Interesting (and funny) "Spirit" Photographs

[Ed]

In the NYT, of all places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/arts/design/04kenn.html?8hpib

[Ceinwyn]

Thanks for those Ed, I always get a kick out of the "cheesecloth" ghosts.

Also, great examples of early double exposures. I like how they are frozen in time, almost spooooky!!

[Dave_46]

This is totally unsupported I'm afraid, but I'm sure I heard many many years ago that the idea of ghosts being transparent/translucent only came about after the advent of photography. Before there was a method of producing 'evidence' of transparency the ghost wasn't transparent.

Dave

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dave_46
This is totally unsupported I'm afraid, but I'm sure I heard many many years ago that the idea of ghosts being transparent/translucent only came about after the advent of photography. Before there was a method of producing 'evidence' of transparency the ghost wasn't transparent.

Dave

Well, when one deals with fraud and at the same time evolving technology the "rules" change. I recall a thread where there was some amount of verbal gymnastics to "explain" why Infared photography would be "harmful" to persons or persons unknown. When I posted information on Starlight scopes the conversation, predictably, swerved.

The reason why this stuff is just not amenible to scientific investigation is that the result is preordained and the facts change to make excuses for the results.

[SpaceFluffer]

Anyone notice that, according to the article, Ted Serios' photographs "have never been adequately explained."? :mad:

[Bandersnatch]

The "Levitation of the Medium Colin Evans, Photographed in Darkness Using Infa-Red Film" Seemed a little unusual (besides the content, I mean). I really have no clue about photography, but the picture seems a little...normal for IR photography, doen't it?

EDIT: Plus, there seems to be a shadow caused by a flash.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Anyone notice that, according to the article, Ted Serios' photographs "have never been adequately explained."? :mad:

Oh, I don't doubt that. Try - just TRY - to adequately explain ANY "paranormal photograph" to a believer.

Let me know how you do. :D

[7th sextile]

The article also mentions Randi in passing-noting that Barnum
testified for the prosecution at Mumler's trial as "The Amazing
Randi of his day."
So the author of the article has heard of Randi but seems not to have read (in Flim-Flam,I think),Mr Randi's rather adequate
explanation for Mr. Serios's photographs.