The only ‘doctoring’ that has been done to it is us zooming in on it.

Thereby conveniently cropping out anything that might reveal too much of that, ahem, “entity.”

Oops, still a skeptical a__hole!

1. Kuhnigget, there is no reason to be an immature a-hole, especially one who doesn’t know me at all. Did I claim that picture was an entity? No. Do I wonder what it is? Yes. Am I, or anyone I know, going to fake something and then ask for die-hard skeptics to look at ? Thatg would just be stupid, don’t you think? Am I trying to convince any of you that ghosts, souks, etc. are real? Not at all; all I am out to do is figure out what causes the experiences people claim to have.

Also, Kuhnigget, ‘dude in the black jacket’ is me. I do not smoke, as I cannot stand it, and do not allow people to smoke on investigations. Oh, and I can show you pictures from all over the web of what cig smoke looks like, and it is thick, dark and wispy, which is not what one sees in that picture.

As for the mention of QM: I am not saying that, definitively, QM is the ‘culprit’ here; nor am I saying that, beyond all doubt, QM even has anything to do with any of it. The relation of QM to the paranormal/supernatural/anomalous is simply a theory of mine I am tossing around and working with.

2. ND: Thanks, first off, for being more mature than Kuhnigget. Second, I apologize if I come acros as ‘full of myself’. I assure you that I am not, I just have an odd way of typing, I suppose. Granted, I have a little bit of an ego and self-pride, as any healthy person does.

And I agree, the picture is a bit out of focus. Could it be double exposure? Sure. Could it be moisture on the lens? Of course. Is it, definitively, either of those? No. And that is what makes it interesting…that is why I have brought it to the attention of you and the other skeptics of this forum; I want to see if one of you has an experience with this, or a better eye, or even better debunking skills. If there is a logicsl, scientific explanation for this, then great; that is my end goal for any ‘evidence’.

and again, I say, we would not fake something then put it to the test. I will be more than happy to drudge up the camera info/pic info and put it up for all to see. The only ‘doctoring’ that has been done to it is us zooming in on it.

Lastly, and this is directed at everyone, I am sick of hearing the word ‘pseudo-science’ thrown around when we mention what we do, just as I am sick of people who claim to have no faith or claim to sort out all they see/hear, turn around and, without PROOF, say none of what we capture in aido and pictires and on video, is real. People seem to forget that facts and theories in science do change and have changed many times. They also seem to forget that, at one time, things such as life on other planets, cloning, going to the moon, desktop computers, human flight, radios, etc. were all ‘impossible’ and all because a few snobs in the science community, without proof to back it up, said so. Good thing there were enough people to put up with their elitism, scorn and sneers, wouldn’t you say?

Well it looks like the camera is focused on what appears to be smoke. The background is out of focus. There appears to be someone’s arm behind the “smoke”. It could be a a longish exposure but the background would show shaking from the hand holding the camera. The reflection on the black jacket implies the flash went off. No info on film or digital, exposure, camera make and model. Heck, we don’t even know if this is an authentic, undoctored photo. How can we even trust that it’s not some silly photoshoped image?

www (dot) teamprose (dot) com (slash) GEDC0864_copy_op_800x600 (dot) jpg

While I obviously can’t say for certain what the nature of the “entity” (snicker) is, it looks suspiciously like a wad of stretched apart cotton sheeting held up close to the camera lens while a long exposure was taken.

But I’m sure it’s something involving quantum mechanics. (snort)

Post a link to one such interesting photo here.

Let me then say that, as a very, very skeptical investigator of the paranormal, I think orbs are a bunch of horse crap. They are always – and I do mean ALWAYS – dust, insects, snow, moisture, etc. Really, they are no different than 95% (ballpark, folks) of the claims I and my team investigate, in that they are completely , scientifically or logically explainable.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering if I believe that the other 5% are deceased humans, I will say this: it is possible and I am keeping an open mind. However, I do think a simple, scientific explanation will one day be found. Of course, it could be complicated and scient like quantum mechanics….but we’ll just have to wait and see.

I would also like to say that we do have some interesting EVP and photos we cannot explain. Perhaps one of you can help? If interested, please let me know and I will send you contact info.

Last thing, because we get a lot of heat from people who have no clue what they are talking about: our team, at the least, does NOT get paid for what we do.

I figured it was something like that. My compliments to you for not letting it slow you down.

But don’t be alarmed if I continue the occasional ribbing, eh?

Bewitchingly yours, Kuhnigget.

I guess I’m angling towards a kind of proof by contradiction. It’s one thing to give a naturalistic explanation of a phenomenon, but I also like to think of reasons why a belief is internally inconsistent.

The problem lies with the way many people think. They form a conclusion or circumstance that they want to believe in, then go looking for evidence. Want to establish that your house is haunted? Walk around at night and fire off the digital camera randomly. Sooner or later, you capture the spirit that resides there. And you can tell it’s a spirit because it’s transparent

The investigation stops there. Look, evidence, toldya toldya toldya! Determining that it isn’t something mundane is not necessary. Now, let’s run around and listen for creaks for further proof! It’s the “quit while you’re ahead” style of investigation. If you dare to question it, you’re not being “open minded” — apparently questioning is the same as dismissal.

The thing is, there has never been a criteria within the US school systems of teaching critical thought and methods of testing, and this really needs to be established early on and firmly. Some individual schools or teachers manage to get it in there, but it’s never been a requirement. Frankly, I find it ten times as valuable as knowing what happened during the Revolutionary War.