Ghost photobombs

[Michael 345]

I can "clearly" see one of those reflector thingies that doctors used to wear on their foreheads. That's one over-achieving ghost.

That is not a reflective thingie from doctors

It's a live feed dish back to spirit world

He runs a TV show there trying to prove REAL humans do exist to a very skeptical ghost audience

 

[Magical Realist]

This is a great example of how this sort of thing is presented by the promoters of the woo.

Notice that text deliberately primes the viewer before he or she interprets the photo. That is, the viewer is instructed as to what he or she is supposed to see in the picture (text bolded by me, above). The suggestion about what the photo shows is implanted in the viewer's mind, making it more likely that they will agree with the line being pushed by the woo promoter.

Let's look at the rest. We are told that Mrs Sayer says there was nobody sitting beside her, which further reinforces the rest of the sentence and makes sure that we're ready to be surprised and shocked to see the supposedly ghostly figure.

We are told that Mrs Sayer felt cold even though it was a hot day; obviously we're to assume that there's no reason she would feel cold other than the ghostly presence we're supposed to perceive.

That's assuming this is true report of something Mrs Sayer actually said, of course, and there's no reason to trust a third or fourth-hand report about that.

We're told that other photos were taken by they "didn't come out", which explains away the inconvenience of not being able to compare this shot to any others that might help arrive at a correct interpretation of the photo. And once again we face the real possibility that these supposed "other" photos were never taken in the first place, or perhaps that they actually did come out but showed why this photo doesn't show a ghost.

The woo promoter gallops along. Having assumed there's a ghost, he moves on to trying to account for it within the usual mythology of the ghost "movement". Clearly, somebody must have died, leaving a ghost behind. So, the history of the helicopter is told, even though it might be completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter, because for the woo promoter, any vague possibility or suggestion that might explain a ghost is as good is rock-solid evidence.

When faced with this kind of nonsense, the best thing to do is to ignore the promotional text and just think about the photo itself. What are we looking at here?

In this case, it's fairly obvious: we're looking at sunlight (or some other bright light) reflected off the windshield of the helicopter. This conjecture is supported by the additional bright reflection off the front of the helicopter (i.e. outside the cabin, and disconnected from the supposed "ghost"), which shows the same colour light reflected at high intensity. This wouldn't be unexpected if we accept the "hot day" part of the story - bright sunshine etc. The light on Mrs Sayer's face also supports the existence of the bright light source (probably the sun).

There's no white shirt in the photo, let alone one that can be "clearly seen". There is no "figure", other than the one that can be imagined using the vagueries of the imperfect reflection from the curved windshield.

Magical Realist gets suckered in by this kind of rubbish all the time; this is just one more ho hum example of his gullibility.

LOL! They whine and bitch when I don't provide background info on the photo, and then they whine and bitch when I do. Methinks someone doth protest too much. Strange that a mere photo of a little old ghost should upset someone so much. I suggest therapy..

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL! They whine and bitch when I don't provide background info on the photo, and then they whine and bitch when I do. Methinks someone doth protest too much. Strange that a mere photo of a little old ghost should upset someone so much. I suggest therapy..

Surely you are not implying, without factual evidence to back it up, that another member of the forums is in some manner developmentally, emotionally, or otherwise mentally compromised? After all...

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling.
• Threats.
• Stalking.
• Flaming.
• Hate speech.
• Posting another member's private information without explicit consent.
• Posting gratuitous comments or images of an obscene, sexual, violent or graphic nature.
• Excessive profanity.
• Repeated off-topic posting.
• Plagiarism.
• Knowingly posting false or misleading information.
• Spamming or advertising.
• Posting on behalf of a banned member.
• Trolling.
• Repetitive or vexatious posting.
• Interfering with moderation.
• Propaganda, preaching, proselytising or evangelising.
• Being a repeat-offending drain on moderator time and effort.

The rules are rather clear there... to use your own words, methinks you doth protest too much.

 

[Magical Realist]

Surely you are not implying, without factual evidence to back it up, that another member of the forums is in some manner developmentally, emotionally, or otherwise mentally compromised? After all...

Suggesting that people who need therapy are "developmentally, emotionally, or mentally compromised" is your insult not mine. I suggest not doing that in the future. It just makes you look bad.

 

[Kittamaru]

Suggesting that people who need therapy are "developmentally, emotionally, or mentally compromised" is your insult not mine. I suggest not doing that in the future. It just makes you look bad.

Hmm, of course, of course - because someone who is of sound mind, or otherwise has no problems, would need therapy, yes?

Your lies are unbecoming, MR - not unexpected, mind, but unbecoming. That, and I note, you have yet to answer James' questions... I would hazard that is because you are unable to do so, which would be so dreadfully typical.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hmm, of course, of course - because someone who is of sound mind, or otherwise has no problems, would need therapy, yes?

Right..Millions of people "of sound mind", by which you must mean legally sane or lucid enough to make their own decisions, are in therapy. Your disgusting desire to smear a whole class of people based on that alone is noted.

 

[Kittamaru]

Right..Millions of people "of sound mind", by which you must mean legally sane or lucid enough to make their own decisions, are in therapy. Your disgusting desire to smear a whole class of people based on that alone is noted.

Haha, how sad that you are so desperate to lie your way out of your own statement that you must resort to such sad little lies. More of the same ol' Magical Realist I guess. Never change buddy - at least you're predictable.

 

[Magical Realist]

Haha, how sad that you are so desperate to lie your way out of your own statement that you must resort to such sad little lies. More of the same ol' Magical Realist I guess. Never change buddy - at least you're predictable.

"A similar poll released in May, "Therapy in America 2004," and co-sponsored by Psychology Today magazine and PacifiCare Behavioral Health, found that an estimated 59 million people have received mental health treatment in the past two years, and that 80 percent of them have found it effective."---- https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/survey.aspx

 

[Kittamaru]

"A similar poll released in May, "Therapy in America 2004," and co-sponsored by Psychology Today magazine and PacifiCare Behavioral Health, found that an estimated 59 million people have received mental health treatment in the past two years, and that 80 percent of them have found it effective."---- https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/survey.aspx

And a red herring now - nice!

Pray tell - how exactly does that help your, ahem, position any?

The fact that you are part of the group stigmatizing mental health issues showcases your true self for all to see; unless, of course, you wish to merely redefine words again?

You seem to take offense to the idea that one who needs therapy is somehow troubled - be it emotionally, developmentally, mentally, or otherwise; why does such a simple, true statement bother you so?

 

[Magical Realist]

And a red herring now - nice!

Pray tell - how exactly does that help your, ahem, position any?

The fact that you are part of the group stigmatizing mental health issues showcases your true self for all to see; unless, of course, you wish to merely redefine words again?

You seem to take offense to the idea that one who needs therapy is somehow troubled - be it emotionally, developmentally, mentally, or otherwise; why does such a simple, true statement bother you so?

You're the one who claimed that people in therapy are developmentally, emotionally, and mentally compromised, whatever that means. And you were the one who claimed people in therapy were not of sound mind. Back up your claims with evidence or STFU..

 

[Kittamaru]

You're the one who claimed that people in therapy are developmentally, emotionally, and mentally compromised, whatever that means. And you were the one who claimed people in therapy were not of sound mind. Back up your claims with evidence or STFU..

And now you are intentionally misquoting what I said - bad form, not to mention yet another breach of forum rules. Then again, that seems to be your modus operandi.

Here is what I actually said:

Surely you are not implying, without factual evidence to back it up, that another member of the forums is in some manner developmentally, emotionally, or otherwise mentally compromised?

You, then, made the statement that admitting one has a need for therapy is somehow smearing "a whole class of people" ...

Which is interesting in itself, since it indicates a very prominent "you vs them" mentality... Heaven forbid you actually associate or empathize with another "class of people", lest it tarnish your stellar reputation!

Hm... Do I need to put the /s after that, or is it evident enough?

I note you STILL haven't provided the information requested of you by James either...

 

[Magical Realist]

And now you are intentionally misquoting what I said - bad form, not to mention yet another breach of forum rules. Then again, that seems to be your modus operandi.

Here is what I actually said:



You, then, made the statement that admitting one has a need for therapy is somehow smearing "a whole class of people" ...

Which is interesting in itself, since it indicates a very prominent "you vs them" mentality... Heaven forbid you actually associate or empathize with another "class of people", lest it tarnish your stellar reputation!

Hm... Do I need to put the /s after that, or is it evident enough?

I note you STILL haven't provided the information requested of you by James either...

Buzz off troll. Reading your disgusting lying manipulative posts nauseates me.

 

[Kittamaru]

Buzz off troll. Reading your disgusting lying manipulative posts nauseates me.

Back to personal attacks and vile, unsubstantiated accusations when you find yourself cornered. How droll.

It is amusing though that it took you two edits to add some colorful imagery to your attack - I guess even a token attempt to elicit an emotional response takes more effort than you are willing (or perhaps able?) to put forth.

Do you intend to answer James questions and/or provide analysis of your silly pictures, or are you going to back peddle on that too?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Did Scooby Doo and the gang without a doubt ever see a real ghost in the end of their investigations?

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

You apparently overlooked the question I asked you earlier:

Do you agree that the photo you posted in post #604 is a deliberate fake?

Please answer the question. Thank you!

 

[James R]

LOL! They whine and bitch when I don't provide background info on the photo, and then they whine and bitch when I do.

You sound upset that I chose to comment on another photo that suckered you in. You're obviously angry at yourself, not at me. It's okay. I understand.

Methinks someone doth protest too much. Strange that a mere photo of a little old ghost should upset someone so much.

Indeed.

I suggest therapy..

I think you're too invested for that to help, probably, but you could try.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:

You apparently overlooked the question I asked you earlier:

Do you agree that the photo you posted in post #604 is a deliberate fake?

Please answer the question. Thank you!

Nope.. It's not a fake photo. It's a famous photo of a just married couple. Just because your computer can't properly pixelate the zoomed-in image doesn't mean it's fake.

 

[Kittamaru]

Nope.. It's not a fake photo. Just because your computer can't properly pixelate the zoomed in image doesn't mean it's fake.

More unsubstantiated claims...

You will, of course, provide evidence that the issue is with James computer.

EDIT - reposting the same exact picture does not a compelling argument make, btw.

 

[Magical Realist]

...

 

[Kittamaru]

...

You are aware we can see edits, yes? Though, I will give credit where credit is due - you are showing signs that you are learning; well done on not simply posting pictures with no commentary.

However, lets compare your picture:

vs if I take the far left image and blow it up 300% (straight 300 percent upsize - no other alterations besides cropping the image)

Fairly obvious that the face was added in after, as well as other alterations to the image.

I'd wager that someone with access to far better tools than what I have available could spend a few hours and force the image to look like a predetermined outcome... but I would love to see some sort of image enhancement run that gets the original to look like the supposed ghost image.

EDIT - hrm, five hours, during which you've been on several times, and nothing... guess you are admitting it's a fake then