But even without any dishonesty all sorts of miraculous things can be confirmed or 'confirmed'. — Coben

Such as?

Regards
DL

:up: :ok:

People have used undoctered photos to show ghosts, auras, bigfoot, ufos and more. One can say that these are not good evidence or one can say that some are good evidence. My point was that the camera does not immediately dispel miracles. Due to how light affects the medium all sorts of things can be shown or 'shown'. Cameras are not objective and all sorts of things can be or seem to be captured in photographic images. This would also include photos that seem to prove things in legal situations, when in fact even undoctored photos can be misleading. It's a kind of mechanical eye, which is fallible and distorting and, as I mentioned, has stages of translation where distortions and 'interpretations' of reality appear. And unlike vision it presents a whole field at once, whereas vision, while seeming to do this, is actually darting around, relooking at images. This also distorts but it has advantages (and disadvantages). Whatever your belief system, cameras can both support and then also provide counterevidence. They are not perfect reflectors of reality.

They are not perfect reflectors of reality. — Coben

I aske for examples and you talk about cameras.

Belief in miracles is for the brain dead.

Regards
DL

Well, if you had actually read the full post that you quoted from I was talking about cameras and what you quoted referred to cameras in my dialogue with someone else. So read carefully and don't be such an insulting ass. The combination makes you look pathetic.