(August 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Which brings me to this photograph taken at the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas On the night of January 24, 1950.It's a smear of light, possibly a reflection off of the camera lens. It doesn't look like a halo, it looks like a smudge. Lacey's opinion is that the photo is unretouched and the "halo" was formed when light hit the camera lens, which makes sense.
Quote:he also made this statement at a news conference, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.”Was he saying that the person in the photo was a "supernatural being"? Or was he claiming that the halo was a "supernatural being"? Otherwise, just which particular supernatural being was photographed and "scientifically vindicated" by a guy who admitted nothing more than that a white smudge on a picture was caused by light?
It doesn't say much for the guy if he believes that he "scientifically vindicated" the existence of a halo because he determined that a white smudge on a picture wasn't caused by retouching.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould