Ghost caught on Dover Castle CCTV

And how many examples that disagree with your thesis did you ignore? One example proves nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where did I claim that? I merely pointed out that a security guard going out to check for a figure appearing on his camera WOULDN'T be thinking it was a bug on the lens. Otherwise he'd be looking at the lens of the camera instead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is the title of the thread. And EVERY BIT of that is your speculation unless you have a recording of the security guard saying what he was doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A horizontally-moving non-dissipating humanoid-shaped cloud of black smoke? LOL! Wow..you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one!

 

MR, I ask again: what was the exact search term you used to find the video in post #7?

 

A strange manifestation in the woods?!?....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or did I just not set the focus properly for what I was actually looking at?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never said what the security guard thinks it is. Quote where I said it if you think I did.

 

No, you have shown that an insect crawling about the protective DOME of an ENCASED camera is well defined.

As I said, an insect ON THE LENS is not going to be well defined, per the focal length of the gorram lens. This isn't hard to figure out.

 

"Humanoid"? Really? As usual, I struggle to believe that you are showing honestcrack pottery/gullibility. This thread, like most of your others, appears to be mostly lying/trolling.

 

You are not saying it outright because you think you are clever; you are not. You are implying it instead of stating it because you know you cannot provide any supporting evidence.

What is the purpose of this thread, Magical Realist.

 

Yes..a transparent spider WOULD appear as a transparent web-shaped blob now wouldn't it. I could tell it was a spider web the moment I saw it. So what's your point?

 

MR, you are dodging your own claims. You added to them with post #22 and are now dodging all those new claims.

 

No..I didn't imply anything about what the security guard thought it was. I stated what I think it is. A ghost. Seeing this a subforum for such discussions, that's what I'm discussing and showing evidence for. Is there a problem with that?

 

...

 

You have not shown any evidence for what it is - you have claimed that it could not possibly be a shadow, insect, or smoke, and provided zero supporting evidence.

Extraordinary claims (that this is a spectre of some sort) require Extraordinary Evidence... and so far, you have provided none.

It is no small wonder you keep running afoul of the basic forum rules to SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

 

Then you said:

...which implies that you meant he WAS looking for the ghost. But even setting that aside, without him saying it, both of the things you said are your speculation:
1. You don't know if he was "inspecting the area".
2. You don't know that he "sees nothing".

 

I am going to put this simply:

What, exactly, is the purpose of this thread. If it has no purpose, then it shall be closed and allowed to die with what little dignity it has left.

 

LOL! This IS extraordinary evidence. Video of a nebulous transparent humanoid figure walking across a road IS evidence for a ghost. Everybody knows what a ghost looks like, even you. And that's exactly as it appears. No other explanation has yet held any water. Perhaps you could provide us with another one besides a transparent sideways-walking blob of an insect.

 

It's really dependant on where the web is. This particular one was in sunlight, however if you are talking about a CCTV camera on a North facing wall, then it won't get the same level of luminosity. The distance from the camera is also important, my camera has a wide aperture where as the security camera could of been using a smaller one. There's a bunch of variables you have to consider if you of course want to suggest it's proof of something, but since there are so many variables it's more likely not what was initially suggested at all.

 

I already told you. It is evidence for ghosts. Are you claiming it isn't? On what basis?