Ghostly Edinburgh pictures released online

[Worm]

I freely admit to not having read all the detail of this, but thought it might be of interest.

From 'The Scotsman' newspaper online : link (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/The-truth-is-out-there.5052707.jp)


A university professor needs your help to determine whether or not a series of ghostly pictures are the genuine article.
As part of the Edinburgh International Science Festival, University of Hertfordshire Professor Richard Wiseman is asking the public to post their thoughts on a number of ghostly snaps.

[TX50]

Those pictures are really the "best" they can do!?

Those lectures look great though. Wish I could attend.

[tyr_13]

You have a couple pictures where the flash is playing with stains and imperfections in the glass, some peridolia, some peridolia combined with motion blur, a double exposure or flat out fake (I'm going with double exposure), and incorrectly developed film or staining on old prints.

Nothing impressive sadly. The girl between the legs is the one most likely to get some people saying 'wow' but just look at all the 'faces' in the jeans of the people around the 'girl's' face. It's just 'matrixing' or peridolia.

[The Atheist]

Come on, people, let's use a little bit of discernment when viewing this stuff.

Did nobody notice the name of the "university professor" in the OP?

That is Richard Wiseman, well-known debunker, sceptic and former TAM speaker.


Now, re-read and try again as to what might be going on.

[Aepervius]

Double exposure, flash reflection and undefinable stuff in the distance.

I am convinced. /sarcasm

[Aepervius]

Come on, people, let's use a little bit of discernment when viewing this stuff.

Did nobody notice the name of the "university professor" in the OP?

That is Richard Wiseman, well-known debunker, sceptic and former TAM speaker.


Now, re-read and try again as to what might be going on.

Socialogical study ? Or something similar on belief statistic ?

[plumjam]

Come on, people, let's use a little bit of discernment when viewing this stuff.

Did nobody notice the name of the "university professor" in the OP?

That is Richard Wiseman, well-known debunker, sceptic and former TAM speaker.


Now, re-read and try again as to what might be going on.

Yeah.
Clearly these pics have already been explained via non-spooky means, and Wiseman is doing an experiment in which his intention is to portray the general public as highly gullible and easily fooled, in order to strengthen his rather closed position.
That's my guess, anyway.

Also, given that we have had photo-editing software for a couple of decades it's rather beyond me why anyone would be swayed towards or against the existence of the paranormal due to some examples of photo imagery. (Unless you took the photos yourself)

[TX50]

Socialogical study ? Or something similar on belief statistic ?

That sort of thing seems to be the main thrust of his research.
Ghosts are [most probably] not real but people's perceptions of
them are.

[Ashles]

What did poster #1 write?

[Soapy Sam]

Richard has done a fair vbit of work at the Edinburgh Science Festival in years gone by.
Here's the relevant Festival events page for 2009.http://www.sciencefestival.co.uk/Events/Preview-events/Hauntings-The-science-of-ghosts

[Ernie M]

Ghostly child

It’s possible there could have been a child in the poorly lit area of the camera-phone picture.

Or, it could be a case of peridolia.

Or, photo editing software.

The window

Probable cause: light came from a source inside the room, possibly from a lamp, but could have been a flash.

Reasoning: If it wasn’t a camera flash, there seems to be a bright haze on the upper part of the window, which could indicate some other close-proximity light source.

Or, it could be something like a light source from outside, such as an exterior light to illuminate the landscape or the building, or a car headlight, shining from the outside in, through the window. I wonder if this is the case, because there is a tiny white dot near the green curtain, near where the light seems to be about the brightest. The plant material also seems to be brightly illuminated by a light shining either through the window, or from a source that’s immediately outside.

Ghost in the portrait

Possible cause: Light from a camera flash or other light source. Is there a window opposite the painting?

Notice the increased light bloom on the left side of the picture frame closest to the “ghost.” The shape of the “ghost” could have been caused by the natural “hang” of the paint canvas. Slight undulations reflect off the matte or semi-gloss of the paint, but the light does not reflect as readily off the low spots pointing away from the camera lens. Could be a camera flash by someone who is holding a camera at eye-level, and that the center of the “ghost” is about the level of the camera flash or other light source. Or, the “head” of the ghost could be the top of drapes on a nearby window, and the downward droop could have been caused by how the drapery was hung- if the light source was from a window opposite the painting.


White figure

Possibility 1. Some material (not ghostly) was hanging from the “tunnel” and was illuminated by the camera flash. The “figure” is about the same intensity and color as the nearby “tunnel” wall.

Possibility 2. It’s a photomontage. Since the “figure” is so close in intensity and color to the surrounding “tunnel” wall, this could be a fabricated photo. A copy of the 
“figure” could be made of the “figure” and overlaid onto different places to see if there is a match to the pattern of the “figure.”

Or, there could have been a point light source illuminating the wall in the background. But due to the brightness and similar color of the tunnel wall, it appears the lit “figure” was something within the camera’s flash range.

Face in the hair

Possible motion-blur caused by slow shutter speed, with two different people in the frame.
Or, it could be a possible double exposure.

Purple lines

Problems with the “instant” film developing process, left purple marks. The long, curving purple portions could have resulted from uneven development cause by unevenly pulling the backing off the Polaroid film. I’d have to know what camera took this photo, to see if the purple marks above two of the heads (and a light mark at the foot of one person) correspond to any parts of the camera the either held or transported the film. It's interesting to note that the purple dot on the left of the photo is practically the same distance from the left edge of the photo, as the right-side dot is to the right edge of the photo. This could indicate something resulting from the mechanical design properties of the camera. This photo could be the result of two different issues centered around a common theme- the film’s chemicals themselves. Uneven removal of the film backing, and compression of small points on the film could have produced the dots.

Headless Ghost

Possible reflection on a glass, of an object which resembles a person, or, it could even be a person wearing a coat, as some people in the photo are wearing and extra outer garment such as a sweater or coat. I’d flag this as suspect to being faked, as it could be a photomontage. I don’t see other signs to indicate that this was a double exposure.

Another possibility is that the photo was a long exposure, and there was a person (in a coat?) that was there for a short time, but almost as soon as the picture was taken, they moved out of view.

[The Atheist]

Socialogical study ? Or something similar on belief statistic ?

Something like that. I imagine he wants to see what range of opinions come in on what appears to be some pretty normal flawed photographs.

Yeah.
Clearly these pics have already been explained via non-spooky means, and Wiseman is doing an experiment in which his intention is to portray the general public as highly gullible and easily fooled, in order to strengthen his rather closed position.
That's my guess, anyway.

Which closed position of Wiseman's is this?

I've never seen a less closed bloke in my life than Wiseman. Has he run over one of your sacred cows?

Also, given that we have had photo-editing software for a couple of decades it's rather beyond me why anyone would be swayed towards or against the existence of the paranormal due to some examples of photo imagery. (Unless you took the photos yourself)

Ask a UFOlogist.

[plumjam]

Which closed position of Wiseman's is this?

I've never seen a less closed bloke in my life than Wiseman. Has he run over one of your sacred cows?


You somewhat provided the evidence yourself
That is Richard Wiseman, well-known debunker, sceptic and former TAM speaker.
Show me a 'well-known debunker' with a position that is not rather closed and I'll show you a tartan cow pat.

[The Atheist]

You somewhat provided the evidence yourself

Show me a 'well-known debunker' with a position that is not rather closed and I'll show you a tartan cow pat.

Don't be silly.

Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies? UFO abductions? Alien causing crop circles? Homeopathy?

The point you miss is that to be a debunker, it is necessary to have explored the so-called evidence of those things and test it for reliability. That is not a closed mind at work.

Just keep Sagan's immortal words in mind: "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

[plumjam]

Don't be silly.

Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies? UFO abductions? Alien causing crop circles? Homeopathy?
I am somewhat agnostic on all these, mainly due to lack of interest. I retain an open mind, and have no world-view-driven agenda pushing me in any direction on them.

The point you miss is that to be a debunker, it is necessary to have explored the so-called evidence of those things and test it for reliability. That is not a closed mind at work.
That's not a debunker. That's an investigator, a scientist, a researcher.
A debunker is someone who, for whatever motive (typically strongly wedded to their overall worldview) has already decided what's what and the Way Things Are. They approach matters, more than your ordinary researcher would do, with a strong desire to reach a particular conclusion. To a debunker if the evidence doesn't fit their theory then there's something wrong with the evidence.
It's a radically anti-scientific approach to enquiry, which ironically attempts to clothe itself with the prestige of science.
Nice example of that from Wiseman here http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/wiseman.html

Just keep Sagan's immortal words in mind: "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
He was the guy who believed that dragons were an artifact of "genetic memory" :rolleyes: wasn't he?

[tkingdoll]

Plumjam, have you read Wiseman's response to Sheldrake? I notice you only link to one side but there have been publications since then. There's a link to it in my Skepchick article here which also contains an expose of the differences in data between Sheldrake's original paper and his published book: http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=849

As for Wiseman's position, you do him an injustice if you think he has a fixed mindset or that it biases his research. That simply isn't true, and I say that from experience.

[The Atheist]

I am somewhat agnostic on all these, mainly due to lack of interest. I retain an open mind, and have no world-view-driven agenda pushing me in any direction on them.

Oh go on - tell me what a "world-view-driven" agenda is. Sounds like something a Labour MP in a marginal seat would say.

A debunker is someone who, for whatever motive (typically strongly wedded to their overall worldview) has already decided what's what and the Way Things Are.

I think Douglas Adams best described this stuff when he wrote about a pile of festering dingos' kidneys. Utter tripe, every word.

What tkingdoll said is 100% correct:

As for Wiseman's position, you do him an injustice if you think he has a fixed mindset or that it biases his research. That simply isn't true, and I say that from experience.

Mate, you just look silly trying to make Wiseman look bad. Of all sc/keptics, he's the last one to be described as guilty of a priori reasoning.

He was the guy who believed that dragons were an artifact of "genetic memory" :rolleyes: wasn't he?

You're contradicting yourself badly here. On one hand, you call people closed minded if they debunk obvious BS, but because Sagan toked a few spliffs and thought about dragons, he's an idiot that brings out the rolly-eyes emoticon.

Plumjam's mission - To have his cake and eat it too.

Result - Fail.

[Naughtyhippo]

Re: what the purpose of this particular group of photo's purpose is, the 'ghost between girls' legs' has been discussed here before, and certainly on bad ghost. AFAIK, the story on the slideshow is not the original explanation of this photo, so they is almost certainly a twist to the lecture.

[Darat]

Yeah.
Clearly these pics have already been explained via non-spooky means, and Wiseman is doing an experiment in which his intention is to portray the general public as highly gullible and easily fooled, in order to strengthen his rather closed position.

...snip...

Your ending statement accusing someone else of having a "rather closed position" is extremely ironic given your own opening comment. Had you even looked at the photos before jumping to your conclusion?

[arthwollipot]

@Plumjam: Debunking is a noble cause that is not pursued by anywhere near enough people.

I support debunking because I do not support bunk!

There is a lot of bunk in the world, and a lot of it is directly harmful (http://www.whatstheharm.net/). The more I can do to reduce the amount of bunk in the world, the better off the world will be.

Debunkers deserve our support and admiration, not our dismissal with irrelevant strawman arguments involving redefinitions of the word "debunk" to have nothing at all to do with bunk.

[wmadoss]

Don't be silly.


Just keep Sagan's immortal words in mind: "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

Actually it was the space engineer James Oberg that said that. Sagan quoted him in The Demon Haunted World though.

Another nice part in that book is from Carl Gustav Jung.

These people are lacking not only in criticism but in the most elementary knowledge of psychology. At bottom they do not want to be taught any better, but merely go on believing - surely the naivest of presumption in view of our human failings.

[Professor Yaffle]

Actually it was the space engineer James Oberg that said that. Sagan quoted him in The Demon Haunted World though.


I had always thought it was a Feynman quote, but it seems it has been attributed to many people over the years, so who knows who said it first.

"I don't think that I was the originator," he [Oberg] said. On the other hand, "I don't feel that I stole it.... I did feel that the phrase I was using was an improvement on the phrase when I first saw it."
http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/literature-literature/987246-1.html

[Soapy Sam]

I think the phrase is one that lends itself to constant rediscovery, due to the obvious opposition of the words "closed" and "open". I have the word of two schoolmates that they heard me using it in 1970 or earlier, long before I had heard of either Sagan or Feynmann. Some memes are not just self reproducing; they actually self invent.

[wmadoss]

I had always thought it was a Feynman quote, but it seems it has been attributed to many people over the years, so who knows who said it first.


http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/literature-literature/987246-1.html

Youre probably right, just wanted to point out that I have seen it been attributed to Sagan several times, just because its quoted in his book(s).

Its a nice quote nonetheless...

[The Atheist]

Actually it was the space engineer James Oberg that said that.

I had always thought it was a Feynman quote, but it seems it has been attributed to many people over the years, so who knows who said it first

I think the phrase is one that lends itself to constant rediscovery, due to the obvious opposition of the words "closed" and "open". I have the word of two schoolmates that they heard me using it in 1970 or earlier, long before I had heard of either Sagan or Feynmann. Some memes are not just self reproducing; they actually self invent.

Quite right, but I think we should give you credit for it.

[Soapy Sam]

Seems only right.

[Big Les]

The Edinburgh Castle pic is a cracker, even if it's clearly a double exposure of a museum exhibit (greatcoat) over the typical holiday snap of some kids doing something they oughtn't.

I'm definitely up for the event itself on the 4th.

[Undesired Walrus]

He was the guy who believed that dragons were an artifact of "genetic memory" :rolleyes: wasn't he?

Sagan takles issues like evolution, origin of the universe, development of intelligence, the lateral development of the human brain, and so on. He relates these issues to common myths, such as biblical stories, the legend of prometheus, dragons, etc, and hints that mythology is perhaps a kind of genetic memory passed down to us. Albeit it is in all cases a very erroneous memory (as the unrealistic nature of myths tells us), it might still have some truth to it, some remnants of hidden memories, experiences our ancestors had.

Why are you so closed minded?

[cj.23]

Those pictures are really the "best" they can do!?

Those lectures look great though. Wish I could attend.

I am attending! Have my tickets booked, Becky bought them, and booked accommodation, and I guess a lot of other people are going to judging by the number of hits on my blog since i mentioned it - yes i'm redirecting them to

www.scienceofghosts.com

Anyone else going to be there or want to meet me in Edinburgh?

cj x

[cj.23]

The Edinburgh Castle pic is a cracker, even if it's clearly a double exposure of a museum exhibit (greatcoat) over the typical holiday snap of some kids doing something they oughtn't.

I'm definitely up for the event itself on the 4th.

Shall we meet up there then? I'm planning to do Mary Kings Close that night or night before. Wiseman has not replied to my email though. :(

cj x

[Big Les]

At the University? Sure! I'll PM you a bit nearer the time.

Not sure I can manage MKC as well, mind.

[Worm]

I might be going - have to get clearance from Mrs Worm. tonight :)