Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[Kristoffer]

OK, let's try this, then...[click]....

Was that the sound of the "I might miss some unintentional comedy , but I'll be rewarded with less nonsense" button?

 

[exchemist]

Was that the sound of the "I might miss some unintentional comedy , but I'll be rewarded with less nonsense" button?

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Ok. So I looked at a couple of your videos. How about we talk about this one:

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

Let's consider the provenance for a moment.

We are supposed to believe that this isn't faked because the person who uploaded it says it isn't faked. Hmm... And who is the uploader? We don't know anything about that person or his/her history of ghost videos.

We also only have this person's word that this is CCTV footage recorded onto a mobile phone. Personally, I don't even know if it's Dover Castle, although that could be checked.

Now, what of the video itself?

First we notice that the quality is, in general, appalling, as is so often the case with these things. It's jumpy and blurry and pixellated, and even the video itself admits that it needs to be "stabilised". Couldn't the person hold the phone still? And why didn't they get a copy of the CCTV footage. Do they claim to have taken the video "live" as it occurred?

Second, we note that even if we accept the provenance, we have the actual scene filmed by the CCTV camera and projected onto a screen that is then filmed by the mobile phone, then potentially edited and finally uploaded to youtube for our viewing ... er ... pleasure. We have no way of knowing whether any "creative" editing was done, even if the original footage was taken at the location specified.

Now, suppose that, by some fluke, we were able to establish that the person who uploaded the video is scrupulously honest and would never fake something like this. So, let's say the footage is "authentic". Then what?

Can we ask what else, other than a ghost, might explain the footage?

Could it, for example, be something to do with the shadow of the man who walks into frame and wanders around? Could it be some kind of reflection into the lens of the CCTV camera from something else that is off-camera? Could it be some kind of shadow that occurred due to people moving around the mobile phone as it filmed the CCTV screen?

What about something crawling across the CCTV camera lens? Suppose, for example, that a small bug or fly landed on the CCTV lens and crawled across. What would that look like on the image? My guess is that the bug would be so far out of focus that it would look like a mere blur, but that blur would move across the image as the bug crawled across the lens. And there would be no reason to assume that the bug would just crawl across in a straight line then leave. It might stop, wander around a bit, crawl across, stop, etc. and eventually fly or crawl off.

So, let us summarise. Here we have a video from a source we can't necessarily trust. The video is of very low quality and is shown to us at least third-hand. We don't know if any digital editing has been done on it. And even if the video is legit, there's at least one very plausible explanation for the footage that doesn't involve a ghost.

Now, remind me. Why is this video supposed to help to convince me that ghosts exist?

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

You described this video as "compelling":

Short description to save others from watching it: A car carrying a mother and baby went into a river. The mother died, but the baby was saved. It seems that somebody spotted the car, the police turned up and got the baby out. Now, I'm sure the police would have looked in the car anyway, but the police officer in the video says they looked even faster after hearing a mysterious voice calling our something like "Help me. Help me now."

The reporter's voiceover tells the story and states something like "Who or what the voice was and where it came from may forever remain a mystery."

One police officer is interviewed. He tells the story of the voice calling out, says how glad he is that they rescued the baby and so on. But we get no information from him about where the voice was apparently coming from, what it sounded like, or any other details about it. We don't know how many people were there or where they were. We don't know anything about the child that was rescued, even, other than that it was described as a "baby".

So, what are we to make of this? Was it the ghost of the dead mother calling out for help? Or was a bystander who saw the car in the river calling for help? Was it an effect of the wind or the water? Was it the baby in the car crying and its cries were interpreted as words?

There's simply no way to know from the video, because essentially no information is given beyond the mere claim that a voice was heard calling for help.

So what exactly is "compelling" about this video?

It's certainly not "compelling" evidence that ghosts exist. There's so little relevant information presented in the video that we are free to make up just about any story about the "voice".

 

[James R]

Do you have any really compelling videos, Magical Realist, or just lots more like these?

 

[James R]

Here's the "Compelling personal account by actor Telly Savalas":

At the end of Telly's ghost story, the presenter tells us:

"Telly told us, by the way, that he'd always been a cynic about the supernatural - until that night."

Yet, strangely, about half way through his story, Telly describes his mother as "a witch" (meant as somebody who has a "feel" for the supernatural, not as an insult). This tells me that Telly believes in this kind of thing. Now, maybe he really was a cynic until he met his ghost, but I think not.

But wait! Who says that anything about this story is true? This is a story told by an actor especially for a TV show on the paranormal. Did Telly Savalas perhaps get paid to tell his story to the camera? The question is: who wrote the script? Telly, or the makers of "The Extraordinary" (or whatever the TV show is called)? Telly presents his story well, but he's an actor. He tells stories for a living.

And what 'extra' evidence is presented for us to confirm that Telly (or whoever) didn't just make the whole thing up? Do we get to hear from the dead guy's wife? No. Do we get to see the letter from the dead guy and the scrawled phone number? No. Does anybody confirm the guy's name and address from back then? No. Did anybody investigate the date of the death of the baseballer who Telly said was in the news? Does the date match the date that the story is set? We're not told.

I mean, there's a lot of things that could be checked here, but it seems nobody bothered to check anything. Why is that? It's almost as if they just wanted a good ghost story to put on a TV show, and they didn't care whether it was true or not. No, that couldn't be right. Or could it?

Again, I have to ask: what, exactly, is "compelling" about this video, as evidence that ghosts exist? If I had to guess, I'd say Telly was probably paid to tell a story that somebody else wrote for the purposes of the TV show.

Is there any point in my watching any other youtube video that Magical Realist finds "compelling"? I'm starting to wonder. These videos all fail by a long shot to even start to convince me that there's anything to this ghost business, other than fraud, fakery and wishful thinking.

 

[sculptor]

Maybe they wear cloths cause that what they were buried in?

.......................
If I must see ghosts(aside from my mother), I would prefer them naked.
Or much like Tamoshanter's:
But here my Muse her wing maun cour;
Sic flights are far beyond her pow'r;
To sing how Nannie lap and flang,
(A souple jade she was, and strang),
And how Tam stood, like ane bewitch'd,
And thought his very een enrich'd;
Even Satan glowr'd, and fidg'd fu' fain,
And hotch'd and blew wi' might and main;
Till first ae caper, syne anither,
Tam tint his reason ' thegither,
And roars out, "Weel done, Cutty-sark!"

(A comely lass dancing passionately in a short skirt----------------
Poor Tam, he lost his head and shouted out "Weel done, Cutty-sark!" (well done short skirt)
And, then began the race of his life atop his trusty Meg. (She saved his life, but got her bobtail in the bargain)

 

[exchemist]

Maybe they wear cloths cause that what they were buried in?

.......................
If I must see ghosts(aside from my mother), I would prefer them naked.
Or much like Tamoshanter's:
But here my Muse her wing maun cour;
Sic flights are far beyond her pow'r;
To sing how Nannie lap and flang,
(A souple jade she was, and strang),
And how Tam stood, like ane bewitch'd,
And thought his very een enrich'd;
Even Satan glowr'd, and fidg'd fu' fain,
And hotch'd and blew wi' might and main;
Till first ae caper, syne anither,
Tam tint his reason ' thegither,
And roars out, "Weel done, Cutty-sark!"

(A comely lass dancing passionately in a short skirt----------------
Poor Tam, he lost his head and shouted out "Weel done, Cutty-sark!" (well done short skirt)
And, then began the race of his life atop his trusty Meg. (She saved his life, but got her bobtail in the bargain)

The Cutty Sark threw me a bit when I read the last line. I starting wondering if the "race" of his life was metaphorical, and who exactly this "trusty Meg" might be, atop whom he began this, er, "race".

 

[sculptor]

Who is Meg?
"Weel mounted on his gray mare, Meg--
A better never lifted leg--
Tam skelpit on thro' dub and mire;
Despisin' wind and rain and fire.
Whiles holding fast his gude blue bonnet;
Whiles crooning o'er some auld Scots sonnet;
Whiles glowring round wi' prudent cares,
Lest bogles catch him unawares:"
...................
and later, this is where swift Meg saves the incautious Tam:
(picking up where I left off:

"And roars out, "Weel done, Cutty-sark!"
And in an instant all was dark:
And scarcely had he Maggie rallied,
When out the hellish legion sallied.

As bees bizz out wi' angry fyke,
When plundering herds assail their byke;
As open pussie's mortal foes,
When, pop! she starts before their nose;
As eager runs the market-crowd,
When "Catch the thief!" resounds aloud;
So Maggie runs, the witches follow,
Wi' mony an eldritch skriech and hollo.

Ah, Tam! ah, Tam! thou'll get thy fairin'!
In hell they'll roast thee like a herrin'!
In vain thy Kate awaits thy commin'!
Kate soon will be a woefu' woman!
Now, do thy speedy utmost, Meg,
And win the key-stane o' the brig;
There at them thou thy tail may toss,
A running stream they dare na cross.
But ere the key-stane she could make,
The fient a tail she had to shake!
For Nannie, far before the rest,
Hard upon noble Maggie prest,
And flew at Tam wi' furious ettle;
But little wist she Maggie's mettle -
Ae spring brought off her master hale,
But left behind her ain gray tail;
The carlin claught her by the rump,
And left poor Maggie scarce a stump"

It seems that Scot witches could not cross running water

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you have any really compelling videos, Magical Realist, or just lots more like these?

I gave you 7. Did you only look at 3 of those? Also, do you get tired of accusing people you don't even know of fakery and lying just because you don't want to believe in ghosts? I mean really. Surely it must seem even ridiculous to you after awhile. This constant handwaving away of people's accounts and of video evidence. This tremendous effort to defend your scientistic worldview that nothing unexplained ever happens. What happens if people are telling the truth about this? What happens if there is no giant conspiracy out there to fake paranormal evidence for some sinister agenda? What happens if the videos are unfaked? What will this all mean for James R?

 

[Magical Realist]

One police officer is interviewed. He tells the story of the voice calling out, says how glad he is that they rescued the baby and so on. But we get no information from him about where the voice was apparently coming from, what it sounded like, or any other details about it. We don't know how many people were there or where they were. We don't know anything about the child that was rescued, even, other than that it was described as a "baby".

4 rescuers heard the voice coming from inside the car. It wasn't the wind. It wasn't someone on the bridge calling out "Help me." I even have video of the whole incident and you can hear the voice. You have explained nothing. This is a compelling account of a mother saving her child's life.

 

[Magical Realist]

But wait! Who says that anything about this story is true? This is a story told by an actor especially for a TV show on the paranormal. Did Telly Savalas perhaps get paid to tell his story to the camera? The question is: who wrote the script? Telly, or the makers of "The Extraordinary" (or whatever the TV show is called)? Telly presents his story well, but he's an actor. He tells stories for a living.

And what 'extra' evidence is presented for us to confirm that Telly (or whoever) didn't just make the whole thing up? Do we get to hear from the dead guy's wife? No. Do we get to see the letter from the dead guy and the scrawled phone number? No. Does anybody confirm the guy's name and address from back then? No. Did anybody investigate the date of the death of the baseballer who Telly said was in the news? Does the date match the date that the story is set? We're not told.

You're ridiculous. Telly Savalas isn't lying just to be famous or to get rich. He's already famous and rich. So what if noone saw the letter? You have an intuitive sense that Telly is on the level here. He has no reason to make this up. He was probably even teased about it. This is a highly compelling account of an unusual paranormal experience. It even defies what I know about the paranormal. Riding in a car with a ghost? More is possible than we suspect.

Yet, strangely, about half way through his story, Telly describes his mother as "a witch" (meant as somebody who has a "feel" for the supernatural, not as an insult). This tells me that Telly believes in this kind of thing. Now, maybe he really was a cynic until he met his ghost, but I think not.

Maybe he concluded she was a witch after he saw evidence of the paranormal. Maybe he meant witch in a religious sense, like a Wiccan. There's no compelling reason to think he'd lie about something like that.

 

[Magical Realist]

Could it, for example, be something to do with the shadow of the man who walks into frame and wanders around? Could it be some kind of reflection into the lens of the CCTV camera from something else that is off-camera? Could it be some kind of shadow that occurred due to people moving around the mobile phone as it filmed the CCTV screen?

Nice try, but no.

What about something crawling across the CCTV camera lens? Suppose, for example, that a small bug or fly landed on the CCTV lens and crawled across. What would that look like on the image? My guess is that the bug would be so far out of focus that it would look like a mere blur, but that blur would move across the image as the bug crawled across the lens. And there would be no reason to assume that the bug would just crawl across in a straight line then leave. It might stop, wander around a bit, crawl across, stop, etc. and eventually fly or crawl off.

It moves and walks like a human figure. It is the height of a human figure. It moves vertically and consistently with the landscape. A bug doesn't move on a lens like that. That movement is quick and jerky. I've seen video of bugs on camera lenses. That's not what we see here. And no it isn't a shadow of the security guard. The security guard goes out to check on what it could be and sees nothing. The fact that it is on a CCTV camera supports its authenticity for me. If it were a guy looking for ghosts I would probably question it. But there is no motivation for fakery here. Nothing to prove or state here. Just an odd incident on a security camera at a haunted castle. Very compelling to me.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I gave you 7. Did you only look at 3 of those?

Are the other 4 of equally "compelling", or are they superior to the 3 I looked at?

Also, do you get tired of accusing people you don't even know of fakery and lying just because you don't want to believe in ghosts?

You have it wrong. Where I have said that something might be a lie or faked, it is because that is a plausible explanation. It has nothing tdo with whether I want to believe in ghosts or not. Actually, I wonder why you consider it relevant as to whether I want ghosts to exist. If they exist, they exist, regardless of what you or I want, right? And similarly if they don't exist. Wishing won't make it so.

I mean really. Surely it must seem even ridiculous to you after awhile. This constant handwaving away of people's accounts and of video evidence.

No handwaving. Above, I have suggested several plausible non-supernatural explanations for the videos. You have not refuted my suggestions or provided any evidence of your own of the "reality" of the claims made in the videos.

This tremendous effort to defend your scientistic worldview that nothing unexplained ever happens.

I have never said that nothing unexplained ever happens. In fact, in scientific research, unexplained stuff happens all the time. That's what research is: investigating the unexplained and the unknown.

In general, in life we have imperfect knowledge, so there's lots of unexplained stuff out there. I'd be an idiot to claim that nothing unexplained ever happens.

What you don't seem to understand is that identifying a mystery is not the same as proving that ghosts exist. An unexplained thing is just an unexplained thing. If you want to explain it by introducing a ghost, you need to show that the ghost story is the best explanation.

What happens if people are telling the truth about this?

Nothing much. Some people obviously are telling the truth. Sorting the fakes and liars from the truthtellers is important, but hard when it comes to ghosts, just because of the shear number of liars when it comes to ghosts stories.

What happens if there is no giant conspiracy out there to fake paranormal evidence for some sinister agenda?

Nothing much. Who claimed there is a giant conspiracy to fake paranormal evidence? Not me.

What happens if the videos are unfaked? What will this all mean for James R?

What? All of them? Is it your claim that no faked ghost videos exist?

Look at the Dover Castle video I just analysed for your benefit. My guess is that it probably isn't faked (though I could well be wrong). But that doesn't mean it shows a ghost. Maybe it just shows a bug crawling across the camera lens.

4 rescuers heard the voice coming from inside the car. It wasn't the wind. It wasn't someone on the bridge calling out "Help me." I even have video of the whole incident and you can hear the voice. You have explained nothing. This is a compelling account of a mother saving her child's life.

Yeah, right. A dead mother coming back as a spirit to save her child's life by vaguely crying for help.

My previous comments on that video remain without response from you.

You're ridiculous. Telly Savalas isn't lying just to be famous or to get rich. He's already famous and rich.

I didn't say he was lying to get rich. I suggested he was paid to do the TV programme. Do you think that's impossible? Do you have evidence that he did it out of the goodness of his heart, for free? In fact, can you address any of the concerns I raised in my post about that video?

If we're going to call each other names, then allow me to call you ridiculous for being taken in by Telly's ghost story.

So what if noone saw the letter?

Then we don't know there was a letter. There's no evidence that any letter ever existed.

You have an intuitive sense that Telly is on the level here.

No, I don't have that intuitive sense.

He has no reason to make this up.

What if he was paid to do the TV show? Would that be a reason to do it? He might not have even had to make up the story. It could have been handed to him by the writers on the show.

Do you have any evidence of him ever telling that story anywhere else, other than on that particular TV show? Had he been telling it for years? If not, why pick now to go public with it on that particular TV show?

He was probably even teased about it.

Do you have any evidence of that? I thought not.

This is a highly compelling account of an unusual paranormal experience.

Not at all. The whole thing is fishy.

Maybe he concluded she was a witch after he saw evidence of the paranormal. Maybe he meant witch in a religious sense, like a Wiccan. There's no compelling reason to think he'd lie about something like that.

I don't think you understood my point about his "witch" reference.

Nice try, but no.

It moves and walks like a human figure.

I don't see any walking. Where are the legs?

It is the height of a human figure.

Not if it's a bug on the camera lens.

It moves vertically and consistently with the landscape.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

A bug doesn't move on a lens like that.

You've done a detailed investigation of all the bugs in the area around Dover Castle, have you? So, I guess you'd be an expert then.

That movement is quick and jerky. I've seen video of bugs on camera lenses. That's not what we see here.

Show me a video of a bug on a lens, so we can compare.

And no it isn't a shadow of the security guard.

And you can rule that out definitively because ... ?

The security guard goes out to check on what it could be and sees nothing.

How do you know why he went out? How do you know what he saw? Do you have an interview with him, or any kind of written statement, or something?

How can you know these things? Magic?

The fact that it is on a CCTV camera supports its authenticity for me.

How do you know it is on a CCTV camera?

If it were a guy looking for ghosts I would probably question it.

You know about the guy who uploaded the video? Great. Who is he?

But there is no motivation for fakery here.

No? What about internet notoriety?

Nothing to prove or state here.

Oh. I thought you were trying to prove there was a ghost. You're doing a lousy job so far.

Just an odd incident on a security camera at a haunted castle. Very compelling to me.

Does "compelling" mean anything to you other than that you've chosen to interpret it as a ghost?

What makes it so compelling for you? Explain.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:


Are the other 4 of equally "compelling", or are they superior to the 3 I looked at?

Guess you'll never know if you don't look at them. I mean, why believe me? I could be lying to you at any given moment, right? Don't all paranormal experients lie?

You have it wrong. Where I have said that something might be a lie or faked, it is because that is a plausible explanation. It has nothing tdo with whether I want to believe in ghosts or not. Actually, I wonder why you consider it relevant as to whether I want ghosts to exist. If they exist, they exist, regardless of what you or I want, right? And similarly if they don't exist. Wishing won't make it so.

But it isn't plausible that it is faked. It's CCTV video from a security station of the castle gate. Don't believe me? Tough shit. There's simply no reason for anyone to fake it. And here's where not wanting ghosts to exist matters. It matters because you continuously find implausible excuses not to accept it as real. As if you are incapable of taking the evidence as it is. Nobody does that unless they have an ongoing agenda to disprove all paranormal evidence. Sort of like your hero Joe Nickel. lol!

No handwaving. Above, I have suggested several plausible non-supernatural explanations for the videos. You have not refuted my suggestions or provided any evidence of your own of the "reality" of the claims made in the videos.

You haven't proven anything yourself. You just make up possible alternatives and claim that is good reason to reject the evidence. You have no evidence anyone is lying or faking. Support your claim if it is so solid.

I have never said that nothing unexplained ever happens. In fact, in scientific research, unexplained stuff happens all the time. That's what research is: investigating the unexplained and the unknown.

The paranormal is unexplained. Are you saying you believe in the paranormal?

In general, in life we have imperfect knowledge, so there's lots of unexplained stuff out there. I'd be an idiot to claim that nothing unexplained ever happens.

Good for you. You can start now by acknowledging these 7 compelling videos.

What you don't seem to understand is that identifying a mystery is not the same as proving that ghosts exist. An unexplained thing is just an unexplained thing. If you want to explain it by introducing a ghost, you need to show that the ghost story is the best explanation.

Given what we know from thousands of paranormal investigations, dozens of poltergeist accounts, and hundreds of accounts of haunted places, ghost fits the facts of the case the best. Otherwise we are looking at a highly unlikely collusion of mundane mishaps occurring over and over again in all these cases. Or a massive conspiracy of liars. Which is it?

Nothing much. Some people obviously are telling the truth. Sorting the fakes and liars from the truthtellers is important, but hard when it comes to ghosts, just because of the shear number of liars when it comes to ghosts stories.

How do you know there are so many liars about ghosts? How could you possibly know something like that? Unless that's just the assumption of blind skepticism.

Nothing much. Who claimed there is a giant conspiracy to fake paranormal evidence? Not me.

You just said considering the sheer number of liars when it comes to ghost stories. You also seem to believe that anyone who tells of an experience like this on TV is lying too. That all the ghost investigations on TV are fake. How did you come about this knowledge? It certainly hasn't reached the media yet.

What? All of them? Is it your claim that no faked ghost videos exist?

There are obvious fakes. But they're ruled out because they're obvious, not because they are paranormal.

Look at the Dover Castle video I just analysed for your benefit. My guess is that it probably isn't faked (though I could well be wrong). But that doesn't mean it shows a ghost. Maybe it just shows a bug crawling across the camera lens.

Nope. Consider this bug crawling on a lens:

Yeah, right. A dead mother coming back as a spirit to save her child's life by vaguely crying for help.

It certainly worked didn't it. The rescue workers immediately rallied to overturn the car when they heard that cry for help. If you had a human heart, you'd grasp the emotional power of that.

My previous comments on that video remain without response from you.

You mean your groundless accusations of fakery and lying? What's there to respond to?

I didn't say he was lying to get rich. I suggested he was paid to do the TV programme. Do you think that's impossible? Do you have evidence that he did it out of the goodness of his heart, for free? In fact, can you address any of the concerns I raised in my post about that video?

I have read that Telly Savalas was a good and well respected man. Everyone who knew him vouched for that. So no. Him lying to make a buck doesn't fit the facts.

If we're going to call each other names, then allow me to call you ridiculous for being taken in by Telly's ghost story.

It's a firsthand account by an honest and good man. What better evidence is there?

Then we don't know there was a letter. There's no evidence that any letter ever existed.

He said there was. That's good enough for me.

No, I don't have that intuitive sense.

Right..because you think everybody is lying. Hence your lacking any needful intuition to tell when they aren't.

What if he was paid to do the TV show? Would that be a reason to do it? He might not have even had to make up the story. It could have been handed to him by the writers on the show.

What if what if...No..there's no reason for him to make up a story that outlandish. People like you would only use it as an excuse to attack his character or question his sanity.

Do you have any evidence of him ever telling that story anywhere else, other than on that particular TV show? Had he been telling it for years? If not, why pick now to go public with it on that particular TV show?

Who knows? Who cares? His character isn't on trial here.

Not at all. The whole thing is fishy.

And conveniently so for someone who just knows ghosts don't exist.

I don't see any walking. Where are the legs?

Looks like a walking human figure to me.

Not if it's a bug on the camera lens.

It bears no resemblance to a bug.

You've done a detailed investigation of all the bugs in the area around Dover Castle, have you? So, I guess you'd be an expert then.

No bug on earth walks like that on a camera lens.

Show me a video of a bug on a lens, so we can compare.

I already did.

How do you know why he went out? How do you know what he saw? Do you have an interview with him, or any kind of written statement, or something?

Yes. I have a written account.

http://www.dover-express.co.uk/SPOO...Dover-Castle/story-22927314-detail/story.html

How can you know these things? Magic?

Because shadows don't move around disconnected to bodies. lol!

How do you know it is on a CCTV camera?

Read the account.

You know about the guy who uploaded the video? Great. Who is he?

He's a devious liar trying to make money off of faking a video. Right?

No? What about internet notoriety?

I don't know his name. He didn't include it. So much for notoriety.

Oh. I thought you were trying to prove there was a ghost. You're doing a lousy job so far.

7 compelling cases says otherwise.

Does "compelling" mean anything to you other than that you've chosen to interpret it as a ghost?

It means people wouldn't make this shit up because it isn't popular to see shit like this. You are a living example of how they get treated as a result. It's really pathetic. As a result, there are doubtless many more cases of paranormal encounters that people just never admit. Which works out well for you skeptics. Who wants to hear about the paranormal happening?

What makes it so compelling for you? Explain.

First hand accounts. Like on the news we watch everyday. Unless ofcourse you think those people are lying too. What a strange little world you must live in.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I notice that you have a created a straw man from what I have written. Repeatedly, you try to put words in my mouth that I did not write, and impute to me opinions that I have not expressed. I ask you not to do that. It is dishonest. It also makes you look desperate.

Don't all paranormal experients lie?

Let's count your lies and misrepresentations in this post, shall we?

Lie number 1 is above. I have nowhere said that all paranormal experients lie.

But it isn't plausible that it is faked. It's CCTV video from a security station of the castle gate. Don't believe me? Tough shit.

I thought you were hoping to convince me that ghosts exist with this video.

"If you don't believe me then tough shit" doesn't go too far in convincing me of anything other than your belligerence.

There's simply no reason for anyone to fake it.

I gave one reason already.

And here's where not wanting ghosts to exist matters. It matters because you continuously find implausible excuses not to accept it as real. As if you are incapable of taking the evidence as it is.

The problem you are encountering is exactly that I am taking the evidence as it is. I'm not embellishing what is there with my own wishful thinking and fantasies and beliefs, like you are. I'm just looking at what's there.

Nobody does that unless they have an ongoing agenda to disprove all paranormal evidence.

Everybody has a mind so open his brains are likely to fall out, unless they are trying to disprove paranormal evidence. Figures.

Sort of like your hero Joe Nickel. lol!

Lie number 2 on your part. I have never referred to Joe Nickel as my hero. I'm not sure what the "lol" there is for. Do you think you're smart for putting the guy down? Or are you laughing at me for daring to be skeptical of your ghost video nonsense?

You know it is you who is the laughing stock here, don't you? You're making yourself look like a nut who will believe anything on the flimsiest pretext.

You haven't proven anything yourself. You just make up possible alternatives and claim that is good reason to reject the evidence. You have no evidence anyone is lying or faking. Support your claim if it is so solid.

I have made no claims. You said you'd show me some good evidence of ghosts. You have failed to show any good evidence.

Considering alternative explanations is the mark of a critical thinker. Accepting at face value everything you see on the internet is the mark of a gullible fool.

Note also that I have not claimed that anybody in your videos is lying or faking (though they might be). Why haven't I made such a claim? Because I don't have the evidence to support such a claim.

Are you learning anything here?

The paranormal is unexplained. Are you saying you believe in the paranormal?

What paranormal?

Good for you. You can start now by acknowledging these 7 compelling videos.

Unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. It's also ok not know everything. It is not necessary that we be able to explain every ghost video in order to conclude that ghosts probably don't exist.

Given what we know from thousands of paranormal investigations, dozens of poltergeist accounts, and hundreds of accounts of haunted places, ghost fits the facts of the case the best. Otherwise we are looking at a highly unlikely collusion of mundane mishaps occurring over and over again in all these cases. Or a massive conspiracy of liars. Which is it?

As usual, you aren't exploring all the options, so you end up setting up false dilemmas like this one.

You claim that there are thousands of "paranormal investigations" that show that ghosts exist, but all the ones you produce are just like the ones I've examined here. Unconvincing and usually unverifiable.

You keep suggesting that only a conspiracy could create so many faked videos etc. That's not true. A great conspiracy of ghost believers isn't needed. They are quite sufficiently motivated as individuals, just like you are.

As for the regular occurrence of the mundane, well that's how the world is. It's a big wide world. Some unusual stuff happens out there, and some of it is even caught on camera. Those mundane mishaps you refer to occur often enough that sometimes they become "phenomena" in the eyes of believers like yourself. Look at "ghost orbs", for example. They are invariably dust particles and the like, or else lens flares caught by a camera or similar effects that occur often. But you ghost people want desperately to believe that they are energy orbs from the afterlife.

How do you there are so many liars about ghosts? How could you possibly know something like that?

Easy. Because so many of them have been exposed as liars and fakers.

You just said considering the shear number of liars when it comes to ghost stories.

That doesn't require a conspiracy, and I am not alleging one.

You also seem to believe that anyone who tells of an experience like this on TV is lying too.

Lie number 3 from you. I have written nothing of the sort.

That all the ghost investigations on TV are fake.

I don't know what you mean by this. It seems probable that at least some TV ghost investigations are well intentioned and don't set out to be dishonest. If only we could say that for all of them, but we can't.

Once again, you feel the need to exaggerate what I have written to turn it into a straw man. When I say some videos are faked, or some TV shows, or some photos, you turn around and claim that I've said all are faked. Why is that? Why do you feel you need to set up a straw man? It's because you can't dismiss what I actually said so easily, isn't it. You know you can't claim there are no fakes, but you don't want to admit that what I have said is correct in all its particulars. So you construct a straw-man version of what I wrote in a weak attempt to make me look unreasonable. This backfires on you, and you end up looking like a fanatic.

How did you come about this knowledge? It certainly hasn't reached the media yet.

Many ghost fakers have been caught out and exposed in the media.

There are obvious fakes. But they're ruled out because they're obvious, not because they are paranormal.

What you're saying is that if you decide that a particular piece of evidence is a fake, then it's "obvious". But if somebody else decides it's fake and you believe it's real then that person saying it is fake must have a dishonest agenda against the paranormal.

What an interesting double-standard you have.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Nope. Consider this bug crawling on a lens

How about this one:

Do you want to argue that, in fact, this video shows a ghost?

It certainly worked didn't it. The rescue workers immediately rallied to overturn the car when they heard that cry for help. If you had a human heart, you grasp the power of that.

What worked? I have seen no evidence that there was any cry for help, so far. There's only the testimony of the police officer who was interviewed in your video, and some hearsay evidence from reporters and the like.

Do you think the rescue workers would have not examined the car had it not been for a cry for help?

I find your accusation that I do not have a "human heart" insulting, and I will thank you to leave your personal insults out of this conversation in future.

My previous comments on that video remain without response from you.

You mean your accusations of fakery and lying? What's there to respond to?

Lie number 4 from you. I made no accusation of fakery or lying.

What is to respond to are the issues I raised in respect of the video. How do you respond to the matters I raised?

I have read that Telly Savalas was a good and well respected man. Everyone who knew him vouched for that.

You know everyone who knew Telly Savalas, do you?

So no. Him lying to make a buck doesn't fit the facts.

Lying to make a buck is just one possibility there. Another possibility is that he honestly believed that sequence of events happened to him, implausible as they are. But he was trying to recall an event from 1955, on a TV show made in 1994, almost 40 years later. For all we know, he could have mixed up some real-life events with his belief in the supernatural.

It's a firsthand account by an honest and good man. What better evidence is there?

Corroborating evidence from multiple independent sources would obviously be much more persuasive, for a start. Physical evidence of the documents referred to in the story would be good to examine. Having other people who could verify parts of his story would help a lot.

In short, there could, in theory, be a whole heap of better evidence than we are presented with.

There's no evidence that any letter ever existed.

He said there was. That's good enough for me.

Yes, but we know you're so gullible that anything is good enough for you. His say-so isn't good enough for me. See?

Right..because you think everybody is lying. Hence your lacking any needful intuition to tell when they aren't.

Lie number 5 from you (it's really the same straw-man lie repeated time and again, isn't it?). I have nowhere said that I think everybody is lying - not even all people who tell us they have seen a ghost.

What if what if...No..there's no reason for him to make up a story that outlandish. People like you would only use it as an excuse to attack his character or question his sanity.

There's every reason if this was a paid gig for him (and it would be unusual if it wasn't).

Lie number 6 from you. I never suggested he was insane, and I haven't directly commented on his character. Frankly, I don't have enough evidence about his character to know whether he was a habitual spinner of wild tales or a scrupulously honest and reliable witness. You'd be in a much better position than me on that, of course, since you've said you know everybody who knew Telly Savalas. Moving in his close friendship circles like you must have, you'd be in a good position to vouch for his character, I admit.

Do you have any evidence of him ever telling that story anywhere else, other than on that particular TV show? Had he been telling it for years? If not, why pick now to go public with it on that particular TV show?

Who knows? Who cares? His character isn't on trial here.

It is relevant if we're trying to investigate whether he was being honest or not. Can't you see that?

And conveniently so for someone who just knows ghosts don't exist.

Lie number 7 from you.

In fact, I have explicitly told you a number of times that I don't know that ghosts don't exist. Did you forget in your rush to erect a straw man?

Looks like a walking human figure to me.

Who cares what it looks like to you? To you it looks like a ghost. You're desperate to believe it is a ghost.

It bears no resemblance to a bug.

I disagree. Compare the video above.

No bug on earth walks like that on a camera lens.

I disagree.

How do you know why [the security guard at Dover Castle] went out? How do you know what he saw? Do you have an interview with him, or any kind of written statement, or something?

Yes. I have a written account.

Great! Let's see it.

Because shadows don't move around disconnected to bodies. lol!

I have not mentioned any disconnected shadow. Any shadow that was involved would presumably have been connected to a body. (Unless it was a ghost shadow. LOL.)

Read the account.

What account?

You know about the guy who uploaded the video? Great. Who is he?

He's a devious liar trying to make money off of faking a video. Right?

You're the one who claims to know him. You tell me (and show me the evidence).

I don't know his name. He didn't include it. So much for notoriety.

He doesn't have an internet handle for posting videos? The only nameless youtube poster on the internet, eh? Interesting.

7 compelling cases says otherwise.

I haven't seen you post one truly compelling case yet.

The way you talk these things up, I think you'd describe a CCTV video showing paint drying as "compelling".

It means people wouldn't make this shit up because it isn't popular to see shit like this.

And yet lots of these videos show reports on the evening news (admittedly, mostly its Fox, so that doesn't count as real news). So it looks like there's no shortage of people who find ghost videos popular, contrary to what you claim.

You are a living example of how they get treated as result. It's really pathetic.

Poor ghost video takers. Little old me is harassing them by asking inconvenient questions that they'd rather not have to answer. Those poor oppressed people.

First hand accounts. Like on the news we watch everyday.

Have you ever noticed that news reports usually show other evidence than mere anecdotes. If there's a news story on TV about conflict in Syria, we see footage of people fighting in Syria (possibly along with some interviews). If there's a news story about an earthquake in China, we often see footage of the aftermath (and, more and more often, footage taken during the quake), along with reports from seismologists and the like, and the interviews. The point is: first-hand accounts are not usually the only evidence.

Unless ofcourse you think those people are lying too. What a strange world you must live in.

A world in which some people tell lies some of the time? That doesn't seem out of the bounds of possibility to me. Have you never had anybody tell you a lie? Not ever? Really?

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:

I notice that you have a created a straw man from what I have written. Repeatedly, you try to put words in my mouth that I did not write, and impute to me opinions that I have not expressed. I ask you not to do that. It is dishonest. It also makes you look desperate.

So you HAVEN'T been saying that all these people are lying? That the one rescuer, who was one of four actually, isn't lying? That the guy who posted the Dover castle video isn't lying? That Telly Savalas isn't lying just to make a buck? That most people who see ghosts are caught in lies? Then somebody must be posting this besides you, because I definitely see a litany of accusations here.

Lie number 1 is above. I have nowhere said that all paranormal experients lie.

I think that's what you believe. It's certainly your "go to" excuse for dismissing every experience I post here.

I thought you were hoping to convince me that ghosts exist with this video.

"If you don't believe me then tough shit" doesn't go too far in convincing me of anything other than your belligerence.

Your inability to believe me isn't my problem and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove I'm not lying. Got it?

The problem you are encountering is exactly that I am taking the evidence as it is. I'm not embellishing what is there with my own wishful thinking and fantasies and beliefs, like you are. I'm just looking at what's there.

Ofcourse you are embellishing. You're talking about the wind sounding like a voice, the shadow figure being a bug, the uploader of the video lying, Telly Savalas lying, etc. These are all wishful thinking on your part so you don't have to believe what the evidence shows.

Everybody has a mind so open his brains are likely to fall out, unless they are trying to disprove paranormal evidence. Figures.

There's your bias again. Trying to disprove the paranormal is a mission for you because you assume it doesn't exist. Unfortunately you can't do it without making up shit that you couldn't possibly know. Oh and for the record, saying something is possible isn't refuting anything. It's possible Telly Savalas has a twin brother that appeared on that show instead of him. Is it plausible? No..

Lie number 2 on your part. I have never referred to Joe Nickel as my hero. I'm not sure what the "lol" there is for. Do you think you're smart for putting the guy down? Or are you laughing at me for daring to be skeptical of your ghost video nonsense?

I'm laughing at how you emulate Joe Nickel's tactics of making up things and then using those as excuses to dismiss obvious evidence. Maybe it's just a coincidence it is the same. Maybe not.

You know it is you who is the laughing stock here, don't you? You're making yourself look like a nut who will believe anything on the flimsiest pretext.

The only people laughing deleriously here are those who my posts have disturbed enough to provoke that response. I shouldn't be so convincing I guess. It really pisses people off here.

I have made no claims. You said you'd show me some good evidence of ghosts. You have failed to show any good evidence.

I gave you 7 compelling accounts, most first hand. That's very good evidence and would be enough to send a man to the gas chamber.

Considering alternative explanations is the mark of a critical thinker. Accepting at face value everything you see on the internet is the mark of a gullible fool.

No..accepting what people tell you they experienced when there is no compelling reason to doubt them is the mark of a normal sane person. Looking for excuses to call them liars or a nut? Not so normal.

Note also that I have not claimed that anybody in your videos is lying or faking (though they might be). Why haven't I made such a claim? Because I don't have the evidence to support such a claim.

Like I said, if you have no evidence someone is lying, then don't claim they could be. You don't know if they could be or not.

Unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. It's also ok not know everything. It is not necessary that we be able to explain every ghost video in order to conclude that ghosts probably don't exist.

Actually all we need is one video, one compelling first hand account, or one good paranormal investigation, to prove ghosts exist. There are in fact thousands of these, which certainly well establishes the existence of this mysterious phenomenon.

As usual, you aren't exploring all the options, so you end up setting up false dilemmas like this one.

You claim that there are thousands of "paranormal investigations" that show that ghosts exist, but all the ones you produce are just like the ones I've examined here. Unconvincing and usually unverifiable.

I haven't posted any paranormal investigations online because 1. you'd just say they were faked and 2. nobody here would watch an hour long investigation edited for it's best moments. Nobody here has the committment to look into this area that deeply. Such are the ways of deliberate denialists..

You keep suggesting that only a conspiracy could create so many faked videos etc. That's not true. A great conspiracy of ghost believers isn't needed. They are quite sufficiently motivated as individuals, just like you are.

A conspiracy is where two or more people collude to propagate a deception or lie. I don't see how thousands of people lying about the paranormal wouldn't constitute that.

As for the regular occurrence of the mundane, well that's how the world is. It's a big wide world. Some unusual stuff happens out there, and some of it is even caught on camera. Those mundane mishaps you refer to occur often enough that sometimes they become "phenomena" in the eyes of believers like yourself. Look at "ghost orbs", for example. They are invariably dust particles and the like, or else lens flares caught by a camera or similar effects that occur often. But you ghost people want desperately to believe that they are energy orbs from the afterlife.

No..investigators know the difference between dust particles on camera and an orb on camera. They are totally different. The dust looks like snow flying against the darkness. And orb is much larger, glows under infrared, is solitary, and flies in a deliberate direction. If you actually observed a paranormal investigation like you say you did, you'd know mundane causes like these are routinely rule out first before concluding the paranormal.

Easy. Because so many of them have been exposed as liars and fakers.

Really? When? By whom? You and Joe Nickel?

I don't know what you mean by this. It seems probable that at least some TV ghost investigations are well intentioned and don't set out to be dishonest. If only we could say that for all of them, but we can't.

It doesn't follow that just because something is shown on TV that it is fake. There are alot of reality shows on TV now and it would be absurd to claim they are all set up to look real. There's simply no evidence for such a claim.

Once again, you feel the need to exaggerate what I have written to turn it into a straw man. When I say some videos are faked, or some TV shows, or some photos, you turn around and claim that I've said all are faked. Why is that? Why do you feel you need to set up a straw man? It's because you can't dismiss what I actually said so easily, isn't it. You know you can't claim there are no fakes, but you don't want to admit that what I have said is correct in all its particulars. So you construct a straw-man version of what I wrote in a weak attempt to make me look unreasonable. This backfires on you, and you end up looking like a fanatic.

Anything can be faked at any time. DNA evidence. Scientific studies. Historical accounts. Does that mean they are therefore faked? No..not unless there is a compelling reason to think they are.

Many ghost fakers have been caught out and exposed in the media.

Name some. I know medium Derek Accorra with Most Haunted TV series was caught in a few lies. Who else?

What you're saying is that if you decide that a particular piece of evidence is a fake, then it's "obvious". But if somebody else decides it's fake and you believe it's real then that person saying it is fake must have a dishonest agenda against the paranormal.

No..what I'm saying is there must be a reason for claiming something is faked. You can't just make up some shit about it maybe being faked and dismiss it at that. We're talking plausibility here, not mere possibility.

 

[Magical Realist]

(continued...)


How about this one:

Do you want to argue that, in fact, this video shows a ghost?

I saw that "blue ghost" video back when it came out. I could tell it was a bug because it was so big and moved over everything. That's the sign of a bug or spider.

What worked? I have seen no evidence that there was any cry for help, so far. There's only the testimony of the police officer who was interviewed in your video, and some hearsay evidence from reporters and the like.

I posted the video and audio of the rescuers on the scene. Do you need more evidence this happened? Or are you just going to claim that one rescuer is making it up?

Do you think the rescue workers would have not examined the car had it not been for a cry for help?

They had no idea the baby was in car until they turned the car over in response to the voice. Are you going to tell me what happened now about an event you don't even believed happened? lol!

I find your accusation that I do not have a "human heart" insulting, and I will thank you to leave your personal insults out of this conversation in future.

Sorry..it just seems to fit you so squarely.

Lie number 4 from you. I made no accusation of fakery or lying.

What is to respond to are the issues I raised in respect of the video. How do you respond to the matters I raised?

I've lost track of what you are talking about in all these quotes. Suffice it to say I respond to the relevant points. If something is silly and irrelevant, I ignore it.

You know everyone who knew Telly Savalas, do you?

I said he had a reputation as a good and honorable man. I don't need to know everybody who knew him to know that.

Lying to make a buck is just one possibility there. Another possibility is that he honestly believed that sequence of events happened to him, implausible as they are. But he was trying to recall an event from 1955, on a TV show made in 1994, almost 40 years later. For all we know, he could have mixed up some real-life events with his belief in the supernatural.

He didn't believe in the supernatural until AFTER this experience. So no, he wasn't confabulating or false remembering something he wanted to happen.

Corroborating evidence from multiple independent sources would obviously be much more persuasive, for a start. Physical evidence of the documents referred to in the story would be good to examine. Having other people who could verify parts of his story would help a lot.

Oh..like multiple accounts of the same events at the same location? No..you'd just say people are seeing what they have been led to expect. Another excuse to dismiss evidence.

In short, there could, in theory, be a whole heap of better evidence than we are presented with.

We are limited by the transient nature of the phenomena itself. There could in theory be better evidence for dark matter and the Higgs boson. But we don't dismiss these things because there isn't.

Yes, but we know you're so gullible that anything is good enough for you. His say-so isn't good enough for me. See?

You have no idea if I'm gullible or not. Do you know how many cases I dismiss because I have compelling reasons to doubt them? So many I can't count. As always I go strictly by the evidence, not by what I want to believe.

Lie number 5 from you (it's really the same straw-man lie repeated time and again, isn't it?). I have nowhere said that I think everybody is lying - not even all people who tell us they have seen a ghost.

But isn't that your logic? That if someone could be lying, then they are lying? And since everyone at any moment could be lying, then they must all be lying. Right?

There's every reason if this was a paid gig for him (and it would be unusual if it wasn't

It doesn't follow that just because someone received money for doing an interview on a show or for a magazine that they are therefore lying. Not even probably. People get paid to talk about their lives everyday. It isn't a motive to lie.

Lie number 6 from you. I never suggested he was insane, and I haven't directly commented on his character. Frankly, I don't have enough evidence about his character to know whether he was a habitual spinner of wild tales or a scrupulously honest and reliable witness. You'd be in a much better position than me on that, of course, since you've said you know everybody who knew Telly Savalas. Moving in his close friendship circles like you must have, you'd be in a good position to vouch for his character, I admit.

You did assault his character. By saying he was lying about it to get paid by the TV show. And you then suggested he only thinks he experienced that event. That's sort of making up details about your past suggests something less that sanity. It suggests a delusional state of mind. Could Telly Savalas have been a delusional madman? No..not likely.

it is relevant if we're trying to investigate whether he was being honest or not. Can't you see that?

The man was honest based on the people who knew him. What better evidence do you need not to assume he was a lying scumbag.

In fact, I have explicitly told you a number of times that I don't know that ghosts don't exist. Did you forget in your rush to erect a straw man?

If you really believed that, you wouldn't claim the mundane as a superior explanation over ghosts. You are thus already biased against ghosts as an explanation for anything. There will never be a moment you will acknowledge evidence for them as long as you can make up some mundane cause you have no evidence even occurred.

Who cares what it looks like to you? To you it looks like a ghost. You're desperate to believe it is a ghost.

My belief in ghosts doesn't depend on this video being real at all. I already know ghosts exist based on the tons of evidence I seen over about 14 years. You can't undo evidence. And one video being faked doesn't bother me one bit.

I have not mentioned any disconnected shadow. Any shadow that was involved would presumably have been connected to a body. (Unless it was a ghost shadow. LOL.)

You suggested it could be the shadow of the security guard or someone else. Shadows don't look like that. They are attached to a present body. There was no body present when it was first seen.

You're the one who claims to know him. You tell me (and show me the evidence).

Actually you're the one who claims to know him well enough to think he'd lie about something like that. I'm just citing his reputation I've read from firsthand accounts. What do you have? Nothing but a baseless smear of his character.

He doesn't have an internet handle for posting videos? The only nameless youtube poster on the internet, eh? Interesting.

Didn't see one. Perhaps you think I'm lying.

I haven't seen you post one truly compelling case yet.

7 total as of this post. What more do you require?

The way you talk these things up, I think you'd describe a CCTV video showing paint drying as "compelling".

CCTV of a shadow figure walking across a landscape doesn't impress you? I think you're being disengenous here.

And yet lots of these videos show reports on the evening news (admittedly, mostly its Fox, so that doesn't count as real news). So it looks like there's no shortage of people who find ghost videos popular, contrary to what you claim.

Except for you and your skeptic brigade, who are always standing by to defame and accuse anyone who comes forward about such experiences.

Poor ghost video takers. Little old me is harassing them by asking inconvenient questions that they'd rather not have to answer. Those poor oppressed people.

No..by making up shit you have no evidence for. That doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't override the credibility of the eyewitness for that of the person trying to debunk it who wasn't even there.

Have you ever noticed that news reports usually show other evidence than mere anecdotes. If there's a news story on TV about conflict in Syria, we see footage of people fighting in Syria (possibly along with some interviews). If there's a news story about an earthquake in China, we often see footage of the aftermath (and, more and more often, footage taken during the quake), along with reports from seismologists and the like, and the interviews. The point is: first-hand accounts are not usually the only evidence.

I don't know James. Video can be faked. Never know if someone just photoshopped something on film to make it look like it happened.

A world in which some people tell lies some of the time? That doesn't seem out of the bounds of possibility to me. Have you never had anybody tell you a lie? Not ever? Really?

A world where you immediately doubt firsthand accounts because you have no evidence it ever happened? You wouldn't get past your first conversation at the water cooler with an attitude like that.

 

[Magical Realist]

Here's audio analysis of the voice calling out from that submerged car. I hear as clear as day:
"Why won't someone help me?" Very compelling evidence. What do you hear? The wind?

Here's some written data on the Dover Castle ghost. This made international headlines. I stand corrected. The user name is given. But is he famous now? No not really.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1478255/does-this-cctv-footage-of-dover-castle-show-a-ghost/

Here's a tutorial on the difference between dust and orbs: