Walhalla Ghost

[Red-Ink]

Haha, everyday Thats fine, but when you jump to a conclusion without any degree of certainty you are committing a logical fallacy. Specifically 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or an argument from ignorance. Just because something appears to be unexplainable does not mean it cannot be explained. Simply applying Occam's Razor should lead you to a more earthly conclusion. What is more likely, that its simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person or that the natural laws of the universe have been suspended and it is indeed a ghost?

What if Occam's razor solution offers no degree of certainty and is committing logical fallacy in itself.
In this scenario one side of the opposition as concluded that it is a ghost applying subjectively Occam's razor reasoning that the other opposing arguments in itself can not provide evidence with all certainty; that the anomally is in deed an equipment malfunction or higher formed intelligence just simply applying the Gestalt principles.

Would your counter reasoning not apply in retort as well to your arguments.

I am not stating that the image artefact is in deed of a supernatural nature nor am i stating that it is not.... It is simply an anomally with an inconclusive explanation.

If you follow my thought process a few post down from the one you qouted me on I believe that you will see I'm neutral on the matter. I was simply asking people if the skeptics themselves had some experiences that they could not simply explain.

 

[Skeptic]

Sagan was such a boss.

Sagan was THE boss

What if Occam's razor solution offers no degree of certainty and is committing logical fallacy in itself.
In this scenario one side of the opposition as concluded that it is a ghost applying subjectively Occam's rezor reasoning that the other opposing arguments in itself can not provide evidence with all certainty that the anomally is in deed a a equipment malfunction or higher formed intelligence just simply applying the Gestalt principles.

Would your counter reasoning not apply in retort as well to your arguments.

I am not stating that the image artefact is in deed of a supernatural nature nor am i stating that it is not.... It is simply an anomally with an incnclusive explanation.

If you follow my thought process a few post down from the one you qouted me on I believe that you will see I'm neutral on the matter. I was simply asking people if the skeptics themselves had some experiences that they could simply explain.

Occam's Razor isn't a tool to reach certainty on any subject. It's merely used to say what is most likely. And in this situation I can't take anyone seriously who comes to the conclusion, using Occam's Razor, that this artefact in a blurry photo is of supernatural origins. So no, my reasoning could not apply in retort as the supernatural side requires an order of magnitude more explanations. I do agree with you 100% that "It is simply an anomally with an inconclusive explanation" as of yet. However, I'm certain that an explanation could be achieved by someone trained in forensic photography.

 

[slim6y]

What I find hard to swallow is:

A camera which can pick up a multitude of electromagnetic radiation (EMR from herein) also picks up, and displays EMR from a different part of the spectrum - one that can't be seen with the naked eye and it then prints it as data of sorts.

This in itself is surprising as a camera has very preset parameters that guides what the sensors can pick up and print. These are factory preset and can be tampered with - you could allow for more IR for example or as Red-Ink has done set it up for more UV...

But this iPhone all of a sudden is catching something in the spectrum that could be in the range much much smaller than microwaves or even x-rays perhaps. I am guessing it's not in the 'raqdiowave parts of the spectrum.

From all modern beliefs - it appears ghosts (if there were any) were a form of energy, however insignificant, the energy would be measurable... It is possible for us to detect minute amounts of EMR - this is what things like SETI was set up for.

So basically, the test for ghosts would not be out of our range and ability (imo).

I'm not saying we've discovered everything in the EMR spectrum, I'm merely saying that an iPhone in it's complexity would be unlikely to have sensor capable of picking up EMR outside of very preset parameters. I am guessing Apple had never intended their phones and camera equipment to be used for such specialised purposes, other than for hoaxes or... At the very best, a slightly long exposure of a tree which (as so elegantly put) "that it's simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person."

What I can't contend with is people continually believing in things that time and time and time again have been proven incorrect, inconclusive or at the very least hoaxes!

 

[Australis]

Take enough photos and one will show something ghost like... i don't know, it doesn't seem anymore amazing than say looking at every piece of nutrigrain until you find one with a loose resemblance to E.T.

 

[Red-Ink]

It may not just be a question of EMR slim... Schlieren imaging effects may also be a factor. If light is seen at an angle where it is a flat polarised linear field any discrepancy in the refractive index of this light will be picked up by the naked eye. It is the same effect that give objects in the distance on a hot day that "shimmering" effect, the heat waves from the ground become visible to the naked eye as well as any run of the mill imaging device in that flat linear field of light.

 

[slim6y]

It may not just be a question of EMR slim... Schlieren imaging effects may also be a factor. If light is seen at at angle where it is a flat polarised linear field any discrepancy in the refractive index of this light will be picked up by the naked eye. It is the same effect that give objects in the distance on a hot day that "shimmering" effect, the heat waves from the ground become visible to the naked eye as well as any run of the mill imaging device in that flat linear field of light.

So, in this case, as above, it's still EMR - whether the light is reflected, refracted, dispersed, total internal reflection - what ever the light does, it's still EMR... Isn't it?

Polarised light is still EMR...

The camera, the eye... Designed to pick up EMR within a certain spectrum (except mine don't, because they're bung).

 

[Red-Ink]

So, in this case, as above, it's still EMR - whether the light is reflected, refracted, dispersed, total internal reflection - what ever the light does, it's still EMR... Isn't it?

Polarised light is still EMR...

The camera, the eye... Designed to pick up EMR within a certain spectrum (except mine don't, because they're bung).

Yes still EMR but having the visible parts of the spectrum polarised and linear now allows us to see (given it's already the visible part of the spectrum) any discrepancy in the refractive index. When we set up this experiment in the lab at uni we watched heat rising from our hands when it was placed in that field of light. Something that would have never been possible unless we had polarised and made that field of the visible spectrum linear. Now given that this can happen naturally on a hot summer day... I would hazard to guess it could happen "unwittingly" in other natural situations giving us the ability and the imaging device to see what was previously unseen due to the disturbance of the refractive index in that polarised linear field of light.

Maybe "ghost" have a different refractive index not visible under normal conditions which we are exposed to everyday... vary that factor or add another one and we "may" be able to make them visually present...

Yes I know that sounds crazy... but it is in the realms of scientific possibility.

Not saying thats what happened but it may be a factor worth considering in looking for explanations to visual anomalies.

 

[junglepython2]

I don't write these websites, I merely copy them... Can't help what's written out there... But I live in hope that my colour deficiency has an advantage... And all I want is to say... I can see better at night than you!!! Sucked in!

Which... Coincidentally is probably why I don't see ghosts at night - because there aren't any to see



I'm never going to tell you muahahahahahahaha (but my GF can read it and she's not colourblind, so now I am worried....)

Ok Slim6y you sparked my interest so I delved further, apparently some colour vision defectives can perform certain discriminatory tasks better under sodium lighting then colour normals, as they are good at differentiating on luminosity differences rather than colour. Which is what I think your website is referring to, though under true scotopic conditions I wouldn't think you have any advantage. For the record I don't see ghosts either

 

[slim6y]

Yes still EMR but having the visible parts of the spectrum polarised and linear now allows us to see (given it's already the visible part of the spectrum) any discrepancy in the refractive index. When we set up this experiment in the lab at uni we watched heat rising from our hands when it was placed in that field of light. Something that would have never been possible unless we had polarised and made that field of the visible spectrum linear. Now given that this can happen naturally on a hot summer day... I would hazard to guess it could happen "unwittingly" in other natural situations giving us the ability and the imaging device to see what was previously unseen due to the disturbance of the refractive index in that polarised linear field of light.

Maybe "ghost" have a different refractive index not visible under normal conditions which we are exposed to everyday... vary that factor or add another one and we "may" be able to make them visually present...

Yes I know that sounds crazy... but it is in the realms of scientific possibility.

Not saying thats what happened but it may be a factor worth considering in looking for explanations to visual anomalies.

Can't discount anything (of course) - but... Let's face it - different refractive indexes of ghosts.... Hmmmm

(google) Unfortunately searches for the RI of ghosts doesn't come up... Which to me would signal that either a) they don't know the refractive index of ghosts or... b) ghosts don't exist.

And... If by chance any form of the EMR ends up on film, albeit refracted or what ever... It would certainly be testable under normal conditions - and as Walhalla appears to be ghostly, would this not be a good place to test it?

Ok Slim6y you sparked my interest so I delved further, apparently some colour vision defectives can perform certain discriminatory tasks better under sodium lighting then colour normals, as they are good at differentiating on luminosity differences rather than colour. Which is what I think your website is referring to, though under true scotopic conditions I wouldn't think you have any advantage. For the record I don't see ghosts either

I don't like you referring to the non-colourblind people as normals, it makes my kind feel abnormal, which we're not, we just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else, even if I am wearing a watermelon coloured shirt with my flame red trousers... I don't need anyone pointing out that these colours clash - because in my eyes, they're just wonderful and nothing clashes in nature (colour wise) and I consider myself part of nature... I am the colour normal - you're just colour gifted...

 

[Red-Ink]

Can't discount anything (of course) - but... Let's face it - different refractive indexes of ghosts.... Hmmmm

(google) Unfortunately searches for the RI of ghosts doesn't come up... Which to me would signal that either a) they don't know the refractive index of ghosts or... b) ghosts don't exist.

And... If by chance any form of the EMR ends up on film, albeit refracted or what ever... It would certainly be testable under normal conditions - and as Walhalla appears to be ghostly, would this not be a good place to test it?

Now were cooking... I bags you carry the equipment though

 

[slim6y]

Now were cooking... I bags you carry the equipment though

I bags you pay for it (and my trip to Walhalla and my incredibly heavy appetite for drinking (all of a sudden) and I'll be there)...

BTW - would we be up for $1million if we can prove the existence of the ectoplasm?

 

[moosenoose]

There's a few ghosts in the photos ya spoil-sports! Just get over it!