# U. K teen snaps a ghost ?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 29, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001 "2008-05-29T12:50:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/61 "2008-05-29T22:46:59Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] A very silly argument used by people who can’t spell “sceptical.” [/QUOTE] For the record, the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has nothing to do with skepticism. The argument, in its original form, is that if you’re going to teach a hypothesis as an alternative to evolution that is based on one religion and has no evidence, you should teach ALL such religious hypotheses, no matter how small the following; therefore, public schools shouldn’t cater to one religious group in such a way, because it is not feasible to cater to all religious groups. I think it’s a pretty sound argument, and not silly at all. ---
**Author:** ![Capcha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Capcha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capcha)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/62 "2008-05-29T22:53:29Z")
Like others have said, it’s a long shutter problem. I have an old digital camera ( Sony Cyber-shot 3.2MPix) that has, of course, no flash setting. When chosen, it slows down the image on screen + time of capture. I would have to brace the camera for a couple of seconds longer than normal, and try not to move/breathe. I have a picture (i think i still do) of my cat that has a ‘ghost’ smear: he didn’t stay put. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/63 "2008-05-29T23:22:28Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Likewise, as Antoine Lavoisier proved, a stone cannot fall from the sky because there ARE no stones in the sky. :rolleyes: times a million. [/QUOTE] So, tell me, how long do we have to go with zero physical evidence for something before we’re allowed to say it doesn’t exist? There’s more evidence for Bigfoot than for ghosts; nevertheless, most mainstream biologists will state more or less categorically that there’s not such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/64 "2008-05-30T00:13:35Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Likewise, as Antoine Lavoisier proved, a stone cannot fall from the sky because there ARE no stones in the sky. :rolleyes: times a million. [/QUOTE] Was the \*existence \*of said stones in question? It seems to me that the \*origin \*of the stones was the issue. Let someone establish the \*existence \*of ghosts, and then, and only then, does their derivation come into play. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/65 "2008-05-30T00:14:01Z")
Looks like a reflection. Just like the ones I used to get when I wore my old glasses. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/66 "2008-05-30T00:21:05Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Was the \*existence \*of said stones in question? It seems to me that the origin of the stones was the issue. [/QUOTE] Is the \*existence \*of the image in question? It seems to me that the origin of the image was the issue. Consider the two arguments. 1. Here is a stone. Did it fall from the sky? No, because there are no stones in the sky. 2. Here is a photo of an indistinct blur. Could it be a ghost? No, because there are no ghosts. Its the same thing exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/67 "2008-05-30T00:27:09Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Is the \*existence \*of the image in question? It seems to me that the origin of the image was the issue. Consider the two arguments. 1. Here is a stone. Did it fall from the sky? No, because there are no stones in the sky. 2. Here is a photo of an indistinct blur. Could it be a ghost? No, because there are no ghosts. Its the same thing exactly. [/QUOTE] No, it isn’t. One questions where a thing comes from, the other questions what a thing is. Two different arguments altogether, If Lavoisier had been discussing the image of a stone, perhaps you would have a point. He wasn’t, and you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/68 "2008-05-30T00:47:10Z")
No. The key in both cases is the argument “we know that it cannot be XYZ because XYZ does not exist” ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/69 "2008-05-30T00:54:57Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] No, it isn’t. One questions where a thing comes from, the other questions what a thing is. Two different arguments altogether, If Lavoisier had been discussing the image of a stone, perhaps you would have a point. He wasn’t, and you don’t. [/QUOTE] I think it _is_ the same argument; in both, the ‘proof’ that the premise is false is that the premise is impossible. That’s begging the question, a primary logical fallacy. And the image is very clearly that of a young fair haired person standing sideways on the stairs (not moving up or down), looking into the stairwell, possibly at a downward angle. Could that be a picture of a ghost? No; weddings are noisy, and ghosts hate noise. But the argument ‘That could not be evidence of a ghost because ghosts do not exist’ is just … infuriating. That kind of thinking kept ill people having their veins cut open to ‘balance the humours’ for … well, I don’t know how long, and I am not going to look it up. My point is that it is _ **NOT!** _ science. Science is fitting the theory to the evidence, not the obverse. (But, yeah, I think the picture is a fake.) ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/70 "2008-05-30T01:18:35Z")
[QUOTE=Scumpup] It’s not a ghost. Somebody farted, maybe. [/QUOTE] How fast do you think it was traveling? ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/71 "2008-05-30T01:20:28Z")
[QUOTE=fachverwirrt] How to put this… Clan Davidson is … not impressive. Hell, Tulloch isn’t even a [recognized sept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Davidson) of Davidson, yet Tulloch castle is the clan seat: it’s not even their castle (family history has it that the Tulloch branch of the family came from Davidson of Tulloch, rather than from the actual Tullochs, who are members of the Ross clan). What can I say? My ancestors were apparently wimps. But wimps in kilts, damn it! [/QUOTE] It’s not such a bad thing, really. The bottom line is that you’ve got a haunted castle in your geneaology, and no one can claim that isn’t cool, even if the ghosts themselves are a mite on the feeble side. Actually it sounds a lot like that one episode of Scooby-Doo where Shaggy visits his rich uncle, who also lives in a haunted castle. No one in Shaggy’s family was particularly notorious for their boldness either, yet they solved mysteries and lived in castles and dealt with ghosts and talking dogs and all manner of unearthly visitations. Come to think of it, Hanna-Barbera may owe your family some royalties. Anyway, the Davidsons are clearly lovers, not fighters. That’s why so many of them manifest as spirit orbs after death. As the Tantric Shamanism Institute website helpfully observes, spirit orbs are sent to guide and protect you. No doubt they are also chock full of Tantric life energies. Rest assured, the Tantric Shamanism Institute knows about this kind of thing. I must confess that, based solely on their photographs in that link, their group wouldn’t be my first choice to initiate me into the Tantric mysteries. They do seem to attract the orbs though. No, your restless ancestors will never demand that you avenge their deaths in battle or risk your life for a matter of honor; but they are constantly hovering around you with gentle advice and helpful homespun Scottish wisdom. \*“Use the handrail,” \* they murmur. _“Safety on the stairway. A penny saved is a penny earned. Did ye remember tae launder yuir kilt? Never drink more whisky than ye can lift.”_ Presumably this will also be your fate in the afterlife, but there are no doubt worse ways to spend eternity than as a featureless glowing blob. It’s probably sort of like being on **Star Trek.** ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/72 "2008-05-30T01:22:50Z")
[QUOTE=fachverwirrt] How to put this… Clan Davidson is … not impressive. Hell, Tulloch isn’t even a [recognized sept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Davidson) of Davidson, yet Tulloch castle is the clan seat: it’s not even their castle (family history has it that the Tulloch branch of the family came from Davidson of Tulloch, rather than from the actual Tullochs, who are members of the Ross clan). What can I say? My ancestors were apparently wimps. But wimps in kilts, damn it! [/QUOTE] My clan can kick your clans ass. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/73 "2008-05-30T01:30:51Z")
[QUOTE=Loach] My clan can kick your clans ass. [/QUOTE] Yeah, well, my clan can at least use the Saxon genitive properly. (Yeah, I got nothin’.) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/74 "2008-05-30T01:46:27Z")
[QUOTE=j666] I think it _is_ the same argument; in both, the ‘proof’ that the premise is false is that the premise is impossible. That’s begging the question, a primary logical fallacy. [/QUOTE] No one questions the existence of stones. They are ubiquitous. We throw them. We stumble over them. They crack our windscreens. We build castles, and walls, and roads from them. There is abundant evidence that stones are in fact real. The question “how did this particular stone get here?” is another thing entirely. The existence of stones is assumed in the question. There is piss-all evidence for ghosts. Full stop. Just as there is piss-all evidence for any other imaginary creature one might care to mention. Until the first shred of evidence for the existence of ghosts is offered, “ghosts do not exist” is a perfectly proper response to the question “Is this a picture of a ghost?” Or, to put it another way, “Is this a picture of a what?” is a perfectly proper response. “Is this a picture of a ghost” is the one that begs the question, because it assumes, absent any verifiable data, that ghosts exist. Define “ghost.” Mount some reasonable argument that ghosts exist. Then, and ony then, can we attempt to answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/75 "2008-05-30T01:51:25Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] There is piss-all evidence for ghosts. Full stop. [/QUOTE] And when Lavoisier made his famous statement, there was piss-all evidence for stones from the sky. I’m not claiming that ghosts are real. I’m just pointing out the logical fallacy in the claim that this photo can’t be a ghost, because ghosts don’t exist. It’s the same logic that Lavoisier used. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/76 "2008-05-30T02:09:48Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] No one questions the existence of stones. They are ubiquitous. We throw them. We stumble over them. They crack our windscreens. We build castles, and walls, and roads from them. There is abundant evidence that stones are in fact real. The question “how did this particular stone get here?” is another thing entirely. The existence of stones is assumed in the question. There is piss-all evidence for ghosts. Full stop. Just as there is piss-all evidence for any other imaginary creature one might care to mention. Until the first shred of evidence for the existence of ghosts is offered, “ghosts do not exist” is a perfectly proper response to the question “Is this a picture of a ghost?” Or, to put it another way, “Is this a picture of a what?” is a perfectly proper response. “Is this a picture of a ghost” is the one that begs the question, because it assumes, absent any verifiable data, that ghosts exist. Define “ghost.” Mount some reasonable argument that ghosts exist. Then, and ony then, can we attempt to answer the question. [/QUOTE] The reality of stones is not the point; the origin of stones is not the point; the structure of the argument is the point. Well, of course there is piss-all evidence for ghosts when the assumption is made that all evidence of ghosts must be fabricated because ghosts to not exist. No, asking **if** an artifact is evidence of a thing does **not** presuppose the thing exist; the asking only allows the **possibility** that the thing exists. Basic scientific inquiry. The best argument for the existence of ghosts is that so many people have had a ‘ghostly’ experience; in a perfectly unscientific experiment lasting several decades, I have been asking people if they have ever directly experienced a phenomenum inexplicable by current scientific theories (in much less pretentious terminology). The answer is almost alway ‘No … except this once …’ I think I am the only person I know who has never experienced a ghost; so there is no way I will be arrogant enough to insist they do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![psycat90](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@psycat90](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psycat90)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/77 "2008-05-30T02:50:57Z")
I am in the ‘not a ghost’ camp, or the ‘ghosts don’t exist’ camp to be more precise. Although I have to admit I didn’t finish reading the article. I got about half way through when the much more intriguing piece titled ‘Dentist’s Girl is Filling Horny’ lured me away. If I’m ever in need of a root canal in uhhh, Watford?, well, I guess I know where to go. Assuming this place actually exists, of course. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/78 "2008-05-30T03:25:28Z")
[QUOTE=matt] I don’t think there’s even a flash. It looks to me like a 1/4 - 1/2 second exposure of someone jumping down the stairs with one hand on the bannister to steady themselves. Or maybe dashing up them. I’d guess the kid tried to snap a fast-moving friend on the stairs, but the flash hadn’t re-charged from his previous shot a moment before. We’re talking kids at a wedding in a _castle_ here. Bet they were tearing around. Bet if you saw the whole set of pictures, you’d spot the “ghost” all over the place! [/QUOTE] I like this theory a lot. If you look at the pic armed with this possible explanation in your head, it answers the whole mystery. Especially since you’ll notice the shot is slightly blurry throughout - another indication of a slow shutter speed. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/79 "2008-05-30T03:26:20Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] Why the hell would a ghost need to use a handrail? [/QUOTE] Cue _Star Trek VI_–Spock: “What does God need with a starship?” Tripler Indeed: What did the ghost do when he climbed the staircase? (insert punchline here) ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001/80 "2008-05-30T03:58:45Z")
[QUOTE=Scubaqueen] the hell IS a flying spaghetti monster? :dubious: [/QUOTE] I know that folks have given descriptions and even linked to a Ramenaissance Painting of the FSM, surely an [actual photograph](http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/archivesearch/local_story_084161126.html) of his noodly appendage might be a bit more convincing [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-k-teen-snaps-a-ghost/451001.md?page=5)