Ghost caught on Dover Castle CCTV

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a still photo - that's why it didn't move. And by the way, that came from a site that first claimed it to be a ghost before acknowledging it could be a bug.

And your own quote describing them says they aren't necessarily translucent:
"Descriptions of the apparition of ghosts vary widely from an invisible presence to translucent or barely visible wispy shapes, to realistic, lifelike visions."

And what about my photo?

An image superimposed over film ISN'T "a transparent humanoid apparition crossing the road." It's not crossing anything. It's just a 2D image superimposed on film. But then we knew that didn't we?
 
No it doesn't. It is a well known fact in paranormal research that ghosts often only show up on video or film. Other times they CAN be seen by the naked eye. WHY this is isn't exactly known.

So do you believe ghosts exist or not?

You play very loosely with the word "fact", don't ya...

I dare say this is more of the same that has gotten you in trouble in the past... and i've no intention of stepping between you and the firing squad this time

Godspeed
 
That is VERY interesting Cap'n. Yes, the movements appear much more human in the first video, ducking quickly behind the wall, and then going out onto the street and then returning. This provides a whole new convincing context to the initial video. Appears to be quite a regular there at old Dover Castle, and certainly NOT a bug on the lens. The "green stick" is the moved over green light of the TV that the cellphone is obviously recording the video from.

And that one is clearly an insect. (I was going to say 'bug', but that could be misconstrued..)
 
An image superimposed over film ISN'T "a transparent humanoid apparition crossing the road." It's not crossing anything. It's just a 2D image superimposed on film. But then we knew that didn't we?
It doesn't have to be transparent and it doesn't have to be humanoid. Your own quote says that. And, of course, it doesn't have to be crossing a road: your OP video was indoors. You are arguing against yourself.

Not sure what you mean by "An image superimposed over film" though. I don't think any of the examples we're discussing utilized film. Which one are you referring to?
 
Still ignoring inconvenient evidence, MR?
MR said:
No..it is a transparent humanoid apparition walking across a road. That's what ghosts look like. No other mundane explanation fits.
Really?

ghost.jpg


Thus proving, I'm a ghost?
 
Last edited:
You play very loosely with the word "fact", don't ya...

I dare say this is more of the same that has gotten you in trouble in the past... and i've no intention of stepping between you and the firing squad this time

Godspeed

Are you threatening MR with banning because he believes in ghosts?
 
Are you threatening MR with banning because he believes in ghosts?
That's not what I read. I read he's threatening MR with banning because he's intellectually dishonest. It has been explained to him over and over again (and you should know by now as well): it is ok to believe in ghosts, but it is not ok to be intellectually dishonest.
 
Are you threatening MR with banning because he believes in ghosts?

Not at all

That's not what I read. I read he's threatening MR with banning because he's intellectually dishonest. It has been explained to him over and over again (and you should know by now as well): it is ok to believe in ghosts, but it is not ok to be intellectually dishonest.

Close, but not quite.

Uh what?
That reads nothing like a ban threat.
It's a notification of withdrawal of support for MR if/ when someone else proposes banning him.

Right on the money. Simply put, I'm not going to put myself between him and anyone who takes umbrage with his claims anymore.

I'm all for belief in the unexplained... my own experiences notwithstanding, I'm not foolish enough to think we know enough about the universe to say such things are completely beyond the realm of possibility. HOWEVER, such claims MUST have evidence worthy of the claim - video of "something that looks vaguely like a shadowy smudge" is not evidence - it's video of a vaguely shadowy smudge. Sight is perhaps the single easiest sense to fool, yet we are so dependent upon it that we will accept as fact what we see even if it makes no sense.

Is what is in MR's video a ghost? Possibly - I can't say with 100% certainty it isn't, because I'm not there to investigate it. What I can say is that there is also a host of other much more mundane explanations that could fit; insect on the lens (not the shroud, the lens), issue with the CMOS or CCD image sensor, speck of dust falling between the two lenses, et al.
 
Are you threatening MR with banning because he believes in ghosts?

Not at all

That's not what I read. I read he's threatening MR with banning because he's intellectually dishonest. It has been explained to him over and over again (and you should know by now as well): it is ok to believe in ghosts, but it is not ok to be intellectually dishonest.

Close, but not quite.

Uh what?
That reads nothing like a ban threat.
It's a notification of withdrawal of support for MR if/ when someone else proposes banning him.

Right on the money. Simply put, I'm not going to put myself between him and anyone who takes umbrage with his claims anymore.

I'm all for belief in the unexplained... my own experiences notwithstanding, I'm not foolish enough to think we know enough about the universe to say such things are completely beyond the realm of possibility. HOWEVER, such claims MUST have evidence worthy of the claim - video of "something that looks vaguely like a shadowy smudge" is not evidence - it's video of a vaguely shadowy smudge. Sight is perhaps the single easiest sense to fool, yet we are so dependent upon it that we will accept as fact what we see even if it makes no sense.

Is what is in MR's video a ghost? Possibly - I can't say with 100% certainty it isn't, because I'm not there to investigate it. What I can say is that there is also a host of other much more mundane explanations that could fit; insect on the lens (not the shroud, the lens), issue with the CMOS or CCD image sensor, speck of dust falling between the two lenses, et al.
 
Uh what?
That reads nothing like a ban threat.
It's a notification of withdrawal of support for MR if/ when someone else proposes banning him.

My mistake.

@Kittamaru.
Couldn't you half support him?

Who will we depend on for quality ghost threads if MR gets banned?
 
Is what is in MR's video a ghost?

Of course it isn't a ghost. It's an UNFO.
(unidentified non-flying object.)
But why get annoyed because someone believes it to be one.
Believing in the Dover Castle Ghost is no more unreasonable than someone believing in the Hindu God Ganesh, for example.
 
Close, but not quite.
Just to be clear, I glossed over the "threat" issue because I think KC was more concerned with the "why", which is what I responded to. The "why" has caused its own issues in the past. But I agree that that wasn't technically a threat.
 
As I was saying:
But why get annoyed because someone believes it to be one.
As I just said, we're not annoyed because he believes in ghosts, we're annoyed with his intellectual dishonesty. It is baffling that you need to have this explained to you over and over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top