Ghost photobombs

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Mar 2, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    How far by land? 10 miles? I guess those palace guards walk a long way on their patrol. lol!

    You've been debunked.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    Do you seriously think 10 miles is a long patrol?

    By the way, I have a better argument for your position than what you've presented. I'm just waiting for you to find it. The fact that you haven't found it yet suggests that you're not looking very hard for the truth.

    (Anybody else who's interested in the good argument can PM me.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    So you see the error of your ways, but you aren't going to post why? That's intellectually dishonest isn't it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    I didn't say I was wrong. I said there's a better argument you could use instead of the pathetic drivel that you've been posting. If you'd done your homework properly you would have presented the good argument instead of a lot of bad ones.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    I'm done. There's nothing left to prove. I showed the location of the photo to be nowhere near the palace and miles up the coast near the samurai graveyard just as was described. Just as all my other arguments proved. No palace guard. You've got nothing. Let it go.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    We have a photo with a guard in it. You have mumbo-jumbo about ghosts. You have not made any plausible argument for the guard not to be there.

    By the way, in your desperate attempts to disprove the obvious, did you come across the fact that the Imperial Guard is a branch of the National Police?
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    No you don't. Palace guards don't appear and disappear behind people without the photographer noticing them. And palace guards don't patrol 10 miles up the coast. It's all bullshit and you fell for it. How does that make you feel?
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    Did you do the test in the video that somebody posted for you above? Was your noticing infallible?

    Well, there's a photo of him right there. It could be 1 mile or 10 miles or 100 miles but he's there. Your insistence isn't going to make him go away.

    So, in your desperate attempts to disprove the obvious, did you come across the fact that the Imperial Guard is a branch of the National Police? Do you think there's a possibility that a member of Japan's national police force might be somewhere in Japan?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    I see. So no longer the palace guards but a wandering national police officer just randomly patrolling a public beach in Zushi. This is just getting silly now. Give it up before you have a brain aneurism.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    The original suggestion was an imperial guard but it turns out that they're closely related to tbe national police. Is it so outlandish that a Japanese police officer would be somewhere in Japan? That rather destroys your whole argument about the guards not being able to walk that far. You might try to present some information instead of just clinging to incredulity.

    And the bizarre thing is that you're incredulous about the mundane. "Oh no, something that we all see every day couldn' t possibly have happened."
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    Ghosts have a history of showing up in some photos. Random police who appear and disappear without the photographer noticing? Uh no... I'm done here. You have totally dropped your initial argument of the palace guards for some random police officer. Your desperation is only making you look foolish. Admitting ghosts exist won't destroy your reality. It really won't. Trust me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    Ghosts don't have a history of any kind because there's no evidence that they exist. Humans, on the other hand, almost certainly do exist and they do have a habit of showing up in photographs without the photographer noticing. That's why the word "photobomb" was invented. About half of the Internet is devoted to them.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    I'm done here. You have totally dropped your initial argument of the palace guards for some random police officer. Your desperation is only making you look foolish now. Admitting ghosts exist won't destroy your reality. It really won't. Trust me.

    BTW photobombs are generally admitted to be by people who were physically present at the time. Nobody admits a photobomb by someone who wasn't perceived as there.,
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    Not at all. It probably was a palace guard. I'm just pointing out that the deeper we delve into it, the sillier your objections become.

    My reality has no problem with the possibility that ghosts might exist. Is all of your evidence as bad as the samurai boots?
     
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,789
    And we see how gullible some people will voluntarily be.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    And so we resort to the old reliable ad hom...
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,915
    Saying you're wrong because you're gullible would be an ad hominem. Noticing that you're gullible is not.

    In this case, your arguments have been refuted. That's what makes you wrong. Your gullibility is a side issue.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    Wrong..You simply have nothing left to argue beyond palace guards that patrol the northern coast for 10 miles just because. You have been totally refuted. Deal with it.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,239
    If the circumstances make it plausible.
    A photo of a car - on the Moon - would not be considered reliable evidence of a car on the Moon, without corroborating information.


    Since there is no definition of a ghost that can be applied (what are we seeing? photons from the after life? ectoplasm from another dimension? ) there is no way it can be reliable evidence of that thing. Unitl we know what the photo is showing us, it is not evidence that it is a ghost.


    It is not intended as an ad hom. I think you agree that there is definitely a range of interpretations happening, regardless of who is doing it. Thus, photos require interpretation.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,595
    Read "interpretation" as any bullshit explanation that makes the photo not a reproduction of an object right in front of it.
     

Share This Page