Spirit of Aaron Russo appears on digital camera

Robbert van der Broeke, dutch Physical Medium (Psychic Photography and Videography)

Famous filmmaker William Gazecki visted Robbert van den broeke, and was a witness of special events. A kwown person of William appeared on the picture, during the recording of this video. Robbert was never alone with the camera, no photoshop or other trick was possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIzy7BWIhEM&feature=player_embedded

I'd like to see more about the preparation, camera, information and location etc... However, interesting images.

Definitely real images but possibly already on the camera's memory card, easily done with digicams.
That said the observer clearly recognises the 'spirit' person.
One of those, 'wish I'd been there' situations.

My thoughts also.. To many 'questions' keep popping into my head rather than accepting it 'as is'.

The Scole group used film in unopened cannisters - without even using a camera - for some of the images produced during the experimental work. The films were opened and developed remotely by independent commercial processors. Certain results were spectacular and (to the best of my recall) remained unexplained.

Digital camera images are far more susceptible to manipulation and are hard to accept as evidence of discarnate 'extras'......

Film stock has been 'got at' in the past even in 'sealed' containers.
The trick is to get at the stock prior to its being sealed or to switch the films prior to processing or (in the old 'sprit photographer' days when they processed their own plates in home dark rooms) fiddling with negs or glass plate stock before or during processing.
Not saying Scole group got up to such shenanikins but it has all been done before.
Makes you think this little filmette. The observer is delighted to see the image, almost more so than he seems to be when listening to the survival evidence the medium brings beforehand.

Yes Katy and to my memeory there were some questions about the scientific nature of the controls on the sealed canisters in teh Scole experiment. Remember reading something about it elsewhere.

Jim

If it's fiddle-able then someone will fiddle it somewhere along the line.
I reckon for every genuine physical manifestation and medium there are 99 frauds minimum.

KatyKing wrote:If it's fiddle-able then someone will fiddle it somewhere along the line.
I reckon for every genuine physical manifestation and medium there are 99 frauds minimum.

As sad but true fact
Problem is of course - when you 'genuinely' want to learn, progress, move forward - these 99% make it damn hard and frustrating...

Good fun sometimes though Les.
Went to a physical night once where luminous ping pong balls were to be 'floated' about. Except you could hear the 'medium' flicking them here there and everywhere and they were bouncing off the walls, pinging off the lampshades (all lights were out out) and one caught a poor lady in the eye. She let out such a yell.
Well worth the fiver we paid for sheer entertainment.
There's a lady running a physical development circle at our church on a Friday evening £2-00 a seat. They are starting off on transfiguration. I reckon they will get physical phenomena if they persevere and when they do I know it will be genuine. I know the people involved, they are all straight as a die, there's no big bucks or personalities involved they are just there to see what they can contribute in order to get something if they are lucky.
I feel the same way about Minnie Harrison. She was genuine for sure. there was nothing in it for her at all and her son Tom Harrison who reported on what happened (years later, they didn't want the fuss at the time) was as genuine as the day is long. Tom (Lovely man who passed a couple of years ago at a grand old age) told what he'd experienced, not to impress anyone or to make money just for the sake of the truth.

Yep... there are certainly some good, genuine and enlightening people out there. It's finding 'them' that can often be the biggest challenge

"......there are certainly some good, genuine and enlightening people out there. It's finding 'them' that can often be the biggest challenge."

For those who already know that survival is a simple fact of life, what is the point of seeking 'them' unless it's to be able to refer others who are still seeking to understand?

I'm a simple-minded individual and once I'd learned about survival, once I'd had a little experience, I realised I didn't need to keep repeating the process.

Perhaps so, but your interaction with others on the 'earth plane' might be worth a re-visit.... As to me, you always seem to come over as 'antagonistic' in your replies.

_Leslie_ wrote:Perhaps so, but your interaction with others on the 'earth plane' might be worth a re-visit.... As to me, you always seem to come over as 'antagonistic' in your replies.

My interactions with those on the earth plane are just fine but maybe sauce for this goose should also be considered as sauce for any gander who feels competent to advise on another's behaviour? Antagonistic about what? Perhaps a more-open consideration about what I write might help broaden one's overall perspective?

As a staunch Modern Spiritualist who constantly bangs the drum of Modern Spiritualism's message of survival, I am also an analyst who will consider most situations from alternative perspectives. It's often that of a distant, knowledgeable observer who has been through the various processes, learned from them but also made plenty of mistakes along the way. Neither a starry-eyed 'believer' nor a detractor and nay-sayer.

Too close to the wood to see the trees may sometimes be the situation for others. I like the broadest perspective I can find and that often means taking a step or two back.

Perhaps should have added 'omniscient' to 'antagonistic'?

_Leslie_ wrote:Perhaps should have added 'omniscient' to 'antagonistic'?

And now you're just being childish because you are unable to give a considered response..... Respond to points made and there can be further dialogue. Sniping closes down the topic.

I assure you, I'm perfectly capable of giving a considered response, its just that doing so with you, seems such a futile exercise! Shall we consider this topic closed? As I have no interest in entering into any further dialogue with you.

Is Jo Bradley still doing the rounds then?
There's a name to conjure with.
We're Progressive Spiritualists cos that's what it says over the church door and on website but we have SNU 7 Principles the same [wording a bit dated these days with respect to gender]. Philosophically I'm a post modern Spiritualist but it's all just labels, Spirit's what matters and if folk are OK with survival they'e OK with me, call themselves what they will. We're all of us whistling in the dark most of the time. Older I get less I know.
Posted a response to young Byng's stab at philosophy in latest PN on their forum but it's gorn.
Have asked why.

Haven't spoken to Jo for best part of six months or more.... So, not sure if she's still 'doing the rounds'.

Not sure what type of label I'd give myself - post spiritualist, modern etc.. etc.. Like you I feel they are all just labels (but I can understand why some perhaps feel the need to fit into one - bit like a security blanket I guess?).

Haven't checked the PN forum today - will do so later

Saw a pamphlet someone had cobbled together vis Ms Bradley's 'Physical mediumship'.
Most impressive it is too [according to pamphlet].

_Leslie_ wrote:I assure you, I'm perfectly capable of giving a considered response, its just that doing so with you, seems such a futile exercise! Shall we consider this topic closed? As I have no interest in entering into any further dialogue with you.

I think that sums it well - you have no interest/ability in supporting what you said.....

Trouble with too prescriptive labels Les is that they exclude as much as include.
I am this...
can easily morph into
... therefore I am better than that.
We're all of us equal. Truth's not a monopoly.
That said I do think our SNU church neighbours would attract more if only they'd get their filthy curtains cleaned or replaced.

mac wrote:

_Leslie_ wrote:I assure you, I'm perfectly capable of giving a considered response, its just that doing so with you, seems such a futile exercise! Shall we consider this topic closed? As I have no interest in entering into any further dialogue with you.

I think that sums it well - you have no interest/ability in supporting what you said.....

Oh dear... What part of "As I have no interest in entering into any further dialogue with you" didn't you understand? Or am I to add 'confrontational' to the list?

Ever heard of 'succinct'? Apparently from my replies I seem to be quite good at it. Now, for the last time...... I have no interest in entering into any further dialogue with you! So any and all replies after this one will be treated with the contempt they deserve - and ignored.

So now it's contempt you've added to your previously demeaning tone?

Just think on how you've personalised this whole business instead of debating the issues raised.

KatyKing wrote: Trouble with too prescriptive labels Les is that they exclude as much as include.
I am this...
can easily morph into
... therefore I am better than that.
We're all of us equal. Truth's not a monopoly.
That said I do think our SNU church neighbours would attract more if only they'd get their filthy curtains cleaned or replaced.

Know what you mean, its seems the adoption of a label or title, gives the holder some sort of creditability. I know we're going off topic a little here, but its like being photographed with famous people - some seem to think that by associating themselves in an image, portrays the same star quality and a like to them... That they are 'also' famous.

As you said, truth isn't a monopoly, but like 'information' some seem to think that by fooling others into thinking they 'have' it, it in turn gives them a sense of power.

Go me pondering now... best go an brew up

Just been watching Monty Somebody doing eight days on a beam trawler. Now that is hard graft.
Mrs. K gets those celeb mags every week. There are some in there just famous because they are never out of the mags. They don't seem to do anything except turn up to parties and have their photo taken. At least our celebrity mediums do something for a living.
Not for me. I don't particularly enjoy parties. Nice silver tea now,that I like. Little cakes on tier stands, cucumber and salmon sandwiches and maybe Earl Grey in nice china. There's posh.
Mrs. K maintains that its the cake not the religion that's kept me a spiritualist. She was CofE but didn't go. We were courting six months before I let on was a medium . Now she'll turn up for a special and helps out with bookings. Funny how things turn out. We moved here six years ago and Elaine next door who has become best mates with Mrs K turns out to be a spiritualist. I had to keep my religion quiet at work until this last few years but with diversity nobody can say anything against us now and for that I am thankful to oir Moslem colleagues they won concessions for time off for religious reasons so we all can have similar rights. I can have paid leave for Hydesville Day if I want it.
Shame that's all we have. I was thinking of pitching an annual pilgrimage to Lily Dale along the lines of thr Moslem Haj to Mecca but don't think management would wear it.
Spiritualism as a religion is a bit wanting in high days and holy days more' the pity.
The omly Spiritualist crowd I'e come acrss that I would say were a 'it keen'in saying they are more right than the rest of us are those who say that it's not a religion. My answer is always 'Not to you it aint,but to me it is religion but not 'A' religion' and leave it at that. Each to their own. But some of 'em will bang on.