2014 ghost photos

[Balerion]

Pretend to be skeptical? Why would I wanna do that? This is extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim. Ghosts exist!

How is it extraordinary evidence? You can't confirm the legitimacy of the photos.

 

[Magical Realist]

How is it extraordinary evidence? You can't confirm the legitimacy of the photos.

If you make a claim that the photos are fake or a glitch, then the burden is on you to prove that. Otherwise, a photo is exactly what it appears to be--a photo of something actually there.

 

[Magical Realist]

You are probably the most gullible person I can think of, it is actually kind of endearing.

You don't believe in photography? lol! That's pretty weird.

 

[Balerion]

Then what else could these pictures be?

Seriously? A hoax. An artifact of exposure. A misremembered event. Literally any explanation is more plausible than ghosts, because we can verify all of those other things actually happen.

The background stories on all of them include statements that there was no one in the photo when it was taken.

How is that relevant? Why would you simply believe them?

Is there some glitch in digital photography that would superimpose an image like this on photos? Also, I can post old photos of ghosts as well that were taken before the age of photoshop. So it's not like ghost photos are a recent phenomenon that only showed up in the computer age.

This is where an education would help. If you cared about the truth, anyway. Which you clearly don't. I mean, are we really supposed to believe you think photo doctoring didn't exist before Photoshop?

This has been going on since photography was invented.

That's probably not true, and I doubt you're speaking from anything but ignorance. Though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that photo doctoring was adopted very early on. And people have been seeing shit that isn't there since the dawn of man, so...

Some fakes I grant you. But others very authentic imo.

Given that 100% of your knowledge of the paranormal comes (at best) second-hand, and you penchant for simply taking these people at their word, your opinion isn't worth much.

There's a lot of people like me who believe in photography. I mean it's not like the camera magically creates images of things that aren't there.

What's sad is you thinking this is biting sarcasm.

 

[Balerion]

If you make a claim that the photos are fake, then the burden is on you to prove that. Otherwise, a photo is exactly what it appears to be--a photo of something actually there.

LOL! Shifting the burden of proof? How religious of you.

 

[Magical Realist]

How is that relevant? Why would you simply believe them?

I have no reason to suspect they are lying. You do? Why? You'll need more evidence for their lying than just the claim that ghosts can't exist. Which you obviously don't have. Thus you are stuck with the absurd and unevidenced assumption that they are all lying and doctoring images just for the hell of it. A ridiculous claim you have simply no evidence for. But hey..it allows you the convenience of still denying the evidence doesn't it? No photos of ghosts because ghosts don't exist. And ghosts don't exist because there's no photos of ghosts. A perfectly vicious circle.

Seriously? A hoax. An artifact of exposure. A misremembered event. Literally any explanation is more plausible than ghosts, because we can verify all of those other things actually happen.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what occurred in any of the photos posted thus far? No? Then why should anyone believe you? Surely you make claims based on evidence don't you?

 

[Magical Realist]

LOL! Shifting the burden of proof? How religious of you.

Are you or are you not making a positive claim? Yes? Then back it up. That's basic to all debating.

 

[Balerion]

Are you or are you not making a positive claim? Yes? Then back it up. That's basic to all debating.

No, genius, you're making the claim, just like every theist who claims god exists. It's not my responsibility to disprove your claim. The default position isn't "if you say it, it must be true."

That said, I and others have explained to you why what you're looking at probably isn't what you think you're looking at, you've simply decided to pretend that never happened, or that logic magically works in reverse when it involves your religious beliefs. Sorry, did I say religious? It must be because your arguments sound exactly like something a religious loon would say.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, genius, you're making the claim, just like every theist who claims god exists. It's not my responsibility to disprove your claim. The default position isn't "if you say it, it must be true."

So when you said this: "Seriously? A hoax. An artifact of exposure. A misremembered event. Literally any explanation is more plausible than ghosts." you weren't really making a claim? Are you saying you now retract this statement/claim?

That said, I and others have explained to you why what you're looking at probably isn't what you think you're looking at, you've simply decided to pretend that never happened, or that logic magically works in reverse when it involves your religious beliefs. Sorry, did I say religious? It must be because your arguments sound exactly like something a religious loon would say.

Does it help your argument to call me "genius" and "religious"? Perhaps that's all you have at this point. Because I have yet to hear any good explanation as to why you can't back up your own claim that the photos are not actually photos of anything real. You DO know how photography works don't you?

Take this one for example, which was recorded on a wildlife cam in the woods. Note the light cast on the foliage from the bright figure. So which is this? A hoax? An artifact? Or a misremembered event?

 

[Enmos]

So when you said this: "Seriously? A hoax. An artifact of exposure. A misremembered event. Literally any explanation is more plausible than ghosts." you weren't really making a claim? Are you saying you now retract this statement/claim?

He simply does not believe in your 'god'.
He lacks the belief you have about ghost and these pictures.
You are making an extraordinary claim here. You should come up with some extraordinary evidence. So no shady photographs you just pulled off the internet. Unless you can show that they are authentic.
Give it your best shot.

I'm not holding my breath..

 

[Balerion]

I have no reason to suspect they are lying.

Sure you do. People lie all the time. It's common, especially regarding extraordinary claims. And lying isn't the only possible alternative. They could be mistaken, or misremembering.

Equally important is the fact that you have no reason to believe them. You have no idea who these people are or their motives. You can't simply assume they're not only telling the truth, but correct in their claims. You should always be skeptical of such claims for all of these reasons, and more--you can't learn anything through assumption.

You do? Why?

Yes. Because they're making an extraordinary claim and the evidence isn't compelling.I mean, do you believe people who say they've spoken to God? Do you believe people who claim to see the Virigin Mary in a window? Of course not, because the evidence isn't compelling. It could easily be faked, or explained much easier by something else.

You'll need more evidence for their lying than just that ghosts can't exist. Which you obviously don't have. Thus you are stuck with the absurd and unevidenced assumption that they are all lying and doctoring images just for the hell of it. A ridiculous claim you have simply no evidence for.

That's interesting. Could you please quote the part where I said they're all lying? I'll refrain from reporting you if you can show me where I said that.

In the meantime, let me make it plain: It isn't my responsibility to prove that every ghost photo is a fraud. (Just as it isn't my responsibility to disprove the existence of God) For one, I'm not saying they all are; I'm simply saying none of them are actually ghosts. And I can say that confidently because we have no genuine, credible evidence for the existence of ghosts, and plenty of examples of people faking these things, or better explanations for the phenomena than special pleading.

But hey..it allows you the convenience of still denying the evidence doesn't it? No photos of ghosts because ghosts don't exist. And ghosts don't exist because there's no photos of ghosts. A perfectly vicious circle.

Would you believe in God if someone showed you a photo of him?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what occurred in any of the photos posted thus far? No? Then why should anyone believe you?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that that is what occurred in any of the photos posted thus far? No? Then why should anyone believe you?

You can't have it both ways, MR.

 

[Balerion]

So when you said this: "Seriously? A hoax. An artifact of exposure. A misremembered event. Literally any explanation is more plausible than ghosts." you weren't really making a claim? Are you saying you now retract this statement/claim?

:facepalm:

Is your memory really that bad?

Then what else could these pictures be?

That's the question I was responding to. I provided you a few alternatives to ghosts. In other words, I told you what else the pictures could be. Do you really not know the difference?

Does it help your argument to call me "genius" and "religious"? Perhaps that's all you have at this point. Because I have yet to hear any good explanation as to why you can't back up your own claim that the photos are not actually photos of anything real. You DO know how photography works don't you?

I'm not the one making claims--you are. And yet, I'm the only one doing any sort of explaining. I've lead you through this lesson by the hand, and you reject it--why? Oh, right, because you have a religious belief in the afterlife. Why would you take offense to such a thing? It's obviously the truth, why not own it?

 

[Magical Realist]

He simply does not believe in your 'god'.
He lacks the belief you have about ghost and these pictures.
You are making an extraordinary claim here. You should come up with some extraordinary evidence. So no shady photographs you just pulled off the internet. Unless you can show that they are authentic.
Give it your best shot.

I'm not holding my breath..

I'm providing clear photos of humanoid figures called ghosts recorded by cameras. THAT is evidence. Now if you and your buddy wanna make a claim that this is not in fact what the photos are, then back it up with evidence. Here's one even of a woman's dead husband standing behind her. This is extraordinary evidence for ghosts. As are most the photos I posted. I'm guess you are getting perturbed because you have no explanation whatsoever for these photos. That certainly explains the unprovoked ad homs about my god and religion and trolling. People generally resort to insults when they feel threatened by something.

 

[Enmos]

I'm providing clear photos of humanoid figures called ghosts recorded by cameras. THAT is evidence. Now if you and your buddy wanna make a claim that this is not in fact what the photos...

No, TROLL, the burden of proof is on YOU!
YOU are making the claim that these photos show ghosts.

 

[Balerion]

I'm providing clear photos of humanoid figures called ghosts recorded by cameras. THAT is evidence. Now if you and your buddy wanna make a claim that this is not in fact what the photos are, then back it up with evidence. Here's one even of a woman's dead husband standing behind her. This is extraordinary evidence for ghosts. As are most the photos I posted. I'm guess you are getting perturbed because you have no explanation whatsoever for these photos. That certainly explains the unprovoked ad homs about my god and religion and trolling. People generally resort to insults when they feel threatened by something.

And here comes the tantrum.

Go get some sleep.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, TROLL, the burden of proof is on YOU!
YOU are making the claim that these photos show ghosts.

Then don't make claims you can't back up...

 

[Balerion]

No, TROLL, the burden of proof is on YOU!
YOU are making the claim that these photos show ghosts.

He seems to think the rules don't apply to him. He would never accept a photo of God as "evidence,' yet he thinks it's perfectly acceptable for something he believes in. This is why I asked him specific questions in that vein. What do you want to bet he doesn't answer?

 

[Enmos]

Then don't make claims you can't back up...

Seriously?
:facepalm:

What claims? You are the one making claims. Remember?

 

[Magical Realist]

:facepalm:

Is your memory really that bad?

​

That's the question I was responding to. I provided you a few alternatives to ghosts. In other words, I told you what else the pictures could be. Do you really not know the difference?

You DO know the difference between claiming a pic COULD be a hoax and proving it IS a hoax. I mean it's possible the butler did it. But that doesn't mean he did it.

I'm not the one making claims--you are. And yet, I'm the only one doing any sort of explaining. I've lead you through this lesson by the hand, and you reject it--why? Oh, right, because you have a religious belief in the afterlife. Why would you take offense to such a thing? It's obviously the truth, why not own it?

Again with the insults about religion. That's not much of an argument. I'm still waiting for proof that these pics are misremembered events, hoaxes, or artifacts. Have you even decided which one they are yet?

 

[Magical Realist]

Seriously?
:facepalm:

What claims? You are the one making claims. Remember?

You claim they are photoshopped. Surely there's some way you can back that claim up. A detailed analysis on an image analyzer? If not, what good is the claim?