Nope. I can’t even let you take back the draw. If someone claims that something is true or even might be true, the burden of proof is on that person to provide information, fact, whatever necessary. It must be convincing enough to be the only reasonable explanation for this claim. If there are still other reasonable or possible explanations that might be equally true, then the claimant has failed. That seems to be the case here. Saying the discussion has not ended, does not negate the fact that to this point, the OP or whoever is arguing for ghost’s existence HAS FAILED. I am a stubborn wench, determined to make everyone play by the same rules those damn skeptics tortured me with UNTIL I FAILED.
But we need to consider “the thirteenth strike rule,” to wit: Not only is a clock which strikes thirteen false, but it casts serious doubt on the other twelve.
There is a false presumption in this statement that the video in the OP is anything which must be explained by skeptics. The video shows a guy in a costume opening and closinf a door. The default presumption, then, is that it is a guy in a costume opening and closing a door. There has been no reason shown why it should be regarded as anything but what it appears to be. Saying that we haven’t proven it’s not a ghost is not an argument that it is a ghost.
The same argument can be applied to virtually any photogrph of any person. Yes it looks like my grandma but maybe it’s a ghost. I can’t prove it’s not a ghost. This argument is doubly fallacious when no one will define what a ghost is. How do we prove it’s not something if we aren’t given any sort of hypothesis in the first place?
Why are you so close-minded, Dob? If all possibilities are equal, then the person in the picture could be human, or a ghost, or a alien, or a time-traveller, or a visitor from another dimension, or a werewolf, or vampire, or even a marmoset in a damn good disguise, right?
You won’t believe this. I found a marmoset that looks like a ghost.
In defense of Dob, we kind of ran out of ghostly crusaders and with no one to debate, it seemed to drift into “devil’s advocate” and who really won. He came in late disagreed with the outcome and we had our next victim. All in fun Dob.
Mmmm, the zebras in the pro ghost team are saying so.
Once the background of Hampton Court is known, the less it looks like it was a ghost: besides the tour guides that dress in period clothes, Hampton Court has a shop to do that work. Therefore, it was most likely a guide or model that closed a drafty door.
If you scroll down on the first link, and to the middle on the last one, you will see likely candidates; the white headpiece likely explains the white area seen in the person closing the door (remember: the video captured the image from above and the person is looking downwards at the door handles)
A guide dressed like in the last link, with a coat from the era, is a likely candidate for our “ghost”
Clearly, whoever believes this has it backwards. A person does not has any intrinsic energy per se but must generate it by breaking down ingested food. Thus, the energy didn’t go anywhere, there’s no energy to begin with.
E contrario. These photos are bunk as far as using them as evidence for ghosts. The only reason to say they aren’t bunk is they appear to be authentic, i.e., not staged, edited, mucked with, etc.
Yes. Doc Nickel’s point was that you can’t DEBUNK something with so little going for it in the first place. His use of “Bunk” as a verb in this case was a humorous reference to the weakness of the “evidence” in the photos. He was succinct and clever. You are being pedantic and boring.
I know I should let this debate go, but damit I cant:
from IWLN
Again, the OP wasnt taking any stance. Some people in the course of the debate did, and you are correct, THEY failed. However, I still stand by my “draw stance” on this video. So get to Rueing already!
I agree with DtC to some extent as well. The default stance should be the most likely, which is a guy/girl in a dress. However, that doesnt make it so.
From Czarcasm, a post to match the name! You are correct tho, it could be anything. Which was my whole point to begin with!!! It could be anything, we have no idea and until its shown what it is, this debate was a DRAW!!!
Yes, you can. Just back slooowly from the thread. Be cautious because you are standing knee-deep in something that probably isn’t ectoplasm. Oh, and you spelled dammit wrong again.[hee hee]
The OP asked for possible explanations. There was actually no call for debate there. In a request for opinion, there is not even the possibility of a draw, because there is no contest!!! You can’t have a draw for an opinion poll!!! How can you have a draw on a topic with no “stance”? You continue to be wrong and I continue to remain rueless. Actually I think the degree of wrong is increasing as you get more specific. Keep going.
Ha! I knew you would rue the day! If you check your post on the previous page you were for the first one to suggest the OP was a draw, not me! I simply refuted you. I feel the “wrongness” meter moving back to you!
Cite! Prove it buckwheat and I will bow at your soiled feet. If as you say, I suggested the draw and you refuted me, why then are you arguing it’s a draw and I’m refuting you? Uh, you know what I mean. Quote me, baby.
The problem with that argument is that a real ghost would probably also be wearing “period clothes”, since they would have actually lived in that period.
Now, if you can point to a modern wristwatch that the ghost is wearing, then I’ll accept your argument.
I’m not sure I will go for that: at that distance and quality of video, a wristwatch would be next to impossible to see. More so when taking into consideration the period dress, It is most likely that the person in the video is female, unlikely to have a man’s wristwatch so it would be even smaller. In any case, you are moving the goal posts. No one mentioned a wristwatch or the lack of it. Your position is dismissing the activities in the location.
No, trying to make this a tie is silly, when even ghost chasers are throwing the towel.
I didn’t expect that we could actually see a wristwatch, I was simply proposing a case where such evidence would definitely rule out one of the possibilities (i.e., the ghost theory).
Simply noting that period costumes are available in modern times does not eliminate the possibility that the figure in the image is a ghost.
All in fun Dob.
I simply refuted you. I feel the “wrongness” meter moving back to you!