ectoplasm (mostly for luminon)

iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ectoplasm (mostly for luminon)

though i'm hardly anywhere near lending it credence, i've always found the idea of ectoplasm interesting.  i just finished reading hell house by richard matheson.  matheson has always been one of my favorite writers of horror and weird fiction--a lot of great twilight zone episodes were based on his work--but i found hell house to be a bit silly, especially the slapdash ending.  however, in it there is a paranormal researcher who is convinced that there are no conscious spirits and that all paranormal phenomena are projected by physical mediums utilizing electromagnetic radiation in the air.  in the book there are some interesting manifestations created from ectoplasm emanating from a medium's body.  the researcher obtains a sample and determines that its composition is purely organic, and that everything in it can be found in the human body.

so what i'm asking luminon (or anyone else who cares to weigh in), what do you think of the idea of ectoplasm?  i once read a blog by a self-professed paranormal researcher (don't remember where), and he said that any "true" paranormal expert scoffs at the notion of ectoplasm--that it doesn't really exist at all and that it's just an idea made popular by books and films.  then again, i know matheson prided himself on his knowledge of the paranormal and he claimed that nothing in hell house was "made up," but was all reworked from actual reports.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
since luminon'sd back, bump.

since luminon's back, bump.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
effects

Anyone knowledgeable about chemical/film photographic effects?   Check out these pictures:  http://www.gotsc.org/MaterializationSilverBelle.htm All I know is that this was pre-Photoshop and they look pretty good to me.   I believe these pictures were supposed to have been taken in the dark because light destroys the ectoplasm or something?   That's why the pictures were taken with "infra-red film" (whatever THAT is)?  


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
What I mean is, normally an

What I mean is, normally an infra red photo looks like this:   So I don't know what they mean by "infra red film" because those pics don't look like this.  


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
OK never mind the last

OK never mind the last post.   This is what an infrared photo looks like:   http://lightingtheway.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/infrared-photography-a-discussion-part-1-of-2/  So it could have been infra-red film used in those photos, shooting in the dark.   But if the ectoplasm isn't real then obviously they used some type of optical technology to make the effects.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Anyone

nebula wrote:

Anyone knowledgeable about chemical/film photographic effects?   Check out these pictures:  http://www.gotsc.org/MaterializationSilverBelle.htm All I know is that this was pre-Photoshop and they look pretty good to me.   I believe these pictures were supposed to have been taken in the dark because light destroys the ectoplasm or something?   That's why the pictures were taken with "infra-red film" (whatever THAT is)?  

LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

I needed a fucking good laugh today. I bet people believed this to be real! What a bunch of stooges.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:though i'm

iwbiek wrote:

though i'm hardly anywhere near lending it credence, i've always found the idea of ectoplasm interesting.  i just finished reading hell house by richard matheson.  

all and that it's just an idea made popular by books and films.  then again, i know matheson prided himself on his knowledge of the paranormal and he claimed that nothing in hell house was "made up," but was all reworked from actual reports.

Ectoplasm (the paranormal stuff) is bullshit.

Ectoplasm (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded&quotEye-wink is a term coined by Charles Richet to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.[2] Ectoplasm is said to be associated with the formation of spirits, however since World War II reports of ectoplasmic phenomena have declined and many psychical researchers doubt whether genuine cases ever existed.[3]

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Whatever.  Her face is the only part that looks flat.   Her right arm and hand look in the last pic really good, with shadows and the ectoplasm itself is good and wispy.    


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:though i'm

iwbiek wrote:

though i'm hardly anywhere near lending it credence, i've always found the idea of ectoplasm interesting.  i just finished reading hell house by richard matheson.  matheson has always been one of my favorite writers of horror and weird fiction--a lot of great twilight zone episodes were based on his work--but i found hell house to be a bit silly, especially the slapdash ending.  however, in it there is a paranormal researcher who is convinced that there are no conscious spirits and that all paranormal phenomena are projected by physical mediums utilizing electromagnetic radiation in the air.  in the book there are some interesting manifestations created from ectoplasm emanating from a medium's body.  the researcher obtains a sample and determines that its composition is purely organic, and that everything in it can be found in the human body.

so what i'm asking luminon (or anyone else who cares to weigh in), what do you think of the idea of ectoplasm?  i once read a blog by a self-professed paranormal researcher (don't remember where), and he said that any "true" paranormal expert scoffs at the notion of ectoplasm--that it doesn't really exist at all and that it's just an idea made popular by books and films.  then again, i know matheson prided himself on his knowledge of the paranormal and he claimed that nothing in hell house was "made up," but was all reworked from actual reports.

I don't find the idea of ectoplasm strange at all, as long as it's invisible. We practitioners of energy healing or other esoteric practices are quite used to strange energetic stuff emanating from people's bodies, coursing within us and floating around. Some of it, to some of us is quite tangible or perceivable. It is mostly on what we call etheric levels, a subtle counterpart of ordinary matter, no fancy extra-dimensional stuff or anything. It's the part of the world that orgonomy works with.

However, the process of materializing this stuff is what really fascinates me. I don't understand the process at all, it doesn't seem easy to me and maybe it's better that way. If the medium takes some substance from her etheric body and then materializes it (usually temporarily) then I suppose it's not healthy.

Gathering an ectoplasm from own bodily substances is one thing, something I have never seen nor heard of since the era of fashionable spiritism. Another thing is to gather something like ectoplasm from the surroundings, which is quite a different technique that I can use. There is a psychic I trust and on a rare ocassion I asked her to divinate me a chemical composition of such a substance. The composition of this "ectoplasm" was mostly gold and a radioactive element heavier than radium, plus traces of two other metals. 
Therefore, I do believe in the possibility of ectoplasm, but I consider it an artificial man-made thing, a densified etheric substance of some kind. If some people gather it from their own bodies, that's probably not wise. That website says that Ethel Post-Parish was very exhausted after her ectoplasmic spectacle, even though she managed to absorb most of the stuff back. All that to materialize a temporary form for some spirit. Good esotericists usually frown at such a cooperation, we consider it exploiting the people.

Btw, I found this book The Psychic Structures by W. J. Crawford, I am pretty sure there must be something about ectoplasm.

 

As for the spirits, I don't really follow that paranormal researcher's logic. Electromagnetic radiation in the air does not explain anything. It's measurable and if we'd project any significant amounts, doctors would already know it. EM radiation doesn't do anything, just like there are no paranormal phenomena around wifi routers. 
I rather say that we have not only this biologic body but also its subtle counterpart, the etheric body. Which can under some special circumstances interact with the dense physical world, producing interesting phenomena. The etheric and dense matter are convertible on each other, although often they revert back after a time. According to the subtle body theories we consist of multiple subtle bodies and when our biologic body dies, we continue to live in the others, some of which may also get abandoned or dissolved. Therefore we get various kinds of "spirits" or even quasi-semi-conscious remains of shed subtle bodies. Good esotericists consider that something between a vermin and environmental pollution. 

nebula wrote:
 
digitalbeachbum wrote:
 LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!! 
 Whatever.  Her face is the only part that looks flat.   Her right arm and hand look in the last pic really good, with shadows and the ectoplasm itself is good and wispy.    
Yeah, just try to make a photo-realistic image of a woman while most of your etheric innards is hanging outside in the air! Smiling 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nebula

nebula wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Whatever.  Her face is the only part that looks flat.   Her right arm and hand look in the last pic really good, with shadows and the ectoplasm itself is good and wispy.    

 

Really? Look at her shoulder and how the sleeve goes right down to her side, then look at her sleeve below her hand just stops at blackness. 

But thanks, this led me to something really bogus in Exodus about Moses speaking to God.   And I don't know where they got that "Joshua was a medium for Jehova to materialize and speak with Moses" ??  God needs mediums?

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
According to "Poltergeist"

According to "Poltergeist" this is ectoplasm;

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Anyone

nebula wrote:

Anyone knowledgeable about chemical/film photographic effects?   Check out these pictures:  http://www.gotsc.org/MaterializationSilverBelle.htm All I know is that this was pre-Photoshop and they look pretty good to me.   I believe these pictures were supposed to have been taken in the dark because light destroys the ectoplasm or something?   That's why the pictures were taken with "infra-red film" (whatever THAT is)?  

that event must be one of matheson's sources.  a nearly identical scene, cabinet and all, takes place in hell house.

seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:seriously, what

iwbiek wrote:

seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

That's not really a mirror image.   The face isn't the same shape in both.      


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:seriously, what

iwbiek wrote:

seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

Here I have flipped one:


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:iwbiek

nebula wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

Here I have flipped one:

there are slight differences, but it still looks to me like nothing a few careful shadings of a pen couldn't accomplish.  it's not as if she's grinning or squinting in one and not the other.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3191
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:According to

Kapkao wrote:

According to "Poltergeist" this is ectoplasm;

i think "ghostbusters" concurs.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Kapkao wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

According to "Poltergeist" this is ectoplasm;

i think "ghostbusters" concurs.

Nah... that's the not-so-funny second flick where NYC's collective hatred, disgust and depravity congeals in the sewers to form some pink goop that resisted GBs' "proton streams".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:digitalbeachbum

nebula wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Whatever.  Her face is the only part that looks flat.   Her right arm and hand look in the last pic really good, with shadows and the ectoplasm itself is good and wispy.    

No offense... but seriously... either you are trying to convince every one here that you think this shit is real or you are a very ignorant person.

I suppose that it could be real to those back in the early 1900's who didn't have the open mind to question every thing you see... which is why the following photo stumped professional skeptics for years until the girls actually admitted to using "cut outs" from one on of their favorite children books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

 

 

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:No

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No offense... but seriously... either you are trying to convince every one here that you think this shit is real or you are a very ignorant person.

I think it may be real and if not it's pretty impressive.  The pictures aren't as laughable (to me anyway) as you're making them out to be.   Those wisps of ectoplasm are the most impressive and they clearly weren't done with "cardboard cutouts" of all things.
 

So you're saying that that A or B must be true:
 

A.   I'm trying to convince you all that I THINK IT'S REAL (which is not the same as trying to convince you that it IS real.)  No, this one would be incorrect.   If have a personal belief about something I don't feel the need to convince people that I really do believe it.  They generally just believe that I believe it.  I'm also not trying to convince you that it IS real because I'm undecided about it.   I don't know what to think of them.   I need more information.  
 

B.   I'm an ignorant person.   This one is correct as far as photographic double exposures or whatever technology was used here.  I am completely lacking in knowledge or training on this and that is why I asked if anyone can explain how they were done.  Me asking if anyone is knowledgeable is basically conveying my own ignorance on the subject, isn't it?   Since you're apparently so non-ignorant as far as photographic processes, how did they make those wisps of ectoplasm?   Cotton, paint, chemicals on the negative plate, what?  I'm also ignorant about that photographer.   If he is recorded to have been involved with other known photographic hoaxes, that would be telling.   "Ignorant" doesn't mean the same thing as "stupid" by the way.   You seem confused about the meaning of the word.  

digitalbeachbum wrote:
     
I suppose that it could be real to those back in the early 1900's who didn't have the open mind to question every thing you see... which is why the following photo stumped professional skeptics for years until the girls actually admitted to using "cut outs" from one on of their favorite children books.

 

It says this seance happened in 1953.   You think that's EARLY 1900s? 
 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

though i'm hardly anywhere near lending it credence, i've always found the idea of ectoplasm interesting.  i just finished reading hell house by richard matheson.  matheson has always been one of my favorite writers of horror and weird fiction--a lot of great twilight zone episodes were based on his work--but i found hell house to be a bit silly, especially the slapdash ending.  however, in it there is a paranormal researcher who is convinced that there are no conscious spirits and that all paranormal phenomena are projected by physical mediums utilizing electromagnetic radiation in the air.  in the book there are some interesting manifestations created from ectoplasm emanating from a medium's body.  the researcher obtains a sample and determines that its composition is purely organic, and that everything in it can be found in the human body.

We should withhold opinion until we do as Matheson suggests, wait until the chemical analysis report is in.

But if you cannot wait consider the following.

Ectoplasm was not reported during the thousands of years of talking to the dead until the invention of photography at at time when photographers did their own developing. It was often clearly stated that only through the magic of the newly invented photography that it became visible. The photos were of the same medium in the same dark room as the seance but no evidence it was taken when the witnesses were there.

It has not been reported since developing photos came to be done by third parties even though the prevalence of cameras increased by orders of magnitude.

Are there any questions?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
Anyone knowledgeable about chemical/film photographic effects?   Check out these pictures:  http://www.gotsc.org/MaterializationSilverBelle.htm All I know is that this was pre-Photoshop and they look pretty good to me.   I believe these pictures were supposed to have been taken in the dark because light destroys the ectoplasm or something?   That's why the pictures were taken with "infra-red film" (whatever THAT is)?  

Do you have monitor near death? The spirit is clearly an illustration. Compare the details and shades of gray in the women and their clothing and everything else to the illustration.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
LMAO... wtf? Is that? A card board cut out of some painting? LMAO  HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Whatever.  Her face is the only part that looks flat.   Her right arm and hand look in the last pic really good, with shadows and the ectoplasm itself is good and wispy.

Statements like that are just this side of the line of saying, it looks like what real ectoplasm looks like.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

That's not really a mirror image.   The face isn't the same shape in both.

Notice the ornament on the head band is over a different eye in each picture. If the head just turned the headband was held still. OR the image was simply reversed.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

nebula wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

seriously, what a crock of shit.  when "silver belle" turns to her right ton "bless" the people in the last photo, her face is obviously just a reverse image of the face in the next to last photo.  it's clear they didn't expect their audience to be terribly incredulous.  imagine that...

Here I have flipped one:

there are slight differences, but it still looks to me like nothing a few careful shadings of a pen couldn't accomplish.  it's not as if she's grinning or squinting in one and not the other.

Lines drawn through the eyes have the same angle to the horizontal. So do lines through the mouths.

The differences in "expression" are consistent with the "brighter" face washing out more black causing the features to appear smaller.

While photoshop is incredibly easy to pirate www.gimp.org has more functionality than most people will every need or use and it is free. It is fun to play with and it is free. As a learning exercise it is easy to see the effects of trivial changes. Did I mention it is free?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
These fairies seem

These fairies seem suspiciously antropomorphic, clothed and sharply photographed to me. This is quite different from how the devas of nature are supposed to look like, devic evolution should be rather similar in diversity and looks to the plant life or coral reef inhabitants. Devas aren't human (chordata, mammalia), they do not think as we do and they are more like collective beings, working in larger groups. So much for theory, which was so far useful to me. It will take some evidence before I re-think that and start taking these kitshy fairies seriously.

Also, I suppose these little critters do not have any special skills with photographic technology. I've seen subtle energetic shapes on photographs and they mostly looked like crap. I'd rather trust the Mahatmas, who would be better suited to the task of doctoring the photos.

Look, this photography is supposed to have a glass original in the British museum. If I remember, the historical story is that it was taken with Jelena Petrovna sitting on the chair alone and the men behind her materialized later on the photograph. 

From now on, W.W.J.D. is going to stand for What Would Jelena Do? Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
Nah... that's the not-so-funny second flick where NYC's collective hatred, disgust and depravity congeals in the sewers to form some pink goop that resisted GBs' "proton streams".

These days everyone knows the reason to cross the proton streams is to search for the Higg's boson.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nebula wrote:
...I am completely lacking in knowledge or training on this and that is why I asked if anyone can explain how they were done.  Me asking if anyone is knowledgeable is basically conveying my own ignorance on the subject, isn't it? .

If you mean exactly how then there is likely no answer unless someone can find the confessions of the people who made them. For the first century and a half it was all wet chemical processes. There were a half dozen or so popular ones. Kodak developed an easy and reliable one. I doubt there are many people today who have experimented producing ectoplasm photos. Disolving chemicals during the development process is one obvious place to start. I mean as a trickle of crystals that disolve and inhibit or enhance the process. Or simply failure to agitate the container during the process.

All this before getting into double exposures, wires and small objects close to the camera. Remember we never see the failures where the wires are obvious. From there we can go to exposed the print from the negative where dodging out imperfections and burning the good parts was a talent of all good darkroom jockies. Dodging out wires is obvious.

What strikes me in most of the pictures is how the detail of the ectolasm is so very like enlarged images of tobacco smoke.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:These fairies

Luminon wrote:

These fairies seem suspiciously antropomorphic, clothed and sharply photographed to me. This is quite different from how the devas of nature are supposed to look like, devic evolution should be rather similar in diversity and looks to the plant life or coral reef inhabitants. Devas aren't human (chordata, mammalia), they do not think as we do and they are more like collective beings, working in larger groups. So much for theory, which was so far useful to me. It will take some evidence before I re-think that and start taking these kitshy fairies seriously.

Also, I suppose these little critters do not have any special skills with photographic technology. I've seen subtle energetic shapes on photographs and they mostly looked like crap. I'd rather trust the Mahatmas, who would be better suited to the task of doctoring the photos.

Look, this photography is supposed to have a glass original in the British museum. If I remember, the historical story is that it was taken with Jelena Petrovna sitting on the chair alone and the men behind her materialized later on the photograph. 

From now on, W.W.J.D. is going to stand for What Would Jelena Do? Smiling

 

Totally fake looking. The three men look like cardboard.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Luminon wrote:

These fairies seem suspiciously antropomorphic, clothed and sharply photographed to me. This is quite different from how the devas of nature are supposed to look like, devic evolution should be rather similar in diversity and looks to the plant life or coral reef inhabitants. Devas aren't human (chordata, mammalia), they do not think as we do and they are more like collective beings, working in larger groups. So much for theory, which was so far useful to me. It will take some evidence before I re-think that and start taking these kitshy fairies seriously.

Also, I suppose these little critters do not have any special skills with photographic technology. I've seen subtle energetic shapes on photographs and they mostly looked like crap. I'd rather trust the Mahatmas, who would be better suited to the task of doctoring the photos.

Look, this photography is supposed to have a glass original in the British museum. If I remember, the historical story is that it was taken with Jelena Petrovna sitting on the chair alone and the men behind her materialized later on the photograph. 

From now on, W.W.J.D. is going to stand for What Would Jelena Do? Smiling

 

Totally fake looking. The three men look like cardboard.

 

I can find nothing about this photo online. I did searches for  Jelena Petrovna and ghosts

but could not find anything related to it.

 

(edit)

LMAO. I went to the URL of that picture and then bumped up to the main page. LMAO... talk about a fake picture. That website is a complete conspiracy theory beehive. I glanced through some of the shit and it's this complete hodgepodge of bullshit oozing over every paragraph of the page.

I had to close the page quickly because it was starting to infect my screen...

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I can

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I can find nothing about this photo online. I did searches for  Jelena Petrovna and ghosts

but could not find anything related to it.

 

(edit)

LMAO. I went to the URL of that picture and then bumped up to the main page. LMAO... talk about a fake picture. That website is a complete conspiracy theory beehive. I glanced through some of the shit and it's this complete hodgepodge of bullshit oozing over every paragraph of the page.

I had to close the page quickly because it was starting to infect my screen...

Yeah, the website is astral crap, I just needed to find that particular photograph of (as Russians pronounce) Jelena Petrovna Blavatsky, a.k.a. HPB. So I took a random one from Google Images. The photograph itself is quite famous and doesn't have anything to do with modern conspiracy theories.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I can find nothing about this photo online. I did searches for  Jelena Petrovna and ghosts

but could not find anything related to it.

 

(edit)

LMAO. I went to the URL of that picture and then bumped up to the main page. LMAO... talk about a fake picture. That website is a complete conspiracy theory beehive. I glanced through some of the shit and it's this complete hodgepodge of bullshit oozing over every paragraph of the page.

I had to close the page quickly because it was starting to infect my screen...

Yeah, the website is astral crap, I just needed to find that particular photograph of (as Russians pronounce) Jelena Petrovna Blavatsky, a.k.a. HPB. So I took a random one from Google Images. The photograph itself is quite famous and doesn't have anything to do with modern conspiracy theories.

 

I've yet to see any pictures which lead me to believe there was any thing worth while other than a skilled photographer who tricked people. Most other photos are really crappy and terrible over exposures, double negatives or damaged equipment/negatives.

 

I submit the following website for a ton of fake pictures (which they claim are real)

http://www.angelsghosts.com/famous_real_ghost_pictures.html

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


cherrie.ca (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I have seen ectoplasm , if

I have seen ectoplasm , if you would be interested in this I could tell you all of what I saw....


nude0007 and a half (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
fake fotos

 The obvious photo of the princess could easily be different in the two photos because it is a projection onto a surface in the area where the "ectoplasm" is. This would cause distortions if it is a sheet which could be moving due to air currents or someone behind the screen (which supplied the real-looking hands) touching the screen, distorting the projected image.