James Randi Spook Photos
Posted 09 June 2003 - 06:09 AM
From Mr. Randi's site http://www.randi.org/jr/060603.html
We show you here a set of spooky photographs sent us by a reader, and ask you to submit explanations for the strange images you see...
James Randi's email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
How about it Ghostvillagers? Do you have an opinion about the photos?
Posted 09 June 2003 - 06:29 PM
My take on these photos was that they were taken in a room with low lighting ,obviously. The shutter speed was too slow and the film speed too high. This photographic phenomen ( produced either accidentally or intentionaly) typically produces a tracer affect which is present in the photos attached to this post. The light almost bleeds ( for lack of a more technical term) from any lighting source ( notice each streak eminates from some form of light in the room ) and the photos are typically blured a bit . The slower the shutter speed the greater the need for camera stability no matter what speed film you are using.
P.S. No its not Santa Virginia lol ;D
Posted 09 June 2003 - 07:12 PM
I dont know what to say about these photos. Looks wierd.
Posted 10 June 2003 - 11:21 AM
Flying...I would ask that you also send him some of our best photos and have him explain them. I would be curious as to what he sees in them. ;D
Posted 10 June 2003 - 11:38 AM
Posted 10 June 2003 - 12:01 PM
Posted 10 June 2003 - 03:46 PM
KRC, use the link to James Randi and send him some Photos. I have found him extremely responsive and helpful. I would like to know what he sees in some of our pics too! :o
[move]COME ON VILLAGERS>>WHAT DO YOU THINK??[/move]
Posted 10 June 2003 - 07:01 PM
you have a point to some degree but the light seems to react much more drasticly , more so than the entire image itself with slower shutter speeds .
I have performed this illusion intentionally while talking photos of the Baltimore City skyline some 15 years ago from Federal Hill , overlooking the Harbor.
I used glare reduction filters to cut down on the blurring effect caused by the slow shutter speed. The image itself was clear as a bell but the lighting was streaked and eminated from every light within the image. It was indeed quite beautiful. I took both black and white and color shots. The black and white for contrast purposes. They were equally beautiful.
The photos in question are a bit blurred , more than likely due to the photographer holding the camera in his slightly shaking hand . Even subtle movement during the time the shutter is open can cause the light blurr effect .
P.S. I dont think the photos were faked intentionally , its more a case of mistaken interpretation.
Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:35 AM
Ok Dennis...I sent Mr. Randi 6 pictures to evaluate. I sent him some of my own so that I can control knowing every step of the picture's "life" from taking to developing to posting here. I also made an invitation for him to come to GV and check things out here. I will keep you informed of the results of his viewing my pics. ;D
Posted 11 June 2003 - 08:55 AM
KRC, I don't think Randi faked these specific photos. I believe they were sent to him and he posted them to make an educational point. I have seen many similar pics posted on the net. I am glad you sent him your pics, please let us know if you get any response. This should be fun!!! ;D
Posted 11 June 2003 - 09:50 AM
It will however...be very interesting to see first of all if I get a response from him and second what that response would be. ;D
Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:06 PM
I'll bet dollars to donuts that his response will be something like "this can be easily created" or "this is like looking at tea leaves, if you look hard enough you will always see something". He said something similar (can't remember the exact words) about some pics I sent him. (without explaining how they could have been created *snicker*)
To be fair though, I suspect he is bombarded constantly by phony photos from charlatans and needs to keep his guard up. Maybe too much....
Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:13 PM
I respect your opinion and I know what you ment. Besides the Amazing Randy is a VERY controversial person and you are simply sharing your thoughts. Thats what we are here for.
Posted 11 June 2003 - 05:41 PM
Randi's website has an active forum on the paranormal -why not post your pics there now and invite opinions?
Also, question (and a suggestion):
How credible do you really find Randi to be in analyzing photos? I sense from some comments that he's not held in high regard. If that is the case, then what is the point in engaging him? Does it have more to do with the fact that he's "controversial" and less to do with any meaningful dialogue to discover the truth? You couldn't get more extreme than Randi in terms of the paranormal/skeptic spectrum (although I do respect and enjoy some of his works and his books are in my library--along with my ghost books, of course). Feel like I'm in the Gaza Strip here
Just seems pointless to engage in a debate with someone whom you don't respect anyway, unless you're looking to bolster your own paranormal claims with negative comments from someone who isn't respected in the community (like good advertising--"Randi looked at his stuff and said it's bogus, so it must be a ghost")
I suspect that whatever result you get with Randi--even if you get no response at all--would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, might I suggest that instead of nominating a personality that people here already do not find credible, find another <ahem> "skeptic" to participate.
Here are some good places to start looking:
Posted 11 June 2003 - 06:21 PM
Glad you stopped in. I promise this is a "ceasefire" zone so you are safe from anyone bombing you! <runs to Camille waving an Israeli flag to signal IAF planes flying overhead, then starts to worry about Hamas snipers> *snicker*
I think many people (myself included) respect Randi, but are disappointed by what sometimes seems to be a closed minded approach to the paranormal. He is an experienced, intelligent and fascinating man. I have to admire someone smart enough to expose all the fakes that he has. That being said, he is perceived by many as a closed minded debunker. The verdict is still out from my point of view. Problem is that he doesn't know the credability of those that submit pics to him and I believe that he errs on the side of caution to preserve his own credability (and the million).
Hey Camille great suggestion about posting on Randi's board, I love it! Thanks for sharing the links too. The sites definately worth the look.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users