Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

Ghost caught on Dover Castle's CCTV:



"Built in the 12th century, Dover Castle has been home to so many stories of ghosts and spirits over the years that it has since become a popular site for paranormal tours and investigations.

Its haunted reputation has received even more of a boost this week thanks to a video uploaded on to YouTube that has recently gone viral. The footage, which was taken at the castle's entrance, seems to show a dark figure walking across the road.

Believed to have been filmed from a CCTV camera before being re-recorded on a mobile phone, the video shows the entity moving from right to left before disappearing. A few seconds later a security guard can be seen walking over to where it was before surveying the area.

"I promise you this is not a fake," the uploader has insisted. "It's filmed on CCTV at Dover Castle on to a mobile. I wouldn't even know how to start making this a fake, to be honest." - See more at: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...-on-cctv-at-dover-castle#sthash.tDxN65qr.dpuf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another compelling case:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Poltergeist activity in a New Hampshire store:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But they're not first hand are they?

This guy is telling his paraphrased version of other peoples' stories. All that evident is spoiled by being second-hand.

Of nineteen stories he's told, there's one, maybe two, in which it was firsthand.

In one of the few first-hand accounts, he actually says "hoping to communicate with the spirit", so he conclusively has drawn up his own explanation, spoiling his own veracity.

 

LOL! You're saying this guy and the people around him are all lying about these incidents? What compelling reason would you think so?

There's no more reason to trust a person who doesn't believe in the paranormal than in one who does. A non-believer is just as driven by his own agenda to prove ghosts don't exist despite all the evidence. I would never expect an objective view on this case from a diehard skeptic. I'm glad he's open to the likelihood of spirits, especially after all the activity they've witnessed.

 

No MR. That's just totally untrue.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It doesn't mean someone is deliberately lying. There are many hoops that extraordinary events must go through to pass the test of being compelling. If it misses any of those hoops, the case is not string enough.

He never said any such thing. Now you're putting words in his mouth.

If you can't make a case without misrepresenting your opponent, you have no case to make. Stick to facts.

 

You just totally glossed over the part that you claimed they were firsthand when they are not. You don't think that bears upon the veracity of the claims?

 

Not at all. They're all office workers and they confirm these incidents as he's walking around. You have no compelling reason to doubt it. None whatsoever.

 

The paranormal is not extraordinary. It is rather ordinary and is totally supported by thousands of cases. To say they're all lying about it or are deluded is paranoid and intellectually dishonest. It's the deliberate attempt to deny what is obviously going on an ongoing basis.

You need to butt out of our dialogue. I think he can defend himself adequately enough.

 

para normal
extra ordinary

You reveal your lack of objectivity.

Public forum. You opened this thread to all.

 

I really shouldn;t have to say this, but
First hand means first-hand.
Second hand means second-hand.

Those accounts are in his words.

You are mispresenting the content of those videos.

And in doing so, proving the very point you deny. You are altering the accounts when you tell them third-hand.

Tell us again how people who believe in ghostly events don't alter the stories suit their needs.

 

Again, butt out of our conversation. It's totally our business, not yours. We can continue OUR conversation, but I'm not listening to you pontificate about what other people mean and say.

 

LOL! So what? What possible reason is there to doubt him and the other office workers present?

 

Sam reason to doubt you. You altered your account of events to suit your needs.

 

This is a public debate.

 

What account did I alter? I haven't changed a thing.

 

Butt out of our conversation or be ignored.

 

You claimed they were first-hand accounts. They're not.

You have done the very thing I have been saying from the start. you altered the details to suit your needs.
People do that.

 

You can certainly ignore me if you wish. That would certainly be what one would do if one were losing a debate.

But you can't attempt to moderate participation in a public thread.

 

Where did I say that video was all first hand accounts?It definitely includes several of those. But I never said they were all first hand, as if it even matters.