If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Boy killed in tornado last May shows up in recent photo. I'm not saying it's a ghost, but, it's a ghost   (wtkr.com) divider line 111
    More: Strange, tornadoes  
•       •       •

14903 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 2:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-26 12:25:01 PM  
That's according to a report from Fox4KC.com via The Daily Mail.

I'm not saying it's the Daily Fail, but it's the Daily Fail.
 
2013-11-26 12:44:04 PM  
I can't fathom the death of either of my children.  I expect I'd crack as well.
 
2013-11-26 12:45:36 PM  
Well something weird is going on in that pic.
 
2013-11-26 12:48:03 PM  

texdent: Well something weird is going on in that pic.


I know, no boy in Oklahoma would wear a PINK shirt!  And is that a denim skit?  Oh, wait, the blurry blob behind?  Probably a street light.
 
2013-11-26 12:54:17 PM  

Babwa Wawa: I can't fathom the death of either of my children.  I expect I'd crack as well.


Yeah, this.  If he feels some comfort in this somehow, good for him.  The rest of us are all well aware that this is nothing but a photography artifact.
 
2013-11-26 01:05:35 PM  
Long exposures and moving bright light sources, how do they work?
 
2013-11-26 01:07:44 PM  
In the meantime, his niece has clearly turned into Gollum
 
2013-11-26 01:10:14 PM  

nekom: Babwa Wawa: I can't fathom the death of either of my children.  I expect I'd crack as well.

Yeah, this.  If he feels some comfort in this somehow, good for him.  The rest of us are all well aware that this is nothing but a photography artifact.


I've never understood this line of thinking. The grieving process is the grieving process, and the sooner we face it the better off we'll be emotionally. Allowing for people to find comfort in make believe is selfish on our parts because we see pain in the other person and want it to stop. It makes US, the observer, feel better. But really, the only thing that will make it end is going through the grieving process, and "finding comfort" tends to delay that.
 
2013-11-26 01:17:21 PM  

SurfaceTension: I've never understood this line of thinking. The grieving process is the grieving process, and the sooner we face it the better off we'll be emotionally. Allowing for people to find comfort in make believe is selfish on our parts because we see pain in the other person and want it to stop. It makes US, the observer, feel better. But really, the only thing that will make it end is going through the grieving process, and "finding comfort" tends to delay that.


Well, I've never really understood your line of thinking.  What is the right thing to do here, according to you?  Verbally biatchslap him for indulging in the fantasy that his son exists in an afterlife?  How do you deal with religious people?

People construct fantasies to deal with grief and depression all the time.  I fail to see the harm in the fantasy itself, as long as there is no definitive action taken on it.
 
2013-11-26 01:45:18 PM  
I miss film.
 
2013-11-26 01:53:39 PM  
SurfaceTension:
I've never understood this line of thinking. The grieving process is the grieving process, and the sooner we face it the better off we'll be emotionally. Allowing for people to find comfort in make believe is selfish on our parts because we see pain in the other person and want it to stop. It makes US, the observer, feel better. But really, the only thing that will make it end is going through the grieving process, and "finding comfort" tends to delay that.

You're probably right, but even still I'm not going to criticize someone going through unimaginable grief, who knows where their head is?
 
2013-11-26 01:59:16 PM  
That's not a 9-year old dead boy, that's Bigfoot you gullible fools!
 
2013-11-26 02:07:37 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Well, I've never really understood your line of thinking. What is the right thing to do here, according to you? Verbally biatchslap him for indulging in the fantasy that his son exists in an afterlife? How do you deal with religious people?


I think this kind of wishful thinking is a big reason why religion persists.

How do I deal with people like this on an individual basis? It depends on the closeness to the person. An acquaintance would probably get an empathetic "that's nice" type of response. A close friend or relative I would (and have) tactfully point out that the most important thing now is to work through the process, and be there while they go through that.

I certainly don't criticize them for wanting it to be different...as the poster above pointed out, their head is going in about 8 different directions all at once, which makes it all the more important to point them in a productive direction.

Obviously I sound like a bit of an asshole here, and that's more because of how it's coming across. My intent isn't that, and it isn't to make them feel better now. I'm a big Humanist, and I believe that grieving (and forgiving) are intrinsic to our humanity. Anything that gets in the way of that makes it more difficult in the long run, even if it does provide some temporary relief or comfort.
 
2013-11-26 02:10:44 PM  
It's a streetlight.
 
2013-11-26 02:12:00 PM  
SurfaceTension:
Obviously I sound like a bit of an asshole here

No, you don't.  You have a harsh yet valid point.
 
2013-11-26 02:16:35 PM  

SurfaceTension: nekom: Babwa Wawa: I can't fathom the death of either of my children.  I expect I'd crack as well.

Yeah, this.  If he feels some comfort in this somehow, good for him.  The rest of us are all well aware that this is nothing but a photography artifact.

I've never understood this line of thinking. The grieving process is the grieving process, and the sooner we face it the better off we'll be emotionally. Allowing for people to find comfort in make believe is selfish on our parts because we see pain in the other person and want it to stop. It makes US, the observer, feel better. But really, the only thing that will make it end is going through the grieving process, and "finding comfort" tends to delay that.


Not really. Such stories give hope to some that an afterlife exists and they'll see their passed loved ones again.
 
2013-11-26 02:19:12 PM  

ShawnDoc: Long exposures and moving bright light sources, how do they work?


Wait until we have an entire generation that never had experience with those kinds of cameras.  Ghosts, ghosts everywhere!
 
2013-11-26 02:22:42 PM  
Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!
 
2013-11-26 02:24:39 PM  
I'm not saying it's double exposed film, but it's double exposed film.
 
2013-11-26 02:25:17 PM  

SurfaceTension: Babwa Wawa: Well, I've never really understood your line of thinking. What is the right thing to do here, according to you? Verbally biatchslap him for indulging in the fantasy that his son exists in an afterlife? How do you deal with religious people?

I think this kind of wishful thinking is a big reason why religion persists.

How do I deal with people like this on an individual basis? It depends on the closeness to the person. An acquaintance would probably get an empathetic "that's nice" type of response. A close friend or relative I would (and have) tactfully point out that the most important thing now is to work through the process, and be there while they go through that.

I certainly don't criticize them for wanting it to be different...as the poster above pointed out, their head is going in about 8 different directions all at once, which makes it all the more important to point them in a productive direction.

Obviously I sound like a bit of an asshole here, and that's more because of how it's coming across. My intent isn't that, and it isn't to make them feel better now. I'm a big Humanist, and I believe that grieving (and forgiving) are intrinsic to our humanity. Anything that gets in the way of that makes it more difficult in the long run, even if it does provide some temporary relief or comfort.


So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
 
2013-11-26 02:25:31 PM  
Am I the only one who thought of Les Diaboliques? Great movie, and it had the same "person in the photo who really shouldn't be there" device.
 
2013-11-26 02:25:52 PM  
It's a street light!
 
2013-11-26 02:26:28 PM  
What pareidolia may look like - or not - depending on if you squint hard enough.
 
2013-11-26 02:26:49 PM  
I'm not worried about the ghost, but the devil girl with red eyes.
 
2013-11-26 02:27:07 PM  
Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant, a form of apophenia. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records when played in reverse.

10 Astounding Examples of Pareidolia In Outer Space
 
2013-11-26 02:27:39 PM  
tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-26 02:28:10 PM  

Trashy: I'm not saying it's double exposed film, but it's double exposed film.


Cell phones use film? Amazing!
 
2013-11-26 02:28:12 PM  

Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!


Prove it.
 
2013-11-26 02:28:23 PM  

Trashy: I'm not saying it's double exposed film, but it's double exposed film.


On a camera phone. Double exposed film on a camera phone.

What kind of film does your phone take? 110 or 35mm?
 
2013-11-26 02:28:47 PM  

Russ1642: Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!


Ghosts are real. If you don't believe me, just look at the photographic evidence:

childhoodrelived.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-26 02:29:03 PM  

Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!



here was a seminar on "Psychic Phenomena" going on, when the speaker decided to involve the audience. He first asked, "Everyone who has ever seen a ghost, please stand up." Well, nearly the entire audience stood up.
He then asked, "Everyone who has ever had a close encounter with a ghost, please remain standing." About 2 dozen people were still standing.
He then asked how many people had been in the same room as a ghost and 6 people stood up.
Finally he asked, "Anyone who has ever had SEX with a ghost, please remain standing." Everyone sat down except this one man.
When the speaker demanded if he had REALLY had sex with a ghost, the guy replied, "Oh, I am very sorry, I thought you said GOAT
 
2013-11-26 02:29:15 PM  

SurfaceTension: nekom: Babwa Wawa: I can't fathom the death of either of my children.  I expect I'd crack as well.

Yeah, this.  If he feels some comfort in this somehow, good for him.  The rest of us are all well aware that this is nothing but a photography artifact.

I've never understood this line of thinking. The grieving process is the grieving process, and the sooner we face it the better off we'll be emotionally. Allowing for people to find comfort in make believe is selfish on our parts because we see pain in the other person and want it to stop. It makes US, the observer, feel better. But really, the only thing that will make it end is going through the grieving process, and "finding comfort" tends to delay that.


People find comfort from sources that others find illogical all the time. Why qualify it with those who are specifically grieving?
 
2013-11-26 02:29:17 PM  
Jesus Christ the girl is holding a sparkler and moving it up and down. There are even 2 of her in the picture. Is it a ghost of her too even though she's alive? How stupid are people these days?
 
2013-11-26 02:29:23 PM  
no
 
2013-11-26 02:29:34 PM  
skepticalcubefarm.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-26 02:30:53 PM  

Walker: How stupid are people these days?


Do you really want to tug at that thread?
 
2013-11-26 02:30:56 PM  
If ghosts are on the table, that girl is in definite need of an exorcism based on her eyes.
 
2013-11-26 02:33:14 PM  
Like everyone else who has "seen" a ghost, the father is deluded, mistaken or a liar.
 
2013-11-26 02:33:40 PM  

Trashy: I'm not saying it's double exposed film, but it's double exposed film.


When did cell phones start using film?  Does my iPhone take 35mm?

/don't you take my Kodaphone away!
 
2013-11-26 02:33:57 PM  

namegoeshere: I miss film.


Yep.  I also miss high quality film labs.
 
2013-11-26 02:34:33 PM  
Her left arm is blurry as if it's been moving while the picture was taken.  The blur is above her "real" arm in the photo, and looks like an arm.

Her head is blurry as if it's been moving while the picture was taken.   The blur is above her "real" head in the photo, and looks like a head.


...but GHOSTS!!
 
2013-11-26 02:36:13 PM  

mbillips: Like everyone else who has "seen" a ghost, the father is deluded, mistaken or a liar.


No, he's just wrong.  I've seen a LOT of things that I can't explain, I just know enough not to jump to woo conclusions.  I've seen things that a lesser educated person would certainly believe are paranormal.
 
2013-11-26 02:36:16 PM  

Grumpy Cat: So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.


I'm Atheist and have people tell me they'll pray for me when things are going bad for me. What's the difference?
 
2013-11-26 02:37:05 PM  

valar_morghulis: Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!

Prove it.


You can't prove a negative.  If people assert there are ghosts (or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters), the burden of proof is on them.

If you were making a joke then I'm just being a wet blanket asshole.  Not a state I'm exactly unfamiliar with :).
 
2013-11-26 02:38:32 PM  

hammettman: namegoeshere: I miss film.

Yep.  I also miss high quality film labs.


I embrace digital.
 
2013-11-26 02:39:50 PM  

mbillips: Like everyone else who has "seen" a ghost, the father is deluded, mistaken or a liar.


This.  All of those "medium" shows do nothing but perpetuate groundless superstition, irrationality, and base emotionalism by giving false hope to desperate people.

There are 4 things that don't exists that the Human race seriously need to come to grips with:
-Magic
-Ghosts
-Psychics
-Deities

A belief in the supernatural is a sign of our lingering psychological infancy.
 
2013-11-26 02:45:33 PM  

Highroller48: mbillips: Like everyone else who has "seen" a ghost, the father is deluded, mistaken or a liar.

This.  All of those "medium" shows do nothing but perpetuate groundless superstition, irrationality, and base emotionalism by giving false hope to desperate people.

There are 4 things that don't exists that the Human race seriously need to come to grips with:
-Magic
-Ghosts
-Psychics
-Deities

A belief in the supernatural is a sign of our lingering psychological infancy.


A good friend admitted to me he thought David Copperfield really could levitate things and make things disappear.  "He is one guy who I believe has a gift".   With one link to a site that explained exactly how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, I dashed all his hopes of real magic in the world.
 
2013-11-26 02:45:51 PM  

SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

I'm Atheist and have people tell me they'll pray for me when things are going bad for me. What's the difference?


That was my point. Everyone has an opinion. Maybe it's sometimes better to smile and nod.

/I'm an atheist, too.
 
2013-11-26 02:46:43 PM  

santadog: hammettman: namegoeshere: I miss film.

Yep.  I also miss high quality film labs.

I embrace digital.


I embrace it too, but I still have a foot in that past world. I also occasionally eye a cloud, but have yet to yell at it.
 
2013-11-26 02:57:27 PM  
My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.
 
2013-11-26 02:58:11 PM  
This is pretty cool: obvious proof that spirits walk among us.  The proof is that the second head is completely different than the girl's: no glasses, different hairlines, different skin tone, the neck line of the shirt is different. There is no way the girl could have moved in a way that created a second head without also creating a second image of her body. The girl's body doesn't move at all.  It is obviously not a "double exposure".

It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child.  Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.
 
2013-11-26 02:58:57 PM  

santadog: With one link to a site that explained exactly how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, I dashed all his hopes of real magic in the world.


Was it a rotating platform or something? That's what I always assumed when I saw that back in the day.
 
2013-11-26 03:05:32 PM  
As the father of a 9 y/o, my cynicism is overwhelmed by sorrow and sympathy for this man's loss.I don't think this digital anomaly brings him comfort - if anything it's haunting him with a perceived image of his lost son.Very sad.
 
2013-11-26 03:07:42 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child. Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.


So your argument for the supernatural is basically the same one that lets Wyle E. Coyote walk off a cliff without falling...until he looks down??

I got one word for you...

blogs.mycentraljersey.com
 
2013-11-26 03:09:12 PM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year.


I'm so sorry.
 
2013-11-26 03:09:27 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: This is pretty cool: obvious proof that spirits walk among us.  The proof is that the second head is completely different than the girl's: no glasses, different hairlines, different skin tone, the neck line of the shirt is different. There is no way the girl could have moved in a way that created a second head without also creating a second image of her body. The girl's body doesn't move at all.  It is obviously not a "double exposure".

It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child.  Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.


Wow.  Touchy much?
 
2013-11-26 03:09:29 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: santadog: With one link to a site that explained exactly how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, I dashed all his hopes of real magic in the world.

Was it a rotating platform or something? That's what I always assumed when I saw that back in the day.


From www.magictricks101.blogspot.com
The audience can see the statue of liberty through the pillars. The curtain then comes up to block the audiences view. The live audience is on a secret swiveling platform that rotated slowly to the side of the statue. The statue of liberty lights are turned off, the blip on the radar is part of a video animation. The curtain is then lowered, the audience and the viewers watching on TV see that the statue has disappeared but all they are looking at is a duplicate set of lights that is situated right next to the real statue of liberty. The lights on the two towers are there to night blind the audience for a few minutes to make it hard too see the statue of liberty. The curtain is then raised up the audience is rotated round again to face the statue of liberty the curtain is dropped and the statue has reappeared.
 
2013-11-26 03:16:05 PM  

Highroller48: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child. Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

So your argument for the supernatural is basically the same one that lets Wyle E. Coyote walk off a cliff without falling...until he looks down??

I got one word for you...

[blogs.mycentraljersey.com image 150x206]



Not at all.  There are clearly two different heads there.  If this was film, it would be plausible that it was a double exposure.  A digital photo is incapable of producing this phenomena.
 
2013-11-26 03:19:19 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: This is pretty cool: obvious proof that spirits walk among us.  The proof is that the second head is completely different than the girl's: no glasses, different hairlines, different skin tone, the neck line of the shirt is different. There is no way the girl could have moved in a way that created a second head without also creating a second image of her body. The girl's body doesn't move at all.  It is obviously not a "double exposure".

It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child.   Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.


I also love the attribution of specific characteristics to things which are, at best, undefinable, and more likely, non-existent.  I can only guess that it helps the compartmentalization process.
 
2013-11-26 03:19:44 PM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.




I'm very sorry for your loss. My brother died near Christmas of an epileptic seizure at age 11. It's tough.

FWIW the smugness in this thread grates on me too.
 
2013-11-26 03:20:34 PM  
I told my pet sasquatch about this article and he thinks you're all a bunch of rubes.
 
2013-11-26 03:27:41 PM  

SurfaceTension: I think this kind of wishful thinking is a big reason why religion persists.

...
...
...
I'm a big Humanist, and I believe that grieving (and forgiving) are intrinsic to our humanity. Anything that gets in the way of that makes it more difficult in the long run, even if it does provide some temporary relief or comfort.


Of course this is why religion persists.  I am an atheist, and am baffled by people's religious views.  However, I take issue with two things:

- your assertion that belief in the supernatural interferes with the grieving process.  I've seen no evidence that this is the case.

- that it is possible for a person to be in the fifth stage of grief nine months after the sudden loss of a young child anyway.
 
2013-11-26 03:28:19 PM  
Sad story is sad and I'm sad now.
 
2013-11-26 03:29:23 PM  
localtvwtkr.files.wordpress.com

I believe that I understand the cause of the phenomenon.


static3.wikia.nocookie.net

It is a capture of an afterimage triggered by projection of genetic memories exacerbated by excessive plasmid use.
 
2013-11-26 03:30:37 PM  

Grumpy Cat: SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

I'm Atheist and have people tell me they'll pray for me when things are going bad for me. What's the difference?

That was my point. Everyone has an opinion. Maybe it's sometimes better to smile and nod.

/I'm an atheist, too.


I've never been a big fan of going along to get along. Yes, it's the right thing to do in certain circumstances (weddings, funerals, trying to get laid) but for me, a sober, rational view of reality makes the ultimate sense.
 
2013-11-26 03:30:50 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: A digital photo is incapable of producing this phenomena.


As far as you know.

You also don't know if the photo has been altered in any way, or if any other of a myriad possibilities have been eliminated.  But, in spite of all of that, you still make the leap from "I don't understand it" to "so it must be MAGIC!".  That's the same logic that gave us witch burning and human sacrifices during solar eclipses.

As TIm Minchin put so aptly:  "Throughout history, EVERY mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be...NOT magic!"    What makes this one so special?

Oh, right...nothing.
 
2013-11-26 03:31:13 PM  

Closed


I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child.


Actually the "grieving process" is pretty well documented, even if you're not aware of it.
 
2013-11-26 03:31:36 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Highroller48: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child. Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

So your argument for the supernatural is basically the same one that lets Wyle E. Coyote walk off a cliff without falling...until he looks down??

I got one word for you...

[blogs.mycentraljersey.com image 150x206]


Not at all.  There are clearly two different heads there.  If this was film, it would be plausible that it was a double exposure.  A digital photo is incapable of producing this phenomena.


It's a long exposure of a moving subject causing motion blur. Digital or film makes no difference.
 
2013-11-26 03:35:04 PM  
THIS JUST IN - It's possible for relatives to look like each other when badly motion blurred pictures are taken.
 
2013-11-26 03:35:16 PM  
http://fox4kc.com/2013/11/24/father-claims-9-year-old-son-killed-in-t o rnado-has-shown-up-in-recent-picture-behind-niece/

Here is a larger picture.  There are clearly two different heads/faces in the picture.

It is not unreasonable or unscientific to suppose a new technology (ubiquitous digital photography) would reveal something new about the world around us.  The invention of microscopes revealed an entire microverse of germs and the like whose existence was scoffed at previously.
 
2013-11-26 03:36:06 PM  

GnomePaladin: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: This is pretty cool: obvious proof that spirits walk among us.  The proof is that the second head is completely different than the girl's: no glasses, different hairlines, different skin tone, the neck line of the shirt is different. There is no way the girl could have moved in a way that created a second head without also creating a second image of her body. The girl's body doesn't move at all.  It is obviously not a "double exposure".

It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child.  Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

Wow.  Touchy much?


Frequently, adherents of irrational supernatural beliefs issue pre-emptive personal attacks as a means of affirming to themselves the validity of their position. They are in some way aware that their beliefs are entirely unsupported by any evidence, but they are able to hide that insecurity -- even to themselves -- by first "establishing" that those who disagree with them are lesser individuals by way of unprovoked insults.
 
2013-11-26 03:36:27 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Highroller48: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child. Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

So your argument for the supernatural is basically the same one that lets Wyle E. Coyote walk off a cliff without falling...until he looks down??

I got one word for you...

[blogs.mycentraljersey.com image 150x206]


Not at all.  There are clearly two different heads there.  If this was film, it would be plausible that it was a double exposure.  A digital photo is incapable of producing this phenomena.


Anything can be done with a digital image, the right software and some skill.

Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.
 
2013-11-26 03:38:56 PM  
Kids's dad wants to bereave
 
2013-11-26 03:40:49 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: http://fox4kc.com/2013/11/24/father-claims-9-year-old-son-killed-in-t o rnado-has-shown-up-in-recent-picture-behind-niece/

Here is a larger picture.  There are clearly two different heads/faces in the picture.

It is not unreasonable or unscientific to suppose a new technology (ubiquitous digital photography) would reveal something new about the world around us.  The invention of microscopes revealed an entire microverse of germs and the like whose existence was scoffed at previously.


No, it's not.  But it is unreasonable to see an image artifact and think "OMG GHOST!" when there are any number of far more plausible explanations out there.
 
2013-11-26 03:42:59 PM  

GnomePaladin: valar_morghulis: Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!

Prove it.

You can't prove a negative.  If people assert there are ghosts (or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters), the burden of proof is on them.

If you were making a joke then I'm just being a wet blanket asshole.  Not a state I'm exactly unfamiliar with :).


This has always bothered me. Not your position, which is probably right ("probably," because I'm not so strident), but your approach to communicating it. The burden of proof is on "them" in an argument in which "they" are trying to convince you of something. In a context such as this, where we have persons ("them") espousing or discussing a belief independently of you, no burden exists on "them." They have not proved to you that ghosts exist, certainly, but "they" weren't trying to. Your unsupported conclusory statement has also not proved that ghosts don't exist. That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist. For example, many new species of animal have recenly been discovered in Australia. If I had a chance encounter with one of these creatures prior to its official discovery, and asserted its existence, you could state "know how I know it's not [animal x]? [animal x]s don't exist, dumbass." In the likely event that I could not produce evidence of its existence, you would not need to prove to me that it did not exist to reasonably reject my position. However, the fact that you did not have the burden of proving the creature's existence for purposes of taking your position did not also equate to proof of its non-existence.

I see this a lot on Fark, where two or more people are discussing ghosts, gods, etc., and someone jumps in with the equivalent of "they don't exist, dumbasses." I may agree with you substantively, but don't understand what value you think that type of statement has to the discussion. Unless you want to get into detail about specific verifable reasons for the impossibility of the existence of ghosts (or anything else), you might want to hold back on the "dumbass" talk. You might be right (in a vacuum, I can't tell much from your brief ineloquent pronouncement), but you're also not adding anything other than noise.
 
2013-11-26 03:46:14 PM  

DCBuck: That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist


And nothing can prove that.  However, the lack of any compelling evidence of their existence is quite enough for me to dismiss it as unlikely.  However, a ration mind is always willing to be proven wrong.  Do I think ghosts exist?  Absolutely not.  Would I change my opinion if shown concrete proof that they do?  Of course.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:03 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: [tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com image 600x750]


I think thats supposed to be
I WANT TO BEREAVE.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:20 PM  
Maybe it's photoshop.

Maybe the picture was taken through a glass door and the "ghost" is the reflection of a portrait behind the photographer.

And maybe people who believe it is a ghost should not be let out unsupervised since they might buy "gold" in a Wallmart's parking lot.
 
2013-11-26 04:03:38 PM  

kg2095: Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.


nekom: DCBuck: That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist

And nothing can prove that.  However, the lack of any compelling evidence of their existence is quite enough for me to dismiss it as unlikely.  However, a ration mind is always willing to be proven wrong.  Do I think ghosts exist?  Absolutely not.  Would I change my opinion if shown concrete proof that they do?  Of course.


This line of argument demonstrates the interesting logical fallacy that "believers" have used for aeons.

The fact that, in all of our civilizaton's existence, there has NEVER even ONCE been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural is, in and of itself, extremely compelling evidence that the supernatural is an invention of our own imaginations.  It's a popular saying that "the absence of evidence is not evidence", however that's far too generalized.  The complete absence of anything beyond conjecture, guessing and wishful thinking is, indeed, strong evidence against the possibility of paranormal phenomena.  I can't "prove" to you that human babies have NEVER been delivered by a stork, but you cannot in turn say that you're entitled to logically suggest it as a realistic possibility just because you raise it.

Saying there's "no proof ghosts DON'T exist" is akin to saying "there's no proof a stork never brought a baby".  You can't, in this case, disprove the negative.  However, the complete and utter lack of evidence is certainly grounds to discount the idea as pure fantasy.  Probability, common-sense, and a lack of anything to suggest otherwise are VERY strong evidence, indeed, in favour of the skeptics' point of view.
 
2013-11-26 04:05:22 PM  

SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

I'm Atheist and have people tell me they'll pray for me when things are going bad for me. What's the difference?

That was my point. Everyone has an opinion. Maybe it's sometimes better to smile and nod.

/I'm an atheist, too.

I've never been a big fan of going along to get along. Yes, it's the right thing to do in certain circumstances (weddings, funerals, trying to get laid) but for me, a sober, rational view of reality makes the ultimate sense.


What does it matter? We are all doomed to die and be forgotten.
 
2013-11-26 04:06:58 PM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year.


My dad died in March of this year.
 
2013-11-26 04:20:35 PM  

Rembrant_Q_Einstein: http://fox4kc.com/2013/11/24/father-claims-9-year-old-son-killed-in-t o rnado-has-shown-up-in-recent-picture-behind-niece/

Here is a larger picture.  There are clearly two different heads/faces in the picture.

It is not unreasonable or unscientific to suppose a new technology (ubiquitous digital photography) would reveal something new about the world around us.  The invention of microscopes revealed an entire microverse of germs and the like whose existence was scoffed at previously.


As a photographer, I clearly see a digital image shot in low light that left a blur trail of the little girl.  See the blur around her right arm?  It's her blur.   Look behind her left knee.  I clearly see a repeat image print of her sandaled right foot.  What I clearly see is that the girl was holding the sparkler up high, as her left hand trails from the start of the sparkler.  I suspect she jumped a bit in excitement, and the camera started to record her image at the peak of her jump.  Clearly.
 
2013-11-26 04:21:15 PM  

Highroller48: mbillips: Like everyone else who has "seen" a ghost, the father is deluded, mistaken or a liar.

This.  All of those "medium" shows do nothing but perpetuate groundless superstition, irrationality, and base emotionalism by giving false hope to desperate people.

There are 4 things that don't exists that the Human race seriously need to come to grips with:
-Magic
-Ghosts
-Psychics
-Deities

A belief in the supernatural is a sign of our lingering psychological infancy.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-26 04:21:16 PM  

Dimensio: GnomePaladin: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: This is pretty cool: obvious proof that spirits walk among us.  The proof is that the second head is completely different than the girl's: no glasses, different hairlines, different skin tone, the neck line of the shirt is different. There is no way the girl could have moved in a way that created a second head without also creating a second image of her body. The girl's body doesn't move at all.  It is obviously not a "double exposure".

It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child.  Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

Wow.  Touchy much?

Frequently, adherents of irrational supernatural beliefs issue pre-emptive personal attacks as a means of affirming to themselves the validity of their position. They are in some way aware that their beliefs are entirely unsupported by any evidence, but they are able to hide that insecurity -- even to themselves -- by first "establishing" that those who disagree with them are lesser individuals by way of unprovoked insults.


If I were to go by this part of your statement on its own, and by the comments in this thread, I honestly would not have a clue which adherents you were referring to. Could be either.
 
2013-11-26 04:21:24 PM  

kg2095: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: Highroller48: Rembrant_Q_Einstein: It is also interesting to note that the ghost shows up in the picture of a child. Ghosts frequently cluster near children as they are more open minded to the spirit world and haven't had what is "real" pounded into their heads for decades.

Unlike you twats.

So your argument for the supernatural is basically the same one that lets Wyle E. Coyote walk off a cliff without falling...until he looks down??

I got one word for you...

[blogs.mycentraljersey.com image 150x206]


Not at all.  There are clearly two different heads there.  If this was film, it would be plausible that it was a double exposure.  A digital photo is incapable of producing this phenomena.

Anything can be done with a digital image, the right software and some skill.

Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.


There is no SOLID evidence because they are ghosts!!!
 
2013-11-26 04:24:24 PM  

bikerbob59: There is no SOLID evidence because they are ghosts!!!


Really?  What about this Polaroid?

favim.com
 
2013-11-26 04:25:09 PM  

bikerbob59: There is no SOLID evidence because they are ghosts!!!


Winner.
 
2013-11-26 04:29:21 PM  

blatz514: bikerbob59: There is no SOLID evidence because they are ghosts!!!

Really?  What about this Polaroid?

[favim.com image 489x272]



♪Okay, I believe you!♫
 
2013-11-26 04:33:26 PM  

SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: SurfaceTension: Grumpy Cat: So, in his grief, you would put your Humanist views on him? That's fair, I suppose. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.

I'm Atheist and have people tell me they'll pray for me when things are going bad for me. What's the difference?

That was my point. Everyone has an opinion. Maybe it's sometimes better to smile and nod.

/I'm an atheist, too.

I've never been a big fan of going along to get along. Yes, it's the right thing to do in certain circumstances (weddings, funerals, trying to get laid) but for me, a sober, rational view of reality makes the ultimate sense.


Obviously, I wasn't trying to argue you. I do see your point. I just have a feeling that if it happened to one of my friend's kids and she saw certain signs or whatnot, I'd let her go along with it. Down the road, when the grieving process becomes less unbearable, I'm sure any reasonable person will come around. And if they don't, be lucky you're not in their shoes.
 
2013-11-26 05:26:19 PM  
My wife took iphone pics of our fireworks on (Independence Day? Memorial Day? I forget) and she swears she sees her father (who committed suicide when she was nine) in the smoke drifting past a nearby tree.
 
2013-11-26 05:44:50 PM  

blatz514: bikerbob59: There is no SOLID evidence because they are ghosts!!!

Really?  What about this Polaroid?

[favim.com image 489x272]


Oh shiat!!! It's a ghooooooooooost!!!!
 
2013-11-26 05:45:52 PM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.


So sorry for your loss.
 
2013-11-26 05:46:25 PM  

Highroller48: kg2095: Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.

nekom: DCBuck: That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist

And nothing can prove that.  However, the lack of any compelling evidence of their existence is quite enough for me to dismiss it as unlikely.  However, a ration mind is always willing to be proven wrong.  Do I think ghosts exist?  Absolutely not.  Would I change my opinion if shown concrete proof that they do?  Of course.

This line of argument demonstrates the interesting logical fallacy that "believers" have used for aeons.

The fact that, in all of our civilizaton's existence, there has NEVER even ONCE been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural is, in and of itself, extremely compelling evidence that the supernatural is an invention of our own imaginations.  It's a popular saying that "the absence of evidence is not evidence", however that's far too generalized.  The complete absence of anything beyond conjecture, guessing and wishful thinking is, indeed, strong evidence against the possibility of paranormal phenomena.  I can't "prove" to you that human babies have NEVER been delivered by a stork, but you cannot in turn say that you're entitled to logically suggest it as a realistic possibility just because you raise it.

Saying there's "no proof ghosts DON'T exist" is akin to saying "there's no proof a stork never brought a baby".  You can't, in this case, disprove the negative.  However, the complete and utter lack of evidence is certainly grounds to discount the idea as pure fantasy.  Probability, common-sense, and a lack of anything to suggest otherwise are VERY strong evidence, indeed, in favour of the skeptics' point of view.


Yes, probably. But like I said I have had a couple of odd experiences. I don't know what they were but it's left me with an open mind.
 
2013-11-26 05:49:41 PM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.



I would be a basket case, you're right.  Let them find lightness where they can.   I hope the holidays are good for you.  I don't know if it means anything but somehwere in this mass internet world I'll be thinking of you.
 
2013-11-26 05:59:00 PM  

kg2095: I have had a couple of odd experiences. I don't know what they were but it's left me with an open mind ...


I think you'll find most skeptics have an open mind as well, but "I swear I saw it" isn't enough evidence to convince any jury.  Find some experimentally verifiable proof that something paranormal exists, and I can assure you scientists won't accuse you of a witch and burn you.  They will, however admit that they were wrong and shift foucus to investigating the mechanism behind it.
 
2013-11-26 06:06:51 PM  

Trashy: I'm not saying it's double exposed film, but it's double exposed film.


ftfy
 
2013-11-26 06:15:59 PM  

nekom: kg2095: I have had a couple of odd experiences. I don't know what they were but it's left me with an open mind ...

I think you'll find most skeptics have an open mind as well, but "I swear I saw it" isn't enough evidence to convince any jury.  Find some experimentally verifiable proof that something paranormal exists, and I can assure you scientists won't accuse you of a witch and burn you.  They will, however admit that they were wrong and shift foucus to investigating the mechanism behind it.


Of course if the supernatural had turned out to actually exist, researchers would already be studying it and finding ways to make it work for us.  History would be completely different.  In that universe, we're using incantations to post to FARK.  In this universe it was the study of physics that delivered results, supernatural research went nowhere because we'd dreamed up the whole thing.
 
2013-11-26 06:23:55 PM  
Listening to the radio, and TSN says this deals does, indeed, mean the end of its Regional deals after this season. Anyone who relies on regional TSN content like Jets fans are out of luck.Put a fork in it, folks. TSN's days of NHL broadcasting are over in 7 months.
 
2013-11-26 06:25:58 PM  

nekom: kg2095: I have had a couple of odd experiences. I don't know what they were but it's left me with an open mind ...

I think you'll find most skeptics have an open mind as well, but "I swear I saw it" isn't enough evidence to convince any jury.  Find some experimentally verifiable proof that something paranormal exists, and I can assure you scientists won't accuse you of a witch and burn you.  They will, however admit that they were wrong and shift foucus to investigating the mechanism behind it.


No, I think a blanket statement like there is no such thing as _______ is not the same as an open mind. An open mind is the attitude that we don't know because there is no evidence to support or deny.
 
2013-11-26 06:26:12 PM  
Crap sorry wrong thread. Stupid Blackberry.
 
2013-11-26 06:37:11 PM  

Highroller48: kg2095: Even though I've had an inexplicable experience I don't believe or disbelieve in ghosts. There is no solid evidence to support either position.

nekom: DCBuck: That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist

And nothing can prove that.  However, the lack of any compelling evidence of their existence is quite enough for me to dismiss it as unlikely.  However, a ration mind is always willing to be proven wrong.  Do I think ghosts exist?  Absolutely not.  Would I change my opinion if shown concrete proof that they do?  Of course.

This line of argument demonstrates the interesting logical fallacy that "believers" have used for aeons.

The fact that, in all of our civilizaton's existence, there has NEVER even ONCE been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural is, in and of itself, extremely compelling evidence that the supernatural is an invention of our own imaginations.  It's a popular saying that "the absence of evidence is not evidence", however that's far too generalized.  The complete absence of anything beyond conjecture, guessing and wishful thinking is, indeed, strong evidence against the possibility of paranormal phenomena.  I can't "prove" to you that human babies have NEVER been delivered by a stork, but you cannot in turn say that you're entitled to logically suggest it as a realistic possibility just because you raise it.

Saying there's "no proof ghosts DON'T exist" is akin to saying "there's no proof a stork never brought a baby".  You can't, in this case, disprove the negative.  However, the complete and utter lack of evidence is certainly grounds to discount the idea as pure fantasy.  Probability, common-sense, and a lack of anything to suggest otherwise are VERY strong evidence, indeed, in favour of the skeptics' point of view.


Not only has there never once been a single shred of proof of the existence of anything supernatural, it is impossible for there ever to be proof of the supernatural because anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

For instance, if there were proof that people could communicate psychically then a hundred years later nobody would think of psychic communication as supernatural, they would instead think of it as entirely natural. This has in fact already happened. For instance, we have proven germs exist, yet to an educated man of medieval times germs would have been a supernatural concept. Time, technology, and learning changes our ability to perceive and understand things, and in so doing moves the boundary between the natural world and the "supernatural" world.

Therefore the fact we have seen no concrete evidence of anything that modern man considers to be supernatural really means nothing, because anything we consider supernatural is thought of as such precisely because there is no evidence it is natural.

Also, we can PROVE human babies have never been delivered by storks (in the traditional sense where no coitus, gestation in the mothers womb, and act of birth is involved, not a stork being found standing next to a newborn baby that was left in a field 2000 years ago), so that was just stupid.

All that being said, your core point is totally fine, you just said a lot of things getting there that don't really work.
 
2013-11-26 06:42:41 PM  

namegoeshere: I miss film.


I get that feeling every now and then and think "I should bring my dark room equipment out of the boxes in the basement and set up a darkroom again".

Then I just open Photoshop and a bottle of vinegar and the feeling goes away.
 
2013-11-26 06:50:32 PM  
arentol: anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

That's kind of the point I was making, summed up nicely.  Bring someone from 500 years ago here and show them an ipad:  "What manner of sorcery is this!?!?".  It was Clarke (I think) who said any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
 
2013-11-26 06:54:39 PM  

DCBuck: GnomePaladin: valar_morghulis: Russ1642: Know how I know it's not a ghost? Ghosts don't exist, dumbasses!

Prove it.

You can't prove a negative.  If people assert there are ghosts (or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters), the burden of proof is on them.

If you were making a joke then I'm just being a wet blanket asshole.  Not a state I'm exactly unfamiliar with :).

This has always bothered me. Not your position, which is probably right ("probably," because I'm not so strident), but your approach to communicating it. The burden of proof is on "them" in an argument in which "they" are trying to convince you of something. In a context such as this, where we have persons ("them") espousing or discussing a belief independently of you, no burden exists on "them." They have not proved to you that ghosts exist, certainly, but "they" weren't trying to. Your unsupported conclusory statement has also not proved that ghosts don't exist. That "they" can't prove ghosts exist, does not conclusively establish that they do not exist. For example, many new species of animal have recenly been discovered in Australia. If I had a chance encounter with one of these creatures prior to its official discovery, and asserted its existence, you could state "know how I know it's not [animal x]? [animal x]s don't exist, dumbass." In the likely event that I could not produce evidence of its existence, you would not need to prove to me that it did not exist to reasonably reject my position. However, the fact that you did not have the burden of proving the creature's existence for purposes of taking your position did not also equate to proof of its non-existence.

I see this a lot on Fark, where two or more people are discussing ghosts, gods, etc., and someone jumps in with the equivalent of "they don't exist, dumbasses." I may agree with you substantively, but don't understand what value you think that type of statement has to the discussion. Unless you want to get into detail about specific verifable reasons for the impossibility of the existence of ghosts (or anything else), you might want to hold back on the "dumbass" talk. You might be right (in a vacuum, I can't tell much from your brief ineloquent pronouncement), but you're also not adding anything other than noise.


This.

It doesn't advance one's case (whether it be belief or skepticism) if they come in and shiat on people who don't share the same thoughts or ideas on something.
 
2013-11-26 07:09:11 PM  
Was it this kid?
www.castleofspirits.com
 
zez
2013-11-26 07:47:42 PM  
img.fark.net

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-26 08:01:45 PM  

nekom: arentol: anything there is proof of is, by definition, natural.

That's kind of the point I was making, summed up nicely.  Bring someone from 500 years ago here and show them an ipad:  "What manner of sorcery is this!?!?".  It was Clarke (I think) who said any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


The difference being that given enough time, you can explain the technology to someone who at first thinks it's magical. People who believe in the supernatural think they're explaining something when they say, "It's magic!" but they're not. If you want to believe in imaginary things, you need to come up with an explanation for HOW these things can violate physical laws. I can't see any point to claiming belief in something you can't even properly describe. If gods are beings that just have access to superior technology, then that technology can be explained.
 
2013-11-26 08:26:18 PM  
www.retronaut.com

Look out Princess! There's a farking headless ghost behind you!
 
2013-11-26 08:52:37 PM  
TTIUWOP


/
oh yea...
 
2013-11-27 03:23:11 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: santadog: With one link to a site that explained exactly how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, I dashed all his hopes of real magic in the world.

Was it a rotating platform or something? That's what I always assumed when I saw that back in the day.


My favorite "Too soon?" joke:

"I can make the Statue of Liberty disappear!"
D. Copperfield, 1983

"I can top that."
O. b. Laden, 2001

/Aisle seat, please
 
2013-11-27 06:42:29 AM  

Closed: My son died in March of this year. It is unbearable and good for this father for finding something to get him through another day. I can tell the "grieving process" discussed upthread is by someone that has never lost a child. There are no processes, especially around the holidays for a parent that will be going through their first Thanksgiving and Christmas without their child.


I'm so very sorry for your loss. I experienced the same thing with my first daughter 14 years ago. You never forget but simply learn to smile again.
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report