p.s. a website has since been pointed out to me in which it explains that
it
is possible to create the "orbs" effect by using a flash when dust is
present within four inches of the camera lens. It appears to occur more
frequently with digital cameras than film cameras. So this may be a
plausible natural explanation for all or most "orbs". I haven't seen a
similar explanation yet for "mists". I have seen *video* of orbs, so I
don't
know if such an effect can also be created with video lights instead of
flash.
Steve S.
"Steve S." <ssake@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:mt2dnfL-9r6cXdnYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It's true, the existence of "ghosts" seems to be one of the toughest
things
> to prove. However, I've seen evidence and read anecdotal accounts that
are
> pretty convincing, especially if you include first-hand accounts of
> apparently reliable witnesses regarding visitation after a death, that
they
> had no normal way of knowing about. I have heard one of these stories
> firsthand, told to me by a very, very unlikely person, a tough old WWII
vet
> who talked to me about his service on an aircraft carrier for a half an
hour
> before deciding I was trustworthy enough to share his ghost story with.
He
> had been sitting on the back ****ch of his house at night, overlooking a
> field, when he saw his mother's ghost in the field. Afterwards, he
learned
> his mother had died at that time.
>
> The photographs pur****ting to be ghosts are mostly orbs or mists. They
don't
> seem to be photographic anomalies, entirely, like light bouncing in the
> camera lens or flare, dust on the lens, etc. What's more interesting
from
a
> logical and psychological standpoint, is that if people are going to
> deliberately fake a ghost photograph, they will probably opt for
something
> more dramatic, like a double-exposure (with the advent of Photoshop, any
> effect is possible). Instead, mostly all we see is orbs and mists, orbs
and
> mists--why be so boring if you're faking the results?
>
> I personally have seen one of these "mist" photographs, taken a few days
> after a young man had died, of his young niece, just a toddler, standing
on
> his grave with her arms outstretched looking upwards, and there is
clearly
a
> mist around her, and it was mid-day and not misty. As is typical, it was
not
> seen when the photo was taken.
>
> I think one has to look at one's definition of proof, and one's
> interpretation of the data. If one has an inner conflict around the
issue
of
> belief, then one will never be fully satisfied. Even if a full-bodied
> apparition manifested before you, two or three days later, after sharing
the
> experience with several skeptics who minimalized the experience, you
might
> be proclaiming, along with Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol," "A bit of
> undigested beef!"
>
> Not that one should go to the opposite extreme and believe everything.
What
> I'm suggesting is that if you have done 20+ years of research, either
you
> have been much less lucky than other researchers, or there is something
> amiss with your criteria and mode of interpreting.
>
> I would just add that "proof" is not a black or white thing. It admits
of
> degrees. That photograph I saw with the mist rising around the grave,
cannot
> be *reasonably* explained within the normal limits of our physical
world.
> Sure, there are mists; and sure, there are artifacts that occur in the
> photographic process. I can't rule out either explanation 100%; but
mists
do
> not generally appear in mid-day on a bright day in one specific location
> (unless there were a steam vent there, which, being a gravesite,
presumably
> there was not). I suppose the ground could have been warmer in a
freshly-dug
> grave, enough to create a visible mist...? But I've never read or heard
of
> such a thing. I don't think it was a cold day--this was, I think, April
in
> Atlanta. "Mist-like" artifacts did not appear on any of the other photos
on
> that roll of film so far as I know. So both those explanations are out
to
a
> degree of reasonableness. If one, however, has a "belief issue," then
they
> would not be out, because one's very standard of reasonablness has
become
> distorted.
>
> Steve S.
>
>
>
> "Kiann" <kiann.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:LGO%g.3646$N4.329@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Scientific Proof of Ghosts
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > I am in search of scientific evidence. After 20+ years of research, I
am
> at
> > a standstill. I have no evidence and no occurance that can't be
> otherwised
> > explained within the normal limits of our physical world.
> >
> > If you have evidence and are willing to contribute, please email me. I
> will,
> > with your permission and giving full credit to you, include your
> information
> > on my site and use it to assist with further research.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > K. Ann
> > http://www.itsmysiteicandowhatiwant.com/metaphysicalproof.htm
> >
> >
>
>
|
