swansont Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 The statements I make are scientific mysteries that are either in books, on TV (Not the Sci-Fi channel), or on multiple web sites. I thought the reason for this message board was to discuss scientific mysteries like these. Obviously a lot of people believe in rods or they wouldn't have been on a science-related TV channel. Scientists so sure that ghosts are not real. However, they do believe that we came from a family of monkeys a few billion years after a mysterious explosion created everything. Ooh. TV, books and the internet. Can you set the bar any lower? Anecdotes aren't evidence. I'm not trying to insult scientists, but making fun of evolution is just like making fun of ghosts. There are many mysteries in this world, and scientists seem to believe in ideas that seem just as crazy as the ideas they deny. There is evidence to support all of these ideas. There is also evidence that makes these ideas seem false. Scientists seem to believe the evidence for some theories, and deny the evidence for other theories. The difference between ghosts and evolution, or any other legitimate scientific phenomenon, is in how you discriminate in evaluating the evidence. I see a plane flying overhead. I claim it's due to invisible pink fairies. Now, you can't prove me wrong, because I can keep up with a description that is unfalsifiable - the fairies are undetectable by anything that isn't flying, etc. So nobody can demonstrate that it's incorrect - and that's the fatal flaw. An unfalsifiable explanation is worthless; there is no predicitive power to it. If you want to demonstrate a particular phenomenon, it is not sufficient to show that the explanation could be the reason for it - you have to show that it excludes other explanations as well. One huge step toward doing that is being able to make specific predictions, and then showing that they are correct. Plus you have to be able to conclusively falsify the other explanations (which have to be falsifiable to count). And you have to be able to apply it to a broad range of data.
herme3 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 The difference between ghosts and evolution' date=' or any other legitimate scientific phenomenon, is in how you discriminate in evaluating the evidence. I see a plane flying overhead. I claim it's due to invisible pink fairies. Now, you can't prove me wrong, because I can keep up with a description that is unfalsifiable - the fairies are undetectable by anything that isn't flying, etc. So nobody can demonstrate that it's incorrect - and that's the fatal flaw. An unfalsifiable explanation is worthless; there is no predicitive power to it. If you want to demonstrate a particular phenomenon, it is not sufficient to show that the explanation could be the reason for it - you have to show that it excludes other explanations as well. One huge step toward doing that is being able to make specific predictions, and then showing that they are correct. Plus you have to be able to conclusively falsify the other explanations (which have to be falsifiable to count). And you have to be able to apply it to a broad range of data.[/quote'] If the fairies are invisible, how can they be pink? Anyway, there is a lot more evidence supporting ghosts than many people realize. I always said that if you go to Gettysburg, there is probably a 99% chance you will find something you can't explain if you are looking. Go to different historic sites at night and bring a camera. If you take a picture in almost any direction at night, you will probably see orbs in the pictures. I've taken other pictures at night when not in Gettysburg, and I've never seen them. Even if you aren't in Gettysburg and take orb pictures, how can you prove that they aren't spirits? Just look at the orb picture at http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html and try to find a way to explain that! That picture was taken in the middle of a battlefield. It was completely dark at night. If I look up lens flares on the Internet, I can't find anything that even begins to look like that!
swansont Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 If the fairies are invisible, how can they be pink? Prove that they aren't. It's part of the sarcasm. Anyway, there is a lot more evidence supporting ghosts than many people realize. I always said that if you go to Gettysburg, there is probably a 99% chance you will find something you can't explain if you are looking. Go to different historic sites at night and bring a camera. If you take a picture in almost any direction at night, you will probably see orbs in the pictures. I've taken other pictures at night when not in Gettysburg, and I've never seen them. Even if you aren't in Gettysburg and take orb pictures, how can you prove that they aren't spirits? What part of B-U-R-D-E-N O-F P-R-O-O-F aren't you understanding? It's up to you to show that they are, to the exclusion of other phenomena. Lens flares are a well-known optical phenomenon. You have to show that they couldn't be lens flares, for one. Just look at the orb picture at http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html[/url'] and try to find a way to explain that! That picture was taken in the middle of a battlefield. It was completely dark at night. If I look up lens flares on the Internet, I can't find anything that even begins to look like that! So it was dark, and thus the exposure is long and the aperture wide open. You can see the ground and the tree OK, so the exposure is correct for dark stuff. But a bright reflection causing a lens flare will be overexposed. The reason you don't see that in a daytime picture is the same reason those shots aren't overexposed.
swansont Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Ooh, a ghost under my desk. Just did this - it took all of a minute. I should be able to create the overexposed ones when it gets dark and I have more dark space. This flare isn't overexposed because the ground is close, reflects more light back, and that limits the exposure time and/or aperture. All you need is an objects outside of the field of view, but still can reflect light into the lens.
herme3 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 What part of B-U-R-D-E-N O-F P-R-O-O-F aren't you understanding? It's up to you to show that they are' date=' to the exclusion of other phenomena. Lens flares are a well-known optical phenomenon. You have to show that they couldn't be lens flares, for one.[/quote'] I am not a scientist, or a ghost researcher. I went on a vacation and got a few pictures I can't explain. I just came looking for a scientific explanation. Saying it is a lens flare doesn't make sense to me because I've never seen anything like this in any other pictures I've taken. I have taken pictures at night before. So it was dark' date=' and thus the exposure is long and the aperture wide open. You can see the ground and the tree OK, so the exposure is correct for dark stuff. But a bright reflection causing a lens flare will be overexposed. The reason you don't see that in a daytime picture is the same reason those shots aren't overexposed.[/quote'] I don't know anything about photography. I heard that you can get ghost pictures in the battlefield at night. I took a few pictures with my camera, and plugged it into my computer when I got home. I saw pictures with objects that I never saw before. There couldn't have been a reflection because it was an open field except for a few trees. There were some cannons in another picture, but the flash wasn't reflecting off of them either. It was completely dark and the street lights from the city were behind me. Ooh' date=' a ghost[/url'] under my desk. Just did this - it took all of a minute. I should be able to create the overexposed ones when it gets dark and I have more dark space. This flare isn't overexposed because the ground is close, reflects more light back, and that limits the exposure time and/or aperture. All you need is an objects outside of the field of view, but still can reflect light into the lens. I don't understand your picture. All I see is carpet and a computer. It doesn't look like anything on my web site.
ydoaPs Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 If the fairies are invisible, how can they be pink? didn't you read his theory? they are only invisible to people who aren't flying.
herme3 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 didn't you read his theory? they are only invisible to people who aren't flying. I thought he said that he was standing on the ground and looking up at the plane...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Alright herme3... Give me an explanation of this: I'd like to see what you make of it.
ydoaPs Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I thought he said that he was standing on the ground and looking up at the plane... that is why they were invisible to him. cap, looks like some sort of stain...although i'm not quite sure what i am looking at.
herme3 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 Alright herme3... Give me an explanation of this: I'd like to see what you make of it. I would say that is either carpet or a wall with water spilled on it.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 cap, looks like some sort of stain...although i'm not quite sure what i am looking at. What it is supposed to be is Lenin materializing on a shower curtain.
Hellbender Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 The only way this thread will truly die is if you sever its head!!!!! I just came looking for a scientific explanation. Saying it is a lens flare doesn't make sense to me because I've never seen anything like this in any other pictures I've taken. I have taken pictures at night before. And we gave you a rational explanation (you need not be scientific about such mundane things, really) You are just so desperate to believe that it is ghosts that you are pretty much not listening to anything we say.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 hmm, when i view the image, it says lenin Whooops. Silly me.
swansont Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I don't understand your picture. All I see is carpet and a computer. It doesn't look like anything on my web site. Faint lens flare, upper left quadrant. You need more of a difference in the lighting levels to get brighter ones - the floor was close, so the flash made it too bright.
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 The only way this thread will truly die is if you sever its head!!!!! And we gave you a rational explanation (you need not be scientific about such mundane things, really) You are just so desperate to believe that it is ghosts that you are pretty much not listening to anything we say. I started a new thread about time travel, and everyone started talking about ghosts. Therefore, I posted in this thread again so the time travel thread could get back on topic. I do not believe there is enough evidence to support your "rational explanation". If I could go into a non-haunted field and get the same type of picture as http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html then I will believe your explanation. Just look at all the orbs! Some are close, some are far away. If there was just one, I would believe that it was a lens flare or something. What it is supposed to be is Lenin materializing on a shower curtain. Yes, but your picture is obviously a coincidence. It is just a stain that is shaped a little like a face. My pictures can't be explained in a rational way. Saying that "lens flares" happen to appear on hundreds of cameras only in Gettysburg is not rational. Faint lens flare, upper left quadrant. You need more of a difference in the lighting levels to get brighter ones - the floor was close, so the flash made it too bright. Oh, I see. That does look like a lens flare. The first two pictures on my web site do not look anything like that...
Hellbender Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I do not believe there is enough evidence to support your "rational explanation". If I could go into a non-haunted field and get the same type of picture as http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html[/url'] then I will believe your explanation. Just look at all the orbs! Some are close, some are far away. If there was just one, I would believe that it was a lens flare or something. If I had the extra $200 to buy a digital camera I would. Seriously, it is a virtue to be able to admit when you are wrong about something. Yes, but your picture is obviously a coincidence. And your "Ghettysburgh ghost photos" are not? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 What about the Virgin Mary on a piece of grilled cheese, the highway overpass, and frying pan? Coincidence?
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 And your "Ghettysburgh ghost photos" are not? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!? There is nothing strange about a stain on a shower curtain. Anybody could do that. However, a giant ball of light floating in the sky is not normal. Also, I find it a little odd when you are able to see through a person... What about the Virgin Mary on a piece of grilled cheese, the highway overpass, and frying pan? Those are ordinary objects. I see them all the time. However, if I go around with my camera, it is rare for me to see a "lens flare" that looks like a giant ball of light floating in the sky. If lens flares are common, why don't I see them in any picture outside of Gettysburg?
brad89 Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 If a coincidence happens to one person out of a million, is it really all that much of a coincidence?
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I do not believe there is enough evidence to support your "rational explanation". If I could go into a non-haunted field and get the same type of picture as http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html then I will believe your explanation. Just look at all the orbs! Some are close' date=' some are far away. If there was just one, I would believe that it was a lens flare or something.[/quote'] my friend in her backyard which isn't haunted.
Cornelius Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 That shower curtain is definitely something stolen from the Lion King.
Sayonara Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Yes, but your picture is obviously a coincidence. It is just a stain that is shaped a little like a face. My pictures can't be explained in a rational way. Or, to put it another way, yes they can.
atinymonkey Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 If I could go into a non-haunted field and get the same type of picture as http://gettysburg.homestead.com/picture2.html then I will believe your explanation. Just look at all the orbs! Some are close' date=' some are far away. If there was just one, I would believe that it was a lens flare or something.[/quote'] It's water on the lens, it happens all the time in night photo's as the cooler air causes condensation to form on the camera lens. As the light is reflected into the lens, the water droplets cause distortions. Go to any photographer, they will have thousands of examples to show you. Or just post the picture in any photograpers forum, they will tell you the same thing. Now, stop trying to propagate your website. It will never be popular. Edit: - An actual 'ghost club' has a page that explains the problem for you http://www.ghostclub.org.uk/winter2000.htm You are not special, I'm afraid, you just take poor pictures.
Recommended Posts