Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Old Lady Head!


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 16 July 2008 - 09:54 AM

QUOTE(tonyay @ Jul 14 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
why are you even on this website if you dont believe in it?


Hi Tonyay,

You have asked a very good question here.  I will attempt to give you a good answer, but please remember that I am only speaking for myself.

I am a skeptic, but I love the paranormal.  I love just about any paranormal topic you could name.  Even though I think it is all probably not true, it is all very exciting to me, and I get a lot of enjoyment out of reading, thinking and talking with friends about it.  I bet we are very similar in that respect.

I don't believe but I want to, and am willing to if I ever encounter objective proof of it.  Pretty much all the evidence I have seen so far is open to subjective interperetation, like this photo.  Everyone is seeing different things based on their subjective opinions, myself included.  It does not prove anything. Unfortunately, while personal experience and eyewitness acounts are interesting as heck, they do not qualify as objective proof either.  No matter how much I want to believe, I just cant let myself say I do if I don't in my heart.  At the same time, I don't look down on believers.  I know they are for the most part normal, smart & sane people that are looking for answers like me.

So here I am, a true paranormal enthusiast looking for real objective evidence, and hopefully having a good time & making friends doing it. smile.gif

Hope this helps, Canis


#42 tonyay

tonyay

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:florida
  • Interests:music, paranormal, traveling, horror movies, books, animals, environment;

Posted 16 July 2008 - 10:31 AM

yeha when i first saw this picture i was questioning it and i just thought it was a person to. but now i just dont know what to think of it, because honestly i doubt that the realiter would "imagine" that no one was home. but thats juts my opinion, but thanks for voicing your own smile.gif
it made me think about it alot, but im still sticking to what i think smile.gif

#43 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 16 July 2008 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE(tonyay @ Jul 16 2008, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yeha when i first saw this picture i was questioning it and i just thought it was a person to. but now i just dont know what to think of it, because honestly i doubt that the realiter would "imagine" that no one was home. but thats juts my opinion, but thanks for voicing your own smile.gif
it made me think about it alot, but im still sticking to what i think smile.gif



Hey that is totaly cool.  When I first saw it, I was like "WHAT THE CRUNK?" myself!  laugh.gif

#44 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 16 July 2008 - 11:10 AM

I think the main point here should be that anyone can think whatever they want about a picture like this ... but a picture like this can never be proof of anything. If someone's standards of evidence are such that an odd picture is all they need to believe in the paranormal, then that is their choice. My hope is that people will come to see the weakness of photographic evidence in this area and will move ghost photographs to the lowest level of evidence where they belong.

#45 tonyay

tonyay

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:florida
  • Interests:music, paranormal, traveling, horror movies, books, animals, environment;

Posted 16 July 2008 - 12:10 PM

agreed

#46 Roxstar

Roxstar

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • 1,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:The paranormal, ghost and after life research, family, music, science, video games. I am mostly into EVP but also love to use spirit boxes and other forms of communication. It's a true passion of mine, more than a hobby.

Posted 16 July 2008 - 01:24 PM

Okay... first and foremost, when I initially looked at the pic, it looked like double exposure that you would see on say 35 mm film. This is a digital shot, so this theory was immediately ruled out. It makes me laugh because it kind of looks like my grandmother walking into a room and looking surprised (I'm not kidding smile.gif I am betting that this is just someone walking into the room, shot taken, and surprise! She doesn't look like any of the ghosts I have ever seen, but I guess anything is possible. I am voting on this being a real person (and not gramma) walking into the room unexpectedly... and getting in the shot.

"What Scares You, Masters You."

-UNKNOWN-


#47 Roxstar

Roxstar

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • 1,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:The paranormal, ghost and after life research, family, music, science, video games. I am mostly into EVP but also love to use spirit boxes and other forms of communication. It's a true passion of mine, more than a hobby.

Posted 16 July 2008 - 01:24 PM

(Internal server error) then it fixed itself? Weird

Edited by Roxstar, 16 July 2008 - 01:28 PM.

"What Scares You, Masters You."

-UNKNOWN-


#48 kramer

kramer

    Orb

  • GS Member
  • 26 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 02:28 AM

Do ghost's wear glasses. I wouldn't think they would have trouble seeing. I think the old lady is hiding behind the fire place.
kramer

#49 tonyay

tonyay

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:florida
  • Interests:music, paranormal, traveling, horror movies, books, animals, environment;

Posted 17 July 2008 - 07:19 AM

QUOTE(kramer @ Jul 17 2008, 02:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do ghost's wear glasses. I wouldn't think they would have trouble seeing. I think the old lady is hiding behind the fire place.
kramer



fireplace??


#50 Guest_Silent Walker_*

Guest_Silent Walker_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2008 - 09:01 AM

QUOTE(Snowlord @ Jul 16 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the main point here should be that anyone can think whatever they want about a picture like this ... but a picture like this can never be proof of anything. If someone's standards of evidence are such that an odd picture is all they need to believe in the paranormal, then that is their choice. My hope is that people will come to see the weakness of photographic evidence in this area and will move ghost photographs to the lowest level of evidence where they belong.


Thing is Snowlord, whereas no photo could be classed as 100% clarification regarding the paranormal, no photo can 100% debunk the paranormal either.

What we seem to have here is opinions, each and every one valid, whereas you do not believe (I get from reading your posts) the paranormal and are bound to say that it is not so, others are not skeptic and will therefore look at ALL possibilities (in most occasions), it does not mean that you are right or wrong, nor does it mean that others are right nor wrong, because there is NO possible way of looking at a photo and being 100% correct in guessing what may or may not have happened or what may or may not have caused the effect.

I have experienced the paranormal so I know what side of the fence I am sitting, however it is almost impossible for me to prove what has happened to anyone else.

Photographic evidence should not be the lowest level of evidence, if anything else, it creates discussion about the paranormal which is a start....

#51 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Exorcism

  • GS Member
  • 12,572 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 17 July 2008 - 09:21 AM

I don't recall snowlord saying he didn't believe in the paranormal, just that still photographs are very poor evidence because of all the natural things...internal and external...that can cause weird effects. I agree, no still picture I have ever taken (or anyone in our group either) has shown what is IMO evidence of the paranormal.

  Video is a lot better, you are not working with one still frame, but many that show movement etc. And you can't argue with EVPs.  Sure, it is likely that some pictures ARE paranormal, but it could never be proven.
Posted Image

#52 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 17 July 2008 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE(Silent Walker @ Jul 17 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... Thing is Snowlord, whereas no photo could be classed as 100% clarification regarding the paranormal, no photo can 100% debunk the paranormal either ....


I think your take on photography is pretty accurate, Vlawde.

But just to set the record straight ... I do not believe in the paranormal.

And Silent Walker ... this statement of yours that I have quoted here is correct. When I attempt to debunk a photo, I am only debunking the photo itself, not what it is intended to represent. The fact that a photo only displays a collection of light, and can in no other way support any kind of claim to what that light is, beyond recognizing familiar objects, means that it's only use can be to further speculation and possibly support an already strong belief. Basically what this means is that if you are already a strong believer you can look at a ghost photo and see verification of those beliefs for yourself. But if you are on the fence, or fairly sceptical, a photo should "never" be used to begin or increase your belief level. It is just too unreliable. And as you have pointed out, it will never qualify as "Proof".

Photography is completely capable of causing every type of ghost photo by normal, un-paranormal, means and so can never be trusted to give real proof of it's existence. For this reason I can't accept it as being anything but low level evidence in the search for the paranormal world.



#53 Gooz

Gooz

    Banshee

  • GS Member
  • 194 posts
  • Location:East

Posted 18 July 2008 - 08:24 AM

I'm sorry, but this reasoning on what photos depict makes no sense to me. If a photo is just a 'display of a collection of light' and not proof of anything then why are pictures even taken? Why take pictures of your wedding? Why take pictures of news events? Why take pictures as proof of identification? Photos do capture specific moments in time. They are recordations. So I really don't get the reasoning behind throwing out all things photographic, but maybe I'm a little biased. My father was a professional photographer and I grew up surrounded by lots of photography. I never doubted what I saw in those pictures wasn't what really happened at that moment in time. Just my 2 cents.

#54 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 18 July 2008 - 09:27 AM

QUOTE(Gooz @ Jul 18 2008, 08:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sorry, but this reasoning on what photos depict makes no sense to me. If a photo is just a 'display of a collection of light' and not proof of anything then why are pictures even taken? Why take pictures of your wedding? Why take pictures of news events? Why take pictures as proof of identification? Photos do capture specific moments in time. They are recordations. So I really don't get the reasoning behind throwing out all things photographic, but maybe I'm a little biased. My father was a professional photographer and I grew up surrounded by lots of photography. I never doubted what I saw in those pictures wasn't what really happened at that moment in time. Just my 2 cents.


Good question!  I would say the difference between a wedding photo & a ghost photo is that there is nothing unproven about a wedding.  Everyone knows that they exist and all the objects & people associated with them are material and recognizable.  Even if the photo is blurry or indistinct, there is no reason to doubt the wedding occured because there is so much other objective evidence like the marrage license that it took place.

A ghost photo is someone speculating on unproven phenomena based on something that looks strange or unrecognizable to them.  The problem with that is, you don't know what it is, so you can't really say it is paranormal. Almost all the ghost photos I have seen  are better explained by known, natural photographic flaws or effects.  Using the princable of Occam's Razor, other less likely explanations should be passed on until such time as they are proven to be as likely, or more likely.  

The standard of proof for the existence of a ghost is and should be much higher than the proof needed for a wedding.

Canis

Edited by caniswalensis, 18 July 2008 - 09:33 AM.


#55 Gooz

Gooz

    Banshee

  • GS Member
  • 194 posts
  • Location:East

Posted 18 July 2008 - 09:36 AM

But isn't a wedding picture only 'proof' to the people who were actually there? If I wasn't there, I could say in all honesty that I didn't actually see it so maybe it's just a trick of light or my wanting to see what I think it is. Does that make sense?

#56 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Exorcism

  • GS Member
  • 12,572 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 18 July 2008 - 09:41 AM

QUOTE(Gooz @ Jul 18 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But isn't a wedding picture only 'proof' to the people who were actually there? If I wasn't there, I could say in all honesty that I didn't actually see it so maybe it's just a trick of light or my wanting to see what I think it is. Does that make sense?


The key here is, as Canis said above, is that the objects in most wedding pictures are familiar, common and recognizeable. Paranormal phenomena is not, so anything from dust to glare, camera malfunction or even a person in the picture the photographer didn't notice could be called paranormal. It's a guessing game
Posted Image

#57 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 18 July 2008 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE(Gooz @ Jul 18 2008, 09:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But isn't a wedding picture only 'proof' to the people who were actually there? If I wasn't there, I could say in all honesty that I didn't actually see it so maybe it's just a trick of light or my wanting to see what I think it is. Does that make sense?


It would be a good trick indeed for a lense flare or something to materialize a whole wedding party, and in multiple shots with the same faces, clothes, surroundings appearing in every shot.  I have never seen any thing like that in a paranormal shot.  With ghost photos, it is always something like: "if you look closely, you can make out a face in this dark streak."  Plus, there are mountains of objective proof that wedding take place, and can be captured on film.  Unfortunately, we can not say the same thing about ghosts.

Why are you so skeptical of weddings anyway?  I will confess right now that I have experienced one first-hand, and they are very real!  laugh.gif

Canis

#58 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Exorcism

  • GS Member
  • 12,572 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 18 July 2008 - 10:46 AM

I was in one a few months ago. Even now, when I wake up in the morning, I am not sure if it was real or not.......




.....then I see the ring on my finger!
Posted Image

#59 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 18 July 2008 - 11:11 AM

QUOTE(Vlawde @ Jul 18 2008, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was in one a few months ago. Even now, when I wake up in the morning, I am not sure if it was real or not.......
.....then I see the ring on my finger!


See? subjective personal experience vs. objective proof! laugh.gif

But Gooz has touched on something here that is good to consider:
We should not become so lazy in our critical thinking skills that we cease to examine "common wisdom"  just because a piece of information is commonly accepted, that does not mean it is true.  We should question cherished beliefs as vigorously as any new ones.

For instance, does chewing gum really take 7 years to digest?

Canis



#60 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 18 July 2008 - 05:05 PM

QUOTE(Gooz @ Jul 18 2008, 01:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... I'm sorry, but this reasoning on what photos depict makes no sense to me. If a photo is just a 'display of a collection of light' and not proof of anything then why are pictures even taken? ...



I took over 30,000 pictures last year. And I'm heading for more than that this year. My new, 4 month old digital SLR has taken over 17, 000 pictures already. I don't take these pictures to prove the existence of anything. These "collections of light" are beautiful to look at and they preserve memories, and they give a guy a chance to express the teeny tiny bit of creativity that he just barely possesses.  smile.gif


My point is ( and it has been recognized by the others above ) that while you may recognize familiar objects in photographs, such as chairs, dogs, people, trees, or whatever, and so be reasonably assured that these things were present ... a photograph will contain no other physical evidence for the existence of these things. So if you have an anomalous ball of light, or a strange dark blur in a picture ... then this is "all" you have. There is no spectrographic analysis of the light, there is no magnetic anomaly analysis, there is no heat measurement or movement measurement, there is no other scientific information to back up the belief that this is something more than a glitch in the picture. So why should it be believed?



Now here is a picture of a rose. It doesn't prove anything ... but it sure is nice to look at ... and I really enjoyed taking it's picture.  smile.gif









.