From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:09:19 +0000 Archived: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:22:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:47:25 -0400 >Subject: Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >>From: Dave Haith<visions1.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:50:37 +0100 >>Subject: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement <snip> >The author of the latter video argues that the faces in >Robbert's images match warped versions of faces found in an old >YouTube video. But people's faces don't change that much over >time, so the source of the image is not particularly relevant, >especially if warping and stretching of the image is done to >optimize the match. Although some people may accept the argument >as proof of trickery, merely showing that one can reproduce an >effect does not prove that the original effect was a fraud. What >it does do is discourage any further thinking about what may be >going on. >I've been thinking about this kind of thing lately, especially >in the context of physical mediumship. It seems that >reproductions of objects that existed in the past is more the >rule than the exception. Apports, or objects that seemingly >appear in mid-air in the seance room, often seem to be from >another era as if they existed in the past. >The same can be said for photos found on unopened film after a >seance. These photos are often reproductions from books in >libraries, old newspapers, or someone's personal photo >collection. So maybe it should not be surprising that Robbert's >anomalous photos are similar to photos subsequently found >elsewhere. At the very least, it is nowhere near proof of fraud. >On the other hand, proof of the absence of fraud is hard to come >by after the fact. The procedure shown in Robbert's video is a >nod to proper control, but obviously could be much improved. At >this point, the onus for proof of fraud lies with the accuser. >In the absence of such proof, the most one can legitimately do >is reserve judgment. William: Without an explanation of Robbert's method of "capturing an image", there is no "nod to proper control". The video can very easily be manipulated. It was hard to imagine just what was going on in Robbert's video. (Note: the reference is to the YouTube images.) Who was photographing Robbert holding the camera? Where was he pointing the camera? Am I, as the observer, suppose to think that Robbert was capturing images within his camera on a blank chip when what I am observing is the image within the clip of the camera of the unnamed person photographing Robbert capturing an image in... uh, mid-air. Sorry, as someone who read protocols for a living for five years, what I saw and read was not a "nod to proper control". KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp