Sayonara 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[/url'] then I will believe your explanation So you are going to test your assumption by assuming it's true?
swansont Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Just look at all the orbs! Some are close, some are far away. How can you tell? Do you know how big they are supposed to be?
insane_alien Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 easily explainable by different sized droplets of water. Now if you had a picture of one that maybe has something crossing in front of it, then we would have to find a different explanation. i have never seen an orb in this position. i have seen orbs where things go behind them though.
swansont Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 easily explainable by different sized droplets of water. Now if you had a picture of one that maybe has something crossing in front of it, then we would have to find a different explanation. i have never seen an orb in this position. i have seen orbs where things go behind them though. Very good point. They have to be closer to the lens than anything else in the picture, so droplets on the lens fits the data. I wonder what contortions one must go through to have that fit the "ghost hypothesis." (spirits are attracted to cameras, loved to be photographed, so they won't show up unless you can see their "good side?")
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 my friend in her backyard which isn't haunted. Ok' date=' using the term "non-haunted" was a mistake. Nobody knows what makes something haunted or not. Ghosts could be anywhere, because someone can die anywhere. There could be a dead body right below where your sister is standing... If you do see an orb, or something that is ghost-like, there is no way anyone can prove that it isn't a ghost. 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. Nope, I don't think it could be water. I went to Gettysburg two times when I was taking these pictures. The second time, I made sure that the lens were clean before taking each picture. I still got the orbs in the pictures. It wasn't raining or foggy either. I am not trying to make my web site popular here. It is already popular on search engines. I have the #1 spot for Gettysburg Ghost Web Site on yahoo.com and I receive hundreds of visitors. You can read in my guestbook, that many people like my web site. Also, I have nothing to gain from making this web site popular. I don't have any advertisements or anything on the site. I'm actually paying to keep it up. It was designed to show people my ghost-like pictures, it won't make a profit no matter how popular it becomes. I own an Internet marketing company. If I was just trying to make my web site popular, I wouldn't be here. I am looking for a scientific explanation that I can agree with. How can you tell? Do you know how big they are supposed to be? There are only 5 pictures on my web site. I actually have about 100 other pictures I took that aren't there. On some of the pictures, it is obvious that some orbs are behind trees, and others are in front of trees. I think that would also prove that it is not water on the lens.
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 If you do see an orb, or something that is ghost-like, there is no way anyone can prove that it isn't a ghost. not if you pull that "ignore all evidence" crap. you wouldn't happen to be a creationist, by any chance, would you? anyway, you can't prove it is either. and she's NOT MY SISTER!!!
Hellbender Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 not if you pull that "ignore all evidence" crap. you wouldn't happen to be a creationist, by any chance, would you? If you don't know the answer to this already, you are one of the fortunate ones who have not partaken in herme3's "Too Much for Evolution thread". I suggest you check it out if you want a good laugh.
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 not if you pull that "ignore all evidence" crap. you wouldn't happen to be a creationist, by any chance, would you? There is plenty of evidence that supports ghosts. I've read all about it in ghosts books. Yes, I am a creationist. If you don't know the answer to this already, you are one of the fortunate ones who have not partaken in herme3's "Too Much for Evolution thread". I suggest you check it out if you want a good laugh. They closed the thread. I guess they got mad because I brought up some good questions that nobody could explain. I'm always good at bringing up points that make people realize they need to expand the category of what we believe is true. The same applies for ghost-like objects.
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 ok, give us any proof or evidence at all for ghosts. go ahead, do it.
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 They closed the thread. I guess they got mad because I brought up some good questions that nobody could explain. you didn't bring up any such questions. you didn't even make a valid point. all you did was pull the standard creationist crap.
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 ok, give us any proof or evidence at all for ghosts. go ahead, do it. It is everywhere! There are so many normal people that see ghosts every year. You can probably talk to friends or family members that you know wouldn't lie. I'm sure you will find someone that would share a ghost-like experience with you. The problem is when scientists see ghosts, they try to find a way to explain it with the idea that ghosts could never exist. Why do that? Why not except that the world isn't written in an encyclopedia. New discoveries are made every day. There are things that we can't explain. Don't try to explain it using our existing knowledge. Just try to understand the mysteries, and combine them with our existing knowledge.
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 stories are not evidence, they are just stories. The problem is when scientists see ghosts, they try to find a way to explain it with the idea that ghosts could never exist. that is what science is.
herme3 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 you didn't bring up any such questions. you didn't even make a valid point. all you did was pull the standard creationist crap. Why are you against creationists? Science is unable to explain how we got here. Nobody can say exactly what was before the big bang. Creationism provides a perfect answer that hasn't been proved incorrect yet.
ydoaPs Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 i am not against creationists, per say. i am against their stupic tactics. no matter what you believe, creationism is not science. it has no proof. not even any evidence. edit: if you want to learn more, check out my latest thread... http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12849
Hellbender Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Why are you against creationists? Because you are all full of crap, to put it bluntly. Science is unable to explain how we got here. Maybe not to your liking, but it can for most other people Nobody can say exactly what was before the big bang. Yes we can. The answer is nothing. Creationism provides a perfect answer that hasn't been proved incorrect yet. *Sigh* And there is nothing any member or I can say that will make you think otherwise. Your mind is set. Ghosts are real, evolution explains nothing and god created everything as written in the bible, according to Herme3, and no persuasive arguments, logic or evidence is going to change your mind. Arguing with you is like mutliplying zeroes; you put some effort in and come out with essentially nothing.
ydoaPs Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 *Sigh* And there is nothing any member or I can say that will make you think otherwise. Your mind is set. Ghosts are real, evolution explains nothing, and god created everything as according to the bible. Arguing with you is like mutliplying zeroes; you put some effort in and come out with essentially nothing. that's going in a quote thread!
swansont Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 There are only 5 pictures on my web site. I actually have about 100 other pictures I took that aren't there. On some of the pictures, it is obvious that some orbs are behind trees, and others are in front of trees. I think that would also prove that it is not water on the lens. You need to post those pictures then.
swansont Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 I am looking for a scientific explanation that I can agree with. You can have a scientific explanation, and you can have an expanation with which you agree. But there is absolutely no guarantee that you will have both at the same time. Letting an ideology or preconception drive what answers you will accept is the antithesis of science. Were I less scrupulous I could make a fortune off of people like you.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 You need to post those pictures then. Wow! I completely forgot about this picture! It was taken at "Devil's Den". Crazy, huh? It looks like many of the orbs are behind other orbs. If these were drops of water, wouldn't they combine to form one big drop of water? They also appear to be in motion. They look like comets, and the "tails" are pointing down. Doesn't that mean the orbs are moving up? Try explaining that!!! The picture is at: http://gettysburg.homestead.com/files/devilsden.jpg
ydoaPs Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 you are either really good or really bad at taking pictures
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 you are either really good or really bad at taking pictures Why? I had my camera, pointed it into the open field, and pressed the button. These are the pictures it took.
Dak Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 they remind me of the little blobs you get when you get air-bubbles caught in a microscope slide. sorry if its been said before in this thread, but they're water droplets catching light dude... the one to the bottom right is even creating st elmo's jewels.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 It looks exactly like what I see when there's a tiny water droplet on my glasses, and there's a bright light nearby.
herme3 Posted July 15, 2005 Author Posted July 15, 2005 It looks exactly like what I see when there's a tiny water droplet on my glasses, and there's a bright light nearby. What about the orbs that are on top of each other, but still being two separate orbs? Water would merge together into one big drop of water. Also, why are some of them moving up?
BobbyJoeCool Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 do you know what dust is? There are things moving about in the air other than just bugs... there's moisture, dust, pollen, particles of so many things that it could be just catching the light and reflecting it, and the fact that there's many of them means that there's more there than in most places. Plus, the two "on top of each-other." You may notice that one orb is bigger than the other... which is one way we precive depth. One could simply be further away than the closer one. Also, there are many things else that can contribute to this... The fact the the camera has a lens. Maybe the lens was dirty and there was some light shining on it (like the light from the flash got back to the lens and illuminated the dust on the lens as the picture was being taken). Maybe there were contaminants on the film that caused this effect. And for all we know, you've somehow generated these orbs with a computer. Have you seen some of the fake images that people can make with computers nowadays? Someone could actually take one person's legs, another person's hips, another person's belly, another person's chest, another person's arms, another person's head and put them all together and make it look, except under VERY close examination, like that person actually has all the features when they actually belong to 5-7 different people. Now, before you say that I said that you're doing this, I'm mearly mentioning it as a possibility. Since you seem to have jumped to the conclution that they're ghosts, I can see you jump to the conclution that I'm trying to discredit you by accusing you of doctoring the pictures...
Recommended Posts