Ghosts?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Tarski »

Redefined wrote:I'm not a believer anymore, but it's sometimes fun to get caught up in the thrill of spookiness. . . as long as I get to control it! I'd love to go spend a night in a supposedly haunted hotel room or something. . . with a buddy of course, because I'm still a chicken sometimes!

Tarski in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . . to remind us all of how silly it is to believe in ghosts.


It is silly.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Buffalo »

Simon Belmont wrote:Does that look like the Scream villain to anyone else?


Apparently ghosts go around wearing masks. The older the picture, the more crude the mask.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Quasimodo »

Blixa wrote:
It's funny you picked this one quasi, because it does look so completely fake: especially the "puddle" at the bottom and the cloth face with eye holes!


It's funny you should say that. :)

From an old photographer's point of view, it doesn't have a fake look to me. I will admit that the image is odd to look at.

This was taken and published in the sixties, long before Photoshop. It could be a double exposure (a really professionally done one), but it's defiantly not a sandwiched negative.

To make a double exposure the camera would have to be on a tripod. One would think that the photographer would have leveled the horizon in the photo rather than having a downward tilt from our right to left. It looks hand held.

The provenance of it being a casual photo taken by the church's Vicar stands up, apparently.


The puddle at the bottom is the drapes of his robe, I believe. I don't think it's wearing a cloth face. I think it's a drooping skull. The "holes" are actually empty eye sockets drooping a little.

I have no idea if this is a genuine photo, but it does catch your eye.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_hatersinmyward
_Emeritus
Posts: 671
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _hatersinmyward »

The print was most likely washed improperly while it was being processed. If not that, the negative was not cleaned properly after it went through the developer.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Buffalo »

Quasimodo wrote:
Blixa wrote:
It's funny you picked this one quasi, because it does look so completely fake: especially the "puddle" at the bottom and the cloth face with eye holes!


It's funny you should say that. :)

From an old photographer's point of view, it doesn't have a fake look to me. I will admit that the image is odd to look at.

This was taken and published in the sixties, long before Photoshop. It could be a double exposure (a really professionally done one), but it's defiantly not a sandwiched negative.

To make a double exposure the camera would have to be on a tripod. One would think that the photographer would have leveled the horizon in the photo rather than having a downward tilt from our right to left. It looks hand held.

The provenance of it being a casual photo taken by the church's Vicar stands up, apparently.


The puddle at the bottom is the drapes of his robe, I believe. I don't think it's wearing a cloth face. I think it's a drooping skull. The "holes" are actually empty eye sockets drooping a little.

I have no idea if this is a genuine photo, but it does catch your eye.


http://www.eyedoctorguide.com/
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Quasimodo »



Very funny! ;)
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Ghosts?

Post by _Buffalo »

Quasimodo wrote:


Very funny! ;)


;)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Post Reply