Posted 15 February 2004 - 12:01 PM
Posted 15 February 2004 - 07:53 PM
Posted 15 February 2004 - 09:07 PM
I mean, half of the time, it's just dust!
what about the other half?
Posted 16 February 2004 - 05:18 AM
Posted 16 February 2004 - 04:37 PM
I think most of this agrument is taking place over in spiritography, heheh
Maybe (I didn't see it, but I didn't look very hard). I agree with freak_out55 about orbs, though. There are so many things they could be--bits of dust, lens flares (or similar camera-creates anomaly), stray hairs, and so forth--that I just don't understand how people can look at them an immediately think, "ghost."
Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:31 PM
Posted 24 February 2004 - 04:13 PM
Posted 24 February 2004 - 05:46 PM
Posted 25 February 2004 - 04:04 AM
Just like in life, I certainly don't know who makes the rules, I'd like to know as I have a few minor complaints! LoL. Myself, I tend to look at the circumstances surrounding the pic. Determining the difference tween the paranormal and the mundane will always be a bone of contention, won't it? A picture is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional event and is but a split-second frozen in time. It is impossible to "conclusively" prove a given pic is paranormal in and of itself especially with all the mundane causes of photograph orbs.
Posted 25 February 2004 - 04:37 AM
Posted 25 February 2004 - 05:58 AM
Posted 08 March 2004 - 12:43 PM
Posted 12 March 2004 - 08:38 AM
I guess I am the "Velma" of the scooby doo team, looking for the rational scientific stuff, and not the airheaded "Daphne".
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users