Cat's Ghost Successfully Photographed

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I can't believe anyone is convinced by that picture. 

And so far we haven't seen any poster claim they were 'convinced'.

[papageorge1]

34 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

a ghost that creates a shadow? hmm, interesting

If that is a shadow it is certainly distorted from what we would expect.

[papageorge1]

37 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 i am comfortable that its a hoax or an "off" person or both 

 

Just curious how you could be so 'comfortable' with such little evidence supporting your theory? Now as a neutral logical thinker I can accept your theory as a possibility but....?

Edited September 16, 2019 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

And so far we haven't seen any poster claim they were 'convinced'.

75% on the meter. Little surprise there. 

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

75% on the meter. Little surprise there. 

Not what I call 'convinced' was my point

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Not what I call 'convinced' was my point

You're always convinced. 

[papageorge1]

Just now, XenoFish said:

You're always convinced. 

Sad, if you don't understand percentages at your age.

But I'm sure this and every case flatlines at zero on the Fishometer. Something fishy about that.

[XenoFish]

All of them are 0%. Even this one.

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

All of them are 0%. Even this one.

Which is why I do not take your judgments seriously. I see them as just never-say-die dislike of those infuriating optimists suggesting a more positive understanding of reality.

[XenoFish]

If you believe ghost, spirits, and demons are real. Then you should be very afraid of me. 

[rashore]

Golly guys, knock it off with the meters and bickering with each other please.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, rashore said:

Golly guys, knock it off with the meters and bickering with each other please.

I'm just trying to make a point. 

[Bed of chaos]

On 9/15/2019 at 12:07 PM, brian100 said:

I love cats.

 

I think they protect you from ghosts. I hope his cat didn't get marooned as one.

My fat cat better protect me from ghosts. He gets three cans of fancy feast a day!

Edited September 16, 2019 by Bed of chaos

[the13bats]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just curious how you could be so 'comfortable' with such little evidence supporting your theory? Now as a neutral logical thinker I can accept your theory as a possibility but....?

okay, ill answer your question, but then im gonna leave it at that, because i have seen you hail many hoaxes here, cool? good!

there is plenty of information for me to form an opinion about this case, i have a rambling web page blogging about it with lots of wild notions and zero proof of any of it, stories no matter how much the gullible believe them are not proof.

then i am presented with a photo that is being hailed as a "ghost cat" that looks exactly like a type of photo anomoly that is very common, so do i go with the very very likely that this is a photo anomaly, or make a huge blind faith zero proof go on gullible belief only this is a picture of the ghost of a dead cat?

yes, i am comfortable with it being a photo anomaly, now as far as the person who took it i have only my suspensions after skimming the accompanying web page that this person leans more to just being "off" than an out right hoaxer, i dont know and dont care,

i stand by what i first said this photo doesnt prove there are ghost cats.

now i am done, anything more could be viewed as beating a dead ( no ghost ) horse or just bickering im im not interested in either today....

 

 

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, Bed of chaos said:

My fat cat better protect me from ghosts some day. He gets three cans of fancy feast daily!

ouch  the good stuff, monkey only really likes friskys cheese bits and its gone from shelves, hes not happy.

monkey hasnt reported spookies yet but did save tina from a *spam filter*roach.

[papageorge1]

27 minutes ago, the13bats said:

okay, ill answer your question, but then im gonna leave it at that, because i have seen you hail many hoaxes here, cool? good!

there is plenty of information for me to form an opinion about this case, i have a rambling web page blogging about it with lots of wild notions and zero proof of any of it, stories no matter how much the gullible believe them are not proof.

then i am presented with a photo that is being hailed as a "ghost cat" that looks exactly like a type of photo anomoly that is very common, so do i go with the very very likely that this is a photo anomaly, or make a huge blind faith zero proof go on gullible belief only this is a picture of the ghost of a dead cat?

yes, i am comfortable with it being a photo anomaly, now as far as the person who took it i have only my suspensions after skimming the accompanying web page that this person leans more to just being "off" than an out right hoaxer, i dont know and dont care,

i stand by what i first said this photo doesnt prove there are ghost cats.

now i am done, anything more could be viewed as beating a dead ( no ghost ) horse or just bickering im im not interested in either today....

 

 

By now you already know what my response would be.

Out of respect to the moderator, the forum and dead horses, I’ll leave it at that with you. 

I’ll still watch the thread and respond to new points.

[Matt221]

Think I must be looking at a different picture all I can see is a shaky photo of a blurred thing lol

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, Matt221 said:

Think I must be looking at a different picture all I can see is a shaky photo of a blurred thing lol

The photographer said there was nothing there when the picture was taken though. It certainly suggests a cat which the photographer also claims to have heard at the same time.

 Not just a ‘lol’ I would say.

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

If that is a shadow it is certainly distorted from what we would expect.

nope, don't get that

[+Desertrat56]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The photographer said there was nothing there when the picture was taken though. It certainly suggests a cat which the photographer also claims to have heard at the same time.

 Not just a ‘lol’ I would say.

I question the veracity of the person who posted the photo.  It does look like a cat, but it is blurry as if the cat walked through a slow exposure.  I don't know if digital does that, I only know how film works.  If it is a digital camera I am not sure how that was done.

[XenoFish]

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

I question the veracity of the person who posted the photo.  It does look like a cat, but it is blurry as if the cat walked through a slow exposure.  I don't know if digital does that, I only know how film works.  If it is a digital camera I am not sure how that was done.

It's just a picture of an actual cat. I get the feeling our legs are being pulled and the OP has yet to return and clarify anything. 

[the13bats]

I have lots of motion blur cat pics on my phone, no point in editing the size down and posting just to be told its not 100% the same as the op pic,

i learned that when a person posted a laser pointer and insited  it could only be paranormal i posted the same and was shot down that ghosts the paranormal might take the form or a laser pointer so at some point i say "whew" and let the blind faith believers have it.

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

nope, don't get that

Speaking from honesty or obstinacy there?

And about the unformed head area?

[papageorge1]

35 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I question the veracity of the person who posted the photo.  

That becomes the key point doesn’t it. I always question that in every claim. On this one I’m about 75% Honest....25% Liar.

And I feel I might be too harsh actually.

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

That becomes the key point doesn’t it. I always question that in every claim. On this one I’m about 75% Honest....25% Liar.

And I feel I might be too harsh actually.

You are nicer than I am.  I do not dispute paranormal phenomena, but things like photos are not something I consider proof of anything as I learned how to make double exposures, etc. on film.  I know digitally things have to be done differently.  I have a lot of photos of my grandsons (one in particular) surrounded by orbs.  I am sure they are not an artifact of lighting or dirty lens but I will not share them or argue with anyone about them as I am still not sure what the significance is.