It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photography seems to steal spiritual energy away from a person.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



Even David Icke has mentioned it in interviews and books.


Really? Even David Icke? Coming from Dave, it must be true!


You might find this article enlightening? It shows Dave's in thick with the same people he accuses of being child raping murderers....Who is Behind David Icke’s ‘Freedom Foundation’? by Will Banyan (December 2009)




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst


I think this theory would be plausible if you were,.... say


An Apache Indian on the frontier about 100 years ago !!


Like was said before, a photograph is made from light, light is bouncing around everywhere, right now as we speak, is that light capturing your soul ?? once it bounces off you it's gone, a picture captures nothing else, emotions, energy, none of that.

They have already shown how light can move matter, so if light is going through you and grabbing a piece of your soul with it, just think about it some more.

Its like taking a stamp putting ink on it and stamping it on a bunch of pieces of paper eventually the initial glob of ink is going to run out i.e. start deteriorating, some people deteriorate faster then others.



[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The lack of general physics knowledge on this thread is absolutely appalling...

2nd



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
The lack of general physics knowledge on this thread is absolutely appalling...

2nd


Its easy to hate on someone its hard to actually debate with your mind instead of bringing people down.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by phiktion
They have already shown how light can move matter, so if light is going through you and grabbing a piece of your soul with it, just think about it some more.

Its like taking a stamp putting ink on it and stamping it on a bunch of pieces of paper eventually the initial glob of ink is going to run out i.e. start detereoating, some people detereate faster then others.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]


No, you think about it. Seriously, explain how taking a photograph, or being recorded on video, or having another being view you with their eyes, is any different than simply "light going through you" (without a viewer/camera) that you keep on going on about.

Once you've done that, explain how in 2010 with security cameras, cell phones cameras, and you know, satellites, that anyone has anything resembling a soul left if we're somehow losing part of it when pictures are being taken of us.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but this is such a ridiculous claim that any response besides ridicule is way too tolerant and encouraging. You seem interested in this, so first things first, research how light actually works and why things are visible to begin with. After you understand how that works, learn about the tech behind cameras which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

If you've done that and you still think that somehow cameras have a magical ability to steal your "soul"... Well...


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abject

Originally posted by phiktion
They have already shown how light can move matter, so if light is going through you and grabbing a piece of your soul with it, just think about it some more.

Its like taking a stamp putting ink on it and stamping it on a bunch of pieces of paper eventually the initial glob of ink is going to run out i.e. start detereoating, some people detereate faster then others.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]


No, you think about it. Seriously, explain how taking a photograph, or being recorded on video, or having another being view you with their eyes, is any different than simply "light going through you" (without a viewer/camera) that you keep on going on about.

Once you've done that, explain how in 2010 with security cameras, cell phones cameras, and you know, satellites, that anyone has anything resembling a soul left if we're somehow losing part of it when pictures are being taken of us.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but this is such a ridiculous claim that any response besides ridicule is way too tolerant and encouraging. You seem interested in this, so first things first, research how light actually works and why things are visible to begin with. After you understand how that works, learn about the tech behind cameras which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

If you've done that and you still think that somehow cameras have a magical ability to steal your "soul"... Well...


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]


Its just a theory I'm not saying I believe it or not believe it, just something that seems plausible, and you dont know how much energy all those things take, it could be so microscopic and minuscule it would really have to take a great deal of limelight to really start to notice a change after 5-10-25 years don't know how long it could take to really to start to cause disease and cancers and things along those lines.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by phiktion
Its just a theory I'm not saying I believe it or not believe it, just something that seems plausible, and you dont know how much energy all those things take, it could be so microscopic and minuscule it would really have to take a great deal of limelight to really start to notice a change after 5-10-25 years don't know how long it could take to really to start to cause disease and cancers and things along those lines.


You've got a hyperbolic thread title and you're defending this notion pretty strongly for someone who isn't sure whether they believe it or not.

Either way, explain how taking a photograph, or being recorded on video, or having another being view you with their eyes, is any different than simply "light going through you" without a viewer/camera.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abject

Originally posted by phiktion
Its just a theory I'm not saying I believe it or not believe it, just something that seems plausible, and you dont know how much energy all those things take, it could be so microscopic and minuscule it would really have to take a great deal of limelight to really start to notice a change after 5-10-25 years don't know how long it could take to really to start to cause disease and cancers and things along those lines.


You've got a hyperbolic thread title and you're defending this notion pretty strongly for someone who isn't sure whether they believe it or not.

Either way, explain how taking a photograph, or being recorded on video, or having another being view you with their eyes, is any different than simply "light going through you" without a viewer/camera.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]


When you look at someone you are sharing their energy with yours therefore neither ones energy is being displaced you are harmonizing with one another.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Christ.

I'm just going to pretend you didn't write that and simply ask that you address the actual question. To clarify, so as to prevent further dodging, here it is:

You think that cameras steal part of your soul by taking pictures due to light's interactions with your body and such and such. Without debating the second part of that statement, in order to really address the logic behind your theory, please explain why light interacting with your body doesn't have any adverse affects on your soul unless a picture is being taken.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abject
Christ.

I'm just going to pretend you didn't write that and simply ask that you address the actual question. To clarify, so as to prevent further dodging, here it is:

You think that cameras steal part of your soul by taking pictures due to light's interactions with your body and such and such. Without debating the second part of that statement, in order to really address the logic behind your theory, please explain why light interacting with your body doesn't have any adverse affects on your soul unless a picture is being taken.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Abject]


Natural light is within the universal balance, artificial light sources can have an effect, most light just passes through but when matter is being imbedded to a medium i.e. more matter its being stored for infinity, therefore you lose a tiny piece of yourself everytime, we are all essentially light energy beings, so light interacting with us is very common I can't explain why one light source does one thing and another doesn't. Just that pieces of us can be lost due to various things not just taking pictures.

Just as we can lose energy we can regain energy from our surroundings, pulling in from the sun, the planets, the earth and each other. As long as we take in more then we lose we will maintain as healthy of a life that we can thats not being effected by external sources.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by phiktion]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by phiktion
Natural light is within the universal balance, artificial light sources can have an effect, most light just passes through but when matter is being imbedded to a medium i.e. more matter its being stored for infinity, therefore you lose a tiny piece of yourself everytime, we are all essentially light energy beings, so light interacting with us is very common I can't explain why one light source does one thing and another doesn't. Just that pieces of us can be lost due to various things not just taking pictures.

Just as we can lose energy we can regain energy from our surroundings, pulling in from the sun, the planets, the earth and each other. As long as we take in more then we lose we will maintain as healthy of a life that we can thats not being effected by external sources.


Okay so basically your answer is that there is no difference. I'm glad to hear this; we're making progress!

Now, just so we're clear on what you just said and what it means, since I'm not really sure you even know wtf you're saying at this point. You basically said that we're all balls of energy and light is energy and so when energy hits energy there is a reaction and we're in a constant flux of losing and gaining energy. You're not sure how this happens or how different types of energy do different things, but you're set on the notion that energy from any source interacts with a theoretical, immeasurable "soul".

Fine, I'm not going to debate this with you since it's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What I've been trying to say, and what you just said whether you meant to or not, is that the camera is a complete non-factor in your soul-fluxation theory. Light is light, energy is energy, and these fluxuations are happening regardless of if a picture is being taken or not. If your response to this is something along the lines of "No wait, that energy is then held in a solid state when the picture is taken so it is no longer in flux" well, guess what, there's a #load of energy to replenish whatever was taken by this picture, and by your own explanation our soul isn't really picky when it comes to replenishing itself.

See, this is the point I was making. You're welcome to discuss the notion of our souls being in some constant state of flux, and I will happily avoid entering into such a non-constructive "debate" and let you theorize in peace. Your issue is one of a philosophical nature with absolutely no grounds in scientific reality. Pushing this into a scientific box dealing with particle physics and other maths that we actually have a pretty concrete understanding of, trying to argue it while knowing full well you have no idea wtf you're talking about, and then when challenged to explain you actually disprove your original thesis, is both a waste of everyone's time and compromises the integrity of any serious debate that takes place on this forum.

Basically, cut the hyperbolic bull# and correctly frame your argument so that you might actually be able to enter into something resembling an intellectual debate. Or don't.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
As a photographer...I'm quite sure I don't "steal peoples souls"
)))))

Have you been spending time with the amish?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by phiktion
 


How do you explain guys like my friend Dave? He has been almost constantly photographed since 1987. He snaps dozens of pictures each week, of he, and his family, as they explore America together. He is a ham. A character. A clown. None of this has changed in near 25 years.

How much spirit did he have to begin with, because he still has more then most of the people on the planet?

By the way, you probably won't believe this, but we were quoting Zoolander back and forth to one another yesterday on Facebook. The whole bit about abo-diginals believing that the camera steals a part of their souls. Then, this morning, I wake up to this thread.

I am more convinced then ever that we are living inside a simulation, and the server-monkeys are literally duping to conserve Ram.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Abject
 


I agree, one would not be able to drain someones energy by looking and talking to them. Photography is recording the eminating or reflecting light from a subject. The OP's statement goes more into the mythology section; it is very speculative and assumptious.

Keep on snapping...


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Olympios]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neopan100
As a photographer...I'm quite sure I don't "steal peoples souls"
)))))



ME too !! Especially shooting my own friends weddings !! Nikon all the way, no souls collected to date...How large (byte-wise) would an image with a captured soul be anyway


Seriouser Science and Metaphysics based answer to original OPs query to follow.....

Have the best day

themuse




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by themuse
 


That 45K hasselbald better be able to steal a soul or something spectacular I mean for that price it better be able to do at least that!


[edit on 25-8-2010 by Neopan100]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
If this were true considering all the photos and videos taken of people and animals we would all be soul less by now. I am a photographer it if I thought for one second this was true I wouldn't take another photo.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
By your "theory"

Isn't a movie just hundreds of thousands of photos ?

While you are shooting a movie wouldn't someone's soul just slowly disappear right in front of you. Do you become a bad person ?

Or are you saying your soul can be stolen but it makes no difference until you are dead, and then you get turned away at the pearly gates.

Please clarify .



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by phiktion
 


Its a possibility but then again our reality is shaped by our belief so if you believe this wholly then I am interested in how you feel when your picture is snapped. It is not a reality for me though



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Maybe this is why a lot of entertainers welcome demonic possession. They don't want their energy to get stolen, they allow the demonic energy to spread instead.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join