Grey Lady of Dudley Castle

[Russ_Watters]

MR, you must have missed this, since you didn't respond:

If you had never heard of "The Grey Lady", you'd just say that's a normal human in the photo, right?

Please respond.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR, you must have missed this, since you didn't respond:

Please respond.

Not at all. It certainly looks like a ghost. So it could be ANY ghost. But the fact that it corresponds exactly to what is commonly reported there, well, then that's what it most likely is.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes - the fact that it could very easily be a random person in a grey-ish jacket... and that the more mundane explanation makes more sense.

And yet you're the one who claims to have encountered the ghost of an old lady at night in the woods. So why is this ghost any less probable?

I can handle evidence just fine - what you are trying to pass off as "evidence" is laughable.

Yeah..photos of ghosts as evidence of ghosts. Who woulda thunk it? lol!

 

[Kittamaru]

And yet you're the one who claims to have encountered the ghost of an old lady at night in the woods. So why is this ghost any less probable?

I never claimed it to be a ghost - I simply recounted my encounter, including the information (that was learned much, much later) that the lady in question was, supposedly, a ghost, according to other people.
Plus, my encounter was far more than a meager blurry photograph... I had direct physical contact, as well as a conversation. What it was with, I do not legitimately know.

This is where you fall apart in the scientific method - you come to the conclusion that it isn't something you can readily explain, so all of a sudden it's a ghost.

Yeah..photos of ghosts as evidence of ghosts. Who woulda thunk it? lol!

Oh, look, it's a photo of a ghost, next to a living person... that means it's proof ghosts exist!

That, in essence, is what you are doing. You are using a combination of poor logical thinking and circular reasoning: Ergo... it's a photo of a ghost, so ghosts must exist. You cannot prove the object in the photo is a ghost beyond saying it is a photo of a ghost.

THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

 

[Magical Realist]

I never claimed it to be a ghost - I simply recounted my encounter, including the information (that was learned much, much later) that the lady in question was, supposedly, a ghost, according to other people.
Plus, my encounter was far more than a meager blurry photograph... I had direct physical contact, as well as a conversation. What it was with, I do not legitimately know.

So now you're saying you didn't see a ghost in the woods that night. Make up your mind.

This is where you fall apart in the scientific method - you come to the conclusion that it isn't something you can readily explain, so all of a sudden it's a ghost.

I don't need the scientific method to know a photo of a grey lady often seen at a castle looks exactly like that grey lady. Ofcourse people who disingenously try to deny that it looks like that and play all sorts of semantical games to avoid admitting this will always appear dishonest and agenda-laden. As in "I know it's not a ghost because I know there's no such things as ghosts."

Oh, look, it's a photo of a ghost, next to a living person... that means it's proof ghosts exist!

Back to ghost cartoons again? So what are you claiming now, that the figure is CGI'd by the tourist lady who took the picture? Or are you sticking to "a real person dressed as a grey lady" thesis?

That, in essence, is what you are doing. You are using a combination of poor logical thinking and circular reasoning: Ergo... it's a photo of a ghost, so ghosts must exist. You cannot prove the object in the photo is a ghost beyond saying it is a photo of a ghost.

THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

LOL! I don't need a lecture from you about how to use logic. So save your breath.

Look, I already know ghosts exist. I've posted numerous videos and photos of them here already. So here's how my logic actually runs: ghosts exist, this looks like a photo of a ghost, therefore it is a ghost.

 

[Kittamaru]

So now you're saying you didn't see a ghost in the woods that night. Make up your mind.

I'm going to give you one chance here: Either provide a link to where I stated I believed I saw a ghost in the woods, or redact that statement... or I will infract you for libel. Period.

I don't need the scientific method to know a photo of a grey lady often seen at a castle looks exactly like that grey lady. Ofcourse people who disingenously try to deny that it looks like that and play all sorts of semantically games to avoid admitting this will always appear dishonest and agenda-laden. As in "I know it's not a ghost because I know there's no such things as ghosts."

So because you say so, you don't need proof?

Sorry, that doesn't fly here.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm going to give you one chance here: Either provide a link to where I stated I believed I saw a ghost in the woods, or redact that statement... or I will infract you for libel. Period.

LOL! Looking for more reasons to ban again. How pathetic. So are you saying it wasn't a ghost? It's a simple question. You seem to say you believe it was a ghost based on what other people said as well as based on seeing her photograph. Are you now saying that all this didn't cause you to believe it was a ghost? Why did you tell that story then?

So because you say so, you don't need proof?

Sorry, that doesn't fly here.

A photo of a ghost is proof of a ghost. Just like a photo of a zebra, a fire hydrant, or a star is proof of a star. It's really quite simple despite your attempts to convolute it.

 

[Kittamaru]

Back to ghost cartoons again? So what are you claiming now, that the figure is CGI'd by the tourist lady who took the picture? Or are you sticking to "a real person dressed as a grey lady" thesis?

You are so absolute in your incorrigibility that you refuse to see the side-by-side comparison of what you are doing to that picture... pathetic.

LOL! I don't need a lecture from you about how to use logic. So save your breath.

Look, I already know ghosts exist. I've posted numerous videos and photos of them here already. So here's how my logic actually runs: ghosts exist, this looks like a photo of a ghost, therefore it is a ghost. If that perturbs you oh fuck'n well.

I would lecture you, but I prefer to lecture those that actually have the ability to comprehend what is being said, instead of spasmodically spewing the same tripe over and over.

You obviously have no way to back this claim... what reason is there to continue this farce?

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL! Looking for more reasons to ban again. How pathetic. So are you saying it wasn't a ghost? It's a simple question. You seem to say you believe it was a ghost based on what other people said. Is this what you are saying?

I stated, quite clearly, that I did not know what I encountered. Your inability to comprehend my simple statement is... well, terrifying actually.

A photo of a ghost is proof of a ghost. Just like a photo of a zebra, a fire hydrant, or a star is proof of a star. It's really quite simple despite your attempts to convolute it.

Really? Well, in that case...

Here's a picture of Twilight Sparkle and Spike the Dragon that was taken outside.

Here is another one, of her sleeping:

I guess that this means pastel coloured unicorns exist!

 

[Magical Realist]

You are so absolute in your incorrigibility that you refuse to see the side-by-side comparison of what you are doing to that picture... pathetic.



I would lecture you, but I prefer to lecture those that actually have the ability to comprehend what is being said, instead of spasmodically spewing the same tripe over and over.

You obviously have no way to back this claim... what reason is there to continue this farce?

In other words, you got nothing but attacks on my character and reputation and baiting me into saying something infractable. And you wonder why I would ignore someone like you?

 

[Kittamaru]

In other words, you got nothing but attacks on my character and reputation and baiting me into saying something infractable. And you wonder why I would ignore someone like you?

In other words, you cannot provide evidence, either of the libelous statement you made OR that this is a ghost...

Fair enough.

 

[Magical Realist]

I stated, quite clearly, that I did not know what I encountered. Your inability to comprehend my simple statement is... well, terrifying actually.



Really? Well, in that case...

Here's a picture of Twilight Sparkle and Spike the Dragon that was taken outside.

Here is another one, of her sleeping:

I guess that this means pastel coloured unicorns exist!

Except that we ALL know cartoon horses don't really exist, therefore the photos are fake. We DON'T know that with ghosts.

 

[Kittamaru]

Except that we ALL know cartoon horses don't really exist, therefore the photos are fake. We DON'T know that with ghosts.

Except we do know they exist - after all...

A photo of a ghost is proof of a ghost. Just like a photo of a zebra, a fire hydrant, or a star is proof of a star. It's really quite simple despite your attempts to convolute it.

You said it yourself - a photo of it is proof!

This is why your "logic" fails...

 

[Enmos]

Magic Realist,

you say that a photo of a ghost is evidence that ghosts exist.
However, in order to be able to use the photo as evidence of ghosts you must first,
at the very least, bring forth hard evidence that the 'appearance' in the photo
could not be something else.
When you have ruled out all mundane causes then, and only then, you may proceed
to evidence that the 'appearance' is in fact the spirit of a deceased person
(or whatever other definition you want to push).
What you are doing now is, pure and simple, intellectual dishonesty, which falls
under the heading of trolling.
Proceed with caution...

I have spoken.