If the quotes and accuracy of this piece of fluff are accurate, catholics are even more irrational that I ever suspected.
Worst piece of pareidolia ever?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle346661.ece
THIS figure in the flames is being hailed as a miracle image of the late Pope John Paul II.
The apparent outline of the deceased pontiff raising his hand in a blessing appeared during a ceremony near the Pole’s birthplace to mark the second anniversary of his death.
It then vanished in a pall of smoke.
Yesterday the picture was broadcast continuously on Vatican News Service TV in Italy.
Its director Jarek Cielecki, a Polish priest and close friend of the former pontiff, said: “I think it is the servant of God, Pope John Paul II.”
Religious websites also carried the photo.
At least one crashed because thousands of people were trying to look at it.
Polish cameraman Gregorz Lukasik took the snap on a brand new camera in April.
He said: “It was only when I got home and looked at the pictures I realised I had something.
“I was so happy I showed it to our bishop, who said Pope John Paul made many pilgrimages during his life and was still making them in death.”
Looks more like Count Dooku to me.
I first thought of a ghost from Scooby DooOriginally Posted by Matt
FarSideoftheMoon - you read the Sun!? :)
It's a long story...
A long story in The Sun? That's a first.
'Rowf rowf rarrrr grhost is ...oow ....heere shaaggy!'
But of course its not a ghost...rip off the sheet and it is the corrupt factory owner trying to get money from the insurance.
Who is Count Dooku Matt? Ive heard of Count Duckula.....:)
Hi,
Fortean at most and I have seen a picture similar taken of fire flames, which looked just like a dragon. Whether it is paranormal or whether it is not it is still quite an interesting story.
BillB
does this mean the pope is in hell?
It's not. Wow, that was interesting.
Digital cameras have a lot to answer for. With millions of crap photographers all over the world snapping away at bonfires and the like I suspect we will all have to suffer plenty more rubbish pictures of the Virgin Mary, Jesus, the Pope, Caspar the Friendly Ghost, dead Aunty Mable or just interesting looking specks of dust for a long time to come.
Digital cameras are the best thing to happen in photography for decades! They are superior in every way but one (less latitude) to film. The ability to control the look of photos in the field is fantastic (white balance, sensitivity, resolution, etc.). Their colour rendition is better. The EXIF facility is absolutely terrific. Any camera over about 6 megapixels actually has higher resolution than 35mm film! I suspect that those photographers who are sticking with film either have too much invested in their old kit or they are the ones who never really liked the introduction of colour film. I could go on but I'm sure I'd bore people.
I think it is some of the people who take photos rather than the equipment that you should be taking to task.
Digital cameras have been a godsend to Woos.Digital cameras are the best thing to happen in photography for decades! They are superior in every way but one (less latitude) to film. The ability to control the look of photos in the field is fantastic (white balance, sensitivity, resolution, etc.). Their colour rendition is better. The EXIF facility is absolutely terrific. Any camera over about 6 megapixels actually has higher resolution than 35mm film! I suspect that those photographers who are sticking with film either have too much invested in their old kit or they are the ones who never really liked the introduction of colour film. I could go on but I'm sure I'd bore people.
I think it is some of the people who take photos rather than the equipment that you should be taking to task.
The fact that a digital camera stores so many pictures leads to snap happiness. The more random pictures you can take of bonfires, dusty darkened rooms, outdoor settings in poor light and in rain etc. without setting the camera up properly, he more "paranormal" photos you are going to get. At least with 35mm you had to conserve your film, compose your shots carefully and so forth.
The design of many digital cameras with the flash within milimeters of the lense leads to anomolies (so I am told) such as the "orb" phenomenon.
And then you have Photoshop, allowing any Tom, Dick and Herbert to zoom in looking for ghostly faces, doctoring the images...etc...etc..
I agree that people take more photos than with film. However, the flash on digital cameras is not generally nearer to the lens than in film cameras. The reason why orbs appeared was the greatly increased depth of field in digital cameras, a consequence of the smaller physical size of the sensor, compared to the 35mm film frame. As for Photoshop, you can scan film photos into a computer and do the same things as with digital pictures so that would have happened even without digital cameras.
Apart from orbs, most digital camera photographic anomalies are much the same as they were with film (many depending on automatated features of cameras). EXIF is a huge help in analysing photographic anomalies. You can now easily prove if flash was used or there was a long exposure. Even now people are surprised when you tell them they used flash and they weren't aware of it.
On the whole, I would say, yes there are more anomalies reported but they are easier to analyse. The advantages of digital photography hugely outweigh any slight problems it may introduce.
Whatever the reason, digital cameras certainly do seem to produce "orbs" much more readily than film cameras. In forty years using film cameras to document excursions into tunnels, caves and old buildings I don't think I saw any examples of "orbs" in my pics - yet my first such venture with a digi camera produced several. I didn't spot them myself, someone else noticed them after I'd put the pics online. See pics 55 and 135 of http://www.bpears.org.uk/Albums/Ravensworth/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks