Can somebody analyze this picture, are these ghost in the picture or a fraud?

[Pav10566]

Just to come back to the initial question that was asked....
Some pictures printed on inkjet devices that go humid tend to "sweat" and give such interesting effects...or if they just have been submitted to strong light exposure, the inks used are not always very lightfast. Red being usually the one that is weakest, either fading out and making strange pink motives or affecting the white balance wholly.

Just my five pence opinion without going into any deep philosophy about the existence of paranormal phenomenae

 

[TCampbell]

Not ghosts but it could be ALIENS... think aliens ain't real? watch E.T and look real close at the wee boy... he's an alien, if a real wee boy found an alien like that he,d beat it to death with a stick, wouldn't he.

This reminds me of a segment from a show with Neil DeGrasse Tyson when he was asked about UFOs. Pay attention to his point on "argument from ignorance".



BTW, at about 6 minutes in (but watch the whole thing... Tyson is always entertaining) he makes the comment "Photoshop probably has a UFO button" (as if someone used to have to "work" at creating the appearance of a UFO in a photo, but Photoshop has simplified the task by making a one-button-click feature.)

I'm always amazed at how CONSISTENTLY the photos of "ghosts" and "UFOs" are of such extremely bad quality. I look at these and say: well... it's OBVIOUSLY real because I can't even recognize the normal stuff in photo, never mind the paranormal stuff in the photo. As if there is some requirement that if you take a ghost photo, you are required to botch the exposure, focus, and processing or it cannot be considered a valid "ghost" photo.

 

[pez1]

I really like Tyson, he's a great spokesman for science. On the UFO subject, however, his argument that he totally and completely discounts eyewitness testimony is all wet. A transient phenomenon is very difficult to study with hard science, because it is not repeatable, among other things. And if you add in the supposition that the objects may be intelligent and so actively avoiding such close scrutiny, the odds of "scientific proof" diminish further. While it's cute that he recommends "breaking off a trinket inside the spaceship" to abductees (as he laughs at them), that flies in the face of the common accounts, where the victim is paralyzed, etc. And of course tech advanced, say 100K years might well not have any such goodies to "break off"- and get away with it. He even says that if a colleague strolls in and relates a UFO sighting to him, he will dismiss it out-of-hand, because the brain is prone to optical illusions, and eyewitness testimony is unreliable. He dismisses all other eyewitness observations in a similar manner. Hmmm. Science is filled with individual witnesses writing down their observations of natural phenomena and publishing papers about it. He avoided addressing the massive number of multiple-witness cases, trace analysis, radar painting, and such, as well as testimony from a large number of ex-military in a position to know, who say that there is a very complex reality to the UFO situation- and has been for many decades. But for Tyson's narrow consideration of the subject, every single observation of a UFO boils down to an optical illusion, a hoax, or an ignorant observer. That is his model. Certainly not every UFO report can be dismissed/debunked by evoking Chinese lanterns/ball lightning/conventional aircraft/sun dogs/Venus/swamp gas/optical illusions in the brain, etc. etc. while having the explanation actually fit the descriptions of the event. Debunkers typically trot out a pet solution for major sighting events without the slightest effort to consider the various witness accounts of the behavior of the objects. The more you study the subject, the more things that don't make sense using the current paradigm of science. And for anyone trained in the sciences (like me, for instance), or other professional observers like pilots, who see something of high strangeness, he or she has a conundrum: you are NOT LIKELY to ever report what you just experienced- if you value your career, that is.

Not ghosts but it could be ALIENS... think aliens ain't real? watch E.T and look real close at the wee boy... he's an alien, if a real wee boy found an alien like that he,d beat it to death with a stick, wouldn't he.

This reminds me of a segment from a show with Neil DeGrasse Tyson when he was asked about UFOs. Pay attention to his point on "argument from ignorance".



BTW, at about 6 minutes in (but watch the whole thing... Tyson is always entertaining) he makes the comment "Photoshop probably has a UFO button" (as if someone used to have to "work" at creating the appearance of a UFO in a photo, but Photoshop has simplified the task by making a one-button-click feature.)

I'm always amazed at how CONSISTENTLY the photos of "ghosts" and "UFOs" are of such extremely bad quality. I look at these and say: well... it's OBVIOUSLY real because I can't even recognize the normal stuff in photo, never mind the paranormal stuff in the photo. As if there is some requirement that if you take a ghost photo, you are required to botch the exposure, focus, and processing or it cannot be considered a valid "ghost" photo.

 

[tecboy]

I just saw him in "Cosmo" tonight. That TV series is awesome. He somewhat believes in multiverse. Very interesting!

 

[BlackPoet]

.......Maybe the picture was TAKEN by ghosts, though. That could explain it; they're terrible photographers, can never hold a camera steady. .......

I thought ghosts couldn't take photos because when they put their eye up to the viewfinder, it just goes right through their metaphysical eyeball and out the back of their esoteric head.

...projecting through the back of their eyeball and onto the wall behind them....I can picture it lol