Multiple apparitions reported in Egypt today

mardybumbum

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It is not edited beyond the addition of a caption.

I dont believe that for a second.

How is it important to realise the photo was edited and there were no doves present????

Well, to me, the truth is important.

Forget Knock and Rathkeale, they have nothing whatsoever to do with this.

They have everything to do with it.
Both events prove that a lot of people are very gullible.

partyatmygaff

mardybumbum wrote: »

I dont believe that for a second.

Why? Do you think I am a liar? Are you a specialist in photography? Were you there and have not witnessed anything?

Well, to me, the truth is important.
Truth? You are guessing that the photo is edited even though it shows that the program used to add the captions is no more than a primitive photo organizing program, definitley not capable to performing single point luminance edits. Couple that with the fact eyewitnesses reported seeing doves flying through the night sky aswell and I have no idea how you came to that idea.


They have everything to do with it.
Both events prove that a lot of people are very gullible.
They may or may not have been genuine. I personally doubt it occured as it was "predicted" by a psychic. Stare at the sun for too long and it will start to move in your eyes. This isn't the sun we are looking at. This is something quite different. Knock had at most 5,000 - 7,000 people and it was over one church. These apparitions began over one church for around 2 weeks before the apparition on the 22nd which involved many different churches around all of Egypt. There was a mix of christians and muslims. Many people were there to try and find some kind of light source or other reason for what was seen. Those who were there could find nothing. These apparitions are uncomparable to Knock or Rathkeale.

.

mardybumbum

Im not calling you a liar my friend. I just think you're wrong.

With regards to the photograph of the doves:
I have no doubt that you understand this photography business better than me.
But let me say I were to take a photograph of a pitch black night sky.
I then edited this photograph so it appeared that glow in the dark doves were present.
Then I took a photograph of the edited photograph.
There would be no watermark left on this photo and it would appear that there are doves in it.
Im sure there are methods much more sophisticated than the one I have just outlined.
I dont know much about editing but I have no doubt that its possible.

As for the people who said they witnesses doves......well some people are liars.


And slightly off topic, but why is there not much media coverage. I did a google search and all it seemed to bring up was information on the apparitions in the 60's. I would like to read a bit more about this.
Tis very interesting indeed.

partyatmygaff

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im not calling you a liar my friend. I just think you're wrong.

With regards to the photograph of the doves:
I have no doubt that you understand this photography business better than me.
But let me say I were to take a photograph of a pitch black night sky.
I then edited this photograph so it appeared that glow in the dark doves were present.
Then I took a photograph of the edited photograph.
There would be no watermark left on this photo and it would appear that there are doves in it.
Im sure there are methods much more sophisticated than the one I have just outlined.
I dont know much about editing but I have no doubt that its possible.

As for the people who said they witnesses doves......well some people are liars.


And slightly off topic, but why is there not much media coverage. I did a google search and all it seemed to bring up was information on the apparitions in the 60's. I would like to read a bit more about this.
Tis very interesting indeed.

Its quite easy to remove metadata from a jpeg, they don't need to go to all the trouble of taking a photo of a photogragh, they could have even saved it in a different file format which would have removed the metadata. If someone has the ability to edit a photo so well to get that result I doubt they wouldn't know how to completely remove metadata from a photo.

A lot of people christian and non-christian witnessed doves. Why would they lie about that? Its not the main point of the apparition in any case.

I've no idea why there is hardly any media coverage, apparently its been all over the newspapers and news over there in the area.

Oh yeah, I noticed I sounded a bit condescending in my last post. I amn't a photography specialist! I just like using photoshop

Coriolanus

Hank_Jones wrote: »

You would be suprised what people would be fooled by...

"It could be a crack head, that got hold to the wrong stuff."
This is going to be my standard reply for apparition threads from now on I think.

Anyway, on topic, this kind of stuff mystifies me. I can understand a moving or bleeding statue being signifigant, but a bright light over a church could be, even if it was supernatural, any of the pantheon of saints, angels or personages associated with the church surely? Why Mary and not John the Baptist or Archangel Gabriel?

opinion guy

partyatmygaff ok. Look I spent a while wondering if you were just stirring things up here or were genuine but at this stage I think you are genuine. It also seems you are quite young since you said you are under 20. I would also say I think you are getting quite gentle treatment here - if you posted this on AH or the atheists forum you'd be ripped to shreds.

What I think is this. You want to believe in these photos and you are looking here for some sort of validation in your belief. Its interesting that whilst on the one hadn you argue that the photos are poor quality, then on the other you claim various details can be made out. On the one hand you argue that if the images were edited there would be meta-data, on the other you argue that meta-data could be easily stripped from the files. But as you well know, there are multitude of progams out there for image editing - some we've all heard of, some we haven't and as you should know there are plenty of folks out there capable of coding their own image editing software and hacking photos however they wish. Also there are techniques for faking things like the doves with film cameras. (My God - go see Avatar in 3D and your mind will be blown as to what can be done with manipulating imagery - seriously it looks real).

As to your arguments that lots of people are giving eye-witness reports. There are numerous explanations. This could all be a hoax. It could be natural phenomena (unlikely for the crosses, possible for the doves). Apart from that there are psychological explanations. There are such things as mass hallucinations. There are crowd behaviour phenomena. For example mass fainting in Tanzania was common in 2008 supposedly linked to witchcraft. Would you consider that proof of witchcraft ? No its group psychology.

So what I would say to you is - you seem to be searching for something. Just don't be in too much of a hurry to jump to one conclusion or another (and certainly don't do it in compromise of your reason). Keep learning - about religion, about science, about photo editing, about psychology about different cultures and about anything else that interests you. And take your time to mull it all over and see where it all takes you. There is no compulsion on you to decide right here and now what you believe now and forever. Your are entitled to your doubts and you are entitled to your process of enquiry.

partyatmygaff

opinion guy wrote: »

partyatmygaff ok. Look I spent a while wondering if you were just stirring things up here or were genuine but at this stage I think you are genuine. It also seems you are quite young since you said you are under 20. I would also say I think you are getting quite gentle treatment here - if you posted this on AH or the atheists forum you'd be ripped to shreds.

What I think is this. You want to believe in these photos and you are looking here for some sort of validation in your belief. Its interesting that whilst on the one hadn you argue that the photos are poor quality, then on the other you claim various details can be made out. On the one hand you argue that if the images were edited there would be meta-data, on the other you argue that meta-data could be easily stripped from the files. But as you well know, there are multitude of progams out there for image editing - some we've all heard of, some we haven't and as you should know there are plenty of folks out there capable of coding their own image editing software and hacking photos however they wish. Also there are techniques for faking things like the doves with film cameras. (My God - go see Avatar in 3D and your mind will be blown as to what can be done with manipulating imagery - seriously it looks real).

As to your arguments that lots of people are giving eye-witness reports. There are numerous explanations. This could all be a hoax. It could be natural phenomena (unlikely for the crosses, possible for the doves). Apart from that there are psychological explanations. There are such things as mass hallucinations. There are crowd behaviour phenomena. For example mass fainting in Tanzania was common in 2008 supposedly linked to witchcraft. Would you consider that proof of witchcraft ? No its group psychology.

So what I would say to you is - you seem to be searching for something. Just don't be in too much of a hurry to jump to one conclusion or another (and certainly don't do it in compromise of your reason). Keep learning - about religion, about science, about photo editing, about psychology about different cultures and about anything else that interests you. And take your time to mull it all over and see where it all takes you. There is no compulsion on you to decide right here and now what you believe now and forever. Your are entitled to your doubts and you are entitled to your process of enquiry.

I amn't looking for any validation. I just noticed its hardly getting any media attention and I was told about it so I decided to spread the news. I didn't post this on AH because simply put it is no place to talk about things properly. Everyone over there goes with the crowd. I wouldn't be ripped to shreds. The people who act like idiots get ripped to shreds. I amn't getting "gentle" treatment here. I am getting sensible replies here by people who actually attempt to make a point instead of saying some stupid one-liner.
The photos are fairly poor quality (More will be uploaded in the next few days hopefully they will be better quality) but there are details visible in the light. It is in the shape of a human figure and there are different colours visible which correspond to the common image we have of Mary today. Couple this with the fact the eyewitnesses reported seeing a detailed figure of Mary I can say that this is something out of the ordinary at least. The videos we have right now (I suspect more will be uploaded) show us light in the shape of a person and in multiple colours. Very little detail beyond the shape is visible in the light. Now from my experience with phone camera's and most average digital camera's is that they generally are very poor when it comes to capturing anything extremely bright or anything extremely dark. Think of it as if I went to take a photograph of the filament of a lightbulb while it was switched on, the photo would only show me a very bright light and nothing more.

As for the images of the doves I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said that it was easy for the meta data to be stripped of a jpeg I meant that surely if the person manipulating the photo had the skills required to edit a photo to that effect they would be able to the relatively easy task of removing the photo's meta data. Whoever edited it did not remove the meta data and whats shown is that a photo organising program was used which would not be able to do single point edits like that, it was probably the program they used to add the caption and logo.

I am gonna see avatar sometime next week but anyway those special effects found in cinema films cost a huge amount of money to make. I doubt a person using an old 4MP digital camera will have the money for making a fake by film. In any case considering the photo was uploaded only a few short hours after it was tooken I doubt they would have had the time for complex special effects.

As for your point that it could be natural phenomena. It may have been had it been an isolated incident of white and white and blue light. It was not. It was many different apparitions in different churches and from what is visible in the videos the colours visible are blue, white and yellow. Electrical phenomena occuring over many different churches all appearing the same seems like a very hard to believe coincedence. Even at that, there are buildings far higher than churches in Egypt. If it was electrical phenomena it could have occured over a skyscraper or a mosque e.t.c. I really do doubt it could have been natural phenomena.

As for it being a mass hallucination, I would have said it may have been a possibility had it not been for the many muslims there attempting to disprove it. According to them what they witnessed was as what everyone else present had witnessed. There were attempts by them to try and find some kind of source for the light but couldn't find any. In fact in my first post the 2nd video is a talk show where they were discussing the apparition and had many people attempt to disprove it but according to my friend the show ended with them neither denying it or believing it.

I'm keeping an open mind to all of this, I wasn't there so I'm waiting to see what else comes up.

Whoa, I think I wrote way way too much :pac:

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

I actually agree with you the science involves its own version of faith. As does atheism.

This isn't 100% true.
To arrive at atheism, one may make faith based decisions, but the position of atheism doesn't require it.

party wrote:

Why would that be only point of reflection? Wouldn't the ends of the middle section also have a slight reflection? The material of the cross is not bare steel or chrome to have a reflection like that.

Just saw this now...

"Reflections" off a surface don't just depend on the material of the surface they also depend on the angle between the incident beam of light and the surface (among other factors). This is why in winter time the sun can be a real pain in the ass. The so called winter glare occurs because of the sun shining at a low angle on the road. I'm willing to bet it's the same principle as to why your cross appeared so shiny.
The cross has such a big glare because the sun at this time of the year easily produces one if conditions are right.

partyatmygaff

Malty_T wrote: »

Just saw this now...

"Reflections" off a surface don't just depend on the material of the surface they also depend on the angle between the incident beam of light and the surface (among other factors). This is why in winter time the sun can be a real pain in the ass. The so called winter glare occurs because of the sun shining at a low angle on the road. I'm willing to bet it's the same principle as to why your cross appeared so shiny.
The cross has such a big glare because the sun at this time of the year easily produces one if conditions are right.

Possibly, but that doesn't explain why the reflection doesn't move at all despite the camera moving around.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Possibly, but that doesn't explain why the reflection doesn't move at all despite the camera moving around.

Yes it does!

If the light source is the sun, then over the course of an entire hour the sun hardly moves. Now let's take the even more fresher prespective whereby I'm referring to the sun's low lying angle with the horizon, this means it moves even slower.

(Fun Fact : When the sun is below our horizon, it actually still appears to our eyes as if its above it.:))

partyatmygaff

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes it does!

If the light source is the sun, then over the course of an entire hour the sun hardly moves. Now let's take the even more fresher prespective whereby I'm referring to the sun's low lying angle with the horizon, this means it moves even slower.

(Fun Fact : When the sun is below our horizon, it actually still appears to our eyes as if its above it.:))

No, no you misunderstood me. I amn't saying the sun itself is moving. I'm saying that if it is indeed a reflection wouldn't the reflection have moved slightly as the position of the camera moved. The camera was literally all over the place.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No, no you misunderstood me. I amn't saying the sun itself is moving. I'm saying that if it is indeed a reflection wouldn't the reflection have moved slightly as the position of the camera moved. The camera was literally all over the place.

No you misunderstood me.:)

Even if the camera moved, the reflection doesn't because the movement of the sun is what is the primary factor here. The reflection doesn't move because the position of the sun hasn't noticeably changed.