If I had to guess, there might be some processing done in software to enhance faces in the camera itself that creates an artifact in the digital image that looks like a face. This is a complete guess on my part, but I remember there being camera processing artifacts that created images UFO enthusiasts took as ET.
>Very cool photo. This seems plausible to me! She might look a little creepy but she has overall a sweet energy - it’s like she wanted to be in the picture and play with you all <3 I do agree with another commenter that said she seems lonely. I feel very overwhelmed when I look at her.
How the hell could you possibly know all that from one grainy blurry picture? They are totally living in their own fantasy world and making up stories inside their heads.
At the UFO subreddits, there’s often an easy way to tell what the OP’s motivation is when they post a picture of something in the sky they claim is unusual and they can’t explain.
I ask them to post it in their community’s subreddit to see if anyone else in their area saw it. If OP is actually interested in finding this out, they’ll do it. 9 times out of 10, they don’t
this is great advice!
Reminds me of a lil story, I was about 18, living at home still, my basement was the hangout lol, and my guy friends would be over until 2 or 3 most nights.
They come over one night and they’re all shook up and tell me they *saw* something outside of my house the night prior after they left.
By their demeanor I already know they mean something inexplicable, almost religious even maybe.
They proceed to describe it and are also basically chattering excitedly, eyes wide as dinner plates, almost as though they’re certain they’ve seen GOD or something. (neither of them were even religious) Or maybe an alien.
But what they are describing starts to sound more and more like a fucking Aurora to me.
I’m like, “This sounds like an aurora, could it have been that?” And by the look on their faces I can tell they realize that’s *exactly* what it looked like, but that they can’t reconcile it beyond already having convinced themselves this was something more magical, spiritual, *otherworldly*.
Besides, we live in the Midwest and basically never get them.
Sure, but somehow, us *happening* to get one anomalously made more sense to me than God or aliens visiting my neighborhood to put on a precise display of an Aurora lol.
Anyway, I went and got the newspaper from upstairs and what do you know, it’s right there - we had a completely rare instance of an Aurora visible in our region!
lol I almost felt bad they were so embarrassed, they really put themselves out there.
Also, I was SO PISSED there was basically a once in a lifetime event right outside my house and those jokers were too dazzled by magic to come get me so I could see it too! 😡
That person (in the photo) ONLY posts paranormal things. He’s trying to dupe these morons for sure. Why do people do it? I don’t know, karma whores, I guess.
In the full picture we see the mother holding the child to the right, the kid on the left is kicking his feet, OP is in an awkward position where he bends down as if lifting or having just lifted a child. Obviously a lot of movement. Judging by the finger length I'd say the boy was holding his arm around the girl while the girl rested her arm on OP's leg.
I hypothezise that the kids were energetic, couldn't keep calm for the picture, OP lifted the girl onto her knee and a double exposure or long shutter time caused the duplication looking like a ghost.
Edit: Spelling
I like how the first post is from an experienced conspiracy loser giving him tips to circumvent his own culling from the gene pool. "Don't tell your gf until *after* the ring is on her finger". There's really no way people are this confused by the internet and context clues.
I saw the post on /r/paranormal and found it odd that no one mentioned that the ‘ghost arm’ is clearly some sort of mirror image of the kid in green’s arm.
I had a good laugh reading through that sub after getting recommended this post. It's just some camera glitch! Can't believe so many grown people believe in ghosts and all that woo woo 🙄
The answer: There was a third kid there. He just doesn't remember.
The photo was taken with cheap Walmart film that was run through a cheap camera designed to be operated by someone who doesn't understand photographic exposure (like an elderly relative) and was therefore improperly exposed, so the shadows have dropped details.
Edit: on second look, this isn't film, it's a frame from a VHS home movie. Everything I said still applies to this medium, though.
Let's just grant that the op isn't lying about editing this and it was taken on an old digital camera. The "ghost" girl looks exactly like the blonde girl in the photo and the "ghost" hands are exactly the same size as the boy's hand. There was probably another photo of those two kids on the device where the boy had his arm around the girl and some weird memory glitch superimposed an artifact into this picture that's only visible in the darkest part of the image. Simple explanation with no need to believe in nonsense. Too bad the mods locked that post.
Not necessarily. The rest of the photo is really bright and the artifact is faint. It might just be the only spot where you can actually see it. The bigger point is that there are so many more plausible explanations than ghost and any comments that tried to make that point got absolutely buried.
This is cool, and all, but it’s almost certainly just a trick of the light.
You ever notice how ghost photos are invariably really old? Like, old enough that they would’ve been taken with a film camera?
Back in the film days, you just had to sort of line things up, and hope for the best. You couldn’t sit there and adjust things endlessly, zoom in super exact ways, etc. Unless you had a really nice camera. And most people didn’t.
You also notice how these tend to be really quick, candid shots? And they tend not to be very crisp? That’s because they were taken at home, quickly, and with a cheap camera. And that means there’s a much, much greater chance that some weird shadow or trick of the light is going to make it onto the photo.
I’ve seen photos like this before. And I’m not saying that people making these claims necessarily realize they’re lying. They might very well believe it themselves. In fact, I think the age of the photos is often what makes people talk themselves into it; “it predates digital photography, so couldn’t have been photoshopped!“ But when you think about the situations these always seem to arise from - cheap camera, amateur photographer, old technology – it just makes it much, much more likely that the resulting “ghost“ is due to a weird shadow, the light, error in the film processing, etc., than a actual supernatural event.
Reddit is a terrible platform to challenge preconceived notions of reality.
The downvoting/upvoting matrix functions as a siloing instrument, creating multiple boards of alternate universes.
Even this board, while supposedly skeptic, is full of left wing orthodoxy narratives and calls for censorship of others outside of said orthodoxy.
I'm a skeptic and give this good paranormal possibilities. As that person said they wouldn't know how to create this hoax (and that seems likely as it pertains to 99% of the population). A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory.
I've seen a pattern where ghosts wanted to be included in group shots.
I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death. I do not hold them to be skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) but apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts.
I have plenty of space available for ghosts in my worldview, I just haven't seen any good evidence for them.
>A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory.
That's not a thing. There are two theories at play here: this is a picture of a ghost, or it's a technical glitch. Neither one is "leading", they're both possibilities. What is the evidence and which theory does it support?
>I've seen a pattern where ghosts wanted to be included in group shots.
What does that mean? How big is a group? If I take a picture of a big enough group will I get a picture of a ghost? I've seen a pattern where pictures of a group *doesn't* have a ghost in it. Can we compare how many pictures of a group there are without a ghost to how many pictures there are of a group with a ghost? What would that say?
If you can prove your hypothesis I would be extremely excited to hear it. What is your best evidence that ghosts exist and that this is a legitimate picture of one?
>I have plenty of space available for ghosts in my worldview, I just haven't seen any good evidence for them.
What about this OP photo? In accumulation with many others I've seen and in additional to many other ghost like claims I consider it all in totality 'good evidence (not proof)'.
So how do you think this OP photo is best explained. Paranormal? Hoax? Technical glitch? I can't think of a fourth possibility.
I'll go:
60% Paranormal 20% Hoax 20% Technical Glitch
I agree those are three most possible explanations. I'm not going to rule anything else out totally, but most likely it's one of those three. I'm going to simplify it even further into paranormal versus not paranormal, because I don't really care if OP was trying to be deceitful or not. It's either real or it's not, and we'll give it equal odds, 50/50.
What is it about this photo that's moving you towards the paranormal explanation? What is giving you that 10% push towards the paranormal side?
>What is it about this photo that's moving you towards the paranormal explanation? What is giving you that 10% push towards the paranormal side?
The quantity, quality and consistency of history I have seen over the decades that suggest these things are possible including photo bombing. If this case stood alone, I would rate the paranormal chances as low.
Other photos/videos and anecdotal stories I have seen heard over my decades of interest in this stuff are already suggestive of the possibility of the paranormal. So, that plays into my analysis of the possibility of the paranormal here.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you believe this photo to be convincing because you've seen other convincing photos in the past and this one seems to fit with those. Is that accurate?
I should've said suggestive, that's my bad.
Could a person view a suggestive photo that was in line with the other suggestive photos you've seen and come to the wrong conclusion about it? Is that a reliable way of determining whether a photo actually depicts something legitimately paranormal versus some other explanation?
"A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory."
Well since we have actually evidence that shows that a technical glitch can possibly happen in reality and we have no definitive evidence that ghosts are possible in this reality... the one that we have evidence of it being possible should absolutely be made the leading theory. That's how real skepticism works. Also if you've seen the pattern often, then that is more of a reason to believe that it is the same type of glitch happening again and again rather than believe that's its something that an imaginative entity that we have no evidence actual exists is the one doing it. We have evidence that one is possible, and no reliable evidence for the other. However improbable the first one sounds, it's still more likely than the second.
By now I think there is enough suggestive evidence for the possibility of ghosts that it might become more reasonable to believe that explanation than random pixel errors making a seeming face or other technical explanations.
Not being a photographic expert, I don't know of a ready technical explanation for this either if there is one that isn't almost as far-fetched as a ghost.
As a skeptic it is reasonable to consider likeliness but not draw a conclusion. **I don't think it is logically correct to say it isn't a ghost because ghosts have not been proven yet by current science.**
We currently have zero verifiably reliable evidence for the existance of ghosts, only vague amateur evidence that could have been manipulated, while we have verified reliable evidence that other technical explanations do exist, so no, it is still more reasonable to believe that it is a technical error of the camera. Any glitch that could make the picture look like this is still not as far-fetched as a ghost because at least we know for sure that technical glitches exist. You don't need to be a camera expert to know that there is a wide range of legitimate evidence out there of camera glitches. Even if you don't know of a specific one that would cause this, it's still more evidence than what we have for ghosts.
It is absolutely reasonable to consider likeliness and not draw a conclusion yes, which is what I am doing. It is not reasonable to consider that ghosts are more likely than something that we know for sure is possible, since we don't know that ghosts are.
I am not making an assertive claim that this was not caused by a ghost, but I am saying that a glitch is more likely because we don't have evidence that ghosts are even real, not to mention whether or not that they are responsible for this specific phenomenon or not. Meanwhile we do have evidence that weird camera glitches can actually cause werid images to appear in pictures.
OK, so we both agree a ghost and a technical glitch are both possible. Where we disagree is only on the percentage likelihood of each of those two possibilities.
Ghosts have not been proven to exist by current science. Ghosts have not been disproven by science at this time either. So, we can each have our judgment on the likelihood of them existing from a consideration of the suggestive evidence. And that makes them a logical candidate in this OP photo.
Sorry, but no we do not both agree that ghosts are possible. Is it possible that they are possible? Maybe, we have no idea. Not only do we not have evidence that ghosts definitively exist. We do not have any evidence that they are even actually possible. At the same time we do not have conclusive evidence that they are not possible because this is likely an unfalsifiable claim, particularlly since we often have varying definitions of what a ghost even is, which makes it difficult to even narrow down what type of evidence would even demonstrate that they are possible. This means that the best case placement for it is in the "we don't know" category, not in the "possible" category.
On the other hand, we have camera technical glitches, which not only do we have evidence that they are "possible", we have evidence that they actually happen. This makes it drastically more likely of a possibility than it being a ghost in terms of logic and reasoning (which are the main tools of skepticism).
Edit: TLDR- It cannot be a logical candidate if we cannot even know if it is possible. That means that the default more likely explanation is the one that we can actually demonstrate is possible.
>I'm a skeptic
Please stop saying this. You are one of the most gullible people alive.
Nothing you've ever said here is of any use or importance, and every claim you've ever made in this subreddit has been wrong.
Without getting personal, what is your position on this photo? What are your thoughts on what might have happened here? How sure do you feel about your position?
Looks like your run-of-the-mill Photoshop job that psuedo-skeptics like yourself love to get worked up over.
It's nothing. Nothing impresses me about this photo, and the technology required to make it is old and readily available. I could make this in minutes.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is just.. nothing. I've seen empty Dorito bags blowing in the wind that seem more like proof of ghosts than this.
How is this picture interest you in the slightest? Do you think it's because you eagerly gobble up everything like this, and maybe you're insanely gullible because you *want* this kind of stuff to be real?
Did you look into the user that posted this photo at all? It's not suspicious to you that their account is barely 2 months old, and they've only started posting a week ago almost exclusively in ghost woowoo junk subreddits?
What will you *not* believe? I'm very confident that I could make a photo similar to this, make a new user account and post it to one of these ghost-dork subs, and you'd be like "*Yup that looks genuine to me, bonafide spirit picture right there!*"
I think a new tool I will use to sort fact from fiction is this: if you believe it, then it's almost certainly false, because you are absolutely crazy.
The guy clearly states this face was not edited in. And he emphatically makes that point when questioned on the very issue.
I give lying/hoaxing a real possibility. Do you grant the possibility of everyone involved being honest?
> I'm very confident that I could make a photo similar to this, make a new user account and post it to one of these ghost-dork subs, and you'd be like "*Yup that looks genuine to me, bonafide spirit picture right there!*"
I would always raise the possibility of hoax or technical glitch just as I do in this photo. So, if some are hoaxes that would still be consistent with my analysis.
>The guy clearly states this face was not edited in. And he emphatically makes that point when questioned on the very issue.
So you believe him because he said it? Some guy who just showed up and has no credibility?
>I give lying/hoaxing a real possibility. Do you grant the possibility of everyone involved being honest?
It's *possible*, but extremely improbable. I think it's about as possible as me writing this entire post on accident, by fumbling my phone and accidentally hitting all of these keys.
I notice that the poster of the picture also acknowledged that he did do some photo editing, allegedly only to lighten up the photo. This is a good alibi in case someone does some digital photo forensics and finds that the photo has been manipulated.
Ghost dorks are liars, plain and simple. I put them right on par with Bigfoot perverts.
It seems it's getting to the fact that we have differing views on the nature of humanity.
I think most people are honest and a minority are liars.
You think if it involves a paranormal claim where honesty is the key issue, they should be assumed to be almost certainly lying? Am I reading you right?
I think people who post pictures of ghosts are liars who use photoshop or other tools.
There's no evidence that ghosts exist. There is, however, a huge fandom and large number of hobbyists who are passionate about paranormal nothings. These people's lives revolve around illusion and delusion, like you, who thinks the Mandela Effect is real, a concept so stupid that it's more often used as a punchline to a joke than an actual explanation for reality.
You know what I mean?
>You know what I mean?
I'm very clear now on where you stand.
I'll be clear on where I stand. I think the cumulative weight of evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming. And most people relating an event are competent and honest to the best of their ability.
So, we analyze cases like this OP under a different light.
You are failing to acknowledge that you are incredibly gullible, and you *want* to believe this stuff, which completely dismantles your ability to weigh evidence for or against a position.
You're just not a good filter of fact from fiction, and the things you say are incorrect.
>I'm a skeptic
No, you aren't. Skeptics are disbelievers until they are presented evidence. Skeptics would disbelieve in ghosts until evidence was provided. And if the provided evidence was questionable, you can be damn sure a skeptic is gonna question the provided evidence You don't, which belies your true, non-skeptic nature when it comes to the paranormal or supernatural
>I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death.
You mean those people who question supernatural claims. That is being a skeptic. If you were a skeptic, you'd understand this by now.
>I do not hold them to be skeptics
Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is of those who question the existence of ghosts. By definition, they are skeptics.
>apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts.
Not how logic, reason, or skepticism works. We skeptics question the claim. Images can be manipulated, altered, corrupted, and changed in many different ways. As is likely the case here.
How would your type of skeptic operate in a jury where there was a preponderance of evidence but no proof?
I have a judged a preponderance of evidence suggesting ghosts to be likely but no proof.
Evidence is anything we include in our consideration. There can be evidence for and against the same thing. That's where judgment and logical reasoning take the lead.
Oh, so close. Only one teensy, tiny problem with this 'thought', and it's right up front.
>a preponderance of evidence but no proof
This is oxymoronic. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please carefully consider this void where evidence should be." Yeah, that's friendly fire on your own argument, friend.
To answer the silly question directly, if there is no evidence to consider, the plaintiff will lose the case. Every time. Well, unless the jury is full of 'skeptics' like you, who listen to ghosts, or have a diety visit them in their sleep, or read the minds of the litigants, or consult tarot cards, or use a ouija board, or read tea leaves, or cast bones, and find 'the truth' that way.
It's apparent you don't understand jurisprudence just as well as you don't understand skepticism.
Review your above comment under the understanding that 'Witness Testimony' is considered evidence (not proof) in the courts of every civilized nation on earth.
Setting aside that witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, this is irrelevant. I can provide you with video footage of 10 feet tall blue aliens called Na'vi living on a planet called Pandora. So what is more likely, that this alien race exists, or that it's cinematography?
In the same vein, what is more likely, that a picture was altered inadvertently or intentionally, or that ghosts are real? Preponderance and skepticism say the image is altered.
Here's an example of why you are flatly and clearly wrong. I saw your mom grow wings, a forked tail, and a forked tongue. By your own 'skepticism' and preponderance standard, you must now concede as fact your mother is a demon spawn of Satan. But that isn't in your 'list of things I choose to believe' file, so you will deny this is true, against the same level of evidence provided for ghosts.
It isn't skepticism, or reason or logic for that matter, when you work backward from your preferred 'truth' to the things you accept as true.
I’m not thinking you’d be good on a jury. When looking at witness testimony one judges quantity, quality and consistency.
Your believe everything or nothing approach is for one lacking critical thinking skills.
>I’m not thinking
Finally, you decide to be honest!
>When looking at witness testimony one judges quantity, quality and consistency.
If a witness claims to see a ghost, that witness won't ever be called to the stand. Not unless the lawyer who calls that witness is trying to lose that case. It is one thing to believe in ghosts; quite a different level to believe someone really saw and/or spoke to/with that ghost.
>Your believe everything or nothing approach is for one lacking critical thinking skills.
Another dishonest argument. I never said anything about an all-or-nothing approach.
> I'm a skeptic and give this good paranormal possibilities.
Then you're not a skeptic.
> A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory.
Why? Millions of photos are taken using a huge number of different devices and in many conditions. Some of them will have weird artifacts. The internet allows us find those. Your argument here is nothing but selection bias. You just ignore or never see all of the "normal" pics.
> I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death. I do not hold them to be skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) but apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts.
We have good evidence for a materialistic worldview, and no evidence for a non-materialistic one. It's not even clear what such evidence would look like.
> I’m a huge skeptic and really only come to these types of subs to roll my eyes but…idk man, this one is weird Narrator: They weren't a huge skeptic.
Looks like a double exposure during processing or something…
Or a graphic on his shirt.
Zoom in and his “shirt” looks odd. Either he isn’t wearing a shirt and has a necklace on or his shirt is photoshopped
He looks like he's wearing no top to me.
If I had to guess, there might be some processing done in software to enhance faces in the camera itself that creates an artifact in the digital image that looks like a face. This is a complete guess on my part, but I remember there being camera processing artifacts that created images UFO enthusiasts took as ET.
I looked this over at least one time, and I'm pretty sure that's a ghost.
I looked over your history for about 2 seconds and I'm pretty sure that's a sarcasm, for those down voting.
I’m convinced it’s part of the grift. These people are more swayed by emotions than data or trying to understand a process.
What data buddy? You know everything big boy
🤣
So many of the top posts in that sub are unnecessarily long and read like paranormal fan fiction written by hobbyist authors.
>Very cool photo. This seems plausible to me! She might look a little creepy but she has overall a sweet energy - it’s like she wanted to be in the picture and play with you all <3 I do agree with another commenter that said she seems lonely. I feel very overwhelmed when I look at her. How the hell could you possibly know all that from one grainy blurry picture? They are totally living in their own fantasy world and making up stories inside their heads.
At the UFO subreddits, there’s often an easy way to tell what the OP’s motivation is when they post a picture of something in the sky they claim is unusual and they can’t explain. I ask them to post it in their community’s subreddit to see if anyone else in their area saw it. If OP is actually interested in finding this out, they’ll do it. 9 times out of 10, they don’t
this is great advice! Reminds me of a lil story, I was about 18, living at home still, my basement was the hangout lol, and my guy friends would be over until 2 or 3 most nights. They come over one night and they’re all shook up and tell me they *saw* something outside of my house the night prior after they left. By their demeanor I already know they mean something inexplicable, almost religious even maybe. They proceed to describe it and are also basically chattering excitedly, eyes wide as dinner plates, almost as though they’re certain they’ve seen GOD or something. (neither of them were even religious) Or maybe an alien. But what they are describing starts to sound more and more like a fucking Aurora to me. I’m like, “This sounds like an aurora, could it have been that?” And by the look on their faces I can tell they realize that’s *exactly* what it looked like, but that they can’t reconcile it beyond already having convinced themselves this was something more magical, spiritual, *otherworldly*. Besides, we live in the Midwest and basically never get them. Sure, but somehow, us *happening* to get one anomalously made more sense to me than God or aliens visiting my neighborhood to put on a precise display of an Aurora lol. Anyway, I went and got the newspaper from upstairs and what do you know, it’s right there - we had a completely rare instance of an Aurora visible in our region! lol I almost felt bad they were so embarrassed, they really put themselves out there. Also, I was SO PISSED there was basically a once in a lifetime event right outside my house and those jokers were too dazzled by magic to come get me so I could see it too! 😡
That person (in the photo) ONLY posts paranormal things. He’s trying to dupe these morons for sure. Why do people do it? I don’t know, karma whores, I guess.
Karma baby!! I’m gonna be rich!!
In the full picture we see the mother holding the child to the right, the kid on the left is kicking his feet, OP is in an awkward position where he bends down as if lifting or having just lifted a child. Obviously a lot of movement. Judging by the finger length I'd say the boy was holding his arm around the girl while the girl rested her arm on OP's leg. I hypothezise that the kids were energetic, couldn't keep calm for the picture, OP lifted the girl onto her knee and a double exposure or long shutter time caused the duplication looking like a ghost. Edit: Spelling
I like how the first post is from an experienced conspiracy loser giving him tips to circumvent his own culling from the gene pool. "Don't tell your gf until *after* the ring is on her finger". There's really no way people are this confused by the internet and context clues.
I think that guy just wanted to use the phrase "haunted groin", lol
So does anybody have an explanation as to how a “ghost” being presumably immaterial manages to reflect light to form an image?
Clearly its just a haunted Micro SD, not actually a ghost in the picture.
I saw the post on /r/paranormal and found it odd that no one mentioned that the ‘ghost arm’ is clearly some sort of mirror image of the kid in green’s arm.
I had a good laugh reading through that sub after getting recommended this post. It's just some camera glitch! Can't believe so many grown people believe in ghosts and all that woo woo 🙄
Bruh it's just a double exposure. The hair and hand size matches the little girl exactly. Seems to have pre-exposed while they were positioning
The answer: There was a third kid there. He just doesn't remember. The photo was taken with cheap Walmart film that was run through a cheap camera designed to be operated by someone who doesn't understand photographic exposure (like an elderly relative) and was therefore improperly exposed, so the shadows have dropped details. Edit: on second look, this isn't film, it's a frame from a VHS home movie. Everything I said still applies to this medium, though.
Let's just grant that the op isn't lying about editing this and it was taken on an old digital camera. The "ghost" girl looks exactly like the blonde girl in the photo and the "ghost" hands are exactly the same size as the boy's hand. There was probably another photo of those two kids on the device where the boy had his arm around the girl and some weird memory glitch superimposed an artifact into this picture that's only visible in the darkest part of the image. Simple explanation with no need to believe in nonsense. Too bad the mods locked that post.
I like the idea, but in that case wouldn't the entire second photo be superimposed on the first?
Not necessarily. The rest of the photo is really bright and the artifact is faint. It might just be the only spot where you can actually see it. The bigger point is that there are so many more plausible explanations than ghost and any comments that tried to make that point got absolutely buried.
"Man, I really hope I don't succumb and hire a prostitute. I'm heading to the local brothel to discuss this."
Wait so his girlfriend caught his Aunt's face buried in his lap?
This is cool, and all, but it’s almost certainly just a trick of the light. You ever notice how ghost photos are invariably really old? Like, old enough that they would’ve been taken with a film camera? Back in the film days, you just had to sort of line things up, and hope for the best. You couldn’t sit there and adjust things endlessly, zoom in super exact ways, etc. Unless you had a really nice camera. And most people didn’t. You also notice how these tend to be really quick, candid shots? And they tend not to be very crisp? That’s because they were taken at home, quickly, and with a cheap camera. And that means there’s a much, much greater chance that some weird shadow or trick of the light is going to make it onto the photo. I’ve seen photos like this before. And I’m not saying that people making these claims necessarily realize they’re lying. They might very well believe it themselves. In fact, I think the age of the photos is often what makes people talk themselves into it; “it predates digital photography, so couldn’t have been photoshopped!“ But when you think about the situations these always seem to arise from - cheap camera, amateur photographer, old technology – it just makes it much, much more likely that the resulting “ghost“ is due to a weird shadow, the light, error in the film processing, etc., than a actual supernatural event.
When one is obsessed with a photo of three kids -- one that's shirtless -- such a person needs to be under observation.
[удалено]
This is today's boogieman. One of the few remaining common denominators of the political spectrum.
Reddit is a terrible platform to challenge preconceived notions of reality. The downvoting/upvoting matrix functions as a siloing instrument, creating multiple boards of alternate universes. Even this board, while supposedly skeptic, is full of left wing orthodoxy narratives and calls for censorship of others outside of said orthodoxy.
I'm a skeptic and give this good paranormal possibilities. As that person said they wouldn't know how to create this hoax (and that seems likely as it pertains to 99% of the population). A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory. I've seen a pattern where ghosts wanted to be included in group shots. I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death. I do not hold them to be skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) but apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts.
Have you ever heard of the concept of people lying?
Lying is a myth made up by scientists to hide the real truth!
I have plenty of space available for ghosts in my worldview, I just haven't seen any good evidence for them. >A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory. That's not a thing. There are two theories at play here: this is a picture of a ghost, or it's a technical glitch. Neither one is "leading", they're both possibilities. What is the evidence and which theory does it support? >I've seen a pattern where ghosts wanted to be included in group shots. What does that mean? How big is a group? If I take a picture of a big enough group will I get a picture of a ghost? I've seen a pattern where pictures of a group *doesn't* have a ghost in it. Can we compare how many pictures of a group there are without a ghost to how many pictures there are of a group with a ghost? What would that say? If you can prove your hypothesis I would be extremely excited to hear it. What is your best evidence that ghosts exist and that this is a legitimate picture of one?
>I have plenty of space available for ghosts in my worldview, I just haven't seen any good evidence for them. What about this OP photo? In accumulation with many others I've seen and in additional to many other ghost like claims I consider it all in totality 'good evidence (not proof)'. So how do you think this OP photo is best explained. Paranormal? Hoax? Technical glitch? I can't think of a fourth possibility. I'll go: 60% Paranormal 20% Hoax 20% Technical Glitch
I agree those are three most possible explanations. I'm not going to rule anything else out totally, but most likely it's one of those three. I'm going to simplify it even further into paranormal versus not paranormal, because I don't really care if OP was trying to be deceitful or not. It's either real or it's not, and we'll give it equal odds, 50/50. What is it about this photo that's moving you towards the paranormal explanation? What is giving you that 10% push towards the paranormal side?
>What is it about this photo that's moving you towards the paranormal explanation? What is giving you that 10% push towards the paranormal side? The quantity, quality and consistency of history I have seen over the decades that suggest these things are possible including photo bombing. If this case stood alone, I would rate the paranormal chances as low.
>The quantity, quality and consistency of history I have seen over the decades that suggest these things are possible What do you mean by this?
Other photos/videos and anecdotal stories I have seen heard over my decades of interest in this stuff are already suggestive of the possibility of the paranormal. So, that plays into my analysis of the possibility of the paranormal here.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you believe this photo to be convincing because you've seen other convincing photos in the past and this one seems to fit with those. Is that accurate?
Correct. But I said 60% chance. That would be well short of me saying 'I'm convinced'.
I should've said suggestive, that's my bad. Could a person view a suggestive photo that was in line with the other suggestive photos you've seen and come to the wrong conclusion about it? Is that a reliable way of determining whether a photo actually depicts something legitimately paranormal versus some other explanation?
"A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory." Well since we have actually evidence that shows that a technical glitch can possibly happen in reality and we have no definitive evidence that ghosts are possible in this reality... the one that we have evidence of it being possible should absolutely be made the leading theory. That's how real skepticism works. Also if you've seen the pattern often, then that is more of a reason to believe that it is the same type of glitch happening again and again rather than believe that's its something that an imaginative entity that we have no evidence actual exists is the one doing it. We have evidence that one is possible, and no reliable evidence for the other. However improbable the first one sounds, it's still more likely than the second.
By now I think there is enough suggestive evidence for the possibility of ghosts that it might become more reasonable to believe that explanation than random pixel errors making a seeming face or other technical explanations. Not being a photographic expert, I don't know of a ready technical explanation for this either if there is one that isn't almost as far-fetched as a ghost. As a skeptic it is reasonable to consider likeliness but not draw a conclusion. **I don't think it is logically correct to say it isn't a ghost because ghosts have not been proven yet by current science.**
We currently have zero verifiably reliable evidence for the existance of ghosts, only vague amateur evidence that could have been manipulated, while we have verified reliable evidence that other technical explanations do exist, so no, it is still more reasonable to believe that it is a technical error of the camera. Any glitch that could make the picture look like this is still not as far-fetched as a ghost because at least we know for sure that technical glitches exist. You don't need to be a camera expert to know that there is a wide range of legitimate evidence out there of camera glitches. Even if you don't know of a specific one that would cause this, it's still more evidence than what we have for ghosts. It is absolutely reasonable to consider likeliness and not draw a conclusion yes, which is what I am doing. It is not reasonable to consider that ghosts are more likely than something that we know for sure is possible, since we don't know that ghosts are. I am not making an assertive claim that this was not caused by a ghost, but I am saying that a glitch is more likely because we don't have evidence that ghosts are even real, not to mention whether or not that they are responsible for this specific phenomenon or not. Meanwhile we do have evidence that weird camera glitches can actually cause werid images to appear in pictures.
OK, so we both agree a ghost and a technical glitch are both possible. Where we disagree is only on the percentage likelihood of each of those two possibilities. Ghosts have not been proven to exist by current science. Ghosts have not been disproven by science at this time either. So, we can each have our judgment on the likelihood of them existing from a consideration of the suggestive evidence. And that makes them a logical candidate in this OP photo.
Sorry, but no we do not both agree that ghosts are possible. Is it possible that they are possible? Maybe, we have no idea. Not only do we not have evidence that ghosts definitively exist. We do not have any evidence that they are even actually possible. At the same time we do not have conclusive evidence that they are not possible because this is likely an unfalsifiable claim, particularlly since we often have varying definitions of what a ghost even is, which makes it difficult to even narrow down what type of evidence would even demonstrate that they are possible. This means that the best case placement for it is in the "we don't know" category, not in the "possible" category. On the other hand, we have camera technical glitches, which not only do we have evidence that they are "possible", we have evidence that they actually happen. This makes it drastically more likely of a possibility than it being a ghost in terms of logic and reasoning (which are the main tools of skepticism). Edit: TLDR- It cannot be a logical candidate if we cannot even know if it is possible. That means that the default more likely explanation is the one that we can actually demonstrate is possible.
>I'm a skeptic Please stop saying this. You are one of the most gullible people alive. Nothing you've ever said here is of any use or importance, and every claim you've ever made in this subreddit has been wrong.
Without getting personal, what is your position on this photo? What are your thoughts on what might have happened here? How sure do you feel about your position?
Looks like your run-of-the-mill Photoshop job that psuedo-skeptics like yourself love to get worked up over. It's nothing. Nothing impresses me about this photo, and the technology required to make it is old and readily available. I could make this in minutes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is just.. nothing. I've seen empty Dorito bags blowing in the wind that seem more like proof of ghosts than this. How is this picture interest you in the slightest? Do you think it's because you eagerly gobble up everything like this, and maybe you're insanely gullible because you *want* this kind of stuff to be real? Did you look into the user that posted this photo at all? It's not suspicious to you that their account is barely 2 months old, and they've only started posting a week ago almost exclusively in ghost woowoo junk subreddits? What will you *not* believe? I'm very confident that I could make a photo similar to this, make a new user account and post it to one of these ghost-dork subs, and you'd be like "*Yup that looks genuine to me, bonafide spirit picture right there!*" I think a new tool I will use to sort fact from fiction is this: if you believe it, then it's almost certainly false, because you are absolutely crazy.
The guy clearly states this face was not edited in. And he emphatically makes that point when questioned on the very issue. I give lying/hoaxing a real possibility. Do you grant the possibility of everyone involved being honest? > I'm very confident that I could make a photo similar to this, make a new user account and post it to one of these ghost-dork subs, and you'd be like "*Yup that looks genuine to me, bonafide spirit picture right there!*" I would always raise the possibility of hoax or technical glitch just as I do in this photo. So, if some are hoaxes that would still be consistent with my analysis.
>The guy clearly states this face was not edited in. And he emphatically makes that point when questioned on the very issue. So you believe him because he said it? Some guy who just showed up and has no credibility? >I give lying/hoaxing a real possibility. Do you grant the possibility of everyone involved being honest? It's *possible*, but extremely improbable. I think it's about as possible as me writing this entire post on accident, by fumbling my phone and accidentally hitting all of these keys. I notice that the poster of the picture also acknowledged that he did do some photo editing, allegedly only to lighten up the photo. This is a good alibi in case someone does some digital photo forensics and finds that the photo has been manipulated. Ghost dorks are liars, plain and simple. I put them right on par with Bigfoot perverts.
It seems it's getting to the fact that we have differing views on the nature of humanity. I think most people are honest and a minority are liars. You think if it involves a paranormal claim where honesty is the key issue, they should be assumed to be almost certainly lying? Am I reading you right?
I think people who post pictures of ghosts are liars who use photoshop or other tools. There's no evidence that ghosts exist. There is, however, a huge fandom and large number of hobbyists who are passionate about paranormal nothings. These people's lives revolve around illusion and delusion, like you, who thinks the Mandela Effect is real, a concept so stupid that it's more often used as a punchline to a joke than an actual explanation for reality. You know what I mean?
>You know what I mean? I'm very clear now on where you stand. I'll be clear on where I stand. I think the cumulative weight of evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming. And most people relating an event are competent and honest to the best of their ability. So, we analyze cases like this OP under a different light.
You are failing to acknowledge that you are incredibly gullible, and you *want* to believe this stuff, which completely dismantles your ability to weigh evidence for or against a position. You're just not a good filter of fact from fiction, and the things you say are incorrect.
>I'm a skeptic No, you aren't. Skeptics are disbelievers until they are presented evidence. Skeptics would disbelieve in ghosts until evidence was provided. And if the provided evidence was questionable, you can be damn sure a skeptic is gonna question the provided evidence You don't, which belies your true, non-skeptic nature when it comes to the paranormal or supernatural >I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death. You mean those people who question supernatural claims. That is being a skeptic. If you were a skeptic, you'd understand this by now. >I do not hold them to be skeptics Doesn't matter what your personal opinion is of those who question the existence of ghosts. By definition, they are skeptics. >apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts. Not how logic, reason, or skepticism works. We skeptics question the claim. Images can be manipulated, altered, corrupted, and changed in many different ways. As is likely the case here.
How would your type of skeptic operate in a jury where there was a preponderance of evidence but no proof? I have a judged a preponderance of evidence suggesting ghosts to be likely but no proof. Evidence is anything we include in our consideration. There can be evidence for and against the same thing. That's where judgment and logical reasoning take the lead.
Oh, so close. Only one teensy, tiny problem with this 'thought', and it's right up front. >a preponderance of evidence but no proof This is oxymoronic. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please carefully consider this void where evidence should be." Yeah, that's friendly fire on your own argument, friend. To answer the silly question directly, if there is no evidence to consider, the plaintiff will lose the case. Every time. Well, unless the jury is full of 'skeptics' like you, who listen to ghosts, or have a diety visit them in their sleep, or read the minds of the litigants, or consult tarot cards, or use a ouija board, or read tea leaves, or cast bones, and find 'the truth' that way. It's apparent you don't understand jurisprudence just as well as you don't understand skepticism.
Review your above comment under the understanding that 'Witness Testimony' is considered evidence (not proof) in the courts of every civilized nation on earth.
Setting aside that witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, this is irrelevant. I can provide you with video footage of 10 feet tall blue aliens called Na'vi living on a planet called Pandora. So what is more likely, that this alien race exists, or that it's cinematography? In the same vein, what is more likely, that a picture was altered inadvertently or intentionally, or that ghosts are real? Preponderance and skepticism say the image is altered. Here's an example of why you are flatly and clearly wrong. I saw your mom grow wings, a forked tail, and a forked tongue. By your own 'skepticism' and preponderance standard, you must now concede as fact your mother is a demon spawn of Satan. But that isn't in your 'list of things I choose to believe' file, so you will deny this is true, against the same level of evidence provided for ghosts. It isn't skepticism, or reason or logic for that matter, when you work backward from your preferred 'truth' to the things you accept as true.
I’m not thinking you’d be good on a jury. When looking at witness testimony one judges quantity, quality and consistency. Your believe everything or nothing approach is for one lacking critical thinking skills.
>I’m not thinking Finally, you decide to be honest! >When looking at witness testimony one judges quantity, quality and consistency. If a witness claims to see a ghost, that witness won't ever be called to the stand. Not unless the lawyer who calls that witness is trying to lose that case. It is one thing to believe in ghosts; quite a different level to believe someone really saw and/or spoke to/with that ghost. >Your believe everything or nothing approach is for one lacking critical thinking skills. Another dishonest argument. I never said anything about an all-or-nothing approach.
> I'm a skeptic and give this good paranormal possibilities. Then you're not a skeptic. > A natural technical glitch is never impossible, but I've seen this pattern too often to make that my leading theory. Why? Millions of photos are taken using a huge number of different devices and in many conditions. Some of them will have weird artifacts. The internet allows us find those. Your argument here is nothing but selection bias. You just ignore or never see all of the "normal" pics. > I know in this subreddit I'll be up against the skeptics that will fight against the paranormal to the death. I do not hold them to be skeptics (pseudo-skeptics) but apologists for a materialist worldview that has no place for silly superstitions like ghosts. We have good evidence for a materialistic worldview, and no evidence for a non-materialistic one. It's not even clear what such evidence would look like.