Christians. Could you be wrong?

[FatAndFaithless]

Gross.

[JesusHChrist]

The man has clearly preformed scientific experiment on the negative of the photograph, documented every procedure he used, and found that there had to be a light at that position to strike the negative, the only conclusion is the supernatural, because lights just don't hang over peoples heads normally.

You obviously haven't had a photography class or much experience with cameras. Those types of reflections/refraction happen ALL THE TIME. Getting RID of them is the bitch. The camera frequently picks up odd quirks of light, the human eye does not see. Just like audio microphones pick up sounds we don't hear. Durrrrrrr. Basic, basic stuff.

But I like the fact that when presented with scientific evidence, you refuse to acknowledge it.

I saw no scientific evidence presented; only someone's self-stated "opinion".

[Huggy Bear]

But I like the fact that when presented with scientific evidence, you refuse to acknowledge it.

Really? I like the fact that you think what you present should be swallowed wholecloth (sorry - horrible mixed metaphor) before it's been established actually to be "scientific evidence". Not to mention that you expect it to be above scrutiny and criticism.

Ok then, what are your credentials.

Here's a little bit about George J. Lacy from http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

Mr. Lacy's first meeting was the 1942 inaugural meeting of the society. Two years later he married Lucile Peters Lacy who would later become the tenth president of the ASQDE.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme. He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert. As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case. He later specialized in questioned document examination. He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory. Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

George Lacy was the author of number of articles and professional papers, such as "Handwriting and Forgery Under Hypnosis," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and "Magnification versus Enlargement," published in the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Mr. Lacy passed away in 1962

[FatAndFaithless]

Really? I like the fact that you think what you present should be swallowed wholecloth (sorry - horrible mixed metaphor) before it's been established actually to be "scientific evidence". Not to mention that you expect it to be above scrutiny and criticism.

Ok then, what are your credentials.

Here's a little bit about George J. Lacy from http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

Mr. Lacy's first meeting was the 1942 inaugural meeting of the society. Two years later he married Lucile Peters Lacy who would later become the tenth president of the ASQDE.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme. He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert. As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case. He later specialized in questioned document examination. He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory. Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

George Lacy was the author of number of articles and professional papers, such as "Handwriting and Forgery Under Hypnosis," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and "Magnification versus Enlargement," published in the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal. Mr. Lacy passed away in 1962

We don't give a shit about his credentials, Huggies.

[Cyberman]

What credentials do I need to evaluate what you call evidence for whatever it is you're claiming? What are your credentials for presenting it? Or are you merely hiding behind those of your man? In which case my question stands: do we accept the truth of the claim purely on the credentials of the claimant? If so, then account for Hale's elf. At least we got a telescope out of it.

[Huggy Bear]

Ok then, what are your credentials.

Here's a little bit about George J. Lacy from http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

We don't give a shit about his credentials, Huggies.

Of course not, I mean if a world renowned forensic experts report is dismissed out of hand....

[Esquilax]

The man has clearly preformed scientific experiment on the negative of the photograph, documented every procedure he used, and found that there had to be a light at that position to strike the negative, the only conclusion is the supernatural, because lights just don't hang over peoples heads normally.

But I like the fact that when presented with scientific evidence, you refuse to acknowledge it.

You call that science? Oh, the "only conclusion is the supernatural," there?

Okay class, can we say "the argument from ignorance is not scientific evidence, Huggy"?

[Huggy Bear]

What credentials do I need to evaluate what you call evidence for whatever it is you're claiming? What are your credentials for presenting it? Or are you merely hiding behind those of your man? In which case my question stands: do we accept the truth of the claim purely on the credentials of the claimant? If so, then account for Hale's elf. At least we got a telescope out of it.

Have you ever observed dark matter?

[Tonus]

Just to reiterate, Lacy's report simply states that he is reasonably certain that the photo had not been tampered with, and that the "halo" was simply light. The supernatural is far from the only explanation for the appearance of a blob of light in a photo. Far more likely is that it's just that; a blob of light, which are pretty common in pictures even today. I doubt anyone would see a lens-flare effect in a photo today and think that it was anything but a trick of the light.

Then again, people used to think that rainbows were god's promise not to flood the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

"used to" he says-