146 replies to this topic

[Oniix]

Read his groups web site. He pretty much dislikes them.

Dang!!!! I missed one hell of a debate!

I fully stand behind Vamp's stance on this entire debate. I've screamed and yelled about similar things as Vamp mentions in terms of coming up with guidelines, fool proof ideas and the like before.

Perhaps it truly is time to stop debating about both and find a comprimise that works with digital.

I am sure there were those that though the automobile was the most insane thing there every heard of as they kept on "trucking" on their horse.

No offense at all intended to 35mm btw.

There has to be a way to meet in the middle on this.

I agree also with Jim's stance, that we are not within the scientific community, but this does not stop us in THIS community, from coming up with new ideas to better fit in newer technology, and take advantage of it, no matter the media or form.

Someone doesn't like the like the term Ectoplasm, I don't like the term poltergiests, I think it is misleading.

Rewrite the dang books then!

come on! Come up with some ideas!

Edited by LifeafterDeath, 21 June 2007 - 03:38 PM.

[~Morbius~]

Greetings all-

This is my first post, here. yep- I'm new.... well, actually, I've been used before... (sorry). As I 'get the hang' of this forum, and those who haunt it (pun intended)... let me just say that if I'm repeating or bouncing something which has already been discussed to death, or that has been brought up after the post I'm about to quote and discuss... forgive me.

Anyway... here we go:

R.L.crowley, on Apr 18 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

A memory stick does not show anything, i can take a picture, edit it the way i want to, and put it back onto the memory stick. But the pictures themselves show something. When you take a picture with a digital camera, the exact date and time of the shutter-release are recorded to your image file, along with many other bits of "meta data." and every time you take a picture, your camera will also save information about your exposure time, f-stop setting, ISO, focal length, and so on.

-Roger-

The time and date stamp on a digital still, video camera, or for that matter, the time and date set in a computer, can be altered... then the photo/video/audio-file... whatever- can be taken (or created/saved).... then, the time and date can be reset so that's it's correct... and that's how one can easily get around the time/date stamp on a digital photo or other media. Same is true when creating files on a computer... change the clock/date... save the created work... then change the time/date back.

Someone earlier said something about being able to varify files against a person's computer files... well yeah... but which computer? With enough 'know-how', any kind of security can be gotten around.

Now I'm no expert... but data retreival on a computer drive can be done a lot of the time (esp. if you just click "delete"... but my understanding is that if the drive has been formatted (wiped clean)... there's literally nothing left to restore... it's like 'new'. One could then reload certain files... or all files, except whatever you want to be seen as 'never having been there'... and it'll look normal.

Again... I could be missing something... but- I have done this with photo files, and with audio/video files (checking to see how valid time/date stamps actually are, for my own copyright purposes). And my computer/network tech has demonstrated this to me, and claims he (or anyone who knows) can do just about anything with a computer drive.

Concerning photos (either digital or analog (film))... what I've read here so far, is addressing 'photoshop-type' alterations for the purpose of producing fakes. Has anyone brought up the old photographic effect from the 1800's (I can't think of the name at the moment), whereby a sheet of glass if placed in front of the lens at a 45-degree angle... and by controlling the lighting conditions, a fully transparent, ghost-like image can be produced? (The main subject 'a' is directly in front of the camera... the secondary 'ghost' subject 'b' is placed 90-degrees off-axis, in a darkened area. When the light-level on the 'b' subject is brought up, it produces the transparent image of 'b' on top of the 'a' subject). I wish I could think of the name of this fairly common effect... it's like "something's-ghost"... like (to just use a name) "Fletcher's Ghost". I think it was named for the 19th century photographer who first did it, whatever the actual name for it is.

Anyway- the point is... there's more 'old-school' methods of performing trickery, which many 'computer-generation' people may not even be aware of. And some of these methods, when done well, are dang-hard to detect, especially since, in recent years, so many 'skeptics' have been on TV shows, showing how they're done... and more- what gives them away.

I started 'investigating' paranormal stuff, mainly for my own 'piece of mind', after a couple of personal experiences, which science just could not explain. In my 'exploration', I went to Waverly Hills Sanatorium on an investigation. I wasn't expecting to see, hear, or experience anything... and the group I was with were all very well manered... no joking around... everyone pretty seroius. I was disappointed when I left... kinda hoping to have had something... anything happen. When I got home, I started reviewing all of the video, photos, and audio. I captured nothing on video or still photos... but the audio... there were three EVP's which astounded me. Two of those were of a very loud child, making bored 'kid noises' like "OoooOOoooOoooooohhhhh".... over and over. And these were in the midst of our group walking and talking... and no one heard anything like this... and on the tape, it's so loud, it's down-right freaky.... I mean, it's not an 'iffy' thing at all. Now- I don't expect anyone to believe it... to take my word for it. I would only believe it myself, if I were actually there, and experienced it. But that's just it... I was there, and DID experience it... first hand.

So- to agree with all of you who have said that ya really can't provide proof... you really can't. If you wanna convince someone, they just about have to experience it, first-hand. But- if you don't at least try by continuing the attempt, you'll never capture anything.

Ok... I'll shut up now... and sorry to have 'run long', or stepped on toes.

[TheTechie]

Y'all make a lot of good points and I agree with a lot of what has been said. I couldn't say anything better than whats already been said. Skeptics will likely always be skeptics and even if you show them the pictures, along with documentation and the negatives to back them up, you're not likely to change their mind. One of my former co-workers was skeptical about pretty much everything I'm a firm believer in and nothing I could say or show him would dent his armor of skepticism.

I'm a complete beginner, but I've always used film, except for the first ghost hunt I went on, but my friend had a disposable camera and I had my digicam. Even though most of the hunts we've been on are for our own enlightenment, we've always used film. I do have a nice digicam, but I'd probably only use it to take pictures to share with my friends who think I'm nuts for hanging out in a cemetery in the middle of the night. You never know what the camera is gonna capture and if its something really fabulous, I want the negatives to back-up my testimony sworn on a stack of bibles or whatever the "skeptics" want me to swear on... even though they still wouldn't believe me. I know I've missed at least one prime opportunity to take a picture, but at the time, I standing with my jaw on the ground frozen in shock and amazement of what I was hearing in front of me and probably couldn't have taken a picture if I wanted to... not to mention the spirit was probably not in the mood to have its picture taken.

[JimDe]

Allright… in my opinion digital vs. film or digital vs. analog has never been an issue. Spirit Photography is 99% SPIRIT and 1% PHOTOGRAPHY. So, let’s be reasonable about this and approach the subject logically. Paranormal activity in the 21st century is being recorded primarily on digital devices, so get over it. Should it matter that the digital format has provided as much if not more scientifically compelling evidence concerning alleged ghostly phenomena than film has? Not to me.

Film has been around for 15 decades and no one has been able to come forward and say ‘I got one’. Discount fraud, deception and inconclusive; IMHO film has not produced a flat out photograph of spit. I’m no scientist but after 150 years I think it might be time to try a different camera. (an anomaly or an inclusive image is not a ghost, as for the negative; so far they’ve substantiated nothing so why this compulsion to have one).

And of course I agree no ones word is ever going to be good enough even if you swear to speak the truth on a stack of Bibles, but what about on a stack of dynamite. I believe most people concerned with the legitimacy of spirit photographs will not be concerned over the format of the media, rather it’s the authenticity of the phenomenon occurring in that photograph is what matters. Isn’t it?

Ok... I'll shut up too... and sorry to have 'run long', or stepped on toes.

…whatever

[krcguns]

Here is just something to think about where digital vs. analog is concerned. Weigh it out and see which is better. I don't think that many people actually think of it this way...

Have you ever seen an artists rendition of a court hearing? You know the drawings of so and so on the stand testifying and the judge and jury are sitting there...it is a drawing of a moment in time that has taken place in the court room. Is it accurate? Most likely it is pretty close. Can it be considered as actual evidence of what was going on? No, of course not and there isn't anyone that would consider what was drawn as true evidence of anything at all. Why then, do we consider the "artists rendition" from a digital camera as evidence? It is a lense looking at something, sending it to a program and asking it to build an image of what it saw. Is it an exact capture of what is in front of it? It is close but it is not always exact. It is an interpretation just like the guy drawing the court proceedings.

Is a 35mm the same thing? No, it is an actual capture of that moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the debate should be renamed to: Actual Capture vs. computer program creation.

Oh, and someone asked about what I thought of orbs? I think that most of the evidence presented of orbs is simply dust or other mundane things causing it. I do know in my own mind that there are paranormal orbs. I was unsure until Feb. 2006 when my self and my team captured an orb that manifests into a shadow. That video showed me the truth about orbs.

[~Morbius~]

JimDe, on Jul 29 2007, 04:00 AM, said:

<snip>
Film has been around for 15 decades and no one has been able to come forward and say ‘I got one’. Discount fraud, deception and inconclusive; IMHO film has not produced a flat out photograph of spit. I’m no scientist but after 150 years I think it might be time to try a different camera. (an anomaly or an inclusive image is not a ghost, as for the negative; so far they’ve substantiated nothing so why this compulsion to have one).
<snip>

As long as 'film' has been around (be it still photographs, or movies), one very important issue to remember: .... since paranormal events are impossible to predict, they do not follow any schedule, or punch a timeclock... it is an issue to be able to set-up bulky and primative (by today's standards) still or movie cameras in time to actually catch the phenomena... at least, up until around the 60's (+/-) (regarding movie cameras). Certainly, motion picture cams were available prior to that, but they were largely pro-grade, and not available to the general public, especially due to price. Even in the 'super-8' days, which is the 1960's equivavlent of today's camcorder, the quality was poor at best, and lighting was another issue. IR outside of the lab was unheard of, so bulky and expensive lighting rigs were required for anything less than daylight-shots. In the 'time is money' world, producers and studios were not usually willing to spend the money for 'ghost-hunts', and such things were considered widely to be BS.

During the era where film WAS the only media, there were very few ways to verify or debunk the authenticity of still photos or films, without requiring an 'experts' opinion. And frequently, one expert's opinion was a good as anothers... plus- in those days, few experts wanted to be associated with the paranormal, as a matter of reputation.

In contrast, with video, there are ways to examine the authenticity of the master videos, to tell whether or not the tapes are second or third generation, and if any effects have been added electronically, or by CG methods.

[~Morbius~]

krcguns, on Jul 29 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

<snip>
Have you ever seen an artists rendition of a court hearing? You know the drawings of so and so on the stand testifying and the judge and jury are sitting there...it is a drawing of a moment in time that has taken place in the court room. Is it accurate? Most likely it is pretty close. Can it be considered as actual evidence of what was going on? No, of course not and there isn't anyone that would consider what was drawn as true evidence of anything at all. Why then, do we consider the "artists rendition" from a digital camera as evidence? It is a lense looking at something, sending it to a program and asking it to build an image of what it saw. Is it an exact capture of what is in front of it? It is close but it is not always exact. It is an interpretation just like the guy drawing the court proceedings.

Is a 35mm the same thing? No, it is an actual capture of that moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the debate should be renamed to: Actual Capture vs. computer program creation.
<snip>

However... video (and film) is accepted as evidence in courts of law. As a matter of fact, banks, convenience stores, and even dash-cams in police cars are the source of 'evidence' routinely accepted by courts of law. If the authenticity is called into question, video experts are called-in (sometimes on both sides). Remember the foundation of U.S. law... "Beyond any reasonable doubt". I think that too often, paranormal claims, backed with film or video evidence, are not given the same "Beyond reasonable doubt" consideration. I'd wager that faking ghosts has been practiced all the way back to the very first cameras... and these days, with the advent of PC's and all sorts of software, people are experimenting with ways of faking ghosts (as opposed to faking murders or robberies). But again... experts have the knowledge and equipment and programs to analyze and detect such fakes. Just as spammers are constantly developing new ways around spam-filters... the developers of spam-filters are divising ways to detect the new methods spammer use. it's the same thing for video technology... (and all technology, for that matter).

Video can be manipulated and altered... but video anaysis can determine whether or not is has been. Of course, you need the master media (tape(s) or DVD(s)). Editing or modification leave telltail signatures which are just about impossible to hide from an expert.

We're still faced with the stigma of some experts and government officials who do not wish to be associated with 'paranormal stuff', which would or could stain their reputations. Unless and until science declares ghosts to be real, I doubt that stigma is going to disappear anytime soon.

Edited by ~Morbius~, 29 July 2007 - 11:41 AM.

[JimDe]

krcguns, on Jul 29 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

Here is just something to think about where digital vs. analog is concerned. Weigh it out and see which is better. I don't think that many people actually think of it this way...

Have you ever seen an artists rendition of a court hearing? You know the drawings of so and so on the stand testifying and the judge and jury are sitting there...it is a drawing of a moment in time that has taken place in the court room. Is it accurate? Most likely it is pretty close. Can it be considered as actual evidence of what was going on? No, of course not and there isn't anyone that would consider what was drawn as true evidence of anything at all. Why then, do we consider the "artists rendition" from a digital camera as evidence? It is a lense looking at something, sending it to a program and asking it to build an image of what it saw. Is it an exact capture of what is in front of it? It is close but it is not always exact. It is an interpretation just like the guy drawing the court proceedings.

Is a 35mm the same thing? No, it is an actual capture of that moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the debate should be renamed to: Actual Capture vs. computer program creation.

Oh, and someone asked about what I thought of orbs? I think that most of the evidence presented of orbs is simply dust or other mundane things causing it. I do know in my own mind that there are paranormal orbs. I was unsure until Feb. 2006 when my self and my team captured an orb that manifests into a shadow. That video showed me the truth about orbs.

I’ll tell ya, I really liked your other suggestion to rename this thread;
‘scrutinizable evidence vs. the scruples of the presenter’ a little better…
I find it difficult to take this seriously but I would imagine the reason many people do not ‘think of it that way…’ is because it’s a ridiculous notion to equate digital photography with drawings. Do you really believe the stuff that you’re spreading? Is this part of the standard criteria stemming from that new ghost group consortium we heard about previously or is it strictly the professional opinion of NMPI?

BTW that video on the NMPI website, the one titled, ‘Yes, you heard me right… manifestation from orb to apparition…’ is that the one that reveals the truth about orbs?

Y’know, I think if you want to promote another startup internet radio show which I’m betting is full of little gems like those, maybe you could turn down the volume on that flashing advertising banner you got goin’ on there. Some of us are trying to have a conversation…

[JimDe]

...thanks.

[73Shovel]

krcguns, on Jul 29 2007, 07:16 AM, said:

Here is just something to think about where digital vs. analog is concerned. Weigh it out and see which is better. I don't think that many people actually think of it this way...

Have you ever seen an artists rendition of a court hearing? You know the drawings of so and so on the stand testifying and the judge and jury are sitting there...it is a drawing of a moment in time that has taken place in the court room. Is it accurate? Most likely it is pretty close. Can it be considered as actual evidence of what was going on? No, of course not and there isn't anyone that would consider what was drawn as true evidence of anything at all. Why then, do we consider the "artists rendition" from a digital camera as evidence? It is a lense looking at something, sending it to a program and asking it to build an image of what it saw. Is it an exact capture of what is in front of it? It is close but it is not always exact. It is an interpretation just like the guy drawing the court proceedings.

Is a 35mm the same thing? No, it is an actual capture of that moment in time. Nothing more, nothing less. I think that the debate should be renamed to: Actual Capture vs. computer program creation.

Oh, and someone asked about what I thought of orbs? I think that most of the evidence presented of orbs is simply dust or other mundane things causing it. I do know in my own mind that there are paranormal orbs. I was unsure until Feb. 2006 when my self and my team captured an orb that manifests into a shadow. That video showed me the truth about orbs.

krcguns,

Are you saying that Orbs are real, now that you captured something that was an actual paranormal experience?

Do you believe that the method of capture played a significant role?

73

[krcguns]

73Shovel, on Jul 30 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

krcguns,

Are you saying that Orbs are real, now that you captured something that was an actual paranormal experience?

Do you believe that the method of capture played a significant role?

73

First of all thank you for the intelligent and actual question...

I have no choice but believe that orbs are real. Do I believe that all of the so called "evidence" shlubbed around the internet is real? No, of course not. I do believe that since this was captured on scrutinizable film, it is a much better capture than on something digital that cannot be checked out by an outside source. What I mean by this is that I have actual tangible evidence that shows that what was captured on the film actually occurred in front of the camera as opposed to being subject to video editing without any substantiation of it actually happening. I think that digital stuff can capture the paranormal but it is in no way able to be used as "proof" since it cannot in any way be scrutinized.

[JimDe]

~Morbius~, on Jul 29 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

As long as 'film' has been around (be it still photographs, or movies), one very important issue to remember: .... since paranormal events are impossible to predict, they do not follow any schedule, or punch a timeclock... it is an issue to be able to set-up bulky and primative (by today's standards) still or movie cameras in time to actually catch the phenomena... at least, up until around the 60's (+/-) (regarding movie cameras). Certainly, motion picture cams were available prior to that, but they were largely pro-grade, and not available to the general public, especially due to price. Even in the 'super-8' days, which is the 1960's equivavlent of today's camcorder, the quality was poor at best, and lighting was another issue. IR outside of the lab was unheard of, so bulky and expensive lighting rigs were required for anything less than daylight-shots. In the 'time is money' world, producers and studios were not usually willing to spend the money for 'ghost-hunts', and such things were considered widely to be BS.

During the era where film WAS the only media, there were very few ways to verify or debunk the authenticity of still photos or films, without requiring an 'experts' opinion. And frequently, one expert's opinion was a good as anothers... plus- in those days, few experts wanted to be associated with the paranormal, as a matter of reputation.

In contrast, with video, there are ways to examine the authenticity of the master videos, to tell whether or not the tapes are second or third generation, and if any effects have been added electronically, or by CG methods.

Interesting points, I agree that the predictability factor is an obvious issue, especially since paranormal occurrences in any recorded format have proven to be scientifically acceptable in very few cases. These days experts that can discern technical alterations or manipulations stemming from any media device or the event they record, it’s done almost everyday.

[JimDe]

LifeafterDeath, on Jun 21 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Read his groups web site. He pretty much dislikes them.

Dang!!!! I missed one hell of a debate!

I fully stand behind Vamp's stance on this entire debate. I've screamed and yelled about similar things as Vamp mentions in terms of coming up with guidelines, fool proof ideas and the like before.

Perhaps it truly is time to stop debating about both and find a comprimise that works with digital.

I am sure there were those that though the automobile was the most insane thing there every heard of as they kept on "trucking" on their horse.

No offense at all intended to 35mm btw.

There has to be a way to meet in the middle on this.

I agree also with Jim's stance, that we are not within the scientific community, but this does not stop us in THIS community, from coming up with new ideas to better fit in newer technology, and take advantage of it, no matter the media or form.

Someone doesn't like the like the term Ectoplasm, I don't like the term poltergiests, I think it is misleading.

Rewrite the dang books then!

come on! Come up with some ideas!

I can see a middle ground: I wouldn’t want to be accused of being an unreasonable individual. I’m not trying to convert people (or sell) digital cameras (or anything else) to anyone. If someone feels that film cameras are necessary to provide quality evidence of paranormal occurrences to the scientific community, then go for it. But know this; digital media has been embraced by the scientific community. As a matter of fact, they welcome, support and encourage the use of new technologies, specifically -Digital Media- in the field of paranormal research and exploration. Of course I wouldn’t expect anyone to take mine or anyone’s word on that, read it yourself (I’m sure many have). So when someone tries to rip digital cameras and evidence concerning paranormal phenomena, you (we) can be informed with facts and not a load of someone’s BS.

Now about that middle ground, no offence intended here, but it sounds too me that someone is trying to sell someone else the Brooklyn Bridge. I personally feel that film media die-hards should provide the same level of scientific support regarding paranormal photography that digital has provided. Where is it?

I think whoever said it first said it best; ‘put up or shut up’.

[~Morbius~]

This is kind of a 'non-issue', at this point... and I meant to mention it during one of my earlier posts... but for the duration of the summer, I only have 3 working brain-cells left... and they are on 8-hour shifts... (and one called-in sick)

.... anyway... 35mm film (as in movies), used to be the top-notch film format, until 70mm (and nevermind or video projection formats in the theaters, these days)... but even 16mm was pretty much limited to industrial-grade... the point being that for the average consumer (in the days of "film"), that 8mm was the standard fare. The average 'Joe' probably couldn't afford 16mm, unless perhaps it was obtained on loan from a university film department, or similar outfit.

It still seems to me that no matter what the media used... even with X-number of witnesses present... for some people, no amount of proof will be sufficient (just a fact of life). Since no amount of proof will convince that group, it would seem to me that the effort should then fall to convincing the middle group... that is, the ones who have not made-up their minds (for sure) one way or the other. But- there really needs to be a standard or standards set in place... especially for TV reality shows. Reason- because way too many people watch stuff like "Most Haunted", and just out of ignorance, they accept what MH sells as pure fact. In the UK, MH and shows like MH are required by law to post a disclaimer at the start of the show, stating that the show is intended as 'entertainment'. This is not the case in the USA (unfortunately)(it really should be).

Because of this, there are hords of young and/or ignorant people believing every word spoken... and that's akin to telling people that a particular illness is the result of evil spirits, rather than, it's just the result of water contamination, lack of hygiene (or whatever).... why, shucks-fuzzy... there are loads of people who will believe in VooDoo if they hear about it on TV. And many of them just want something 'fun' and 'exciting' to follow. Sad, but true. And, we know for certain that people love to be scared. Some people pay BIG bucks to be scared... to get that adrenalin-rush.

Bottom-lined... it's still up to each person to determine if they believe particular claims, and why they're convinced there's been no trickery. I don't see any way around that.

[JimDe]

- truer words were never spoken… but, ‘shucks-fuzzy’, what’s up with that?

Bottom-lined… how do you think I feel? Not because they didn’t believe… but because they did. When I received my copies of the parapsychology journal in the mail…I knew I was going to be in the book, but I wasn’t expecting that. And let’s face it… they ARE the ones who need convincing. Of course I read the part about myself first, and I thought ok, cool piece, no complaints. Then, I read the entire chapter from the beginning.

I said, ‘Whoa… you gotta be kiddin me’...

It scared me a little then; and it still does …not because it’s true, but because they got it right.

Consider that a disclaimer.