146 replies to this topic

[Vampchick21]

And if you want proof of fraud in a traditional film photo, you send the negative to a film expert.

AT this point, I think everyone would benefit discussing controls rather than which is the better medium and getting ruffled over the views of others. Neither is going away. We're aware of the technological faults of both (pixels - digital, accidental double exposure - film, etc etc). So what's the best way to work with, control and present for both mediums.

[JimDe]

Vampchick21, on Apr 18 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

JimDe, on Apr 18 2007, 04:23 AM, said:

Ok, back on track; why is it important to prove paranormal activity to a Skeptic? A Skeptic would not be a Skeptic if he/she did not take that negative or digital storage devise and throw it in the garbage without even bothering to look at it anyway, and if they were to examine it, they most likely would attempt to discount rather than disprove. A skeptic can’t disprove something that’s true, but they can discount it as unsubstantiated or irrelevant. So I say ignore them and tell them to get a real job.

You only need to prove paranormal activity to practitioners of paranormal activity.
Spirit photography has gotten a bad rep over the last 150 years (give or take). No one has ever come forward and proven that SPIRIT photography is even possible.

?

Ummm...proving to ourselves is the equal of preaching to the choir so to speak. We already believe.

Debunkers (the people you have in mind when you refer to skeptics, real skeptics won't dismiss out of hand and do keep an open mind) we likely couldn't prove anything to at all, simply because, as you illustrate, they will dimiss anything and everything.

A skeptic however, provided they aren't one of those dismissive and arrogant debunkers, will look at the evidence provided. They will ask intelligent and applicable questions. They will review, analyize. If they cannot come up with a plausible natural explaination, they say so.

I also think, personally, that the people we need to get on side are scientists, authentic skeptics and researchers. And in order to do that we need to present good evidence. Hence this and other discussions.

Spirit Photography has a bad rap due to frauds. I think every single one of us can come up with a few examples of that. Akin to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". So many frauds and honest misconceptions have occured over the years that it becomes the first thing to pop into people's heads. However, the images that have been proven to NOT be fraud and NOT be a misinterperatation of a natural phenomena to me ARE proof of the ability to somehow capture spirit activity in a video or photograph.

So to sum it up. Don't prove it to me. Prove it to the real Skeptic. And just leave the arrogant Debunkers out of the equasion.

Good point about debunkers and skeptics, but what I was driving at was their (skeptics) equal consideration or lack thereof for both film negatives and digital storage devices when it’s the data on those mediums that would concern most skeptics (and believers).

If the skeptic can’t or won’t render an opinion as to the authenticity of a possible paranormal occurrence, and all they can accomplish after their examination is assess it as a naturalistic cause and effect (or not) that sounds like a win-win situation for them. You still have to get it past the paranormal scientist, who will be just as demanding as the skeptic, but in the end the scientist can also make a qualified determination as to the authenticity of a potential paranormal occurrence. I don’t see the purpose for the professional skeptic when you have a professional scientist performing a similar regiment of examinations +.

How do you prove paranormal activity to a person who doesn’t relate to paranormal activity? If they don’t ‘get it’, will they ever? I don’t believe the point is to convert the masses, but rather to establish credible theory and practices for those who do ‘get it’.

I too believe that spirit anomalies can and have been captured photographically as well as on other recording devices, but, no one has ever proven that ghosts/spirits actually exist. So why call it spirit photography? How do you validate the term spirit photography?

[Vampchick21]

JimDe, on Apr 18 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Good point about debunkers and skeptics, but what I was driving at was their (skeptics) equal consideration or lack thereof for both film negatives and digital storage devices when it’s the data on those mediums that would concern most skeptics (and believers).

sorry hon. I can't make heads nor tails of that paragraph. Your point is unclear.

Quote

If the skeptic can’t or won’t render an opinion as to the authenticity of a possible paranormal occurrence, and all they can accomplish after their examination is assess it as a naturalistic cause and effect (or not) that sounds like a win-win situation for them. You still have to get it past the paranormal scientist, who will be just as demanding as the skeptic, but in the end the scientist can also make a qualified determination as to the authenticity of a potential paranormal occurrence. I don’t see the purpose for the professional skeptic when you have a professional scientist performing a similar regiment of examinations +.

I fail to see what you mean. Again, I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of this paragraph. And I'm hardly a stupid person. It *sounds* as if you don't like either conclusion by skeptic or scientist. It also sounds as if you are reluctant to present anything to anyone outside of the paranormal community. Bad stance.

Quote

How do you prove paranormal activity to a person who doesn’t relate to paranormal activity? If they don’t ‘get it’, will they ever? I don’t believe the point is to convert the masses, but rather to establish credible theory and practices for those who do ‘get it’.

We still eventually have to prove or provide credible evidence to the non paranormal community and do so in a manner that gives *us* credibility with *them*. *We* have to welcome examination, questioning, etc. *We* have to welcome the debate.

We can establish theory and practice until we're blue in the face, but keeping it within the community only serves to cut us off and permit the mockery to continue.

Quote

I too believe that spirit anomalies can and have been captured photographically as well as on other recording devices, but, no one has ever proven that ghosts/spirits actually exist. So why call it spirit photography? How do you validate the term spirit photography?

What the heck else are we going to call it? Besides, aren't you the one (based on your prior posts) who 'coined' the term Spiritography? And if so, aren't you better qualified than I to explain that?


Here's the deal. We establish to the best of our ability credible theories and controls and techniques, using the technology at our disposal. And we continue to present it both within and without the community. To dismiss the value of the skeptic or the scientist makes us just as bad as the debunker.

[damckie]

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

Quote

Is there a thing called a memory stick that goes inside of a digital camera? That to me is my negitive! This subject is going nowhere! And never will! Dave

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-

Maybe you are right, I am no photo expert. If you want to go that far and alter a photo, be my guess. I guess there are a lot of losers out there that would alter a photo and say they caught a ghost, whatever. Dave

Edited by damckie, 18 April 2007 - 03:47 PM.

[R.L.crowley]

losers seems like an unnecessary generalization to me

[JimDe]

Vampchick21, on Apr 18 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I fail to see what you mean. Again, I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of this paragraph. And I'm hardly a stupid person. It *sounds* as if you don't like either conclusion by skeptic or scientist. It also sounds as if you are reluctant to present anything to anyone outside of the paranormal community. Bad stance.

We still eventually have to prove or provide credible evidence to the non paranormal community and do so in a manner that gives *us* credibility with *them*. *We* have to welcome examination, questioning, etc. *We* have to welcome the debate.

We can establish theory and practice until we're blue in the face, but keeping it within the community only serves to cut us off and permit the mockery to continue.

What the heck else are we going to call it? Besides, aren't you the one (based on your prior posts) who 'coined' the term Spiritography? And if so, aren't you better qualified than I to explain that?

Here's the deal. We establish to the best of our ability credible theories and controls and techniques, using the technology at our disposal. And we continue to present it both within and without the community. To dismiss the value of the skeptic or the scientist makes us just as bad as the debunker.

…it’s my fault for not being clearer.

- By taking the film and digital media devices out of the equation, you are left with only data. Point being, the storage device is a weak cause for concern to an analyst because it’s the data that’s important.

- Actually, a stance is exactly my meaning, but not against presenting material outside the paranormal community. What if the skeptical analyst is confronted with a legitimate paranormal property, after the examination is concluded are they going to say ‘it’s paranormal’ or are they going to say ‘I cannot come up with a plausible natural explanation,’ ...and that’s it? I’m sorry but they have to bring something to table better than that.

- What the scientist brings to the table would be the same rigorous examination of evidence, plus will conclude his/her findings as paranormal in nature if applicable, so where would you prefer your evidence to be examined if the best the skeptic can come up with is ‘inconclusive’. The paranormal scientist gets the nod in my book, no question.

- I’m all for providing credible evidence, but I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to convince the non paranormal community that we are all credible, because we’re not. I’m sorry, but I prefer to spend my remaining years developing methods to advance my own paranormal awareness and abilities. Am I wrong? Maybe, but at least I’m honest about it.

- Here’s where the credibility problem becomes an issue with me. Spirit photography; show me a credible example of a spirit in a photograph. No conjecture, no hype and no inconclusive theories or opinions. If you could, then you would possess evidence of an afterlife existence, and that hasn’t been accomplished. So, as I said originally ‘No one has ever come forward and proven that SPIRIT photography is even possible’… since spirits have never been conclusively proven to exist, how are they being photographed?

If the paranormal community is so concerned about being mocked and ridiculed, maybe we should consider that we brought it on ourselves by putting the cart before the horse.

- Again, in all honesty, if I had what I believed was enough evidence to further advance the above situation, do you for second think that I would be more concerned with the credibility of the paranormal community in general or that of my own.

[Vampchick21]

See, its a selfish attitude like that which gets us NOWHERE outside or even inside the paranormal community.

Keep it all to yourself if you like. Me, I'd rather pay attention to those out there actually sharing, theorizing, presenting and educating.

[JimDe]

Did I miss something… because I believe that’s exactly what I’ve been doing here since the onset of this thread of digital vs. analog equipment, or have I not shared and presented a sound theory supported by facts concerning the use of digital equipment in the study of paranormal phenomenon, and isn’t that the concept of educating. Don’t fault me for having an attitude, advances in paranormal research are rarely developed at the group (community) level, rather they are performed on an individual basis and require personal sacrifice, dedication and a natural ability for comprehension of abstract thought. In my opinion it’s up to each individual to take responsibility for their own personal advancement as the group (community) is only as strong as its weakest link. I can only speak for myself, but I’ll hold up my end.

[damckie]

damckie, on Apr 18 2007, 04:45 PM, said:

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

Quote

Is there a thing called a memory stick that goes inside of a digital camera? That to me is my negitive! This subject is going nowhere! And never will! Dave

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-

Maybe you are right, I am no photo expert. If you want to go that far and alter a photo, be my guess. I guess there are a lot of losers out there that would alter a photo and say they caught a ghost, whatever. Dave

I have been thinking about this one. So if you take a picture with a digital and you develope that pic and then you alter it. How do you get that same pic that you altered back on to the memory card? Do you take a pic of a pic? You just can't do it. All in all you can't alter a photo that is already on that memeory card. If you decide to alter a photo there are options to determined if the photo has been altered. Our picture that we took a while back at Sachs Bridge in Gettysburg was put through many programs to see if it was altered at all. And one of those programs was called exif data. That picture was considered 1oo% legit by the experts here at Gv and on other websites. Thanks! Dave

[Grim Undertakings]

JimDe, on Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

- Here’s where the credibility problem becomes an issue with me. Spirit photography; show me a credible example of a spirit in a photograph. No conjecture, no hype and no inconclusive theories or opinions. If you could, then you would possess evidence of an afterlife existence, and that hasn’t been accomplished. So, as I said originally ‘No one has ever come forward and proven that SPIRIT photography is even possible’… since spirits have never been conclusively proven to exist, how are they being photographed?

.....Lady of Raynham Hall, girl in the fire in London, floating brick at Borley Rectory, and the infrared photo of the lady sitting on the tombstone at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery in Chicago. All of them photographed with an analog camera.

[leslie_dragonlvr]

I know what Jim is saying there.

No one has actually proven it. These photos are all great, but yet to be known as absolute proof of the exsistance of spirits.

Thats the whole problem in a nutshell, absolute proof has not been accomplished.

[Vampchick21]

With the exception of the floating brick from Borely Rectory, all the photos Grim listed have been proven to NOT be frauds. And that's a step.

[aloha_spirit]

This debate can go into other related equipment such as video cameras and sound recorders.

[Grim Undertakings]

Vampchick, was the Borley Rectory brick a fake or just hasn't been looked into?

[Vampchick21]

It honestly depends on who you are talking to and what their opinion is on the whole Borely Rectory case. The photo was taken after Harry Price's death if I recall aright, by workers cleaning up after a fire (correct me if I'm remembering wrongly). Some people say it's a floating brick, some say it was thrown by a person outside of the frame (intentionally or not, depending on the person) and some say it was falling, since the Rectory was in such bad condition at the time.

I don't personally recall ever reading anything definative on it either way. So it remains, to the best of my knowledge, undetermined for both fraud and authenticty.