Comments for Skepticopia

Comment on Ghost Photography III – Fraud by Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 04 May 2012 23:45:15 +0000

Vacation party ghost final note:

Look at the wood wall behind the group. Look at the higher of the two framed pictures. See the mouldings on either side of it. Look at the left moulding and follow the straight line down. This is a constant line reference. In the “normal” photo the line goes behind a womans head (perhaps her ear to be more accurate). When the “mystery guest” appears, the woman has moved over enough (the reference line is no longer behind her head) to allow the “mystery guest” to sit down somehow perhaps uncomfortably (she must of moved during the photo, she look blurred!). That was very nice of her to move over like that so that everyone could sit down (although the woman in the blue green shirt now looks much more squashed). Why is that table so small? Waiter, Get Them A Larger Table!

Comment on Ghost Photography II – Ghost Stories by Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 04 May 2012 22:36:31 +0000

Look carefully behind “Freddy Jackson”! There is a ghost standing behind him to his upper left! You can see his face! Ghosts even have ghosts following them around too!!
Or maybe its just some people standing behind the group not really part of that particular squadron. You wouldnt want to ruin someone elses picture would you?

Comment on Ghost Photography III – Fraud by Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 04 May 2012 08:42:02 +0000

Regarding vacation party ghost:
The “mystery guest” does seem to look a lot like the woman sitting to the right (its left, somewhat behind) wearing some different clothing. Perhaps its the same person. Maybe its a ghostly relative. Is the photographers wife or girlfriend in the photo? Who is she? Has anyone contacted these people and asked each of them what they know about this? Where did this photo really come from? Perhaps I dont know a ghost when I really see one…

Comment on Anti-gay? Then you’re probably bisexual! by daniel

daniel — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:21:01 +0000

Did you read the rationale of my article? I agree that some members of the gay community can be a bit stupid on the idea of bisexuality…but it’s not every member of the gay community. Bisexuality is real, it does exist. Homophobia is the fear of same sex intimacy…and this article makes no claims that it is not. Where does the fear come from? That is the question that the article tries to answer…you should try reading it…

Comment on Anti-gay? Then you’re probably bisexual! by Mat

Mat — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:14:12 +0000

I came out in high school as bisexual, and other guys told me they felt the same way but one of those who said this was a Mormon who told me I should “fight” it. BUT I also have to say that the gay community has made it extremely difficult for me at times, because I don’t exist!

The origins of homophobia is fear of same sex intimacy how can you fight homophobia if much of the gay community refuses to acknowledge the origins of it.

Comment on GIANT KILLER COMET OF DEATH!! (or not) by ReadArticlesBetter

ReadArticlesBetter — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:23:32 +0000

In the first BBC article and in many many other articles this comet is described as the “Largest and brightest comet ever seen”.

Comment on GIANT KILLER COMET OF DEATH!! (or not) by daniel

daniel — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:18:58 +0000

It’s been a couple of years since I wrote this, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think I was going with the “The size of the nucleus (the solid center of the comet)is approximately 0.5 to 0.7 kilometers. 1 kilometer = 0.6 miles”

If the nucleus was 1/2 (.5) a kilometer, then it would stand to reason that if there are .6 mi in a full kilometer, then there would be .3 miles in a 1/2 kilometer, right? .3 miles = 1/3 mile.

I have seen no statement from a scientist that states that the fact that it didn’t break up (if this is, in fact, a fact) is anomalous. You’ll have to hit me with a source there.

Comment on GIANT KILLER COMET OF DEATH!! (or not) by Michael Sanders

Michael Sanders — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:43:05 +0000

Are you sure about the 1/3Mi diameter. I can’t find that listed in the links or on SOHO. It did leave a tail several AU in length. And it did not break up as expected in the solar wind or corona. That at least is an anomaly. This suggests it was a bit bigger than 1/3 Mile. Although one site did suggest it wasn’t made of just ice. That may have kept it together.

Comment on Ghost Photography I – Camera Quirks by daniel

daniel — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:18 +0000

Well, two things:

1. I believe that the reason for this is that a)the film was exposed to the background for FAR longer than the film was exposed to the person, and b) dark colors absorb light, light colors reflect light. The person was wearing dark clothing which was against a dark background. Only light areas are reflected back to the lens. Note that we are only able to see the very light parts of his body, his face and his light-exposed right side. If you were to remove the light areas there would be no trace of him.

2. Even if this explanation was not satisfactory, why jump to “it’s a ghost”? We do not have a scientifically verified ghost to compare it to. Let’s get through all of the scientifically plausible explanations before we go to the supernatural.

Comment on Ghost Photography I – Camera Quirks by Skylar

Skylar — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:23:20 +0000

How do you explain the fact that only the mans head, right arm and part of the torso are showing. If this photo was taken the way you believe it was, wouldn’t it make more sense that the figures entire body would be shown, like in your experiment?