Do you believe in ghosts?

145791031

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited October 2016 Posts: 17,620
    Exhibit C: The Ghost Monk of Newby Church, Church of Christ the Consoler, Skelton-cum-Newby, North Yorkshire, 1963. Another compelling one taken by a church minister:

    slide_260530_1707261_free.jpg

    More details here:

    http://www.theparanormalguide.com/blog/the-ghost-monk-of-newby-church
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,323
    Funny how this 'ghost' looks exactly like the movie / comic book cliché. And also, trickery with photos isn't a thing of the photoshop age alone. Furthermore, a church minister has every reason to "demonstrate" the existence of the supernatural because if he can't get that sold to his minions, he can close shop very soon. Still, other possibilities exist, like someone dressing up as the "ghost" with the camera set at a very low speed, thereby allowing some gentle motion of the actor to come off as a transparent figure.

    Hey look, another ghost near that alter!

    7375336862_037a13833c_h.jpg
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited October 2016 Posts: 17,620
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.

    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.


    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    The positioning is different..so i dont think its the same,but i know nothing about photography..

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.


    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    The positioning is different..so i dont think its the same,but i know nothing about photography..

    Do you mean the plague mask or the figure itself?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.


    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    The positioning is different..so i dont think its the same,but i know nothing about photography..

    The figure...i'm with you @Dragonpol...i was a paranormal investigator for years and a mod on a paranormal website,but these are conversations you cant win with sceptics.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Vice-versa. ;)
  • Posts: 14,753
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.

    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    Kind of convenient that the monk is hooded. How many priests do church service with their face covered anyway? Unless it's the ghost of a Muslim woman. Actually why do ghosts wear anything? It's not like the police can arrest them for indecency. Shouldn't they all be naked? Or since soul and body are different why are they so often anthropomorphic?

    Also who are these experts who confirmed that this photo was not a fake? Can we recreate it? Actually @DarthDimi pretty much answered that last question.
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 4,597
    We are back to this thing about ghosts appearing in exactly the type of Scooby Doo locations where believers expect them to turn up. Funny how they only show themselves in relatively private places. How about a shopping centre, airport or a football ground? And the point about clothing is very well made. These are questions that any one can ask but believers seem to over look these obvious gaps and lap up whatever dodgy evidence there is to confirm their belief.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.

    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    Kind of convenient that the monk is hooded. How many priests do church service with their face covered anyway? Unless it's the ghost of a Muslim woman. Actually why do ghosts wear anything? It's not like the police can arrest them for indecency. Shouldn't they all be naked? Or since soul and body are different why are they so often anthropomorphic?

    Also who are these experts who confirmed that this photo was not a fake? Can we recreate it? Actually @DarthDimi pretty much answered that last question.

    You have to remember that the photo in question was taken back in 1963. There was no Photoshop back then and trickery was much harder to accomplish.
  • Posts: 4,597
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.

    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    Kind of convenient that the monk is hooded. How many priests do church service with their face covered anyway? Unless it's the ghost of a Muslim woman. Actually why do ghosts wear anything? It's not like the police can arrest them for indecency. Shouldn't they all be naked? Or since soul and body are different why are they so often anthropomorphic?

    Also who are these experts who confirmed that this photo was not a fake? Can we recreate it? Actually @DarthDimi pretty much answered that last question.

    You have to remember that the photo in question was taken back in 1963. There was no Photoshop back then and trickery was much harder to accomplish.

    Not true I am afraid, I could have knocked that up in my converted loft when I used to mess about with B and W developing.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,323
    No it wasn't. Playing with exposure time and such is enough to create amazing effects and they could do that. Check out the things they managed to do in the early 1930s in films like The Mummy and Bride Of Frankenstein. Optical effects have been around for a very long time, @Dragonpol.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    patb wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The photo has been checked by a range of experts who all confirm it was not tampered with, nor is it a double exposure.

    Yes, I agree that it does look like your stereotypical ghost but some say it is a plague mask that the tall figure is wearing.

    Kind of convenient that the monk is hooded. How many priests do church service with their face covered anyway? Unless it's the ghost of a Muslim woman. Actually why do ghosts wear anything? It's not like the police can arrest them for indecency. Shouldn't they all be naked? Or since soul and body are different why are they so often anthropomorphic?

    Also who are these experts who confirmed that this photo was not a fake? Can we recreate it? Actually @DarthDimi pretty much answered that last question.

    You have to remember that the photo in question was taken back in 1963. There was no Photoshop back then and trickery was much harder to accomplish.

    Not true I am afraid, I could have knocked that up in my converted loft when I used to mess about with B and W developing.

    Yes, I'm sure it can be done but I'm sure that you know that experts can tell if a picture has been doctored or not and this one has not been. The explanation for what it depicts must therefore lie elsewhere.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    No it wasn't. Playing with exposure time and such is enough to create amazing effects and they could do that. Check out the things they managed to do in the early 1930s in films like The Mummy and Bride Of Frankenstein. Optical effects have been around for a very long time, @Dragonpol.

    I'm aware that they have but this photo has been proven not to have been doctored so the explanation must lie elsewhere, whatever that may be.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Vice-versa. ;)
    No way...not even close.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,323
    Okay, fine, assuming the experts are at a loss for words, I can concede that the explanation must lie elsewhere. Said explanation must then too be logical, rational, reasonable. Surely not ghosts? Surely we haven't yet exhausted all possibilities, from optical illusions to clever tweaking.

    But has this picture been taken to real experts, I wonder. I'm not talking about amateur ghost hunters or photographers. I'm talking about experienced professionals from the academic world, who probably couldn't be bothered with this.

    People who jump from "we don't understand this" to "so it must be a supernatural event" are the type of people Sherlock has this to say about:

    2013%2F08%2F21%2Fe6%2Fsherlockfun.edf16.gif
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    On the topic of photographic trickery, way back in the time of heavy spiritualism, you could make a photograph seem to contain a fairy or other kind of fantasy creature by any number of clever means that would easily trick the uninitiated. Just saying, it's very easy to replicate these "spooky" effects.

    Arthur Conan Doyle was quite taken by these sorts of images and treated me as gospel proof of his spiritualist leanings in his day, while colleagues like Houdini told Doyle not to pursue such fantastical notions. As we all know, the famed magician was first and foremost a man who knew how to dupe people and spent much of his time disproving the "tricks" of others he saw so clearly as fraudulence because he played the same game they did, only better.

    Just a nice little tidbit there. ;)
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 4,597
    The overal theme is that believers are so keen to believe that they put their normal standards of proof to one side and accept and promote a ragtag, car boot sale of personal tales, lost tapes, blurd photos etc etc.
    This evidence would be thrown out of any legal court due to it's inherent weakness but us non beleivers are meant to accept it.
    We all know that there is no better evidence so the same stuff is wheeled out time and time again. Funny how ghosts have stopped appearing since the invention of the smart phone.
    It really is amazing .
    Can you imagine if I found an equally blurred photo from 1963 of a flying pig with the claim that nobody had proved it had been tampered with. We all know the answer. But nobody cares about flying pigs, nobody wants it to be true and nobody has an emotional investment so common sense prevails.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,323
    @patb, same with alien abduction never having been reported before the advent of science fiction movies. Yet by now, who hasn't been probed in the rectum by tentacled creatures?

    I can't believe that in several posts in this thread, we, the so-called "sceptics", are stigmatised when we still resort to cold logic rather than to superstition and make-belief. I'm not a "sceptic", merely someone who left Santa in his childhood memories a long time ago.
  • Posts: 4,597
    I know several people who beleive in Santa 100% and have hard evidence of him visiting their homes once a year so careful with such Santa comments.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    patb wrote: »
    I know several people who beleive in Santa 100% and have hard evidence of him visiting their homes once a year so careful with such Santa comments.

    Yes, they're called children.
  • Posts: 19,339
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.
  • Posts: 14,753
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    No it wasn't. Playing with exposure time and such is enough to create amazing effects and they could do that. Check out the things they managed to do in the early 1930s in films like The Mummy and Bride Of Frankenstein. Optical effects have been around for a very long time, @Dragonpol.

    I'm aware that they have but this photo has been proven not to have been doctored so the explanation must lie elsewhere, whatever that may be.

    Again: who were the experts? How did they come from this conclusion? Do we have any proof that it is genuine? And again: why the masked face?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.

    It is irrelevant to Bond but then this is the 'General Discussion' section of the forum, so anything goes (within reason!) surely.

    I do agree though that it will not serve to change anyone's position on the matter. Perhaps I should not have started it in the first place...
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.

    It is irrelevant to Bond but then this is the 'General Discussion' section of the forum, so anything goes (within reason!) surely.

    I do agree though that it will not serve to change anyone's position on the matter. Perhaps I should not have started it in the first place...

    Its an argument nobody can win...believe me i know after 31 years ,since i was 15.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.

    It is irrelevant to Bond but then this is the 'General Discussion' section of the forum, so anything goes (within reason!) surely.

    I do agree though that it will not serve to change anyone's position on the matter. Perhaps I should not have started it in the first place...

    Its an argument nobody can win...believe me i know after 31 years ,since i was 15.

    This thread has confirmed that. It's one person's take against another. I just find it a fascinating subject. I do hope the thread continues though as it has generated a lot of interest and debate. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe and that is only right and proper of course.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.

    It is irrelevant to Bond but then this is the 'General Discussion' section of the forum, so anything goes (within reason!) surely.

    I do agree though that it will not serve to change anyone's position on the matter. Perhaps I should not have started it in the first place...

    Its an argument nobody can win...believe me i know after 31 years ,since i was 15.

    This thread has confirmed that. It's one person's take against another. I just find it a fascinating subject. I do hope the thread continues though as it has generated a lot of interest and debate. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe and that is only right and proper of course.

    Fair enough ,but you are leaving yourself open to one hell of an onslaught...good luck .

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,620
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This is really going nowhere,it should be closed.....its irrelvant to Bond and its an arguement nobody can win,like politics or religion.

    It is irrelevant to Bond but then this is the 'General Discussion' section of the forum, so anything goes (within reason!) surely.

    I do agree though that it will not serve to change anyone's position on the matter. Perhaps I should not have started it in the first place...

    Its an argument nobody can win...believe me i know after 31 years ,since i was 15.

    This thread has confirmed that. It's one person's take against another. I just find it a fascinating subject. I do hope the thread continues though as it has generated a lot of interest and debate. Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe and that is only right and proper of course.

    Fair enough ,but you are leaving yourself open to one hell of an onslaught...good luck .

    OK, if the mods think it should now be closed I leave it up to them.
  • Posts: 14,753
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I know several people who beleive in Santa 100% and have hard evidence of him visiting their homes once a year so careful with such Santa comments.

    Yes, they're called children.

    And they feel justified in their belief: they see the man flesh and blood and their parents say he's the real Santa.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited October 2016 Posts: 28,694
    Every debate and discussion, no matter how trivial or salient it may be, will always involve a convicted side of believers or supporters in debate with non-believers or dissenters. We all have beliefs we don't compromise without given sound evidence to think otherwise; it's the nature of debate and process of thought. If we close this thread, we might as well not discuss anything Bond related or not in this life, as every debate we have together is all part of the same cloth.

    I for one think this thread is vital and interesting, and I've tried my best to give my viewpoints without causing offense, or worst of all, making someone feel belittled. I'm just here to witness others' responses and thoughts on the nature of life, and for that I'm glad this thread exists, though we are all well fixed in our areas of belief or non-belief. As long as we keep things civil and understand each other, I see no need to axe it, however.

    And I think we're all sensible and mature enough to meet that mark.
Sign In or Register to comment.