GlitterRose Posted April 19, 2018 #26 Share Posted April 19, 2018 It just looks like some fog to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted April 19, 2018 #27 Share Posted April 19, 2018 I was hoping for something like this... 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted April 19, 2018 #28 Share Posted April 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said: I was hoping for something like this... Yep, but we got something like this instead 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted April 19, 2018 #29 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Just now, freetoroam said: Yep, but we got something like this instead I feel the need to put the caption...Whooooooo are youuuuu? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt221 Posted April 19, 2018 #30 Share Posted April 19, 2018 16 hours ago, freetoroam said: I zoomed out and saw a giant Camila and a welsh pigeon. How did I type that I ment camila wales and a giant pigeon lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted April 19, 2018 #31 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Maybe the horses were being ridden by ghosts who were smoking electronic cigarettes? And maybe that's why the smoke obscurred their bodies? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1973 Posted August 30, 2018 #32 Share Posted August 30, 2018 The Berry Pomeroy Castle ghostly horses and horsemen galloping footage is actually genuine. Breath and cigarette smoke and vape would not create horses. Nobody was smoking and there was no mist at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flabbins Posted August 30, 2018 #33 Share Posted August 30, 2018 I see this fella from toy story not horses... pareidolia from an e-Sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted August 30, 2018 #34 Share Posted August 30, 2018 It's not fog. Or mist. Or ciggarrette smoke. The people taking the photograph didn't see anything at the time. It's a photographic artefact. (e.g. something wrong with the camera). NEXT ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted August 30, 2018 #35 Share Posted August 30, 2018 3 hours ago, RoofGardener said: It's a photographic artefact. (e.g. something wrong with the camera). NEXT ! I wouldn't bother to bring a 'NEXT' to someone satisfied with a totally undemonstrated explain-away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotic Jew Posted August 30, 2018 #36 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Seriously? This is what passes as ghost pictures these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted August 31, 2018 #37 Share Posted August 31, 2018 15 hours ago, papageorge1 said: I wouldn't bother to bring a 'NEXT' to someone satisfied with a totally undemonstrated explain-away Well, if the people on the scene didn't see anything, and the Headless Horseman only showed up on the photograph, then what other explanation is there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonman Posted August 31, 2018 #38 Share Posted August 31, 2018 It always cracks me up when people claim things like a near invisible mist, e-smoke, and camera problems are just impossible, so ghost horses are the only explanation. Lol, sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted August 31, 2018 #39 Share Posted August 31, 2018 8 hours ago, RoofGardener said: Well, if the people on the scene didn't see anything, and the Headless Horseman only showed up on the photograph, then what other explanation is there ? That a camera or other technological devices can help us see real things differently (or more) than the naked human eye (perhaps especially in a dark environment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretSanta Posted August 31, 2018 #40 Share Posted August 31, 2018 You’ve got people wearing heavy coats at night in England...I’m going with breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 1, 2018 #41 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I liked the one post wonder that tried to suggest no one was vaping. First post since April. Claims other methods would not create horses. There are no horses there. People see fish, whales, birds, cartoon characters, biblical images and everything else in clouds. There seems to be no limit to the imaginations of people. There are no horses in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted September 1, 2018 #42 Share Posted September 1, 2018 On 8/31/2018 at 4:14 PM, papageorge1 said: That a camera or other technological devices can help us see real things differently (or more) than the naked human eye (perhaps especially in a dark environment). So then, some sort of EM field interferes with the CCD chip of the camera, producing large-scale artifacts that where not visible to the naked eye ? Possibly. Or perhaps it was just a glitch in the camera ? A fault ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted September 1, 2018 #43 Share Posted September 1, 2018 29 minutes ago, RoofGardener said: So then, some sort of EM field interferes with the CCD chip of the camera, producing large-scale artifacts that where not visible to the naked eye ? Possibly. Or perhaps it was just a glitch in the camera ? A fault ? Or perhaps residual energy from the past produced a real image on a sensitive media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 1, 2018 #44 Share Posted September 1, 2018 41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Or perhaps residual energy from the past produced a real image on a sensitive media? There is no such thing as residual energy. Good try at making up $#!+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted September 1, 2018 #45 Share Posted September 1, 2018 25 minutes ago, stereologist said: There is no such thing as residual energy. Good try at making up $#!+ How can you know there’s no such thing? Is the theory making claims falsifiable by science? No, so this might be just your opinion again here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted September 1, 2018 #46 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, papageorge1 said: How can you know there’s no such thing? Is the theory making claims falsifiable by science? No, so this might be just your opinion again here? The notion of residual energy is clearly invalidated the the standard model and thermodynamics to name a few. No, not my opinion. There is no theory for residual energy. There is no evidence on which to form a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted September 2, 2018 #47 Share Posted September 2, 2018 11 hours ago, papageorge1 said: Or perhaps residual energy from the past produced a real image on a sensitive media? Which affects ONE digital photograph, but not the ones before, or the ones afterwards ? Not the camera of the person standing just 6' away, also taking photographs ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted September 2, 2018 #48 Share Posted September 2, 2018 8 hours ago, RoofGardener said: Which affects ONE digital photograph, but not the ones before, or the ones afterwards ? Not the camera of the person standing just 6' away, also taking photographs ? Oh for sure I don't know the details of how this stuff works. But I think residual haunting is a real phenomena and this photo is quite possibly an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted September 2, 2018 #49 Share Posted September 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Oh for sure I don't know the details of how this stuff works. But I think residual haunting is a real phenomena and this photo is quite possibly an example. Based on a single photograph ? Taken with very little background context ? In the presence of OTHER people taking photographs, who's images we havn't seen ? Well.. OK Papageorge1. Believe what you want to believe. But I have to say... your "threshold of credibility" when viewing evidence seems awfully low ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted September 2, 2018 #50 Share Posted September 2, 2018 1 minute ago, RoofGardener said: Based on a single photograph ? Taken with very little background context ? In the presence of OTHER people taking photographs, who's images we havn't seen ? Well.. OK Papageorge1. Believe what you want to believe. But I have to say... your "threshold of credibility" when viewing evidence seems awfully low ? Maye in this case it is your comprehension of what I wrote that 'seems awfully low'. If you read slowly I placed no certainty 'on a single photo', right? (only a possibility). I believe in the phenomena of residual haunting/energy for reasons beyond this single photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now