Bullshit cliches

>>18527386
Well, I dont believe in ghosts, but that makes a little bit of sense assuming the ghost are only visible in a certain spectrum. Cameras record a wider spectrum of light. You can for example see the infrared light from a remote control through most digital cameras

>>18527386
Ghosts and spirits are bullshit though. No such thing as souls. All bullshit.

>>18527398
The spirit camera clitche predates digital cameras by a century. The whole craze started shortly after photography was invented, you can even see some of those pictures which are basically exposure hoaxes. And i don't think an immaterial entity like a spirit emits an infrared radiation, which is basically heat.

>>18527409
Yeah, fair enough. Just saying, it might not be completely non-sensical in all cases.

But how about the nature of the ghosts itself? So they are somehow only sometimes able to interact with physical objects and all they do is slightly annoying stuff like open doors and throw shit from a table?
Or how does "EVP" make any sense?
I also hate the whole "ghost are restless souls" cliche. If not being at peace with death makes a ghost, there should be billions of ghosts all over the place.

>>18527430
>But how about the nature of the ghosts itself? So they are somehow only sometimes able to interact with physical objects and all they do is slightly annoying stuff like open doors and throw shit from a table?
>Or how does "EVP" make any sense?

Fake. I think the only way to communicate with spirits is in trance, which is like tuning the radio of your consciousness to their frequency.

>>18527453
frequency of what?

>>18527463
I don't know. It was just a metaphorical explanation.

>>18527386
>>A camera can register a Tulpa that a human eye cannot

File: flir_20170115T212554.jpg (321KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 640x480px

>>18527386

>cameras can't see things we can't see

Hahahahahahahaha

>>18527386
It's conceivable. Our brains are complex, imperfect pattern recognition machines. It's been proven we can imagine stuff that isn't there, based on misinterpreted visual cues. Why couldn't we also "tune out" things that really are there for psychological or physiological reasons?

deus ex machina 'n shit.

camera>>>human eye.

>>18527386
Digital most certainly can't, but old school cameras the used a vacumetube used to directly imprint electromagnetic radiation onto the film making it very possible to have things that are outside our spectrum. The spectrum we can see is the tiniest fraction of our universe

>>18530146

>electromagnetic radiation

Just say light nigger

>>18529632
op is an idiot.

>>18530179
Light implies on and near our visible spectrum, things get very different outside of what we can see and continue to distort as the universe ages, so light is not really an appropriot word. Yes that means you can see it on the photo, its only things that lie just outside of what out eyes can pick up that can often refract and intern blended with visible 'light' as you wish said