Non-Verbal Child's Fantastic Guardian Angel Photo

[George-ananda]

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.

.

The paranormal almost by definition is rife with things we don't understand. Even photon involvement is an assumption. Another theory would be a thought-form placed in the image. It is a mystery to us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It sounds like a speculation to me.

Then you don't know the difference, and shouldn't be trying to pretend you're rational, or a good judge of facts.

 

[George-ananda]

shouldn't be trying to pretend you're rational, .

 

[Skwim]

The paranormal almost by definition is rife with things we don't understand.

Because for some people, if we don't understand X, by default it's paranormal.

Even photon involvement is an assumption.

No more so than the assumption that a falling object started off at a higher elevation.

Another theory would be a thought-form placed in the image. It is a mystery to us.

The idea that it's a "thought-form" placed in the image wouldn't even make the grade as a hypothesis much less a theory, but merely a concocted notion grounded in word play. So much of paranormal talk is infused with generalizations and concocted jargon, whose definitions vary from incident to incident, that the claims it's attached to are essentially meaningless.

.

 

[George-ananda]

Because for some people, if we don't understand X, by default it's paranormal.

I seem to be in the minority then by considering both normal and paranormal theories in the face of a claim of the paranormal.

No more so than the assumption that a falling object started off at a higher elevation.


The idea that it's a "thought-form" placed in the image wouldn't even make the grade as a hypothesis much less a theory, but merely a concocted notion grounded in word play. So much of paranormal talk is infused with generalizations and concocted jargon, whose definitions vary from incident to incident, that the claims it's attached to are essentially meaningless.

.

I see, so you claim a grasp of the full extent on the limits to the possibilities of the paranormal. I'd be interested in hearing them.

 

[Skwim]

I see, so you claim a grasp of the full extent on the limits to the possibilities of the paranormal. I'd be interested in hearing them.

There are no limits. People reconstruct the paranormal as needs demand. Expanding its scope to whatever extent is necessary.

.

 

[George-ananda]

There are no limits. People reconstruct the paranormal as needs demand. Expanding its scope to whatever extent is necessary.

.

Certain phenomena like anamalus photos are consistently reported. Should we just say it is impossible and ignore reports like this one? Or after enough cases should we consider the unknown a possibility worth serious consideration?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all that is not what I am saying is what happened in this case.

It's what's implied by the mother's story, which I thought you said you accepted "75%".

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.

But your worldview still seems limited, since you seem only willing to invoke the supernatural to feed your credulousness. You limited yourself to natural potential causes to explain a hoax but consider anything you can conceive of to explain it being real.

Why haven't you considered any supernatural mechanisms that would imply it's fake? What about the possibility that the woman was possessed by some sort of trickster-spirit who made her fake the photo and the story as a way to mess with people? Why isn't that possibility one of your "mind-boggling things"?

It seems to me that you've arbitrarily and closed-mindedly rejected any possibility that ends up with the photo being a hoax.

 

[George-ananda]

Why haven't you considered any supernatural mechanisms that would imply it's fake? What about the possibility that the woman was possessed by some sort of trickster-spirit who made her fake the photo and the story as a way to mess with people? Why isn't that possibility one of your "mind-boggling things"?

Where have I said that is not possible?

It seems to me that you've arbitrarily and closed-mindedly rejected any possibility that ends up with the photo being a hoax.

After from beginning to the end stating I estimated there was a 25% chance of fraud (in my best judgment) how can you logically make the above statement?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where have I said that is not possible?

Explicitly, you didn't, but when considering the possibilities, you only listed supernatural/paranormal posdexplanations to support it

After from beginning to the end stating I estimated there was a 25% chance of fraud (in my best judgment) how can you logically make the above statement?

At one point you said that, but then you went on to say things to dismiss the possibility, e.g. insinuating that the mother had no motive to fake it, or that if it was fake, the faker would have made it look more realistic (which was a wonderfully original way to dismiss parts of the story that are inconvenient for your position, BTW).

 

[George-ananda]

Explicitly, you didn't, but when considering the possibilities, you only listed supernatural/paranormal posdexplanations to support it

At one point you said that, but then you went on to say things to dismiss the possibility, e.g. insinuating that the mother had no motive to fake it, or that if it was fake, the faker would have made it look more realistic (which was a wonderfully original way to dismiss parts of the story that are inconvenient for your position, BTW).

I have unwaveringly held the position that it could be paranormal or fraud.

Now what happened was in the discussions I was debating against people that wanted to dismiss the paranormal possibilities so I made arguments that supported the possibility of paranormal theories.

Now if I someone would have said it was almost definitely paranormal, then you would have heard me debate and get into more details on the fraud possibilities.