A
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
Soothsayer said:
It looks like a very poor quality bit of Photoshopping.
I've moved this from "New Science" forum.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,282
- Location
- Eblana
Well... how do we know it wasnt tampered with? I'm not being a SKEPTIC, but digital images can be spectacularly altered quite easily and unless we have access to the original disc/camera, there is no way of making an objective assessment.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,634
sjoh9 said:
Slight understatement.
Yeah there's no way such a "spiritual" being would allow themselves to be associated with a sofa pattern in such poor taste. never mind about Reiki - have they never heard of the ancient practice of the Ikea masters ? It's definitely a fake.
-
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
It's not overly convincing, is it? I'm rather intrigued by this passage in the accompanying blurb:
.
I wonder who took him aside? And as well whether or not they never ever saw a pic like it or anyone had seen one of him like it before-lode? Stan Unwin, rest in peace
.- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Messages
- 549
That's an awful fake. Truly dreadful. :lol:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,303
Rrose Selavy said:sjoh9 said:
Slight understatement.
Yeah there's no way such a "spiritual" being would allow themselves to be associated with a sofa pattern in such poor taste. never mind about Reiki - have they never heard of the ancient practice of the Ikea masters ? It's definitely a fake.
-
Quite right! they teach you all about appropriate decor when you do the Reiki Master Level 3 training couse...
Why would a camera capture anything special?
Well, I am far less experienced in Fortean matters than the rest of you. But I think he's Obviously channeling the spirit of Lady Liberty.
On a more serious note-
Personally, I'm of the opinion that a camera or electronic recording device is going to be less likely to capture the 'abnormal' than the human eye (or ear, etc). Especially a digital recording device, as opposed to analog. A digital device is inherently limited in its ability to capture reality.
It's sort of like the old axiom that a computer can only do what a human first programs it to do. An electronic recording device is manufactured to capture elements of reality that a human being understands.
I know this theory goes against 'established' paranormal lore, but that's my take on things. Organic perception is impossibly complex-- manufactured perception is limited by what we can create a machine to do, and thereby, it can be argued, it is limited by what we understand.
Mind, this is merely my theory, and not something I believe in hard and fast without any possible allowance for exception. After all, sometimes a man-made article surprises the manufacturerers by doing much more than it was made to do. Science is often furthered by 'happy accident'.
Anyone else tend towards the above theory?
Well, I am far less experienced in Fortean matters than the rest of you. But I think he's Obviously channeling the spirit of Lady Liberty.
On a more serious note-
Personally, I'm of the opinion that a camera or electronic recording device is going to be less likely to capture the 'abnormal' than the human eye (or ear, etc). Especially a digital recording device, as opposed to analog. A digital device is inherently limited in its ability to capture reality.
It's sort of like the old axiom that a computer can only do what a human first programs it to do. An electronic recording device is manufactured to capture elements of reality that a human being understands.
I know this theory goes against 'established' paranormal lore, but that's my take on things. Organic perception is impossibly complex-- manufactured perception is limited by what we can create a machine to do, and thereby, it can be argued, it is limited by what we understand.
Mind, this is merely my theory, and not something I believe in hard and fast without any possible allowance for exception. After all, sometimes a man-made article surprises the manufacturerers by doing much more than it was made to do. Science is often furthered by 'happy accident'.
Anyone else tend towards the above theory?
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2001
- Messages
- 155
I think it's the opposite
My understanding (having studied observational techniques) is that the eye is rather limited in it's ability to pick up light, as opposed to a digital collection device.
The light hitting the retina also has the problem of being interpreted by the brain, which can sometimes get the signal confused, or "fill in the blanks" with familiar items, when the unfamiliar is seen.
Cameras capture light on film. Digital cameras capture light on CCD's (Charge Couple Device), where a photon of light hits a charged sensor, and after all the photons are done hitting the CCD, the "image" - a collection of charges - is read by the computer - in binary. So, the computer interprets the light coming in, usually without confusion.
So, I trust the camera more than I trust the eye. Then again, I don't always trust the image because a person could have photoshopped it.
My understanding (having studied observational techniques) is that the eye is rather limited in it's ability to pick up light, as opposed to a digital collection device.
The light hitting the retina also has the problem of being interpreted by the brain, which can sometimes get the signal confused, or "fill in the blanks" with familiar items, when the unfamiliar is seen.
Cameras capture light on film. Digital cameras capture light on CCD's (Charge Couple Device), where a photon of light hits a charged sensor, and after all the photons are done hitting the CCD, the "image" - a collection of charges - is read by the computer - in binary. So, the computer interprets the light coming in, usually without confusion.
So, I trust the camera more than I trust the eye. Then again, I don't always trust the image because a person could have photoshopped it.
Jonfairway
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,384
wow
I never thought I would see one of those again let alone see one in a photo !!!!
to be honest mind has anyone tried to copy the effect with photoshop ??
there must be some experts on here who could make a good stab at it.
lets see em chaps.
I never thought I would see one of those again let alone see one in a photo !!!!
to be honest mind has anyone tried to copy the effect with photoshop ??
there must be some experts on here who could make a good stab at it.
lets see em chaps.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
A
Anonymous
Guest
Edward said:
"Oh no, Mary, now you're doing it again! Please shut that annoying light off and let us get on with the budget drafts!"
Truly a masterpiece of bad photoshopping!
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
Chigrima said:
Oi!! I spent all of ten minutes on that
Human_84
Somewhat human
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,330
My grandparents have a pic fo their friend who died the day after the picture was tooken. Everyone is at a dinner table and she has a very apparent HALO above her head which appears in a variety of colors. This photo helped many people cope with her death. I MAY be able to get it if you all show an intrest.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Oooo, I would love to see that halo pic, it sounds marvelous! Pretty please try to convince your grandparents to let you borrow it (try fake crying if they say no ).
).
A
Anonymous
Guest
I would have thought that if it was possible to capture someones aura with a standard digital camera the 'net would be flooded with thousands of pics from cctv
A
Anonymous
Guest
I rather like the bad flaring which at some points are wiggly like graphics tablet pen was used.
They are a cheeky bunch these Yanks aren't they!
Reminds me of that rather cheeky page on ghoststudy...the "$10,000 picture" one! Bad bad baaaadd!
They are a cheeky bunch these Yanks aren't they!
Reminds me of that rather cheeky page on ghoststudy...the "$10,000 picture" one! Bad bad baaaadd!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Here... this took me 6 minutes and I had to go into someone's fingers and write stuff!!!!
Oh my God! Tell me what you think uhu? lol!
http://www.geocities.com/sumdysdad/realghost
Oh my God! Tell me what you think uhu? lol!
http://www.geocities.com/sumdysdad/realghost
A
Anonymous
Guest
Cheers!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yeah there's no way such a "spiritual" being would allow themselves to be associated with a sofa pattern in such poor taste.
really funny comment..........reminds me of Oscar Wilde's last words,"Either that wallpaper goes or I do."
really funny comment..........reminds me of Oscar Wilde's last words,"Either that wallpaper goes or I do."