atinymonkey Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't understand why I'm the one that should have to prove the existence of unexplainable events in Gettysburg. Well, you know. It's because of the crazy stuck in your skull, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't understand why I'm the one that should have to prove the existence of unexplainable events in Gettysburg. I'm not saying there is a monster in my own home. Gettysburg is a public place, and you should go there before claiming these events are fiction or misunderstood. Yeah, we have all the time and money in the world to fly to Virginia to see your stupid "ghosts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 18, 2005 Author Share Posted July 18, 2005 If they are visdible to a flash' date=' they should show up with just a bright light. Bring a good flashlight with you, and see what you see, or rather, what you don't see. (unless you need glasses, I predict you won't see orbs) You have to prove it because you're the one making the claim. If you just said, "This is weird" people may or may not agree, depending on whether they've seen stuff like that before. But the conclusion that you are seeing ghosts breaks the rues of science and logic. The default is "I don't know," not "These are ghosts." And since lens flares and out-of-focus reflections are common and well-understood, to draw any other conclusion requires YOU to conclusively eliminate them as a cause. Just like if I were to see something fall up, I would have to conclusively eliminate wind, propulsion devices and any other lift forces before I started talking about antigravity. I try not to call them ghosts. I try to use the phrase, "ghost-like" objects because I'm not sure they are ghosts. I sometimes call them "ghosts" as a bad habit because that is what most people keep calling them. I do believe that they are something unusual that can't be explained with our current scientific knowledge. I really don't believe they are lens flares because I use the same camera all the time and never get these types of pictures. As a science experiment, the constants are my camera and I. The dependant variable is the location. The independent variable is whether or not orbs or other ghost-like objects appear in the pictures. The orbs only appear in Gettysburg. Therefore, there must be something about that location that isn't anywhere else. The only thing that separates Gettysburg from other places is the fact that thousands of people died there hundreds of years ago. My question is, how can the death of people result in orbs? Yeah, we have all the time and money in the world to fly to Virginia to see your stupid "ghosts". Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania, I live in Virginia. I did have to travel to get those pictures. Your recent post just shows that you are lazier than me. I had to stay at a hotel room for a week. If I spent the time and effort to visit Gettysburg, I don't understand why you are unable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania, I live in Virginia. I did have to travel to get those pictures. Your recent post just shows that you are lazier than me. I had to stay at a hotel room for a week. If I spent the time and effort to visit Gettysburg, I don't understand why you are unable to. There is a Ghettysburgh in Virginia, and yes, I may be physically lazy (thats what working 40 hours a week for book money will do), but I am evidently not as intellectually lazy as you are. To be honest, I have no interest in spending the money and time to go someplace to see something that doesn't exist. Orbs and flashes of light are easily explainable within the laws of nature; you are apparently really bored with life, which is obvious by the way you assume everything you can't explain easily is de facto proof of the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 18, 2005 Author Share Posted July 18, 2005 There is a Ghettysburgh in Virginia, and yes, I may be physically lazy (thats what working 40 hours a week for book money will do), but I am evidently not as intellectually lazy as you are. To be honest, I have no interest in spending the money and time to go someplace to see something that doesn't exist. Orbs and flashes of light are easily explainable within the laws of nature; you are apparently really bored with life, which is obvious by the way you assume everything you can't explain easily is de facto [/i']proof of the supernatural. Where is Gettysburg, VA? I've never heard of it, and I can't find anything about it online. Anyway, I'm not saying my pictures are proof of the supernatural. I'm just saying they can't be explained with our current knowledge. Can you explain why I have never taken pictures like these outside of Gettysburg, even though I have taken other pictures at night? However, when I take pictures at Gettysburg it is rare for me not to get something strange in the pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 right this should work. get a strobe light with a frequency of maybe 20Hz go out to the place you keep seeing the orbs and turn on the strobe. if the orbs are as i believe dust and pollen then you should be able to see them floating around on the wind. this can cause theupward motion seen in a previous picture. higher frequencies do work but then you don't get the nice afterimage effect that can make the dust particles seem bigger than they are. if its a bright light(not a strobe) then you will just see some dust floating around (like when you see sunlight shining through a window. they look big on camera because the camera is not focused on them so its all blurry (like when a short sighted person looks at the moon it appears bigger than it is cos his/her eyes can't focus on it properly, this is true cos i am short sighted and if i squint my eyes it appears almost normal sized.)) try this before claiming that they are dead people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 I try not to call them ghosts. I try to use the phrase' date=' "ghost-like" objects because I'm not sure they are ghosts. I sometimes call them "ghosts" as a bad habit because that is what most people keep calling them. I do believe that they are something unusual that can't be explained with our current scientific knowledge. I really don't believe they are lens flares because I use the same camera all the time and never get these types of pictures. As a science experiment, the constants are my camera and I. The dependant variable is the location. The independent variable is whether or not orbs or other ghost-like objects appear in the pictures. The orbs only appear in Gettysburg. Therefore, there must be something about that location that isn't anywhere else. The only thing that separates Gettysburg from other places is the fact that thousands of people died there hundreds of years ago. My question is, how can the death of people result in orbs? [/quote'] But other people do get these effects in other places, so you haven't established anything. To ask, "how can the death of people result in orbs?" is without basis until you establish that they are, in fact, caused by dead people. Correlation is not causality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Battle fields are by their nature, usualy FIELDS, now other than that being bold statement of the bleedin` Obvious, it also means that there will be Pollens and insects and particulate matter all over the place. taking a narrow beam torch or a cheap laser pen along with you at night, and looking Along the beam (not into it) you`ll see these things light up like a Christmas tree! try the inverted sellotape idea too, you`ll be surprised at the things you "catch" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Wait--if you use a flashlight, then "the energy from the beam will allow the ghosts to materialize," thus making the experiment worthless for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Eitherway then, there will be Evidence beyond Supposition (or is it Superstition) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clara Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Hi everyone! I don't know about those orb pictures, but that first picture looks kinda creepy. Looks a lot like a person to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 Hi everyone! I don't know about those orb pictures' date=' but that first picture looks kinda creepy. Looks a lot like a person to me![/quote'] That's what I think too. There wasn't anything that could make a reflection or anything like that. It also looks too human-like to be a simple lens flare. I'm not saying it has to be a ghost, but I can't think of any other way to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 ok herme3, give me a logical reason to jump from wierd picture to ghost. is there even one logical correlation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 That's what I think too. There wasn't anything that could make a reflection or anything like that. It also looks too human-like to be a simple lens flare. I'm not saying it has to be a ghost, but I can't think of any other way to explain it. "Gee, that cloud looks a lot like a rabbit. It really does! There must be a rabbit spirit in the cloud that's forming it! It looks too much like a rabbit! Really!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 ok herme3, give me a logical reason to jump from wierd picture to ghost. is there even one logical correlation? No, I can't provide any reason to call it a ghost. However, most people that see pictures like that call them ghosts. I don't know why. All I know is that I can't explain it. Until I find an explanation, I will have to agree with the most popular belief that they are ghosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 it has been explained...several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Until I find an explanation, I will have to agree with the most popular belief that they are ghosts. Er, as you seem to be in a minority where does the 'popular belief' come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 No, I can't provide any reason to call it a ghost. However, most people that see pictures like that call them ghosts. I don't know why. All I know is that I can't explain it. Until I find an explanation, I will have to agree with the most popular belief that they are ghosts. You were doing OK - not great, but OK - up until the last sentence. That's when, like the sea sprite, you devoured your own brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 if it could be proven that they are NOT "Ghosts" would you still beleive it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Given that we established ages ago there's no scientific method being used here, I really don't see why anyone cares any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I find it almost inconceivable that someone (Anyone) would beleive anything along these lines at face value WITHOUT some sort of Testing First, it`s beyond ignorance, it`s practcaly Willfull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 if it could be proven that they are NOT "Ghosts" would you still beleive it? Yes! I came here looking for a good explanation. So far, nobody has provided one that I agree with. The reason I disagree is because every suggestion is too common. I have insects and pollen where I live. I also use the same camera all the time, and I never get lens flares. I have taken lots of pictures, and some of those have been at night. If it was something common, wouldn't they be in my other pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Yes! I came here looking for a good explanation. So far, nobody has provided one that I agree with. The reason I disagree is because every suggestion is too common. but you HAVE BEEN provided with ideas for tests that you can perform and yet have not done so! you`ll Normaly find that the "Common" or "Simple" suggestions and ideas are the ones that bear more Truth. at this exact moment you CANNOT in Honesty comment on Any of these ideas given as tests until you actualy DO them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted July 25, 2005 Author Share Posted July 25, 2005 but you HAVE BEEN provided with ideas for tests that you can perform and yet have not done so! I'm not a professional "ghost hunter". I have no idea when I'll be able to go back to Gettysburg. That's why I came here looking for an explanation that I can agree with. It is obviously something rare that doesn't exist in the other places I take pictures. I've never taken any "ghost-like" pictures anywhere else, but they are in almost every Gettysburg picture. Most of the people here are more scientific than me, so I thought somebody would be able to explain. This would be like you going on vacation and taking a walk. You see some animal that looks very strange. It is unlike anything you ever saw before. You take a picture, and show it to some people that know a lot about animals. They tell you that it is a dog. You explain that you know what a dog looks like, and your picture is obviously something else. Now, they tell you to go back and try some experiments to prove that it isn't a dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 ask yourself this, if they ARE Ghosts, what the hell are they trying to do? I mean bobbing up and down all night doing nothing in particular seems a bit lame for a disembodied consciousness doesn`t it? secondly, what parameters define a Ghost from something else for instance? what qualitative or even quantitative criteria need to be met in order to confim that something`s a Ghost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts