Talk:1235: Settled - Revision history

2600:387:F:835:0:0:0:7: Added a comment.

2025-12-22T00:37:22Z

Added a comment.

172.70.90.173 at 23:16, 13 February 2022

2022-02-13T23:16:45Z

172.70.86.68 at 19:37, 13 February 2022

2022-02-13T19:37:02Z

173.245.53.232: Add some thoughts to the discussion

2015-05-12T23:42:11Z

Add some thoughts to the discussion

199.27.133.105: Added comment about Photoshop outdoing cameras.

2015-01-04T23:55:02Z

Added comment about Photoshop outdoing cameras.

Db at 15:18, 17 November 2013

2013-11-17T15:18:09Z

Db at 15:15, 17 November 2013

2013-11-17T15:15:23Z

Davidy22 at 06:36, 16 November 2013

2013-11-16T06:36:50Z

173.245.63.198 at 06:06, 16 November 2013

2013-11-16T06:06:57Z

Shine at 14:31, 8 July 2013

2013-07-08T14:31:30Z

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet?  --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 :::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously.  In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it, there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it.  [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 13 February 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:

	If vampires don't show up in mirrors, there's a decent chance they can't be seen in photos either. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 19:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)		If vampires don't show up in mirrors, there's a decent chance they can't be seen in photos either. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 19:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
		+	:Might be true in silver-based photography (which is why silver-based mirrors of antiquity wouldn't reflect them/would reflect the light from beyond them that they supposedly block... it's like 'quantum' or something?) but then how much silver (silver-solder?) is used in a digital camera?
		+	:(That's my headcanon, and I'm sticking to it. Or perhaps I'm a vampire trying to muddy the waters.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.173\|172.70.90.173]] 23:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 13 February 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105\|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)		Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105\|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
	:What happens then if an image is from an actual event like an earth quake or an actual happening which could be believed, then something strange happens, like a picture which is plausable, but it is from another incident / happening / situaton. <br> I remember a polar bear on an ice floe some years ago. The image / picture was valid, not an hoax, but the context used was not true. The polar bear was filmed and climbed on the ice to use it as a raft (the bear was lazy). The hoax context was to show the Arctic is declinig. Also true but the mix of the facts led to misuse of information and creating discussions not needed for the case. The point is, any picture which could be an evidence, could also be misused leading to distrust and by that no picture or videos can be true/trusted. Not all pictuers can be investigated by an expert, and not every expert can be trusted. There is a ring going on here. The only solution I can think of, is to be critical to information and hoping you do not miss the true facts floating around however strange the are. There are definately gosts around in the world, since there are human beeings with imaginations. Even if one are not told or believe there is a gost somewhere, some people see it / feel it, others don't. Does this mean it exists or not, or does this mean it exists and not everyone can see it. Or does this mean it exists, some see it and others not because the gost wants it like this. No matter what answer comes up here, it will be wrong. A picture cannot prove it and therefor it does not exist... But then again something might happen proving to others it does exist. Something cannot be two things at the exact same time. Well it can, ... the cat, the space cat, Schroedinger's, it is dead and alive at the same time, since we do not know it. If it is dead, and we believe it is alive, is it then a goast or just not dead, or is it so far away that it has been dead for a long time, or did it never exist. Again, no mattter what evidence is here, it can be proven differntly or at least discussed differently. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.232\|173.245.53.232]] 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)		:What happens then if an image is from an actual event like an earth quake or an actual happening which could be believed, then something strange happens, like a picture which is plausable, but it is from another incident / happening / situaton. <br> I remember a polar bear on an ice floe some years ago. The image / picture was valid, not an hoax, but the context used was not true. The polar bear was filmed and climbed on the ice to use it as a raft (the bear was lazy). The hoax context was to show the Arctic is declinig. Also true but the mix of the facts led to misuse of information and creating discussions not needed for the case. The point is, any picture which could be an evidence, could also be misused leading to distrust and by that no picture or videos can be true/trusted. Not all pictuers can be investigated by an expert, and not every expert can be trusted. There is a ring going on here. The only solution I can think of, is to be critical to information and hoping you do not miss the true facts floating around however strange the are. There are definately gosts around in the world, since there are human beeings with imaginations. Even if one are not told or believe there is a gost somewhere, some people see it / feel it, others don't. Does this mean it exists or not, or does this mean it exists and not everyone can see it. Or does this mean it exists, some see it and others not because the gost wants it like this. No matter what answer comes up here, it will be wrong. A picture cannot prove it and therefor it does not exist... But then again something might happen proving to others it does exist. Something cannot be two things at the exact same time. Well it can, ... the cat, the space cat, Schroedinger's, it is dead and alive at the same time, since we do not know it. If it is dead, and we believe it is alive, is it then a goast or just not dead, or is it so far away that it has been dead for a long time, or did it never exist. Again, no mattter what evidence is here, it can be proven differntly or at least discussed differently. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.232\|173.245.53.232]] 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	If vampires don't show up in mirrors, there's a decent chance they can't be seen in photos either. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 19:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 12 May 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105\|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)		Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105\|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
		+	:What happens then if an image is from an actual event like an earth quake or an actual happening which could be believed, then something strange happens, like a picture which is plausable, but it is from another incident / happening / situaton. <br> I remember a polar bear on an ice floe some years ago. The image / picture was valid, not an hoax, but the context used was not true. The polar bear was filmed and climbed on the ice to use it as a raft (the bear was lazy). The hoax context was to show the Arctic is declinig. Also true but the mix of the facts led to misuse of information and creating discussions not needed for the case. The point is, any picture which could be an evidence, could also be misused leading to distrust and by that no picture or videos can be true/trusted. Not all pictuers can be investigated by an expert, and not every expert can be trusted. There is a ring going on here. The only solution I can think of, is to be critical to information and hoping you do not miss the true facts floating around however strange the are. There are definately gosts around in the world, since there are human beeings with imaginations. Even if one are not told or believe there is a gost somewhere, some people see it / feel it, others don't. Does this mean it exists or not, or does this mean it exists and not everyone can see it. Or does this mean it exists, some see it and others not because the gost wants it like this. No matter what answer comes up here, it will be wrong. A picture cannot prove it and therefor it does not exist... But then again something might happen proving to others it does exist. Something cannot be two things at the exact same time. Well it can, ... the cat, the space cat, Schroedinger's, it is dead and alive at the same time, since we do not know it. If it is dead, and we believe it is alive, is it then a goast or just not dead, or is it so far away that it has been dead for a long time, or did it never exist. Again, no mattter what evidence is here, it can be proven differntly or at least discussed differently. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.232\|173.245.53.232]] 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 4 January 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine\|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine\|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)		Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine\|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine\|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously. In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it, there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it. [[User:Db\|db]] ([[User talk:Db\|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)		:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously. In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it, there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it. [[User:Db\|db]] ([[User talk:Db\|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	Overlay this graph with the that of access to the tools and knowledge required to make highly convincing hoaxes (probably a few % by now, and rising rapidly) and you have the very quick period of time in which photographic evidence was convincing. Video is slightly more convincing, but I think even the window for convincing video is coming to a close. There was basically about a decade or so in which a considerable number of people could instantly make proof of a paranormal event if one were to occur. Anything older was too old for a sufficient number of decent-quality cameras to exist, and anything newer could've been made in Photoshop by a normal person. Seeing as camera hardware and optics are fundamentally more difficult things to improve on than image-editing and video-editing software, we may come to a point in the near future where no commonly available camera hardware can produce evidence that couldn't just as easily be a hoax. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.105\|199.27.133.105]] 23:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view.  Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet?  --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously.  In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it.  [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
+:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. If I were to post authentic photographic proof that Big Foot shot Kennedy, most people wouldn't take it seriously.  In fact, according to rule 34, now that I've mentioned it, there must be porn of it. The kittens are just more entertaining. Oh god, now it will have kittens in it.  [[User:Db|db]] ([[User talk:Db|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:06, 16 November 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133\|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)		::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133\|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
	Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine\|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine\|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)		Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine\|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine\|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
		+	:::PPC is not needed nor is any phenomenon disproved thanks to the development of image editing software like gimp and photoshop. I could post photographic proof that big foot shot Kennedy and most people wouldn't take it seriously. The kittens are just more entertaining.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 8 July 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Assuming within a given timespan a factor of lets say 10000 "ready to use" cameras being around at a given place, we would expect an equal factor of photos. So the only thing speaking agains this is that maybe at the places in question, there are not more people around, but a factor of 10000 less.{{unsigned ip\|213.61.9.75}}		:Assuming within a given timespan a factor of lets say 10000 "ready to use" cameras being around at a given place, we would expect an equal factor of photos. So the only thing speaking agains this is that maybe at the places in question, there are not more people around, but a factor of 10000 less.{{unsigned ip\|213.61.9.75}}
	::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133\|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)		::Probably everyone's got their nose burried in their smart-phone, Twittering about what they think of the Haggis they had last night, instead of taking in the view. Thus nobody takes any photos ''at all''... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.181.133\|178.98.181.133]] 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
		+	Unless your phone is equipped with a PPC (protected phenomenon chip), which almost all phones are required to carry by the CIA. Every time someone takes a picture of one of the protected phenomenon the chip recognizes the image and replaces it with a kitten. Why else do you think there are so many pictures of kittens on the internet? --[[User:Shine\|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine\|talk]]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)