Is this the ghost of Nelson's wife?

[oldrover]

39 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

If it is a bloke, he's wearing a dress and high heels.

Wouldn't be the strangest thing I've seen in Portsmouth. 

[oldrover]

It's not a ghost, but even if it was, there's nothing to suggest it'd be Mrs Nelson. The only reason they raised it in the first place is because the Mail's readership, and this is a long shot, may be aware that Mr Nelson used to work on it. 

There's nothing remotely reminiscent of the regency period in the figure's dress. 

This is a shot from some woo merchant who when he isn't photographing Lady Nelson in futuristic garb is communicating with the spirits of executed Cornishmen. 

Unfortunately the link to that can't be displayed here, but just Google 'Tony Ferguson ghost hunter'. 

[+Not A Rockstar]

Serious question here. What use is a ghost box (I think that is what he has?) when it is plain there is heap of ambient noise of tourists and kids going on in the background? Or is it that those read frequencies supposedly so noise all around doesn't matter? I do not really understand the value of ghost boxes tbh. 

[freetoroam]

3 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Serious question here. What use is a ghost box (I think that is what he has?) when it is plain there is heap of ambient noise of tourists and kids going on in the background? Or is it that those read frequencies supposedly so noise all around doesn't matter? I do not really understand the value of ghost boxes tbh. 

No use...but if it gets them hits on youtube they will use anything, there are....get this..... people who believe it.

They could just as well use a loo roll, but it does not look as fancy.

 

[Black Monk]

14 hours ago, oldrover said:

It's not a ghost, but even if it was, there's nothing to suggest it'd be Mrs Nelson. The only reason they raised it in the first place is because the Mail's readership, and this is a long shot, may be aware that Mr Nelson used to work on it. 

It's reported in other newspapers, as well as the very popular Daily Mail.

Quote

 

http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/18/man-thinks-filmed-ghost-admiral-nelsons-wife-hms-victory-7397166/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/creepy-ghost-lord-nelsons-wife-12196253

 

 

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, Black Monk said:

It's reported in other newspapers, as well as the very popular Daily Mail.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/18/man-thinks-filmed-ghost-admiral-nelsons-wife-hms-victory-7397166/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/creepy-ghost-lord-nelsons-wife-12196253

Well that confirms it then, I mean THREE news reports can't all be wrong.

[moonman]

Looks like a real person. Do they have period actors working in the ship?

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

If it's a ghost, it was able to cast a shadow on the floor when walking in front of the window.

[DirtyDocMartens]

The coolest thing about this video is the kick-*** cannon tied down with ropes.

[+OverSword]

21 hours ago, Stiff said:

That is no ghost 

How do you know that?  An answer that is actually unacceptable is there is no such thing, because you have exactly the same amount of proof they don't exist as those that say they absolutely exist.  All you have is an opinion.

[papageorge1]

56 minutes ago, OverSword said:

How do you know that?  An answer that is actually unacceptable is there is no such thing, because you have exactly the same amount of proof they don't exist as those that say they absolutely exist.  All you have is an opinion.

Glad to see you are also calling out this immature false bravado. One can't even debate that kind of illogic without descending to their level. We need better quality discussions on this forum.

[+OverSword]

29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Glad to see you are also calling out this immature false bravado. One can't even debate that kind of illogic without descending to their level. We need better quality discussions on this forum.

People that think they can absolutely know the truth about that which is improvable kind of annoy me.  These people would be religious fanatics had they grown up in a different environment.

[Calibeliever]

A non-see-through ghost complete with shadow / reflection on the floor and contemporary footwear. *sigh*

[Stiff]

32 minutes ago, OverSword said:

...know the truth about that which is improvable

But that's kind of the point, and in all honesty, the usual cop out for these kind of things. Russell's teapot?

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

We need better quality discussions on this forum.

Then you're going to need better quality subject matter.

[+OverSword]

33 minutes ago, Stiff said:

But that's kind of the point, and in all honesty, the usual cop out for these kind of things. Russell's teapot?

Yeah, but I'm not saying there is absolutely no such thing as a ghost, or that there absolutely is.  I have two experiences and one very personal experience which indicates to me that there is something to ghost's though.  What that something is, is debatable, but the one thing that it's not is a hoax or a lie.

[Stiff]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, but I'm not saying there is absolutely no such thing as a ghost, or that there absolutely is.  I have two experiences and one very personal experience which indicates to me that there is something to ghost's though.  What that something is, is debatable, but the one thing that it's not is a hoax or a lie.

That's fair enough. I can sympathise with your experiences and your reasoning for speculation, personal experiences must be very emotional, understandably.

Obviously, I can't say for sure that there is nothing to ghosts but I believe it's more psychological than anything else (that's just my opinion though and dare say you may beg to differ).

However, on this particular occasion I find the clumsy drag artist with a shadow, risible and completely farcical.

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Stiff said:

That's fair enough. I can sympathise with your experiences and your reasoning for speculation, personal experiences must be very emotional, understandably.

Obviously, I can't say for sure that there is nothing to ghosts but I believe it's more psychological than anything else (that's just my opinion though and dare say you may beg to differ).

However, on this particular occasion I find the clumsy drag artist with a shadow, risible and completely farcical.

It could very well be psychological, or it could be something alien (not space men) that we perceive in a strange way as our minds try to make sense of something beyond our experience.  This particular video is tough for me to label hoax, but also I don't believe it was a ghost.  When I looked at it I didn't see anything walk through a wall, the head is clearly still visible as the camera pans away.  The only inexplicable thing about it was the style of clothing, you don't often see women with skirts down to their feet nowadays, but you do see them, this video imo is a human that the person who made the video didn't notice walking around.

[Stiff]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

this video imo is a human that the person who made the video didn't notice walking around.

That notion was one of the first that entered my head. It was only the clothing, like you say, that made me dismiss it. It is still a very plausible explanation though.

[freetoroam]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

We need better quality discussions on this forum.

What do you mean by better quality? Do you mean more aggreeing with your ideas?

I have given my view about this particular story and i do believe i have given some quality information, which is more to be said about certain details in  the article, which is complete nonsense. 

The fact this is in 3 (woop woop)  news reports which do not actually say "this is" but asks "is this" because some paranormal guy says so....basically says it all.

Not even the Daily Fail could be bothered to investigate it fully, they just printed the story and left people to make up their own minds. 

 

[papageorge1]

8 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

What do you mean by better quality? 

 

Like people not saying they KNOW it is not a ghost.

That’s just immature false bravado.

Edited March 19, 2018 by papageorge1

[Stiff]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Like people not saying they KNOW it is not a ghost.

It is not a ghost 

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That’s just immature false bravado.

   

[freetoroam]

39 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Like people not saying they KNOW it is not a ghost.

That’s just immature false bravado.

How about i know it is not as there is no reason why she would be on the HMS Victory. Here is a list of ships he sailed on and note some when he was still with Frances

	Agamemnon (Captain, then Commodore, Jan 1793 - June 1796)
	Albemarle (Captain, Oct 1781 - July 1783)
	Alexander (passenger, July 1800)
	Amphion (Vice-Admiral, May-July 1803)
	Badger (Commander, Dec 1778 - June 1779)
	Boreas (Captain, March 1784 - Dec 1787)
	Bristol (3rd Lieutenant, July - Sep 1778; 1st Lieutenant Sep - Dec 1778)
	Captain (Commodore, June - Sep 1796; 13-14 Feb 1797; March - May 1797)
	Carcass (Captain's coxswain, June - Sep 1773)
	Diadem (Commodore, Sep 1796)
	Dolphin (Midshipman, March - May 1776)
	Elephant (Vice-Admiral, 29th March - 2nd April 1801)
	Hinchinbrooke (Post-captain, June 1779 - March 1780)
	Irresistable (Commodore, 14th Feb - March 1797)
	Kite (passenger, June 1801)
	Foudroyant (Rear-Admiral, June 1799 - July 1800)
	Janus (Captain, March - Sep 1780)
	La Minerve (Commodore, Dec 1796 - 13th Feb 1797)
	Lion (passenger, Sep - Oct 1780)
	Little Lucy (Commander, Dec 1777 - July 1778)
	Lowestoffe (2nd Lieutenant, April - Dec 1777)
	Medusa (Vice-Admiral, Aug 1801)
	Raisonnable (Midshipman, 24th April - 21st May 1771)
	San Josef (Vice-Admiral, Jan-Feb 1801)
	Seahorse (Able seaman, then Midshipman, Oct 1773 - March 1776)
	St George (Vice-Admiral, Feb-March 1801; 2nd April - June 1801)
	Theseus (Rear-Admiral, May - Aug 1797)
	Triumph (Captain's servant, then Midshipman, May 1771 - May 1773)
	Unite (Vice-Admiral, 27th-29th July 1801)
	Vanguard (Rear-Admiral, March 1798 - June 1799)
	Victory (Vice-Admiral July 1803 - 21st Oct 1805)
	Worcester (Acting Lieutenant, Sep 1776 - April 1777) My point is....Tony Ferguson has completely made this whole thing up - including the ghost part, purely to try to establish himself as a paranormal man who atttacts ghosts, note he said he felt someone was following him, how the heck did he come to that conclusion, why the heck would Frances want to follow him, let alone be on the HMS Victory ? This is not a case of knowing your history, but more a case of spotting a down and out right lie by someone wanting a bit of recognition as a paranornal guy. When you spot a flaw in one part of the story...the rest follows suit.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

How about i know it is not as there is no reason why she would be on the HMS Victory. Here is a list of ships he sailed on and note some when he was still with Frances

	Agamemnon (Captain, then Commodore, Jan 1793 - June 1796)
	Albemarle (Captain, Oct 1781 - July 1783)
	Alexander (passenger, July 1800)
	Amphion (Vice-Admiral, May-July 1803)
	Badger (Commander, Dec 1778 - June 1779)
	Boreas (Captain, March 1784 - Dec 1787)
	Bristol (3rd Lieutenant, July - Sep 1778; 1st Lieutenant Sep - Dec 1778)
	Captain (Commodore, June - Sep 1796; 13-14 Feb 1797; March - May 1797)
	Carcass (Captain's coxswain, June - Sep 1773)
	Diadem (Commodore, Sep 1796)
	Dolphin (Midshipman, March - May 1776)
	Elephant (Vice-Admiral, 29th March - 2nd April 1801)
	Hinchinbrooke (Post-captain, June 1779 - March 1780)
	Irresistable (Commodore, 14th Feb - March 1797)
	Kite (passenger, June 1801)
	Foudroyant (Rear-Admiral, June 1799 - July 1800)
	Janus (Captain, March - Sep 1780)
	La Minerve (Commodore, Dec 1796 - 13th Feb 1797)
	Lion (passenger, Sep - Oct 1780)
	Little Lucy (Commander, Dec 1777 - July 1778)
	Lowestoffe (2nd Lieutenant, April - Dec 1777)
	Medusa (Vice-Admiral, Aug 1801)
	Raisonnable (Midshipman, 24th April - 21st May 1771)
	San Josef (Vice-Admiral, Jan-Feb 1801)
	Seahorse (Able seaman, then Midshipman, Oct 1773 - March 1776)
	St George (Vice-Admiral, Feb-March 1801; 2nd April - June 1801)
	Theseus (Rear-Admiral, May - Aug 1797)
	Triumph (Captain's servant, then Midshipman, May 1771 - May 1773)
	Unite (Vice-Admiral, 27th-29th July 1801)
	Vanguard (Rear-Admiral, March 1798 - June 1799)
	Victory (Vice-Admiral July 1803 - 21st Oct 1805)
	Worcester (Acting Lieutenant, Sep 1776 - April 1777) My point is....Tony Ferguson has completely made this whole thing up - including the ghost part, purely to try to establish himself as a paranormal man who atttacts ghosts, note he said he felt someone was following him, how the heck did he come to that conclusion, why the heck would Frances want to follow him, let alone be on the HMS Victory ? This is not a case of knowing your history, but more a case of spotting a down and out right lie by someone wanting a bit of recognition as a paranornal guy. When you spot a flaw in one part of the story...the rest follows suit.

You can’t say that video is not a ghost, whoever it may or may not be.

You can create your personal most likely scenario, but it sounds foolish to say it is the only possible scenario.

[freetoroam]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You can’t say that video is not a ghost, whoever it may or may not be.

You can create your personal most likely scenario, but it sounds foolish to say it is the only possible scenario.

I can say it is not a ghost because it looks like someone walking....they are wearing a long coat which is not unusual and can i ask why is itvin black and white? Why has he not got colour on his camera...everyone has colour nowadays....unless they want to try and create an effect...think about it, but not for too long.

Notes: 

There is a shadow

There is no wall...the windows are continous

The person does not look his way and does in no way appear to be following him.

Black and white video...today. did he not have a phone with a colour recorder?

[Stiff]

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You can’t say that video is not a ghost, whoever it may or may not be.

It is not a ghost