Jump to content



What, To Date, Is The Most Compelling Piece Of Evidence That Ghosts Exist?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#41 Tantric KittenGStudy

Tantric KittenGStudy

    Crop Circle

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Earth, most of the time.

Posted 09 June 2011 - 08:13 AM

View PostTypical Girl, on 08 June 2011 - 05:00 AM, said:

Going back to this:



Seriously? Even on the high-res copy of the Underwood video, you can't possibly make out details of that kind. It's so indistinct that the anomalies could be more or less anything. If it's a hoax, it's brilliantly done - clear enough to be scary, but not so clear that the explanation's obvious.

There's this famous photo of a ghost at Gettysburg. Again, it's bang in the middle-ground: enough of a 'figure' to give us all goosebumps, and yet you can't rule out the most likely explanation that it's a bit of pareidolia created by a torch shining into the trees. (Try shining a torch into some trees tonight - you'll scare the hell out of yourself.)

Here's another Gettysburg video. I suspect most of us here will conclude that it's obviously a fake, but what interests me is why the Underwood video doesn't get the same reaction. Why is it considered credible while this one isn't? Is it because it's 'too good'?

*sigh*  Seriously.  http://www.paranorma...ost video&st=20

The video has corrupted over the server moves.  It used to be quite a bit clearer.  Several of those people who were talking in those old threads about it saw the original and say that the one posted online is very difficult to see compared to the original video that Jim has in his personal posession (or maybe DA has it... I think, though, she said that he owns it in one of them).

Quote

Try shining a torch into some trees tonight - you'll scare the hell out of yourself.

Wow.  Really?  Wow.  That crossed the line.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. --Herm Albright

#42 Feral

Feral

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Family, Nature, culture, life, death, and all things in between.

Posted 09 June 2011 - 09:25 AM

I know I am relatively new here, but I have been following this thread since it started.

While I don't know anyone here and cannot attest to their character or personality, I get the impression that some people can and will never be satisfied with any answer you present to them. A lot of great and very valid points have been made in this thread, and have been repeated several times to no avail. The feeling I get is that the OP seems to be in love with the sound of their own voice (or typed word, if you will) and is only arguing ("debating") for the sake of the argument.

We cannot be responsible for opening another person's mind or heart. We can only present what we know or see to be the truth and allow that person to either accept it or not. It is impossible to try to convince someone of this caliber (someone who only wants to debate and show how "right" they are) of what we have experienced when they have never had an experience like our own....nor should we expect to be able to.

IMO, this thread has now turned into "beating a dead horse."

#43 Typical Girl

Typical Girl

    Apport

  • GS Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 09 June 2011 - 04:13 PM

View PostHaunted Heart, on 09 June 2011 - 05:35 AM, said:

Scientists can measure that SOMETHING happens in our brains when we sleep - but can't record, monitor or experiment on our dreams. In that same sense, people can claim their house is haunted. We might not be able to interview, watch or study the alleged spirit, but there are often "symptoms" which indiciate activity... EMF levels, unexpected movement of objects, eye-witness account of spirits, sudden cold spots, EVP's with sensible responses. I'm not saying any of those are actual proof of spirits, but they indicate the possibility. The same way our brains are active in sleep... brain waves can be watched and recorded on a monitor, but we can't watch the dream

All very true, but my bugbear is really with those ghost-hunters who have a somewhat fairweather attitude to science. Many of them use science only when it suits them. When it appears to confirm their beliefs, they think it's wonderful; when it doesn't, they say 'huh, arrogant old science doesn't know everything'.

It's fine to say 'It's impossible to capture a ghost in a lab'. But that means you should dismiss all EVP recordings and ghost photos as fakes. Either it's testable or it isn't.

#44 Typical Girl

Typical Girl

    Apport

  • GS Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 09 June 2011 - 04:29 PM

View PostTantric Kitten, on 09 June 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

Wow.  Really?  Wow.  That crossed the line.

How? It's true. Few things have the power to freak us out, pareidolia-wise, like a tree at night.

Anyway, you didn't answer my earlier question: why the dearth of serious peer-reviewed papers by paranormal researchers? You say it's because it's a new science which isn't respected by the mainstream, but then that's true of all kinds of fields. Cold fusion is new and controversial, for example, but I can still read about it.

Also, to repeat a question in my first post: what's an example of something we know about ghosts that we didn't know 50 years ago?

Edited by Typical Girl, 09 June 2011 - 04:31 PM.


#45 moiraesfate

moiraesfate

    Doppelganger

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,436 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 June 2011 - 05:24 PM

Cold fusion has hard solid proof behind it accompanied by complicated mathematics. Ghosts do not.

An example of something we know about ghosts now that we didn't know 50 years ago? That they produce energy that can be measured with an emf meter, and that they can be recorded via video, photograph, AND sound. There, I did it for Tantric.

50 years ago, television was still new. The screens were about max 15 inches wide and they weighed a good 50 lbs. 50 years ago, a computer took up an entire room and could barely manage basic math. Now we have televisions that are literally 3 millimeters thick (google it. It was announced last year. They're called organic tv's and consist of two one millimeter thick glass screen with a one millimeter thick organic material spread in between. Currently, an 11 inch costs about $10,000). And my android computer can do things that were thought of as science fiction 50 years ago.

So who are you to say that proof of ghosts won't exist in 50 years when they are currently building a motel in space?

I can't believe I'm saying this because generally its terminology leveled at me but you are being very very closed minded. I'm curious as to why. Just because there isn't concrete proof of something now doesn't mean there won't ever be. If humanity lived by "it can't be done", we wouldn't have electric cars and CNN wouldn't have just announced that scientists managed to artificially contain antimatter for 17 seconds (a year ago, they managed two eights of a second, now they've managed 17 seconds. This is a BIG deal).

Try to open your mind just a little.

#46 Lady Sorbus

Lady Sorbus

    Offical GS Headshrinker

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:reading, writing, history, paranormal, symbology, theatre, cinema, Knights Templar, classic cartoons (none of the rubbish out there now), shamanism and witchcraft

Posted 09 June 2011 - 06:14 PM

View PostFeral, on 09 June 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

IMO, this thread has now turned into "beating a dead horse."

Yeah, it has. I tried to add something new, but as usual I was ignored.

#47 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Seance

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 09 June 2011 - 06:24 PM

It just keeps going in circles
Posted Image

#48 Haunted Heart

Haunted Heart

    Ghoul

  • GS Member
  • Pip
  • 237 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Studying the paranormal, film, music, writing, theatre and spending time with family.

Posted 09 June 2011 - 11:13 PM

View PostTypical Girl, on 09 June 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

It's fine to say 'It's impossible to capture a ghost in a lab'. But that means you should dismiss all EVP recordings and ghost photos as fakes. Either it's testable or it isn't.

I understand and respect what you mean here, but I don't think something being testable indicates whether it might be genuine or not. I don't think that everything science is yet unable to explain or prove must be dismissed because it isn't yet able to fulfil criteria for scientists to dissect.

Science, while being able to guide us through so much learning and knowledge, is of itself so much theory. Science itself has even revisited and revised and corrected its own theories.

I don't know if one day we will have solid proof or evidence for OR against the paranormal being real, but I won't dismiss everything science can't prove, either. That's too much solid faith in something that isn't perfect, and which hasn't, until now, gathered all answers to all things. If one day it was proven, either way, solidly, I would accept that.

There are respected scientists who believe in God and who use certain science evidence to back up their theory. Other scientists say they find that an impossibility and are atheists - who is the master there? Who had the access to the real answer?

I WILL be sensible and use all available knowledge to help and guide me in life but I don't put all things in the hands of others. I also have some trust me own eyes, my own experiences, which leave me confident that spirits exist. I know my experience won't satisfy science or stand in the court of law, but this is my experience, my gut instinct. I am open, though, to all explanations and sources.

Edited by Haunted Heart, 09 June 2011 - 11:20 PM.

My novels, available as paperback or eBook

#49 Guest_HelenaHandBaskettGStudy_*

Guest_HelenaHandBaskettGStudy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 June 2011 - 02:41 AM

View PostFeral, on 09 June 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

The feeling I get is that the OP seems to be in love with the sound of their own voice (or typed word, if you will) and is only arguing ("debating") for the sake of the argument.

We cannot be responsible for opening another person's mind or heart. We can only present what we know or see to be the truth and allow that person to either accept it or not. It is impossible to try to convince someone of this caliber (someone who only wants to debate and show how "right" they are) of what we have experienced when they have never had an experience like our own....nor should we expect to be able to.

IMO, this thread has now turned into "beating a dead horse."

I think you hit the nail right on the head Feral.

Quote

I can't believe I'm saying this because generally its terminology leveled at me but you are being very very closed minded. I'm curious as to why. Just because there isn't concrete proof of something now doesn't mean there won't ever be

Well said moiraesfate...


If no one has anything new to add, or if this thread doesn't move in a different direction, I think it's a good idea to close the thread. As was mentioned in the thread a few times, it's really just beating a dead horse now. And we're really not getting anywhere!







#50 Typical Girl

Typical Girl

    Apport

  • GS Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 10 June 2011 - 02:41 AM

View Postmoiraesfate, on 09 June 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

An example of something we know about ghosts now that we didn't know 50 years ago? That they produce energy that can be measured with an emf meter, and that they can be recorded via video, photograph, AND sound. There, I did it for Tantric.

No, all we know is that weird stuff gets captured that way. Which may well be paranormal, but there's no actual proof that it is.

Quote

I can't believe I'm saying this because generally its terminology leveled at me but you are being very very closed minded. I'm curious as to why. Just because there isn't concrete proof of something now doesn't mean there won't ever be.

Being open-minded works both ways, though. If you're a believer, you have to be hard on yourself and accept that you might be mistaken. Saying 'I know I saw a ghost due to personal experience' is just as closed-minded as folding your arms and saying 'Nope, it's just the pipes'.

The advances in technology you're talking about (televisions, etc) came about because people rigorously tested data. They were rigorous in the assessment of one another's reasearch., and didn't take offence when people raised eyebrows at it.

Edited by Typical Girl, 10 June 2011 - 02:45 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users