Talk:Bélmez Faces/Archive 1

biased remark
"Despite the fact that ICV is a respectable institution that belongs to the Spanish National Research Council,": "Despite the fact that" is a biased and subjective remark which has no place in an objective article (people don't read wikipedia to get this) so I edit it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.248.165 (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rewritten article
Last year I rewrote a previously POV article. The previous incarnation of this article leaned toward the paranormal interpretation disregarding all data from the various skeptical investigations.

The images of the cement blocks of the faces called "La Pava" and "El Pelao" can be seen in the photo. A neighbor of María Gómez took me this photo. "La Pava" is the one embedded in the wall. The small photo above it is how the same face looked originally in the early 1970s.

Together with Luis Ruiz-Noguez and several Spanish skeptics we debunked the case. My publications on this case appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer and in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

—Cesar Tort 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Re Rockpocket’s request in edit summary for citation in this paragraph —:


 * an advantage of this and other cases of ostensible thoughtographic appearances is that, as the paranormal interpretation is falsifiable, it is not a pseudoscientific hypothesis.

—the article merely tries to convey the well-known fact that parapsychology is pseudoscientific because, as readers of Skeptical Inquirer know, “the most common characteristic of a pseudoscience is the unfalsifiable hypothesis”. Parapsychology is pseudo since the anecdotes of ghosts, etc, are not falsifiable. But fixed “phantom portraits” such as those at Bélmez are an exception to the rule! The paranormal claims are falsifiable, and have been already refuted. Therefore, though the paranormal hypothesis has been proven false, it’s not a pseudoscientific one (basic Karl Popper stuff about falsifiability). I don’t think we need all of this Popperian reasoning in the article. —Cesar Tort 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard answer to such a response to a citation request is: "if it is a 'well known fact', it should be simple to source per WP:V." It reads like reasoning to me (albeit perfectly logical reasoning) and our job is not to reason, but to report the reasoning of others.  Rockpock e  t  03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the WP policy. I’ve added citation. —Cesar Tort 06:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Its a nice article. Good work.  Rockpock e  t  06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In-universe
Dead people after seeing digital pictures of the faces? I'm deleting this; it's stated without any kind of citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.106.236 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Complicated sentence in introduction
"On the other hand, skeptical researchers point out that, as the faces of Bélmez are fixed on whitewash of cement, unlike other psychic claims a qualified authority can offer a dictum on the molecular changes that take place in such mass of concrete; as well as experts in conjuring." After reading this sentence a dozen times and having consulted my dictionary, I still understand it vaguely at best. Please can someone simplify it? --KnightMove (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the sentence. —Cesar Tort 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx so far. One problem left: "A qualified authority can offer a dictum on the molecular changes..." means something like "Scientists are able to analyze the molecular changes...", right? --KnightMove (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. And I just added your phrase replacing the complicated one. —Cesar Tort 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the skeletons found under the floor?
Hello

I noticed that the article do not mention anything about the fact that skeletons were found already early into the investigation under the floor where the faces appeared, after a decision was made by the local council to excavate the floor as part of getting to bottom with the cause for the phenomenon? Surely that is a significant enough ingredient of the case to warrant mention of? Okama-San (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Any sources for this? Cannot find something really credible that claims this, but just might be my fault. 90.186.77.48 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)