146 replies to this topic

[damckie]

krcguns, on Apr 15 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

Yep, TAPS does use some digital but have you ever seen them offer any photos as evidence? Not one time have they ever offered a digital photo as evidence on an investigation that you would have seen on TV. In fact Steve Gonsolves said it best..."If you want to look at the pictures yourself or among your group, digital is fine, but if you want to show others outside your group you need a negative."

Yes you are right! But have you ever thought that they only capture orbs on digital and don't want to show them? I believe if they caught an apparition or some ecto on digital they would show that has evidence on t.v. But all they get is probably orbs. As we all know Jason and Grant do not like to show orbs as evidence of the paranormal. Just some thoughts here. Dave

[krcguns]

damckie, on Apr 15 2007, 09:04 AM, said:

krcguns, on Apr 15 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

Yep, TAPS does use some digital but have you ever seen them offer any photos as evidence? Not one time have they ever offered a digital photo as evidence on an investigation that you would have seen on TV. In fact Steve Gonsolves said it best..."If you want to look at the pictures yourself or among your group, digital is fine, but if you want to show others outside your group you need a negative."

Yes you are right! But have you ever thought that they only capture orbs on digital and don't want to show them? I believe if they caught an apparition or some ecto on digital they would show that has evidence on t.v. But all they get is probably orbs. As we all know Jason and Grant do not like to show orbs as evidence of the paranormal. Just some thoughts here. Dave

That truly isn't the case, this came directly from Steve's own mouth in a conversation with him. TAPS doesn't support any of their own photos on digital as evidence. They do use them as a mapping tool which of course is not proving evidence which is ok to do.

[Grim Undertakings]

krcguns, on Apr 14 2007, 07:03 PM, said:

Film is not going anywhere. Things like Poloroids may disappear because they are a horrible cost to use but the 35mm is here to stay. It is necessary for anything requiring "proof" of the shot. If it ever were to disappear, it would simply be the end of spirit photography as it would no longer be credible.

I know this is a "agree to disagree" debate, but I thought I'd throw some more of my thoughts in anyway.

I agree that film is not going anywhere. But the way technology is going, it's going to be awfully expensive to use in the future. Probably even more expensive than Poloroids are to use at the moment. I for one will be using it sparingly in this case, opting instead to use digital, which I'm sure by this time will be very advanced and trustworthy. Whether I take pictures now with analog or digital I'm only really interested in anything that is more than an orb. Unless it's a really questionable orb. I don't think you should dismiss a good "fog/mist/ecto" or a figure in a picture if it's taken with a digital. I agree that digital can still be sketchy, but it quickly seems to be getting better.

As for credibility, ghost research is always being questioned about it's credibility. Sure, you can fake an analog picture, and fake a digital one even easier, but look how easy it is to fake EVP! EVP pretty much depends on credibility and trust. Most ghost research seems to depend on the credibility and the trust of the people presenting it.
Krc, if you were to take a picture of something unexplainable with a digital camera, I would trust it. And I hope you wouldn't delete it from your camera just because it's a digital!

So what I guess I'm trying to say is that digital is fine with me. We'll have to be more scrutinous now and maybe in the future, but I don't think a digital only option would end spiritphotography as we know it. I believe that credibility, trust, a passion for the research, and a professional manner will be what keeps ghost research going.

[krcguns]

Grim Undertakings, on Apr 15 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

Krc, if you were to take a picture of something unexplainable with a digital camera, I would trust it. And I hope you wouldn't delete it from your camera just because it's a digital!

Grim, If I were to take a photo that I thought could have been paranormal on a digital camera. I would never post in in the public or present it to anyone that exists outside of my own group. Simply because I couldn't back up my photo.

I know another investigator that has one of an apparition that he took on a digital before he learned that you can't back up evidence on a digital. It is of a woman coming through the door and she has no feet and no eyes. It sounds very cool, I have not seen it. He will never put this on his site or present it to the public as evidence of a ghost. It is probably a fantastic shot but not solid enough of evidence to present.

[JimDe]

Public forum right, film negatives vs. digital storage media, deal me in… all ill will aside. Seriously this is an interesting topic and well worth discussing without being offensive to anyone. Anyone disagree? Krcguns, I respect the fact that you’ve been the moderator of the Spiritography forum at Ghostvillage for a long time and you’ve done a good job, and you should respect the fact that I’m the one who named the Spiritography forum at Ghostvillage, I’ve been here longer and I’m also good at what I do, and that is Spirit Photography. And yes, the world has already been informed that I use a digital camera.

Law concerning evidence; I’ve been involved in a Federal Court as the plaintiff in a copyright infringement case concerning the original Spiritography article that I posted here at GV over 5 years ago, and yes I won (check the books its public record). You know what the feds want for evidence, original documents and testimony as to the authenticity of the document. Digital storage media happens to be considered an original document by law and has held up on appeal on numerous occasions.

That being said, to me the scientific community means Ph.D. or higher, that usually means parapsychology, - and the paranormal community means everyone else. And that includes most if not all of us here. So we can call ourselves or our methods scientific as much as we want too, but they’re not scientific without that sheepskin, and that’s a fact.

I’m not trying to start a pointless argument, I’m stating facts that can be easily verified; the scientific community has researched my material for years, you can read about that here
http://www.parapsych...mic/070100.html

…you also see a photograph of what the scientific community considers being a photographic example of ectoplasm, and by the way, that’s mine too.

The paranormal community is there also, I could put several more links here but why bother… I’m sure anyone here would know where to find them.

What do you want me to say, I’ve already done it. And I shoot digital. And to be honest, it’s not the negative their interested in, its consistency. And when I say them, who do you think I mean…

I for one think it’s a pretty good ride so far and there’s more…

Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.


JD

[damckie]

krcguns, on Apr 16 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Grim Undertakings, on Apr 15 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

Krc, if you were to take a picture of something unexplainable with a digital camera, I would trust it. And I hope you wouldn't delete it from your camera just because it's a digital!

Grim, If I were to take a photo that I thought could have been paranormal on a digital camera. I would never post in in the public or present it to anyone that exists outside of my own group. Simply because I couldn't back up my photo.

I know another investigator that has one of an apparition that he took on a digital before he learned that you can't back up evidence on a digital. It is of a woman coming through the door and she has no feet and no eyes. It sounds very cool, I have not seen it. He will never put this on his site or present it to the public as evidence of a ghost. It is probably a fantastic shot but not solid enough of evidence to present.

Then why was he using digital in the first place? And why doesn't Taps use 35 mm? I see Steve using digital and not 35 mm. Why is that then? If Steve is such a big fan of 35mm, why doesn't he use one? I am sure Jason and Grant wouldn't mind a film camera was being used on the show. I am baffled on this one. Dave

[krcguns]

Well, first of all, a parapsychologist will tell you that "ectoplasm" is a ridiculours term. That was just stated to us on Last Thursday's show by Loyd Auerbach who is a very prominent parapsychologist and if you want to hear it from his own mouth just go to www.planetparanormal.com, click on Magick Mind on the left and listen to the archived show. The parapsychologists group that he is a member of (which consists of pretty much all of them) will also tell you that digital is not a viable method of spiritography. Check with him. You see, I consider myself lucky, by being a radio host on one of the largest shows out there, I get to ask the opinion of all the big names in the field and all of them have told me that very same thing. I haven't had one on the show yet that supports digital as a solid medium of evidence.

As for Steve using the digital on the show, yep, he does and he admits it. The part that you may be confused about is the fact that he is not presenting any of those photos as evidence. In order to do that he would have to have a negative.

It is ok that everyone has their own opinion on the matter. It is ok that you had a court case where digital photos were admissible, it is ok that for most people in most situations the courts won't allow it. Nothing is proof of a ghost. I think that people miss that part of the debate. With digital you cannot eliminate the mundane which means that there is no way to get to a paranormal conclusion. It is as simple as that. Go ahead and use digital, use it all you want to, but in this world that is changing and where more people are wanting something to back up the photos submitted by people, eventually you will be asked to back up a shot by someone...then perhaps the point will be made clear.

[damckie]

krcguns, on Apr 16 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

Well, first of all, a parapsychologist will tell you that "ectoplasm" is a ridiculours term. That was just stated to us on Last Thursday's show by Loyd Auerbach who is a very prominent parapsychologist and if you want to hear it from his own mouth just go to www.planetparanormal.com, click on Magick Mind on the left and listen to the archived show. The parapsychologists group that he is a member of (which consists of pretty much all of them) will also tell you that digital is not a viable method of spiritography. Check with him. You see, I consider myself lucky, by being a radio host on one of the largest shows out there, I get to ask the opinion of all the big names in the field and all of them have told me that very same thing. I haven't had one on the show yet that supports digital as a solid medium of evidence.

As for Steve using the digital on the show, yep, he does and he admits it. The part that you may be confused about is the fact that he is not presenting any of those photos as evidence. In order to do that he would have to have a negative.

It is ok that everyone has their own opinion on the matter. It is ok that you had a court case where digital photos were admissible, it is ok that for most people in most situations the courts won't allow it. Nothing is proof of a ghost. I think that people miss that part of the debate. With digital you cannot eliminate the mundane which means that there is no way to get to a paranormal conclusion. It is as simple as that. Go ahead and use digital, use it all you want to, but in this world that is changing and where more people are wanting something to back up the photos submitted by people, eventually you will be asked to back up a shot by someone...then perhaps the point will be made clear.

Thanks for clearing that up. Dave

[Grim Undertakings]

krcguns, on Apr 16 2007, 03:19 AM, said:

Grim, If I were to take a photo that I thought could have been paranormal on a digital camera. I would never post in in the public or present it to anyone that exists outside of my own group. Simply because I couldn't back up my photo.

I know another investigator that has one of an apparition that he took on a digital before he learned that you can't back up evidence on a digital. It is of a woman coming through the door and she has no feet and no eyes. It sounds very cool, I have not seen it. He will never put this on his site or present it to the public as evidence of a ghost. It is probably a fantastic shot but not solid enough of evidence to present.

It is unfortunate that your colleague feels this way because I'm sure it's an excellent photo. He may not be able to back up the picture with a negative but I don't see how you could blame a full formed apparition on pixelization!

I understand that everyone in this discussion has their own opinions, but I feel that we are limiting ourselves as investigators by dismissing digital data. And it still, in the end, comes down to credibility and trust, because like it was mentioned before, the majority of us are hobbyists, at different levels, when it comes to ghost research.

There have been a few pictures submitted here at Ghostvillage which were taken with an analog camera. Even though there were negatives to go along with the pictures the people were still questioned. I'm not saying that we shouldn't scrutinize but sometimes you have to take something for what it is. One example I can think of was Dave and Juliet's man on the bridge (please forgive me if that was a digital picture!). I, personally, trust Dave and Juliet's work. So if they submit a photo of a man on a bridge which they say they have no idea who it is, well then, I believe them. So this is why it doesn't matter to me whether it's a digital or an analog. Sure, analog film can be backed up better with a negative, but there are still those who are going to tell you that your figure is a tree, or a member of your ghost team, or a tombstone, or whatever.

I think what we have to remember here too, in relation to analog vs. digital, is that EVP is a main source of positive data and there is nothing to back that up except for your word. If you really look at it, none of our data is ever air-tight, so why do we bother to try to document ghosts at all? This is why Grim Undertakings approaches things as, "This is what we have, we have no explanation for it, judge for yourself what it is and we welcome feedback".

So, I'm all for digital photography. It makes no difference to me because in the end it still comes down to credibility and trust anyway.

Edited by Grim Undertakings, 16 April 2007 - 10:22 AM.

[krcguns]

Grim, it isn't unfortunate at all really. It is smart. No, you can't say pixelation but what if someone accuses him of photoshopping the photo? Then he has nothign to fight that accusation off. Plus, he has plenty of stuff taken on film that he and his group does put out. You will have to see Children of the Grave when it comes out as their group is in it and they filmed some astounding stuff. Like I stated before, if it all comes down to simply trust and nothing more solid than that, heck I have already proven the existance of ghosts because I have seen one with the naked eye. Now that being said, we can all agree that ghosts do in fact exist without any doubt. Trust me. (not being a smart butt just making a point here)

[leslie_dragonlvr]

Odd statement, I just have to comment on...

KRC, how did "you" prove that ghosts exsist by seeing one with the naked eye?
There is no back up negative of that, so how is that proof?
That statement sounds like your the only one who ever has and your word is proof.

Ummmm........

[cathylj73]

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 16 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Odd statement, I just have to comment on...

KRC, how did "you" prove that ghosts exsist by seeing one with the naked eye?
There is no back up negative of that, so how is that proof?
That statement sounds like your the only one who ever has and your word is proof.

Ummmm........

[Vampchick21]

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 16 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Odd statement, I just have to comment on...

KRC, how did "you" prove that ghosts exsist by seeing one with the naked eye?
There is no back up negative of that, so how is that proof?
That statement sounds like your the only one who ever has and your word is proof.

Ummmm........

I think you missed something in the context of that post. The word 'if'.

krcguns said:

Like I stated before, if it all comes down to simply trust and nothing more solid than that, heck I have already proven the existance of ghosts because I have seen one with the naked eye.

In other words, in the context of the discussion about trust being a defining factor in the evaluation of evidence as stated by Grim Undertakings, krcguns simply said that if that's all there was to it, then it would have already been proven beyond question, using his own experience as an example.

So he's not saying that he proved anything by witnessing the paranormal. Just tried to express how using only trust to evaluate isn't going to cut it. As evidenced by your own question.

[JimDe]

krcguns, on Apr 16 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

Well, first of all, a parapsychologist will tell you that "ectoplasm" is a ridiculours term. That was just stated to us on Last Thursday's show by Loyd Auerbach who is a very prominent parapsychologist and if you want to hear it from his own mouth just go to www.planetparanormal.com, click on Magick Mind on the left and listen to the archived show. The parapsychologists group that he is a member of (which consists of pretty much all of them) will also tell you that digital is not a viable method of spiritography. Check with him. You see, I consider myself lucky, by being a radio host on one of the largest shows out there, I get to ask the opinion of all the big names in the field and all of them have told me that very same thing. I haven't had one on the show yet that supports digital as a solid medium of evidence.

As for Steve using the digital on the show, yep, he does and he admits it. The part that you may be confused about is the fact that he is not presenting any of those photos as evidence. In order to do that he would have to have a negative.

It is ok that everyone has their own opinion on the matter. It is ok that you had a court case where digital photos were admissible, it is ok that for most people in most situations the courts won't allow it. Nothing is proof of a ghost. I think that people miss that part of the debate. With digital you cannot eliminate the mundane which means that there is no way to get to a paranormal conclusion. It is as simple as that. Go ahead and use digital, use it all you want to, but in this world that is changing and where more people are wanting something to back up the photos submitted by people, eventually you will be asked to back up a shot by someone...then perhaps the point will be made clear.

I’ve read that you’ve recently joined the staff at Magick Mind internet radio, congratulations. As for the term ‘ectoplasm’, I personally prefer my own term but they wrote it and then published it in seven languages specifically for the scientific community around the world. Let’s not get stuck on terminology, I think we can determine what they are referring to when they refer to the term ‘ectoplasm’ in consideration of spirit photography.

I’m surprised that as a paranormal investigator you are not familiar with this particular publication (IJP), especially since I see from your website that you are also ‘friends’ with the American Ghost Society which was also credited in the same scientific analysis. As a matter of fact the analysis determined that among the ‘handful of more interesting and well established’ places to find paranormal photography are (in order of appearance) the American Ghost Society, the International Ghost Hunters Society and James DeCaro, that would be me, also a fact. The analysis, which included (their words); ‘Professional and amateur paranormal investigators and investigation groups and societies worldwide’ is in my opinion actually pretty rough on the paranormal community concerning alleged ghost and spirit photographs. The publisher; Parapsychology Foundation, Inc. (established in 1951) saw fit to distribute free copies to the participants they elected to publish in the study, maybe you can borrow one from your friend at the AGS.

I know who Loyd Auerbach is and I respect his opinions (sheepskin), also, as a matter of fact, his opinions are published in the very same chapter of that very same book. He’s also in one of the segments of that same A&E DVD documentary that I mentioned previously as he is investigating a haunted ship (I believe it was called The Hornet). There are also other internationally renowned parapsychology experts and independent investigative experts who render opinions on my material as well as everyone else featured in the documentary; they refer to my work as, ‘reputable’, ‘consistent with a spirit interpretation’ and ‘the real thing’. Most professionals do not put their butt on the line if there is a chance they may suffer credibility issues on a nationally distributed television documentary on the paranormal, credibility is just too important to risk. So I’m pretty sure the point has already been made clear.

This can be a monstrous debate and will most likely never be agreed to by opposing sides, big deal. But, I would like to add that I’m not an ego maniac, nor do I think I’m the only one, these are publicly documented facts and I just happen to have first hand experience and at times I feel responsible to defend them as such. I believe the point of educating is to reveal factual information, and the fact of the matter appears to be that digital equipment is just fine with the scientific community, the paranormal community and the Law. I don’t see the problem as being with the equipment whether it’s digital or analog…because you still need to catch a ghost.

In all seriousness, as was mentioned elsewhere good luck with your new ghost group and procurement of standards for the paranormal community.

JD

[leslie_dragonlvr]

Vampchick21, on Apr 16 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 16 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Odd statement, I just have to comment on...

KRC, how did "you" prove that ghosts exsist by seeing one with the naked eye?
There is no back up negative of that, so how is that proof?
That statement sounds like your the only one who ever has and your word is proof.

Ummmm........

I think you missed something in the context of that post. The word 'if'.

krcguns said:

Like I stated before, if it all comes down to simply trust and nothing more solid than that, heck I have already proven the existance of ghosts because I have seen one with the naked eye.

In other words, in the context of the discussion about trust being a defining factor in the evaluation of evidence as stated by Grim Undertakings, krcguns simply said that if that's all there was to it, then it would have already been proven beyond question, using his own experience as an example.

So he's not saying that he proved anything by witnessing the paranormal. Just tried to express how using only trust to evaluate isn't going to cut it. As evidenced by your own question.

True.....oops. It just reads badly in that sentence. I appologise, it had me thinking where he was going with that.