Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do you think that video is any better than the "good" ones you claim to have posted?
No, I care what YOU consider good.
Why do you think they're good? What criteria do you use to determine the quality of a ghost/bigfoot/flying saucer video?
I'll take that to mean that you don't actually have any standards about what you consider to be "good" evidence. Well, that's not a surprise.
I'm not talking about what I consider good evidence. I'm talking about what YOU consider good evidence.
That's definitely true. Your so-called "evidence" is worthless, whatever you think.It doesn't matter what I think.
That's definitely true. Your so-called "evidence" is worthless, whatever you think.
Correct. Try learning something about photography, such as shutter speed, aperture, and focus. If the camera is not properly adjusted for these essential preparations to compensate for amount of light available, you may get a picture of a blurry object, but a blurry object is NOT proof of a ghost, it is just a blur of a moving object.Right..because everybody knows the image on camera of a fast moving object traveling twice across a hallway isn't as real as a slow moving one. lol!
you may get a picture of a blurry object, but a blurry object is NOT proof of a ghost, it is just a blur of a moving object.
That's true, but people can and do. I once submitted an overlay of two slides, one showing a beautiful coastal scene, but no living thing. So I overlayed the slide with a slide of a single flying seagull with only the blue sky as background. The effect was really good and it received a special mention from our photography teacher.A blurry object speeding across a hallway is still an object speeding across a hallway, which is exactly what the camera caught. Cameras don't make up images of things that aren't there.
That's true, but people can and do. I once submitted an overlay of two slides, one showing a beautiful coastal scene, but no living thing. So I overlayed the slide with a picture of a single flying seagull with only the blue sky as background. The effect was really good and it received a special mention from our photography teacher.
But you assert that blurry pictures is proof of ghosts. I just showed you a picture of a blurry picture of a life sized person (woman). Was that a ghost or a badly taken picture of a moving person? Tell me the difference.
Apparently you have no idea what goes on in a real scientifically controlled investigation. But apparently real scientists do not even see the necessity of a real investigation, with dozens of different measuring devices, which also don't lie. Apparently there is absolutely no interest by the scientific community (even in meta-physics) to do a real and thorough investigation , based on the presentation of a few blurry pictures and eerie noises. Why do you think that is? Critical thinking perhaps?Right..pictures of fast moving shadows and lights and apparitions in haunted locations is one of the proofs of ghosts. Spare me the redundant photography lecture. You have no idea what goes on during paranormal investigations do you?
Apparently you have no idea what goes on in a real scientifically controlled investigation. But apparently real scientists do not even see the necessity of a real investigation, with dozens of different measuring devices, which also don't lie. Apparently there is absolutely no interest by the scientific community (even in meta-physics) to do a real and thorough investigation , based on the presentation of a few blurry pictures and eerie noises. Why do you think that is? Critical thinking perhaps?
And all this sophisticated equipment has yielded the pictures you psented as examples of scientific proof of the existence of ghosts?Right..you're totally ignorant about how paranormal investigations are conducted, all the electronic devices they use, the compelling evidence they obtain, and the scientific measures they take to debunk mundane explanations. Why don't you stick to telling me things you know about? You'd look alot less foolish.
Any peer reviewed published results? Nada. And it gives me no pleasure to say that it is you who is looking foolish.
OTOH, in the mean time we have proved the existence of the Higgs boson, which until recently was merely a hypothesis.
Give me a link to a reliable scientific site on paranormal phenomena and I promise to read it with an *open mind*.I wouldn't trust a scientist as far as I could spit. Instead, we rely on the experts who have actually researched this field in hundreds of investigations and documented compelling evidence for the paranormal. Nobody reads those boring ass science journals anyway. Have you ever read one? Didn't think so.