| View previous topic | View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scary bloke
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield
|
|
|
... |
|
 Back to top |
Sharla Tann
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 161
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Apparent paranormal venues. |
 |
|
| Scary bloke wrote: |
Sharli tan watch the video through before
giving a review or you won't know how it went |
People report seeing ghosts.
People cannot see infra-red.
Your images are generated entirely by reflections of infra-red light.
You are relying entirely on the supposition that whatever people see, is capable of registering an image when only infra-red light is present.
Can you see the problem?
Next time just take a torch, then you won't scare the life out of someone coming the other way. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
flossy
Moderator
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 4921
Location: UK tyne/wear (geordie land)
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
those woods looked like a scene from the slenderman game  very spooky! |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good points raised by Sharla methinks...
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Scary bloke
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you both really that dim after attempting to debunk things that much for so long?
We SEE with our eyes = personal experience.
We record with INFRARED because we can't see in that frequency of light.
I would have taken a U.V camera, only I only have two hands and the other was holding a digital still camera.
We document in as many frequencies as we can, as a back up to that of which we can experience.
It is a personal journey and I put these video's on here to share the location NOT the interactions. If you see anything? Well done, but I'm not gonna tell you theres anything there.
Dear me sometimes. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Sharla Tann
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scary bloke wrote: |
We record with INFRARED because we can't see in that frequency of light. |
Either you can't grasp the point or you just don't have an answer. Why record a part of the spectrum that can be eliminated from responsibility for anything seen by a human? |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keep at him Sharla 
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Scary bloke
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because we can't see it and we can't discount it just because we can't see it. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean its not there?
Oh dear. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Sharla Tann
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scary bloke wrote: | Because we can't see it and we can't discount it just because we can't see it. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean its not there?
|
The problem is that by not supplying a source of visible light, you're ensuring that you don't register any entity that may be visible only under that part of the spectrum, unless the entity happens to be a light source in itself. Even if the latter were the case, you have the potential problem that your camera's receptors will be swamped by the infrared, preventing anything else from registering.
If you restrict yourself to part of the spectrum in which nothing has ever been recorded or reported, I say that you are to say the least wasting an opportunity. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3196
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sharla Tann wrote: | | by not supplying a source of visible light, you're ensuring that you don't register any entity |
I agree.
I never understood people 'investigating' in the dark without a visible source of light, as I can see no reason why it would make it more likely to experience any paranormal ativity. It just makes it more likely for people to get spooked (especially after just listening to tales of supposed ghosts at the location, which usually happens) and imagine seeing or hearing something. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
GavKnight
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 112
Location: Ollerton, Notts
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it , all scary bloke said was here's a video of me walking round some apparently haunted locations and suddenly evryone demands evidence, as if the video itself wasn't enough evidence that he went  |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Scary bloke
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's what they always do Gavknight.
I am walking around a wood showing the wood in infrared because if I used standard red light settings it would be a black video as it was night. Should anything manifest at any point within the Infrared spectrum, then the camera would document it. Plus should anything been documented in infrared light frequency I wouldn't have seen it at the time. During standard investigations I use I.R, U.V and red light cameras so as to document interactions.
I also use a sensor array and audio analysis equipment while running the investigation from outside the environment so as not to cause pollution. The videos I have put on here are not indepth investigations. They are either inquiries,events or walk throughs. These are casual walk throughs giving people who are unable to get there, the opportunities of taking the virtual walk with me. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Sharla Tann
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GavKnight wrote: | | I don't get it , all scary bloke said was here's a video of me walking round some apparently haunted locations and suddenly everyone demands evidence |
I don't see anybody demanding any evidence of anything. I'm purely trying to get a rationale for a blatant shortcoming of methodology, but getting nothing back but the usual irrelevant drivel. Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things; I'm sure he'll remain contented for as long as he can continue to impress the northern pyjama brigade with his nonsensical claptrap. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Scary bloke
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are talking like a naughty child.
Got to have the last say, with none of it having any relevance.
Anyone got anything productive to say (without childish showing off and stamping feet)
If you can't be pro active-don't be active. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3196
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GavKnight wrote: | | I don't get it , all scary bloke said was here's a video of me walking round some apparently haunted locations and suddenly evryone demands evidence, as if the video itself wasn't enough evidence that he went |
I wasn't having a go at Ian, I was just saying in general I think it is pointless doing paranormal investigating in the dark without a visible source of light, and so I also believe IR is pointless. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Worldofghosts 24 hour chat room
