most recent 30 from http://www.skepticexchange.org 2010-07-30T02:44:24Z http://www.skepticexchange.org/feeds/question/121 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://www.skepticexchange.org/questions/121/do-the-holmes-family-have-psychic-abilities rjstelling 2009-12-08T11:54:40Z 2009-12-15T12:11:13Z

<p>Can any one explain the "radiant white light" in the picture?</p> <p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/x4iuiq.jpg" alt="Holmes Family" /></p> <blockquote> <p>MUM Kylie says the picture above - taken at The Giant's Causeway during a holiday in Northern Ireland in 2007 - is unedited and shows "psychic energy" around Amba, Leo and Jade.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2756093/Meet-the-family-where-the-mum-sees-angels-and-kids-talk-to-the-dead.html" rel="nofollow">Original article [The Sun]</a>.</p>

http://www.skepticexchange.org/questions/121/do-the-holmes-family-have-psychic-abilities/126#126 Andrew Keith 2009-12-08T21:49:00Z 2009-12-08T21:49:00Z

<p>i seriously don't believe any significantly beneficial spirit / energy would only manifest itself in poorly taken photographs from a family camera. I say this is just some faulty camera. My Lumix does the same when i take some pictures after messing up the options.</p> <p>If there is a spirit / energy which is trying to contact us, it should just come out in the open and hold a press conference or something.</p>

http://www.skepticexchange.org/questions/121/do-the-holmes-family-have-psychic-abilities/148#148 sllim10 2009-12-13T16:15:00Z 2009-12-13T16:15:00Z

<p>The onus is on Mum Kylie to back up her "psychic energy" explanation, burden of proof and all.</p>

http://www.skepticexchange.org/questions/121/do-the-holmes-family-have-psychic-abilities/152#152 Rob T. 2009-12-13T19:59:15Z 2009-12-13T19:59:15Z

<p>Looks to me like there was condensation on parts of the lens. It is northern Ireland, after all, not the warmest, driest place on the planet.</p>

http://www.skepticexchange.org/questions/121/do-the-holmes-family-have-psychic-abilities/164#164 SurplusGamer 2009-12-15T12:05:57Z 2009-12-15T12:11:13Z

<p>In a sense, the relevant question is not whether we can identify the correct explanation for how the image came about but whether we can think of any explanations, correct or incorrect, which are more plausible than some kind of magical energy happening.</p> <p>Any of these are possible candidates of varying levels of probability:</p> <ol> <li>Condensation on the lens</li> <li>Some other mark on the lens</li> <li>Some sort of illusion created by the way that the light was shining on the camera.</li> <li>Post-doctoring of the image in Photoshop (we only have one person's say so that it's unedited, but then we've no overwhelming reason to suppose she's lying)</li> <li>Some sort of error in the development of the photo if it was from a film camera.</li> </ol> <p>Or any number of other things. We have very little data - only a photo and a short statement about it. Without any more data there's no real way at getting at the 'true' explanation. We may as well say that the photo had a glass of milk spilt on it which left a funny mark, for all we know better at the moment. We just don't have the information to support or rule out such a claim. </p> <p>While the condensation idea might seem like the most probable candidate, we shouldn't feel obliged to accept it outright especially when presented with so little information. Nor do we need to in order to argue logically: we can at least say that every one of those possible explanations above plus ones that we haven't thought of are hugely more plausible than some sort of 'magical' answer. That's because we can get at those answers in a rational, verifiable way; we can follow a logical path to see how those natural explanations may and frequently do happen in the real world. </p>