Do ghost hunters have an explanation for ghosts wearing clothes? In other words, why aren’t ghosts naked? Clothing isn’t alive, how can that become a ghost as well? There surely isn’t a JC Pennys on the other side. Are there any statements from ghost hunters stating their opinions on this?
Also, I’ve been to ghost picture sites and most of them seem to be old ladies, little girls, demons or orbs. Now, why are there not any chinese ghosts or black ghosts?
Well, there’s that picture of a Japanese ghost girl that’s been photoshopped into a variety of different pictures floating around the web.
Since ghosts are about as real as fairies and leprauchauns, ghost hunters can make up whatever explanation they like for why they have clothes. I’ve never heard that question asked though and I would be interested to hear their response.
I don’t have an official “ghost hunter” cite, but it is just as easy for those ghosts which maintain enough of an impression of life to manifest as a recognizable human form to mainfest as a clothed human form. Ectoplasm is psychically malleable and a spirit will appear as they wish to be seen, if they have enough strength to appear as anything other than a floating light…
According to the ghost hunters I’m familiar with, the ghost is wearing clothes because it’s really Old Man Caruthers, owner of the haunted amusement park. And he’d have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for those snooping kids!
Well, you see, it has to do with echoes of previous events and if the person had been nude during the event that caused the spectral memory they would be nude during the encounter.
Ever notice how many sightings are the same event replayed over and over (old lady walking down a flight of stairs, little girl walking a hallway)?
Your “real” ghost, a disembodied consciousness trying to interact with the living, is usually not seen as a representation of their living form.
Demons, of course, don’t wear clothes.
So we are working with a reinforcement of the Observer Principle. If the ghost itself has any will, strength or volition it will appear as a reflection of the person’s self-image during corporeal existence. I believe most persons picture themselves clothed even in their imagiantions, except if the imaginings involve Minnie Driver and some Cool-Whip.
The reinforcement comes in from the “ghost hunter,” who is expecting any person encountered to be wearing clothes normally. The observer’s expectations shape the manifestation as much as any intrinsic will left in the phenomena.
We all know people who are psychically “colour blind” and cannot even feel the emotional echoes in the great hall of Ellis Island. If one of those persons is the observer, I can assure you that there will be no clothing, and most likely they will not recognize the encounter as being paranormal at all.
That’s the closest to a proper explanation I’ve seen (though I have no idea what the third paragraph is saying).
I give ghost tours and encounter as many explanations for ghostly phenomena as there are people to give them. It’s nothing that’s ever been properly quantified, which I think is fine, cause it ain’t science for sure. (Ghost hunters do indeed have their own sets of classifications and rules–poltergeist vs. ghost vs. pixie–but I’ve found them to be pretty inconsistent, and rather pseudoscientific. That’s just my view.) But a few points seem to be consistent across all legitimate ghost stories:
(1) Seeing a ghost is exceptionally rare, and is usually bogus. “Pictures” of a ghost are even more so; I’ve seen a couple in my several years that I wouldn’t be completely skeptical of, especially now that we’ve got Photoshop. Most hauntings are sounds, smells, small objects moving, or just “that funny feeling.”
(2) Ghosts that are seen have a tendency to be a woman in a long white dress. This leads to countless legends of dead brides, etc. This consistency could be used as evidence for either side of the argument: either people have overactive imaginations and “see” what they’ve been told to see in stories, or ghosts actually do have some semblance of a uniform appearance, which manifests in the eye of the observer as a woman in a dress.
(3) Point number two, and some other factors, impart a strong suggestion that ghosts are a combination of the viewer’s perception; the ghost’s literal appearance; and even the ghost’s own desire to look a certain way. They’re not like a physical object, which looks the same way to virtually all people. (I’m not venturing an opinion as to whether ghosts exist, just explaining their internal logic.)
As for my personal opinion, I’ve heard plenty of stories that I have no possible alternate explanation for, including sightings of people in old-timey clothing, etc. I try to keep an open mind, while maintaining a solid respect for the laws of physics and so forth, but in short I do think that there’s some ephemeral thing that pops up occasionally in the forms of hauntings. That being said, most peoples’ imaginations get away from them rather quickly once they’re in a spooky situation, so in a job like mine, separating the wheat from the bullshit is a tough tough job.