Can anyone tell me who/what this may be?

[kitone1]

JonathanVonErich, on 22 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Damn. I shouldn't have replied to one of Phantomglider's posts. Sakari and others clearly showed that it's impossible to have a serious conversation with him and that he is not a credible researcher at all.

My bad.

Please continue with the thread.

My apologies PhantomGlider I misread this quote in my post # 50, I did not mean it in any manner toward you

Edited June 22, 2012 by kitone1

[PhantomGlider]

My apologies PhantomGlider I misread this quote in my post # 50, I did not mean it in any manner toward you

Thank you very much kitone 1. It amazes me sometimes that that someone so dedicated to debunking can state with such pride that there are only "two kinds of people in the world" as Chrizs says. Also that I would need to seek some form of approval by spending time writing about cases to prove one's case to someone who is a totally self proclaimed close-mind. People who make pronouncements in their posts that sound more like they have God complexes and that there words and views should be written on stone tablets and adhered to by all.

Socrates shows us through Plato that true progress in the development of knowledge is accomplished by open-minded investigation... by asking questions without censorship. I agree that my initial joke about debunkers was somewhat bad taste but I was in a playful mood and just let it out. Obviously not a good idea because it attracted them out of their own debunking forum. The point of the post was really just to encourage someone to carry on questioning the strange things in this world even though this one was nothing super-natural.

My series was renewed by the broadcasters in Canada for four seasons and then was picked up by the biggest cable company in the USA. I stopped at 52 episodes because I had covered what I felt was a comprehensive list of paranormal subjects with up-to-date information AND I needed to get back to my regular career which is directing feature films. We had thousands of requests for complete box sets and now that we have launched the DVD release we've had more feedback than even before. The volume of people writing to compliment the process of investigation, the new information and to thank us for making sense of certain aspects of this subject and just to thank us, has been humbling. I don't want to be seen as a troll so I'm refraining from mentioning ways to get to the site or to some of my radio or TV interviews but I can say that no one I know would be willing to risk their careers or public credibility to stand up and mislead or fool viewers into some kind of flaky view of the Universe.

If I had had a closed mind in either direction the series would have failed. I always kept a door open on set for new information to walk in. Even now we are investigating a special to be added to the series that cross-links three paranormal phenomena. For me I have to stuff down my own prejudice because one of the phenomena is one that until now I found laughable. Fact is that the first of these events was witnessed by six credible people and more have been party to it since. In order to get to the bottom of the events I'll need to have everything properly researched by at least five different disciplines before I'm willing to move forward on it as a special episode. With that kind of search for honesty in this field I find the debunking process such a frightened self-imposed form of ignorance especially when people are paid to debunk and are obviously as biased as the subjects they accuse of bias.

I think I'm through with this thread now and hopefully we'll meet on other threads. BTW I really like your avatar.

[Eldorado]

Are there any Hitler's Bunker Debunkers?

(I had to ask)

[DingoLingo]

Never heard of Beyond sorry to say Phantom..

anyone of you fellow aussies seen it on tv over here?

[ChrLzs]

To PhantomGlider...

Parable of ...

Mmmmm..

And a wise man* once said...

'An inapplicable analogy is just like using a left-handed screwdriver to fix jelly'

(* - No wait .. it was me.)

It amazes me sometimes that that someone so dedicated to debunking can state with such pride that there are only "two kinds of people in the world" as Chrizs says.

It amazes me that someone could read what I said about the 'two types' silliness and not see that I was arguing against that approach Sometimes, even the most obvious stuff needs an emoticon..

Also that I would need to seek some form of approval by spending time writing about cases to prove one's case to someone who is a totally self proclaimed close-mind.

Ad Hominem. Ignored but reposted for posterity.

People who make pronouncements in their posts that sound more like they have God complexes and that there words and views should be written on stone tablets and adhered to by all.

Ad Hominem... Ignored etc

I agree that my initial joke about debunkers was somewhat bad taste but I was in a playful mood and just let it out.

Oh, well that's perfectly ok then! *You* are of course excused!

Obviously not a good idea because it attracted them out of their own debunking forum.

'Them'? Which 'debunking forum' is that? And you still maintain that debunking is inherently bad?

My series was ...{snip}

Forgive me for ignoring all the grand claims. I'll judge your ability by what you post here. This is, after all, a discussion forum - you *do* understand the difference between that and an advertising opportunity? And if it is true that you made some successful telly programs - that may tell us more about the audience than the content... 'Reality' shows are popular too, but I don't use them as a serious reference... But to take on one specific comment you made:

For me I have to stuff down my own prejudice because one of the phenomena is one that until now I found laughable. Fact is that the first of these events was witnessed by six credible people and more have been party to it since. In order to get to the bottom of the events I'll need to have everything properly researched by at least five different disciplines before I'm willing to move forward on it as a special episode.

Hmmm. So you are happy to tell us all that.. but no specifics?? I'm guessing we have to wait for the episode to come out, right? Not that you are advertising, oh no. Like I said, you do know that this is a discussion forum?

With that kind of search for honesty in this field I find the debunking process such a frightened self-imposed form of ignorance especially when people are paid to debunk and are obviously as biased as the subjects they accuse of bias.

Ad Hominems again? I'm noticing a trend. And that coming from someone who has just posted a completely unsupported claim? - I find that hypocritical to say the least. Did you get paid for your alleged TV series? Would that be a potential source of bias for you, at all?

BTW, you claim we are "paid to debunk"? Substantiate that claim or withdraw it, thanks.

I think I'm through with this thread now

I look forward to seeing one where your expertise is properly displayed.

To Kitone1

I would like to see the same from you or perhaps from "Colorado Paranormal"

Certainly - but after this I want to see some of yours... Firstly, on this thread, what is it about this post and this one, that you refute? The second one includes a duplication of the effect. Have you tried that technique for yourself?

On a different topic altogether, how about this? Is there anything you would like to add to my 'analysis'?

In regard to your demand that people be somehow visible in the paranormal community (whatever that might be), I would suggest that rather than discuss or debate specifics you would rather deflect attention towards those who *promote* paranormal topics, or to ad hominems. And if you won't walk that walk yourself, you can't exactly ask others. BTW, Kitone1, do you have any conflicts of interest you would like to share... And do you ever 'debunk'?

(be careful how you answer..)

Of course we could start with your undoubtedly illustrious Para-resume Chrlzs.

Why? Why not just judge me on what I post? If you have a beef with that, now or in future, be specific and offer countering debate. Otherwise keep your 'smarm' to yourself.

And feel free to test my knowledge - why not post (another) of those images you would like analysed...?

[ChrLzs]

Never heard of Beyond sorry to say Phantom..

anyone of you fellow aussies seen it on tv over here?

Nope, never heard of it. A quick google doesn't show it on sale anywhere (or if it is, they have done a fine job of hiding it!)...Although, there IS one listing of it on a Toronto auction site, coincidentally posted on 19 June 2012 - PhantomGlider first posted on this thread about a day later... Don't believe me, try it yourself - look for "beyond dvd box set"... Then when you can't find it.. add 'paranormal' to the search..

If it is this series:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442718/

... well, none of those 'thousands' of people clamouring for the boxed set could be bothered writing a review, in fact the only (lonely) comment refers to a poor quality soundtrack. So I'm guessing we probably won't be seeing it over here.. but I've been wrong before.

Oh, and as I gave PG a free plug, I am expecting a commission. I need it, given the lousy, non-existent pay I get for debunking.

But some folks make it all worthwhile, by bringing a smile to my face....

[kitone1]

(be careful how you answer..)

Oh yes, I shall indeed endeavor to tread ever-so-lightly in order to avert the incursion of your oh-so-devastating and decisive wrath

Certainly - but after this I want to see some of yours...

I'm not the one here non stop, making condescending and cynical replies (maybe not you so much, just the pseudo-skeptics in general- haven't read any of your posts BTH). And if I'm not mistaken it was you that initially requested "a favorite case from his past" validation from PhantomGlinder. I never claimed to be a "debunker" therefore my credentials are not in question. Nor is it listed anywhere in the forum TOS that it is mandatory for a panel of armchair skeptics to descend upon every single new thread to let new members know just how naive, inexperienced and silly there are for posting what you, in your unlimited wisdom deem to be a simple camera aberration. (Great work BTW-pfffffffft)

It all boils down to this:

He had a TV show that has been aired on major cable networks, you have not..

In regard to your demand that people be somehow visible in the paranormal community (whatever that might be), I would suggest that rather than discuss or debate specifics you would rather deflect attention towards those who *promote* paranormal topics, or to ad hominems. And if you won't walk that walk yourself, you can't exactly ask others. BTW, Kitone1, do you have any conflicts of interest you would like to share... And do you ever 'debunk'?

Goodness, you just a bubbling cauldron of cliche stew aren't ya

Colorado Paranormal has often claimed to be a member of a revered and established "team" with a panel of Berkeley scientists that analyze his evidence when there is NO evidence of this anywhere (or that he even has a "team" for that matter). But in this thread alone we see him (again) pontificating on how tired he is of seeing threads like this and how above it all he is ( None of you are obligated to reply or even read any thread-just an FYI)

I don't "talk THAT talk", therefore no "walk" is required. Please let me know if further clarification is required.

If it is this series:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442718/

... well, none of those 'thousands' of people clamouring for the boxed set could be bothered writing a review, in fact the only (lonely) comment refers to a poor quality soundtrack. So I'm guessing we probably won't be seeing it over here.. but I've been wrong before.

So you can't deny any of his stated credentials, you can only make a feeble attempt to denigrate his work by basing your (so very qualified ) assessment of his DVDs on the apparent lack of reviews?

Ad ignorantiam

Edited June 24, 2012 by kitone1

[DingoLingo]

Hmmm I guess I will have to wait for Foxtel to get his show on over here.. sooner or later they start digging out off the wall shows to put on late at night to fill the void..

Then it will be pop corn and chuckles

[ChrLzs]

Oh yes, I shall indeed endeavor to tread ever-so-lightly in order to avert the incursion of your oh-so-devastating and decisive wrath

Whatever. Let's just say it is notable all the stuff you edit out of my posts and would rather not address..

It is also notable that you seemed to think expertise/credentials were important (see below), yet when it comes to either you or Phantom Glider demonstrating that.. all of a sudden it is much less important, and let's change the subject shall we..?.

I'm not the one here non stop, making condescending and cynical replies (maybe not you so much)

That's classic. Did you type that and then go back to quote my condescension and cynicism, only to find that I quite matter-of-fact-ly and politely addressed this claim? As I always do (initially!).

I do get snarky sometimes, when:

- people post and run, refusing to come back and clarify or back up their claim, and refusing also to take some verifying images (as in this case - the OP could easily prove me wrong with a couple of test images - what is stopping him/her?)

- people refuse to admit that they made an error (or captured their own shadow..), or that their image is not good enough for useful analysis

- people fake expertise or claim they are, say, highly credible and experienced investigators... yet don't add anything useful to a thread.

And if their claims of expertise are based on being involved with a tv program... well, sorry if I am unimpressed UNTIL I see some genuine expertise being displayed at this forum. Let's face the facts - that IMDB reference for 'Beyond' suggests that PhantomGlider's show is a pretty much invisible and ignored program (as does googling it). By comparison, you'll find lots and lots of stuff on .. oh, say .. Jaime Maussan.. What do you think of *his* stuff, Kitone1?

Maybe PG's program is great, and just hasn't received the accolades it deserves, but frankly - I DON'T CARE. If he isn't contributing useful stuff to the forum and demonstrating useful skills, it's irrelevant. Same with me - my background and accomplishments (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. It's what I post here that counts.

Finally, if someone takes the time to show ME how I am doing something wrong, be it in photography or any discipline where I claim some knowledge, I LOVE it. I think being wrong and making mistakes is the best thing that can happen, as it makes you learn. Patting me (or someone else) on the back and offering no explanation of where they went wrong, instead just encouraging them to simply 'carry on' in the hope they will 'get something'... well, that's why a lot of the paranormal is regarded with ridicule.

(haven't read any of your posts BTH)

I'd suggest you don't, unless you want to learn stuff *instead* of encouraging every paranormal wannabe to get out their (often substandard) cameras and simply play with the settings until they get what they want...

And if I'm not mistaken it was you that initially requested "a favorite case from his past" validation from PhantomGlinder{sic}.

Yep - and if I'm not mistaken, he won't do so, having gone off in a pretend 'huff'. You and the readers can draw their own inferences from that. If he does, I'll happily offer my constructive comments - if the analysis is done well, I will say so... There's lots of stuff from me on this forum - knock yourself out finding my errors, or showing my lack of expertise.. Like I said, I like having my mistakes pointed out to me (if only it happened more often {boomtish})

I never claimed to be a "debunker" therefore my credentials are not in question.

Hmmmm. May I firstly quote PhantomGlider's initial 'contributions' to this thread:

My advice is keep on searching and you'll find the real thing.

That was the entire sum of his 'advice' to the OP.

Then all you have to contend with are the a-hole debunkers. Did I call a debunker and a-hole? That's a compliment...

I guess he added that to make friends here..

During our series of "Beyond" we...

... the opinion has been formed over years of field experience.

Presumably this was to make us believe he has adequate expertise.. or was it just spam? He continues:

I have always throughout my research and the researchers I have hired to gather information for my programming sought a completely unbiased approach.

Clearly he wants his claimed expertise to be unquestioned. Sorry, not gunna happen!

And then, Kitone1, YOU said:

Welcome to UM PhantomGlider, so nice to see a venerable, qualified and educated opinion for a change.

It seems you were impressed with someone's credentials.

I rest my case....

[Sakari]

Whatever. Let's just say it is notable all the stuff you edit out of my posts and would rather not address..

It is also notable that you seemed to think expertise/credentials were important (see below), yet when it comes to either you or Phantom Glider demonstrating that.. all of a sudden it is much less important, and let's change the subject shall we..?.

That's classic. Did you type that and then go back to quote my condescension and cynicism, only to find that I quite matter-of-fact-ly and politely addressed this claim? As I always do (initially!).

I do get snarky sometimes, when:

- people post and run, refusing to come back and clarify or back up their claim, and refusing also to take some verifying images (as in this case - the OP could easily prove me wrong with a couple of test images - what is stopping him/her?)

- people refuse to admit that they made an error (or captured their own shadow..), or that their image is not good enough for useful analysis

- people fake expertise or claim they are, say, highly credible and experienced investigators... yet don't add anything useful to a thread.

And if their claims of expertise are based on being involved with a tv program... well, sorry if I am unimpressed UNTIL I see some genuine expertise being displayed at this forum. Let's face the facts - that IMDB reference for 'Beyond' suggests that PhantomGlider's show is a pretty much invisible and ignored program (as does googling it). By comparison, you'll find lots and lots of stuff on .. oh, say .. Jaime Maussan.. What do you think of *his* stuff, Kitone1?

Maybe PG's program is great, and just hasn't received the accolades it deserves, but frankly - I DON'T CARE. If he isn't contributing useful stuff to the forum and demonstrating useful skills, it's irrelevant. Same with me - my background and accomplishments (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. It's what I post here that counts.

Finally, if someone takes the time to show ME how I am doing something wrong, be it in photography or any discipline where I claim some knowledge, I LOVE it. I think being wrong and making mistakes is the best thing that can happen, as it makes you learn. Patting me (or someone else) on the back and offering no explanation of where they went wrong, instead just encouraging them to simply 'carry on' in the hope they will 'get something'... well, that's why a lot of the paranormal is regarded with ridicule.

I'd suggest you don't, unless you want to learn stuff *instead* of encouraging every paranormal wannabe to get out their (often substandard) cameras and simply play with the settings until they get what they want...

Yep - and if I'm not mistaken, he won't do so, having gone off in a pretend 'huff'. You and the readers can draw their own inferences from that. If he does, I'll happily offer my constructive comments - if the analysis is done well, I will say so... There's lots of stuff from me on this forum - knock yourself out finding my errors, or showing my lack of expertise.. Like I said, I like having my mistakes pointed out to me (if only it happened more often {boomtish})

Hmmmm. May I firstly quote PhantomGlider's initial 'contributions' to this thread:

That was the entire sum of his 'advice' to the OP.

I guess he added that to make friends here..

Presumably this was to make us believe he has adequate expertise.. or was it just spam? He continues:

Clearly he wants his claimed expertise to be unquestioned. Sorry, not gunna happen!

And then, Kitone1, YOU said:

It seems you were impressed with someone's credentials.

I rest my case....

[Lupa92]

I think it's called matrixing. The human mind is conditioned to seek out humanoid patterns in inanimate objects. I know this holds especially true for faces but I don't see it why it wouldn't hold true for any recognizable pattern. After our brains just loooove patterns. Anyhow I suppose there are a million factors that leave most possibilities open pretty creepy looking picture either way.

[Sakari]

kitone1....

You asked about credentials and such....I am also waiting for yours on this forum, as in replies, and facts posted to support your " opinion ".

I am obviously ignoring your replies that do not pertain to a discussion, so I will start with one of my credentials.....

It is a " bigger " one for myself, but was taken off of this site, and carried on on many others.

Animal Planet aired a show called " the demon exorcist ", and a certain person that was on the show started a topic here.

I started investigating, and talking to this person, and the people involved, and found the evidence to support the fraudster activity, and the lying.Other sites took over ( with my request and help ) and exposed the frauds, and put out a calling for people to contact Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet ( same thing ) to not air anymore of it again....

The " demon exorcist " is now known as what he is, and the " paranormal " team is dis-banded.....Although one is now a " psychic "....Maybe I will work on that if the passion arises again.

The frauds were exposed, no more airings, and no more $$$$$ for the crooks.....

You can google, and figure it out for yourself, but there is one credential......

I back up my opinions with facts, and by doing more than surfing the internet, or using blind faith....And I do not do it for money.

.I have more, but until I see yours, I will leave it at that.

By the way, you take this stuff wayyyyy to serious.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Sakari

[Q-C]

@Sakari,

That's what I'm talking about! Check the people out.

Smart skepticism and tough open-mindedness pays off.

Way to go!

[ChrLzs]

And getting back to the OP - Waya, I'm assuming you do not want to take those images I suggested and post the results here? Remember I requested:

..Can we see some images that are properly exposed/lit, of exactly the same scene? Can you stand at that doorway, and turn back to take another image so we can see exactly what was behind you?

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Could members please keep off-site disputes off the forums, thank you.

[Camarel]

So if you're that "in-tune", why are you asking us?

Best comment i've seen on this site so far!

[Camarel]

Looks like you got yerself a Close Encounter of the Third Kind there.

It's actually darth vader

[Camarel]

it's ichigo!

[Belial]

Can you see them

[Abominable Snowman]

Congradulations, You took a picture of your own shadow with out flash.

Hmm sorry to be bumping quite an old topic but i have a question to ask. There's also a shadow to the left of the lightened photo which can barely be seen. Unsure if this has already been mentioned-apologies if so.

[Abominable Snowman]

Can you see them

Well guess i should always look at the last comment before i post

[Brian Topp]

Can you see them

Pink, Dark area.

Yellow, dark reflection of photographer

Blue, His own shadow, you can make out he is holding a camera.

[JesseCuster]

That is the original media.

I know Waya6966 is clearly gone and won't see this post but now that the thread has been resurrected, I had a look at his photo.

The EXIF data is intact and reveals the camera that took the photo a Sony digital camera with a 16 megapixel sensor, so the 1024x768 image he posted is clearly not "the original media".

And this represents one of the big issues with "ghost" photos. They get resized, cropped, resaved as JPEGs, (not in this case) have the EXIF data (which can be very useful) stripped, etc. but people and websites still call the result the original image, the raw image, etc. I don't think it's down to malice, just ignorance of the technology at hand and how what gets posted on blogs and forums (and even websites of major newspapers and news organisations) is rarely (if ever) what actually came straight off the camera and shouldn't be described as such.

Edited December 10, 2013 by JesseCuster

[LostSouls7]

I second that.

It's a very bad, very dark photograph, and I would bet anything it's either the taker's shadow, or the shadow of some piece of furniture or something in the house casting a vaguely humanoid shadow.

Hi Agent Scully! Nice to see you on the forums

[TopToffee]

I can see an...eeey...eerm,,..nowt...