Ghost photobombs

Pareidolia. You admitted it. Took you just a few moments to see your mistake.

Maybe take a few more moments before posting more silliness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The first part of your qualification is spot on.
Anyways congratulations you are generating great site traffic.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never doubted the existence of paradoilia. That's why I suspect it or rule it out in each case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts he won't post his niece's pic, rather than more trash from a trash site.

 

It was several years ago. Long gone..

 

Ghost dog.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ice ghost.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ghost tree trunk. (with bonus Jesus!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ghost horse.
(Hey, I don't need to prove it's not fake. All I'm doing is posting evidence.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Heck, this one's even from a site called ihuntghosts, so you know it's legit.)

 

Ghost dirt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yawn..everyone knows how paradolia works..The trick is in seeing when it isn't going on. Like this one:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or this one:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A pity the farm owner didn't actually say that.

 

How do you know?

https://www.paranormalunited.co.uk/ghost-at-tewin-bury-farm-hertfordshire-2008/

 

What makes you think he did?

 

I have the link to the account of this photo. See above. That's 100% more than you've got.

 

And yet, it is only the claim of the author that the farmer said anything at all.
If the farmer had reliably said something, why couldn't the author quote him?

These are the things that legitimate researchers look for.

It's called provenance of data. There is no connection between what the author says happened and the original witnesses. It's useless. It might as well be made up (and likely was).

 

No..it is not necessary for an account to quote somebody to be believable. Such and such happened. And such and such was said. End of story. The news does this all the time.

 

Oh, I absolutely don't question that for a second. I have a pretty good idea what qualifies as believable for you.

Indeed. Lesson 101 in Critical thinking and analysis would be the ability to distinguish between news and www.paranormalunited.co.uk

That you don't make such a distinction explains, in one fell swoop, the very existence of this thread.

 

Everyday people all over the world rely on accounts of people saying things that aren't exact quotes. The news media is one common source. Everyday conversations are another. It's complete bullshit to discount information as dubious just because it isn't quotes. And you know this.

Just like we don't demand exact quotes from the news, we don't start demanding it from online websites either. Unless you are accusing said website or the source of their account of lying. But then that's the common skeptic strategy isn't it? Just accuse everyone of lying who ever claims anything about the paranormal. That way the woo stays woo, and you don't have to look into it. How convenient.

 

It is important when the claims are extraordinary. As you well know.