How to prove spiritual orbs in photos?

A haunted house is a house that is perceived as being haunted - not necessarily that it actually is. The legal case merely set in precedent that the house under dispute was now legally known to be perceived as being haunted, and that the perception impacts the value of the property. Had the court actually stated that the house is occupied by ghosts then it would have been disputed due to lack of evidence supporting the existence of the ghosts.
The court even noted that whether the house was truly haunted or not, it was the reputation alone that was sufficient to affect the value.
This thus puts the status in law of a "haunted house" as merely one of perception or reputation, not whether it truly is haunted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How am I commiting ad homs? You were being untruthful. Am I not allowed to point out when you are being untruthful?
And you do not always understand what people say. It is fair to point out such an increasing trend in an effort to prompt you to improve and thus actually make this discourse more efficient.
What is not constructive is you continually misunderstanding, deliberately or otherwise, and then being untruthful about what I have previously stated.

FFS! As I said in the very post: YES. They are clearly evidence.
The question, though, is what they are evidence of, and the strength (or weakness) of the evidence is related entirely to what you are looking for it to support: if you claim that it is evidence of the paranormal then those videos, as I have stated before, are very weak evidence in support of it.
If you claim that someone used a video camera then it is very strong evidence indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Didn't say is "perceived to be haunted". Said the house IS haunted as a matter of law. Read again for clarity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IOW, you really CAN'T stop putting me down and ad homing me. That's all I needed to know..

So YouTube videos ARE evidence, just not EVER evidence of the paranormal. Got it. EOD..

 

This is fair. And it's progress too, since you started out at the other end of the spectrum.
Middle ground is good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Only thing I will say to this playing devils advocate for a minute, is that the mainstream public due to all the "publicity" the paranormal has been receiving, is that the evidence for what might be considered a true haunting is still up to interpretation.

KWIM?

 

You're either consciously lying about what I said, or you again misunderstand what I have written.

Do you know the difference between "very weak evidence" and "not evidence"?

But please do feel free to post where I have said videos are not ever evidence of the paranormal.

 

I know what it said. Haunted houses fall under the legal term "stigmatized".
And, just so you're clear, the majority opinion on that case specifically noted that the veracity of the claims of paranormal activities were outside the purview of the opinion. I.e. "haunting" in the legal domain is a matter of perception, not of actuality.
It really can not be any more simply put than this.

 

No, I didn't start out at the other end of the spectrum. My position has not changed throughout this dialogue.
Those videos are evidence, just not evidence that leads one to rationally conclude in the paranormal, such is their weakness as evidence of such.
This has been my position from the outset, if not worded quite as concisely or clearly.

 

Ok then.
Perhaps it got lost in the sea of posts dismissing the reality of ghosts; I may have missed it.
Hehe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think that it (still shots/videos/other frequencies) is the only evidence that can be used right now but we shall see what the future holds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do I really have to spell this out for you? Weak evidence is inadequate evidence. And inadequate evidence is no evidence at all. Besides, you've already concluded ANY evidence is only evidence of the unknown mundane. Hence your belief that there's no evidence for the paranormal. Got it now?

Now, since you won't accept YouTube videos as evidence of the paranormal, and you continue to ad hom me with uppity comments about my lack of sincerity and lack of intelligence, you've basically ended this discussion. Try a little tact next time. It works better than ridicule and insults.

 

Wegs, Sarkus backpeddles and revises and requalifies his own positions and statements so constantly it's practically impossible to hold him to anything. So don't apologize for being confused. Confusing is what he does best.

 

If I need £5 to buy a magazine and only have 10p, I won't buy the magazine, but I'll still have the 10p.
Likewise weak evidence IS still evidence, even if it is inadequate for the purpose of convincing someone.
Do I have to spell this out for you?

From a scientific standpoint it is only evidence for the unknown, mundane or otherwise.
And I don't believe there is any evidence for the paranormal that yet convinces me. There's certainly no scientific evidence, or at least none that I am aware of.
Got it now?

I have not criticised your sincerity - just your ability to tell the truth about what I have previously said - either through lying or misunderstanding.
I have not commented on your intelligence either. Do you want me to?

Sorry, do you want me to wrap up my responses in cotton wool in case I hurt your sensitivity? And if you want to avoid ridicule and insult, perhaps try responding to what people write rather than what you think they have written.

 

Heck, if you think I'm changing position then show me... quote me.
I can't categorically deny that I have, but I am not aware of having done so, even if I may not have been as precise earlier as I would be now, given where the conversation has progressed.

Otherwise you just need to read what I write - not what you think I have written.

 

Yes, perhaps.
Very rational of you.
But it has an uncanny resemblance to a monk's habit, with no monk in it, hovering above a screaming tormented soul.
Which is why I would be departing the graveyard pronto.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wouldn't depart too quickly, the best method if taking pictures is to take more than one.

In the instance of being in a snow covered area it's guaranteed that if you exhale you might well capture your own breath in a picture, so more than one picture of an area at least allows such breathes to disperse. (If you wanted to fake one and smoked, you could always take a picture of exhaled smoke in the dark using a flash)

 

When addressing me, yes please, for I am a delicate flower.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is a bit eery.

Interesting.
This pic, I actually wouldn't doubt if it were a "fake."
Seems contrived.

 

Incidentally the study of "Paranormal" started during the Victorian/Edwardian period when a lot of "Gypsies" were roaming around tea leaf/palm reading, selling trinkets and of course Séances. These were usually seen as Palour Games where the bored females of the household (prior to the equal rights movement) would find something to do (other than joining a knitting circle).

It was noted that some would fall for the tricks and illusions through gullibility, so a number "of the day" scientists started investigating the "shenanigans" to try and reduce misconception and fraud. They were the pioneers of "Paranormal investigation" but they soon ruled out there actually being anything other than over-active imaginations and fraudsters. (They ruled out paranormal)

The problem has been in recent years there has been growing trends in both the belief systems around such things and the fraud manipulating them. After all you only have to look at UFO and Alien references over the past 100 years, prior to Orsen Welles adaption of H.G.Wells "War of the Worlds" there wasn't as much Scifi related to extra-terrestrialism, due to the radio broadcast being "viral" for its time and creating a widespread panic, it proved to certain people as being a way to generate attention based upon peoples gullibility.

Since that time the hysteria has been played on again and again, now there are people that are apart of a "Cargo Culture" that believe there is aliens, flying saucers and government conspiracy even though no evidence of any of that has ever actually been produced (just anecdotes of forth generation, third person evidence)

Actual Parapsychology is more about the Anthropological adaption of belief systems and misinterpretations to create hysteria in society which historically builds chains of unprovable anecdotal evidence. It's known that some people studying the field are involved in creating bogus occurrences as apart of the study itself, that means those that believe such occurrences become the equivalent of labrats trapped in a maze.

 

A brief history of paranormal research:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2RAztMMnzk

 

"Skeptics sequester themselves into these little cliques from which they can point and laugh at the average person, deluding themselves into thinking they are the most intellectually sophisticated people on the planet. The irony is that most skeptics, while indeed usually well-read, display an incredible inability to reason and a wilful ignorance of the rules of logic. Not to mention they are not intellectually honest enough to admit defeat, but instead resort to ad hominem attacks or, again, egregious illogicality. It's a joke.

Mr. Bond goes on:

Online forums, whatever their subject, can be forbidding places for the newcomer; over time, most of them tend to become dominated by small groups of snotty know-it-alls who stamp their personalities over the proceedings. But skeptic forums are uniquely meant for such people. A skeptic forum valorises (and in some cases, fetishises) competitive geekery, gratuitous cleverness, macho displays of erudition. It's a gathering of rationality's hard men, thumping their chests, showing off their muscular logic, glancing sideways to compare their skeptical endowment with the next guy, sniffing the air for signs of weakness. Together, they create an oppressive, sweaty, locker-room atmosphere that helps keep uncomfortable demographics away."---http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com/2012/06/ex-skeptic-talks-about-why-he-left.html

 

I see posts like Bond's all the time aimed at people, but they are just as whiny as the very posts the complain about, I guess as a seeded Mod. You get to see both sides of the fence throwing faeces at one another. (Darwin was definitely right)