Ghost photobombs

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Mar 2, 2017.

  1. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    So it's king and not queen? As in... The king of cut and paste.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Birch wondered why extrapolating from something far-fetched would lead to something far-fetched.
    If you're not going to follow along, you're going to fall behind.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    And if you're going to respond incorrectly to my quotes taken out of context, prepare to be corrected.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    “There are of course many phenomena in this world which are not explained and it is possible to say that the orthodox scientist is the last person to accept that something new (or old) may exist which cannot be explained in accordance with his understanding of natural laws.”
    Earl Alexander of Tunis, British Minister of Defense
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Possibly fireman helmets hanging in the back...
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Ironically, that is exactly how you initially messed up the thread of conversation I was having with Birch.
    You jumped in with a non sequitur (post 136), causing me to have to point out to you that your comment did not follow from what I said.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    What does this post have to do with the topic?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    No..I was responding to the post that was a response to me. The one where you respond "or don't" to my statement that most things that exist "just exist". Go check it yourself.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Figure it out Einstein..
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yeah. Your new thesis is that anything vaguely oval-shaped with a dark bar across the middle must be not only human, but the ghost of a dead human.


    Look! The ghost of a dead human!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Right? It's oval-shaped, has a dark bar across it.
    Therefore belongs in a thread about Ghosts, right?
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yup. Post 138.

    Which was AFTER post 136 the non sequitur you posted, where you misunderstood my discussion with Birch.
    If you hadn't jumped in, and responded to something I didn't say, we wouldn;t be having this discussion.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Like I said, don't incorrectly respond to quotes of me taken out of context. Read what I actually said and then respond intelligently. This isn't rocket science.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Actually I already solved it as fireman helmuts. Go back and check #146. Try to keep up with the thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "This interesting photo was taken sometime around the year 2000 in Manilla, Republic of the Philippines.
    According to The Ghost Research Society, two girlfriends were out for a walk one warm night.
    One of them entreated a passing stranger to photograph them using her cell phone's camera (hence the low-resolution picture).
    The result is shown here, with a transparent figure seeming to tug on the girl's arm with a firm if friendly grip.
    Without further information on this photo, we have to admit that the ghost could have been added with image processing software.
    But if it's genuine and untouched, it certainly qualifies as one of the best ghost photos."

    http://acidcow.com/pics/7602-best-ghost-pictures-ever-taken-26-pics.html
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I saw that post already. Maybe do the 'research' part before the 'post as ghosts' part. Only took a few seconds, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Do you think that, if you keep responding about post 138, it will somehow mean you didn't screw up in post 136?

    That's called wishful thinking. And, ironically, highly germaine to this thread.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    I didn't screw up. You claimed spirits are far-fetched from a rational analytical standpoint and I questioned that. I showed that the existence of something is not subject to rational criteria based on the fact that there is no reason for it existing. It just is. The question of its existing is an empiricle one, not a rational analytical one.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    They are.

    See below.

    And how do you know something "just is" ... without analyzing it?
    If you were to analyze it irrationally, say, through the fog of a psycho-tropic substance, would it still "just exist" without rational analysis?

    That's the difference between science and woo.

    Sure, there's no problem saying something "just is", as long as it stays within the realm of woo. Like astrology for example. It's OK to say the planets' affect on us "just is", as long as no one cares to analyze it rationally.

    Which brings me around to my point with birch. An hypothesis based on a shaky hypothesis will also be shaky. The fact that this is in OTF, doesn't make it immune from basic deductive logic. That answers his/her question. It's really nothing to do with you, which is why you didn't understand the point.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    By supporting it with evidence. No amount of analyzing or reasoning will do any more for you than that. Ontology is an empirical issue, not an analytical one.

    "Woo" is a made up term used by skeptics to conclude the falsity of something before they have studied it. It's a label justifying dismissal of something out of hand and is an example of confirmation bias. Example: ghosts are "woo", therefore we don't have to review the evidence for it.

    Tell me how you infer from pure deductive logic, without any empiricle data, the existence of say a giraffe.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017

Share This Page