Creepy things caught in photos

[Magical Realist]

I've named many but you don't appear to understand English. Second language, perhaps?

Wow.. Do you have a problem with bilingual people?

 

[Magical Realist]

No I don't.


No he wouldn't.



No it's not.

And the shadowing on man's face/neck matches that on background objects, which points to him being a real person who interacts with photons as real physical objects do.

You got bupkes.

LOL "No I don't"..."No he wouldn't"..."No it's not." You must've attended the James R School of Argumentation.

 

[Magical Realist]

Further weakening your analogy is that there is actual evidence, like specific observable gravitational effects that call for its existence. This evidence is considerably stronger than the photographic artifacts and anecdotes that ghost theorists have accumulated.

Well we actually have photographic and video and audio and FLIR and EMF and bodily and kinetic and eyewitness evidence for ghosts. I'd say that beats out some anomalous gravity readings in space by a long shot.

 

[(Q)]

Wow.. Do you have a problem with bilingual people?

How can you possibly ask where the chairs are in the pic? Are you that belligerent and obtuse or are you legally blind?

Then somehow, you manage to believe the mans blurred image to be so clear and defined that it must be the dead grandad.

Your powers of observation are literally non-existent, its little wonder why you're so easily duped.

 

[Magical Realist]

How can you possibly ask where the chairs are in the pic?

You claimed he was standing on A chair. There are two chairs that are visible in the photo. Where is this supposed other chair he is standing on?

Are you that belligerent and obtuse or are you legally blind?

My my.. abit testy aren't we?

 

[James R]

LOL Poor James. Always reduced to piddly flaming of me when he has no argument left against my evidence.

This, when you haven't even bothered replying to post #116?

Don't start up telling lies again, now, Magical Realist. That doesn't go well for you.

 

[James R]

So how do you know a photo you can't debunk is nevertheless fake?

What are you talking about? Something hypothetical? Or a real photo I have said is fake but which I haven't debunked?

Please be clear. And be careful you don't start telling more lies.

And what's the point of trying to debunk it if you already just know that it's fake?

The point for me? There would be no point, for me. For instance, see my comments about the guy who didn't know that hills are real.

I might want to walk somebody else through how I know it's fake, of course. The point then would be that I would be helping educate them. The point for them would be that I would be giving them a learning opportunity.

 

[(Q)]

You claimed he was standing on A chair. There are two chairs that are visible in the photo. Where is this supposed other chair he is standing on?

Can you see any of the bottom half of that man? No, it's blocked by the woman, which is why you wouldn't also see the chair upon which he might be perched.

 

[Magical Realist]

Can you see any of the bottom half of that man? No, it's blocked by the woman, which is why you wouldn't also see the chair upon which he might be perched.

I see. So if we see the chair, then it must be there, And if we don't see the chair, it must be there? Seems like a win win for you.

 

[James R]

Well we actually have photographic and video and audio and FLIR and EMF and bodily and kinetic and eyewitness evidence for ghosts.

What makes you say that any of that evidence is evidence for ghosts?

Could it possibly be evidence for anything other than ghosts? If so, how are you going to determine whether it's ghosts or the other thing(s)?

 

[James R]

You claimed he was standing on A chair.

No. (Q) did not claim the man was standing on a chair.

There are two chairs that are visible in the photo. Where is this supposed other chair he is standing on?

Behind the woman. Duh!

I see. So if we see the chair, then it must be there, And if we don't see the chair, it must be there? Seems like a win win for you.

If we see a man in a photo then he must be a ghost. And if we don't see a man, then he must have been an invisible ghost. Seems like a win win for you.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually that argues in favor of it not being a hoax. A hoax would've been shared right away.

Pure assumption on your part. Your straw grasping is showing. Some folks like to let their hoax cook.

 

[TheVat]

Well we actually have photographic and video and audio and FLIR and EMF and bodily and kinetic and eyewitness evidence for ghosts.

No we don't.

 

[TheVat]

You must've attended the James R School of Argumentation.

No I didn't.

 

[parmalee]

No I didn't.

But at least now I know what that JRSA acronym I periodically come across stands for.

 

[TheVat]

But at least now I know what that JRSA acronym I periodically come across stands for.

Yes we do!

 

[parmalee]

Found this whilst googling James R School of Argumentation. Looks a bit dated.

I think that's Nellie Olsen on the right, being a little shit as usual.

 

[(Q)]

I see. So if we see the chair, then it must be there, And if we don't see the chair, it must be there? Seems like a win win for you.

The chair may or may not be there, although there are chairs in the picture and it would give good reason that a shorter man could very well be standing on it thus providing an answer as to why the man appears 8 feet tall. The chair would obviously be hidden by the woman. Are you actually saying this is not a reasonable solution to that dilemma?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The famous picture of Billy the Kid with his lever action rifle is faked.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you actually saying this is not a reasonable solution to that dilemma?

Ofcourse! It's perfectly reasonable that a random short old man that looks exactly like the woman's husband would stand on a chair behind her to look 8 feet tall while photobombing her picture. Why didn't I think of that?