone in that building, why can't it be riding a bike or lying in the sun ?


----------



## cynicaster

The main reason why discussing a subject like this is so pointless:

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ballistics

cynicaster said:


> The main reason why discussing a subject like this is so pointless:
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This and along with 99% of all discussions on an internet forum are pointless. Doesn't make them any less thought provoking, or interesting.


----------



## runnah

Dikkie said:


> Human beings haven't discovered everything, yet. Science cannot prove that there are no rays we still cannot measure.



We have a very good handle on most of the visual spectrum as the formula is pretty straight forward.

But still you are missing the point that a camera designed to capture the VISIBLE light spectrum cannot capture the INVISIBLE. It's like saying that my oven can also freeze water.


----------



## DTB58

My apologies if I was too much of an "instigator" above; but I was thinking of this subject for some reason today, and I think I had a thought that might actually be helpful. *IF* I were to try to photograph something "paranormal" there is one avenue I think I would be tempted to explore/try. I have been looking at ways to try and get pictures of certain animals at night, or when I am not around. I know of places where they do go and if I could somehow figure exactly when they were going to come to the area, I would be there with my camera. I discovered that Bushnell and other companies do make infra red cameras, and other cameras that you attach to a tree, and the cameras take pics automatically even without you being there. I also know that you can get various security type cameras to maintain surveilance on any area in your house that you suspect there might be something "paranormal" going on in. 

At any rate; it would be fun to research into this kind of thing - and you never know what you might discover is really going on in your house when you are away or not looking.


----------



## markbun

Luke345678 said:


> First let me say I am asking this completely out of curiosity.
> 
> I was chatting with a friend the other day about a stop motion we were making for school and like always our conversations brought us to some very strange things. He said he watned to try light painting and some how he ended up talking about "paranormal photography."
> 
> I looked at him kind of weird and later that night I did a google search and found some pretty interesting things. Now I always knew there were people out there trying to capture ghost or what ever on camera but I never realized how much of a big thing it was. I'm not the biggest believe in ghost but there are tons of pictures. (Please respect my opinion of not believing)
> 
> As I was going through these pictures I asked myself, how do I know these are real at all, photoshop can do some pretty amazing things. Since I don't believe in Ghost I don't really consider this a type of photography as I think it is all editing.
> 
> Have any of you guys ever tried paranormal photography?
> 
> Do you guys know any easy ways to determine if it is photoshopped?
> 
> Is there any credible photos in your opinion?
> 
> I did not create this thread for people to argue about Ghost being real, I know it's a very controversial topic that I don't really think NEEDS to be discuessed although a quick opinion is fine. Just please no arguing.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Luke



I'm quite curious about that stuff, but i dont feel doin' it...There are more pictures now that has been circulaed that you cant detect if it's real or not. That's what you called technology  :-0


----------



## Dikkie

runnah said:


> But still you are missing the point that a camera designed to capture the VISIBLE light spectrum cannot capture the INVISIBLE. It's like saying that my oven can also freeze water.


That I knew.... that was not my point. 
I know that a camera is designed to capture things we can see, right now.

But I wasn't talking about that camera, or for what it is designed, I was talking about: we don't know yet, that there are rays we cannot measure, yet, with our eyes, or with measure machines.  The camera you're talking about is already a step further...


----------



## runnah

Dikkie said:


> That I knew.... that was not my point.
> I know that a camera is designed to capture things we can see, right now.
> 
> But I wasn't talking about that camera, or for what it is designed, I was talking about: we don't know yet, that there are rays we cannot measure, yet, with our eyes, or with measure machines.  The camera you're talking about is already a step further...



Nope, we are able to analyze all "rays". Science is pretty amazing if you read into it.


----------



## Josh66

There are also "full spectrum" cameras that can record IR, UV, and probably other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum with the proper filters.  Hell, look at pictures of nebulae - pretty much any wavelength can be recorded.

Also, your oven *can* freeze water.  Just not while it's on, and probably not while it's inside your house.  Lol.


----------



## deeky

Purely for the sake of discussion, not to antagonize - 

Break light down and you get a photon - a particle of energy (yes, we typically think of the visible spectrum).  But turn up your ISO and you get noise - misfires that can be triggered even by excess heat (non-visible energy) from the electronics of the camera.  SO, while not necessarily designed to do so, cameras CAN register other forms of energy.  

Yes?  No?  Thoughts?


----------



## Josh66

deeky said:


> But turn up your ISO and you get noise - misfires that can be triggered even by excess heat (non-visible energy) from the electronics of the camera.  SO, while not necessarily designed to do so, cameras CAN register other forms of energy.
> 
> Yes?  No?  Thoughts?



I guess, but it wouldn't be anything the lens was seeing (talking about high ISO noise here), more like the 'state of the circuit board' in the camera.  I guess, theoretically, it may be possible to 'decode' the noise and find out exactly what was happening in there.  It wouldn't be anything we would describe as a photo though.  It could be useful for some engineer trying to make the board more efficient though.

A lot of the deep space pictures you see are composites of multiple wavelengths - visible, IR, UV, x-ray, gamma ray, etc...  So we obviously have the ability to record those wavelengths.  If there were 'ghosts', and you knew where on the electromagnetic spectrum the existed, it should be possible to record their presence.  That wouldn't necessarily be a picture though - it could just be noise on the radio.  Next time you're driving down the road and the radio gets fuzzy, maybe you just drove through a ghost, lol.

I think it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove...


----------



## deeky

O|||||||O said:


> Next time you're driving down the road and the radio gets fuzzy, maybe you just drove through a ghost, lol.



Now that's a funny image.  Although radios just don't have the same creep factor now that they have the digital tuning.  Remember rolling the tuner across the bands?

I do agree though, that it is one that, given our current abilities and awareness, won't be categorically proven or disproven.


----------



## runnah

deeky said:


> I do agree though, that it is one that, given our current abilities and awareness, won't be categorically proven or disproven.



No one has said it has been. I am open minded to that idea that we do not know everything. So take your best evidence for your claim of the extraordinary and I will draw my own conclusions from that evidence. But it had better be extraordinary evidence, not some bad tv show are some story you heard.

That is the difference between skeptical folks and true believers, one can be convinced that they are wrong and the other can never be convinced they aren't right.


----------



## Josh66

I found this book (pdf) before - I think when this thread started - "Picture Yourself Capturing Ghosts on Film".  Skimming through it now.  It's actually a pretty decent guide on how to fake it so far.  I haven't gotten to the "real" pictures yet...

Oh, and ORBS!!, man!


----------



## Josh66

Admittedly, I'm skimming through it pretty quickly, but I think the book is kinda dated now...  You could probably learn everything in it by watching a couple episodes of Ghost Hunters on the SyFy channel (though he seems to be much more skeptical than they are).

I don't know if this is just the author's personal system, or if it's "industry standard", but he has three classes of paranormal photos - A, B, and C.  (I think it is his personal system.)

C = Natural causes that can be immediately identified.  Smoke, dust, flashlights, long exposure, stuff like that.

B = Natural causes cannot be discounted, but other paranormal stuff was also happening at the time.  This seems to be anything that would have been class C if it were not taken in a 'haunted' location.

A = No natural causes, no technical problems.  "Something" paranormal is probably going on.

He seems to mostly be skeptical.  There is an entire chapter on orbs though, which is probably good because he shows how stuff like dust or bugs in the air is usually the cause -- but that there are maybe 2-5% that cannot be explained...


OK.  I "read" it in 20 minutes, lol.  I think I got the main gist of it though.  There are probably only 5 or so photos in it that he uses as examples of possible paranormal activity (and I think they were all 'orbs').  I was kind of disappointed with that - most of the pictures were "and here is why this isn't a ghost".

It's pretty much presented as a manual on how to try to get ghost pictures.




I don't know...  I think that if ghosts were real, a camera is probably not the best tool to detect them.  And I don't really get how the whole "orb" thing even got started.  In most 'orb' pictures, it's fairly obvious what is happening.  It would be different if there were some ball of light floating around in front of me *and then* I took a picture of it - but that's never how it happens.  The "orbs" just magically show up in the pictures, lol.


----------



## Dikkie

deeky said:


> Purely for the sake of discussion, not to antagonize -
> 
> Break light down and you get a photon - a particle of energy (yes, we typically think of the visible spectrum). But turn up your ISO and you get noise - misfires that can be triggered even by excess heat (non-visible energy) from the electronics of the camera. SO, while not necessarily designed to do so, cameras CAN register other forms of energy.
> 
> Yes? No? Thoughts?


True. Quantum Physics 
And if you try to measure it, it stays normal, if you don't it's weird.


----------



## Dikkie

runnah said:


> I am open minded to that idea that we do not know everything.


I'm not so sure about that, if you're saying science can analyze all already. 


runnah said:


> Nope, we are able to analyze all "rays". Science is pretty amazing if you read into it.


Until they discover something new, in scienceworld. Pretty amazing, if evolution still continuous


----------



## rolenz

I feel sorry for those who do not believe 'ghosts' exsist when they see their first. They do not always appear as we expect them to, the 'light' is something else as well. It is like no other light I have seen. I am not standing on a soapbox, just my view.


----------



## esselle

Doesn't anyone believe their findings on the show "Ghost Adventures?" Sheesh! Lol :}

I'm pretty open minded about ghosts and such. Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.



Such as?


----------



## esselle

runnah said:


> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...


people's eye witness accounts...documented film activity (verifiable orbs are evidence), they can be detected through various electrical mediums, drastic temp changes (very cold) in the presence of ghosts, etc...

Some stories I'm sure are fabrications, but to me, there is too much reported "evidence" to be discounted.


----------



## esselle

rolenz said:


> I feel sorry for those who do not believe 'ghosts' exsist when they see their first. They do not always appear as we expect them to, the 'light' is something else as well. It is like no other light I have seen. I am not standing on a soapbox, just my view.


I like your view.


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> people's eye witness accounts...documented film activity (verifiable orbs are evidence), they can be detected through various electrical mediums, drastic temp changes (very cold) in the presence of ghosts, etc...
> 
> Some stories I'm sure are fabrications, but to me, there is too much reported "evidence" to be discounted.




Being open minded doesn't mean that you have to take things at at face value, it means that your view is changeable given enough evidence to convince yourself. Some people take very little convincing to believe something, a piece of dust lit up by the flash is enough to make some people believe that it is spirits. A drafty house and electronic measuring devices used incorrectly will make people think a house haunted. Personally I require very strong, testable evidence to convince me of such claims.

You could change my mind with enough good evidence but could I ever change yours with the same? Who is open minded then?


----------



## esselle

I'm open minded to believe either way, given enough "proof."

Dust particles don't produce visible light circles ...dust can be *seen* in light, but they don't resemble orbs. Dust is not translucent. Orbs give off that "effect." Putting things in quotes because I'm not sure of a better word to use. Lol

If it were just eye witness "reports" then ok. But there is science behind at least disproving the skeptics. My opinion.


----------



## esselle

Lol @ drafty house comment 
:mrgreen:

At the risk of splitting hairs, the cold temps don't come across as drafts. Just a sudden temp drop.


----------



## esselle

Keeping in stride with the OT, I don't think photography is the "best" method to "prove" paranormal activity. Video yes, not still shots. If someone is hanging their hat on that on either side of the fence, it's not solid enough. (To me)


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> Lol @ drafty house comment
> :mrgreen:
> 
> At the risk of splitting hairs, the cold temps don't come across as drafts. Just a sudden temp drop.



So the best most simple explanation for a "cold spot" is a ghost? There is no other thing that could be causing that besides a ghost?

Orbs, is seriously the worst "evidence" brought up for ghosts. Every photographer who has worked in dusty conditions with a flash knows this. I have tons of photos I've taken that show "orbs". Most are from dark and dusty constructions sites, none of which were built on old burial grounds.


----------



## Josh66

All I'm saying is, show me an 'orb' picture where the flash didn't fire.  I don't think I've ever seen one.  It just just seems to me like that's the best way to prove that it's not caused by the flash.


----------



## esselle

Haha I didn't say the best explanation...but it is a plausible one. I understand the dust particle explanation...dust doesn't leave a trail ...orbs do. So...look back at your old shots and if there are "streaks" ...you could have captured a ghost. 

Perhaps you should contact a paranormal expert to be sure! 

Not serious.

Ok, Semi serious. :}


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> Haha I didn't say the best explanation...but it is a plausible one. I understand the dust particle explanation...dust doesn't leave a trail ...orbs do. So...look back at your old shots and if there are "streaks" ...you could have captured a ghost.
> 
> Perhaps you should contact a paranormal expert to be sure!
> 
> Not serious.
> 
> Ok, Semi serious. :}



I get streaks all the time. It could be a million different known causes before I considered it being something outside known causes.


----------



## Steve5D

As to whether or not such photos are "legit" (by "legit" I'm referring to the manipulation, or lack thereof, of the image), one of the things I look at is the intention of the photographer. If someone presents a photo and then tries to profit from it, whether monetarily or otherwise, I tend to be a bit skeptical. If someone says "I have a picture of a ghost", I'm a bit skeptical.

On the other hand, if someone presents a photo and says "This is weird", I'm a bit more receptive to it, and to the perspon presenting it.

I don't proclaim my photo to be that of a ghost. I'm nowhere near prepared to make such a statement.

I don't know what it is, but I know what it isn't...


----------



## esselle

O|||||||O said:


> All I'm saying is, show me an 'orb' picture where the flash didn't fire.  I don't think I've ever seen one.  It just just seems to me like that's the best way to prove that it's not caused by the flash.


I reckon the only sure fire way to prove this or discount the flash theory is...don't use a flash. Again, still photography is a hard sell but a trail will show with orbs in photos because orbs...move.


----------



## cynicaster

This thread has me thinking of this...

The ?Blog? of ?Unnecessary? Quotation Marks


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is, show me an 'orb' picture where the flash didn't fire.  I don't think I've ever seen one.  It just just seems to me like that's the best way to prove that it's not caused by the flash.
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon the only sure fire way to prove this or discount the flash theory is...don't use a flash. Again, still photography is a hard sell but a trail will show with orbs in photos because orbs...move.
Click to expand...


And dust particles don't?


----------



## esselle

cynicaster said:


> This thread has me thinking of this...
> 
> The ?Blog? of ?Unnecessary? Quotation Marks



mine are necessary :}



runnah said:


> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is, show me an 'orb' picture where the flash didn't fire.  I don't think I've ever seen one.  It just just seems to me like that's the best way to prove that it's not caused by the flash.
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon the only sure fire way to prove this or discount the flash theory is...don't use a flash. Again, still photography is a hard sell but a trail will show with orbs in photos because orbs...move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And dust particles don't?
Click to expand...


They do BUT...they don't move *through* things. And another potential rebuttal is that dust mainly shows when you are taking the shot close to your subject. 

Dont shoot the messenger. Lol I'm just sharing plausible explanations in favor of disproving the "it is dust not a spirit orb" theory. Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> They do BUT...they don't move *through* things. And another potential rebuttal is that dust mainly shows when you are taking the shot close to your subject.
> 
> Dont shoot the messenger. Lol I'm just sharing plausible explanations in favor of disproving the "it is dust not a spirit orb" theory. Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?




I think you are missing the point.

What i am saying is that the thought process of, "well it's not a dust particle so it must be the visual manifestation of the spirits of those who have passed." is such a huge jump in logic that it baffles me. You are telling me that there is no other explanation for the "orbs" than ghost? You have evaluated and reject every other single KNOWN cause?!


----------



## esselle

runnah said:


> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do BUT...they don't move *through* things. And another potential rebuttal is that dust mainly shows when you are taking the shot close to your subject.
> 
> Dont shoot the messenger. Lol I'm just sharing plausible explanations in favor of disproving the "it is dust not a spirit orb" theory. Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> What i am saying is that the thought process of, "well it's not a dust particle so it must be the visual manifestation of the spirits of those who have passed." is such a huge jump in logic that it baffles me. You are telling me that there is no other explanation for the "orbs" than ghost? You have evaluated and reject every other single KNOWN cause?!
Click to expand...

could be moisture, dirt, reflection, etc...

im not missing the point; I just leave my mind open to the idea of orbs in photos coming from spirits when ruling all else out.


----------



## runnah

esselle said:


> im not missing the point; I just leave my mind open to the idea of orbs in photos coming from spirits when ruling all else out.



In my mind orbs is not a valid explanation full stop because it hasn't been proven to exist.


----------



## Ballistics

esselle said:


> cynicaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has me thinking of this...
> 
> The ?Blog? of ?Unnecessary? Quotation Marks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mine are necessary :}
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon the only sure fire way to prove this or discount the flash theory is...don't use a flash. Again, still photography is a hard sell but a trail will show with orbs in photos because orbs...move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And dust particles don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do BUT...they don't move *through* things. And another potential rebuttal is that dust mainly shows when you are taking the shot close to your subject.
> 
> Dont shoot the messenger. Lol I'm just sharing plausible explanations in favor of disproving the "it is dust not a spirit orb" theory. Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?
Click to expand...


There is nothing at all plausible in what you're saying, and it's by no means an explanation. 



> im not missing the point; I just leave my mind open to the idea of orbs in photos coming from spirits when ruling all else out.



But in every single scenario, you can never rule everything out. Especially dust. Tell me one environment that you have been in that is dust free?
Leaving your mind open is fine, I do it to, but there's a difference between an open mind and delusion.


----------



## o hey tyler

Ballistics said:


> There is nothing at all plausible in what you're saying, and it's by no means an explanation.
> 
> But in every single scenario, you can never rule everything out. Especially dust. Tell me one environment that you have been in that is dust free?
> Leaving your mind open is fine, I do it to, but there's a difference between an open mind and delusion.



Dust free? A sterile lab environment with negative ventilation. ;-)


----------



## Ballistics

o hey tyler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing at all plausible in what you're saying, and it's by no means an explanation.
> 
> But in every single scenario, you can never rule everything out. Especially dust. Tell me one environment that you have been in that is dust free?
> Leaving your mind open is fine, I do it to, but there's a difference between an open mind and delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dust free? A sterile lab environment with negative ventilation. ;-)
Click to expand...


That you've been in. 

And photographed. And it has orbs.


----------



## runnah

Ballistics said:


> but there's a difference between an open mind and delusion.



Bingo. I get called closed minded because I don't believe in every psuedo-science/supernatural crap that comes down the pipe. But yet try to convince someone that Acupuncture or homeopathic remedies are BS due to that fact it has never been proven to work and they will go after you with all their might.


----------



## PixelRabbit

Dust is not the only variable, bugs are a huge one, granted this is taken outside but it's all bugs, near and far, no flash but nice strong backlight and a high shutter speed, move inside to a low light situation and shutter speeds get dropped, bugs move in an intelligent manner and voila a trail and intelligence.  I'm not saying don't defend the possibility, just saying don't use easily explainable but impossible to verify things like orbs in a photograph... especially on a photography forum


----------



## esselle

I never said you were closed minded, runnah. I think I've been respectful to your views, even if I disagree. 

The above photo doesn't resemble the photos I've seen that could be construed (that's a good word) as spirit orbs.


----------



## Josh66

esselle said:


> Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?



I believe that we have a soul (but I also believe that's something that cannot be proven - it just has to be taken on faith), but I'm not convinced on ghosts.  I mean, I can see the argument that ghosts are "trapped souls" or whatever, but I don't buy that.

(There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.)


----------



## TCampbell

O|||||||O said:


> There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.



Yes... we developed a much keener sense of reason and the ability to survive based on our wits.  Apes developed a stronger senses and a more muscular body and the ability to survive by giving their opponents a serious beating.

Apart from that, it's been shown that the "feelings" aspect of animals isn't so unlike us.  They can ridicule each other, they can feel victimized, they can mourn loss, etc.  Apart from the fact that most other animals wouldn't exactly fair very well against humans in a game of wits, we wouldn't fair very well in almost any other category besides wits. 

Usually in science we can find a way to derive the presence of something even if we cannot see it or touch it.  We humans could "derive" that the world was round long before we could circumnavigate it or fly above it.  We literally derived the existence of the Higgs field and the Higgs Boson (the "God" particle) for more than 50 years before we could detect the Higgs particle.  We "derived" the presence of dark matter even though, by definition, it's impossible to interact with it electromagnetically.  (We primarily interact with everything in our physical world electromagnetically.  

The reason we don't fall through our chairs when we sit down is because the atoms that make up our bodies and clothing are interacting with the atoms that make up the chair.  But, to quote the late Carl Sagan, &#8220;Atoms are mainly empty space. Matter is composed chiefly of nothing.&#8221;  In other words, we should fall through the chair.  It's only the electromagnetic force that makes it possible to sit, without falling through.  Our atoms literally levitate above the atoms of the chair.

In a poetic sense, we can "look into the soul" and "touch a person's heart".  But those are beautiful and poetic metaphors.  We don't _really_ see souls.  We mainly ascribe our sense of self-awareness (some animals are self-aware), feelings, and emotions as being part of the soul.  But we can prove other animals have these traits as well -- but seem less willing to concede that they have a soul.

Some time back we got into a HUGE debate about whether "Pluto" was actually a "planet" vs. something else.  The break-down, it seemed, was due to the fact that the word planet literally means "wanderer" or "wandering star".  They were always "planets" even when we had never seen them through a telescope and realized that they were, in fact, other worlds orbiting our sun just as we are.  This discovery never caused us to coin a new word for them or redefine them.  We lacked an actual definition because every "just knew" what a planet was.  The next thing we know, an official definition is declared; Pluto doesn't qualify; and school children everywhere think Neil DeGrass Tyson is a "meanie" who hates poor Pluto.

I rather suspect something similar is going on with the "soul".  Nobody ever really "defined" it.  We can't study it.  We banter about the term as though everyone knows and agrees what the word means.  

You can look it up in the dictionary, but the definition is loaded with words that do not apply uniquely to humans or notions which are completely unverifiable (and, frankly, highly unlikely).  In other words... it is entirely possible that it's all a big load of hooey.  

I don't take much on "faith".  Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back.  It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.


----------



## runnah

TCampbell said:


> I don't take much on "faith".  Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back.  It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.



Not to mention socially behind schedule.

But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.


----------



## TCampbell

runnah said:


> But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.



Fortunately... among the tools we learned to make are cameras that aren't half-bad!


----------



## esselle

O|||||||O said:


> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question...do u believe in ghosts in general or are we more debating the "methods" as to how to prove their existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that we have a soul (but I also believe that's something that cannot be proven - it just has to be taken on faith)
> 
> (There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.)
Click to expand...

 
I like this.


----------



## esselle

Yeah, I somewhat agree, with the caveat that the hostilities come more from organized "religions" than mere faith and belief systems. Good points!





TCampbell said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is clearly "something" other than evolution that separates us from apes, I'll call it the presence of a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... we developed a much keener sense of reason and the ability to survive based on our wits.  Apes developed a stronger senses and a more muscular body and the ability to survive by giving their opponents a serious beating.
> 
> Apart from that, it's been shown that the "feelings" aspect of animals isn't so unlike us.  They can ridicule each other, they can feel victimized, they can mourn loss, etc.  Apart from the fact that most other animals wouldn't exactly fair very well against humans in a game of wits, we wouldn't fair very well in almost any other category besides wits.
> 
> Usually in science we can find a way to derive the presence of something even if we cannot see it or touch it.  We humans could "derive" that the world was round long before we could circumnavigate it or fly above it.  We literally derived the existence of the Higgs field and the Higgs Boson (the "God" particle) for more than 50 years before we could detect the Higgs particle.  We "derived" the presence of dark matter even though, by definition, it's impossible to interact with it electromagnetically.  (We primarily interact with everything in our physical world electromagnetically.
> 
> The reason we don't fall through our chairs when we sit down is because the atoms that make up our bodies and clothing are interacting with the atoms that make up the chair.  But, to quote the late Carl Sagan, Atoms are mainly empty space. Matter is composed chiefly of nothing.  In other words, we should fall through the chair.  It's only the electromagnetic force that makes it possible to sit, without falling through.  Our atoms literally levitate above the atoms of the chair.
> 
> In a poetic sense, we can "look into the soul" and "touch a person's heart".  But those are beautiful and poetic metaphors.  We don't _really_ see souls.  We mainly ascribe our sense of self-awareness (some animals are self-aware), feelings, and emotions as being part of the soul.  But we can prove other animals have these traits as well -- but seem less willing to concede that they have a soul.
> 
> Some time back we got into a HUGE debate about whether "Pluto" was actually a "planet" vs. something else.  The break-down, it seemed, was due to the fact that the word planet literally means "wanderer" or "wandering star".  They were always "planets" even when we had never seen them through a telescope and realized that they were, in fact, other worlds orbiting our sun just as we are.  This discovery never caused us to coin a new word for them or redefine them.  We lacked an actual definition because every "just knew" what a planet was.  The next thing we know, an official definition is declared; Pluto doesn't qualify; and school children everywhere think Neil DeGrass Tyson is a "meanie" who hates poor Pluto.
> 
> I rather suspect something similar is going on with the "soul".  Nobody ever really "defined" it.  We can't study it.  We banter about the term as though everyone knows and agrees what the word means.
> 
> You can look it up in the dictionary, but the definition is loaded with words that do not apply uniquely to humans or notions which are completely unverifiable (and, frankly, highly unlikely).  In other words... it is entirely possible that it's all a big load of hooey.
> 
> I don't take much on "faith".  Faith is, tragically, something that has been shown time and time again to be that thing which holds us back.  It's estimated that the technology and achievements of today are probably at least 1500 years behind schedule -- due to hostilities of faith and religious institutions toward those who made any attempt to research or share scientific learning.
Click to expand...


----------



## runnah

TCampbell said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it just goes to show that we are just all dumb primal animals that learned how to make really good tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately... among the tools we learned to make are cameras that aren't half-bad!
Click to expand...


True it's not all bad. Some of our culture's best art has been created in response to religion/war/politics.


----------



## Josh66

Yeah, "religion", as an institution, I don't quite like.  But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress...  Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".


----------



## runnah

O|||||||O said:


> But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress...  Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".



HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Have you ever read a history book?


----------



## esselle

What do we define as progress though? Gandhi believed that industrialization would be the downfall of man. He was a man of faith and brought a lot of progress to India. So, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to people of faith.


----------



## o hey tyler

esselle said:


> What do we define as progress though? Gandhi believed that industrialization would be the downfall of man. He was a man of faith and brought a lot of progress to India. So, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to people of faith.



Almost Every major war ever has been caused by religious conflict. Just sayin'.


----------



## o hey tyler

Also

Aye be tea elle


----------



## Derrel

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Almost Every major war ever has been caused by religious conflict. Just sayin'.



Sorry, but that is just not the case. Political disagreement, and economic advancement, and the sheer desire for new territory, and the land and resources that new territory brings with it have been the root causes of multiple major wars. Attributing the cause of "almost every major war" to _religious conflict_ is pretty much a grand overreach, and is simply not borne out by history.

Oh, and, "I see dead people." Paranoia, paranormal, Paranorman [the movie], paratrooper.


----------



## Josh66

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress...  Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
Click to expand...


I've read quite a few history books, apparently different ones than you though.

How do you even calculate "where we should be by now"?  What civilization are we being measured against?


----------



## o hey tyler

1. The Crusades 
2. Spanish Inquisition
3. The Holocaust 
4. The Iraq War
5. Israel/Palestine 
6. Taiping Rebellion
7. 30 Year War
8. Irish Conflict
9. Sudan
10. Rwanda 

Yeah, not from history. Totally.


----------



## runnah

O|||||||O said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't know if it's fair to say that it has held back progress...  Really, though, I don't see how we could even know - let alone get it to such a specific figure as 1500 years "behind schedule".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read quite a few history books, apparently different ones than you though.
> 
> How do you even calculate "where we should be by now"?  What civilization are we being measured against?
Click to expand...


I don't know about the calculation but perhaps is is by adding up all the "dark" ages through out history where religious rule crushed any cultural/technological growth.

But anyways of course it has held back progress. We fought wars based on it which turned entire nations against one another. Those who practiced medicine were condemned as heretics. Those who were engineers were considered demons. Poets and artists were kill en masse.


----------



## Josh66

The Holocaust - religion was not really a factor (and it was not a war, it happened during a war).  Hitler was an atheist.  When they say 'Jews', they're talking about ethnicity, not religion.  Christian, but ethnically Jewish people were persecuted too.  Basically anyone that didn't come from "Aryan" stock.

That's just off the top of my head since that's the one I'm most familiar with...


----------



## esselle

o hey tyler said:


> esselle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do we define as progress though? Gandhi believed that industrialization would be the downfall of man. He was a man of faith and brought a lot of progress to India. So, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations when it comes to people of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost Every major war ever has been caused by religious conflict. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


I know, and it saddens me but one would *think* that if one has faith in say a "higher power" that that faith would bring great joy and peace. I believe in God yet don't push my belief on anyone. Not my place. I think it is more the twisting of faith and coercion of wanting to convert ppl to a certain faith that has driven wars of present and past. It is a real shame, for sure.


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> The Holocaust - religion was not really a factor (and it was not a war, it happened during a war).  Hitler was an atheist.  When they say 'Jews', they're talking about ethnicity, not religion.  Christian, but ethnically Jewish people were persecuted too.  Basically anyone that didn't come from "Aryan" stock.
> 
> That's just off the top of my head since that's the one I'm most familiar with...



Hitler wasn't an atheist FYI. Ethnicity and religion were one in the same to the Jewish populace.


----------



## Josh66

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read quite a few history books, apparently different ones than you though.
> 
> How do you even calculate "where we should be by now"?  What civilization are we being measured against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about the calculation but perhaps is is by adding up all the "dark" ages through out history where religious rule crushed any cultural/technological growth.
> 
> But anyways of course it has held back progress. We fought wars based on it which turned entire nations against one another. Those who practiced medicine were condemned as heretics. Those who were engineers were considered demons. Poets and artists were kill en masse.
Click to expand...

I don't know about some of that...

Poets and artists though, were killed/jailed for political reasons, not religions.  Speak against the State?  Jail or death.  Look at China today ... an atheist nation.  Anything that contradicts the 'official State position' is forbidden.

I think most of it really is political, and maybe religion was a convenient 'cover'.  Mostly, those in power will preserve their power.  Undermine their authority, watch your back.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Holocaust - religion was not really a factor (and it was not a war, it happened during a war).  Hitler was an atheist.  When they say 'Jews', they're talking about ethnicity, not religion.  Christian, but ethnically Jewish people were persecuted too.  Basically anyone that didn't come from "Aryan" stock.
> 
> That's just off the top of my head since that's the one I'm most familiar with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wasn't an atheist FYI. Ethnicity and religion were one in the same to the Jewish populace.
Click to expand...


Oh really?


----------



## esselle

My thing is this...just don't make sweeping generalizations about ppl of faith. Straw man arguments are just that. Many wonderful people who have faith in God, who have done great things for mankind. And many who have used their "religion" to do bad things. Emotion and opinion are not facts.


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Holocaust - religion was not really a factor (and it was not a war, it happened during a war).  Hitler was an atheist.  When they say 'Jews', they're talking about ethnicity, not religion.  Christian, but ethnically Jewish people were persecuted too.  Basically anyone that didn't come from "Aryan" stock.
> 
> That's just off the top of my head since that's the one I'm most familiar with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wasn't an atheist FYI. Ethnicity and religion were one in the same to the Jewish populace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
Click to expand...


He wasn't concretely an atheist. There's no real proof that he was.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wasn't an atheist FYI. Ethnicity and religion were one in the same to the Jewish populace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't concretely an atheist. There's no real proof that he was.
Click to expand...


There certainly is.

He has said as much to close friends of his.  It's no secret that he actively worked to destroy the church, in all it's forms.  In the 1930s and early '40s, he put on a front of being a Christian, but that was only to secure his power.  Once he had that power, he did everything he could to destroy Christianity.

Imagine walking into a church, and instead of a crucifix, there was a swastika.  Instead of a hymnal, there was Mein Kampf.  That happened.  But yeah, he's totally a Christian.  He basically wanted to transform the church to worship him instead of Jesus.


----------



## runnah

O|||||||O said:


> he put on a front of being a Christian, but that was only to secure his power.



Every politician ever.


----------



## Josh66

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> he put on a front of being a Christian, but that was only to secure his power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every politician ever.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## o hey tyler

"Contradictory accounts exist about *Adolf Hitler's religious views*, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer,  Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church to his political  associates, but remained a formal member of the Catholic church until  his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; while having "no real attachment to it."[SUP][1][/SUP] Biographer John Toland,  while noting that Hitler believed Pope Pius XII was "no friend", wrote  also that he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome  despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between  Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[SUP][2][/SUP] Conversely, historian Robert Soucy  states Hitler believed Christian and Nazi beliefs were incompatible and  intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior  paganism".[SUP][3]"[/SUP]

-Wiki

That would bring question to the atheist theory IMO.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> [...]
> That would bring question to the atheist theory IMO.




You fail to grasp how being a member of the church can have political advantages.  You're not a Christian just because you go to church every Sunday.


----------



## o hey tyler

I don't fail to grasp anything. We just have different ideas. 

Thanks though!


----------



## esselle

Hitler was a psychopath; it is a real disorder. They lack a conscience. To have faith, one must have a relatively well formed conscience. He didn't. Which is why he could carry out what he did. I don't believe faith creates psychopaths rather psychopaths come into various religions ...and manipulate others through them.


----------



## Josh66

Your statements seem to contradict that...


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> Your statements seem to contradict that...



Josh, get mad about having different opinions why don't you. 

Is it worth it? Are you going to push it?


----------



## Josh66

I'm far from mad.  All I'm saying is that you have been misinformed.

To say that Hitler was a Christian, is frankly offensive.  Anyone that believes that either doesn't know what Christianity is, or knows nothing about Hitler.


----------



## esselle

O|||||||O said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> That would bring question to the atheist theory IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a Christian just because you go to church every Sunday.
Click to expand...

true. Many think that. When someone asks me about my faith, I say it is hard to put into words. You just have a peace that can't be explained. Thus why I like Hebrews 11:1. (In my sig) And you want to help others, not hurt them. This isn't relegated to Christianity lol I'm just explaining (to me) what it means to have faith. 

Do you follow any faith or belief system Josh or anyone? Just curious is all.


----------



## esselle

O|||||||O said:


> I'm far from mad.  All I'm saying is that you have been misinformed.
> 
> To say that Hitler was a Christian, is frankly offensive.  Anyone that believes that either doesn't know what Christianity is, or knows nothing about Hitler.


He was not a practicing Christian. He was raised Christian. I have studied the holocaust a lot for personal reasons and I don't think anyone has written that it was due to Christianity. Just my two cents on that. Lol


----------



## Josh66

There's so much more I could say about all of this, especially as to Hitler's motivations, but I think we've already moved too far off topic...  We all know that 'religion' is one of those topics that always results in a lock.  I'd love to debate this over a case of beer and steaks on the grill, but TPF just isn't the place for it...  So, I guess I'm saying that we should probably back off of this whole religion subject before the thread gets locked.

No offense to anyone, and I'm not trying to 'get out of defending my position' or anthing like that - just saying that if we keep going, the thread will get locked.

Maybe it's time to just accept that we believe different things?


So...  Orbs?  Lets see some pictures, lol.


----------



## runnah

O|||||||O said:


> ghosts




Think of it as a magic trick. Some people look for the wires, some people see the wires but choose to ignore them and some people think its real.

I am a looking for the wires type of guy.


----------



## Ballistics

This thread is all over the place lmao.


----------



## esselle

Lol ^^ 

I hope I didn't offend anyone w/my thoughts.


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> I'm far from mad.  All I'm saying is that you have been misinformed.
> 
> To say that Hitler was a Christian, is frankly offensive.  Anyone that believes that either doesn't know what Christianity is, or knows nothing about Hitler.



I never said he was a Christian, I said he wasn't necessarily an atheist.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm far from mad.  All I'm saying is that you have been misinformed.
> 
> To say that Hitler was a Christian, is frankly offensive.  Anyone that believes that either doesn't know what Christianity is, or knows nothing about Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said he was a Christian, I said he wasn't necessarily an atheist.
Click to expand...


You might be right.  I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say that he thought that there was a God - so he did believe in a God - it just happened to be him.  It's pretty clear that he intended to transform the German church into believing that.  This is a fact - newly ordained pastors had to swear allegiance to the Führer, über alles.  Führer first, maybe they'll be room for God later.

Let that sink in a little.


----------



## Overread

And I think that is about as far as we need to go  since we've gone way off topic and into politics, religion and history studies (two of which are not allowed ).


----------

