If this is a ghost…

If this is a ghost…

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. cragrat09 says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
    “I am the New Lanark Blob!” was definitly my favourate. The amount of people claiming that it didn’t rain that day as well is ridiculous. Did they actually watch the video before commenting?

  2. BaronIveagh says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
    Definitly a rain blotch on the camera.  wind is blowing up the lens, making it waver and move.

    I don’t think they watched it before commenting.

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

  3. Stephen Clementson says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
    [quote=Mauro]… then my name is George Clooney!


    I won’t waste time commenting on trying to pass this off as some kind of supernatural apparition but please take a minute to scroll through the comments at the bottom of the page.
    Some of the most hilarious writing I have seen in the past weeks.

    Dear All,


    I would suggest the application of lateral thinking here.  Consider this as a phenomenon, rather than limiting your options to it being a ghost, or not a ghost. Given that the (power of the) horse was once associated with the gods (especially the white horse), please note the statement that this area was formerly stables. 




  4. Stephen Clementson says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…

     The concept of a spirit is ancient.  Due to its long history, the often subliminal notion of ghosts is so much a part of present-day world cultures that it is second nature to perceive ghosts.  I have experienced ghost-like phenomena for a long time, but I have accrued no hard evidence for human spirits.  The phenomenon is no less real; all that’s changed is the human concept of haunting.

  5. BaronIveagh says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…

    That’s all very nice, but Occam’s Razor suggests that this is a water droplet. 

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

  6. Stephen Clementson says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
     Well, I have observed that people will define anomalous activities in terms that suit their own beliefs.  That was most certainly true for those who saw this blob as proof of ghostly activity.  A water droplet would be a plausible alternative hypothesis, but there are other possibilities that have not been explored.  

  7. BaronIveagh says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
    Well, it has the behavior patterns of a water droplet being exposed to an air current … it’s taken by an outdoor camera in the rain…

    I’m not sure I’d call stating the obvious as an ‘alternative explaination’ . 

    Then again, I hear that we’re now supposed ot ‘teach the controversy’ that God created the world in seven days, four thousand years ago, reguardless to any facts. 

    In fact, i was told to smash the fossil collection as ‘tools of Satan to misguide God’s chosen People."  Needless to say, my Green River fish remain safely behind bulletproof glass.

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

  8. Stephen Clementson says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
     Teach the biblical myth?  It sounds like you’re in the USA.  It is also fair to say that there are, or appear to be, gazillions of different mystical belief systems in the UK.  I would suggest that these mystical beliefs merely fill the vacuum created by the collapse of orthodox faiths.  In other words, people seem to need magic. 


    Sure, my wife and I have had some pretty weird things happen to us, but Arthur C Clarke’s third law (any sufficiently advanced technology will appear indistinguishable from magic) eloquently sums things up.  Please note: I was using a similar concept, prior to knowing Clarke’s third law. 

  9. Stephen Clementson says:

    Re: If this is a ghost…
     Having looked at the video clip a number of times, it is quite clear how it could be construed to be a water droplet.  But, whilst the droplet principle seems the most likely answer, there are possible technical difficulties with the theory.  Firstly, the camera is tilted downwards.  Secondly, I don’t have information about the protective glass covering the camera lens.  Was there a protective glass cover, and, if so, how far was it from the lens?


    If this were a droplet, then I would have expected a degree of blurring.  That degree of blurring would depend upon the distance between the protective glass and the camera lens.  Likewise, I have been told that the anomalies on some of my digital photographs are due to specks on the cover glass.  This is impossible, as there is no protective glass on either of my digital cameras.  Furthermore, specks on the lens would be so far out-of-focus as to appear nothing more than a light-dimming blur.