Creepy figure photobombs

[Syne]

You're the one claiming the photo and caption are legit. They do not stand as proof, in and of themselves.

Yes they are. They are proof for the existence of ghosts. That's the only claim I make. I have no need to prove they aren't faked because there is no evidence for such fakery. And if you aren't claiming they are faked then fine. The evidence stands.

Yes, a photo can be proof, but it must be authenticated as accurate and relevant to the matter at hand before it can be used as evidence, especially in a legal context. Authenticity is typically established by a witness who can testify that the photograph fairly and accurately represents what it depicts, and it must also be relevant to the case.
...
No, a photo cannot be proof of a ghost, because "ghost-like" images are always explained as either intentional hoaxes or photographic artifacts caused by technical errors or environmental factors.
- Google AI

You've offered no means of authenticating or ruling out any mundane explanation. So you've, once again, demonstrated you don't understand simple proof.
No one said it was faked. The onus is on you to prove it shows a ghost... which you haven't done (except in your own mind... which is all you believe matters, e.g. SN).

Just like a photo of Hiroshima labeled as Hawaii is not proof one is the other.

No..but a photo of Hiroshima labeled Hiroshima is certainly proof of Hiroshima. That's what photos do. Provide visual evidence for a place or event we haven't witnessed.

Only if you verify that it is, indeed, Hiroshima... and not, say, Nagasaki. This has to be independently verified with more than one captioned photo.

I asked you about a person touching a ghost, not vice versa. Wanna take another crack at the question actually asked this time?

LOL The moment a ghost touches you you are touching the ghost. There is no other way of touching.

Really, you can't touch something yourself, with your own hand?
Shame you don't understand the simple difference between acting and being acted upon. 9_9

So how do you know which is and which isn't? Is it just a matter of what you want to believe?

When there's reason to suspect deception. Until then there's no reason to think there is.

So whatever you want to believe, e.g. SN.

[Zinjanthropos]

Facebook….

Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway!

There comes a time when it is no longer worthwhile to argue with an idiot. For that reason MR just became a non- entity for me. I will admit that if the game is to produce a certain number of posts then mission accomplished but at some point by participating there comes a realization that there’s either no cure for stupidity or the whole thing is staged and I’ve been duped.

Normally, in real life I think most people would turn away from an argument with an idiot but the internet provides just enough anonymity that you might think there’s an opportunity to reason with one. Unfortunately the results the same, just more people know about it.

Best solution? Avoid contact at all costs. Sorry if that means fewer posts for the forum but I can no longer lower myself to whatever level arguing with an idiot is. Sciforums did the right thing and got rid of the problem.

Had to ask myself some things….Did I participate in the argument to show how stupid it was? How smart I am? How dumb the poster is? Did I try to protect the world from an idiot? How much time have I wasted? Is this for real? Does the poster have some psychological issues?

Bye, bye to MR. You will no longer elicit a response from me. If it helps with your psyche then please think you’ve won some kind of battle and go pin a medal on your chest. Enjoy the notoriety while it lasts. Just hope you’re not stopping people from joining the forum. For me, I can no longer feed the pigeons.

[Syne]

I completely understand, Zin. I've had C2 and Ostro on ignore for years now.

I often post for more than the person I'm addressing. Much like any debate or politics, you're speaking to the audience more than the opposing side. If nothing else, I like to give random readers the impression that this forum doesn't just accept all this crackpot woo. And while Ostro can't understand the simplest argument and C2 is usually lost in his own trolling buffoonery, as illiterate as MR is, he can often at least track with simple arguments.
I've also been running a psychological experiment on him for years.

[Magical Realist]

Bye, bye to MR. You will no longer elicit a response from me.

Meh..Such is the effect of irrefutable evidence on the would-be debunkers. I guess I finally won! lol On with the show.

---

You've offered no means of authenticating or ruling out any mundane explanation. So you've, once again, demonstrated you don't understand simple proof.

The photos have yet to be deauthenticated. And no mundane explanation has been provided by you or anyone else. In my book that makes them legit photos of ghosts. How do I know? By seeing thousands of photos of this phenomenon over the years and finding them all eerily similar in what they show.

No one said it was faked.

That's a smart move on your part since you can't claim something without evidence. My only claim is that these are photos of ghosts. Just as a photo of a tree is a photo of a tree or a photo of a cloud is a photo of a cloud. It is simply what it is.

Only if you verify that it is, indeed, Hiroshima... and not, say, Nagasaki. This has to be independently verified with more than one captioned photo.

Nope..the photo is universally accepted to be a photo of Hiroshima. Nobody goes around insisting all photos of things be verified to be believed. That would be insane. That you make a glaring exception with photos of things you don't want to believe in is telling. It's the typical skeptic tactic of dismissing compelling evidence.

Really, you can't touch something yourself, with your own hand?

The moment you touch something it touches you back. There is no exception to this ever.

---

[Image: ROIIW0o.jpeg]

"In Ravenna, Ohio, a ghost of a little girl can be seen peering out the window in a photograph taken of a house. Lu Ann Sicuro, owner of the house, has lived there for 20 years and claims to have experienced strange phenomenons. The mysterious activities include strange voices, unexplained noises coming from her closet, and doorknobs rattling on their own.

The photo is the most interesting piece of evidence to support that Sicuro’s house is haunted. The photo looks ordinary but upon closer examination, the image of a young person, assumed to be a girl, is staring out the window.

“I feel that this image is a very good photo of something paranormal caught on camera,” said Ms. Sicuro. “A very disturbing photo. It appears to be an image of a child. I believe the image in the photograph shows what is in our home. I’ve heard giggling, I’ve heard little footsteps.”

[Magical Realist]

[Image: bTxreWy.jpeg]

From the person who shared this photo:

“I took it in the summer of 2011 at my grandparents’ place in rural western Oregon.

The only people around were my friend (the mom of two of the girls in the shot) and my 7-year-old son, who didn’t want to join them.

I snapped the picture on an old iPhone, and here’s where it gets strange—the girl in the top left wasn’t actually there. We have no idea who she is. Neither of us noticed until days later, when I finally texted the photo after we got service back in town.

My friend immediately replied, ‘Who the heck is THAT?!’ Years later, my daughter—one of the girls in the picture—asked me about it, which made me bring it up again. It still gives us chills.

For context, the girl closest to the camera is standing in the deepest part of the creek. When I first posted this on my personal page, some people suggested the unknown girl could’ve been a drowning victim. Maybe."

[Syne]

The photos have yet to be deauthenticated.

Can't deauthenticate what's never been authenticated... even just by simple definition that's nonsense.

My only claim is that these are photos of ghosts.

Zero evidence... which, again, has to be authenticated.

Only if you verify that it is, indeed, Hiroshima... and not, say, Nagasaki. This has to be independently verified with more than one captioned photo.

Nope..the photo is universally accepted to be a photo of Hiroshima.

No, it was actually a photo of Nagasaki the entire time, but since you took the caption on blind faith, you made a fool of yourself.

The moment you touch something it touches you back. There is no exception to this ever.

So you really don't understand acting vs acted upon. Okay. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

Can't deauthenticate what's never been authenticated... even just by simple definition that's nonsense.

Are you retarded? Ofcourse we can deauthenticate what hasn't been authenticated. That's the very definition of deauthenticate. If I deauthenticate a dollar bill as counterfeit, that entails the bill is not authentic. Can you disprove a statement that isn't proven? Same thing.

No, it was actually a photo of Nagasaki the entire time, but since you took the caption on blind faith, you made a fool of yourself.

The hypothetical photo I'm discussing is one of Hiroshima captioned as such. I made that very clear. Apparently you can't keep up with the argument.

[Magical Realist]

[Image: T6Psvbe.jpeg]

[Syne]

Can't deauthenticate what's never been authenticated... even just by simple definition that's nonsense.

Are you retarded? Ofcourse we can deauthenticate what hasn't been authenticated. That's the very definition of deauthenticate. If I deauthenticate a dollar bill as counterfeit, that entails the bill is not authentic. Can you disprove a statement that isn't proven? Same thing.

Okay, illiterate moron child.

deauthenticate - the process of invalidating an existing authentication

You cannot undo something that hasn't already been done. Hence you cannot deauthenticate something that's never been authenticated.
What you describe is failing to authenticate in the first place, not deauthenticating. And failing to authenticate is exactly where we're at on this photo... just like failing to authenticate a counterfeit bill.

No, it was actually a photo of Nagasaki the entire time, but since you took the caption on blind faith, you made a fool of yourself.

The hypothetical photo I'm discussing is one of Hiroshima captioned as such. I made that very clear. Apparently you can't keep up with the argument.

You're making up bullshit. I set the hypothetical. You don't get to change it to fit your argument ad hoc.
You don't know it's Hiroshima unless someone have verified it. A caption could be mistaken, especially without any indication of who wrote it.

But I'm sure this is all completely beyond your feeble comprehension.

[Magical Realist]

You cannot undo something that hasn't already been done. Hence you cannot deauthenticate something that's never been authenticated.

No retard..noone can deauthenticate something that has been proven authentic. You cannot disprove something that has been proven. You cannot falsify what has been verified. And so on and so on. It's simple logic really.

""Definition of Deauthenticate
verb
To reject as authentic; to falsify or disprove (transitive)"

You're making up bullshit. I set the hypothetical. You don't get to change it to fit your argument ad hoc.

I used my own hypothetical moron:

"No..but a photo of Hiroshima labeled Hiroshima is certainly proof of Hiroshima."

And since that's the last hypothetical to be discussed, it's the one I continue to refer to.

You're mental abilities are really declining now. Sundown syndrome?