Photographic trickery part 2

Apparently I need to address a comment I made in my last post in which I gave the general public too much credit. On the topic of orbs, I said,

I've been over these before in my post about spirit photography and most people wouldn't give any credence to them anyway, so I think I can skip these.

In a recent conversation with Bryan Bonner of Rocky Mountain Paranormal, he informed me of the dismaying fact that orb photos are making a come back. Now, I can explain what causes these anomalies, but the likely reply would be that the photographer can tell the difference between dust motes and a "real" spirit orb. So let me offer this; In the real world, no form of energy floats around in blobs or spheres and the only energy you might find escaping a dead person is heat. So what are these things, if not bugs, dust or moisture? Any other explanation should be considered special pleading. Some non- falsifiable idea that someone made up to perpetuate whatever belief they've created to make themselves feel good and special.

Anyway...
Suppose you've come across a picture that doesn't quite fit into the aforementioned categories, what can you do? First off, whatever your gut might say about it "not looking right" or if you can " just tell" carries no more weight than any paranormal proponent boasting "I know what I saw". You might not be able to identify whether a picture is legitimate or not, but there are a few tips for judging the pictures source.

First of all, be aware that any paranormal group touting that they use the scientific method in their investigative process is committing a fallacious appeal to authority and is inadvertently revealing their misunderstanding of science. This claim does not add credibility to any form of "evidence" they might offer. Remember, in order for their investigation to be a legitimate experiment, they must first form a falsifiable hypothesis. Is the existence or presence of ghosts falsifiable? No. That house of cards falls apart faster than it's being built.

Second, you should question their scrutiny of their own evidence. Many groups claim to take their photos to experts for analysis and return with what looks like a Warhol print of "photoshop detecting filters". When the picture inevitably passes this test, they can then claim that it "baffles the experts!".
 Here is an example: http://www.lakelureghost.com/Proofing_the_Picture.html
You might recognize this as the motion blur picture from my previous post. This effect was created in-camera, so even if the mentioned "photoshop detecting filters" were in any way affective, they wouldn't apply to this case.
Here I have taken a Photoshopped image and run it through the same process, which is really only adjusting the levels and curves, and in no frame is it more apparent that the image was altered.

These people are trying to up- sell their evidence through lies and manipulation, appealing to so called experts, thinking that they will gain credibility, it would seem. The more people become aware of these tricks, the less they will work.

Spotting photographic and video trickery (without the technical knowledge) part 1

  First and foremost, when attempting to identify gaffed media, remember that you typically cannot prove definitively that it is a hoax without all of the information. That being said, The first step one should take is getting familiar with the main offenders. These are the most commonly presented forms of paranormal evidence.

A Fool's Gambit

Like the rest of the paranormal "theories" pertaining to ghosts that I have heard, the explanation invoking the first law of thermodynamics has been regurgitated so often in the paranormal echo- chamber that I cannot trace it's origins. I have to wonder how that misappropriated notion has survived so long. Did our nation's public school fail us or is it simply a bluff given with the idea that if it sounds scientific, it's good enough?

The first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy is often given as a possible explanation of what comprises a ghost and how it came to be. Whether this misunderstanding is what led many investigators to believe ghosts are made of "energy" or that it was given as a supportive hypothesis of the former in unknown to me and, most likely, to the claimant as well. Though the underlying concept is a pretty common one. It's the general misinterpretation of energy itself.

What is energy really? Energy is a scalar, that is, a quantity of a system's ability to produce changes or do work. In this sense, some one saying "Ghosts are just energy" would be equivalent to saying "Ghosts are just length" or any other measurable quantity. To those making the claim, are human bodies like a jar of fireflies, buzzing with a swarm of glowing, free-floating energy that escapes the moment we die?

If that were the case, then I think they'd most likely speaking of energy in the metaphysical sense. Life force, ki, prana, kundalini, or spirit is the ever-present force connecting all things, giving life, creating auras, and the base of most alternative medicine. It's also a handy reference to explain anything paranormal. While many cultures believe in some form of a life force or another, this "energy" of the body is not detectable in any way beyond the claims of self proclaimed sensitives. And why should it be? It is not energy in the physical sense, so the laws of physics need not govern it, right? If that is indeed the case, then conservation of energy would not apply and that "theory" is busted.

At this point, some might still ask, "What happens to our body's energy when we die, then?"

This is pretty simple to explain. Being that the body is dead, it no longer needs to take in any energy in the form of food. The remaining energy in the body is radiated off as heat and the rest of the chemical energy stored in our tissues is consumed by the body's environment.

I think that pretty well dismisses the idea of spirits lingering due to the first law of thermodynamics, but be warned. After raising these points in a discussion with a believer, be prepared for the guaranteed "Science doesn't understand everything." response.

The Burden of Proof

More and more skeptical themed websites and blogs are popping up now-a-days. While I appreciate this trend, it's also producing more dilemmas for the skeptical community. I have been seeing more and more "debunking" of photos and videos lately and it has me thinking, just because someone has created a more plausible explanation doesn't automatically deem the subject debunked. The explanation might just be as much bunk as the original claim. For instance, I have seen several videos debunking the video of the Savanna cemetery ghost. While it could have been spanish moss or a deliberate hoax, both concepts are pure speculation. There's nothing wrong with coming up with alternate suggestions, but substantial proof is still necessary. It's a double edged sword.
Same with this photo that's been making the rounds on the paranormal forums.

While it could has been created with photoshop, it also could have been created by shooting through a pane of glass, or just a lousy picture taken in a poorly lit environment. If we skeptics demand solid proof, I think we owe it to the rest of the crowd to give the same. As for this photo, There are many ways it could be duplicated, but I cannot make any claims about it. I don't have enough information.

We skeptics are supposed to be the rational ones. Let's try and set an example.

Swamp monster duplicity

Although I'm getting a little sick of it, more evidence has come to light.

This picture has been making the rounds and most sources point to this thread on archerytalk.com.

Sources provided a screen cap of the post, too.

Also provided were the alleged original files:

What's nice about having the original files is that you can examine the EXIF data. Unfortunately, these were not the original files and have both been edited. However, the pixel size of these pictures do not correspond with each other, which suggests manipulation.



So, we're relatively sure that the monster image has been manipulated. The next step is searching for traces of it.

One odd thing I noted is that every leaf and twig seem to be in the exact position in the two photos, as can be seen in this superimposition:

What's odd about that is that, according to the time stamps, these pictures were taken nine days apart. You would expect to see some change. Though, this image proves that the deer photo was not the original photo. The only detectable trace of manipulation I could find is the dark "halo" around the monsters head. Originally I thought that it could have been a shadow, but the IR light cast from the camera originates in the center and this dark area stretches to the left (center). This seems to indicate that the smudge tool was used to blend the foreign object (the monster) into the background image.

None of this evidence supports or denies the claims made that this is a part of a viral marketing campaign of any sort, However it does support the fact that this is a digitally manipulated image.

Now taking requests

Shadow of a Doubt has expanded and is now taking submissions. This new service offers professional analysis and interpretation of alleged evidence of the paranormal.

Shadow of a Doubt Consulting Supernatural Claims Investigations

Swamp Monster addendum

Update: Playstationlifestyle.net postulates that the swamp monster photo is part of a viral marketing campaign for the upcoming Resistance 3. Insomniac games' tweeted

Whoops… looks like one got out. If you see a Grim on the loose… please return to Insomniac Games, Burbank, CA: http://bit.ly/fqGoXX

.
The "Grim" is a new strain of the Chimera enemy that first appeared in Resistance 2.


I make no claims to the accuracy of this report.

Newer update:
More internet speculation. According to Movieweb.com, this image is Super 8 viral marketing that began on a hunting supply site's Facebook page and wended its way to mainstream media:

It first appeared on Wildgame Innovation's Facebook page. It is a picture reportedly snapped by a deer hunter on a reserve in Berwick, near Morgan City, Louisianna [sic]. It was originally being passed off as real, but now inside sources close to the production say its actually a viral image from Super 8 (the Steven Spielberg-produced and J.J. Abrams-directed alien flick ). There is even video from a young Weirton, West Virginia extra called "Crying Girl", who talks about having a run in with this creature in the movie.

I'm going to maintain the position that this is just a simple hoax for now.