146 replies to this topic

[Shawn333]

Thanks for the clarification 73shovel. I agree with you that things captured on digital shouldn't be outright dismissed as irrelevant. No need to keep going over the arguments, I think the topic that Jimde and Leslie brought up is more interesting and more worth the discussion. ' People and not the camera.' Do you guys or anyone else feel like ghosts reveal themselves for you and manifest for the camera? What can a novice like myself who isn't sensitive do to get better results?

[JimDe]

Shawn333, on Aug 15 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

Well, let me clarify myself then. We might not actually disagree that much. I do believe many people have captured paranormal things on film. I believe amateurs have and people not even trying to have. And I believe that many people who are researchers and IN the scientific community have. I just mean that the larger scientific community outside of paranormal researchers, don't even take the time to look at such things. There's probably a lot of things that the scientific community involved in this stuff takes as authentic. And there are numerous professionals on University campuses and labs all over the world that are doing good scientific research on these things. Unfortunately these folks are not generally considered to be part of mainstream science by scientists in other fields. I don't think that's really arguable, am I wrong? Paranormal research certainly isn't as highly esteemed as say physics and geology. Some skeptics in the scientific community still consider it a pseudoscience. So I assume you mean that credible scientists that are doing paranormal research have taken spiritography very seriously. That's true and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just mean nothing has ever been considered as "proof" among a majority of the scientists across all fields. You always have the skeptics who won't even take time to look into things, and people who will try to come up with another theory no matter how good the pic is. So you're right, a big part of the scientific community takes these things seriously. But that part is still somewhat on the fringes and not quite mainstream yet.

Shawn – thanks for your clarification… I agree. I also believe that there have been many isolated incidents of (paranormal photography) that are legitimate. I’ve seen some here at (GV) as well as other websites, books and television. I usually discount orbs although I do consider (orbs) to be a legitimate paranormal phenomenon, but unless supplemented with other anomalous images of a higher nature… (Orbs) in and of themselves are all mundane.

Morbius made a similar point a few posts back concerning groups of people that are just not going to budge on their beliefs or opinions; I imagine the scientific community on a whole responds in similar fashion amongst themselves regarding parapsychologists. But they (parapsychologists) are a group of scientists that have the paranormal ‘bug’ and attempt to reach an understanding regarding the nature of the beast. (can you blame them… look at us.)

I also believe that in order to maintain credibility amongst their peers, they judge with a harsh hand. There are people all over the world claiming paranormal abilities or possessing evidence of ghosts/spirits, but very few have met the standard that they consider to be authentic. I can only speak for myself, and I considered it an honor and a most humbling experience to be included among the few.

As far as achieving better results; I believe some natural ability is necessary in order to capture something other than (orbs). I also believe that by seeking out ghosts/spirits you draw them in… and you need to recognize that you will also be picking up their thoughts; being cognizant of the changes in your own thought patterns is a good indication that they’re closer than you think.

Btw after several cups of much needed coffee this morning I thoroughly enjoyed your posts.

JD

[Oniix]

Good post, JimDe.

[Shawn333]

Ah coffee! The cure for all things in the morning. Thanks Jim, I appreciate that. Thanks for the great post too.

[73Shovel]

Shawn333, on Aug 15 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

JimDe, on Aug 15 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

I would like to address one point in your original post that I take issue with… that being – 'No one has ever captured anything that was taken seriously by the scientific community with either type'. I have to disagree with that (obviously).

…

Well, let me clarify myself then. We might not actually disagree that much. I do believe many people have captured paranormal things on film. I believe amateurs have and people not even trying to have. And I believe that many people who are researchers and IN the scientific community have. I just mean that the larger scientific community outside of paranormal researchers, don't even take the time to look at such things. There's probably a lot of things that the scientific community involved in this stuff takes as authentic. And there are numerous professionals on University campuses and labs all over the world that are doing good scientific research on these things. Unfortunately these folks are not generally considered to be part of mainstream science by scientists in other fields. I don't think that's really arguable, am I wrong? Paranormal research certainly isn't as highly esteemed as say physics and geology. Some skeptics in the scientific community still consider it a pseudoscience. So I assume you mean that credible scientists that are doing paranormal research have taken spiritography very seriously. That's true and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just mean nothing has ever been considered as "proof" among a majority of the scientists across all fields. You always have the skeptics who won't even take time to look into things, and people who will try to come up with another theory no matter how good the pic is. So you're right, a big part of the scientific community takes these things seriously. But that part is still somewhat on the fringes and not quite mainstream yet.

Shawn...another good Will Rodgers quote sums it up: There are three kinds of men... The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.

Thanks for the good posts!

73

[GhostCat]

I have really never set out to "capture" anything. However, a couple of years ago, my husband and I went on a tour of the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River MA. I had a regular camera, my husband had a digital. The tour guide was on the couch and pretending to be dead in the same position Andrew Borden was found so we could take photos. We were a small group and only one other person had a camera besides us. I took the first photo with a regular camera. My husband took one with his digital, I would say about 10 seconds after mine, lol, we were having trouble with "Andrew" keeping his eyes shut. When I got my film developed, there was this "misty image" sitting next to the tour guide on the couch. I posted this pic on here, several have told me it is a "vortex". Anyway, my husbands digital photo taken 10 seconds or so after mine, did show the mist, much lighter, and it had moved and was not next to the tour guide like in my photo, but was floating over the top of the couch and past his head. Both our cameras captured it, my regular camera showed it more than my husband's digital one. Even though 10 sec. difference, my regular camera really showed that image more.

[leslie_dragonlvr]

The manifestation was disapating in that 10 sec span. You said it had moved also. Thats the reason it showed lighter in the digital.

I would almost bet that if they were a second apart, they would be almost the same. Those were lucky shots to say the least. But I would find this is the reason and not the difference in the cameras.

Just my 2 cents on that one...

Les

[Moregan]

I think so as well. It's probably the time span between the two pictures and not the type of camera...
@ GhostCat: could you please post the link to the picture?

[earth_spirit]

Quote

Shawn...another good Will Rodgers quote sums it up: There are three kinds of men... The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.

Thanks for the good posts!

73

You owe me a new keyboard, 73 . . . 'cause I sprayed coffee all over mine after reading that It reminded me of my youth, and the kid down the road who did exactly what you described.

But seriously, folks, thanks for keeping it on topic and being "most excellent" to each other, as Ted "Theodore" Logan and his friend, Bill S. Preston, Esq. would say

[73Shovel]

earth_spirit, on Aug 29 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

Quote

Shawn...another good Will Rodgers quote sums it up: There are three kinds of men... The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.

Thanks for the good posts!

73

You owe me a new keyboard, 73 . . . 'cause I sprayed coffee all over mine after reading that It reminded me of my youth, and the kid down the road who did exactly what you described.

But seriously, folks, thanks for keeping it on topic and being "most excellent" to each other, as Ted "Theodore" Logan and his friend, Bill S. Preston, Esq. would say

And you owe me for dry cleaning ...cause I did the same thing to my shirt as I read your post! Sorry to stray, but had to reply...delete at will!

Edited by 73Shovel, 29 August 2007 - 06:33 PM.

[earth_spirit]

We'll call it even then

Delete? No way . . . this is a great soapbox to remind everyone that no matter what kind of camera you're using--film or digital--always get permission before hunting spooks, because the property owners are usually more than willing to point out things (like electric fences) that can pose a hazard

[john8750]

Some great discussion here.
I think the term analog does not fit. Should be stated ' digital verses film.
A good question, why can photos show things not visable in normal sight?
Also, why would a ghost look like an alive person? Is that just what we can think it should look like?

I know very little about this. So IMO please.