17 replies to this topic

[JimDe]

Y’know sometimes it’s just too easy...

The abundance of misguided opinions and misinformation is vastly available to the uninitiated in the paranormal community often resulting in confusion and ridicule. Online forums have become a thriving arena for the distribution of these ideas including us here at GV. In a classic case of buyer beware with camps on opposing sides firmly entrenched in their own beliefs, arming oneself with factual knowledge is the surest avenue to success.

Anyone who has provided photographic evidence examined by credible members of the scientific community that resulted in positive findings of spirit activity, just say I.

How about twice? Nationally (USA) and internationally based upon separate examinations several years apart, just say I.

OK,

‘I’ find it intriguing that persons who have never produced positive results of paranormal activity continuously find ways to tell others what they should be using to obtain credible evidence. How can this be? Obviously it can’t, at least not with any type of credible personal experience submitted as a determining factor, and therefore should be considered as ...guesswork.

The same logic holds true for persons of similar achievements (or lack thereof) that feel compelled to inform others what constitutes paranormal activity in photographs. Without having achieved a documented history of credibly substantiated experience, these opinions are and should be considered also as ...guesswork.

On the other hand, positive results have been confirmed by credible experts in the scientific community for several years. These findings have been published and distributed to the scientific community on an international basis. The evidence submitted that resulted in these positive findings were captured using DIGITAL MEDIA.

That should just about cover things ... don’t ya think?

DIGITAL RULES!

[leslie_dragonlvr]

I will agree to this also Jim. You know me.

I also agree that it is guess work for the most part. I have seen some amazing things over the years. Wether it be digital or analog, but more so digital.
Digital needs to be understood by many out on their "investigations", because digital is so sensitive.
Examining findings without distorting them. Looking into all aspects of the picture, without over playing with it in photoshop. Looking at the true picture on a whole. "Testing" all possible mishaps, before making a claim. Being extremely careful with our equipment and knowledgeable of its flaws and ability.
I belong to another paranormal website, where all pictures, EVP and video is highly scrutenized by some excellent people in the profession that share their knowledge and its accepted by all on the boards. These are people who are not out jumping up and down that they got a "ghost". They discuss their findings like true professionals would.

I come to GV and my own site to try and help others understand what it is they may be seeing / hearing. I do not proclaim to be an expert, but I do have a very good understanding of it. I have delt with the paranormal world all my life and have been extensively working with it over 24 years. Its hard to tell people what you do know because you have psychic gifts, which I have only now begun to tell others of what I can do. I only try to put the two together in what is seen and what is possibly paranormal to help others open up and learn from it.
Putting the two worlds together and working with each other together would be the ultimate way to go. There are enough good possibilities of each world to make better use of them in our findings, and then acknowledging them for the better good of the "cause".

We can all run out and pretend we are just like the Ghost Hunters on TV, but there is some reality to this hobbie/profession that must be looked at seriously if we are to gain any credibility and advance.

This running rampedness of "ghost tours" and "ghost hunters" just blows my mind really. It only ends up being mass confusion and more people come into play and it just goes on and on. There is no control any way you may look at it on a whole. There is no working together. Its a world of "Hey, look at my site and all my ghost pictures". "I'm a paranormal investigator", and so forth and so on.
People may think I'm a "bully", but for crying out loud look around at the insanity of this. I try to be honest and straight forward in my opinions, so people will stop and look at the real picture. I'm not out to candy coat it. Nor am I out to make a mockery of it in any way. I only want to help people understand it and learn.

Ok, off my soap box. I hope I made some sense here.

Les

[Vampchick21]

In the end, does it really matter if you use analog or digital when looking for evidence? If you catch something, you catch something. I couldn't care less if it was on the digital camera or 35 mm film. If it's bonafide 'unexplained', that's all that matters.

Use what you know and feel comfortable with and understand. The battle over which is better is, in the end, pointless and honestly irksome.

[peepers]

JimDe, on Nov 11 2007, 12:32 AM, said:

On the other hand, positive results have been confirmed by credible experts in the scientific community for several years. These findings have been published and distributed to the scientific community on an international basis. The evidence submitted that resulted in these positive findings were captured using DIGITAL MEDIA.

That should just about cover things ... don’t ya think?

DIGITAL RULES!

YO.....................

[Vampchick21]

Just out of curiousity.

Are we now supposed to toss out and totally dismiss every single pre-digital photograph with unexplained anomolies in them and every single film photograph with the same just because they weren't taken on digital?

And I do mean every image taken that has NOT been proven to be hoax or proven to be something entirely natural or proven to be developing errors. I'm sure everyone here can think of at least on 'pre-digital' photograph that has stood the test. I'm thinking of a few right now.

Quote

On the other hand, positive results have been confirmed by credible experts in the scientific community for several years. These findings have been published and distributed to the scientific community on an international basis. The evidence submitted that resulted in these positive findings were captured using DIGITAL MEDIA.

Jim, I'm curious. Could you link me or give me the publication information on these findings? I have access to a research library and several University Libraries. I personally would like to see these for myself, since I have not yet come across them. (given that I've never sat down and done a search)


Again, the bottom line. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is in your photograph is not fake, is not of natural orgin, is not a camera fault or developing error, it ain't gonna matter if you took it with 35 mm or digital. It is what it is.

[peepers]

Vampchick21, on Nov 11 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Could you link me or give me the publication information on these findings?

Here is a good place to start........

http://www.ghostvill..._1954/index.php?

.........it is the latest of many erudite entries that span the realsm of digital media in the pursuits of scientific studies of the paranormal......... there are plenty more of these scholarly and accredited essays located in David Roundtree's blog archive, so you won't be bored when you've finished this first one.... he also provides links of journals and other resources for further research through out his articles......... and the best part about it is that it's located right here at GHOSTVILLAGE.......

[Vampchick21]

Thank you. Having an incredibly full plate researching the early 6th century in England with it's multiple theories regarding the end of the Roman administration and the incoming Saxons, Jutes and Angles, in addition to writing 50,000 words over 30 days and knitting Christmas presents for both sides of the family, as well as work responsibilities in major projects, I haven't had the time to browse through every single area of the Ghostvillage website.

[peepers]

No prob.... fortunately, David's blog just happens to fit nicely into my vast tenuous and diverse musical studies: performance, historical research, composition theory, music theory, tonalities, vocal pedagogy/anatomy and physiology, etc, etc.....

........and it isn't hard to find.... he updates frequently.... just click on blogs and there it is!!! ....which leads me into agreement with Jim: DIGITAL RULES!!!!!.......

Vampchick21, on Nov 11 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

Thank you. Having an incredibly full plate researching the early 6th century in England with it's multiple theories regarding the end of the Roman administration and the incoming Saxons, Jutes and Angles, in addition to writing 50,000 words over 30 days and knitting Christmas presents for both sides of the family, as well as work responsibilities in major projects, I haven't had the time to browse through every single area of the Ghostvillage website.

[Vampchick21]

I'm still holding to the fact that it really doesn't matter if your evidence is caught on the latest and greatest digital whatsit or on Great Grandpa's battered Brownie camera. If it is proven to be an anomoly, then that's that.

Cause let me tell you, Jane and John Q Public aren't that particular if the EVP of Aunt Polly is caught on a factory fresh analog tape or the $800 digital recorder.

[aloha_spirit]

Learn and understand the limitations of the equipment you use. Nothing is 100% error-free 100% of the time.

Low-grade digital cameras pixelate images. Same thing can happen if you use "digital zoom" instead of "optical zoom".

With film cameras, you must be careful of double exposures, and anomalies resulting from the development process.

Both digital and analog cameras are prone to showing dust, moisture, smoke, insects, etc, as something paranormal.

All sound recorders can pick up the noise of internal moving parts. Digital recorders take x number of samples per second, so you're missing small fragments. However, most people digitize their analog recordings to analyze them, so I don't know if the loss is significant enough to merit debate.

I"ll close with my first statement: know the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment.

[nnyprs]

Just my 2 cents...I agree with most everything I read here. Bravo Jim.


In the end, no matter what you use to "capture" your data, it will always be your word against their's. If I take the world's best picture of a ghost, or record the clearest audio, and I have it all documented, videoed from several different angles, do ABSOLUTELY everything in my power to ensure that it is not tainted in anyway, some skeptic will just find anything he can think of to tell you that you faked it...only because he was not present. This truly is the hardest thing that TRUE paranormal researchers will ever have to overcome.

[juliet_keller]

Vampchick21, on Nov 11 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Just out of curiousity.

Are we now supposed to toss out and totally dismiss every single pre-digital photograph with unexplained anomolies in them and every single film photograph with the same just because they weren't taken on digital?

And I do mean every image taken that has NOT been proven to be hoax or proven to be something entirely natural or proven to be developing errors. I'm sure everyone here can think of at least on 'pre-digital' photograph that has stood the test. I'm thinking of a few right now.

Quote

On the other hand, positive results have been confirmed by credible experts in the scientific community for several years. These findings have been published and distributed to the scientific community on an international basis. The evidence submitted that resulted in these positive findings were captured using DIGITAL MEDIA.

Jim, I'm curious. Could you link me or give me the publication information on these findings? I have access to a research library and several University Libraries. I personally would like to see these for myself, since I have not yet come across them. (given that I've never sat down and done a search)


Again, the bottom line. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is in your photograph is not fake, is not of natural orgin, is not a camera fault or developing error, it ain't gonna matter if you took it with 35 mm or digital. It is what it is.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[damckie]

We use both 35mm and dig. I am starting to like 35 mm a little bit more then the dig. One of the main reasons is that the pixels get to out of wake when viewing(zooming in). They tend to brainwash some people when viewing the zoomed in pic. Also it seems that the 35mm pics come out a little bit more clearer than the dig. I have a expensive 35 mm and dig. and I think that the pics coming from my 35 mm are much clearer and brighter than the dig. camera. And as far as the negitive thing goes, it's all good to have. Dave

Edited by damckie, 12 November 2007 - 04:34 PM.

[JimDe]

The links as well as a discussion of the content have been posted on GV for some time (though I imagine some would just as soon forget about it). Personal copies of said content have also been offered and distributed to several members of GV, any one of whom reserves the option to dispute or verify my statements at any time they feel inclined to do so (...not intended as a challenge). The links are also available from my personal website: Spiritography.com (...not intended as a plug).

However, in order to accommodate the request:

Parapsychology Foundation
International Journal of Parapsychology
50th Anniversary Edition (2001)
http://www.psi-mart....?Id=0&IdArt=390

Paranormal Documentary (Mediums)
CBS News Productions
Distributed by the A&E Network (2005)
Featuring the Director of the VERITAS Research Program, University of Arizona: Dr. Gary E. Schwartz and also appearing is the Executive Director of the Parapsychology Foundation
http://store.aetv.co....jhtml?id=74704


Ghost Photographs:

I’m not anti film, but I am pro digital.

I too am aware of the famous photographs. My thoughts on this are simple, these images are readily available to any researchers and/or investigators, however, they remain unexplained, and none have been confirmed as being authentic spirit photographs. That being the case, I don’t have a problem discussing them for what they are... alleged spirit photographs.

On a lighter side:

Thanks ny, I absolutely appreciate where you’re coming from. I think about overcoming that skeptical situation often, and depending on the situation (hypothetically) it might go something like this:

Some Skeptic: “It’s a hoax. – There’s no such thing as ghosts. - Do over.”
JD: “Go away. – I believe you’re wrong – ...and you’re an idiot.“

or,

Some Skeptic: “Fraud! – It’s a natural phenomenon. – Do over.”
JD: “Go away. – It is natural phenomenon – No do over’s ...and you’re still an idiot.“

...sorry about that (jk), (it was just too easy).

Seriously, I appreciate the support, suggestions and opinions...

Happy Hunting

JD

[Barek Halfhand]

JimDe, on Nov 11 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

Y’know sometimes it’s just too easy...

The abundance of misguided opinions and misinformation is vastly available to the uninitiated in the paranormal community often resulting in confusion and ridicule. Online forums have become a thriving arena for the distribution of these ideas including us here at GV. In a classic case of buyer beware with camps on opposing sides firmly entrenched in their own beliefs, arming oneself with factual knowledge is the surest avenue to success.

Anyone who has provided photographic evidence examined by credible members of the scientific community that resulted in positive findings of spirit activity, just say I.

How about twice? Nationally (USA) and internationally based upon separate examinations several years apart, just say I.

OK,

‘I’ find it intriguing that persons who have never produced positive results of paranormal activity continuously find ways to tell others what they should be using to obtain credible evidence. How can this be? Obviously it can’t, at least not with any type of credible personal experience submitted as a determining factor, and therefore should be considered as ...guesswork.

The same logic holds true for persons of similar achievements (or lack thereof) that feel compelled to inform others what constitutes paranormal activity in photographs. Without having achieved a documented history of credibly substantiated experience, these opinions are and should be considered also as ...guesswork.

On the other hand, positive results have been confirmed by credible experts in the scientific community for several years. These findings have been published and distributed to the scientific community on an international basis. The evidence submitted that resulted in these positive findings were captured using DIGITAL MEDIA.

That should just about cover things ... don’t ya think?

DIGITAL RULES!

I have at least a half a dozen photos that I would like to have scrutinized by "the scientific community"...as I feel that none of us are really qualified to make the determination....b