Ghostly 'black monk' captured in Castle photo

[SecretSanta]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It's possible but the guy you are showing seems to have a longer thinner face. The article shows a wider boxier face. Look for yourself.

I’m done. You can choose to believe what you want. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, SecretSanta said:

I’m done. You can choose to believe what you want. 

I won’t bother you with more.

Millions and millions of top hatted men once lived. Their hats looked the same but thier faces were all different.

 

[Essan]

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Plus I do not think the paper would print such an easily disprovable lie.

 

They quite often do publish such stories.   Often about ghosts, UFOs or the latest boot/skull/city/coke can found on Mars (one of their favourites)

Sometimes, but not always, with a brief sentence at the end of the article completely debunking the sensational headline .....

(I have been reading the Daily Mail for years - in a "semi-professional" capacity )

[Orphalesion]

On 1/30/2018 at 1:02 AM, papageorge1 said:

Plus I do not think the paper would print such an easily disprovable lie.

No, no of course not! A cheap tabloid like that would never, ever, print bullpoop or make up stuff/exaggerate stuff. No, no that's impossible.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

No, no of course not! A cheap tabloid like that would never, ever, print bullpoop or make up stuff/exaggerate stuff. No, no that's impossible.

Where did I doubt they would ever do that? My point, and I stick to it, was that in this case, I expect that they would be at least one level more sophisticated than taking a picture of a monk shaped door in a stone wall and calling it a ghost monk and then have this named and pictured father and his story as part of the article. 

[I'mConvinced]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Where did I doubt they would ever do that? My point, and I stick to it, was that in this case, I expect that they would be at least one level more sophisticated than taking a picture of a monk shaped door in a stone wall and calling it a ghost monk and then have this named and pictured father and his story as part of the article. 

And herein lies the problem. Your expectations haven't been met as that's exactly what they did.

[papageorge1]

24 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

 And herein lies the problem. Your expectations haven't been met as that's exactly what they did.

No, I still don't believe that is what they did in this case. (After examining the claims). Nobody has shown a ghost monk shaped door in the stone or anything close. I presented a picture from the internet of the castle that does not support your theory (or should I say conclusion).

And therein lies the problem. You jump to a conclusion and stop there.

I got five pounds/dollars saying that is not a ghost monk shaped door in the photo.

Edited February 1, 2018 by papageorge1

[I'mConvinced]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I still don't believe that is what they did in this case. (After examining the claims). Nobody has shown a ghost monk shaped door in the stone or anything close. I presented a picture from the internet of the castle that does not support your theory (or should I say conclusion).

And therein lies the problem. You jump to a conclusion and stop there.

I got five pounds/dollars saying that is not a ghost monk shaped door in the photo.

http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/a-hole-in-his-storythe-unexplainable.html?m=1

When you've finished reading the above and you've looked at the reference point comparison of the photos I'll give you my details to make the payment.

[papageorge1]

15 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/a-hole-in-his-storythe-unexplainable.html?m=1

When you've finished reading the above and you've looked at the reference point comparison of the photos I'll give you my details to make the payment.

I think you are the one that needs my details to make the payment. And I'm compounding interest for the delay.

!. The 'ghost' photo looks like a monk with a satchel strap across his back.

2. The shapeless black thing requires pareidolia to be the monk's head. And quite a leap to say below that is the rest of the monk's shape.

3. Look at the photo I provided earlier. (post #68) It clearly argues against this monk shaped whole in the wall theory.

4. You can see he had to ridiculously overestimate the amount of angle change to make the monk come up in the slightly left center of the steps.

5. Be skeptical of skeptics too. 

[I'mConvinced]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

!. The 'ghost' photo looks like a monk with a satchel strap across his back.

No it doesn't.

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

2. The shapeless black thing requires pareidolia to be the monk's head. And quite a leap to say below that is the rest of the monk's shape.

No it doesn't.

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

3. Look at the photo I provided earlier. (post #68) It clearly argues against this monk shaped whole in the wall theory.

I did, you can clearly see someone standing right where the doorway would be. So it clearly doesn't argue against anything.

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

4. You can see he had to ridiculously overestimate the amount of angle change to make the monk come up in the slightly left center of the steps

No he didn't, he even explained exactly why the small difference is due to the different angles of the photos.

I'm honestly astounded by your gullibility on this one papa. Keep the money, it would feel like stealing anyway.

[papageorge1]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

I did, you can clearly see someone standing right where the doorway would be. So it clearly doesn't argue against anything.

No he didn't, he even explained exactly why the small difference is due to the different angles of the photos.

Sure looks like a monk with a satchel strap across his back.

Does anyone live in the neighborhood of this castle?

I'm keeping @I'mConvinced interest compounding. 

6 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I'm honestly astounded by your gullibility on this one papa. 

In return, I'm amused by your false bravado, actually.

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Sure looks like a monk with a satchel strap across his back.

Does anyone live in the neighborhood of this castle?

I'm keeping @I'mConvinced interest compounding. 

In return, I'm amused by your false bravado, actually.

Alright papa, sheer bloody mindedness and your inability to accept the facts has me admitting defeat. It's a ghost, newspapers never lie, paranormal investigators go but can't take their own photo to prove it because...stuff, I dunno.

The simple explanation that it's a hole in the wall is obviously wrong. I mean it looks like a hole, the top of it can be seen in another photo and it makes more sense but let's ignore that because someone said it was a ghost. 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

Alright papa, sheer bloody mindedness and your inability to accept the facts has me admitting defeat. It's a ghost, newspapers never lie, paranormal investigators go but can't take their own photo to prove it because...stuff, I dunno.

The simple explanation that it's a hole in the wall is obviously wrong. I mean it looks like a hole, the top of it can be seen in another photo and it makes more sense but let's ignore that because someone said it was a ghost. 

You are showing an inability to think beyond one extreme or the other. Some are, some aren't, doesn't register with you.

[I'mConvinced]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You are showing an inability to think beyond one extreme or the other. Some are, some aren't, doesn't register with you.

We are discussing this one monk photo and nothing else so stop trying to conflate the argument.

There aren't any other options here. It isn't a person in a costume, you say it isn't a hole in the wall and that only leaves us your assumption that it's a ghost - unless you are proposing another explanation?

Anyway, I'm sure I know what's in the photo so I'll leave you to keep working on the 'mystery' ...

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

It isn't a person in a costume, 

How could you have determined that with certainty from what we know.

Here's how I employ critical thinking here:

1. It could be a hole in the wall

2. It could be a guy in a monk suit

3. It could be a paranormal event

 

And then I consider all the evidence and argumentation and past experiences and judge the likelihood of each possibility. You are not thinking in terms of 'could be' but IS/ISN'T (certainty). With my method, most such cases must end without certainty but just an estimate of likelihood.

 

 

[Stiff]

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

With my method, most such cases must end without certainty but just an estimate of likelihood.

Which is why people who actually use critical thinking don't follow your method.

The evidence points to it being a hole in the wall. The photos have been examined and an extremely straightforward explanation given. The physical evidence does not support a paranormal hypothesis in any way.

Like I said before, you go on believing whatever you want but it's clear and obvious to me what this is. Why didn't the paranormal investigator take a picture of the spot? It would end any debate on the subject but no, instead he claims it must be a ghost and produces zero evidence when it was the easiest thing in the world to do when you are there.

[I'mConvinced]

On 30/01/2018 at 2:18 AM, papageorge1 said:

It's possible but the guy you are showing seems to have a longer thinner face. The article shows a wider boxier face. Look for yourself.

Btw did you not read this:

On 30/01/2018 at 2:06 AM, SecretSanta said:

Yes. Ghost Capture (as well as all the other ghost apps) has a handful of ghosts to choose from. You adjust the size and transparency.

It is clearly the same ghost and was reproduced by people with the app. So this discredits the source as one that will publish fake ghost stories without carrying out even basic checks. This is certainly the case here as well, hence no comparison photo is given.

Wake up papa please, ghosts may or may not exist but this trash reporting just gets in the way and makes any serious study impossible. People such as yourself are the reason this rubbish exists in the first place. I hate to be rude but stop desperately grasping for evidence where none exists.

 

[papageorge1]

15 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Which is why people who actually use critical thinking don't follow your method.

The evidence points to it being a hole in the wall. The photos have been examined and an extremely straightforward explanation given. The physical evidence does not support a paranormal hypothesis in any way.

Like I said before, you go on believing whatever you want but it's clear and obvious to me what this is. Why didn't the paranormal investigator take a picture of the spot? It would end any debate on the subject but no, instead he claims it must be a ghost and produces zero evidence when it was the easiest thing in the world to do when you are there.

You just re-affirmed my point by example.

On a side issue, the point of the article was not to prove this to hard-core skeptics so they felt a verbal statement that it was checked by an investigator that went to the sight sufficed.

This article was not claiming to be a scientific research project.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Btw did you not read this:

It is clearly the same ghost and was reproduced by people with the app. So this discredits the source as one that will publish fake ghost stories without carrying out even basic checks. This is certainly the case here as well, hence no comparison photo is given.

 

Your fallacious argument seems to be that if one photo is a fake then all are fake. All it says to me is to consider the source and be an open-minded skeptic.

About anything can be done with photo altering software, I understand. That doen’t establish that every alleged ghost photo is an intentional fake. The top hat guy had a different head shape than the one from the ghost app. 

7 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

 

Wake up papa please, ghosts may or may not exist but this trash reporting just gets in the way and makes any serious study impossible. People such as yourself are the reason this rubbish exists in the first place. I hate to be rude but stop desperately grasping for evidence where none exists.

 

I take each story pretty casually, actually. You seem to be bothered by the fact that that I don’t outright dismiss them all (which would be a logical error).

[I'mConvinced]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You just re-affirmed my point by example.

You don't have a point as far as I can tell.

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

On a side issue, the point of the article was not to prove this to hard-core skeptics so they felt a verbal statement that it was checked by an investigator that went to the sight sufficed.

This article was not claiming to be a scientific research project.

Who ever claimed it was a scientific research project? They asked a question 'is this a black monk ghost?' and we've answered that in this thread with all the proof any sane person needs to categorically say it's not.

Any decent journalistic publication would have fact checked this before publishing. However that costs money, isn't as easy as not doing it and doesn't garner clicks which is all they care about. This destroys the credibility of the source.

In the end it doesn't matter. You've already made your mind up and nothing will ever change that, so instead I always take your views as tainted by this bias. 

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Your fallacious argument seems to be that if one photo is a fake then all are fake. All it says to me is to consider the source and be an open-minded skeptic.

Then you don't understand the argument. I said the source is not credible as they have a history of posting fake ghost stories. This is very relevant as once more we can see they didn't check it before publishing.

[I'mConvinced]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I take each story pretty casually, actually. You seem to be bothered by the fact that that I don’t outright dismiss them all (which would be a logical error).

No, i'm bothered that when presented with clear evidence that counters your instinctive paranormal bias you can't accept it.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You don't have a point as far as I can tell.

Who ever claimed it was a scientific research project? They asked a question 'is this a black monk ghost?' and we've answered that in this thread with all the proof any sane person needs to categorically say it's not.

Any decent journalistic publication would have fact checked this before publishing. However that costs money, isn't as easy as not doing it and doesn't garner clicks which is all they care about. This destroys the credibility of the source.

In the end it doesn't matter. You've already made your mind up and nothing will ever change that, so instead I always take your views as tainted by this bias. 

I completely  disagree that the monk-shaped hole-in the wall theory has been anywhere close to being proven.

in fact, i’d wager money against the theory.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

No, i'm bothered that when presented with clear evidence that counters your instinctive paranormal bias you can't accept it.

I do accept CLEAR evidence when I see it.