Non-Verbal Child's Fantastic Guardian Angel Photo

[George-ananda]

If the mother wasn't promoting nothing, then why is it in the media?

I think she put it on facebook and you can see why it could grow attention.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Human reason does this all the time. We judge likeliness of various theories when we see things out of place.

But you don't have nearly enough information to form any kind of conclusion nor determine the likelihood of it. We can only reason when there are actually facts to reason with. You have nothing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where was I claiming 'accuracy'? It was a guesstimate and there is nothing wrong with that.

To say that it is "75% likely to be paranormal" and "25% likely to be faked" and that these are the ONLY two considerable possibilities is extremely accurate. On top of that, you said earlier that the explanation you would "Put first" is that the figure was a "loving non-physical entity". That is a VERY specific description, and one you have yet to actually justify despite being asked.

The more information we have the more certain we can become. At this point it is my guesstimate.]

In other words, you have no good reason for your completely baseless assertion of probability?

Why are you even "guesstimating" before you have facts? What's the point?

 

[George-ananda]

To say that it is "75% likely to be paranormal" and "25% likely to be faked" and that these are the ONLY two considerable possibilities is extremely accurate. On top of that, you said earlier that the explanation you would "Put first" is that the figure was a "loving non-physical entity". That is a VERY specific description, and one you have yet to actually justify despite being asked.


In other words, you have no good reason for your completely baseless assertion of probability?

Why are you even "guesstimating" before you have facts? What's the point?

Let's say a detective is working a crime investigation. He creates theories in his mind based on what he does know and his past experiences with the world at large. He will usually consider some theories more likely than others, right?

Every time people are faced with an unsolved event they propose theories and based on their past mental database often form an opinion about likelihood of the theories based on just what they know at the time. It's called guesstimating and it is not intended to have any point beyond discussion and a starting point. Why are you so uptight about me having a guesstimate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's say a detective is working a crime investigation. He creates theories in his mind based on what he does know and his past experiences with the world at large. He will usually consider some theories more likely than others, right?

Every time people are faced with an unsolved event they propose theories and based on their past mental database often form an opinion about likelihood of the theories based on just what they know at the time. It's called guesstimating and it is not intended to have any point beyond discussion and a starting point. Why are you so uptight about me having a guesstimate?

Let's say that there is a detective who finds a body, no murder weapon, no probable cause of death, no suspect and absolutely no identity on the body other than that they look human.

Is it a perfectly reasonable thing for the detective to assume that this body is 25% likely to be the result of murder and 75% likely to be the result of magic by a mystical tentacle-creature called Phillip?

Also, stop saying "guesstimate". It's not a word, and it's not a thing. What you're doing isn't even guessing. It's "making stuff up".

 

[columbus]

You can add a third category if you think it is warranted.

There are so many more than one additional categories I would have trouble narrowing it down to words.

To be honest, you could have made this up yourself and posted it to RF with a fabricated link. I don't think that is at at likely, but it is more plausible to me than a supernatural being did a selfie off the wing of a plane.
You have a batch of implausible beliefs, based on similar evidence, and I know enough about people to know how much they don't want to be demonstrated wrong.
I have also followed a few of your links to things you consider evidence and realized that you don't know what I mean by evidence. A grainy video from a church, where the priest celebrating Mass didn't find the video impressive, purporting to show Jesus winking at the churchgoers is just too campy to believe. It's like some jokester posted some nonsense to see how gullible the internet community is, and you rewarded them by reposting it here on RF.

And now you are posting about a cell phone pic that looks like @Wirey in the sky!
Ew!
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Let's say that there is a detective who finds a body, no murder weapon, no probable cause of death, no suspect and absolutely no identity on the body other than that they look human.

Is it a perfectly reasonable thing for the detective to assume that this body is 25% likely to be the result of murder and 75% likely to be the result of magic by a mystical tentacle-creature called Phillip?

That would not seem like a reasonable estimate to me based on my knowledge of the universe. The detective and I would disagree.

Also, stop saying "guesstimate". It's not a word, and it's not a thing. What you're doing isn't even guessing. It's "making stuff up".

How about 'rough estimate' based on what I have seen and heard up to this point.

Edit: See my reply in the next post also to one of like mind as you.

 

[George-ananda]

There are so many more than one additional categories I would have trouble narrowing it down to words.

To be honest, you could have made this up yourself and posted it to RF with a fabricated link. I don't think that is at at likely, but it is more plausible to me than a supernatural being did a selfie off the wing of a plane.
You have a batch of implausible beliefs, based on similar evidence, and I know enough about people to know how much they don't want to be demonstrated wrong.
I have also followed a few of your links to things you consider evidence and realized that you don't know what I mean by evidence. A grainy video from a church, where the priest celebrating Mass didn't find the video impressive, purporting to show Jesus winking at the churchgoers is just too campy to believe. It's like some jokester posted some nonsense to see how gullible the internet community is, and you rewarded them by reposting it here on RF.

And now you are posting about a cell phone pic that looks like @Wirey in the sky!
Ew!
Tom

Well we are looking at this from different worldviews. I believe the paranormal does exist beyond reasonable doubt. In my worldview I also hold that this is a multi-dimensional universe with a myriad of entities physical and non-physical. So, I believe things such as this photo may be rare but can and do happen sometimes. I can not say for certain that this photo is such a case but it is certainly possible. I believe there are entities that could make anything they want appear on the image. It's a mind-boggling universe if you look into the paranormal deep enough. That is my worldview.

So we are going to disagree about the likelihood of what might have happened and we will just have to end that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That would not seem like a reasonable estimate to me based on my knowledge of the universe. The detective and I would disagree.

Your "knowledge of the Universe" is irrelevant. It deals strictly with your knowledge of the photograph just as my example dealt strictly with the detective's knowledge of the body.

How about 'rough estimate' based on what I have seen and heard up to this point.

No. Even that is too generous. It's just you making stuff up, that' all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well we are looking at this from different worldviews. I believe the paranormal does exist beyond reasonable doubt. In my worldview I also hold that this is a multi-dimensional universe with a myriad of entities physical and non-physical. So, I believe things such as this photo may be rare but can and do happen sometimes. I can not say for certain that this photo is such a case but it is certainly possible. I believe there are entities that could make anything they want appear on the image. It's a mind-boggling universe if you look into the paranormal deep enough. That is my worldview.

Except your worldview makes absolutely no difference in this case, as I have repeatedly explained. You have exactly the same amount of information about this picture as anyone else - absolutely none. The fact that you are more "open" to certain explanations than others doesn't change the reality: that you do not have sufficient information in order to reasonably assert ANY potential explanation, paranormal or otherwise.

So we are going to disagree about the likelihood of what might have happened and we will just have to end that way.

You've gone from asserting that it is "75% likely" to be paranormal and the result of a "loving non-physical entity" to saying that your opinions are nothing but a guess and that it could be anything. You've back-peddled this entire thread. How about instead of leaving it where you want to leave it, we leave it where it actually is - with you admitting that you don't know anything about the picture, that your suggestions were baseless, and you're clearly embarrassed that you asserted them in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, one's pre-existing views of the nature of the universe and human nature factor into one's position on likelihood of various theories.

And, apparently, one of your pre-existing views is that an object can be both visible and invisible at the same time. How did you arrive at this view?

 

[George-ananda]

Your "knowledge of the Universe" is irrelevant.

It is relevant to me but not to you apparently. Just as your view is relevant to you and not to me.

So we will then have different interpretations on the likeliness of different theories to an unsolved mystery.

No. Even that is too generous. It's just you making stuff up, that' all.

What stuff have I made up? I haven't made any stuff up here. I just have a different estimate on the likelihood of the various possible theories because I view reality from a different worldview than you.

 

[George-ananda]

Except your worldview makes absolutely no difference in this case, as I have repeatedly explained. You have exactly the same amount of information about this picture as anyone else - absolutely none. The fact that you are more "open" to certain explanations than others doesn't change the reality: that you do not have sufficient information in order to reasonably assert ANY potential explanation, paranormal or otherwise.

So you think people shouldn't even dare speculate on various theories on mysteries? If I thought it was 99.99% likely to be a fraud you probably wouldn't so strongly object to me speculating.

You've gone from asserting that it is "75% likely" to be paranormal and the result of a "loving non-physical entity" to saying that your opinions are nothing but a guess and that it could be anything. You've back-peddled this entire thread. How about instead of leaving it where you want to leave it, we leave it where it actually is - with you admitting that you don't know anything about the picture, that your suggestions were baseless, and you're clearly embarrassed that you asserted them in the first place.

What typically happens with me and the paranormal on this forum is I say I think there is a good chance it could be genuine, then that becomes I am asserting it IS genuine and must then be able to explain every question surrounding the mystery and that I am a firm believer this is the real deal. I have been in enough debates to see what is going on here.

You just seem to resist the idea that there is nothing wrong with speculating on an unsolved mystery based on our worldview and as much as we know about the case. It basically comes down to this: A paranormal photograph is not as farfetched in my worldview as it is in yours. And that difference we are not going to resolve here.

 

[George-ananda]

And, apparently, one of your pre-existing views is that an object can be both visible and invisible at the same time. How did you arrive at this view?

First of all that is not what I am saying is what happened in this case. If the photo is paranormal, then the details of how it occurred are beyond me and current science. It is my worldview after consideration of the full realm of paranormal phenomena, that mind-boggling things do occur for which I can not explain the details.

In my worldview, there are multiple dimensions and a myriad of beings beyond the range of our physical senses and instruments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is relevant to me but not to you apparently. Just as your view is relevant to you and not to me.

So we will then have different interpretations on the likeliness of different theories to an unsolved mystery.

You still don't understand. It's not relevant TO THE PICTURE. You could have absolute proof that the paranormal exists, but that doesn't mean that the photograph contains anything paranormal. Do you understand?

What stuff have I made up? I haven't made any stuff up here. I just have a different estimate on the likelihood of the various possible theories because I view reality from a different worldview than you.

You said it was likely paranormal and the most likely explanation is a "loving non-physical entity".

 

[George-ananda]

You still don't understand. It's not relevant TO THE PICTURE. You could have absolute proof that the paranormal exists, but that doesn't mean that the photograph contains anything paranormal. Do you understand?

I perfectly understand that and have understood that all along.

You said it was likely paranormal and the most likely explanation is a "loving non-physical entity".

I still say that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you think people shouldn't even dare speculate on various theories on mysteries? If I thought it was 99.99% likely to be a fraud you probably wouldn't so strongly object to me speculating.

What you did wasn't mere speculation. You asserted with 75% probability that it was paranormal, that it was the result of a "loving non-physical entity". I asked you for your reasons for thinking this, and you provided nothing.

What typically happens with me and the paranormal on this forum is I say I think there is a good chance it could be genuine, then that becomes I am asserting it IS genuine and must then be able to explain every question surrounding the mystery and that I am a firm believer this is the real deal. I have been in enough debates to see what is going on here.

So you think it's enough to assert that something has a "good chance" of being paranormal, and then never having to support that position? Should people just accept your view and not question it?

You just seem to resist the idea that there is nothing wrong with speculating on an unsolved mystery based on our worldview and as much as we know about the case. It basically comes down to this: A paranormal photograph is not as farfetched in my worldview as it is in yours. And that difference we are not going to resolve here.

Saying it is "75% likely" to be paranormal is not mere speculation - it is and assertion. Your logic is non-existent, and you are spreading misinformation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I perfectly understand that and have understood that all along.

No, you don't, which is why you continually assert that your perspective is relevant when it demonstrably isn't.

I still say that.

And that's a made-up claim. If it isn't made up, please present your evidence and reason - keeping in mind to stick EXCLUSIVELY to the photograph.

 

[George-ananda]

Saying it is "75% likely" to be paranormal is not mere speculation - it is and assertion.

It sounds like a speculation to me.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting that while the cloud image was unable to make an impact on the human eye (mom's) it could be picked up and registered on a cell phone. Don't think I've ever heard of photons being able to do this before.

.