# Ghost Sighting On Tape **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2003, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158 "2003-12-20T11:28:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/241 "2003-12-27T21:56:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > I don’t have cases except what I can link to on the Net, and we know how far that will get me. What exactly is your problem here? Why won’t you post any links, any links at all? Not everybody has examined the data you have, and not everybody has made up their mind (despite your insistence to the contrary). It seems to me that you’ve done considerable research; why not share the result with us? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/242 "2003-12-27T22:32:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > **Then, of course, there are biggie photos of full materializations, which hardly look like lens flare, and which experts have looked at carefully and said that the negatives have not been altered, etc.** “Lens flare” is an external artifact, it doesn’t “alter the negative” except in the manner it is designed to be altered; IE, the light entering the lens chemically reacts with the compounds of the film. Many years ago, as a child, I took a photo of a “flying saucer”. Anyone in the world, using any technicque possible, would have found my negatives unaltered and unmodified in any way. Naturally. It was a perfectly photographically-conventional image of a picture I’d taped to a large window. Negatives being unaltered does not mean the image shown is genuine. > [@](#): > > **Yeah, I bet you’ve really taken a look with an open mind, too, examining the negatives with experts and revealing hoax after hoax.** Speaking of repeating mantras, you continue to imply we look at those photos with a “closed mind”, that we would see them for their obvious and apparently startling truth if we would simply “believe”. So, if we believe in the photo, then it’ll be clear it’s believable? Is that how it works? Tell me, for the sake of the argument; are you familiar with the old photographs of tiny nymphs and elves, taken by a couple of sisters around the turn of the century (the last one, not this one) and pronounced as genuine by none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself? > [@](#): > > **The reason I believe is pretty simple: data such as photos,[…]** … none of which you’ve shown us yet… > [@](#): > > **[…]personal experience, the testimony of people I know and trust,[…]** [Anecdote] My mom, many years ago, living in the Midwest, would occasionally find a thin line of fine sand/dust on her windowsill after a windstorm. The window was closed, but the dust still made it inside. Not knowing precisely what glass was, and not putting a lot of thought into it, she thought- for thirty-plus years- that the sand/dust was fine enough that it actually came through the glass itself. She mentioned it in passing one day a few years back, at which point I noted that, if _sand_ could get through, then glass would make for a pretty poor cup to drink from, and a worse aquarium. The sand very likely came from the very thin gap between the upper and lower sashes of the window. [/anecdote] > [@](#): > > **[…]and the historical record.** Like Atlantis and Atlas holding up the Earth, or more like the Piltdown Man and Roswell? > [@](#): > > **So let’s just cut the crapola and admit that our minds are made up, both of us.** If you wish to see it that way, that’s fine. The problem being you have not supplied anything at all- photos, reports, data, _any_thing except “I said so, therefore it’s true”- which might change anyone’s mind. You say you’re not going to link to any photos for us to discuss together, and then sniff in a hurt manner when we don’t go out and root through half a million such images on a hundred thousand websites and look for ourselves. As above, just pick one or a few of the best. Any image at all, that we all can look at, and that we all can discuss. Surely that isn’t too much to ask, since you’re asking _us_ to go out and look through thousands upon thousands. > [@](#): > > **I don’t have cases except what I can link to on the Net, and we know how far that will get me.** So you’re saying everything on the 'net is false? Out of those thousands of images out there, surely _one_ must be arguable. Petulantly sitting there saying “aw, you wouldn’t believe me anyway” and linking to nothing at all, well, makes you come across as rather childish and doesn’t advance your argument a whit. > [@](#): > > \*\*“Solid, repeatable evidence.” Mantras, skeptic mantras, materialist mandalas. \*\* As opposed to, say, “You need to look at it with an open mind”, and “This fellow I trust said it happened to him”, and “there’s plenty of evidence, if you’d just go _look_!”? ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/243 "2003-12-28T01:04:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > **On the other hand, if millions of people report “ghost” phenomena, _something_ is happening. At that point it’s a matter of interpretational framework.** Or no framework at all. In this case, with millions of cases all claiming contact with the supernatural in its various forms, it would be difficult to apply a single framework to the data available. (Not all of the data points even match.) Some have applied the framework that these _must_ represent ghosts; others like me have applied several possible frameworks and we seek to discredit one or more theories until we are left with something workable. One way of doing this is what **Diogenes** does by proving what ghosts are **not**. It’s the same way we toss out regular-appearing stars until we find pulsars and quasars and red giants and black holes: we throw out a _ton_ of really common crap. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by me > In order to accept the story as fact, I’d do two things. One, I’d look for evidence that is rigorous in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the claim._ > > _originally posted by Aeschines_ > **This is a typical skeptical canard, one that has nothing to do with the scientific method.** If you said to a medieval peasant that five plus five equalled twelve, he’d likely believe you if you said it convincingly: to him, the claim is likely. If you say it to me I’ll ask what mathematical model you’re using, what number base, and so on, but I’m not enough of a mathematician to say that your claim is _impossible,_ just unlikely. I’d inquire, wouldn’t I? I wouldn’t just accept your word for it, would I? Wave away the canard as being unscientific if you like, but the fact of the matter is that you must still face greater skepticism (or cynicism) if you make a greater claim. > [@](#): > > **No, only sufficient evidence is required.** And your evidence is still required. I am not going to seek it out for you; your responsibility here on this forum is to respond to a request for a citation to back up your claims. You do not assume that we all come armed with enough evidence to prove _your_ case. If we had your evidence we wouldn’t be debating. > [@](#): > > **If I have a video of my puking all over poor Danny, and a signed, notarized letter from him that the event took place, that’s good enough, that’s proof, and whether you consider either the claim or evidence “extraordinary” or not is an irrelevant opinion.** No, it’s not **proof.** It’s evidence. If someone wished to be absolutely certain, he’d examine the date you claimed it occurred; he’d verify Mr. Kaye was alive on that date and compare what he looked like to the image in the video; and he’d try to compare signatures to a known signature of Mr. Kaye. He might also wish to have a video of the signing of the document, just to be thorough. It depends on what’s at stake, though. If you and I bet ten million dollars on the outcome, you’d bet your sweet bippy I’d be thorough in investigating this claim; I’m not payin’ up until the issue is dead and buried. As it is, with no money on the line? I’d probably believe you, but keep an eyebrow raised. Ghosts, now? Let’s see, what’s at stake? If we could prove that ghosts existed we’d overturn everything we currently believe we know about physics and thermodynamics and magnetism and optics and human neurophysiology and religion and science, and it would change the way we behave in regard to crime, the law, real estate, prayer, religious tolerance, politics, medicine, how fast we drive on the highway, and how we write wills to our descendants. Saying “ghosts exist, really” in a quiet voice would overturn the world, and if you want to prove it and overturn the world you gotta lift _hard._ > [@](#): > > **There are two questions. Do you recognize the phenomena? (It seems you do.)** I recognize that there are a number of people that I personally know, and pictures I have seen, that report similar and unusual images. Of their own accord, many people have labeled these as “ghosts.” I do recognize that we have lumped them together, whether or not there is evidence to so lump. So yes, I agree there’s a pile of similar evidence but I’m not convinced it’s all showing the _same thing._ Pictures of stars with a primitive camera, for example, all look like bright dots in the sky—and so do planets. > [@](#): > > **And what interpretive framework do you apply?** Why none, of course. To do so would be to accept without proof that all the pictures _do_ show the same thing. (I here acknowledge that there is other recorded material besides pictures, but I will stick to pictures for the sake of argument. I don’t want to have to type pictures/charts/maps/stories/anecdotes/video/audio/etcetera all the time.) > [@](#): > > **This is not the “game of proof.” Are there phenomena, and how do we interpret them?** One at a time, baby, one at a time. > [@](#): > > **That’s what it’s all about. For example, there are UFO phenomena. One interpretation is that there are space aliens visiting us.** And one way to interpret the data is _one claim at a time._ Like so: _This_ claim was a blimp, _this_ claim was a flyover by a single-engine Cessna, _these_ claims were made by demented, senile, or psychotic people who saw the UFO report on the news and called in to say “me too”, _this_ set of photos was faked with a Frisbee covered in tinfoil, and _this_ small stack of pictures fits into no category above and must be studied further and hope further evidence comes to light. You do _not_ begin to make generalizations or apply a “framework” until you are assured that you are looking at _multiple examples of the same thing._ So truthfully, now: do you have a stack of pictures of ghosts, or do you have a stack of pictures people _say_ are ghosts and which you stick into the pile on that person’s say-so? It’s not the same thing, y’know. > [@](#): > > **I recognize that there are phenomena, but I find it very difficult to interpret the data. Nothing seems to make sense to me (I will not argue it here). But just because I am personally conflicted about an interpretation does not lead me to deny that there are phenomena to begin with.** Amen, brother. I feel the same way about ghosts. > [@](#): > > **Are you hinting that all those millions of photos out there have been faked?** Nope. I don’t hint. I said that was a possiblity that, however remote, hasn’t been ruled out. Can _you_ rule out that they were all not hoaxes? No, no, of course not, that’s not your job. 🙂 > [@](#): > > **In the early 90s there was a kind of ghost picture fad in Japan (shinreishashin), and people would send in photos in which ghosts just happened to appear… . Sure, in there were probably a good number of goofs and perhaps even a few hoaxes, but we’re talking about thousands of pictures all showing the same kind of things. … I suppose the null hypothesis is that all those ordinary people were setting up photo labs to fake protoplasmic swirls and various materializations? My eye. As you say yourself, “internally consistent.”** Huh. A fad suddenly appears where ghost pictures become popular, and instantly thousands of ghosts obligingly turn up on camera when they have eluded so many scientists attempting to confirm their existence for centuries _and nobody gets suspicious when things like this conveniently happen for a for-profit promo but it doesn’t happen for science?_ Yeah, given that, I’d say a fair number of them were hoaxes. It doesn’t take a photolab. Try this: 1. Breathe out a wreath of smoke into a dark room. Smoke as many cigarettes as you like to give the room a mystical quality. 2. Breathe on the camera lens to fog it up. 3. Pose someone in the smoky room and take a picture through your condensed breath droplets. 4. Push the button on the bottom of your SLR camera so the teeth of the winder disengage the sprockets. 5. Wind the picture advance knob so you can take the next picture, even though the film hasn’t yet advanced. 6. Take another picture of the room without the person posing. 7. Instant ghost in soft-focus! The fact that many pictures _match_ means nothing more than someone put together a collection of pictures that _did_ match. I’m not a child. If you take a bunch of pictures and decide that these are “ghost” pictures and this other pile is “probably not a ghost, but looks spooky anyway” pictures, then _of course_ you can put together a pile of pictures that looks the same. Does that _prove_ anything? No. You have to look at _all_ of the data. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by me > I often wonder, for instance, what an eyewitness to “Bigfoot” might think if the person had never seen or heard of the other existing Bigfoot reports. Would they match?_ > > **Rhetorical trickery, lumping reports of ghosts (millions throughout the centuries and in all cultures, backed up with modern technical data) and Bigfoot reports, comparatively modern and far shakier in terms of evidence.** But it is an example of having a control group. You know what one of those is. I’m not trying to prove or disprove Bigfoot in particular, as you must know. This was my question: is it easier to see ghosts if you already know what you think one should look like, due to cultural conditioning? Could this be the “skepticism filter?” > [@](#): > > **"Curious" as in “suspect”? Yeah, we know what ghosts “look like” because people have been seeing them and otherwise experiencing them since the dawn of history.** No, don’t put words in my mouth. “Curious” as in “provoking the desire to study more closely.” We have _also,_ might I say it, been _hoaxing_ ghosts since the dawn of history. And by the way, do stories of “ghosts” from 1200 BC match stories of ghosts from 1200 AD, and do they match stories from 12:00pm today? Does _culture_ affect what ghosts “look like?” > [@](#): > > **Disingenuous rhetoric, since you know that thousands of photographs have been investigated, whose images remained unexplained.** May I quote you on that? You say they are _unexplained._ > [@](#): > > Aeschines says the pictures are unexplained. Ahh, that feels good. We actually agree on something. They are not necessarily ghosts, they are not necessarily hoaxes, they are unexplained. Ahhhhh. > [@](#): > > **Yeah, well lots of studying has already been done, which I’m sure you also know.** And when ghost stories move out of the Humorous Local Interest blip in the news report, that’s when someone’s actually _found_ something worth all of that studying. > [@](#): > > **This is almost so funny that it makes me want to cry. I purposely and methodically said that, YES, skeptics DO define themselves in this way, but in PRACTICE they do not act this way. Do you see the irony here?** And you define yourself as “having evidence” and yet you don’t show us any evidence for us to reject. Yes, wonderful, cruel irony. We can’t live up to your irony until you stop living up to ours. > [@](#): > > **For example, it’s foolish for a creationist to enter this forum and say, “No missing links have ever been discovered!”** Or, f’rinstance, someone to come into the forum and say “ghosts exist!”? Yeah, we’d expect someone doing that to provide a link to some kind of, um, evidence, wouldn’t we? > [@](#): > > **Just because I can’t explain one aspect of a ghost’s physical system doesn’t mean that other things are not explicable.** And just because some aspect of a phenomenon is inexplicable (by us) that does not mean it doesn’t have a perfectly un-ghostly explanation. > [@](#): > > **Yeah, [chicksdigscars] reacted negatively to extreme rudeness and crude rhetoric. Big surprise. And creationists have plenty of “alternative explanations” for the fossil record, which tend to be arbitrary and _just_ happen to match their own agenda.** Funny, ain’t it? And yet, convenient or inconvenient, we still lack the data to prove or disprove a theory. > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, disingenuous rhetoric. You assume that any explanation is preferable to one that you would consider > “paranormal.” So if 10 people in a room say they saw a ghost, then our working hypothesis must be “mass hallucination.” People don’t have large-scale visual hallucinations unless they’re either psychotic or drugged. \*\* _Your_ working hypothesis, maybe. You’re making a lot of assumptions about how I think and what I prefer. Leave my preferences to _me_, m’kay? My working hypothesis would be… nothing. My _work_ would be to examine the room for evidence of any kind and see what conclusions I _could_ draw. If I found actual ectoplasm, gravedust, or a lingering cold sensation, then I’d whip out a specimen jar and a thermometer. If I could conduct independent interviews with the eyewitnesses, I’d do it in separate rooms and compare the notes. I’d check the walls and floors for signs of tampering. If I didn’t know what the people all saw, I’d say, get this, you’ll like it, I’d say: “I don’t know what you all saw.” I would _not_ say, “I can’t prove it was a guy in a mask, therefore it was a ghost.” > [@](#): > > **If such mass-scale hoaxing is actually taking place, that in itself is a phenomena that will probably greatly change our understanding of human psychology. As I always say to skeptics: counter-argue as you please, but at least have the nerve to follow the path of those arguments’ implications.** I already been there, bud. The implications fit perfectly with what I know about human psychology. Maybe you haven’t heard there are people who are so dedicated to prove their fanatical religious devotion that they give _themselves_ stigmata and claim it’s God? Been there. Cecil did a column on it. Or people who manufacture huge feet on sticks and leave Bigfoot footprints? Been there. People who fake up photographs and turn them in to their local newspaper and claim they saw UFOs? Been there. Jeez, even Dave Barry knows that people like this exist who would happily fake fantastic evidence. My goodness, even _freakin’ Aesop_ knew about the Boy Who Cried Wolf! What of the Victorian ladies who would faint for the sheer melodrama of it, or women who can look their husbands in the eye and say, “No, seriously, honey, the baby’s definitely yours.” People lie all the time. It makes them feel good, or it makes them avoid things that feel bad. Where have you been? > [@](#): > > _originally quoted by me > Um, no. I agree that since the invention of photography we have captured images on film that all have similar appearances. Let us throw out the word “ghost” for a moment and substitute “cloud.”_ > > **Or call it “Phenomenon X” if you really want to approach it in an unbiased fashion.** No, I’m actually talking about clouds here. > [@](#): > > **Oh, I see, this is a kind of mini-tutorial about the scientific method. Of course, irrationalists like me never actually study this kind of thing.** Oh, good, I’m glad you recognize it. I’m glad I could refresh your memory. Perhaps you should apply it to some of the ghost data and show us why you find so convincing. And bring us the data, too. FISH ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/244 "2003-12-28T04:15:56Z")
Thanks **Rilchiam, Musicat, Algorithm, Doc Nickel** and **Fish**! you saved me from replying much, I noticed that a couple of links from my last post were not commented by **Aeschines** , and to think he said before that it is the skeptic that ignores links… His last bit had something that needs to be clarified though: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > \*\*CSICOP has zero credibility at this point, for two solid reasons: one, their agenda is more than clear; two, they have fudged data in the past, as in the famous case of the astrology/athletic champion study. \*\* [http://www.planetos.info/marchron.html](http://www.planetos.info/marchron.html) > [@](#): > > Though not offering a firm conclusion on this point, Ertel and Irving hold that until such time as an independent audit of the CSICOP files relating to the experiment can be made to settle the question, that data should be excluded from further consideration in regard to the Mars effect. Replying in “Is the ‘Mars Effect’ Genuine?, ” Paul Kurtz, J. W. Nienhuys and Ranjit Sandhu contend that Ertel and Irving are begging the question by drawing conclusions from a ratio based on an effect whose existence has not been demonstrated. In the Ertel and Irving article, they report an anomaly of a different sort in the Para Committee data, from which an abnormally low IMQ is obtained. Following publication, the Para anomaly is found to be due to rounding errors in data obtained from the Gauquelin laboratory, and on recalculation the IMQ is found to be within normal range, leaving the CSICOP data and the Gauquelin unpublished data as the only remaining anomalies. Translation: BOTH astrologers and skeptics were using the same data that the astrologer said it demonstrated the “Mars effect” the skeptics noticed something that they claimed debunked the claim. Both were wrong because the data, in the end, was not reliable! [http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v11n1a2.html](http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v11n1a2.html) However, as you already noticed on the “people that feel ghosts” study, the fact that the skeptic was wrong on his/her approach doesn’t mean the supernatural is **automatically** the explanation: after replicating the way the original data was obtained (this time not rounding) the Mars effect disappeared. Of course, looking at the context of this discussion: Astrology? :smack: Do you still take it seriously? Once again: the resolution of the “Mars effect” maybe hurt some skeptics, OTHO it “killed” the believers. Back to ghosts: The fact is that doing research on my own, I found that the photographs declared genuine by the ghost chasers, are not likely to be. Moreover, serious ghosts chasers already did plenty of work for skeptics, when they already acknowledge that photos that are accepted as ghosts, by other sites, are bunk. I join the chorus of people here: points us to the evidence you know is good, or be open to more charges of hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/245 "2003-12-28T05:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > Whoa, thanks for helping me out! You just provided an excellent example of argument _a priori_ that ghosts photos are impossible because, well, they’re impossible! > > “Solid, repeatable evidence.” Mantras, skeptic mantras, materialist mandalas. Let’s wish the baddies away! I’m open. Just prove one ghost. Quality proof, not quantity sitings. I am totally able to be objective. I believe in G-d, which should show you I already don’t care if others doubt my sanity.🙂 I am a witness to unexplained phenomena. I’m your man(…er woman). Show me the proof. I lived in a house that had many strange things going on. The only reason I don’t think there were ghosts or something in my house is, there was no proof that it _was_ anything paranormal. There was noise, activity and witnesses, but without proof of what something actually _is_, you still have to go with “I don’t know.” Wind gusts, magnetic disturbances, unstable ground, house shifting, poisoness gases, proximity of train track, ah mental illness, etc. When it came to ruling out all the possible things it could have been, I found I wasn’t that concerned either way. It didn’t matter that much. I was busy living. I have no compelling need to believe or dis-believe in anything un-explainable, except for G-d. I admit that in hind-sight, I would love to know what the real explanation was. And I did have a lot of fun speculating and then laughing at myself over those thoughts. I am betting on a completely logical physical explanation, though. People that have experiences like I did add sheer weight to _your_ number of supposed sitings, but only that. With no proof otherwise, I have no reason to invent something unlikely. Why do you even care if ghost sitings are true? What is the purpose of your “mission”? It still seems to me that you are not a ghost-buster, but a skeptic basher.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/246 "2003-12-28T06:45:28Z")
A semi-hijack featuring my opinions on “ghost photography.” Photography works because light is refracted through the lens to expose the chemicals on the paper. In order for the light to form a recognizable image, it has to bounce off of something. This is a scientific fact that hopefully we all learned back in grade school. If the light bounces off of something in an orderly enough fashion to make a recognizable image on the film, it stands to reason that the light would also make a recognizable image on the human eye, which works in a very similar fashion - almost completely identical, in fact, except for the medium that the image is projected onto. Normal 35mm camera film purchased over the counter for home use in point-and-click everyday cameras is NOT susceptible to wavelengths of light which are not visible to the human eye. Therefore, if a given object is present on the film, it MUST - in order to be registered on the film - have been physically present and bouncing light off itself when the film was exposed. And therefore, it almost certainly MUST have been visible to any human observer looking through the viewfinder of the camera - DEFINITELY if it was an SLR, where the viewfinder is actually showing you the view through the lens so that exactly what is going to be exposed on the film is being projected onto your eyes. Therefore, any case of a photograph with a full “ghost” or “apparition” on it in a recognizably human shape MUST have been taken under circumstances in which the photographer ALSO saw the “apparition.” Given that I have yet to see A SINGLE EXAMPLE of an “apparition” photograph in which the photographer did NOT say “and it wasn’t there when I took the picture…” my conclusion is that logically, either the photographer is lying, the “apparition” was hiding somewhere when the picture was taken, the photographer has been misled by someone at some point, somebody faked the picture after exposure (with darkroom editing techniques or computer “photoshopping”), or the photographer is lying. If I’ve made an error here, please correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/247 "2003-12-28T07:17:56Z")
That is a most excellent point, **racinchikki** , and it’s such an obvious point that I can’t believe I didn’t think of it myself. ---
**Author:** ![Paradoxical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Paradoxical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paradoxical)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/248 "2003-12-28T08:03:11Z")
What about the camera flash illuminating any “ghost” that was present, but couldn’t be seen through the viewfinder under normal lighting conditions? Forgive if you’ve debunked my statement, I didn’t read all of your post…I’m a litle, just a little drunk… ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/249 "2003-12-28T08:20:27Z")
Dialog with Fish: **Or no framework at all. In this case, with millions of cases all claiming contact with the supernatural in its various forms, it would be difficult to apply a single framework to the data available.** I’m not talking about the supernatural; I’m talking about phenomena ususally discussed under the rubric “ghost.” I believe that the “ghost” framework works; I am not, however, a general apologist for the “paranormal” or “supernatural.” **Wave away the canard as being unscientific if you like, but the fact of the matter is that you must still face greater skepticism (or cynicism) if you make a greater claim.** The point is that the “greater” is a matter of opinion. **And your evidence is still required. I am not going to seek it out for you; your responsibility here on this forum is to respond to a request for a citation to back up your claims. You do not assume that we all come armed with enough evidence to prove your case. If we had your evidence we wouldn’t be debating.** My evidence, as pointed out previously on the thread, is mainly philosophical. Reports throughout history, reports from people I know, my own experiences, and physical evidence (photos, etc.). Finally, there is an interpretational framework that makes sense to _me_. No matter how good the data, you cannot force people to interpret in a particular way. You cannnot force a creationist to interpret the fossil record as supporting evolution, and you cannot force a Ptolomean to “see” that the earth revolves around the sun. No matter how much data is produced, skeptics will refuse to “ghosts” in it. BTW, I am not linking pictures on the Web for reasons I’m sure you can appreciate. I cannot personally vouch for any of the data out there. I don’t believe that all of it is hoaxed, certainly, but I cannnot prove that any particular photo is genuine. The same goes for the video that is this thread’s original topic. It could be a hoax; it could be exceptionally interesting evidence for the ghost hypothesis. I am not in a position to say which it is. **No, it’s not proof. It’s evidence.** Yes, well standards of proof, outside mathematics, are pretty arbitrary. What I meant in the original quote is that if I had a video and a signed letter, that’s as good as proof for me and most people. **If someone wished to be absolutely certain, he’d examine the date you claimed it occurred; he’d verify Mr. Kaye was alive on that date and compare what he looked like to the image in the video; and he’d try to compare signatures to a known signature of Mr. Kaye. He might also wish to have a video of the signing of the document, just to be thorough. It depends on what’s at stake, though.** Well, this is why we have the “reasonable doubt” standard in criminal law, since “absolute proof” would mean lots of hung juries. You could also interview Danny, check to see whether he might have had an identical twin he didn’t know about, etc. etc. **If you and I bet ten million dollars on the outcome, you’d bet your sweet bippy I’d be thorough in investigating this claim; I’m not payin’ up until the issue is dead and buried. As it is, with no money on the line? I’d probably believe you, but keep an eyebrow raised.** This raises some interesting questions for cognitive science. What is actually going on in the mind when one “totally believes” something as opposed to “raised-eyebrow belief.” At any rate, knowledge of human nature tells us that people can seemingly believe or disbelieve just about anything. **Ghosts, now? Let’s see, what’s at stake? If we could prove that ghosts existed we’d overturn everything we currently believe we know about physics and thermodynamics and magnetism and optics and human neurophysiology and religion and science, and it would change the way we behave in regard to crime, the law, real estate, prayer, religious tolerance, politics, medicine, how fast we drive on the highway, and how we write wills to our descendants. Saying “ghosts exist, really” in a quiet voice would overturn the world, and if you want to prove it and overturn the world you gotta lift hard.** Tell it to Copernicus. Same deal. This is essential an argument from emotion. Acceptance of new knowledge requires lots of hard work, that’s right. If you don’t want to accept the burden, others will. But just because you don’t like the implications doesn’t make the hypothesis any less true. **I recognize that there are a number of people that I personally know, and pictures I have seen, that report similar and unusual images.** “Unusual” being simply a matter of opinion, here. **Of their own accord, many people have labeled these as “ghosts.” I do recognize that we have lumped them together, whether or not there is evidence to so lump.** A lot of the lumping comes from Kantian categories and simple induction. Hence, you can’t force people to see it. On the other hand, to people who see it, skeptics look pretty dense. **So yes, I agree there’s a pile of similar evidence but I’m not convinced it’s all showing the same thing. Pictures of stars with a primitive camera, for example, all look like bright dots in the sky—and so do planets.** You’re right, it’s _not_ all showing the same thing. At this point the ghost hypothesis or theory is so well-developed, that photographs, etc., can be studied in light of the theory and not merely as fodder for proof of it. Similarly, while creationists are sputtering “No missing links!” scientists simply go ahead and work new evidence into the framework. **You do not begin to make generalizations or apply a “framework” until you are assured that you are looking at multiple examples of the same thing.** People who apply the ghost framework think we’ve long passed that point, as per evolution above. **Huh. A fad suddenly appears where ghost pictures become popular, and instantly thousands of ghosts obligingly turn up on camera when they have eluded so many scientists attempting to confirm their existence for centuries and nobody gets suspicious when things like this conveniently happen for a for-profit promo but it doesn’t happen for science?** Ah me. How thou twistest my words! A fad, yeah, but who said that the ghosts suddenly turned up? People also submitted photos that they’d had for years. Also, who said ghosts have been eluding scientists for centuries? According to my view, scientists have been quite successful in getting them on film and on tape, not to mention the millions of eyewitness accounts. **[Hoax method described]** Yeah, people hoax and fudge data all the time, including in the hard sciences as well. No joke. **But it is an example of having a control group. You know what one of those is. I’m not trying to prove or disprove Bigfoot in particular, as you must know. This was my question: is it easier to see ghosts if you already know what you think one should look like, due to cultural conditioning? Could this be the "skepticism filter?"** Sophistry, and not very good sophistry at that. It’s like saying we believe dogs exist because we’ve been conditioned throughout history to conceptualize them in the same way. The neater hyphothesis is that our concepts of dogs are based on what people say they are–actual experience. **We have also, might I say it, been hoaxing ghosts since the dawn of history. And by the way, do stories of “ghosts” from 1200 BC match stories of ghosts from 1200 AD, and do they match stories from 12:00pm today? Does culture affect what ghosts "look like?"** Not according to my studies. \*\*May I quote you on that? You say they are unexplained. ## quote: ## Aeschines says the pictures are unexplained. Ahh, that feels good. We actually agree on something. They are not necessarily ghosts, they are not necessarily hoaxes, they are unexplained. Ahhhhh.\*\* This shit just wastes time. You know what I meant: can’t be explained with the skeptical toolbox. I obviously fee there is a good explanation. **And you define yourself as “having evidence” and yet you don’t show us any evidence for us to reject. Yes, wonderful, cruel irony. We can’t live up to your irony until you stop living up to ours.** My gawd, man, if you’re going to make a snappy rejoinder, don’t go for limp shit like this. People don’t “define” themselves as having evidence. Cheesy. **Or, f’rinstance, someone to come into the forum and say “ghosts exist!”? Yeah, we’d expect someone doing that to provide a link to some kind of, um, evidence, wouldn’t we?** “Links” are what do it for you? **And just because some aspect of a phenomenon is inexplicable (by us) that does not mean it doesn’t have a perfectly un-ghostly explanation.** Not “aspect,” but the phenomenon itself, right? **I already been there, bud. The implications fit perfectly with what I know about human psychology. Maybe you haven’t heard there are people who are so dedicated to prove their fanatical religious devotion that they give themselves stigmata and claim it’s God? Been there. Cecil did a column on it. Or people who manufacture huge feet on sticks and leave Bigfoot footprints? Been there. People who fake up photographs and turn them in to their local newspaper and claim they saw UFOs? Been there. Jeez, even Dave Barry knows that people like this exist who would happily fake fantastic evidence. My goodness, even freakin’ Aesop knew about the Boy Who Cried Wolf! What of the Victorian ladies who would faint for the sheer melodrama of it, or women who can look their husbands in the eye and say, “No, seriously, honey, the baby’s definitely yours.” People lie all the time. It makes them feel good, or it makes them avoid things that feel bad. Where have you been?** Or people who lie about cold fusion, or whatever, sure. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/250 "2003-12-28T08:28:52Z")
Gigo: Translation: BOTH astrologers and skeptics were using the same data that the astrologer said it demonstrated the “Mars effect” the skeptics noticed something that they claimed debunked the claim. Both were wrong because the data, in the end, was not reliable! I don’t have an opinion as to whether the Mars effect is genuine or not, but, in reading about the case, the true nature of CSICOP and its agenda is pretty clear. Read this for yourself, written by a person himself involved: [http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html](http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html) **Of course, looking at the context of this discussion: Astrology? Do you still take it seriously?** I haven’t studied it enough to decide. **Once again: the resolution of the “Mars effect” maybe hurt some skeptics, OTHO it “killed” the believers.** I think only a few people have even heard of the matter. **The fact is that doing research on my own, I found that the photographs declared genuine by the ghost chasers, are not likely to be.** Not likely, but they _might_ be? **Moreover, serious ghosts chasers already did plenty of work for skeptics, when they already acknowledge that photos that are accepted as ghosts, by other sites, are bunk.** There’s always some bunk everywhere, including in the hard physical sciences. And? **I join the chorus of people here: points us to the evidence you know is good, or be open to more charges of hypocrisy.** A chorus, huh? Do re mi. As for why I’m not linking, see previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/251 "2003-12-28T08:54:09Z")
Racin: **Photography works because light is refracted through the lens to expose the chemicals on the paper. In order for the light to form a recognizable image, it has to bounce off of something. This is a scientific fact that hopefully we all learned back in grade school.** Wrong already! Time to go back to grade school, I suppose. A body may be self-luminous, like the sun. It may be emitting light and reflecting light at the same time, such as a glow-in-dark object seen in dim light. Or an image may appear on film because of a _lack_ of light, such as a shadow. **If the light bounces off of something in an orderly enough fashion to make a recognizable image on the film, it stands to reason that the light would also make a recognizable image on the human eye…. Therefore, any case of a photograph with a full “ghost” or “apparition” on it in a recognizably human shape MUST have been taken under circumstances in which the photographer ALSO saw the "apparition."** Wrong. For the following reasons: 1. An apparition may have appeared for only a split second, thereby remaining unnoticed by potential observers. 2. An apparition may have been extremely faint and is only noticed later when the film is developed. 3. An apparition may be small, in the distance, etc., and therefore not noticed at the time the photograph is taken. 4. They may be “ghosts,” or maybe they’re not, but streaks of light and other images do show up on film that are difficult to explain. 5. Ghosts are indeed captured using infrared film, etc. **Given that I have yet to see A SINGLE EXAMPLE of an “apparition” photograph in which the photographer did NOT say "and it wasn’t there when I took the picture…"** Shows how much you’ve actually studied the matter, since a large portion of ghost photos are just of this variety: [http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/weird.html](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/weird.html). NB: I am _not_ making any claims for the veracity/worth of this photo! **…my conclusion is that logically, either the photographer is lying, the “apparition” was hiding somewhere when the picture was taken, the photographer has been misled by someone at some point, somebody faked the picture after exposure (with darkroom editing techniques or computer “photoshopping”), or the photographer is lying.** Sloppy logic: I can’t even figure out what you’re trying to say here. **If I’ve made an error here, please correct me.** By your request. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/252 "2003-12-28T10:38:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* Wrong already! Time to go back to grade school, I suppose. A body may be self-luminous, like the sun. It may be emitting light and reflecting light at the same time, such as a glow-in-dark object seen in dim light. Or an image may appear on film because of a lack of light, such as a shadow.\*\* -The general point is the same: Film records only light. Not “vibrations”, magnetic fields, ectoplasm- whatever that is- psychic fields or other ghostly apparitions. If the ‘ghost’ appears on film, then it was visible to the human eye. However, the camera does indeed record some things that aren’t visible to the photographer- “lens flare” is a reflection off the cameras’ own lens. A long exposure and camera movement can make a single point of light- like an LED on an answering machine- appear as a “streak”. > [@](#): > > **1. An apparition may have appeared for only a split second, thereby remaining unnoticed by potential observers.** -Ah. The ghost knew _precisely_ when to appear for 1/500th of a second, did it? Which begs the question why? The “ghost” doesn’t want to appear to people directly, but it goes to the trouble of somehow appearing for a hundredth of a second so it’s image can be permanently recorded on film. Does that actually make sense to you? > [@](#): > > **2. An apparition may have been extremely faint and is only noticed later when the film is developed.** -There is no magic to a camera. Most will self-correct to take a proper exposure given the ambient lighting. A ghost too dim to see with the human eye will be too dim to capture with a camera, unless extremely long exposures are made. And in that case, it would need to be dark/night, else the film/image will be heavily overexposed, washing out the dim ghostly image. And the ‘ghost’, needless to say, would need to be dim indeed to be unseeable even at night. > [@](#): > > **3. An apparition may be small, in the distance, etc., and therefore not noticed at the time the photograph is taken.** -Which means “See that little blur down there in the corner? See how it looks kind of like Great Aunt Earmaline, if you hold the picture sideways and squint a little? It’s a ghost, I says!” “Small” and “in the distance” but still appearing on film pretty much negates the first two arguments, too. You’re reaching a bit, son. > [@](#): > > \*\* 4. They may be “ghosts,” or maybe they’re not, but streaks of light and other images do show up on film that are difficult to explain.\*\* -And to paraphrase a stand-up comic, Popcorn popping is difficult to explain if you don’t know how it works. Streaks, lens flare, double-exposures, depth-of-field tricks (IE, making Ian McKellen look seven feet tall while standing right next to Frodo) exposure times, lighting effects, they’re all known tricks. Those photos of the elves and faeries I noted earlier were taken by a couple of schoolgirls over a century ago- they cut out lifelike drawings from a book or magazine, and posed them for the photos. Camera tricks are certainly nothing new. If you don’t know how the device works, it’s easy to see it as capable of magic or miraculous feats. If you know it and understand it’s capabilities and limitations, you will then know how those tricks, artifacts and odd images are generated. > [@](#): > > **5. Ghosts are indeed captured using infrared film, etc.** Excepting the difficulty in working with IR film and the fact that few common tourists wander about snapping photos with same, you appear to have made a firm statement: “_Ghosts **are** captured…_” Therefore there must be some images of them out there somewhere . May we see some, please? Yes, I know you’re disinclined to reveal such world-shaking data to us heathen skeptics, but please understand that this “you’re just going to have to trust me” schtick is getting old and tiresome. You have stated quite specifically that images of ghosts _are_ captured on IR film. Link to one of them, please. Any one, or any series. Anything. Throw us a bone here, man! > [@](#): > > **Shows how much you’ve actually studied the matter, since a large portion of ghost photos are just of this variety: [Ghost pic](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/weird.html). NB: I am not making any claims for the veracity/worth of this photo!** -Shows how much you can read. That page quite clearly says the “ghostly figure was later seen…” which is precisely what **racinchikki** mentioned: > [@](#): > > […]I have yet to see A SINGLE EXAMPLE of an “apparition” photograph in which the photographer did NOT say “and it wasn’t there when I took the picture…” Not to be rude, but please try and keep up with the conversation. Also, just in passing, besides the fact you seem to be _extremely_ reluctant to show or vouch for any ghostly image, on the subject of that particular image, if the ‘ghost’ wasn’t seen by either the photographer or the girls, and appears somewhat transparent, why does it cast a shadow? Also, checking that site- fairly interesting photos, actually- I can’t help but notice [this picture](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/mtthabor.html) listed as one of their “ghost photos”, yet [this photo](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/fake/orbs.html) is listed in their “fake pictures” section. One artifact, apparently, is a ghost. Multiple artifacts are apparently just bugs or dust. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/253 "2003-12-28T12:32:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blake \* > \*\*Simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It’s a guy in a robe with a white mask. 25.95 from your local costume hire. \*\* Just to set the record straight, Ockham’s Razor is not about the simplest explanation but the most necessary one. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/254 "2003-12-28T12:37:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aeschines \* > **I’m not talking about the supernatural; I’m talking about phenomena ususally discussed under the rubric “ghost.” I believe that the “ghost” framework works; I am not, however, a general apologist for the “paranormal” or "supernatural."** -Ah, so “ghosts” aren’t “supernatural”. Got it. That means they’re natural, observable phenomena, that conforms to known laws of physics and nature. Therefore, they’re at the very least definable; what, then, exactly, is a “ghost”? > [@](#): > > **My evidence, as pointed out previously on the thread, is mainly philosophical.** -I don’t recall this being a philosophical discussion. As above, you seem to think ghosts are real, actual, observable phenomena, therefore discussing them isn’t a matter of abstract philosophy. Rather, it’s a question of the literal whys and wherefores: what are they and why do they exist? > [@](#): > > **Reports throughout history,[…]** … Again, like Atlantis, Bigfoot, Beowulf, Aesop’s monkey that invited the crane to dinner… > [@](#): > > **reports from people I know, my own experiences, and physical evidence (photos, etc.)** … Which you still haven’t shown us, and moreover, are appearing _extremely_ reluctant to do so, going so far as to plainly state a clear disclaimer when posting somone elses’ photo. Do you… y’know… have _any_ hard data? Anything at all? > [@](#): > > **Finally, there is an interpretational framework that makes sense to _me_.** -I’m sure it does. Socialism also made sense to Breshnev, and ol’ Jim Jones thought that whole Kool-Aide idea was lookin’ pretty good there at the end. I’m sure Malvo thought that thing with the rifle made sense, and **some** nut apparently thought greenlighting _Gigli_ made a lotta sense, too. > [@](#): > > **No matter how good the data, you cannot force people to interpret in a particular way. You cannnot force a creationist to interpret the fossil record as supporting evolution, and you cannot force a Ptolomean to “see” that the earth revolves around the sun.** -No, but neither do we have to sit idly by and listen to someone claim, without a whit or shred of even anecdotal proof, that “ghosts” are in fact real and can be both seen and photographed. This is, after all, a discussion board, not a “shut up and pay attention to me!” board. > [@](#): > > **BTW, I am not linking pictures on the Web for reasons I’m sure you can appreciate.** -No, actually, I can’t. I have no idea why you refuse to do so, given your vehement declaration that ghosts are real. If that’s the case, there _must_ be at least one ‘authentic’ image on the 'net, or perhaps one whose circumstances make it all but unquestionable. > [@](#): > > **I cannot personally vouch for any of the data out there.** … But you _know_ there _must_ be at least _some_, right? There’s apparently nothing out there you deem worthy of showing a skeptic, or is somehow unlikely to have been forged/faked/hoaxed, but other than that, you’re still _sure_ there’s proof out there somewhere. > [@](#): > > **I don’t believe that all of it is hoaxed, certainly, but I cannnot prove that any particular photo is genuine. The same goes for the video that is this thread’s original topic. It could be a hoax; it could be exceptionally interesting evidence for the ghost hypothesis. I am not in a position to say which it is.** -But you _are_ apparently in a position to state quite definitively that ghosts do, in fact, exist. You don’t have any proof of your own, don’t have/can’t find any on the 'net, have no references to which you can point us, and disclaim the veracity of any photo or video that _is_ shown, but other than that, you’re quite certain that ghosts exist. > [@](#): > > **This raises some interesting questions for cognitive science. What is actually going on in the mind when one “totally believes” something as opposed to "raised-eyebrow belief."** -Why is this a question? If I say I can jump one foot in the air, you have little or no reason to disbelieve me. If I say I can jump one meter into the air, well, that’s slightly less likely, but still by no means impossible. Barring any reason to think otherwise, you can easily accept that statement as a fact. If I say I can jump three meters into the air, you start getting skeptical. You start wondering if I’m talking about using a trampoline, or a vaulting pole, or thinking I can jump high enough to only _touch_ something three meters up with my outstretched hand. Again, perhaps a little improbable, but not yet- depending on modifiers- impossible. However, if I say I can jump twenty meters into the air, now you’re a disbeliever. You won’t believe it under any circumstances, except maybe by watching me do so with your own eyes. If I showed you a video, you’d claim- and probably rightly so- that it’s faked. If I showed you photos, you’d say they were staged- and again, you’d very likely be right. Then somebody walks up and say they can jump into orbit… > [@](#): > > **At any rate, knowledge of human nature tells us that people can seemingly believe or disbelieve just about anything.** -As several theists on this board still have yet to learn, belief does not equal evidence. If a person believes in something, doesn’t make that something true. There are those that believe OJ is innocent, and there are those that believe he’s guilty as hell. Both of them can’t be right, but they both believe they believe the truth. > [@](#): > > \*\* Acceptance of new knowledge requires lots of hard work, that’s right. If you don’t want to accept the burden, others will. But just because you don’t like the implications doesn’t make the hypothesis any less true.\*\* -Whether one “likes” or “dislikes” the implications is irrelevant. If any one of us firmly disbelieved in the Washington Monument, said monument would not disappear. Conversely, if any one of us firmly believed in Purple Unicorns, said pointy pony would not magically appear. Again, _belief is not evidence_. > [@](#): > > **"Unusual" being simply a matter of opinion, here.** -No, ‘unusual’ in this context is quite factual. A ghost would be something beyond what we know as reality and nature and physics. The concept itself is unusual, and were they proven to exist, would be so unusual as to cause a massive rewriting of physics as we know it. Just because you feel the phenomena is apparently commonplace, doesn’t make it normal. If ghosts existed, considering that something like sixty billion people have died since the dawn of man, wouldn’t you think they’d be a _little_ more common? > [@](#): > > **A lot of the lumping comes from Kantian categories and simple induction. Hence, you can’t force people to see it. On the other hand, to people who see it, skeptics look pretty dense.** -And those who point to magnified and flash-illuminated dust particles and call them “ghosts” tend to look pretty loony. > [@](#): > > \*\*You’re right, it’s _not_ all showing the same thing. At this point the ghost hypothesis or theory is so well-developed, that photographs, etc., can be studied in light of the theory and not merely as fodder for proof of it. \*\* -Ah! Well, since it’s so well developed, perhaps you’ll be so kind as to define just what a ghost is. And if you have a moment, a brief overview of the commonly-accepted and well-researched theory as to why ghosts exist. > [@](#): > > \*\* According to my view, scientists have been quite successful in getting them on film and on tape, not to mention the millions of eyewitness accounts.\*\* -None of which you deem worthy of showing us. A _scientist_ is _successful_ at photographing a ghost, but oh, sorry, that photo might not stand up to scrutiny, and you guys won’t believe it anyway, so I’m not going to show it to you. Oh, by the way, I have a signed, mint-edition Mickey Mantle rookie baseball card. No, I’m not going to show it to you. Trust me, I have it. It’s amazing. > [@](#): > > **Yeah, people hoax and fudge data all the time, including in the hard sciences as well. No joke.** -But them ghost-hunters, now _there’s_ a batch of trustworthy, honest individuals! > [@](#): > > \*\* It’s like saying we believe dogs exist because we’ve been conditioned throughout history to conceptualize them in the same way. The neater hyphothesis is that our concepts of dogs are based on what people say they are–actual experience.\*\* -I can go out and get a photo of a dog. That’s a rather unremarkable undertaking. You have yet to proffer a single photo of a ghost that you have not rapidly disclaimed. The whole idea of a dog, furthermore, doesn’t trancend reality and physics. > [@](#): > > **You know what I meant: can’t be explained with the skeptical toolbox.** -Well said. That’s because the skeptic’s toolbox, as you put it, contains logic and reason, relies on provable, repeatable testing, and works within reality. I can explain Wolverine’s claws, Superman’s ability to fly, and how the Hulk can gain a thousand pounds of muscle in ninety seconds… as long as I don’t have to go by what’s in the “toolbox”. In fact, ignoring reason and reality, we can explain where all the lost socks and ballpoint pens go too. Obviously the socks sneak out of the dryer and steal the pens, which live out their lives on a remote planet, which is occasionally harvested for Zaphod’s lucrative secondhand-pen business. > [@](#): > > **I obviously fee[l] there is a good explanation.** … and that explanation is… ? > [@](#): > > **"Links" are what do it for you?** -They’d be a darn good start. There’s just so far that “trust me, I’ve seen it” will take you on this board. “Links” are typically referred to as “cites”, which is short for “citation”, defined as “A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.” You’re making a rather wild and amazing claim- that ghosts exist- and you expect us to swallow it without any link, cite, source, photo, text or substantiation. A link, _any_ link, would be a damn good starting point. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/255 "2003-12-28T12:42:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Just to set the record straight, Ockham’s Razor is not about the simplest explanation but the most necessary one. \*\* I thought it was the most likely and NO unnecessary plurality. Did those damn atheists lie to me again. G-d _was_ the most necessary answer for me. They told me I got it wrong!! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/256 "2003-12-28T13:07:56Z")
I can see why you’re afraid to link to any photos, if these are any indication. From the site of that first photo posted (not the BBC pic, the “friendly ghost” linked just a few posts back) we get these: [Faces in the Window](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost1.html): The text says that’s “clearly” a woman and a bulldog. Besides the altogether new and interesting definition of “clearly” they employ, it seems the woman would have to be roughly 30" tall. I could quite easily see that image as a reflection of a house across the street, bisected by a tree. Which is more likely- ghost or reflection? Similarly, were told [this image](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost4.html) “clearly” shows a boy, and even better, he’s apparently “clearly” wearing a red sweater and white shirt. I have no idea where “red” came from, even in the most enthusiastic interpretation, but I’m afraid the “clearly” part has been stretched to the breaking point. Again, photo taken from inside a car; reflection in the window? How about a random raindrop pattern blurred from being too close to the camera? I also not no one seems to have noticed the K-Mart “smiley face” mascot up there practicing his high-wire act. We’re told [this](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost5.html) is the “shape of a human being”. Setting aside the fact that looks a great deal like misexposure flaws all too common in 35mm film, the only thing even vaguely humanoid about it is the fact it’s taller than it is wide, and appears to be somewhat tapered at the top and bottom. Continuing, [this patch](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/civilwar.html) of yellowing leaves (note the already-fallen autumn leaves behind the central monument) is supposed to look like a civil war soldier. Kinda looks like an armless roman legionnaire to me, or maybe like a Cylon off _Battlestar Galactica_, but what do I know, I’m just a skeptic. This [reflection](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/skeletal.html) is supposed to be a “skeletal figure”. Then we have a [scratch on the film](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/agate.html), an [outline in the trees](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/shadowy.html) that’s supposed to be a guy in a hat, and [these two faces](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/watertown.html) that could be anything- paintings, mannikins, guys on the street, sailors standing near the bulkhead, reflections, etc- but we’re assured they’re “authentic”, even though we’re given only a grainy, out-of-focus image that’s an obvious reprint from a newsprint original (meaning it’s at least a third-generation image.) Nothing I haven’t seen before, and if that’s the best that can be offered, no wonder **Aeschines** is reluctant to post anything. The phrase “laughed into the street” comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/257 "2003-12-28T13:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*I thought it was the most likely and NO unnecessary plurality. Did those damn atheists lie to me again. G-d _was_ the most necessary answer for me. They told me I got it wrong!! :rolleyes: \*\* -“Necessary” doesn’t necessarily mean “correct”. Like a father telling his five year old that “God came and took mommy back to Heaven” rather than “Mom died of lung cancer”. [Dictionary.com’s](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ockham%27s%20razor) definition of Ockham’s Razor: > [@](#): > > A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. For the first sentence, using our BBC image as an example, we have two possibilities: A) It’s a Ghost. B) It’s a guy in a robe. The former multiplies the complexity of the situation immeasurably. It would require the possibility of souls, ethreal energy, life after death, possibly even other dimensions, heretofore unknown forms of energy, and so on. The latter is far simpler. Some guy wearing a robe sneaks out the door for a quick smoke break. Of the two, the simpler is more likely to be true. For the last part- everything from “explanation” on to the end- again, we take a certain condition (the BBC image) and interpret it using known conditions, physics and logic. We don’t make up new rules for new conditions- if we did, then the figure could be a time-traveller, the door could be working like Dr. Who’s TARDIS. Since both those possibilities, and the possibility it’s a ‘ghost’ would require entirely new phenomena coming to light, the explanation that most fits conventional reality is most likely the correct one. IE, it’s some guy in a robe. Why he’s there, we don’t know, but we can be quite certain it’s not a ghost, spook, spectre, wraith, spirit or poltergeist. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/258 "2003-12-28T14:01:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*Nothing I haven’t seen before, and if that’s the best that can be offered, no wonder **Aeschines** is reluctant to post anything. The phrase “laughed into the street” comes to mind. \*\* I don’t know. [This](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/figure.html) one’s pretty cool. The rest of them, yeah. I love how they say you can ‘clearly’ see something, but also feel they have to describe what it is and _where_ it is on the photo. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/259 "2003-12-28T14:06:52Z")
Dialog with Doc: **The general point is the same: Film records only light. Not “vibrations”, magnetic fields, ectoplasm- whatever that is- psychic fields or other ghostly apparitions.** Maybe it does record such things. **If the ‘ghost’ appears on film, then it was visible to the human eye.** I’m unwilling to jump to this conclusion. **However, the camera does indeed record some things that aren’t visible to the photographer- “lens flare” is a reflection off the cameras’ own lens. A long exposure and camera movement can make a single point of light- like an LED on an answering machine- appear as a “streak”.** These phenomena do not explain all “ghost photos.” Plus, you are ignoring the concordance between photographic evidence and simultaneous eyewitness accounts. **Ah. The ghost knew precisely when to appear for 1/500th of a second, did it?** No, it may be a coincidence that ghosts appear in certain photos. Millions of photos are taken every day; even just by chance ghosts will appear in a few. **Which begs the question why? The “ghost” doesn’t want to appear to people directly, but it goes to the trouble of somehow appearing for a hundredth of a second so [its] image can be permanently recorded on film.** There are a variety of possibilities. **There is no magic to a camera. Most will self-correct to take a proper exposure given the ambient lighting. A ghost too dim to see with the human eye will be too dim to capture with a camera, unless extremely long exposures are made.** There are a variety of possibilities. **Which means "See that little blur down there in the corner? See how it looks kind of like Great Aunt Earmaline, if you hold the picture sideways and squint a little? It’s a ghost, I says!"** Sure, the quality range can run from blurry shit to extremely clear. **"Small" and “in the distance” but still appearing on film pretty much negates the first two arguments, too. You’re reaching a bit, son.** Originally an explanation as to why the person taking the photo might not have noticed the apparition. Small but high-quality apparitions can appear in the corner of a photo, etc. **Streaks, lens flare, double-exposures, depth-of-field tricks (IE, making Ian McKellen look seven feet tall while standing right next to Frodo) exposure times, lighting effects, they’re all known tricks. Those photos of the elves and faeries I noted earlier were taken by a couple of schoolgirls over a century ago- they cut out lifelike drawings from a book or magazine, and posed them for the photos. Camera tricks are certainly nothing new.** Right, I understand that you believe that all ghost photos are hoaxes or goofs. I don’t agree. In certain cases multiple persons see an apparition and snap a shot. They then say, Hey we saw this, and here’s photographic proof. Since you don’t believe this, you label this a “hoax.” Well, perhaps we can agree that there are certain combinations of eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence that are either very nicely done hoaxes or extremely good evidence for the existence of ghosts. That leaves you of accusing an awful lot of people of hoaxing. **Therefore there must be some images of them out there somewhere . May we see some, please? Yes, I know you’re disinclined to reveal such world-shaking data to us heathen skeptics, but please understand that this “you’re just going to have to trust me” schtick is getting old and tiresome.** There was one at a link one of the resident skeptics provided, of the famous Toys R Us ghost: [http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/toys\_r\_us.html](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/toys_r_us.html) This ghost was heavily investigated, and images of toys being moved around were caught on film and shown on the TV show “That’s Incredible!” I suppose you’d be inclined to label this all a hoax. ## \*\*Shows how much you can read. That page quite clearly says the “ghostly figure was later seen…” which is precisely what racinchikki mentioned: quote: […]I have yet to see A SINGLE EXAMPLE of an “apparition” photograph in which the photographer did NOT say “and it wasn’t there when I took the picture…” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\*\* Sorry, I misread the context. Of course there are also photos in which the photographer saw the ghost when he/she was taking the photo, so it’s still wrong. Here’s an example from the same site: [http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/watertown.html](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/watertown.html). There is also a description of how these people went out of their way to make sure that the case was verified and _not_ treated as a hoax, probably to no avail as far as the skeptics are concerned. **Also, just in passing, besides the fact you seem to be extremely reluctant to show or vouch for any ghostly image, on the subject of that particular image, if the ‘ghost’ wasn’t seen by either the photographer or the girls, and appears somewhat transparent, why does it cast a shadow?** I don’t see any shadow in the pic: [http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/weird.html](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/weird.html), but I don’t vouch for it either. \*\*Also, checking that site- fairly interesting photos, actually- I can’t help but notice this picture listed as one of their “ghost photos”, yet this photo is listed in their “fake pictures” section. One artifact, apparently, is a ghost. Multiple artifacts are apparently just bugs or dust.\*\* Sarcastic dismissals do not count as an argument. \*\*Ah, so “ghosts” aren’t “supernatural”. Got it. That means they’re natural, observable phenomena, that conforms to known laws of physics and nature.\*\* “Known laws.” Our knowledge of these laws changes as our understanding of nature/reality grows more sophisticated. **Therefore, they’re at the very least definable; what, then, exactly, is a “ghost”?** Already been there in this thread. **I don’t recall this being a philosophical discussion. As above, you seem to think ghosts are real, actual, observable phenomena, therefore discussing them isn’t a matter of abstract philosophy.** Cornball rhetoric. **Rather, it’s a question of the literal whys and wherefores: what are they and why do they exist?** Some juicy non-sequiturs here. **Again, like Atlantis, Bigfoot, Beowulf, Aesop’s monkey that invited the crane to dinner…** Sarcasm without logical merit. \*\*Which you still haven’t shown us, and moreover, are appearing extremely reluctant to do so, going so far as to plainly state a clear disclaimer when posting somone elses’ photo. Do you… y’know… have any hard data? Anything at all?\*\* No, I am not in possession of my own data or research. I am not a ghost researcher, nor am I an expert on the matter. **I’m sure it does. Socialism also made sense to Breshnev, and ol’ Jim Jones thought that whole Kool-Aide idea was lookin’ pretty good there at the end. I’m sure Malvo thought that thing with the rifle made sense, and some nut apparently thought greenlighting Gigli made a lotta sense, too.** These are all matters of opinion, not of fact. **No, but neither do we have to sit idly by and listen to someone claim, without a whit or shred of even anecdotal proof, that “ghosts” are in fact real and can be both seen and photographed.** “Anecdotal proof.” Your rhetoric is falling apart at the seams. No, actually, I can’t. I have no idea why you refuse to do so, given your vehement declaration that ghosts are real. “Vehement declaration.” It’s getting hard to take you seriously—would you mind citing my vehemence? **If that’s the case, there must be at least one ‘authentic’ image on the 'net, or perhaps one whose circumstances make it all but unquestionable.** No, there is no one image. It is the complete body of evidence, including my own experiences, that has convinced me. I believe in ghosts for precisely the same reason that I believe in evolution: having read about the matter extensively and thought about it, I believe both to be so. **But you are apparently in a position to state quite definitively that ghosts do, in fact, exist.** Just as I feel confident saying that evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all true theories, even though my ability to argue for any of them is limited. **You don’t have any proof of your own, don’t have/can’t find any on the 'net, have no references to which you can point us, and disclaim the veracity of any photo or video that is shown, but other than that, you’re quite certain that ghosts exist.** Evolution, relativity, etc. **However, if I say I can jump twenty meters into the air, now you’re a disbeliever. You won’t believe it under any circumstances, except maybe by watching me do so with your own eyes. If I showed you a video, you’d claim- and probably rightly so- that it’s faked. If I showed you photos, you’d say they were staged- and again, you’d very likely be right.** Not very comparable to ghosts. Jumping 20 m is, according to my direct experience and body of 2nd-hand knowledge, completely impossible, whereas in my experience and according to my body of 2nd-hand knowledge, nothing about ghosts is impossible. Ghosts do not fit your reductionist materialist worldview, and so you choose to view them as fundamentally impossible. **Whether one “likes” or “dislikes” the implications is irrelevant.** Yeah, that’s what I said. **Again, belief is not evidence.** No shit, Sherlock. **No, ‘unusual’ in this context is quite factual. A ghost would be something beyond what we know as reality and nature and physics.** Bullshit. “Unusual” is your opinion. Who is “we”? People have considered ghosts to be a part of “reality” since history was first recorded. **The concept itself is unusual, and were they proven to exist, would be so unusual as to cause a massive rewriting of physics as we know it.** Well, start rewriting, I guess. **Just because you feel the phenomena is apparently commonplace, doesn’t make it normal. If ghosts existed, considering that something like sixty billion people have died since the dawn of man, wouldn’t you think they’d be a little more common?** I said they were common. And I think the figure is more like 145 billion. **And those who point to magnified and flash-illuminated dust particles and call them “ghosts” tend to look pretty loony.** This is known as the “straw man,” a very common fallacy. **Ah! Well, since it’s so well developed, perhaps you’ll be so kind as to define just what a ghost is. And if you have a moment, a brief overview of the commonly-accepted and well-researched theory as to why ghosts exist.** Previously dealt with in this thread. **The whole idea of a dog, furthermore, doesn’t trancend reality and physics.** Neither do ghosts. [sarcastic rhetoric snipped] You’re making a rather wild and amazing claim- that ghosts exist- and you expect us to swallow it without any link, cite, source, photo, text or substantiation. And to the creationists, evolution is a “wild” and unsubstantiated claim. They’re fun to argue with too, you know. Not. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/260 "2003-12-28T14:39:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > \*\*I don’t know. [This](http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/figure.html) one’s pretty cool. > > The rest of them, yeah. I love how they say you can ‘clearly’ see something, but also feel they have to describe what it is and _where_ it is on the photo. \*\* Eegads, man! That nasty tree-beast sure gets around! [Here](http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/CaveBeing.html) is the _exact_ same creature! Or rather, a picture of a statue in some goofy park in Britain. The world of paranormal photography sure seems to have a need for photoshop… 😉 I enjoy checking out the goofy ‘photos’ of ghosts, aliens, democrats, and various other oddities. But I also realise that there is not so much as a shred of _scientific_ data to back up the claims that ghosts exist. Cheesy photoshopping (or good ol’ fashioned photo editting in the case of the older pics) at ‘[ghostresearch.org](http://ghostresearch.org)’ certainly does not count as scientific evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=14)