The Paranormal Blog

Why is it that some people wish to be lied to .... or should I say do not want honest, neutral, and objective opinions on their blurry, photographic "evidence" of the paranormal?

For Matthew's original rant read here.

This morning I received a message in my inbox stating that our organization was unprofessional, and a waste of time. Fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I thought I'd share this person's reasoning as to why. This has not been the first time we have been labelled thusly I assure you.

Last week I received a traffic cam capture from Ottawa, Ontario that had been printed out on plain paper. The scene depicted in the capture was a car accident that had occurred on July 1st. And before you ask ....there were no reported fatalities (not that this would matter really).

The scanned in version of this capture shows what appears to be a "face" that is hanging in mid-air. It is very grainy.

The sender was also kind enough to send in two more scanned images taken after the cam refreshed, which do not contain said "face."

As per norm I asked the opinion of our staff, which includes professional photographers that we often consult with, and they agreed that this image was nothing more than a case of pareidolia (the erroneous perception of a pattern or meaning in something that is actually ambiguous or random). We purposefully consult with professional and amateur photographers that do not have a strong interest or belief in the subject as we want objective opinions.

So my response to the sender was worded as a thank you, your image is interesting, here is what those with photographic expertise say, but I am willing to give it the benefit of a doubt and state I am not 100% certain what it is. Nice neutral answer ... right?

And that dear gentle reader is what instigated the rather nasty missive received this morning.

For stating the opinion of more than one photographer, and remaining neutral we are branded as unprofessional and a waste of time. Translate that to: I asked for your opinion, but only wish to hear it if it validates my own.

Furthermore I was told that the editor of the Ottawa Citizen (a local paper that has interviewed us in the past) would not publish this capture, but did suggest to our sender to contact the National Enquirer (the obvious, in our opinion, meaning behind this suggestion, apparently lost on our sender). My eyes were rolling upon reading that as I'm certain yours are as well.......

I have no doubts that the sender of this image will find EXACTLY what he is looking for. In my opinion, a group or individual that will publish this capture and proclaim it a genuine "ghost" or "proof of life after death" much as we see many dust particles caught in people's flashes announced as such.

This has happened with us in the past. We once stumbled across a photo that we were able to clearly demonstrate was the result of natural causes, only to appear weeks later, cropped in photoshop removing the ability to prove natural origin, on a large American ghost website .... yep, "certified" as a "true" ghost photo. I am not kidding!

Will history repeat itself?

In the case of this traffic cam capture from Ottawa I would bet the farm (if I owned one) it will. I know of several groups in this country alone that would be happy to publish it and tell this man exactly what he wants to hear whether they actually believe it themselves or are charlatans of which this field of study has more than it's fair share. And he will find them.

Perhaps in this man's opinion that IS professional .... thankfully to the majority I am sure it is not .....

Posted by Sue Darroch