Is Photograpic Evidence For Paranormal Events Even Possible?

[gattino]

In a world of photoshop, special effects and the internet, that is.

When a picture is blurry, out of focus, just out of shot or whatever its deemed "too convenient...why are they never clear normal photos? It could be anything!"
But whenever a picture is sharp, clear and in focus its deemed "too good to be true. It's obviously been photoshopped" and dismissed out of hand. ("Oh they've done a good job, I'll give them that, but clearly a fake")

So if a ghost wandered into your living room and sat down for tea, or the borg mothership stopped over your house and asked for directions to the nearest motorway services, how on earth would you prove it?

I worry about these things. Just in case.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There was a time when the reasonable response would have been that static images had become so unreliable as 'evidence' that only dynamic recordings (e.g., video) could be trusted.

Unfortunately, it's now possible to edit / manipulate dynamic image streams to a degree of resolution that can't be definitively proven 'original' or 'pristine'.

:cry:

 

[Mythopoeika]

Excellent point.

I personally think it's now no longer possible to say 'the camera does not lie'.

This is because there are so many tools available for fakery that can produce an authentic-looking result.

 

[gattino]

There's a photo I took which I pasted on the thread about unfortunate page layouts in newspapers... its shows a woman on the train reading a newspaper she's holdign in front of her chest unaware it appears to give her a large pair of bikini clad breasts. It's an amusing image.

I've posted in the past both on facebook and the message boards of another website. And on each occassion someone has piped up that I've "obviously" been on photoshop (the "too good to be true" charge). What's more intriguing is that someone will go further and point out - in the style fo the moon landings - the obvious tell tale clues of mismatched skin tones here or distorted pixels there. And they'll be cheered by a third person for having unmasked me!

All complete fantasy of course. But if it can happen with as inoccuous a photo as that, what chance would spring heeled jack or the chupacabra have of getting through the sceptic's defences?

 

[Mythopoeika]

You're right, it is very unfortunate.

As for people who do fake stuff - why do they do it? I wish they wouldn't.
It's muddied the water for the real stuff.

 

[Sergeant_Pluck]

I'm not sure it ever was possible for a camera / recording / video / whatever to capture paranormal activity. You see Ghost Hunters and their ilk running around with specialist magnetic detectors, EMF, EVP, thermal cameras and all sorts of sh*t, and I often wonder why they think these tools will capture any evidence whatsoever? If such tools have never captured any proof, then why do investigators continue to think that they will?

My instinct is that paranormal phenomena may be observable by certain people through various 'frequencies' or ' sensitivities', but are beyond the range of man-made tools.

 

[Jerry_B]

'The camera never lies' is in fact an old lie in itself. Or rather, the camera may not lie, but whatever is possible to adjust in the darkroom will certainly help. The advent of digital photography has made it easier, but that doesn't mean it's made photos more unreliable. That's always been the case anyway. And with a photographic subject such as Forteana, there's always enough people out there willing to cash in on it in some way.

 

[Cochise]

Agreed. The camera may not lie but the darkroom most certainly could!

Hovever, the advent of digital media actually means no photo or video evidence can be trusted. Far from improving our understanding of the world about us we are actually embarking on a new dark age, literally. In 100 years time, assuming all the libraries have not been burned, people will be able to find out as much about teh 19th and 20th centurys as we can - but they won't be able to find out much about the 21st because all the data will be on media that will have decayed or be unreadable. Books and paper records don't self destruct in 5 to 10 years - they last decades or even centuries. Digital media does unless extravagant precautions are taken. And modifications - depending on how they are done - can be quite untraceable.

 

[Monstrosa]

Wood pulp paper does degrade over quite a short time really. Think about newspapers yellowing. THe acid used to bleach the pulp damages it, add the inks also being damaging. Paper was mostly made from cotton or linen or even hemp rag/pulp, you're right, that stuff can last centuries and does.

 

[Xanatic_]

I'd imagine a photo of a real ghost might look just like a double exposed picture, making it rather problematic to use as evidence.

 

[cardinaluk]

I've also often wondered about what the OP raises. I think the only way its really difficult to fake supernatural video subjects is at deep sea or in space footage. The footage which you see from these environments are few and far between compared to Sky or dark haunted house footage, so video fakers have less experience faking the visuals.

The whole situation might be good thing though as we won't rely on blurry footage anymore and seek more evidence than film. This would then discredit the fakers.

Just threw some thoughts down.

 

[IamSundog]

Given that 60+ years of pretty clear photographs, movie film, radar tapes, video, expert testimony, and well documented investigations of trace evidence haven't proved that UFOs (by which I mean "aerial phenomena of unknown origin", not "alien spaceships") actually occur, I think it is clear that there is no possible evidence sufficient to "prove" the existence of anomalous phenomena.

When you consider that no amount of photograhic evidence, results of scientific experiments, video, technical documentation, and testimony of participants can prove to some people that the Apollo program landed a man on the moon, you have to wonder what it means to "prove" anything. You can't prove to me that Australia exists if I choose to be pig-headed about it.

In the end, "what is real" is nothing more or less than the consensus of the people that are considered authorities. At some point in time...

 

[Cochise]

There are no facts, only majority views

You raise a terribly serious but ultimately unresolveable point. It may indeed all be an illusion, a collective hallucination, or simply not there at all. Either you or I might be the only thing alive in the entire universe and in our madness that would necessarily follow from such a state we have created lots of imaginary friends.

 

[IamSundog]

It may indeed all be an illusion, a collective hallucination, or simply not there at all. Either you or I might be the only thing alive in the entire universe and in our madness that would necessarily follow from such a state we have created lots of imaginary friends.

Well I actually didn't mean to get all George Berkeley here. I just meant that consensus as to what exists and what doesn't is decided (nowadays) by a core of "respectable" scientists. And it appears that world paradigms are too deep-seated to be changed just on the basis of photos or other documentation; people are much more likely to cling to their paradigm and find ways to reject contrary evidence. So it is probably impossible to prove the existence of forbidden phenomena.

 

[IamSundog]

One extreme: I read somewhere a quote to the effect that "even if I saw a flying saucer I wouldn't believe it, because I know they don't exist".

 

[Cochise]

It may indeed all be an illusion, a collective hallucination, or simply not there at all. Either you or I might be the only thing alive in the entire universe and in our madness that would necessarily follow from such a state we have created lots of imaginary friends.

Well I actually didn't mean to get all George Berkeley here. I just meant that consensus as to what exists and what doesn't is decided (nowadays) by a core of "respectable" scientists. And it appears that world paradigms are too deep-seated to be changed just on the basis of photos or other documentation; people are much more likely to cling to their paradigm and find ways to reject contrary evidence. So it is probably impossible to prove the existence of forbidden phenomena.

It is sort of what I meant as well, I just have a tendency to extend the line of thinking to its (often ludicrous!) outer limits. I'm coming to think that the mass consciousness is in some way connected to / has an influence on reality.

This may be merely a matter of how we percieve it - after all, everything we percieve is filtered by our own subconscious which in turn is influenced by our surroundings and interactions with other humans - including scientists and other 'opinion formers' - or it may be that we actually influence reality in subtle / trivial ways. There is also something I remember reading that everything we see is out-of-date (by milliseconds) and the further possibilities that opens up for disconnects and filtering, which was coupled with evidence that we can actually react to things before we could percieve them. The concept at the edge of physics that measuring things alters them would be relevant too.

The power of positive thinking etc. would be one example of a nearly-mainstream exploitation of this concept.

I guess what I'm saying is that if for an individual, for one reason or another, has let the filters down for a second, then whatever it is they see or interpret is not going to be strong enough to break down the filters that society, group consciousness, call it what you will, has erected unless the evidence or the 'group-acceptance' in one way or another becomes overwhelming. But for the person involved it may be utterly convincing and their inability to be believed could be intensely frustrating.

 

[IamSundog]

But for the person involved it may be utterly convincing and their inability to be believed could be intensely frustrating.

A recurring motif on these forums, and the cause of many heated exchanges. One eventually has to accept that personal fortean experiences are just that - personal and not for anyone else - because there can be no convincing anyone else of their "reality". Sometimes I wonder whether there shouldn't be a sticky at the top of each topic to that effect - a kind of "rules of engagement" - so we don't have to keep repeating that discussion.

 

[Cochise]

Yes. I think people who have experienced strangeness feel sometimes they are being accused of lying and fabrication (and occasionally the questioning sounds a bit like that as well!)

Whereas really what most people are trying to do is to understand the experiences either of themselves or others, and maybe prise out somewhere a nugget of further enlightenment about life, the universe and everything

There are of course hoaxes as well, and they need eliminating - we are confused enough without them. So its no easy thing to get the reaction right in every case.

 

[kevinjwoods]

The question is is it possible to fake a picture so well that it is impossible to prove it is a fake using any modern technology, Photoshop leaves traces that can be spotted by experts, we know what most things, from insects walking across cameras, to all kinds of cloud formations, so that it should be possible to say that these are most likely.
To say that because something can be faked is to say that something was faked is illogical, without some evidence of fakery other than saying ghosts/ufos/bigfoot are impossible is to ignore the second part of the explanantion which is to take a possible explanation and ten find evidence to prove it was done this way.
For a photo to be declared a fake it requires that it first be examined by experts to check for computer manipulation, to check for any problems in the witness statements that might indicate it was not taken where and when it was claimed and only if theses indicate fakery can it be claimed as fake. While experts can be wrong occasionally it is possible to say that if they think it is genuine you can start with the assumption of reality, too many sceptics claim that the average person is an expert in photography on the basis that they have used a camera in the past, or that they have the same level of skill as the best in the field because that is what it would take to make the photograph/evidence. If someone can come up with a UFO photo that passes every known test and then prove they faked it then they could get a job anywhere for a fortune.
I am always surprised that blanket statements of hoax or made it up never result in court cases.
Also it doesn't explain the occasional case of live fortean footage.

 

[Mythopoeika]

The question is is it possible to fake a picture so well that it is impossible to prove it is a fake using any modern technology, Photoshop leaves traces that can be spotted by experts, we know what most things, from insects walking across cameras, to all kinds of cloud formations, so that it should be possible to say that these are most likely.

Yes, I think it may be possible to fake a picture without leaving traces.

What a lot of fakers do is take a picture with a camera that saves to JPEG format files. Then they edit them and save them as JPEGs again.
Each time they do that, it leaves pixellated artifacts.
To do it properly, you would take a hi-res photo and save to a lossless format such as BMP or RAW, then edit the files. Then, you can save to JPEG. Because you edited the file before saving to a lossy format (i.e. JPEG), all parts of the photo have the same level of compression artifacts.
Also, of course, you can fake up the date and time information.

 

[kevinjwoods]

So no expert in the world would be able to tell that a photo had been copied in a different format from that in which it was taken, that there would be no differences in texture, colour, definition or anything that would say fake, and that the photograph would show no trace of being taken from a different camera (any gaps in numbering would be noticeable by taking an extra photo and comparing the number).

 

[Mythopoeika]

So no expert in the world would be able to tell that a photo had been copied in a different format from that in which it was taken,

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think that saving in another format would create an 'audit trail' in the file. If I'm wrong and it did, that could be edited out of the file by using a sector editor/hex editor.
I don't know about no expert in the world...

that there would be no differences in texture, colour, definition or anything that would say fake,

If the parts that are edited in have the same resolution and focus quality, there should be no discernible difference.
This is the difficult bit - matching the grain of the pictures together.
I guess if somebody did the job properly, it would be impossible to tell by vision alone.

and that the photograph would show no trace of being taken from a different camera (any gaps in numbering would be noticeable by taking an extra photo and comparing the number).

Who said anything about another camera? Anyway, it's just part of a bitmap you'd be transplanting.
The text could be edited in directly with Photoshop. You'd have to match the data and the font, etc.
Or you could reset the time and date on the camera to take another picture and then copy them across to the faked up picture.


As I say though - don't quote me on this. I might be wrong.

 

[special_farces]

Thinking about the start of this thread, I'd say a number of stills and / or videos from multiple witnesses shooting from dispersed vantage points might provide a higher degree of 'proof'. But then the average Fortean event flickers into existence in front of a small select band of witnesses, then makes off with their credibility before they've had time to shout 'Pentax!' (other brands are available).

Quick question, anyone got a photo they believe captures an anomalous event? I have just one, I'll fish it off the external hard drive tomorrow and post it!

 

[kevinjwoods]

By another camera I mean the photo number it would be given, for example the 150th picture would have a code DSC0150 and checking the cameras memory you could spot deleted photos by a gap in the numbers, you could change the codes manually but you would have to change the internal program or else the next photo would show how many photos had been deleted by a gap between 150 and 154 for example.
Not bothered about an audit trail, a photo of a photo would appear different from a photo of a real thing, I am talking about there would be slight differences inn each format so if you examined it thoroughly to see what format it was taken in and compared it to the way each format is then you could spot something visual.