since we're rationalizing god...

[sleight]

I guess I may have misunderstood the original post. I understood it that people take photos of the sky, where there are stars, which I thought to be the light sources. I'm saying that I could probably replicate pictures such as those. I cringe when you say "photograpic error" because other than errors in development or printing there really isn't such a thing. I mean, sure, you can mess up a photo by setting it up other than how you wanted, but really the camera records the light that comes in. Film responds to light, that is all. It may not come out how we saw it, but our perception is continuous while the camera has to record everything onto that single frame.

ok, on to the 3 new pics:
The first one could be a few different things: camera created dual exposure, digitally manipulated overlay (fake dual exposure), or simply someone taking a pic through a window, focused on the window which shows the reflection of the figure, while outside the window is unfocused.

second on is pretty much the same as others.

The third obviously took some effort on someone's part, and is not magical. I could make the same photo by shooting in a dark place with a long exposure and use a cigarette or flashlight to trace the Jacinta 1972.

The problem with most of these pictures is that you don't know the conditions under which they were taken. I have hundreds of pictures that are simply "errors" on my part, yet if I posted them and made some context up about how I was in a haunted place they would be treated as such. I know you think that because of the sheer volume of these shots that are supposedly from this site (which I doubt) that the effect is legit, and not a trick of the light. However, I really think that thousands of people can make the same mistakes with their silly point-and-shoots. Really these cameras are not meant to take shots of faraway things at night and when you try to you'll find some interesting results.