Ghost photobombs

You got it correct stating woo is a made up term

Wrong when you claim ' used by skeptics to conclude the falsity of something before they have studied it. '

ALL studies of ghost concluded ghost are non existent

Therefore if you make a claim ' this is a ghost ' you can confedently add ' this is woo ' going by past history and experience

Example: ghosts are "woo", therefore we don't have to review the evidence for it.

Because past experience shows it's a waste of time

No matter how many times woo is presented it remains woo

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a pejorative term and like all such terms, like heresy, or nonsense, or superstition, or bullshit, is meant to designate something not worth looking into. Who is seriously going to consider the evidence for something when it is accepted as "woo"? Nobody. You would only be considered foolish by your peers to give woo the time of day. And you certainly won't get funding for it. And so is the case for all woo. Why? Because it's woo. And that's that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a claim that itself requires evidence. Unfortunately you have none. As usual..

 

And again, you make the basic error that if A implies B, then B must imply A.

 

Dude. You handle putting up the nice pictures.
Let us handle the analysis.
It's better for all this way.

 

Are those examples of woo or not?

 

As you perfectly well know, since you are making the assertion of ghostly activity in these posts, the burden lies with you to demonstrate it is not poor photography, pareidolia, mundanity and fakery.

 

No..at no time am I required to prove something is NOT something. I have only to present the evidence for ghosts. Which is what these photos are.

 

The burden remains on you to make a case that a mundane explanation is ruled out in favour of an extraordinary explanation.

Without that case, the hull hypothesis remains. (i.e. that a subject is mundane, not extraordinary)

So:

And what is it about this photo that causes you to think there's evidence for ghosts.?

And what is it about this photo that caused you to think there was evidence for ghosts? (which lasted what? One minute? Plenty of time to post first then analyze second.)

 

No..I have only to present photographic evidence for ghosts. It is not my burden to prove they are not anything else.

A figure in white that was not present when the photo was taken? That's a ghost.

 

"ghosts" is an interpretation. Photographs do not objectively show ghosts, unless you interpret them to be so.

Does not apply to either example of yours that I posted. Neither one suggests anything about no one being there when they were taken.

 

Really? This is your definition of ghost?

You sure you want to go with that?

 

That's what a ghost would look like..

They'd certainly know if it was a real person after they took the photo.

 

You're saying some woman in a long wispy white gown is wandering around an ancient castle for the hell of it? That's crazier than a ghost!

 

'long wispy white gown' and even 'woman' are interpretations. Bad ones.

What is it about photography that makes you think it imparts truth and meaning upon the things in its lens?

You really have never heard of motion blur due to exposures of large fractions of a second?

Really?


This is a rhetorical question. I know you have. And I know you are pretending to argue for ghosts just to be ornery. Not because you are really ignorant of the limitations of photography.

 

No..it's a perception. Of a woman in a whispy long white gown.

Same way the eyes impart meaning when say you look at a landscape.

Not of people who weren't there at the time.

That's as much an interpretation of the image as a ghost is.

You can believe whatever you like. You usually do..

 

"Mr Islam said his family were shocked when they saw the image, which appears to show a figure wearing a cloak walking up the steps with an arm outstretched.

He said: ‘I don’t even like watching scary films and I don’t like looking at this photo - it’s spooky, there was no one there. My sister took the photograph and she saw it first."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-woman-19th-century-site.html#ixzz4bK7hs5YY

 

Yep. As subjective as the person who perceives it. Poor form of evidence.
Certainly abysmal critical thinking. To look for ghosts where there is merely camera blur.

But that's not your agenda here.

Except you're not looking at a landscape; you're looking at a photograph. Which has known common limitations. At least to those of us who understand photography.

Tell me, when you see a photo that is black and white, do you go looking for mysterious explanations as to why the colour got sucked out of the world when the picture was taken? Or do you know enough about photography to know that not all photography captures colour?

So why be deliberately obtuse about shutter speed?



Again, you stick to uploading the pretty pics. Let the rest of us handle the braining.