Ghost caught on Dover Castle CCTV

[Magical Realist]

So.. by me saying that he is too smart to actually believe that an insect would look so vastly different on a CCTV camera as opposed to a regular camera, I am somehow insulting him...

how does that even work!?

Here's how it works: you claim that my actually believing CCTV cameras show opaque bug-shapes when bugs are ON the lens would make me dumb. Obviously that's what I believe as that is what I stated. Ergo: you are insulting me as being dumb. I went over this with Balerion. I tried to point out that nobody has to comment on how a person is or on their intelligence/character to make a valid point. Doing so is flaming and against forum rules. Or am I mistaken?

 

[Magical Realist]

Doesn't preclude the possibility of it being any of virtually thousands of other insect species simply happening to walk across the lens... no need for a web involved.

So now it ISN'T a spider on a web? You need to get your story straight.

The shape is a vaguely vertical blob at best - calling it humanoid even is being extremely generous. As to it 'moving like a walking figure', I don't see any locomotion of legs nor arms.

It is humanoid and not bug-like in the least. Also the motion of the lower part of the apparition definitely suggests walking. Look at both videos.

I can walk several times faster than that blob was moving. You are assuming that an insect moving across the lens would necessarily have to be moving quickly - there are some, such as the smaller ants, that tend to move rather slowly (from our perspective) - after all, they have tiny legs.

Not at that size. ANY insect at that size relative to the background would be moving very quickly and sporadically, going over parts of the background like the wall and the trees. The figure doesn't behave like this. It's movements are totally consistent with an apparition walking in the landscape itself.

What I would like to see is a live feed from this camera over the course of several days. I have no doubt in my mind that, if this isn't a chance encounter with an insect, some sort of pattern will emerge.

Right. A totally unsubstantiable claim, unless you're visiting Dover Castle any time soon.

 

[billvon]

The figure doesn't behave like this. It's movements are totally consistent with an apparition walking in the landscape itself.

Right! I mean, just compare it to an industry-standard apparition. It's movements are almost exactly the same.

 

[Kittamaru]

Here's how it works: you claim that my actually believing CCTV cameras show opaque bug-shapes when bugs are ON the lens would make me dumb. Obviously that's what I believe as that is what I stated. Ergo: you are insulting me as being dumb. I went over this with Balerion. I tried to point out that nobody has to comment on how a person is or on their intelligence/character to make a valid point. Doing so is flaming and against forum rules. Or am I mistaken?

If you took it as an insult, then I apologize - that was not my intent.

So now it ISN'T a spider on a web? You need to get your story straight.

Now this is the kind of bullshit that gets you in trouble - this is simple intellectual dishonesty... and the worst part is, you KNOW IT IS.
My claim is that it was an insect of some sort.

To counter that claim, you showed a video of a moth fluttering in front of the camera.
Enmos posted a video he took of a spider (not an insect per-say, but close enough, same bloody idea).
You claim it couldn't have been a spider for X reason.
Not all insects are spiders, MR... there are insects in all kinds of shapes and sizes, with a huge variety of ways of moving.

My "story" is straight - this was a gorram bug on the gorram lens, plain and simple.

It is humanoid and not bug-like in the least. Also the motion of the lower part of the apparition definitely suggests walking. Look at both videos.

I have watched both videos - neither of which showed anything appearing to be a "humanoid walking motion" that fits the pace at which it moved.

Not at that size. ANY insect at that size relative to the background would be moving very quickly and sporadically, going over parts of the background like the wall and the trees. The figure doesn't behave like this. It's movements are totally consistent with an apparition walking in the landscape itself.

Any insect? No matter what?

Okay, so what is the insect was, say, not moving at all? Or was moving particularly slowly (such as an ant will do when on a surface with poor cohesion or friction)? You posit that ANY (and you specifically said any) insect... now prove it, or retract the statement.

Right. A totally unsubstantiable claim, unless you're visiting Dover Castle any time soon.

Totally unsustainable? Not at all - if they ACTUALLY thought they were being haunted, I'm fairly certain they would call in some experts to figure this out, and it would most likely be broadcast.

Once again, though, in your desperation to prove that this was a ghost, you have gone and taken things to the most illogical extremes you possibly could. This routine is tiresome.

Right! I mean, just compare it to an industry-standard apparition. It's movements are almost exactly the same.

Indeed, it looked just like Casper!

[video=youtube;oypmdh4Ub_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oypmdh4Ub_0[/video]

 

[Magical Realist]

Also note when the apparition comes from the right, it is BEHIND the road barrier. There's no way it could be a spider or bug then, which would cover everything in the background it was blocking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66rq4krppI

 

[Stryder]

Not at that size. ANY insect at that size relative to the background would be moving very quickly and sporadically, going over parts of the background like the wall and the trees. The figure doesn't behave like this. It's movements are totally consistent with an apparition walking in the landscape itself.

A spider and it's web doesn't have to be on the camera, it can be feet away and still be blurry if the field of depth is beyond it. A web wouldn't even have to be perpendicular to the camera either, in fact a spider on a web tilted to one side could move about it's web at a fast pace and appear to be moving slowly from the angle of perspective even though it's moved inches.

It could of always been this fellow:

 

[Kittamaru]

Also note when the apparition comes from the right, it is BEHIND the road barrier. There's no way it could be a spider or bug then, which would cover everything in the background it was blocking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66rq4krppI

... I'm going to attribute this to... possibly poor vision?... instead of an attempt at direct dishonesty...

[video=youtube;H66rq4krppI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66rq4krppI[/video]

It is pretty obviously visible in FRONT of the little wall...

 

[billvon]

It could of always been this fellow:

Wow! How did he die?

 

[Stryder]

Wow! How did he die?

Probably a rubber bullet and altitude.

 

[Magical Realist]

Now this is the kind of bullshit that gets you in trouble - this is simple intellectual dishonesty... and the worst part is, you KNOW IT IS.
My claim is that it was an insect of some sort.

To counter that claim, you showed a video of a moth fluttering in front of the camera.
Enmos posted a video he took of a spider (not an insect per-say, but close enough, same bloody idea).
You claim it couldn't have been a spider for X reason.
Not all insects are spiders, MR... there are insects in all kinds of shapes and sizes, with a huge variety of ways of moving.

My "story" is straight - this was a gorram bug on the gorram lens, plain and simple.

I assumed you were supporting the "out of focus spider in the web" thesis. I had no idea you were still sticking to the giant vertical transparent bug that slowly and smoothly moves sideways across the lens. My mistake.

Okay, so what is the insect was, say, not moving at all? Or was moving particularly slowly (such as an ant will do when on a surface with poor cohesion or friction)? You posit that ANY (and you specifically said any) insect... now prove it, or retract the statement

You're the one claiming it is an insect. So prove YOUR claim.

Totally unsustainable? Not at all - if they ACTUALLY thought they were being haunted, I'm fairly certain they would call in some experts to figure this out, and it would most likely be broadcast.

You have no clue who they called in nor whether it was broadcast or not. The story appeared in the online Daily Mirror. Wouldn't that be a broadcast?

Once again, though, in your desperation to prove that this was a ghost, you have gone and taken things to the most illogical extremes you possibly could. This routine is tiresome.

Hey you're the one trying to see bugs in blobs that move nothing like bugs. So don't lecture me on desperation. I'm totally confident that it isn't a bug.

 

[Magical Realist]

... I'm going to attribute this to... possibly poor vision?... instead of an attempt at direct dishonesty...

[video=youtube;H66rq4krppI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66rq4krppI[/video]

It is pretty obviously visible in FRONT of the little wall...

That dark spot on the wall is NOT the apparition we're talking about. Nice try though..

 

[Kittamaru]

I assumed you were supporting the "out of focus spider in the web" thesis. I had no idea you will still sticking to the giant vertical transparent bug that slowly and smoothly moves sideways across the lens. My mistake.

As I already stated, it could be any kind of insect... you just can't think in three dimensions apparently...

You're the claiming it is an insect. So prove YOUR claim.

Already been proven - insects on a camera look very similar to what you have seen, depending on the focal length and distance of the camera.

You have no clue who they called in nor whether it was broadcast or not. The story appeared in the online Daily Mirror. Wouldn't that be a broadcast?

I'm saying they would probably call in some sort of "examiner" or one of those "ghost hunter" shows if they actually thought it was haunted.

Hey your the one trying to see bugs in blobs that move nothing like bugs. So don't lecture me on desperation. I'm totally confident that it isn't a bug.

Then stop trying to squirm away from the facts you don't like. The only "desperation" I have is that I am desperately trying to wrap my mind around your apparent pathological need to see ghosts everywhere.

 

[Kittamaru]

That dark spot on the wall is NOT the apparition we're talking about. Nice try though..

Oh really?

Looking at it second by second, you can SEE the dark spot move off the wall - yet its apparent distance from us doesn't seem to shift, at all.

 

[Magical Realist]

As I already stated, it could be any kind of insect... you just can't think in three dimensions apparently...

The only "desperation" I have is that I am desperately trying to wrap my mind around your apparent pathological need to see ghosts everywhere.

Your strange need to insult me is again noted. Do you honestly think doing this makes your position any more credible? I'm on the verge of putting you on my own mental "ignore" list..

 

[billvon]

Looking at it second by second, you can SEE the dark spot move off the wall - yet its apparent distance from us doesn't seem to shift, at all.

That's because the wall is a ghost, too. It was demolished over 50 years ago but comes back to haunt the security folks.

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh really?

Looking at it second by second, you can SEE the dark spot move off the wall - yet its apparent distance from us doesn't seem to shift, at all.

The apparition moves away from it yet the dark spot on the wall is still there. Ofcourse it is darker when the apparition is moving IN FRONT OF it. But once it moves BEHIND the barricade it lightens up. You can't see that? So why doesn't the barricade darken?

 

[Kittamaru]

Your strange need to insult me is again noted. Do you honestly think doing this makes your position any more credible? I'm on the verge of putting you on my own mental "ignore" list..

Ignore me all you want - the fact that it bothers you shows that even you recognize the truth behind it.

I'm all for a good ghost story, and even all for investigating the unknown... but lately you have posted so many things with much more mundane explanations and immediately decreed they were ghosts... well, I can't help but wonder.

Here's another thing regarding this little video - when the security guard walks out - he has virtually no shadow:

Interesting effects on the shadow on the ground...if this were some sort of corporeal object, no matter how partially show (and it MUST be in order to reflect/refract enough light to be seen), then where is it's shadow, and why doesn't it move as it moves around?

 

[Kittamaru]

The apparition moves away from it yet the dark spot on the wall is still there. Ofcourse it is darker when the apparition is moving IN FRONT OF it. But once it moves BEHIND the barricade it lightens up. You can't see that? So why doesn't the barricade darken?

Now is when I get to turn your words against you:

GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT:

Also note when the apparition comes from the right, it is BEHIND the road barrier. There's no way it could be a spider or bug then, which would cover everything in the background it was blocking.

For emphasis:

it is BEHIND the road barrier.

Ofcourse it is darker when the apparition is moving IN FRONT OF it. But once it moves BEHIND the barricade it lightens up.

So, first it's behind it... then its in front of it? Which is it?

Actually, it's in front of it the entire time - and then moves to the other side of the visible area. Interesting!

 

[Magical Realist]

Ignore me all you want - the fact that it bothers you shows that even you recognize the truth behind it.

I'm all for a good ghost story, and even all for investigating the unknown... but lately you have posted so many things with much more mundane explanations and immediately decreed they were ghosts... well, I can't help but wonder.

Here's another thing regarding this little video - when the security guard walks out - he has virtually no shadow:

Interesting effects on the shadow on the ground...if this were some sort of corporeal object, no matter how partially show (and it MUST be in order to reflect/refract enough light to be seen), then where is it's shadow, and why doesn't it move as it moves around?

I can't make out that verbal salad. But you SEEM to be suggesting the guard isn't really there? What ARE you suggesting?

 

[Kittamaru]

I can't make out that verbal salad. But you SEEM to be suggesting the guard isn't really there? What ARE you suggesting?

You really don't get what I said...? Let me try to simplify if for you:

Guard walks out - HIS shadow appears very short, and falls BEHIND him (towards the camera, as shown by the red line)

He moves further ahead - his shadow appears to at first, simply disappear

He moves even further ahead - his shadow reappears, except this time it's going to either side of him (implying no less than three distinct light sources so far)

He moves further ahead, and it shifts again.

This is all very interesting, because NOT ONCE does his shadow's direction match that of either the trees at the top of the video, nor the posts slightly below that.

So this place has some very odd lighting... almost like it's lit up from all around... like a stage...

*shrugs*

Additionally, this "ghost" never casts a shadow at all... which is odd. In order for it to be visible within the visible light spectrum, it must reflect or refract light. Thus, it should cast a shadow.