# 2014 ghost photos

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Jul 3, 2014.

1. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
LOL! You wouldn't know the real world if it punched you in the balls, man.

Crazy people. And obviously the point was missed on you. It's about making extraordinary claims.

I've never been personally presented with an extraordinary claim and a photograph. I have been told lies, however. Elaborate ones, with lengthy stories to go along with them.

What? Of course they do. People lie all the time. Especialy when they stand to gain from it.

That's pure conjecture.

Even more conjecture. Also incorrect. I've seen countless ghost story TV shows, and shit like the crap you've drudged up from the internet, and I don't think I could name any of the claimants off the top of my head. Very few people ever become legitimately famous for making these claims. In fact, I can't think of any, save for those who start their own ghost-hunter TV shows and the like.

Nonononono. No picture purporting to be of a ghost has ever been vetted as being authentic by anyone other than those who already believe in this bullshit.

And how are these photos "vetted?" Who says they are legitimate, and what methods did they use?

Before I get to anything else you said, I need to know how you know these pictures are genuine.

3. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
What else is there to say? Take the first picture, for example. The one of the fake cowboy with his friend squatting in the background. We're supposed to believe that that's a ghost, yet where is the evidence? It just looks like a guy squatting in the background. It says they couldn't recreate the picture without the legs being visible...where is the evidence of this?

It's like talking to a child. You have no idea how to think for yourself. You know what you want to be true, and you're not going to hear anything else.

5. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
IOW, you got nothing. Why am I not surprised?

7. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
"This photo was received from Denise Russell. "The lady in the color photo is my granny," she says. "She lived on her own until age 94, when her mind started to weaken and had to be moved to an assisted living home for her own safety. At the end of the first week, there was a picnic for the residents and their families. My mother and sister attended. My sister took two pictures that day, and this is one of them. It was taken on Sunday, 8/17/97, and we think the man behind her is my grandpa who passed away on Sunday, 8/14/84.
We did not notice the man in the picture until Christmas Day, 2000 (granny had since passed away), while browsing through some loose family photos at my parents' house. My sister thought it was such a nice picture of granny that she even made a copy for mom, but still, nobody noticed the man behind her for over three years! When I arrived at my parents' house that Christmas day, my sister handed me the picture and said, "Who do you think this man behind granny looks like?" It took a few seconds for it to sink in. I was absolutely speechless. The black and white photos show that it really looks like him:"

The second wildlife cam pic clearly shows light cast on surrounding foliage. That suggests it is NOT a glitch or a fake. The glowing figure was really there at the time. Explanations? Didn't think so...

8. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
Not one paranormal investigator show aired on TV has ever been shown to be dishonest or faked in any sense. You and I both know if it was fake there'd be such a shitstorm about it that nobody would ever take that show seriously again. But that doesn't happen. The shows (such as "Ghost Adventures" and "Ghost Hunters") are entirely UNfaked and real. There may be some scripted commentary on Ghost Hunters, but that in no way detracts from the legitimacy of their investigation evidence.

9. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
Holy crap. I mean, just, holy crap.:shrug:

This sounds like something that you would read on The Onion website.

10. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
IOW, no counterargument. Wow!

Messages:
1,907

12. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
Fine go to youtube and put in fake ghosthunters and enjoy.

13. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
All the counter arguments have been made. You've ignored them in your ignorance and religious zeal. I mean, how many different ways can someone explain why 1+1 = 2 to someone who dogmatically believes it equals 3 before throwing their hands up?
.

14. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
Lol! Exactly. I want to believe he's some undergrad doing a social experiment, because this almost can't be real.

15. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
Yep...no counterargument. Oh..and so NOW YouTube is the go to source for accurate information? lol!

Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
16. ### Magical RealistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,873
He's doin time in SF limbo before he can enter Islamic paradise where 72 virgins are waiting with bated breath. Karma's a bitch...

Speaking of those virgins (the Houri) check this out:

"There are several descriptions related to houri that are found in various Islamic references. Some include:

Physical Attributes:
Wide and beautiful/lovely eyes [15][16][17]
Like pearls [18]
Hairless except the eye brows and the head [19]
Beautiful [13]
White skinned [22]
60 cubits [27.5 meters] tall [23][22]
7 cubits [3.2 meters] in width [22]
Transparent to the marrow of their bones [21][13]
Eternally young [19]
Companions of equal age [20][24]

Sexual Attributes:
Untouched / with hymen unbroken by sexual intercourse [25][26]
Virgins [27]
Voluptuous/full-breasted [20]
With large, round breasts which are not inclined to hang [21][3]
Appetizing vaginas [11]

Personality Attributes:
Chaste [15]
Restraining their glances [15][25]
Modest gaze [28]

Other Attributes:
Splendid [29]
Pure [13]
Non-menstruating / non-urinating/ non-defecating and childfree [21][30]
Never dissatisfied [30]
Will sing praise [7]

17. ### zgmcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
796
A little tall for my liking.

18. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,866
Magical Realist,

I know you're on a break, but I thought I'd reply anyway.

It's fine to take photos at face value when they are unremarkable. If your sister sends you a photo of her meal at a local restaurant, there's a reasonable change that she didn't fake or alter the photo (unless she has a history of pranking you in that way). On the other hand, when you see a photo of something that is extraordinary, it is quite sensible to question its authenticity.

When it comes to photos of flying saucers, aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot and the like, the onus of proof that the photo is not faked is rightly on the person presenting the photo, if for no other reason than that there is a long history of deliberate fraud involving such photos.

It is evidence that somebody produced a photo - somehow. To establish more than that, you need to look deeper.

Why are you so sure the photo wasn't faked?
How do you know when it was taken?
How do you know when the husband died? For that matter, how do you know that the guy in the photo was the husband in question? Do you know what he looked like when he was alive? Or are you really just taking the word of somebody as true, without any investigation?
What independent evidence do you have for the photo's authenticity? Which reliable, independent witnesses and investigators do you trust to vouch for this photo, and why?

No, that's shoddy reasoning, too. It's shoddy because independent experts have looked into some of these things and verified beyond reasonable doubt that the effects are real. I don't know what earthquake lights are, and I think the term will o' wisp can mean different things to different people. St Elmo's fire is certainly real - I've made some myself. Ball lightning? Not so sure. And you're right - with all that CGI around, we need to be wary of films as well as photos these days.

The paranormal community is full of frauds (which is not at all the same as saying that everybody who believes they have had a paranormal experience is lying, by the way). In this area, in particular, one should be especially wary of taking claims at face value. You're used to doing that in other areas of your life that are risky, aren't you? If not, then I have a bridge you might like to buy. Also, did you know that your computer has been selected at random as this month's internet lottery winner? Just send me $100 for the processing fee, and I'll make sure you get your$1 million prize.

It really depends on the someone, and on what kind of picture they're showing me. If somebody shows me a picture of themselves standing next to a truly giant Kermit the Frog, I'm going to ask them a few questions, I assure you. I won't just say "Oh, that's a nice photo of you and giant Kermit."

Yes, we should distrust scientific publications - even ones in peer-reviewed journals. Time and again, published scientific results have later been proved wrong. One study is very seldom enough to generate trust in a result - especially a spectacular one that goes against what we already know.

And you certainly should doubt what you see on the TV news (especially if you watch Fox News, haha) - and in papers and magazines. It's great to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out and you'll believe anything that somebody tells you or that you read on the internet.

As for wikipedia, it's good on a lot of things, but it also contains errors and bias, and in some cases outright fraud. It's not stupid to be careful about checking what you read on the internet. Don't trust just one source. Compare sources. Do they agree? What do the real experts say?

Do you really believe everything you see on TV, Magical Realist? If not, tell me: what kinds of things make you suspect fraud or fakery (on TV or in print or wherever)? Would you suspect a fake if you saw the giant Kermit photo?

It should get a lot better than that. Why are ghost images never reproducible? Why do the ghosts always vanish when competent investigators arrive on the scene? Why are witnesses to ghosts so often unreliable?

Have you considered the alternatives?
Do you think that - just possibly - somebody could fake such a photo using photoshop or a double exposure, for example?

The problem there is that there is a mountain of fraud out there. Competent investigators frankly have better things to do with their time than to examine in detail every image claimed to be a ghost. If the image and a story from a single witness is the only evidence for a phenomenon that would overturn science if it were true, then I'd say it's not very good evidence and it's worth waiting for better to be presented.

Yes, you're right.

What delegitimises the ghost-photo industry is that, since photography was invented, nobody has produced truly compelling evidence of a single ghost existing anywhere. Moreover, the field is overrun with fakers who have been caught.

You haven't proved a ghost. All you've done is to reproduce some images that other people claim are ghosts. The fact that you believe them doesn't add anything to the reliability of the original photos. You're not an expert. You haven't investigated them. You're just running on pure blind trust.

Look at this:

This photo is a real photo. I can assure you that it hasn't been digitally altered in any way, or altered through any photo-manipulation process. The image you see in this photo was the image captured by an ordinary camera.

Tell me, Magical Realist: do you think that the person who took this photo might be lying to you in some way, or do you think that this image really shows what it appears to show -i.e. a guy in an "impossible" crate. Should we start re-writing the laws of geometry or physics now? Do you now believe in impossible crates as a result of my showing you this photo?

Or do you think, perhaps, that I'm lying to you? If you don't trust me, then by your own standards it should be up to you to prove that I'm lying, shouldn't it? Agree?

So, benefit of the doubt, then. Impossible crates actually exist in reality? What do you think?

I watched it live. It would have taken an implausibly major conspiracy among TV networks to fake it.

When I watch a newscast, I look for the spin they're putting on the facts, as well as looking at what facts they are choosing to present to me. Often, I go to other sources to see what was left out, to compare perspectives, to gain a more comprehensive understanding and different views. You just trust the first newscast you find, do you?

I have - in countless movies, photos, comic books, etc. Have you ever wondered where fakers get their ideas from?

There's no convincing evidence of ghosts. On the internet, there's a community of believers who are willing to accept grainy photos from unreliable sources as good evidence of ghosts (among other "evidence" that is similarly flawed or erroneous). These are people who are generally untrained in critical thinking and who, for various reasons, want very much to believe in ghosts. You may well be one of them.

19. ### SandraloveRegistered Member

Messages:
14
some photos are not real.

20. ### Arne Saknussemmtrying to figure it all outValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,353
Guess again. Very likely none of them are real or are being misinterpreted.