They Ask For Proof/Evidence But Then Ignore It

People, I have got a problem. A question. A rant.

I have often heard that there is no real good image of spirits, ghosts, or whatever you want to call them. I DISAGREE.

If you come up with a terribly pixelated image, you get insults. Skeptics make all possible attempts to debunk it.

If you come up with a terribly pixelated image of a spirit/ghost or lousy footage of a blurred colored dot, people go nuts and scream this is the best footage and proof.

It is my impression that people WANT to believe in poor quality images and footage.

BUT - and here comes my point - BUT IF YOU PROVIDE high quality images of spirits, then it suddenly goes silent. NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

Since 2007 when I took my spirit images in our local cemetery, I have been writing to all possible people - just that they have a look at the images. But the images are getting ignored. - I G N O R E D -

I have put the files on the media thing and had over 160 views on one and more than 120 on the other, but - NOT even one star, not even one comment ... - NOTHING - simply ignored. I took the images down, but then I put them up again. One has been viewed 112 times so far and the other one so far 93 times. And guess what? Not even one comment.

I AM NOT COLLECTING COMMENTS, but it is annoying when I hear someone saying that there is no proof, because there is - but it is getting ignored.

Not even funny comments from skeptics?

Many people do NOT seek the truth. They are out there to flame, insult, mock, ridicule, etc.

I could go on forever with this rant LOL but it's time to come to an end. LOL

Greetings

PS: There is no need to comment on this thread. I just wanted to VOICE my opinion.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by TheWriter]

Post the link here. I'd like to see it.

On a side note, my observation is the typical response for a blurry image (ghosts, UFO, aliens, etc.) is that the quality is too poor to mean anything while a really good and convincing image must be CGI or some other form of hoax.

Poor Quality: Can't see.
Nice and clear: It's too good to be convincing.

I've been guilty of the above myself.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Poor Quality: Can't see.
Nice and clear: It's too good to be convincing.

Exactly. If the images are too good, then they must be fake. If they are not good enough, then of course it can't be real.

Thank you for the response, but wasn't really necessary.
I just had to get this off my chest for once and for all.

I have removed the files for good from ATS media now. I don't care anymore.

I cancelled my YouTube account coz I had too many nice insults. Paranormal radio stations? Every Paranormal Radio Station or website is allowed to put them on their sites. But I demand that they do NOT make money with the images and the copyright stays on the each picture.

I guess this is another problem. The paranormal is a money making business and I discourage the seekers of truth with honesty?

Greetings

PS: Any moderator can close this thread. I am done with it and do not intend to revisit this thread.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by TheWriter]

reply to post by TheWriter


The problem with photos and videos in the age of Youtube and CGI is that they can be very easily faked. Too many of the pictures and other images tend to end up being faked, and that ruins it for the ones who may have the real deal. I tend to also be a little skeptical of images, but I do not immediately state it is not real. I am not one to believe it until it can be verified by one of the many image specialists on this site.

When it comes to proving paranormal ideas and theories, there is a high bar set. With all the hoaxers and practical jokers out there, it needs to stay high.

Any number of things can equate to "evidence". Which does not necessarily equal proof. Ever sit on a jury? There's evidence all over the place. But someone has to compile it and make sense out of it and come to a determination about whether or not in aggregate it rises to the level of proof.

Now we don't debate things like the existence of giraffes or Utah. We just assume they exist even if we've never seen a giraffe in person, or been to Utah.

Proof can be a subjective thing. When you have personal experience that equates to proof for you, it's still anecdotal evidence for someone else when you share the experience.

At this point, for many millions of us, things like alien visitation, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. are very much an open question. And I'm sure that's frustrating for those who believe they've had that experience but feel they're being discounted.

That's why we're here and explains why the "Utah - The Mysterious Lost Land" forum never really caught on.