Ghost caught on Dover Castle CCTV

[Magical Realist]

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

GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT:



For emphasis:





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!

Context context:

"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 tell that by in front of IT I'm referring to "the dark spot on the wall" which I just mentioned. And then when I say "behind the barricade" I'm talking about the barricade. When I say IT lightens up I'm still talking about the dark spot on the wall.

My you are getting desperate for some kind of one-upmanship here. Why this petty need to find fault with me?

 

[Kittamaru]

Context context:

"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.

Except the "apparition" never moves behind the barricade... behind the barricade would imply we cannot see it from the view of the camera... or are you implying "behind" as in on the inner side of the barricade (which, from the cameras point of view, is IN FRONT OF the barricade)

You can't tell that by in front of IT I'm referring to "the wall" which I just mentioned. And then when I say "behind the barricade" I'm talking about the barricade. When I say IT lightens up I'm still talking about the wall.

The it is the barricade/wall. I get that. The barricade doesn't move - the supposed apparition does. Yet, again, from the point of view of the camera, at no time does it move "from in front of the barricade to behind it"

My you are getting desperate for some kind of one-upmanship here. Why this petty need to find fault with me?

There is no on-upmanship here... only a desire for actual truth. Truth you seem unwilling or incapable of providing, especially that now you are twisting your words to try and fit where you are being found at fault.

 

[Magical Realist]

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

Wow..Just wow. You DO understand that light is diffuse and multidirectional on a cloudy day don't you? So what are you saying? That this is some sort of stage set designed to create a shadow? What happened to the bug?

 

[Magical Realist]

Except the "apparition" never moves behind the barricade... behind the barricade would imply we cannot see it from the view of the camera... or are you implying "behind" as in on the inner side of the barricade (which, from the cameras point of view, is IN FRONT OF the barricade)




The it is the barricade/wall. I get that. The barricade doesn't move - the supposed apparition does. Yet, again, from the point of view of the camera, at no time does it move "from in front of the barricade to behind it"



There is no on-upmanship here... only a desire for actual truth. Truth you seem unwilling or incapable of providing, especially that now you are twisting your words to try and fit where you are being found at fault.

Ugh..no response to this ridiculously anal attempt at denying the obvious..The apparition walks behind the barricade, and the barricade doesn't darken. Hence it is really in the landscape and NOT a bug.

 

[Russ_Watters]

One man's intellectual dishonesty is another man's religion.

See, I told you guys that's where he was going with it. Anyway:

There are two ways to read that:
1. Dishonesty is a component of MR's belief system. You are probably right. The ease with which he lies implies someone who is very comfortable lying.

2. We're mistaking religious belief for dishonesty. With the exception of the later caveat, no. Dishonesty is a method for expressing yourself/arguing whereas a religious belief is an idea held to be true. Two very different things that can't be confused with each. More to the point: he has admitted to some dishonesty. His use of the word "ghostly" in the previous thread is an example of dishonesty that he later in the thread admitted to. The caveat:

I wish people would avoid the [use] of the word "troll", to mean having a contrary opinion.

Now you are accusing Kittamaru of lying (and you've said or implied this about others previously). You are accusing him of saying something that isn't what he believes. That is indeed the only time a belief/conclusion can be a lie: if the belief/conclusion stated isn't the one actually held. But since you can't ever get inside someone's head, you can't really ever know (unless they later tell you) that the position they expressed isn't the one they hold. That's a really distasteful and pointless thing to accuse a person of.

MR only lies about his belief in ghosts when he pretends not to hold that belief -- but he usually admits it later. His main deceptions though are in his debate tactics, not his beliefs.

 

[Kittamaru]

Wow..Just wow. You DO understand that light is diffuse and multidirectional on a cloudy day don't you? So what are you saying? That this is some sort of stage set designed to create a shadow? What happened to the bug?

Are you kidding me... are you fracking kidding me?

If the light were so diffuse from a cloudy day that the GUARD STANDING RIGHT THERE cast no shadow, then why, pray tell, did the posts and the trees cast shadows, hm?

Ugh..no response to this ridiculously anal attempt at denying the obvious..The apparition walks behind the barricade, and the barricade doesn't darken. Hence it is really in the landscape and NOT a bug.

No, it doesn't "walk behind the barricade" at all. You are lying, bold-faced and plainly.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you kidding me... are you fracking kidding me?

If the light were so diffuse from a cloudy day that the GUARD STANDING RIGHT THERE cast no shadow, then why, pray tell, did the posts and the trees cast shadows, hm?

So you're now claiming the guard casts no shadow? Yet earlier you said: 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.

No, it doesn't "walk behind the barricade" at all. You are lying, bold-faced and plainly.

And you are insulting me again. Consider yourself happily ignored.

 

[Kittamaru]

So you're now claiming the guard casts no shadow? Yet earlier you said: 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.





And you are insulting me again. Consider yourself happily ignored.

Your intellectual dishonesty is astonishing... you can't win a debate through legitimate tactics, so you resort to direct lies and waffling. I'm sorry, but that won't be accepted, simple as that.

No - the guard walked out - he had a shadow. He moved further ahead - his shadow disappeared. He moved again, the shadow reappeared.

Ergo, there are multiple light sources. Why are there multiple light sources? Where is the shadow from the 'apparition'?

You cannot answer these or other questions, and you are avoiding the questions you cannot answer. Intellectual dishonesty at its simplest, and it has gone on quite long enough.

You wonder why people get hostile with you? This is why... you cannot defend your position without becoming confrontational, twisting what people say, and generally being dishonest.

Consider your next words wisely - either provide some actual evidence this is a ghost, as you claim it is, or the thread will be locked and cesspooled. I'll even take an impassioned argument. Saying "you are certain" it's a ghost, though... that doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

EDIT - I'm going to take your silence as an acquiesce that you cannot; as such, I shall consider this matter closed.