Pianist photographs ghostly woman in theater

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Actually in the third photo the other figure appears to be stood on the seats reaching for something.Just members of staff going about their duties.

I'm not seeing that guy on a chair in photo #3 but there might be some one or thing several rows behind him in photo #3.

But all of that is second bassoon to the main figure.

Edited September 20, 2019 by papageorge1

[papageorge1]

8 hours ago, Ebenezer_J_Booze said:

Long time lurker and first time poster here. As I've been reading UM for a long time now, I know many of the active posters and have learnt something about their nature and personality. I dig Papageorge and his papameter a lot! Papageorge often behaves rationally and explains himself well, even when skeptics come down hard on him! I could say I'm about 50/60 believer/skeptic myself, so I don't automatically "ally with him", when he suggests that something is more paranormal than not.

Papageorge gets way too much hate on these forums. I was actually very surprised when I started visiting UM.com - there are many more skeptics here than believers, it seems? At least in the people who comment most often? It's refreshing though, as the site isn't 100% overrun by believers as I first thought? As long as we can respect each other when talking about things, it's all good!

Anyways there is one way that Papageorge might be my man: he just has to be Red Wings fan!? Of course there are many sport teams in Detroit, but as a hardcore ice hockey fan - as we Finns usually are - Red Wings is my pick of the Hockeytown and of the whole NHL. The drought has been way too long - maybe it has something to do with the climate? ;P - but it's time to take the Cup back again!

Now I just digress though, so back to the original idea of my post: as long as we can all respect each other and get along, UM.com is one of the best places to hang on the interwebs. Of course that is just my personal opinion, but there are very few sites I visit as frequently as UM.com. Happy to be a forum member after this as well.

Steve Yzerman is back in Detroit as the General Manager of the Red Wings as he should have been all along. Hockeytown Dominance is Back!

In fact I was around to see Gordie Howe play at the Olympia arena.

I am glad to see you love the Papameter. It is all very reasonable and it is psychologically interesting to see people on a forum like this that can never stand any oxygen given to even the possibility of the paranormal in any case. But anyway I'm left stronger in my beliefs that genuine paranormal things do happen by seeing the best efforts of the skeptics as not impressive and obviously agenda-driven in the whole. 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by papageorge1

[Ebenezer_J_Booze]

unfortunatelyunfornately

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Steve Yzerman is back in Detroit as the General Manager of the Red Wings as he should have been all along. Hockeytown Dominance is Back!

In fact I was around to see Gordie Howe play at the Olympia arena.

I am glad to see you love the Papameter. It is all very reasonable and it is psychologically interesting to see people on a forum like this that can never stand any oxygen given to even the possibility of the paranormal in any case. But anyway I'm left stronger in my beliefs that genuine paranormal things do happen by seeing the best efforts of the skeptics as not impressive in the whole. 

 

Papageorge - my main man! I knew that Red Wings would be a link! Gordie Howe and Steve Yzerman are some what of a "god like figures" to me, so people just have to  believe me if I talk about them - asiade the greats like Sergei Fedorov, Paul Coffey, Slava, Larionov, Lidström, Murphy, Shanahan, Ward, Osgood, Mike Vernon and friends from the nineties? :O Maybe people here on UM.com will consider me as "fundamentalist" ;P Even though I'd like to make sure, that I DO NOT BELIEVE OF PHANTOM BEINGS: Oliwer Kaski played for my homewtown, just last season: for Lahden Pelicans! Now he plays for Detroit Red Wings - THE MOST AMAZING TEAM IN HOCKEY HISTORY - aside Oulun Kärpät? ;P  - but anyways it's a small world? Just last season Libor Sulak was a defensive man for Red Wings - he came from Lahden Pelicans as well as Kaski?: Sulak ended up in Grand Rapids Griffins. Had enough of that and ended up to Russian League KHL after just one season in AHL season?

But Oliwer Kaski is one o the FINNISH WORLDCHAMPIONS last Spring. Can't say how well he will do this this year in NHL, but in Finnish championship league HE ALMOST BROKE THE POINT RECORD LAST YEAR OF A SEASON - AS A DEFENSIVE MAN? THAT IS A LOT TO CONSIDER OF!? Of course I digress AND THIS IS GROSSLY OFF THE TOPIC! I'm sorry for all off you that don't know what hockey is and that don't give a **** about it? ;P It's something that that me and Papageorge understand about: our secret and most annoying secret code? ;P

I live, breath and ABSOLUTELY LOVE ICE HOCKEY! ! ! ! ! ! ! It will show sometimes with me, I will most certainly make a point of it? It the mods want to expel me for it, so be it. Otherwise I will - probably most unfortunately - make certain points of it, as the season progresses? ;P Everyone that hates ice hockey: I have nothing against you and I don't want to torture you. It's just that I love it and I speak hockey whenever I can - I'm like one of those unbearable Canadians - I just can't shut my trap about hockey!? ;P

But nothing personal about it: I also love everything mysterious and that of which can't be explained by natural means. For all of my life, I've love anything unexplaineble: I'd love to explain it for everyone, not at the least for myself? But if there is no meaningful explanation, then there is not one? I'd like to end this post by linking one of Less Than Jake's song, but that would probably be considered not very food form? ;P

[the13bats]

a ghost thread to talk of ice hockey, nice derail there.

 

 

 

[moonman]

New guy is a george shill for sure. Workmate, maybe family.

[Chewie1990]

3 hours ago, Ebenezer_J_Booze said:

Not for me: I'm very strict at what to  believe. I've never witnessed anything paranormal or weird in the common sense? I love anything mysterious, but have NEVER witnessed anything really strange or mysterious? I'm actually with you skeptics: I have no reason to believe, but I just love anything that can't be explained by common sense? Even as I try to explain it myself?

Mostly it can be explained and there is no mystery? That is mostly case in here UM.com as well? In most of the cases I just shake my head that these "news" weren't even worth of posting here? But there are times that I go: THIS COULD BE SOMETHING! And even then, I go "IT COULD BE SOMETHING"! I never assume anything. I never take anything for granted. I ALWAYS DEMAND PROOF! I'm like Mulder in a way that "I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE", but for me to believe, the proof has to be something of extraordinaire!?

Here's the thing, it's not really a matter of being 'with you skeptics' - this isn't a war, it's not even a hockey match..

I think a lot of the reason papa gets so much hate (apart from his percentages tending to skew way higher than the footage deserves or tendency to say "there is literally zero evidence for and only some evidence against so probably paranormal..") is the fact that he's constantly pitching against the more skeptically minded on the site and it comes off as trolling

Honestly, I've seen occasions where I think certain members have been a little harsh on him but for the most part it feels like he's begging for it..

As much as you may feel persecuted I doubt anyone here is trying to force you to stop believing in the paranormal, just as long as you dont blindly believe every blobsquatch and 'orb' photo proves what you want it to

If you think about things as you claim and eliminate the possible before reaching judgment you'll be fine

You say that most cases on this site don't convince you whereas papa's meter seems to be zeroed at about 60% paranormal - THAT is the difference

Personally I'd love to be a Mulder, but I'm a season 1 Scully who aspires to be a season 10 Scully - I dont want to believe, i want to KNOW

[Chewie1990]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am glad to see you love the Papameter. It is all very reasonable and it is psychologically interesting to see people on a forum like this that can never stand any oxygen given to even the possibility of the paranormal in any case. But anyway I'm left stronger in my beliefs that genuine paranormal things do happen by seeing the best efforts of the skeptics as not impressive and obviously agenda-driven in the whole. 

 

You need to stop fighting ghosts mate - pun absolutely intended..

You disagreeing with the general consensus is not proof of the paranormal, its proof that your bar for evidence might be a little too low

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and "my brothers friends cousins hairdresser got eaten by a ghost tiger once" just won't cut it with anyone whose opinion carries any weight

As I've already said I dont think there's anything we could say or do to convince you - much like you will never sway me - but luckily it's not my job to do that, if you want to believe everything you read then have at it, just don't be surprised if a few less patient members on here don't share my attitude..

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

You need to stop fighting ghosts mate - pun absolutely intended..

You disagreeing with the general consensus is not proof of the paranormal, its proof that your bar for evidence might be a little too low

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and "my brothers friends cousins hairdresser got eaten by a ghost tiger once" just won't cut it with anyone whose opinion carries any weight

As I've already said I dont think there's anything we could say or do to convince you - much like you will never sway me - but luckily it's not my job to do that, if you want to believe everything you read then have at it, just don't be surprised if a few less patient members on here don't share my attitude..

I always maintain the healthy respect for natural explanations and look to them first.

[Chewie1990]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I always maintain the healthy respect for natural explanations and look to them first.

So just out of curiosity, what about this dark blurry photo 80% convinced you it was a ghost in this case within 42 minutes of this thread being created?

Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just genuinely interested in how you can be so sure so fast?

Hell even I wasnt 80% sure what it was by the time I posted, I was still trying to narrow it down between random person + pareidolia, guy in a costume hoax or photo editing hoax.. with maybe a 1% ghost for wishful thinking..

Out of interest, are you still 80% sure? Or have the observations of the other people in the photo done anything to weaken the evidence for you?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Chewie1990 said:

So just out of curiosity, what about this dark blurry photo 80% convinced you it was a ghost in this case within 42 minutes of this thread being created?

Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just genuinely interested in how you can be so sure so fast?

Hell even I wasnt 80% sure what it was by the time I posted, I was still trying to narrow it down between random person + pareidolia, guy in a costume hoax or photo editing hoax.. with maybe a 1% ghost for wishful thinking..

Out of interest, are you still 80% sure? Or have the observations of the other people in the photo done anything to weaken the evidence for you?

Still about 80% and I will always adjust for new information. 20% leaves considerable room for uncertainty too.

Some pro-reasons:

The story of the three photos sounds normal and believable. The person is of some reputation. The guy was motivated to get the story out which tells me the person closest to it was strongly impressed and he knows the details best. (certainly lying or being mistaken is considered)

The place has history of such things. 

By now the reality that paranormal things are not ridiculous or impossible is my well-considered opinion. So I have a lower threshold of evidence than a confirmed materialist.  I think my level is best balanced level by my appraisal of human nature and reality.

Theaters, hospitals, prisons, etc. are of the more precedented places from hearing these claims for decades. It's rare but 'not that rare'.

1% Ghost is your call, eh. We seem to have a far difference there.

 

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

I dont want to believe, i want to KNOW

I feel that way until i hear some blind faith believers say they arent believers they are knowers, so for me proofing it to me is only the start im too failable for me to "know" it has to be proven in a scientific accepted way.

 

1 hour ago, Chewie1990 said:

Out of interest, are you still 80% sure? Or have the observations of the other people in the photo done anything to weaken the evidence for you?

thats my biggest mystery about pg it seems the more proof that is presented for non paranormal the more he digs his heels in,  IE akien mumny fraud.

its down right weird to me like the laser pointer thread, the op vanished when i presented my laser pointer photos that looked the same, pg paused then said that it is likely paranormal taking the appearance of a laser pointer, ( paraphased )

i do find the forum more fun with pg.

[Saru]

Let's try to keep things on topic please folks.

[Chewie1990]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Still about 80% and I will always adjust for new information. 20% leaves considerable room for uncertainty too.

Some pro-reasons:

The story of the three photos sounds normal and believable. The person is of some reputation. The guy was motivated to get the story out which tells me the person closest to it was strongly impressed and he knows the details best. (certainly lying or being mistaken is considered)

The place has history of such things. 

By now the reality that paranormal things are not ridiculous or impossible is my well-considered opinion. So I have a lower threshold of evidence than a confirmed materialist.  I think my level is best balanced level by my appraisal of human nature and reality.

Theaters, hospitals, prisons, etc. are of the more precedented places from hearing these claims for decades. It's rare but 'not that rare'.

1% Ghost is your call, eh. We seem to have a far difference there.

 

I would consider 80-20 a pretty conclusive judgment, but OK, fair enough

Some rebuttals:

Does the 3 photo story still sound normal and believable when you take into account the other person or people in the photo who appear and disappear or move relatively significant distances in a supposed instant? Or are they ghosts too?

We're going to have to agree to disagree that being keen to share something on social media is a marker of honesty or legitimacy - if I'd spent a week rigging up an elaborate fishing wire setup to fake a ghost encounter and wanted my 5 minutes of fame I probably wouldn't sit on it too long either..

I cant say much to his reputation - he's a very good pianist, but I'm not aware of anything that says talented musicians cant lie or be mistaken. I guess you could say that everyone is of 'some reputation', so this ones a pretty low barrier for entry..

I'm very glad you brought up the history of the place - as I spent some time looking into this on a whim last night

As you'd expect the vast majority of stories are from the last couple of days but there were a couple of exceptions

To the stories credit I found a single story from 2014 from a single source that mentioned a woman in a white dress (the same article Chad shared) but there were no real details and this is such a trope that I can't really put too much stock in it, EVERYWHERE allegedly has a white woman ghost..

Other than that there were a couple of posts that mentioned a smoking man in a top hat in one of the private boxes but not as many articles as I expected

I also found an interview from 2009 with a former manager who said there are 2 possibilities for the ghosts there - a former projectionist George Dorin and a former manager called Karl Lindstaedt who haunts the lobby area, I don't expect either ever wore a white dress..

That was 10 minutes of research and honestly I'd have spent longer but I ran out of articles, for a theatre there's actually not that much of a history there - I'm sure the articles posted in the last couple of days will have a good long list of ghosts but it's only possible to verify pre-event to exclude fabrication

I have no problem with you being a believer or your overarching opinion

The issue is as you basically just said (paraphrasing) "I believe it, so I dont need such good evidence to draw conclusions" - the thing is though, facts are facts, they aren't subjective

If you believed the sky is green, and someone posted a photo with a green sky and a nice big Adobe watermark on it I'd call BS, but if it lines up with your opinion you'd just take it as gospel? (Obviously a ridiculous example, but an example all the same)

You are right that all of those places regularly have a reputation for being haunted, I dont think I'd even say its "rare but not that rare" - I'd say it's pretty common but it's a chicken and egg thing - did the sightings come first or did the reputation precede them? In a lot of cases I'd put money on the latter..

[XenoFish]

With anything like this look for a mundane explanation before assuming it's something metaphysical. Not the other way around. 

[Chewie1990]

6 hours ago, the13bats said:

I feel that way until i hear some blind faith believers say they arent believers they are knowers, so for me proofing it to me is only the start im too failable for me to "know" it has to be proven in a scientific accepted way.

 

thats my biggest mystery about pg it seems the more proof that is presented for non paranormal the more he digs his heels in,  IE akien mumny fraud.

its down right weird to me like the laser pointer thread, the op vanished when i presented my laser pointer photos that looked the same, pg paused then said that it is likely paranormal taking the appearance of a laser pointer, ( paraphased )

i do find the forum more fun with pg.

Well exactly, the only way I'm going to know is if I experience something first hand or if its scientifically proven - and if I experience something not backed up by science then I can only really be.. let's say 80% sure, I'd be looking for other explanations more grounded in our reality

I guess playing devil's advocate if you've experienced something first-hand it's very hard to turn around and say "it never happened, it's just some science thing" because you know how you felt in the moment and that trumps everything else for a lot of people so you just double down on your belief

I totally agree about PG (as long as we dont get too far into the weeds and derail the discussion)

And most of all it's mportant to have voices from both sides of the debate otherwise you just get an echo chamber of the same opinion

Hard core believers need a skeptics POV to try and keep their feet on the ground even a little and honestly the skeptics need to be kept on their toes - it's very easy to get complacent and dismiss everything out of hand and it's just possible one day we might be wrong - I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened yet but science and true skepticism means leaving room for a course correction should new evidence come to light, not just a circlejerk

[XenoFish]

If you have a personal experience (are a lot of them) then it is best to question them. 

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

Does the 3 photo story still sound normal and believable when you take into account the other person or people in the photo who appear and disappear or move relatively significant distances in a supposed instant? Or are they ghosts too?

 

If anything, I'd go with 'more believable' as something unnatural does appear to be going on but the details are a little too vague to get real excited about. Paranormal activity in an allegedly haunted place often causes multiple events.

4 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree that being keen to share something on social media is a marker of honesty or legitimacy - if I'd spent a week rigging up an elaborate fishing wire setup to fake a ghost encounter and wanted my 5 minutes of fame I probably wouldn't sit on it too long either..

I cant say much to his reputation - he's a very good pianist, but I'm not aware of anything that says talented musicians cant lie or be mistaken. I guess you could say that everyone is of 'some reputation', so this ones a pretty low barrier for entry..

 

Certainly I considered the chance of a hoax and give it a real possibility. However with today's technology one can call every ghost photo a hoax but knowing human nature I think most people try to be honest with us (with some hoaxers out there). The chance of all of them be hoaxers approaches zero after enough ghost claims. This is why the best I can do is give my best judgment in oercentages in a case like this.

4 hours ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

I'm very glad you brought up the history of the place - as I spent some time looking into this on a whim last night

As you'd expect the vast majority of stories are from the last couple of days but there were a couple of exceptions

To the stories credit I found a single story from 2014 from a single source that mentioned a woman in a white dress (the same article Chad shared) but there were no real details and this is such a trope that I can't really put too much stock in it, EVERYWHERE allegedly has a white woman ghost..

Other than that there were a couple of posts that mentioned a smoking man in a top hat in one of the private boxes but not as many articles as I expected

I also found an interview from 2009 with a former manager who said there are 2 possibilities for the ghosts there - a former projectionist George Dorin and a former manager called Karl Lindstaedt who haunts the lobby area, I don't expect either ever wore a white dress..

That was 10 minutes of research and honestly I'd have spent longer but I ran out of articles, for a theatre there's actually not that much of a history there - I'm sure the articles posted in the last couple of days will have a good long list of ghosts but it's only possible to verify pre-event to exclude fabrication

I have no problem with you being a believer or your overarching opinion

The issue is as you basically just said (paraphrasing) "I believe it, so I dont need such good evidence to draw conclusions" - the thing is though, facts are facts, they aren't subjective

If you believed the sky is green, and someone posted a photo with a green sky and a nice big Adobe watermark on it I'd call BS, but if it lines up with your opinion you'd just take it as gospel? (Obviously a ridiculous example, but an example all the same)

You are right that all of those places regularly have a reputation for being haunted, I dont think I'd even say its "rare but not that rare" - I'd say it's pretty common but it's a chicken and egg thing - did the sightings come first or did the reputation precede them? In a lot of cases I'd put money on the latter..

I of course consider all you say. From my knowledge of human behavior most alleged ghost cases are just haphazard word of mouth stories because that is what humans do. They might talk but they very rarely document is my observation of typical people. So, I don't expect much great documentation.

Edited September 21, 2019 by papageorge1

[Chewie1990]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If anything, I'd go with 'more believable' as something unnatural does appear to be going on but the details are a little too vague to get real excited about. Paranormal activity in an allegedly haunted place often causes multiple events.

Certainly I considered the chance of a hoax and give it a real possibility. However with today's technology one can call every ghost photo a hoax but knowing human nature I think most people try to be honest with us (with some hoaxers out there). The chance of all of them be hoaxers approaches zero after enough ghost claims. This is why the best I can do is give my best judgment in oercentages in a case like this.

I of course consider all you say. From my knowledge of human behavior most alleged ghost cases are just haphazard word of mouth stories because that is what humans do. They might talk but they very rarely document is my observation of typical people. So, I don't expect much great documentation.

So you implicitly trust the word of a man you've never met, who may well have an agenda due to his links to a paranormal podcast and the possibility of self-promotion over common sense? The prospect of between 2 and 3 ghosts all blinking into existence in the same corner of the theatre at the same time when a camera happens to be present (having never been filmed, photographed or reported by eyewitnesses previously) is more likely than a guy exaggerating how close together the photos were taken?

Curious.. like you say, psychology is very interesting!

I'm sorry if what I said was misleading - I in no way believe that this is a hoax, it was one of my first thoughts but I've dismissed it upon closer inspection of the photo. The hoax comment was more meant to give a generic example

In this case I you don't need to think as complex or nefarious as a hoax, just a simple misidentification

I can't speak to your life experiences but all I will say is you have a much higher opinion of people than I do - especially when it comes to today's social media click bait culture

Statistically the sheer number of photos out there would seem to suggest that some small percentage of them must be real but that's flawed logic based on incorrect assumptions - quantity has no correlative effect on quality

On the plus side, I can spare you a wall of text on your last paragraph as I completely agree with all of it! Only that lack of documentation should be seen as a potential red flag and not simply be glossed over

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Chewie1990 said:

So you implicitly trust the word of a man you've never met, who may well have an agenda due to his links to a paranormal podcast and the possibility of self-promotion over common sense? The prospect of between 2 and 3 ghosts all blinking into existence in the same corner of the theatre at the same time when a camera happens to be present (having never been filmed, photographed or reported by eyewitnesses previously) is more likely than a guy exaggerating how close together the photos were taken?

Curious.. like you say, psychology is very interesting!

What is very interesting is that you want to put out there that I 'implicitly trust' someone when I repeat again and again that I fully consider the possibility of a lie or hoax. I think you probably understand estimating percentages but you are not acting like it!

1 hour ago, Chewie1990 said:

I'm sorry if what I said was misleading - I in no way believe that this is a hoax, it was one of my first thoughts but I've dismissed it upon closer inspection of the photo. The hoax comment was more meant to give a generic example

In this case I you don't need to think as complex or nefarious as a hoax, just a simple misidentification

I can't speak to your life experiences but all I will say is you have a much higher opinion of people than I do - especially when it comes to today's social media click bait culture

Statistically the sheer number of photos out there would seem to suggest that some small percentage of them must be real but that's flawed logic based on incorrect assumptions - quantity has no correlative effect on quality

I'm confused as you are playing two different angles and trying to merge them in a way that doesn't make sense. You do not believe it is a hoax but criticize me for considering the guy's story seriously (with the considerable normal reservations). 

I guess you are arguing that this is a physical person unnoticed by the photographer who came into focus only during the middle photo. What percentage do you ascribe to that theory? The photographer himself does not seem to subscribe to that theory knowing the short time involved for what you are claiming.

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, XenoFish said:

If you have a personal experience (are a lot of them) then it is best to question them. 

I said a version of what im gonna say again, last time it was used as a tool to try to disparage and belittle me, which doesnt work this isnt personal to me, the whole idea of personal experence, perception, interpretation etc, this thread we have a pic that the taker says "ghost" that prosiac isnt possible and my first thought is why did they jump to a very very weak unlikely explanation rather than think the most likely, a worker of the venue?

and its fundamental, some people want to see and believe what they want to and nothing will change that and mundane isnt good enough, to really feel special it takes paranormal.

me im a pain i question and requestion everything, including my own mind, "mental issue" isnt taboo for me, so lets say i go to my basement and think i see a rat run across the floor, so what, rats are proven to exist mudane, and no one is "special" for seeing a rat,

lets say i think i see a generic "ghost" and its real to me i am sure i saw it, as i was leaving the basement a tool flies past me hits the wall im sure i saw that too, i walk into my yard a bigfoot zips around the corner and i look up and see a flying saucer, that must be otherworldy now im special,

but my first thought is did it really happen, is there a tool laying out of place, a mark on the wall, tracks, any evidence what so ever, because for me no story is enough not even mine, the mind is way too unreliable.

no, my jump wouldnt be to ghost and paranormal telekinesis, my jump would be to the far more likely i imagined it or am suffering some sort of mental issue, not because im close minded to paranormal but it has zero proof while people seeing things that really arent there is very well documented and proven in mental heath literature, plus i dont have ego involved.

i get it, believers have no proof to offer and claim they dont need it yet hang out here wanting validation as if they still have doubts in their own beliefs, rather than argue about having no proof why not spend some time trying to get some proof or just be comfortable in ones beliefs...oh no, ego gets in the way, they must have validations and when it doesnt come the fight is on.

so we are at a dead end so to speak, can this threads case be proven and proven mundan yes, but not by me im not there at the venue, so ill just hope the hype sold the fellow a few extra tickets which i still feel was the agenda all along, haunted sells.

 

 

[Chewie1990]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

What is very interesting is that you want to put out there that I 'implicitly trust' someone when I repeat again and again that I fully consider the possibility of a lie or hoax. I think you probably understand estimating percentages but you are not acting like it!

I'm confused as you are playing two different angles and trying to merge them in a way that doesn't make sense. You do not believe it is a hoax but criticize me for considering the guy's story seriously (with the considerable normal reservations). 

I guess you are arguing that this is a physical person unnoticed by the photographer who came into focus only during the middle photo. What percentage do you ascribe to that theory? The photographer himself does not seem to subscribe to that theory knowing the short time involved for what you are claiming.

Ok let's take it from another angle then - its four times as likely that multiple ghosts turned up at the venue in the instance that he took the photo and then instantly disappeared than a guy with a potential bias misremembering or exaggerating the incident? Or is that not how percentages work?

Forget my previous message then, I'll spell it out differently

- You used the fact that he was motivated to post the photo as a sign of credibility, I say that just means either he believes it to be real (but that doesn't mean it is) or he has an agenda to push it (ie hoax)

- RE: This particular case I originally considered a hoax but dismissed it upon closer inspection of the figure - in this case it doesn't need to be a hoax for it to not be a ghost. The simplest solution as many have said is it's just a person, I'm not sure how many different ways I can say that honestly

- My percentages? Right now I'm about 95% misidentification of a living person as a ghost, 5% hoax as i guess this can never truly be discounted. I can't say I'm surprised the photographer disagrees since it wouldn't be much of a story if he tweeted "here's a blurry photo of a person in the audience"

- In summary, forget all about the hoax angle, we both agree that's not what we're seeing here. You keep bringing up the short time frame between photos but we only have the photographers word for this.

So I repeat, what's more likely: the prospect of between 2 and 3 ghosts all blinking into existence in the same corner of the theatre at the same time when a camera happens to be present or a guy exaggerating how close together the photos were taken?

 

Edit: In fact this is really simple guys

If you believe this is a ghost, go badger Chad Lawson on Twitter to screen cap his timestamps

If it's legit he has nothing to hide and I'll gladly concede if the photos are logged within a second or 2

If he never releases that info..well, that probably says it all

Edited September 21, 2019 by Chewie1990

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

Forget my previous message then, I'll spell it out differently

 

Alright, reset!

7 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

- You used the fact that he was motivated to post the photo as a sign of credibility, I say that just means either he believes it to be real (but that doesn't mean it is) or he has an agenda to push it (ie hoax)

 

Not exactly as a sign of credibility but as a sign that he was taken pretty strongly by the experience. (no, that doesn't preclude a hoax though as I keep repeating)

11 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

- RE: This particular case I originally considered a hoax but dismissed it upon closer inspection of the figure - in this case it doesn't need to be a hoax for it to not be a ghost. The simplest solution as many have said is it's just a person, I'm not sure how many different ways I can say that honestly

 

I understand what you are saying. The challenge to that would be the pianist clearly feels that the short duration between photos precludes that or he wouldn't have gone through this effort. I tend to respect his judgment on that as he knows his equipment.

14 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

- My percentages? Right now I'm about 95% misidentification of a living person as a ghost, 5% hoax as i guess this can never truly be discounted. I can't say I'm surprised the photographer disagrees since it wouldn't be much of a story if he tweeted "here's a blurry photo of a person in the audience"

 

0% Paranormal chance is left from your breakdown. I have to suspect an anti-paranormal bias there.

And my percentages 80% Paranormal   20% Hoax or Misinterpretation

20 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

 

- In summary, forget all about the hoax angle, we both agree that's not what we're seeing here. You keep bringing up the short time frame between photos but we only have the photographers word for this.

 

Again I can never discount hoax and misinterpretation. I am apparently stronger on the hoax possibility than you at this point. Do you just believe everything you hear <meant as joke>? Yes I am thinking the photographer is intelligent and very likely understands his equipment and what he executed but I can never claim to be fully sure.

29 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said:

So I repeat, what's more likely: the prospect of between 2 and 3 ghosts all blinking into existence in the same corner of the theatre at the same time when a camera happens to be present or a guy exaggerating how close together the photos were taken?

My analysis was only about the main figure. It does appear something additionally paranormal may be going on too during that second photograph.

[XenoFish]

Considering October is just around the corner. I'm going to chalk this up as an attention grab. Basically free advertisement. Anyone with me on this?

[Chewie1990]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Alright, reset!

Not exactly as a sign of credibility but as a sign that he was taken pretty strongly by the experience. (no, that doesn't preclude a hoax though as I keep repeating)

I understand what you are saying. The challenge to that would be the pianist clearly feels that the short duration between photos precludes that or he wouldn't have gone through this effort. I tend to respect his judgment on that as he knows his equipment.

0% Paranormal chance is left from your breakdown. I have to suspect an anti-paranormal bias there.

And my percentages 80% Paranormal   20% Hoax or Misinterpretation

Again I can never discount hoax and misinterpretation. I am apparently stronger on the hoax possibility than you at this point. Do you just believe everything you hear <meant as joke>? Yes I am thinking the photographer is intelligent and very likely understands his equipment and what he executed but I can never claim to be fully sure.

My analysis was only about the main figure. It does appear something additionally paranormal may be going on too during that second photograph.

Ok cool, then we are in agreement on the first point - no hoaxes in sight, either he genuinely believes its paranormal or he has an agenda he aims to profit from but neither of us can say for sure, fair?

Point 2, that's fair, although I'd argue this isn't really a knowing your equipment issue but I know what you're saying..

And again, I'm not saying he took the photos 10 minutes apart and is nefariously lying to us - he could have taken them 5/10 seconds apart, gone for a meal, gone to bed, posted the videos in the morning and then noticed the figure, and in thinking back to the night before his memory has foreshortened the time before shots

And 5/10 seconds would be more than enough time for the movement we see in the photos regardless of whether they are humans or ghosts, fair?

Yes that's right, in this particular case, looking at the evidence I have systematically eliminated all possibilities including the paranormal based on the evidence available, leaving misidentification as my favoured theory.

It is literally impossible to fairly infer an anti-paranormal bias from that sample set, I've been a forum member for 2 days and discussed one case. If I flip a coin and get heads that doesn't mean coins always land on heads

We'll see what future cases bring! Though yes, I expect that I will come down on the mundane side 99 times out of 100 unless the evidence is extraordinary

I know you mean it as a joke but by definition only one of us is believing the things he hears - as this is the internet and sarcasm is tricky I'll assume that was the joke..

Ok that's fair, but if you were supplied the stated fact that those photos were taken within a second or two wouldn't those other figures HAVE to be anomalous? Either they all are or the timing is off unless anyone else can propose another possibility?

And to clarify I really don't want anyone to go and harass a guy on Twitter, but that simple bit of information would kinda seal the deal here, right?

[the13bats]

when i first saw it i thought person watching checking on talent rehearsing,  i did that to talent.

one has to wonder why would talent take random pics of an empty venue, but im guilty of that myself,

in this age of digital computer photography i wouldnt put much into time stamps, they can be faked.

it reminds me of old alleged ghost photos where the photographers swore this or that but when scrutinized by unbiased photo experts not surprising the photographers lied

 i wonder had he title this threads picture something like "cleaning lady" would some say, no no no, its a ghost, even when myrtle says, no, it was me cleaning.