Comments on: Where skeptics (don’t) fear to tread

By: arensb

arensb — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:48:38 +0000

if I see something in a photograph, and it looks a little funny, my first reaction is to assume that I am seeing something ordinary in an unusual way.

That’s funny, one of the things I like about photography is that it allows me to look at ordinary things in unusual ways (e.g., by zooming in on an oft-overlooked detail, or by framing the shot to draw attention to something other than the obvious).

By: Fwee

Fwee — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:00:35 +0000

Okay, Aly, you just flattered yourself. Now go away.

By: Aly

Aly — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:24:42 +0000

Can’t someone just flatter themselves and say this could very possibly be an angel? It looks like one to me, and I’m not saying it is, I’m just saying that there are millions of people who are very religious, including myself who could think this could be an angel. Reality isnt’ the point here, it’s the fact that someone thought there was an angel. It shouldn’t be a crime and you guys are making it sound like one. There are times when its just plain dumb, and this isn’t the most obvious thing, but it could be.

By: skeptigirl

skeptigirl — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:06:29 +0000

That’s great, Scott!

By: Scott Moore

Scott Moore — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:29:04 +0000

This is a month old so I am not sure if this has already made the rounds. I found it a funny (and purposfull) application of pareidolia — finding animals on underground maps: http://www.animalsontheunderground.com/

In particular: http://www.animalsontheunderground.com/bird.html#

By: Irishman

Irishman — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:06:22 +0000

merle jennings said:
>Funny thing is that you cant prove that is not an angel and that its a bird.

I can’t prove it’s not the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or Santa Claus either. I don’t have a LNM, BF, or SC specimen with which to compare, so I’m a bit at a loss.

You fail to grasp the concept of “burden of proof”. Also “preponderance of evidence”.

By: skeptigirl

skeptigirl — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:31:21 +0000

There is some interesting over-interpretation of the evidence and incorrect facts in these replies. You can see the shape of the wings but without knowing the position and angle you are looking at, you can’t determine the actual shape with any certainty. While there is a notch in the wings and it is bilateral, I don’t think 4 wings are clearly visible.

And Swintah Says, “Birds generally loathe night-flying”. But I have seen birds flying at night at the beach on many occasions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kalahari/migrating.html
“I study the nocturnal flight calls of migrating birds….” (not me but this interviewee)

And here’s a site on nocturnal birds. They are not all owls.
http://photogallery.canberrabirds.org.au/nocturnal_birds.htm