Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Green Dragon ghost


Loonboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. I thought it was about time that I posted a ghost story that happened to me and my partner last year. It's unusual because the ghost was witnessed by both of us at the same time.

There is a waterfall in North Yorkshire near the town of Hawes called Hardraw Force. It's at the head of a small gorge and is one of the finest and highest free-flowing falls in the UK. To get to it, you have to pass through a pub called the 'Green Dragon', pay your entrance fee, and wander up the gorge to view it.

We did this and spent some time taking photos and enjoying the spot. It had rained recently and the water flowing was fast and wide. It was absolutely beautiful. Afterwards, we walked down towards the pub, chatting away and thinking things like: what shall we have for dinner, how long will it take to drive home etc.

As we approached the back of the Green Dragon we passed alongside some outbuildings and down a flagged path to the rear entrance. I have to relate independently what each of us saw.

I saw a man dressed in blue jeans and a blue & white checked shirt with grey hair standing about 10 feet ahead of us in a doorway on the left. He simply ducked back into the doorway and out of sight. At that point, I thought nothing of it.

My partner saw a man with grey hair and similar clothes turn from the doorway, look at us and dissolve into the air, vanishing.

I was continuing towards the door, when my partner asked, 'Did you see that man?' I replied that I had and just then we passed the doorway where he had been. We both looked in and there was no trace of him. The room into which he had stepped (from what I saw) was 3 feet square and had shelves - there was no other doorway out of there.

At the time we kinda carried on through the pub and out to the car and only as we were driving off did we realise that we had both witnessed what appeared to be a ghost at the same time. The interpretation of the ghost is a little different, interestingly, but the description is identical. Neither of us felt scared or spooked. Indeed, it just felt like the man was a regular person... until he vanished.

Anyone else been up to the Green Dragon & the falls there?

:huh:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just wondering if you have any history on the place like an owner that passed away or a customer that visited daily. Think it is great that the both of you were able to see it at the same time. There is no way anyone can say it was your imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there is a condition known as mass suggestion, whereby two or more individuals convince themselves of something that actually didn't take place. I'm not saying that this is indeed an explanation in this instance, merely a very strong possibility.

I saw a man dressed in blue jeans and a blue & white checked shirt with grey hair standing about 10 feet ahead of us in a doorway on the left. He simply ducked back into the doorway and out of sight. At that point, I thought nothing of it.

My partner saw a man with grey hair and similar clothes turn from the doorway, look at us and dissolve into the air, vanishing.

You both give fairly thorough descriptions of what you saw that day, which is always a great help and in most cases very productive and revealing.

Your description in summary:

blue jeans

blue & white checked shirt

Grey hair

10 feet away

Stood in doorway to your left

Ducked in to doorway

Out of sight

Problems with your account:

You said he was stood in the doroway then ducked back in to the doorway, that would be extremely difficult if he was already stood in said doorway as you describe. You wouldn't duck back in to a doorway you were already in.

You say you thought nothing of it, that would suggest he didn't vanish so much as duck in to the doorway or enter doorway and ultimately go out of sight as you said yourself.

You partner's account in summary:

Saw a man

Grey hair

Similar clothes

Turn from the doorway

Look at you

Dissolved in to thin air

Vanished

Now I can put both your accounts together and perhaps point out a few glaring discrepencies.

Where the clothes similar or the same? Blue and white checked shirts are striking enough to be noticed if a person is looking hard enough. I would assume she was looking quite closely to notice the hair colour and the movements of the mysterious man.

Your testimony then says he ducked in to the doorway and your partners says he turned in to the doorway - both of you saying the same thing, which normally would be fine if you hadn't already said he was "Stood in doorway on the left".

Your testimonty clearly points to the man not being stood in the doorway but subsequently turning in to or ducking in to said doorway.

Was he stood in the doorway or not?

Your partner says he dissolved in to thin air yet you describe it as ducking in to doorway and out of sight. After that you make it clear you thought nothing of it.

One of you saw him vanish in to thin air and one of you saw him merely move in to a doorway and thus disappear out of view. Had you seen him vanish I'm sure you would have thought a lot more about it.

The interpretation of the ghost is a little different, interestingly, but the description is identical. Neither of us felt scared or spooked. Indeed, it just felt like the man was a regular person... until he vanished.

You end that paragraph with "until he vanished", he didn't though did he, you clearly said nothing of the sort. You described it as any one else would if someone went in to a doorway and subsequently the room within.

Although interpretation is important, it can only reflect what you saw in your own mind and how you decipher that information. Interpretation does not make for facts. Your descriptions, however, are markedly different and would lead me to conclude you did see a grey haired man, but one of this world.

People could be forgiven for thinking you are both reciting a story that you witnessed on two seperate occassions which would tie in with your small but very significant discrepencies.

The only big question remaining for me is this - Can your partners description of how he "vanished in to thin air" and yours of how he ducked in to the doorway and "out of sight" be classed as the same thing and have the difference in description put down to interpretation? I don't think it can.

I would again suggest that your "I thought nothing of it" remark would suggest that he didn't vanish in to thin air, so perhaps your partners description is perhaps - exaggerated a little?

I also know the place you speak of, Yorkshire certainly is a fine county. :tu:

Edited by phenomenon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off topic but Yorkshire is not just a fine county. It the best with North Yorkshire being the creme de la creme. Now that's an irrefutable fact.

With regards to your story I suggest that possibly your own original version of what happened was later changed by the ascertion of your partner that the man 'vanished'. You yourself seemed to think nothing if the event at first. It appeared nothing out of the ordinary.

Why did your partner describe it as vanishing and you not? This would suggest that your saw completely different events and that would lead one to assume one of you was mistaken.

I also suggest that maybe your initial reaction with regard to the man not being in the shed - despite you clearly seeing him enter and there being no other way out - as being a little underawed. For myself, if I had seen a man enter and not leave and there was no other way out, it would have been at that point that I would have been amazed rather than a time after during a discussion about it.

IMO (my opinion) it is possible that the examination of the shed was not detailed enough to warrant any other immediate assumption other than simply that the man left somehow before you got there.

I am just a little amazed at how your partner remained so calm after seeing a man vanish and the both of you attached no immediate significance to the fact that he was not in the shed with no other way out. Again, I myself (even the skeptic that I am) would have been more than a little freaked by that and would then (as a skeptic) would have made every attempt to track this man down in the pub or ask if anyone knew him.

What I'm suggesting is it "may" be a case of what I call "crap holiday syndrome". You have a holiday and it is horrible. You hate every minute of it while your there. A few weeks later you are discussing it with others and you recount all the amusing incidents and suddenly it is remembered as a fine time had by all. Only suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.

I have clarified with my partner as to exactly what he saw and he said that he saw the man with his peripheral vision and turned to look at him. The man remained in his peripheral vision until the point where he looked directly at him and at which point he was no longer there.

He did not 'dissolve' as I originally stated.

The differences in description can be attributed to the fact that I looked directly at him, whereas my partner saw from his peripheral vision. As you all know, you cannot see details too well in your peripheral vision but you can see shapes & colours. I saw the pattern and colour of the clothing; my partner simply got the form and colour.

To clarify again another point, I saw the man standing in the doorway looking out up the path towards us, whereupon he moved back through the doorway and out of sight into the interior. I described this as ducking back into the doorway, so sorry if that caused confusion.

Our experience happened simultaneously and within a few seconds, so when I said 'I thought nothing of it', I thought nothing of it for a few seconds. Then my partner asked if I had seen the man.

To explain my use of 'vanish' - I mean, the man stepped back into a room that had no other exit, and when I looked into it a few seconds later, he was not in there. To me that means he vanished from the room, i.e. he was no longer in there and nowhere to be seen. Had he stepped out of the door, we would have seen him. Had he remained in the room, we would have seen him.

As I stated, our experience was slightly different, which I think is very interesting. I don't profess to know why we both saw such similar things but with slight differences - I think that's why I posted this on the 'unexplained mysteries' discussion forum.

I hope this clarification helps. To add a little bit to our own credentials - we are both professional people and can determine if a person is there or not. This man was there, and then was not - hence the question, was he a ghost? If not, what was he?

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification.

My question, though, still remains about your reactions to the man no longer being in a shed he could not have and - according to your account - did not leave.

For myself, it still does not sit well with how I would react in that situation. You said you just carried on through the pub and it was only later, talking about it in the car that you concluded it was a ghost. I just think that I would have been a bit more interested at the actual time of not being able to find him in the shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off topic but Yorkshire is not just a fine county. It the best with North Yorkshire being the creme de la creme. Now that's an irrefutable fact.

Indeed it is, indeed it is. :P

I hope this clarification helps. To add a little bit to our own credentials - we are both professional people and can determine if a person is there or not. This man was there, and then was not - hence the question, was he a ghost? If not, what was he?

I fully understand why you would mention your credentials as people, particularly bringing up the fact you are professional people. A lot may take the credibility of a witness and in some way add weight to a claim by using it. For me, testimony from respected and trusted individuals, although hard to ignore, should never be used as the sole evidence in any claim.

I appreciate that this is not your aim, you have offered far more detail than most and certainly don't seem to think that your credibility is somehow to be seen as a rubber stamp on your story.

That said, and if I am to be frank with you, bringing it up does some irrelevant and slightly pointless. Perhaps looking at it again you may well agree that your career and professionalism are really not points worth mentioning in this particular instance as they add no weight to your testimony.

I am always reluctant, rightly or wrongly, to review a claim that has had significant changes made to it. I always go for the first account, to me it is the master and any subsequent tellings are merely revisions, revisions with, more often than not, factual changes which not only change the whole perception of a story but in some cases change the actual story itself.

At the risk of sounding like a boring old fart, the finite points of your claim which are in question have had wholesale changes made to them. It's almost a different story. I don't think for one minute you are lying, I strongly feel that you are both mistaken and have possible unwittingly coerced each other in to singing from the same sheet.

When you truly believe what you see you will do almost anything to make sure it is believable, even if that means manipulating a story or altering a few choice facts.

I can't prove you did not see what you say you saw, I can only have serious doubts based on your recollection and the original conflicts in your recounting the events of that day.

I can imagine that people like yourself, if indeed they have seen something of this ilk, get incredibly frustrated when there is no real way to convey a story with nothing but words. Then you get some smart **** skeptic picking through it like a tramp in a skip, trying to trip you up.

Well if I didn't do that I'd be going against what I believe. That claims of this nature should be treated with respect, but ultimately approached with logic and common sense, looking for natural causes rather than paranormal ones.

At the end of the day, if a person is thorough enough and fair to the claimant, assessing everything before summising then they have at least offered their own personal opinion using a fair and unbiassed method and have not been swayed by anything other than the facts.

Perhaps we are the same, the only difference is you are coming from one end and I'm coming from the other. I reckon there's room enough in the middle. ;)

Edited by phenomenon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. I have gone back to the facts and clarified them with my witness. I have not changed my story, only my interpretation of his, which is now presented as accurately as can be on a forum such as this.

I believe that what we saw cannot be put down to psychology or incorrect memory but remains as a very odd moment that two sane and intelligent people witnessed together and could not rationally explain.

I saw what I saw and expressed my experience for others to share.

As for: "...testimony from respected and trusted individuals, although hard to ignore, should never be used as the sole evidence in any claim..." - well it's unfortunate but our testimony is the only one for this particular experience - there were no film crews or notaries present to verify the events. Sometimes, there is no other evidence to put forward. It stands as it is.

Regarding: "That said, and if I am to be frank with you, bringing it up does some irrelevant and slightly pointless. Perhaps looking at it again you may well agree that your career and professionalism are really not points worth mentioning in this particular instance as they add no weight to your testimony." - I think this is simply pedantic.

If I clarify, then you seem to think I'm embellishing. If I don't, you seem to think I'm remembering incorrectly or something. Therefore, it seems from what you have written, that nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion and, of course, you are welcome to it.

I agree with you on one thing: Yorkshire is wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Phenomenon. Many people site a person's profession in their testimony (or that of someone else) and I understand why they do it. For myself though, it makes testimony no more or less credible what a person does for a living.

As for clarifying what happened with the others involved I have to say that I see no real problem with that. Having said that, it does come back to the general impression I'm getting about the whole event which is that it just wasn't that memorable for you.

What I mean specifically is your reaction to the dissapearing man when first noticing he had gone, and now your not being exactly sure what your partner witnessed. I know we're all different and handle things in a different way but it still seems to me that events as you describe them would be pretty momentous at the time they occured yet it does not come across that way.

I tend to believe that a person's instinctual reaction mirrors more closely the reality of the event. It seems your initial reaction was that it was no big deal until you started discussing it later. I wasn't there and don't know exactly what happened.

I don't think you can convince us based on this story as it stands as there is no evidence. Despite that I would still very much appreciate an answer on the question of your reaction at the time and why it didn't seem to be that strange until later. Maybe there's a very good reason that I just haven't considered.

Also, I've looked at an aerial picture of the green dragon. I'm just wondering which outbuildings it was where you saw the man. Is there any chance you could take look at the pictures and show us where you saw the man. They're http://www.greendragonhardraw.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loonboy, employing that instrument of Occam to which much lip service is paid around here, I would say you and your partner probably saw a ghost.

No mechanism is known or even proposed by which both of you might have had the same specific hallucination at the same instant, especially with no prior suggestion. As a rational explanation, it is a non-starter.

As far as your not thinking much of it, just as if you saw a regular person and didn't quite understand where he had gone, this reaction is very common and consistent with a huge number of reported ghost sightings.

I understand why you would point out that you are both professionals and reliable persons and not strung-out street junkies. Saying that you live a normal, high-functioning life casts the most severe doubt on the proposition that you are both suffering from a mental impairment severe enough to cause you both to suffer from hallucinations and the delusion that those hallucinations are real. (Even if you were, no mechanism is proposed by which two mentally ill persons might have the same hallucination at the exact same instant.) It goes straight to the heart of your credibility as a witness.

You are correct, as far as I can tell, about the pedantry and closed-mindedness of some, and it is probably best to tell your story and leave them to their own firm opinions, as you have done. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with such people, or even, in my experience, discussing. There can be no discussion with a person whose mind is made up and who would rather resort to bizarre, counterfactual explanations or disparage the relevance of your testimony than entertain the simple possibility that you and your partner saw a ghost.

Edit: You could check around for sightings that corroborate yours, or sightings that conflict. Maybe this person you saw was important to the place, and pictures of him exist. You could even bring a medium in-- telling him or her absolutely nothing of your experience or even where you are going-- and see if the medium's perceptions tend to corroborate yours, or fail to.

Edited by boorite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you might have had the same specific hallucination at the same instant

Read the initial post. It was not the same "specific" sighting (please don't put words into the mouths of others - no one has suggested they were hallucinating). One saw a man duck into a building, the other saw a man vanish.

I understand why you would point out that you are both professionals and reliable persons and not strung-out street junkies.

Is it your implication then that non-professional people are unreliable or "strung-out junkies". Is a painter and decorator less reliable than an accountant, more likely to make honest mistakes?

to cause you both to suffer from hallucinations and the delusion that those hallucinations are real.

Again, who said anything about hallucinations or delusions? I believe they saw a man. A real human man. No hallucinations. No dellusions.

You are correct, as far as I can tell, about the pedantry and closed-mindedness of some

I didn't read what they said as accusing of people being closed minded and pedantry. I read it as them saying that they understood that some people would not believe they saw a ghost based on any evidence they had as they had no photos or film. Your choice of words are, yet againg, inflammatory and are not the words used by the poter.

There can be no discussion with a person whose mind is made up and who would rather resort to bizarre, counterfactual explanations or disparage the relevance of your testimony than entertain the simple possibility that you and your partner saw a ghost.

Are you then suggesting that no one be allowed to approach statements of sightings of ghosts from the point of view that there may be another explanation. Are we not allowed to point out descrepancies in testimony, our own beliefs about the human mind and how it works. Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to believe that there is a more rational explanation and that we should not be allowed to suggest that or ask for more evidence that may indeed confirm that that was what happened?

You could check around for sightings that corroborate yours, or sightings that conflict.

You could also ask around for information regarding any one who matches your description. You could also re-check the building into which he went in order to confirm whether indeed there was no other way out. It might be considered close-minded to only investigate the incident from the point of view of the sighting being a ghost. Surely both sides should be investigated or, at least, others should be allowed to investigate from one point of view and others from the other point of view. Then the evidence from both can be compared and a likely explanation determined (or the conclusion that we will agree to disagree and part as friends without someone coming in and trying to cause problems in what has been a very friendly and non-combative discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I clarify, then you seem to think I'm embellishing. If I don't, you seem to think I'm remembering incorrectly or something. Therefore, it seems from what you have written, that nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion and, of course, you are welcome to it.

I think that paragraph is a tad unfair, you seem to paint the "damned if I do and damned if I don't" scenario. That's not what's going on here. You gave an account which at first glance looks conflicting, particularly on key points. The main one for me being your description of the man when he disappeared. For me the conflicting accounts do nothing to convince me that you saw a ghost that day.

As for your revision of the events of that "sighting", I did not ask you to revise what happened. Had I asked then yes, my debunking it yet again may have been rather obvious. Certainly I raised my concerns over your accounts, they conflict in several ways that nobody could fail to notice.

I believe that what we saw cannot be put down to psychology or incorrect memory but remains as a very odd moment that two sane and intelligent people witnessed together and could not rationally explain.

I'd suggest that incorrect memory plays a key role in your testimony. Until donfie and myself highlighted the discrepencies in your accounts, the testimony of two people witnessing the same thing differed greatly.

Odd it may well be.

Again, your use of the words sane and intelligent suggests to me you are not too convinced by your story and feel it warrants backup by adding phrases that add credibility to either yourself or the story.

In this instance psychology plays a huge role. You both say you saw the same thing yet portray it in such differing ways. Interpretation aside, it's impossible to see someone vanish in to thin air and not describe it as such. If I ever saw a human form vanish in to thin air I know I would describe it as such.

No mechanism is known or even proposed by which both of you might have had the same specific hallucination at the same instant, especially with no prior suggestion. As a rational explanation, it is a non-starter

If my understanding of the word specific is correct, the account given does not portray two people sharing the same specific experience. As donfie points out, the glaring pointer to this is their seperate accounts of the man disappearing.

Not sure why you brought hallucination in to the thread, unless of course your chewing over a few theories. That said, your first comment in this thread is:

I would say you and your partner probably saw a ghost.

You go on to say this:

especially with no prior suggestion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do legends and myths not exist? How do we know that a legend of this description doesn't already exist at this location?

You could check around for sightings that corroborate yours, or sightings that conflict. Maybe this person you saw was important to the place, and pictures of him exist. You could even bring a medium in-- telling him or her absolutely nothing of your experience or even where you are going-- and see if the medium's perceptions tend to corroborate yours, or fail to.

You ask him to check up on local history, see if there is a story that has similarities to his, yet you've already said that there is no prior suggestion. Surely you've written a possibility off without seeing the lay of the land?

I know of many tales and legends from around York, I would suggest it's quite difficult to visit a place with such a story attached to it and not actually give it a moments thought whilst visiting the location. I'd also suggest that should some "unusal" event take place it could be quite hard to detach that from an already well known story. So I'd say suggestion is a possibility.

In this case I have no idea if a similar story exists, there may well be nothing, but my point is this, you clearly write off suggestion, with no prior knowledge of the location. You do not know if there is a legend that may well have swayed or added to their story by means of suggestion. Surely it is you in this instance who is not looking at all possibilites, and not me.

Regardless of this locations history or lack of, suggestion is at least worthy of a mention and not something to be written off for no obvious reason. I could indeed come back and say, "no, there's no story to match yours". This would at least tell me suggestion was probably not a player in the events of that day.

As far as your not thinking much of it, just as if you saw a regular person and didn't quite understand where he had gone, this reaction is very common and consistent with a huge number of reported ghost sightings.

That would entirely depend on who's comments you are commenting on.

To explain my use of 'vanish' - I mean, the man stepped back into a room that had no other exit, and when I looked into it a few seconds later, he was not in there.

To coin a phrase, "vanished in to thin air" and "and when I looked into it a few seconds later, he was not in there" are nothing like the same thing.

In your initial post you describe your partner's comments, am I to assume that the person merely entered the room and on your passing was not in there?

I understand why you would point out that you are both professionals and reliable persons and not strung-out street junkies. Saying that you live a normal, high-functioning life casts the most severe doubt on the proposition that you are both suffering from a mental impairment severe enough to cause you both to suffer from hallucinations and the delusion that those hallucinations are real. (Even if you were, no mechanism is proposed by which two mentally ill persons might have the same hallucination at the exact same instant.) It goes straight to the heart of your credibility as a witness.

There's that word hallucination again, conveniently dropped in as if to somehow suggest we see that as a reason for the events he describes. I suggest he brought his professionalism up so as to perhaps show they are reasonable and responsible people who would not lie.

You say exact same? Well if you've read the accounts you will clearly see they are not the exact same.

The revised account read "the man stepped back into a room that had no other exit, and when I looked into it a few seconds later, he was not in there" after initially saying he "vanished in to thin air" , this to me would suggest the intial account was certainly dressed up and embelished to perhaps make it seem more convincing to the reader.

You are correct, as far as I can tell, about the pedantry and closed-mindedness of some, and it is probably best to tell your story and leave them to their own firm opinions, as you have done. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with such people, or even, in my experience, discussing. There can be no discussion with a person whose mind is made up and who would rather resort to bizarre, counterfactual explanations or disparage the relevance of your testimony than entertain the simple possibility that you and your partner saw a ghost.

Here's me thinking we finally have a thread that can be discussed without a need for bashing the views of others and then I read this all too familiar remark.

Firstly, and most importantly, my views and opinions of this story have been put forward with respect and courtesy. I have not subjected the member to a barrage of inuendo and insult nor have I at any time suggested they are insane, hallucinating, lying or otherwise. I would think that possibly, that although he disagrees with my summising, loonboy would concede I and donfie have been fair and polite.

Pedantic to me is not an issue in skepticism, how on earth can one be overly fussy about certain details, surely every detail, no matter how small, is worth equal consideration?

My point about the remark Loonboy made based on his professional life was not merely about the fact he mentions it, it was my concerns with why he would mention it. I think in this case a very valid point as the initial account from two people who claim to see the same thing has a number of important discrepencies in it, I merely offered the possibility that mentioning his lifestyle was in some way an attempt to offer more credibility to his story as the facts alone were not enough.

My aplogies to you boorite if exploring every avenue is a crime or ultimately padantic, I'd rather be overly fussy in these matters and make sure I give the claim and the facts pertaining to it, my full and undivided attention.

As for being close-minded. Why on earth would I review a story to the best of MY ability and offer MY opinion on it, if at the end of the day I am going to say the same old thing?

Had that initial post shown no signs of contradiction I'd still be discussing the possibilites now. So I'm sorry you see myself or donfie as being close-minded, I see us being thorough and our conclusion in this instance is based on the facts and testimony in this case and not based on some firm opinion that it could never be true - after all, that would make us cynics.

There is nothing to be gained by arguing with such people, or even, in my experience, discussing

Such people? How very polite of you. We are not, repeat, not arguing. Someone has offered forth a story and we have offered our opinion, simple as that. If you somehow feel a need to turn this thread in to yet another analysis of my views then forget it, I'm simply not playing that game with you anymore.

There can be no discussion with a person whose mind is made up and who would rather resort to bizarre, counterfactual explanations or disparage the relevance of your testimony than entertain the simple possibility that you and your partner saw a ghost.

My mind is only ever made up after reviewing a claim, not prior to, and when my mind is made up it is made up for that given claim only, not any others that may come my way. I think you'll find I am open-minded and as always look forward to reviewing other claims.

If at any time Loonboy thinks I have suggested he or his partner are anything but sane or intelligent people who are simply mistaken then I will offer an unconditional apology.

Edited by phenomenon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do legends and myths not exist? How do we know that a legend of this description doesn't already exist at this location?

There is a story of a ghost (though, IMO, there is some ghost story connected with most old inns).

The point about picking up on details and being pedantic is that that is what any good investigation must do. The police don't take the account of an event that has two people seeing two different events (as regards the specifics if not the general). They pick up on the differences as they are, sorry but like it or not, indications that the event in question has been erroneously remembered which leads on to the element of doubt.

That is what skeptics do. We attempt to introduce an element of reasonable doubt into a story or statement. It can easily be misinterpreted as accusing the person of lying but most skeptics would never say that even if they thought it. They say (and it is always twisted and misquoted by certain people) that you might be "mistaken".

I have questions I would like to ask you with regards to the specific details of what you said. It is necessary to establish whether the account of the events is accurate. If it is not then it introduces an element of doubt into the certainty that what you saw (and, again, I believe you saw something) was a ghost.

And, again, I agree with Phenomenon. The introduction of backstory (what you do for a living, etc.) is "often" done as the person relating the story realises themselves how incredible it may sound. Many stories start with "You won't believe me but...". That's fine as it is a natural reaction but as far as lending more weight to the evidence I don't see that it's relevant. If someone is relating a story of how they saw a body and knew it had been murdered then the fact that they are a doctor is relevant. I am the only member of my immediate family to be a "professional" (the others being shop workers and tradespeople) and yet it is actually me who has the most, shall we say, colourful past. The equation of reliability with profession is, for me erroneous unless the profession is directly significant to the event (as in my doctor example).

Anyway, I'll let people digest that and then I'll post my questions that I have for you. I assure you that this is not personal. If my mum had related the same story in the same way I would be asking the same questions and making the same statements as I am a skeptic and there would be no point my being here if I didn't or was not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story of a ghost (though, IMO, there is some ghost story connected with most old inns).

And that is a key point for me, if someone knew of such a story suggestion could indeed be a key ingredient in a claim of this nature. I'm not presuming that there is story attached to the location in question or indeed if there is it was the reason for this claim, merely that overlooking a possibility is not a key ingredient in being open-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm pretty bored now with all this. :huh:

Our accounts differ because they are different - we didn't exactly see the same thing - that is one of the interesting elements in the story. I guess it depends on your interpretation of what a 'ghost' is - is it a physical apparition or is it a projection onto the minds of the witness? If it is the latter, there is much room for the individual interpretation of the witness. If it is the former and we don't remember it exactly, well boo-yaa-sucks.

Attached is a photo of the place with an arrow to indicate where we saw the man. It's hard to indicate exactly from the photos on the website.

I could go on to offer more verification or details but I'm sure that fault will be found with that, so I'll not bother.

I couldn't care less if any of you think we're crap witnesses or liars or psychologically impaired or genuinely mistaken or whatever. I just wanted to share our experience. It's a shame the story has degenerated into such an overlong debate that is taking up far too much space on this board.

Picking apart every single sentence anyone posts is incredibly tiresome. I'm done.

:hmm:

post-80-1155571453.jpg

Edited by Loonboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we approached the back of the Green Dragon we passed alongside some outbuildings and down a flagged path to the rear entrance.

I've been looking at aerial photos of the Green Dragon. There are two on the Green Dragon website that are of particular interest. There is one taken quite close to the front of the inn and one taken from a greater elivation at the rear. They can both be viewed at: http://www.greendragonhardraw.co.uk/

To get to the waterfall you have to go either through the inn and then down a path running along side the inn between it and the grounds of the church. The other way is to follow the much wider path that runs the other side of the inn (without going through the inn). It then leads through a large archway in what looks like some converted farm buildings.

In your original description you said you were on a "flagged" path returning towards the back entrance of the inn. I am taking this to mean that you were on the path that runs between the inn and the church grounds and that you were already close to the back of the inn (that is, you had reached the start of the inn buildings and were not at the small cottage like building some 50 meters before it that can be seen on the rear aerial photograph). The other path - the wide one - looks to be just a dirt path and does not require you to walk through the inn to get out so I'm discounting this one.

Am I on the right path?

I saw a man dressed in blue jeans and a blue & white checked shirt with grey hair standing about 10 feet ahead of us in a doorway on the left.

...just then we passed the doorway where he had been. We both looked in and there was no trace of him. The room into which he had stepped (from what I saw) was 3 feet square and had shelves - there was no other doorway out of there.

You also said that the man was in the doorway of some outbuildings to your left. Following the path that I think you were on, I can not see any group of outbuildings. I can see what looks to be an extention to the inn straddling the wall between inn and church grounds. There is also the very large old farm building that forms a L-shape with the "archway" building. For you to have seen the man "on your left" suggests that he was standing in the doorway of the large old farm building.

Are there any other buildings that cannot be seen on the photograph. Better, could you possibly copy the picture and circle in paint or something which building (or even better, doorway) you saw the man?

From what I can see there appears to be no building that would have a door on the left in which a man can stand that would contain a 3ft x 3ft room with no other exits save onto the path you were on. Please, do correct me if I am wrong as this is a discussion and not an accusation.

Secondly,

Now I am going to be pedantic, but, I suggest that a thorough investigation cannot be credible unless one is pedantic. It is one of the major factors in any court trial and, though it does not gaurantee the truth, it is the only system we can use when analysing a case that is based purely on witness testimony. If this is seen as an attack on you or your character - or an insinuation that you are "hallucinating", "lying", or "delusional" then that is not meant and, I think, very clearly not what is meant - before certain people chip in about it. If I am not allowed to dispute testimony and point out facts that, to me, don't "add up" (thereby introducing reasonable doubt) then I'll leave this site now and get back to my other life.

From your original testimony you said:

You saw a man who...

...simply ducked back into the doorway and out of sight.

You then said that you decided it was a ghost later...

Neither of us felt scared or spooked. Indeed, it just felt like the man was a regular person... until he vanished.

...yet up until the conversation afterwards you did not actually think he had vanished.

In your second post you say:

I have clarified with my partner as to exactly what he saw and he said that he saw the man with his peripheral vision and turned to look at him. The man remained in his peripheral vision until the point where he looked directly at him and at which point he was no longer there.

He did not 'dissolve' [vanish] as I originally stated.

The basis of your first concluding this was a ghost was, in your own words, that he "vanished". That is what made you decide it was a ghost. Up until that point, according to your own testimony, you were not unduely concerned and just thought it was "odd". You even said "it felt like the man was a regular person". It was the fact, that came out in discussion after the event, that he "vanished" that swayed you into believing it was a ghost.

Your second post then states absolutely and, again, in your own words, that the man did not "dissolve" [or vanish]. As this was the basis of your both deciding it was a ghost and, according to your first testimony nothing else indicated it was a ghost until that point, the point where you decided he "vanished", then if he didn't in fact "vanish" there was no cause for you to suspect the man was anything but, again in your words "a regular person".

I suggest, therefore, based on the only evidence that we have - your testimony - and not based on you as a person in anyway, that what happened was that you both saw an "odd" man. In the car afterwards you felt he had "vanished", this lead on to your mistakenly (and that's "mistakenly") reviewing the events and attaching elements to them that confirmed this mistaken assumption (things like the room having no exits). This is my theory based on what you have said. Nothing more and nothing less. I believe that you believe everything you have said. I will not and would never suggest any flaw in your character and simply suggest that you are, like the rest of us, human and can sometimes make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice story, Loonboy. Thanks for posting it. I certainly don't think you're "crap witnesses or liars or psychologically impaired or genuinely mistaken or whatever." I think it's a privilege to read stories like yours firsthand.

I think picking apart every sentence and going back and forth forever in this personal manner is tiresome and useless, too. I seem to have earned two such screeds of my own, above, just by publicly supporting you in the face of this pedantic nitpicking. To make two long messages short, they go like this: "So you are saying," followed by something I did not and would not say. I am sick of it, and clarifying has proved futile, and I refuse to play this game anymore. What I am saying is what I said, and that's all. If anyone disagrees, fine, let him say so, but I will not defend positions that I never stated.

One or two remarks in donfie's messages merit a response, but they're so buried in windy nonsense that I think it's pointless to bother. It's clear that not even our interlocutors are listening.

Edited by boorite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice story, Loonboy. Thanks for posting it. I certainly don't think you're "crap witnesses or liars or psychologically impaired or genuinely mistaken or whatever." I think it's a privilege to read stories like yours firsthand.

And neither do we, a point we both made on more than one occassion.

I raised a few points based on a few things you said, they weren't misquoted or out of context. You have consistantly approached me for explanations and answers yet when approached in a similar fashion you totally refuse to play ball.

You clearly say we are closed-minded yet when we fully review the material on offer and leave no stone unturned you call it pedantic and nitpicking. To say myself and donfie are probably confused at the lack of balance is putting it mildly.

I'm not playing a game, the sooner you realise that the better. These boards are for discussion from all quarters. Nothing in our posts is derrogatory or inflammatory yet you somehow twist perfectly legitimate points and refer to them as "windy nonsense".

Let me ask you a simple question, what do you look for in a story of this nature in order to satisfy you that it may well be true?

Was it not you who said:

The problem is not bashing skeptics. The problem is bashing.

I think after reading your responses in here I would for the first time have to agree with you. Even in the face of the these very polite and perfectly worded posts (they get the point across) you see bad in them.

:hmm:

Edited by phenomenon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted: my phenomenon-flaming. You're right, phenomenon. It's a no-no, and I apologize. Leave it quoted for truth below if you like. I still do not see the point of arguing in this way and decline to discuss things with a person who persistently attributes statements to me that I haven't made. These are outlined ad nauseam elsewhere, and for me, that's an end to it.

The point, which I am sorry to have distracted from, is Loonboy's ghost story.

Edited by boorite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

phenomenon, I told you I am not answering any remarks you address to me until you retract your lies about what I have stated and come clean about certain other bogus claims you have made. Until then, I cannot regard it as useful to discuss anything with you.

Boorite, I have already informed admin of your error regarding my written work. When you find the correct publication I will gladly offer you a complimentary copy. As for the one you seem concerned with, my contribution was a 4 page forward. If you expect help finding it then think again.(joke) ;)

I will take your refusal to discuss and move on. Myself and donfie really can't be much fairer than we have been.

As for lies, I'd rather you kept that accusation private. Admin has made it only too clear that flaming is a no no and I do not wish to soil any more threads with silly and childish banter.

So what do you say, time to move on? :)

Edited by phenomenon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Loonboy's story and have little serious reason to doubt that he is telling the truth. Others do entertain serious doubts. And that's that.

I wonder if there is in fact a reputed haunting at the Green Dragon, and if so, whether or not the details correspond to what Loonboy and his partner witnessed. If that is the case, and the two were not aware of it, then the matching reports would constitute corroborating testimony, and they would be nearly impossible to explain away.

Edited by boorite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through the entire thread, and I have to agree with Phenomenons stance on this. To me it appears something was seen, and the blanks were filled in suggestively by each other. Oh and boorite, even if that was the case - people lie. I'm not saying Loonboy is lying, I'm just saying you can't class matching reports 'impossible' to explain away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree as it happens, Loonboy is probably telling the truth, but that does not disclude him from being mistaken.

My point that you don't seem willing to answer is the fact the matching reports you speak of didn't exist until prompted by my remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through the entire thread, and I have to agree with Phenomenons stance on this. To me it appears something was seen, and the blanks were filled in suggestively by each other. Oh and boorite, even if that was the case - people lie. I'm not saying Loonboy is lying, I'm just saying you can't class matching reports 'impossible' to explain away

Well, yes, and I didn't mean to say otherwise. Certainly, people lie, and that possibility should be examined. If independent witnesses, unbeknownst to one another, report seeing the very same ghost under the circumstances Loonboy describes, pretty much the only way to "explain it away" is to say they're all lying. So you're absolutely right, and that's why I said nearly impossible.

Note, however, that where multiple witnesses are concerned, the hypothesis that they are all telling the same lie necessarily adds the assumption of a conspiracy, and now Occam's razor gets that much duller. And if the witnesses are apparently unknown to each other, and are seemingly unaware of rumors or published accounts or other sources of information about the haunting, the likelihood of a conspiracy becomes remoter still.

I'm not saying that people do not lie and that conspiracies do not exist, or that we should be unmindful of hoaxes. But there are ways to arrive at a line somewhere between paranoia and blind trust.

I hate repeating myself, and it seems futile to do so here, but since it keeps coming up: For Loonboy to be sincerely mistaken about what he and his partner describe, both would have to be suffering from gross impairment in sensory function and reality testing. Given the facts as he has told them, I don't think the sight of this man can be explained away as an honest mistake. That's my considered and not-completely-uneducated opinion, and I don't really understand how it could be possibly be a casual error. For me, that leaves lies, gross impairment, and truth as possible explanations, as far as I'm concerned. Having dismissed gross impairment for reasons I needn't repeat, and seeing no reason for Loonboy to lie about this, I lean toward the proposition that Loonboy is telling the truth.

To me, if that is erring, then it is erring on the side of caution. I would rather mistakenly take a hoax at face value than mistakenly imply that someone is lying or hallucinating-- or even "honestly mistaken" about so clear-cut a thing, which to me implies some kind of mental defect. I note Loonboy took it that way, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boorite, with all due respect their acounts differed greatly, yet you base your response on the fact they were the same.

Your explanation that follows although valid in many cases cannot be used when two people's accounts have such a glaring number of discrepencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.