U. K teen snaps a ghost ??

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
61

[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.

62

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.

63

[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.

64

[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.

65

Looks like a reflection. Just like the ones I used to get when I wore my old glasses.

66

[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.

67

[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.

68

No.

The key in both cases is the argument “we know that it cannot be XYZ because XYZ does not exist”

69

[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.)

70

[QUOTE=Scumpup]
It’s not a ghost. Somebody farted, maybe.
[/QUOTE]

How fast do you think it was traveling?

71

[QUOTE=fachverwirrt]
How to put this…

Clan Davidson is … not impressive. Hell, Tulloch isn’t even a recognized sept 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.

72

[QUOTE=fachverwirrt]
How to put this…

Clan Davidson is … not impressive. Hell, Tulloch isn’t even a recognized sept 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.

73

[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’.)

74

[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.

75

[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.

76

[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.

77

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.

78

[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.

79

[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)

80

[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 of his noodly appendage might be a bit more convincing