Creepy figure photobombs

[Syne]

The photo's caption cannot be verified. It's talking about the man... not even a statement from the man. Anyone can claim anything about a random photo.

Psychokinesis doesn't require any physical contact, and doesn't support casting shadows.

In paranormal lore, the ability for spirits to interact with the physical world, such as by banging on walls, is generally attributed to
psychokinesis (telekinesis) or their nature as focused energy. This is often categorized under "poltergeist phenomena," known as the "noisy ghost" who makes ruckus and moves objects.
- Google AI

[Magical Realist]

The photo's caption cannot be verified. It's talking about the man... not even a statement from the man. Anyone can claim anything about a random photo.

It's the caption like all captions are explaining the background of a photo. Are you going to dismiss all captions now? That's a pretty desperate tack to take..

Psychokinesis doesn't require any physical contact, and doesn't support casting shadows.
In paranormal lore, the ability for spirits to interact with the physical world, such as by banging on walls, is generally attributed to
psychokinesis (telekinesis) or their nature as focused energy. This is often categorized under "poltergeist phenomena," known as the "noisy ghost" who makes ruckus and moves objects.
- Google AI

Like ghosts PK has direct physical effects like force and heat and electricity. Hence both their nature as a physical AND a paranormal phenomena..

[Syne]

Random photos captioned without any provenance or verification on the internet? Absolutely. You don't accept a picture of Hiroshima captioned as Hawaii.

You seem to be the only one claiming PK casts shadows. Force, heat, and electricity do not cast shadows.

[Magical Realist]

Random photos captioned without any provenance or verification on the internet? Absolutely. You don't accept a picture of Hiroshima captioned as Hawaii.

Give me a reason to doubt the caption and then I'll doubt it. Till then all captions of photos are legit good faith descriptions of them and their background.

You seem to be the only one claiming PK casts shadows. Force, heat, and electricity do not cast shadows.

I said ghosts materialize, not PK. We know this from tons of photos and experiences of witnesses seeing them as solid forms.

[Syne]

Burden of proof fallacy. You always resort to this one when you can't support your claims. 9_9

Have people touched physical ghosts? That's the only experience that would speak to "solid forms."
We don't "know" anything from photos other than the appearance... and appearances can be deceiving.

[Magical Realist]

Burden of proof fallacy. You always resort to this one when you can't support your claims.

The photo and its caption are the proof. The ball's in your court to debunk it. Can't do it? That's what I thought.

Have people touched physical ghosts?

People get shoved, touched, caressed, and even scratched by ghosts all the time.

We don't "know" anything from photos other than the appearance... and appearances can be deceiving.

We know photos are images of real things that exist. They don't magically conjure up images of things that aren't there. And no, camera flare and optical effects aren't images of anything.

[Syne]

Burden of proof fallacy. You always resort to this one when you can't support your claims.

The photo and its caption are the proof. The ball's in your court to debunk it. Can't do it? That's what I thought.

Thanks for another example of the burden of proof fallacy.
You made the claim the caption was valid, I doubted that, and you yell "prove me wrong." That's literally the burden of proof fallacy.

Have people touched physical ghosts?

People get shoved, touched, caressed, and even scratched by ghosts all the time.

You didn't answer the question. PK can do all those, right?

We don't "know" anything from photos other than the appearance... and appearances can be deceiving.

We know photos are images of real things that exist. They don't magically conjure up images of things that aren't there.

So appearances can't be deceiving? @_@

[Magical Realist]

You made the claim the caption was valid, I doubted that, and you yell "prove me wrong."

I have no burden to prove the caption is valid like I have no burden to prove the photo isn't faked. I provided the photo and it's caption period. That's the proof. If you are claiming it isn't valid the burden is on you to prove that. If you can't do that then the photo and caption remain valid.

You didn't answer the question. PK can do all those, right?

You asked me about ghosts not PK. And I answered it. There are no recorded experiences I know of of people being shoved or touched or scratched by PK.

So appearances can't be deceiving?

Appearances are far more often revealing than they are deceiving. That's why everyone on the planet relies on photos all the time as accurate images of real things and situations. Even ghosts.

[Syne]

You made the claim the caption was valid, I doubted that, and you yell "prove me wrong."

I have no burden to prove the caption is valid like I have no burden to prove the photo isn't faked. I provided the photo and it's caption period. That's the proof. If you are claiming it isn't valid the burden is on you to prove that. If you can't can do that then the photo and caption remain valid.

You're the one claiming the photo and caption are legit. They do not stand as proof, in and of themselves. Just like a photo of Hiroshima labeled as Hawaii is not proof one is the other. "If you can't prove otherwise" is just another way to say "prove me wrong." 9_9

You didn't answer the question. PK can do all those, right?

You asked me about ghosts not PK. And I answered it. There are no recorded experiences I know of of people being shoved or touched or scratched by PK.

I asked you about a person touching a ghost, not vice versa. Wanna take another crack at the question actually asked this time?

Psychokinesis (PK) is the purported ability of the mind to influence matter, energy, space, or time without use of a physical force. In the context of the paranormal:

Physical Interaction: PK is considered the mechanism by which spirits can manifest physical force, such as moving objects, opening/closing doors, or making sounds.
Physical Touch: This same principle is thought to enable a ghost to physically touch a person, which some people report feeling as a poke, brush, pinch, or full embrace.
...
In paranormal belief systems and anecdotal accounts, people can reportedly be scratched as a result of
psychokinesis (PK) or poltergeist activity.
Within these contexts:

Poltergeist activity (often attributed to PK from a living person, rather than a deceased spirit) is frequently described in fictional and non-fictional accounts as including physical interactions that harm people, such as pinching, biting, hitting, and leaving scratches or red welts.
- Google AI

So appearances can't be deceiving?

Appearances are far more often revealing than they are deceiving. That's why everyone on the planet relies on photos all the time as accurate images of real things and situations. Even ghosts.

So appearance can sometimes be deceiving.
So how do you know which is and which isn't? Is it just a matter of what you want to believe?

[Magical Realist]

You're the one claiming the photo and caption are legit. They do not stand as proof, in and of themselves.

Yes they are. They are proof for the existence of ghosts. That's the only claim I make. I have no need to prove they aren't faked because there is no evidence for such fakery. And if you aren't claiming they are faked then fine. The evidence stands.

Just like a photo of Hiroshima labeled as Hawaii is not proof one is the other.

No..but a photo of Hiroshima labeled Hiroshima is certainly proof of Hiroshima. That's what photos do. Provide visual evidence for a place or event we haven't witnessed.

I asked you about a person touching a ghost, not vice versa. Wanna take another crack at the question actually asked this time?

LOL The moment a ghost touches you you are touching the ghost. There is no other way of touching.

So how do you know which is and which isn't? Is it just a matter of what you want to believe?

When there's reason to suspect deception. Until then there's no reason to think there is.