Ghost photobombs

James R said:
This looks a *lot* like a reflection in the fence to me.

Imagine that piece of fence where the main "ghost" is seen is actually, for whatever reason, reflective. From the location of the camera taking the photo, imagine tracing the light back to that piece of fence. The light would reflect off the fence and into the camera from ... where?

Why would a chain-link fence be reflective? It doesn't make a lot of sense. But look at the photo. That chain-link fence section where our "ghosts" appear is not at all clear. You can't see the chain links properly, even in the magnified images. Now, who is to say that there isn't a clear sheet of hard plastic, or similar, covering the rear side of that fence panel? If there was, that could produce the reflection. But there's no way to tell for sure merely from the image.
Click to expand...

It's just a damn chain link fence James. And no, there's no sheet of hard plastic in front of it.
 
Last edited:
I find it curious that the subject appears to be wearing such an uncommon outfit. A light-coloured suit with a very dark shirt?

Perhaps the apparition is inverted?

reflection.jpg
 
DaveC426913 said:
I find it curious that the subject appears to be wearing such an uncommon outfit. A light-coloured suit with a very dark shirt?

Perhaps the apparition is inverted?

View attachment 1383
Click to expand...

Someone commented that it looks like a kid in a high school prom suit circa 1970's. I agree. They should check and see which students died around that time. Perhaps on prom night.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Perhaps the apparition is inverted?
Click to expand...

Could be.
Zooming-in, the subject seems to be wearing a red shirt? With the 'suit' collar up. Look at the eyes...dark glasses? Stance suggesting... Elvis?
And, we know for a fact there is no hard plastic sheet involved, because MR was there...
Magical Realist said:
And no, there's no sheet of hard plastic in front of it.
Click to expand...
Also, subject smaller than ladies in distance..How tall was Elvis?
DaveC426913 said:
Perhaps the apparition is inverted?
Click to expand...
Is that a politically correct thing to say?
 
Last edited:
Airing the old brain cells?
You should of taken some of your own pics, given you were there.
Magical Realist said:
And no, there's no sheet of hard plastic in front of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not JR, so I won't be forever saying the same things to you MR.
Not worth it. Bye
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Actually he said mass and energy are the same thing. But then you knew that.

Your example simple proves that immaterial things can influence material things. Consciousness is another example. Ghosts are another.
Click to expand...
Light is a measurable phenomenon, it has an effect on the material world, which makes it material. Everything is material, nothing non-material exists.
 
Magical Realist said:
You're confusing material with physical. Material pertains only to things made of matter.
Click to expand...
Everything that exists is physical and material. Otherwise no evidence would be possible of it. Light is measured in photons, which hit film or a light sensor and produce a reaction. If ghosts are immaterial, they couldn't produce a reaction.
 
Magical Realist said:
You're confusing material with physical. Material pertains only to things made of matter.
Click to expand...
Whereas physical pertains to...?

Materialism and physicalism are views often taken to be synonymous within philosophy, and within science in particular. Some might be able to detail a difference but in most respects I would think the two are synonymous: material is that which pertains to matter; physical is that which is affected by the laws of physics. One could argue that matter is only one such thing that is affected by the laws of physics, with energy being example of another, but the two are equivalent (E=mc^2 etc).

If you wish to raise a difference, a distinction, please do and perhaps others will follow, or dispute the distinction - although probably best for the philosophy thread? I for one would use the two as synonymous, and take them to be so whenever I come across the terms.
Can you honestly say that you know and appreciate any difference in the terms when used?
 
Sarkus said:
Whereas physical pertains to...?

Materialism and physicalism are views often taken to be synonymous within philosophy, and within science in particular. Some might be able to detail a difference but in most respects I would think the two are synonymous: material is that which pertains to matter; physical is that which is affected by the laws of physics. One could argue that matter is only one such thing that is affected by the laws of physics, with energy being example of another, but the two are equivalent (E=mc^2 etc).

If you wish to raise a difference, a distinction, please do and perhaps others will follow, or dispute the distinction - although probably best for the philosophy thread? I for one would use the two as synonymous, and take them to be so whenever I come across the terms.
Can you honestly say that you know and appreciate any difference in the terms when used?
Click to expand...

Yes..I do make that distinction as does the dictionary. Material is made of matter, and physical is what can be measured and quantified. It's not rocket science.

Everything that exists is physical and material. Otherwise no evidence would be possible of it. Light is measured in photons, which hit film or a light sensor and produce a reaction. If ghosts are immaterial, they couldn't produce a reaction.
Click to expand...

The spectrum of the immaterial runs the full gamut from the physical immaterial like light, space, and time to the non-physical immaterial like consciousness, concepts, and mathematical laws. Ghosts occupy a position on this sliding scale, but lacking full knowledge of their nature, we can at best only speculate.
 
Magical Realist said:
Yes..I do make that distinction as does the dictionary. Material is made of matter, and physical is what can be measured and quantified. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...
And in those dictionaries they will undoubtedly provide "material" as a synonym for "physical".
Heck, let's just pick the one that Google provides:

physical
adjective
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"the physical world"
synonyms: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable, visible, real, actual
"everything physical in the universe"

It's a wider and rather more complex matter (pun intended) than I think you give it credit for, especially when you start asserting that consciousness is non-physical and immaterial.
 
Magical Realist said:
The spectrum of the immaterial runs the full gamut from the physical immaterial like light, space, and time to the non-physical immaterial like consciousness, concepts, and mathematical laws. Ghosts occupy a position on this sliding scale, but lacking full knowledge of their nature, we can at best only speculate.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Sarkus said:
And in those dictionaries they will undoubtedly provide "material" as a synonym for "physical".
Heck, let's just pick the one that Google provides:

physical
adjective
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"the physical world"
synonyms: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable, visible, real, actual
"everything physical in the universe"

It's a wider and rather more complex matter (pun intended) than I think you give it credit for, especially when you start asserting that consciousness is non-physical and immaterial.
Click to expand...

Meh...who cares?
 
Indeed. Can we all agree now that - as with the Devil who can quote the Bible for his own purposes - dictionary definitions are too broad and general to serve as a solid point in a debate?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Indeed. Can we all agree now that - as with the Devil who can quote the Bible for his own purposes - dictionary definitions are too broad and general to serve as a solid point in a debate?
Click to expand...

I call Humpty Dumpty on this

To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.


6. Humpty Dumpty
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

Via

http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

I recommend the whole book be read:)

:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top