SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Still photo referenced above:
Paladin
Unregistered
P
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8268114?source=Metro
The blurring in the photograph is caused by JPEG compression. Information available here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
Because of this, areas of similar color and less detail undergo more "compression" by the JPEG algorithm. That's why the walls show less blurring than the mostly-gray-and-featureless foreground.
=======
Is it a ghost? No. Is it something supernatural? No. It's a living person in a costume. How do I know this? It's really quite simple. Please examine the photograph carefully. The figure moves into view from shadow into light; the amount of light on the figure increases as it moves into the open doorway, and lessens as it closes the doors.
Furthermore, there are points at which the figure casts a shadow -- a faint, small shadow, but a shadow nonetheless.
The fact that this figure reflects light and cast shadows should indicate to any reasonable person that this is a living, material person.
Ghost apologists may wish to cite various speculative hypotheses about how ghosts can violate the laws of physics at will -- making ghosts pretty damned powerful -- but unless they can show some convincing science to support such hypotheses they will not be taken seriously.
The blurring in the photograph is caused by JPEG compression. Information available here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
Because of this, areas of similar color and less detail undergo more "compression" by the JPEG algorithm. That's why the walls show less blurring than the mostly-gray-and-featureless foreground.
=======
Is it a ghost? No. Is it something supernatural? No. It's a living person in a costume. How do I know this? It's really quite simple. Please examine the photograph carefully. The figure moves into view from shadow into light; the amount of light on the figure increases as it moves into the open doorway, and lessens as it closes the doors.
Furthermore, there are points at which the figure casts a shadow -- a faint, small shadow, but a shadow nonetheless.
The fact that this figure reflects light and cast shadows should indicate to any reasonable person that this is a living, material person.
Ghost apologists may wish to cite various speculative hypotheses about how ghosts can violate the laws of physics at will -- making ghosts pretty damned powerful -- but unless they can show some convincing science to support such hypotheses they will not be taken seriously.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Ohrryp said:
Is there anyone on here who doesn't agree with you? Or are you just saying this just in case any of us have any wavering doubts?
That certainly doesn't follow. For example, if we assume we have free will ie our voluntary bodily movements do not wholly follow some predetermined algorithm and hence our bodily movements do not completely follow physical laws, it certainly doesn't follow we are d*mned powerful.
How can science support the existence of that which is not physical?
Paladin
Unregistered
P
Interesting Ian said:Is there anyone on here who doesn't agree with you? Or are you just saying this just in case any of us have any wavering doubts?
There are such people who would cling to any odd belief regardless of the evidence. Mostly I post such things for my own amusement.
I wasn't writing about living human beings; I was writing about ghosts, which presumably are immaterial, or possibly semi-material (ectoplasmic), or extra-dimensional, and was writing about possible speculative hypotheses someone who believed in ghosts might advance.
Interesting Ian said:
There is no more evidence for these ghosts, apparitions, ESP, or whatever, than there is for the Virgin appearing at Fatima-- that latter notion had me in thralldom for my entire youth. Truly, as grumpy and egotistical as Randi is, he was a factor in freeing me from religious shackles. Why, then, should I not apply empricism and reason to all other extraordinary claims? Give me compelling evidence, and I'll believe. Don't, and I won't. What is so wrong with that standard? I can tell you what is right with it, in terms of freeing minds, because I lived that liberation.
Truth matters. To real people.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Has anyone asked Lyndale (LightPiercingDarkness) if he can see his demon faces in this?
Rolfe.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Mona said:
What do you mean by compelling evidence and why do you require it before deeming the hypothesis, that ghosts are not wholly generated from within, a reasonable hypothesis? And what type of ghosts are we talking about here? All ghosts/apparitions etc whatsoever? What reason do you have to label all of them hallucinations? Do you have in fact any reasons other and above an unthinking adherence to materialism?
Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Ed said:
Are you unable to find your own references? If you doubt it what percentage do you think it is?
Interesting Ian said:
It sounds like hogwash to me. I also sounds like a typical fast and loose paranormal assertion.
The point is, if you can't back up a statistic, don't post it. Or, post it and let it rise and fall on it's merits.
If I had to guess, I'd say 5% which seems to be the residual "unknown". That, incidentially, is my own hypothesis. And if it is, in fact 5%, you would need a pretty hefty sample for it to be taken seriously. You would also need an instrument that is not flawed.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Ed said:
What evidence do you have that I can't back up my statistic? Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed.
I don't read Ian's posts often, but the ones I do read are hilarious.
1.) "I assert that 99% of cats have all their claws fall out at one point in their life" (just a silly example)
2.) "Prove it" (skeptic of your choice here)
3.) "What is evidence? What is proof? Can't you look it up yourself?" (Ian)
4.)"Since you're not bringing up proof but you like to talk a lot, I'm thinking you don't have any" (skeptic of your choice here)
5.)"Who says I don't have proof?" (Ian)
6.)"Where is it?" (skeptic of your choice here)
7.) "Oh well what you have to say doesn't count for the immaterialist viewpoint"
Bing! Verse 543908 same as the first.
Or, as I have admitted I don't read Ian's posts very often, is this not a correct evaluation of the situation?
1.) "I assert that 99% of cats have all their claws fall out at one point in their life" (just a silly example)
2.) "Prove it" (skeptic of your choice here)
3.) "What is evidence? What is proof? Can't you look it up yourself?" (Ian)
4.)"Since you're not bringing up proof but you like to talk a lot, I'm thinking you don't have any" (skeptic of your choice here)
5.)"Who says I don't have proof?" (Ian)
6.)"Where is it?" (skeptic of your choice here)
7.) "Oh well what you have to say doesn't count for the immaterialist viewpoint"
Bing! Verse 543908 same as the first.
Or, as I have admitted I don't read Ian's posts very often, is this not a correct evaluation of the situation?
Interesting Ian said:
What evidence do you have that I can't back up my statistic? Oh yes, and it needs to be peer reviewed.
Never said that, I just said it sounded like hogwash. Unfortunately, believers in the paranormal are like believers everywhere, the results are in and the data then is adjusted. It is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. So, by your non-response, I take it that you simply made up "50%" for the sake of theater?
So then, to answer for Mona
Question
"Let's take one particular example. About half of all widows and widowers at some stage report hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. With what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?"
Answer
That is a non-question because you lied about the data.
Edit to fix my "answer"
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Flaherty said:
Sorry, that was an error on my part. I shouldn't have included the word "hallucinatory" as that begs the question.
Suezoled said:
Absolutely. It also applies to just about each and every believer in paranormal phenomena I have ever had the pleasure of talking to.
The last item 7 is substituted with various answers, depending on their beliefs. Often insults.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Ed said:
I have not lied about the data at all. I did not see the purpose of providing references since, from past experience, I highly suspect people will not check them out. Not even when I provide a URL!
However, since you insist:
W. D. Rees, The Hallucinations of Widowhood, British Medical Journal,
pp. 209-221, 1971.
I. Stevenson, The Contribution of Apparitions to the Evidence for Survival,
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 76: 4, pp. 341-358, 1982.
E. Haraldsson, Representative National Surveys of Psychic Phenomena: Iceland, Great Britain, Sweden, USA and Gallup’s Multinational Survey, Journal of the Societv for Psychical Research, 53:801, pp. 145-158, 1985.
K. Osis and E. Haraldsson, At the Hour of Death, 2nd Edition, Hastings House, New York, 1986.
Interesting Ian said:
In point of fact, the entire question begged the question.
If you were honest you might have asked something like
"Let's take one particular example. Absent evidence, suppose about half of all widows and widowers at some stage report experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. Assuning that half do, with what reason do you believe their experiences are not what they seem to be?"
It is a rather silly question, but at least open and aboveboard.
Hi Ed,
Many grief books cite the frequent occurence of widows/widowers thinking that they see their deceased spouse. You may not accept it, but it is widely reported and quite common.
I can't find much of an online reference for you, but Dr. Raymond Moody (famous for research into NDE), -does- quote a similar statistic at his website. If you're really interested, I suppose you could write and ask him for his source (as well as for the others on his list that I'm sure you would dispute as well. Not that I disagree, really--he should source them. Here it is: ).
)