Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[Magical Realist]

Ghost caught on Dover Castle's CCTV:

"Built in the 12th century, Dover Castle has been home to so many stories of ghosts and spirits over the years that it has since become a popular site for paranormal tours and investigations.

Its haunted reputation has received even more of a boost this week thanks to a video uploaded on to YouTube that has recently gone viral. The footage, which was taken at the castle's entrance, seems to show a dark figure walking across the road.

Believed to have been filmed from a CCTV camera before being re-recorded on a mobile phone, the video shows the entity moving from right to left before disappearing. A few seconds later a security guard can be seen walking over to where it was before surveying the area.

"I promise you this is not a fake," the uploader has insisted. "It's filmed on CCTV at Dover Castle on to a mobile. I wouldn't even know how to start making this a fake, to be honest." - See more at: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...-on-cctv-at-dover-castle#sthash.tDxN65qr.dpuf

 

[Magical Realist]

Another compelling case:

 

[Magical Realist]

Poltergeist activity in a New Hampshire store:

 

[DaveC426913]

You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences.

But they're not first hand are they?

This guy is telling his paraphrased version of other peoples' stories. All that evident is spoiled by being second-hand.

Of nineteen stories he's told, there's one, maybe two, in which it was firsthand.

people who have no agenda to push their own beliefs

In one of the few first-hand accounts, he actually says "hoping to communicate with the spirit", so he conclusively has drawn up his own explanation, spoiling his own veracity.

 

[Magical Realist]

But they're not first hand are they?

This guy is telling his paraphrased version of other peoples' stories. All that evident is spoiled by being second-hand.

Of nineteen stories he's told, there's one, maybe two, in which it was firsthand.

LOL! You're saying this guy and the people around him are all lying about these incidents? What compelling reason would you think so?

In one of the few first-hand accounts, he actually says "hoping to communicate with the spirit", so he conclusively has drawn up his own explanation, spoiling his own veracity.

There's no more reason to trust a person who doesn't believe in the paranormal than in one who does. A non-believer is just as driven by his own agenda to prove ghosts don't exist despite all the evidence. I would never expect an objective view on this case from a diehard skeptic. I'm glad he's open to the likelihood of spirits, especially after all the activity they've witnessed.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences. To do so is mentally ill and paranoid. It requires a suspicious paranoia on the level of a conspiracy theorist

No MR. That's just totally untrue.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't mean someone is deliberately lying. There are many hoops that extraordinary events must go through to pass the test of being compelling. If it misses any of those hoops, the case is not string enough.

to think everyone who has a paranormal experience is just lying about it.

He never said any such thing. Now you're putting words in his mouth.

If you can't make a case without misrepresenting your opponent, you have no case to make. Stick to facts.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! You're saying this guy and the people around him are all lying about these incidents? What compelling reason would you think so?

You just totally glossed over the part that you claimed they were firsthand when they are not. You don't think that bears upon the veracity of the claims?

 

[Magical Realist]

You just totally glossed over the part that you claimed they were firsthand when they are not. You don't think that bears upon the veracity of the claims?

Not at all. They're all office workers and they confirm these incidents as he's walking around. You have no compelling reason to doubt it. None whatsoever.

 

[Magical Realist]

No MR. That's just totally untrue.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't mean someone is deliberately lying. There are many hoops that extraordinary events must go through to pass the test of being compelling. If it misses any of those hoops, the case is not string enough.;\

The paranormal is not extraordinary. It is rather ordinary and is totally supported by thousands of cases. To say they're all lying about it or are deluded is paranoid and intellectually dishonest. It's the deliberate attempt to deny what is obviously going on an ongoing basis.

He never said any such thing. Now you're putting words in his mouth.

If you can't make a case without misrepresenting your opponent, you have no case to make. Stick to facts.

You need to butt out of our dialogue. I think he can defend himself adequately enough.

 

[DaveC426913]

The paranormal is not extraordinary.

para normal
extra ordinary

deny what is obviously going on an ongoing basis.

You reveal your lack of objectivity.

You need to butt out of our dialogue. I think he can defend himself adequately enough.

Public forum. You opened this thread to all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not at all. They're all office workers and they confirm these incidents as he's walking around

I really shouldn;t have to say this, but
First hand means first-hand.
Second hand means second-hand.

Those accounts are in his words.

You are mispresenting the content of those videos.

And in doing so, proving the very point you deny. You are altering the accounts when you tell them third-hand.

Tell us again how people who believe in ghostly events don't alter the stories suit their needs.

 

[Magical Realist]

Public forum. You opened this thread to all.

Again, butt out of our conversation. It's totally our business, not yours. We can continue OUR conversation, but I'm not listening to you pontificate about what other people mean and say.

 

[Magical Realist]

I really shouldn;t have to say this, but
First hand means first-hand.
Second hand means second-hand.

Those accounts are in his words.

LOL! So what? What possible reason is there to doubt him and the other office workers present?

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL! So what? What possible reason to have to doubt him?

Sam reason to doubt you. You altered your account of events to suit your needs.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, butt out of our conversation. It's totally our business, not yours. We can continue OUR conversation, but I'm not listening to you pontificate about what other people mean and say.

This is a public debate.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sam reason to doubt you. You altered your account of events to suit your needs.

What account did I alter? I haven't changed a thing.

 

[Magical Realist]

This is a public debate.

Butt out of our conversation or be ignored.

 

[DaveC426913]

What account did I alter? I haven't changed a thing.

You claimed they were first-hand accounts. They're not.

You have done the very thing I have been saying from the start. you altered the details to suit your needs.
People do that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Butt out of our conversation or be ignored.

You can certainly ignore me if you wish. That would certainly be what one would do if one were losing a debate.

But you can't attempt to moderate participation in a public thread.

 

[Magical Realist]

You claimed they were first-hand accounts. They're not.

You have done the very thing I have been saying from the start. you altered the details to suit your needs.
People do that.

Where did I say that video was all first hand accounts?It definitely includes several of those. But I never said they were all first hand, as if it even matters.