October 08, 2004

• Creepy....but I'm betting it's fake.
• I wish the picture were bigger, but the blood looks drawn on to me (like it's another layer in Photoshop, actually). It doesn't appear to follow the contours of the face -- this is especially apparent where it crosses the bridge of the nose.
• The cameraman said: "I was just taking random shots around the room to see if I could pick up any orbs or anything." The "orbs" he was referring to are little balls of light occasionally spotted by ghost hunters and sometimes seen and photographed near crop circles. This actually explains a lot. I had always felt that crop circles were the work of drunk kids, the meme that obsessed the world before the world knew what memes were. Now I know I was only half right, it was the work of drunk ghosts! Ghosts get drunk at haunted pub. Move to the countryside and punch out crop circles, molest livestock, and maybe knock over a mailbox or two. Somebody call Snopes!
• I can see how tree branches could make a bloody image in a reflection. But I can't see how the round head would show up in a reflection like that without some weird archetecture behind the photographer. Oh, and IMHO, it looks like the blood traverses the nose perfectly. What gives me the impression of a nose, actually, is how the blood (or tree branches) traverses it. I wouldn't expect blood to cross the lips (on hs right) without changing it path, though.
• No ghost, it's just Max Headroom
• I'm agree with wolof. To me looks like a mannequin with fake blood badly edited in photoshop.
• Actually, speaking of orbs... I used to have a lot of problems with them popping up in my digital photos. Big pain to edit out in photoshop. Someone mentioned they might be out-of-focus dust mites caught by the flash, but I don't think I was using a flash... Anyway, apparently large sections of San Francisco are haunted up the wazoo.
• Sing, monkey! Hum. bug!
• Looks like Stephen Hawking to me.
• Oh gosh...Moby died? Cadaver-isly?
• On second thought...Michael Stipe killed himself? Was this an effort to promote the super-fantastic NEW REM supersonic CD/vinyl/cassette/DVD of their super-celebrated new release of said super-dynamite CD?
• It's just Scottish comic book writer Grant Morrison floating by in his astral form.
• redscotch! redscotch!
• Visit my pub! It's haunted!
• Actually, I think this is a trick mirror. At the front you have half-silvered glass; behind is a sheet of glass at 45 degrees, and in an alcove to one side, out of direct view, is a waxwork head, or similar. So long as the box behind the 'mirror' is dark, it looks like a normal reflecting mirror, but when someone goes close a switch (probably in the floor) turns on a small light illuminating the 'head'. This is reflected in the angled glass, giving a "Pepper's Ghost" style image of a ghastly face in the mirror over or beside the victim's. In ordinary daylight, if you approach the 'mirror' at a sharp angle from the correct side, there may be enough light getting in for you to see the wax head directly - and this is what has happened to the photographer. Probably the image was dim enough to miss until the picture was enhanced a bit, or perhaps he's just playing it up. Obviously the landlord would know about his own trick mirror, but why should he spoil the story? And if it wasn't for those pesky kids, he would have got away with it...
• I like that, Plegmina.
• Ghosts! Gods! Scams! Nonsense!
• Thank you, Wolof Evidently the reporter was not the only person to have had a bad experience at the Red Lion. The BBC seems to like it, though a presenter was once struck with inexplicable fear - unless it was just infrasound? Alright, I confess - I googled all this trying to prove my theory and then posted it anyway.
• Do the British pubs already have their Christmas decorations out? While I do believe in ghosts, (I have my own experience), I have to agree with Wolof (and everyone else), it just looks fake. I insist upon my ghost photos being no more than cloudy ectoplasm, dammit!
• It looks exactly like one of the characters from doom3.
• Veracity and snide comments aside, this is one of my big phobias: seeing something in the mirror that isn't there when you turn around. For some reason that just creeps me the fuck OUT. I mean, I don't care if the image in the mirror is Candyman with a bloody hook or a six foot kill-beast on steroids, when I turn around and look at the room, it had BETTER FUCKING BE THERE. I've always had a think about darkened mirrors--afraid of seeing little red eyes... I'm not superstitious, and I don't believe in the whole Bloody Mary/Mary Worth legend...but at the same time, you couldn't PAY me to do it. *shudder* So Curious George: any you monkeys ever done the Bloody Mary ritual? (And please, let's keep the vodka/tomato juice references to a minimum. ;) )
• Oh, scary. Some prankster puts something which is obviously a mask, mannequin's head or a picture behind a window, takes a snap and then goes to the papers with a cock-and-bull tale about how there was "nothing there when I took the photo, no really, would I lie to you?". And this is deemed worthy of a news story and fevered comment. The obdurate stupidity and primitive gullibility of human beings never ceases to astound me. Actually, that's untrue. I ceased to be astounded by it years ago.
• I get struck by inexplicable fear in pubs all the time; then I realize my wallet is right where I left it, I pull it out, and buy another drink. The fear departs post haste. Regarding ghosts: I have gotten the willies from time to time, but my experience with the supernatural has typically either been later found to be (a) totally internally generated, or (b) super lame and rather ludicrously fake. This photo is pretty obviously in the (b) category. Assuming existence of ghosts presupposes a life after death, and being an atheist puts that sort of thing off the table. And while there are things that happen that I cannot explain? I always assume that the reason they are unexplained is because I'm too dumb to explain them, rather than that they are the product of otherworldly forces that somehow violate all the rules of physics.
• Did you just call me a bastard? ;)
• Not in the least! I hope that my post didn't insinuate that :D To answer your question: I *have* done the Bloody Mary ritual. It was scary (the pitch darkness required makes your eyes do crazy things), but we saw exactly zippo.
• I was thinking more of Decani's comment, Fes, but thanks. Yeah, like I say, I know rationally that nothing would happen, but emotionally the suspense coming up on the seventh or 13th repetition would be terrible for me. One of the reasons I enjoyed MTV's Fear reality show was that it depended on watching the contestants creep themselves out more than trying to "fool" them, which to me was much more interesting. The Bloody Mary thing is the same way.
• In America we like our Bloody Mary, but I find that Singapore has a creepier version where your own reflection in the mirror turns the wrong way (i.e. the reflection of you is probably a ghost).
• When it comes to things like this, I find it best to flip a coin... flips coin Hmmm... Yep. I believe it's real.
• Oh, shoot. I have another rule that I forgot. It's October ... and I'll believe any ghosty thing in October.
• "...Some prankster puts something which is obviously a mask, mannequin's head or a picture.." Not that I support the authenticity of the image (I'd have to see the whole photo & the mirror itself to make up my mind) but if it is so "obvious", Decani, why can't you specify if it is a picture, a mask or a mannequin's head? Those are 3 different things. Just like everyone else you are only stating your *belief* - that it must be fake, because, well *harumph* - it's "obvious" - without presenting any evidence at all. That isn't an example of intelligence at work. Sure, Occam's Razor suggests it is a publicity stunt, of course, but that's a far cry from your dogmatism. I have graphic design & digital photography experience, specifically working with altering photographs, as it happens. IMHO, it's not clear from this cropped image what we are really looking at. There is no definite way to tell if it's a dummy, cutout, superimposition or whether the photographer staged the pic to promote the pub (why would he do that, btw?) or to get his work published (a more likely motive - but then he's a staff photog - he gets published regularly). There were apparently lots of people in the pub at the time, so presumably there would be witnesses to a staging, if such were the case, & if his story is true, the picture was only one of many taken in quick sequence, making that scenario trickier. Given the circumstances, a physical prop is the *least* likely way for the image to have been faked. More likely a faker would superimpose the face via photoshop later (which actually could be checked by opening the image file in a simple text editor, cos photoshop leaves its fingerprints in the code). To me, the features are too fine around the eyes and nose for it to be a bog-standard store-mannequin head. Also, if you look closely, the mouth is distorted somewhat, sloping down to one side. That may or may not be an artifact of the image, but the face is not symmetrical, as mannequins' are. It *is* bald, like a wigless dummy head.. but then people can be bald too. And, of course, I've never seen a ghost.. so I don't know what they are actually supposed to look like, if they exist. Despite your dismissal, it is unsettling, which is why the Gazette ran it. It's a dramatic image that gets Monkeys chattering - which is why I chose to post it. The irony is, Decani, the non-analytical nature of human belief that you decry in your post is exactly what you yourself display, except in 'mirror-image'. ;) Nobody can actually *prove* that ghosts or discarnate spirit forms do or do not exist. There is simply no way to know. Until then, the only intelligent thing is not to form a hard conclusion, while admitting that the likelihood is that ghost photographs are bogus. Ultra-skepticism is the antithesis of scientific thought. Your final rather arrogant remark betrays what you really think - that you're much smarter than most people, who are too dim to recognise a clear fraud for themselves. This reminds me of the 19th Century Royal Society experts who dismissed countryfolks' evidence of 'thunderstones' with the knowledge that "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky."
• Word. ;E
• Well, it's freaky to me too. Just catching sudden movements or strange shapes in reflection, real or not, tends to freak me out. I love stuff like this, mostly because nothing lubricates the imagination like a tiny dash of creepiness. Doesn't take much to get mine going -- once an unusually colored sky after a rainstorm had me BELIEVING that the apocalypse was coming, right then. I don't consider that to be a sign of intellectual weakness or lack of character. It makes otherwise dull moments interesting, and means I can entertain myself for hours. I haven't done Bloody Mary, but I did try Candyman after it came out. Couldn't finish. Though I gotta say that I'd rather TP's six foot kill-beast on steroids stay IN the mirror and not be there when I turn around.
• See, mct, the point is, if the killbeast isn't THERE, WHERE IS IT? 8-0
• There is no such thing as ghosts. Now proceed with your investigation from this point.
• Congratulations on your graphic design and digital photography experience, Nostrildamus. You would certainly be better qualified than I would to determine the precise nature of the fakery used in that picture. In fact, it was my very lack of experience in such areas which led me to list three (of many possible ways in which the fakery might have been achieved. It wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list and I apologise if that wasn't clear from the tone of my dismissiveness. No, what I based my dismissiveness on was the following: 1. There is absolutely no reasonable evidence that ghosts exist. Not a scrap. None. At all. Whatsoever. 2. That face looks completely unreal. It looks like a mask, or dummy, or picture. My American chums have a rather nice expression which says something about things which look like a duck and walk like a duck. You probably know the one I mean. 3. Believing someone who makes fantastic claims without providing any sound supporting evidence is the behaviour of the foolishly credulous. Sorry, it just is. I mean, I could support that statement with a logical argument if you like, but do you really need me to? "The irony is, Decani, the non-analytical nature of human belief that you decry in your post is exactly what you yourself display, except in 'mirror-image'" I reject that assertion. I claim that this picture is a fake because to do otherwise would be both to suspend reason and experience, and to ignore the wholly inadequate nature of the "evidence" provided in support of the proposition that it is a picture of something supernatural. "Nobody can actually *prove* that ghosts or discarnate spirit forms do or do not exist." Absolutely. And one of the first things you learn in any decent work on logical analysis is that the inability to prove a negative is entirely worthless as an argument in favour of the associated positive. You can't prove that invisible space camels are not, as we speak, in orbit around Jupiter, can you? Is that supporting evidence for the proposition that they exist? We have to use judgement, reason, evidence and experience in assessing claims and theories. Not fallacious logic. Finally: yes, I am much smarter than most people - according to any of the generally accepted metrics of intelligence. Sorry about that, but there it is. No sense in being falsely modest about these things, is there? And those who dismissed 'thunderstones' in the way you suggest are an example of the sort of person I am smarter than. As I said initially, most people are stupid - especially about supernatural claims. And membership of a reputable 19th century scientific organisation does not necessarily cure the condition. There are countless instances of scientists making irrational statements. Remember the idiot who said that people travelling on Stevenson's Rocket would asphyxiate because all their air would be swept away? That was a classic.
• What decani said.
• Decani, I mean. Sorry -- I get so used to all-lower-case usernames.
• Well, Decani, there's a difference between being or even asserting that you are smarter than most people and name-calling. And when you state "the obdurate stupidity and primitive gullibility of human beings never ceases to astound me" in reference to people with whom you are curently in dialogue is nothing more than name-calling. Find a better way to show us how intelligent you are. By the way, Nostril, this is my favorite post of the past several days.
• all ignorance toboggans into know and trudges up to ignorance again but winter's not forever,even snow melts;and if spring should spoil the game,what then? all history's a winter sport or three: but were it five, i'd still insist that all history is too small for even me; for me and you,exceedingly too small. swoop(shrill collective myth) into thy grave merely to toil the scale to shrillerness per every madge and mabel dick and dave --tomorrow is our permanent address and there they'll scarcely find us(if they do, we'll move away still further into now --e. e. cummings
• I wonder if the Gazette would be willing to share the full-resolution digital image so that we can examine it more closely.
• I hereby dub beeswacky the Python of MoFi. Speak again, good serpent!
• It's kind of hard to tell from the cropped photo what I'm looking at. My guess is the mirror was photographed from an angle that showed something distorted that was located elsewhere. The head actually looks like it was added in photoshop. As far as orbs go, they are artifacts of cheap cameras with built-in flash. A pro camera without flash will never produce one. They are easily reproduced by a knowledgeable photographer.
• A pro camera without flash will never produce one. Except, of course, for those of a paranormal nature- Ooooooooooooooh.
• So, has the last of the fun been sucked out of this post, then? Good.
• I've got an idea: how about everybody who has long since ceased to be astounded by the obdurate stupidity and primitive gullibility of human beings go over and sit in a corner where they can be pleased with themselves, and leave us gullible primitives to wallow in our obdurate stupidity, huh? Me, I like ghost stories. They bring a little joy and happiness to my life, true or not. Sorry to be obdurate.
• That dude in the mirror looks like the chupacabra got him.
• I am much smarter than most people, according to any of the generally accepted metrics of intelligence. Thank you.
• If there is a witness to my little life, To my tiny throes and struggles, He sees a fool; And it is not fine for gods to menace fools. --Stephen Crane, "If there is a witness..."
• Hey, anybody got some obdurate stupidity and primitive gullibility to share on the subject of Ouija Boards? Those always make for some fun Halloween-y stories.
• Aside from the fact that the blood is sideways on the ghost's face rather than vertical, this does have the appearance of photoshop to me. Find a picture of a bloody head from a film, uber-gothy site or student project which was, presumably, lying on its side, mask it out, paste in a new layer and drop the layer transparency to somewhere around 30% and it would probably look a lot like this. If I weren't at work, I'd see if I could use photoshop to get my face to look like that.
• It gets scarier.
• Halloween creeps close and closer. Are we frightened? Not me. No way. No how. No, sir.
• rushmc- In my experience, the phrase "There is no such thing as ghosts" is usually repeated nervously to oneself more as an attempt to reassure than a firm statement. I don't believe rationally in ghosts, but I would never repeat ...you know, the name of that woman.. in front of any mirror, dark or not. I get shivers in cemetaries at night, and I would never eat in the Red Lion Inn. But these are simple payments for the wonder it is to let oneself experience the magic of the world. It doesn't matter whether it is "real" or simply in one's own imagination - the end result is the same. I think the same capacity that causes some of us to be nervous around potential spirits also allows us believe in fairies (cute or frightening), to experience the utter wonder and holiness of a sunrise, to feel the emotional power that is an ocean, and just the way that the earth and entire universe is ...well, alive. Maybe it's not the only way, but I find that these things all come together - whatever you want to call it - imagination or faith, I don't care, but my life would be all the duller without it.
• Sorry - the first sentance was teasing (I meant to put a happy face) - and the following paragraphs are not directly at rushmc, but the discussion in general.
• Is there a monkey (or a lurker?) who lives near Avebury and could go and have a look at the mirror for us? Anyone? Don't order a steak sandwich, though.
• Well said, jb. Life without imagination is teh suXX0rs. ;)
• "...these are simple payments..." when bees talk it sounds like thunder rumbled deep underground or the meaty beat of a heart caged in bone and fluttering like a moth that's lost a flame blown last night yet danced on with every wild shadow gracing the beaconed world
• *tips hat to beeswacky, motions for the barkeep to pint the poet*
• "1. There is absolutely no reasonable evidence that ghosts exist. Not a scrap. None. At all. Whatsoever." - Define 'reasonable evidence'. One would have to collate & assess a huge amount of data to gain perspective on this question, a job possibly beyond the abilities of a single researcher, making your sweeping generalisation rather premature. 'Reasonable evidence' is an undefined term. A worthless value judgement. By its very nature, 'ghostly' phenomenon is apparently elusive & hidden from our customary systems of measurement; you cannot expect it to conform to your arbitrary criteria of what is 'reasonable' without taking its manifest subtlety into account. In addition, your statement is basically flat out wrong. For example, there is significant evidence that consciousness can exist, at least briefly, outside of the physical body. There is a host of data pertaining to OBEs or out of body experiences, where clinically & brain dead patients, when resuscitated, report accurately observed details of unique procedures in their surroundings while there was insufficient blood supply to & zero electrical activity in their brains - for which there is no currently understood mechanism for them to do so, since they were 'offline'. They shouldn't be aware of anything. This has been validated scientifically: there are many studies on this. Even ignoring copious other suggestive material, this alone offers a valid standpoint to argue that some kind of consciousness might continue to exist outside the physical body in some form. It does not prove 'life after death' but it certainly fits the measure of 'reasonable evidence' for further study. Your outright dismissal falls flat. "2. That face looks completely unreal." - No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand the difference between subjective and objective value judgements. This face does not look 'unreal' to me. It appears in an anomalous placement, but the details of its features are not inconsistent with a physically real human face. From the reactions in this thread, the response to this issue varies widely with the observer. So this is an invalid argument. "3. Believing someone who makes fantastic claims without providing any sound supporting evidence is the behaviour of the foolishly credulous." - Apart from this being an ad hominem attack on the 'believer', it dismisses the witness' report without any proof of his unreliability. It's also in error, because the claimant *does* present evidence of their observations -- i.e., the photograph itself -- this is a clumsy way to dismiss unpalatable information without even a cursory attempt to analyse that evidence on its own merits. Without evidence that the photographer is a liar, a psychotic, his story inconsistent with other witnesses, or that the photograph itself has been faked, then you're just attacking the character of the witness as a means to dismiss his report. And of course, that's not a logical argument. Flushing a report of 'anomalous' phenomena simply because they doesn't fit into your current paradigms is unscientific & shoddy reasoning. To be clear: without appraising the evidence, its authenticity, & the veracity of the witness, you cannot make this claim. It's just knee-jerk reactionary skepticism without any merit. In this case, we actually have more than basic good faith reason to accept the veracity of the witness: he's a reporter. For him to be discovered deliberately submitting fake material would threaten his job. Reporters are held by peer-maintained standards of professional behaviour. This doesn't rule out fraud, but lacking proof of same, or good motive, it's not very plausible to assume he's a conman. In fact, he risks considerable damage to his reputation for even submitting the photograph to begin with, adding even more credence. What would he gain?
• "I claim that this picture is a fake because to do otherwise would be both to suspend reason and experience, and to ignore the wholly inadequate nature of the "evidence" provided in support of the proposition that it is a picture of something supernatural." Nobody invoked the word 'supernatural'. This outmoded term implies something 'beyond our ken', & is meaningless in terms of a scientific analysis. If there is recordable phenomena that is consistent with other instances of similar reports, then the phenomena ceases to be 'supernatural' & becomes just a class of event that has not been properly quantified at this time. E.g., Ball Lightning, which was dismissed as 'nonsense' by mainstream physics as recently as 20 years ago, until the mechanism for the phenomena was observed by those willing to undertake the research. In the absence of a controlled scientific study, dismissing unusual phenomena on the basis that it is 'fantastic' - that it doesn't fit with what we've already seen - is preposterous. "You can't prove that invisible space camels are not, as we speak, in orbit around Jupiter, can you?" Oh, a straw man argument. Jeesh. And you attempt to lecture me on logic? There are no reports of 'invisible space camels'. There *are* reports of so-called ghosts, & evidence for them (however debateable) in the form of anomalous photographs, recordings and witness statements that are consistent in many respects without connection between geographic locale & over long periods of time. Irrespective of the apparent 'reasonableness' of this evidence in terms of one's personal belief, it is nevertheless evidence. Trying to say that I'm making argumentum ad ignorantiam won't wash. "Finally: yes, I am much smarter than most people - according to any of the generally accepted metrics of intelligence." You might well be, but if so you totally undermine your intellect with lack of insight & tremendous arrogance, a great flaw for a thinker. Hubris. Plus, you make sweeping generalisations all the time without even knowing what you're talking about.
• apologies to monkeys for my typos and grammatical errors: I've been awake for 48 hours and drinking beer most of that time -- have to vote later today, so had to get myself in the right frame of mind
• Also I dropped a couple of Decani's logical fallacies, can someone get them? There's an argumentum ad antiquitatem rolling around there somewhere.. mebbe a few others - and Mean Uncle Nostril is now officially zonked and heading for the bed. talk about clinically brain dead! la! woot! /blowkiss
• Good-night, sleep well, rise refreshed, and kick Howard OUT!
• "Sure, Occam's Razor suggests it is a publicity stunt, of course, but that's a far cry from your dogmatism." Since it's October have to agree it is real, boo! Seeing that the "ghost" is visible at an angle -have to agree with Plegmund.
• Good crikey, Nostrildamus... now I have to ask what the form is regarding incredibly long posts at Monkeyfilter. I assume from yours that it's acceptable? No time to deal with this now. I would just say that my "space camels" argument is not a straw man, as you claim. It's an analogy. Argue that it's a poor one by all means, but don't call it something it isn't. And I'm afraid if you're going to refuse to see the essential relevance to the argument it illustrates I'll just have to provide an analogy featuring an obviously absurd belief that many people actually do have. You know, like Elvis still being alive, or alien abduction, Christianity, that sort of thing. Still, I hope it's not necessary. Later.
• Incredibly long comments, especially ones so long that they have to be split over several posts because the philter won't take it = ++good. We likes 'em. Australian monkeys - the expression of horror on the ghostly image's face would look marvellous replicated on John Howard's face tomorrow night, d'you not think?... Vote well, and vote hard, my Antipodean comrades!
• /stylefilter Also provided they have nice paragraph breaks; and, of course, a good, clear argument structure is always appreciated. I personally don't enjoy overuse of the quote-reponse mode (though it is heavily used in English Civil War era pamphlets), because it makes for a confusing argument - I prefer that (instead of picking at individual points), one post answers another in a more cohesive fashion, making reference to individual points along the way. (My history of verbal ramblings and multiple post comments is now gone, but still far be it from me to criticise anyone else - unless they can beat 3 full length posts in a row :)
• jb, it was your novella length essays that I was majinly thinking of when I said we liked long posts... ;-) A style gripe that goes hand-in-hand with the dislike of the quote --> response form: it really pisses me off when everything degenerates into a competition to see who can name the most logical fallacies and rhetorical cheats (with bonus points for using Latin terms). For example, given that the term ad hominem is possibly the second most misused word on internet discussion boards (after "troll"), I think we should institute a new rule: anybody who misuses the phrase ad hominem can subsequently be argued against, in any thread, with "oh, yeah, like I'm going to accept a point made by someone who doesn't even know what ad hominem means..." This is not directed at anybody in particular, I'd like to point out.
• Oh, I really liked the dueling latin. It was a really fun, and remarkably civil, hot-headed debate because it was so constrained by the falicy thing. Yes, ad hominem is really poorly used, as is appeal to authority. And I agree that some of the calls of ad hominem above were erronious. It isn't ad hominem to call your opponent a jerk, it's ad hominem to say your opponent is wrong because he's a jerk.
• BOO!
• *snickers Made ya' jump.
• Hmm, well, I can't figure out if Nostrildamus and Decani are even on the curmudgen scale, or not. My guess is that they're equal in intelligence but differing in experience. And, it's kinda fun to see a left/right arguement that doesn't involve Bush and Kerry. As for me, I prefer to leave the possibility of mystical happenings open. I've never experienced any, but don't think that civilization will descend into ruins if those possibilities aren't closed down in the minds of some of us. And, yes, Decani, I do like the long comments. We've gotten to know, and appreciate, each other because of them. I wish we'd do more stuff that wasn't hit and run.
• Wow, Nostrildamus and Decani - that was totally awesome! I look forward to many more of those. Thanks for the wonderful entertainment. /And I'll go along with flash's sentiments, vote hard and vote well!
• Will no one teach the world to sing in perfect add hominy?
• Ah, bees!
• Beesy, beesy, beesy. You [popular Microsoft spreadsheet] yourself!
• You know, I can't for the life of me remember what it was I ever wrote such long comments on. I know I did it - but not why. At least it wasn't American electoral politics ;)
• 953, jb. If in doubt, it was probably 953. :-)
• Medieval economics, jb. Or something like that. Those long comments freaked me out. There was no way to reply to them.
• Oh, yeah! I remember both the Civil Disobediance and the enclosure thread. Actually, now I know more about late medieval enclosure and how it differed from seventeenth and eighteenth century enclosure - one was to put sheep on, the other was to raise rents. Sorry, Zemat - you could always just call me a poopoo head :)
• fb - shouldn't you be asleep? or up early?
• I'l try next time... Good times.
• There can´t be a ghost in the picture. I exorcised the place myself.
• And here's another clue for you all: Nostrildamus isn't REAL at all.