Magical Realist,
I know you're on a break, but I thought I'd reply anyway.
If you make a claim that the photos are fake or a glitch, then the burden is on you to prove that. Otherwise, a photo is exactly what it appears to be--a photo of something actually there.
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.
I'm providing clear photos of humanoid figures called ghosts recorded by cameras. THAT is evidence.
It is evidence that somebody produced a photo - somehow. To establish more than that, you need to look deeper.
Here's one even of a woman's dead husband standing behind her. This is extraordinary evidence for ghosts.
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?
Nawww..Afterall, who would believe actual photos of unexplained phenomena? Earthquake lights? Must be fake. Will o' wisps? Just an artifact of the moonlight. Ball lightning? A hoax! St. Elmo's fire? CGI effects. Anything can be faked these days. Must all be fake then eh? lol!
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.
People also tell the truth all the time. And we take their word for it unless we have a reason to doubt them. That's how the real world runs, not your paranoid movie world where people are all scam artists just trying to fool each other.
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.
Seriously? When someone tells you about something that happened to them or shows you a pic they took, do YOU doubt them? No you don't.
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."
You can't learn anything unless you believe the presenter of the data. That goes for everything, even science. According to your theory we should doubt everything on the TV news, in magazines, in the newspapers, on Wikipedia, etc. simply because it COULD be faked. That's absurd. You'd be so behind in knowing any facts that you'd never be able to say anything for sure.
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?
A photo of a ghost IS extraordinary evidence. Short of actually having the ghost materialize before you, it doesn't get much better than this.
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?
If these photos showed smears or smudges in glass that merely looked like faces or figures, then I'd reject them. But most the photos posted show 3D freefloating apparitions of clearly human forms. So they ARE compelling evidence for paranormal entities.
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?
Then don't make the claim that ghost photos ARE fraud. Just saying it could be faked is NOT evidence it is faked. You'll need to examine each case individually and tell us why it is a fraud in your opinion.
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.
And once again, there are fakers in every field. But that doesn't delegitimize the field.
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.
And all it takes to prove a ghost is just that one. Just one that's all. I have provided far more than that.
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.
LOL! I have to keep dragging you back into the real world. Who goes around saying they just went to the moon? How many times in your life have you encountered someone with an extraordinary claim, and a photograph, who was just lying to you. It's not happening.
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?
I don't doubt a person unless there are red flags. No red flags? I give them the benefit of the doubt.
So, benefit of the doubt, then. Impossible crates actually exist in reality? What do you think?
So when you first heard of 911, you didn't believe the newscaster?
I watched it live. It would have taken an implausibly major conspiracy among TV networks to fake it.
And no..NOBODY doubts the newscast, unless they're paranoid schizophrenics who are just trying to survive in their conspiratorial world of sinister conmen.
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've never seen glowing, transparent, or morphing humans before.
I have - in countless movies, photos, comic books, etc. Have you ever wondered where fakers get their ideas from?
But then your the one who happens to KNOW there's no evidence for ghosts, despite the fact that there are tons of evidence for them all over the internet.
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.
