# 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:** 20
**Author:** ![Lockseer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a5b964/32.png) [@Lockseer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lockseer)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/381 "2003-12-30T20:27:42Z")
Okay…been reading the thread for the past couple days, following all the different discussions, arguments, semantic disagreements, etc. My two cents: 1. Can we agree that the camera shows something that is SUPPOSED to be a person? Whether or not it is a person in a gown, a “legitimate” ghost, or the result of some form of image doctoring…there is a humanoid figure on the film, correct? There isn’t anyway out there saying “I see nothing in particular, just a blur that could be anything.” 2. Do I believe in ghosts? Yes. Why? I don’t know. I personally _like to think_ that there are some things in the universe that cannot be explained. Maybe that’s it. But do I _know_ they exist? Hell no. And that footage doesn’t get me any closer to knowing. If it was perhaps scientifically monitored, from multiple angles, etc, rather than just a happenstance “capture,” I’d be more willing to accept it. 3. Theory building tells us that you can never “prove” anything…you can just falsify alternative (null) hypotheses. Due to the nature of, well, existence, we can never falsify the statement “Ghosts exist.” You’ll never know when you’ve reached your goal. The burden, therefore, falls on falsifying the statement “Ghosts don’t exist.” To this end, photos, eyewitness accounts, and other evidence has been offered…and if just one of these can pass rigorous scientific standards, PRESTO, we have as close to proof as we can get. In other words, those who are saying that ghosts exist, must falsify the null: “Ghosts don’t exist.” And that falsification sure hasn’t taken place…has it? Maybe that was more like forty cents worth… ---
**Author:** ![Starrman10](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@Starrman10](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starrman10)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/382 "2003-12-30T20:36:45Z")
Flash said: > [@](#): > > The problem with that argument is that a real ghost would probably also be wearing “period clothes”, since they would have actually lived in that period. I think this is wrong. This is whay Occam’s Razor is so important. You could substitute ‘shape-shifting unicorn wearing period clothes’ for a ‘real ghost’ in the post above and it would be just as true. Again, we KNOW guys in robes exist (and we know there is peiod clothing on site, for chrissakes!). We do NOT KNOW ghosts or shape-shifting unicorns exist. Since guy in a robe easily explains everything about this video, we must go with that hypothesis unless something comes along to contradict it. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/383 "2003-12-30T21:43:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > this was in response to my post, but I never said anything about a draw, you brought that up. check page 7! I will leave my feet soiled for you 😉 I have been through page 7 several times, all the while chanting my _submission mantra_, just to prepare myself in case I had to swallow bitter defeat. **ALL FOR NOTHING!!**. I’d like to present into evidence what I believe is your first post on this thread, in it’s entirity. While **Aeschines** was AFAIK the first to coin the dreaded term **draw** , you used it on your first post. I have highlighted the offending word, but in no other way have I tampered with the evidence. Your post with the “word” precedes mine by approximately 28 minutes. That fickle wrongness meter has swung back your way. Now, although my feet are not soiled, my toenails are painted a nice shade of pink. It’s your bow, **Dob**!! This one’s for you. 😛 > [@](#): > > Well I hate to do this but… > > ## quote: > > ## it seems we can not only answer the original post and say that the BBC image shows nothing more interesting than some guy in a robe walking out a side door, but it also seems there’s no remotely-verifiable evidence for “ghosts” at all. > > Ummm, what? Where exactly was this stance proven? Need I remind THIS board, or all boards, that simply stating something does not make a fact? You can call that picture a guy in a robe, but you have proved nothing, I repeate, nothing. If you refute someone calling it a ghost, I must also refute you calling it a guy. We have NO proof for any of it. > > Several posters have posted links to sites with ghost pictures. Are they ghosts? I have no idea, but simply dismissing them as smoke and flames does not “debunk” them in any way what-so-ever. To debunk you must also provide proof, not just an alternate theory. > > So for the OP, and the following debates, it really is a draw. No one on this board can prove the picture was ghost, anymore than someone can prove it was a person in a dress! For me, I think it was a hoax. Not from any proof, just more of a “hunch”. And for the record I do believe in “ghosts”, but like DtC I think we need a better word for them. Oh. This was a lot of work. Could you please admit I am the _Queen of Correct_, too.😉 ---
**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 30, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/384 "2003-12-30T21:54:04Z")
**Flash-57** : Yes, but in this case, I take into account Edgar Allan Poe’s views on evidence (from the Mystery of Marie Roget): > [@](#): > > If, the feet of Marie being small, those of the corpse were also small, the increase of probability that the body was that of Marie would not be an increase in a ratio merely arithmetical, but in one highly geometrical, or accumulative. Add to all this shoes such as she had been known to wear upon the day of her disappearance, and, although these shoes may be ‘sold in packages,’ you so far augment the probability as to verge upon the certain. What, of itself, would be no evidence of identity, becomes through its corroborative position, proof most sure. Give us, then, flowers in the hat corresponding to those worn by the missing girl, and we seek for nothing farther. If only one flower, we seek for nothing farther- what then if two or three, or more? Each successive one is multiple evidence- proof not added to proof, but multiplied by hundreds or thousands. To me, the thing that adds to this not being a ghost, is that the white area that looked originally like the face of a specter, (this was IMO the big factor in declaring it a ghost sighting) turns to have a more mundane explanation: A white head piece. You may point that speaking of probabilities it may still be a ghost, but it is undeniable that the guides in period dress, the customs department of the Court, and a “ghost” that acts like is thinking: “hey! is cold in here!”. All that, points to a strengthening of the skeptic’s position. Those who still insist in a draw have to realize it is even more silly when one takes into account other possibilities. Since talking about a draw is arbitrary, I have the opportunity to say that there is a 50% chance that this is just a woman in period dress that closed a door. 35% chance that it was a deliberate hoax: never underestimate the greed factor, haunted places get more crowds in. 10% that it was a prankster in disguise. 1% chance that it was ghost. 1% that it was an alien. 1% that it was a time traveler and she needed to close the doors of the Tardis 😉 . And, 1% miscellaneous things: going from a new mimic life form, to the pooper-scooper of the Lock Ness monster. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/385 "2003-12-31T07:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by coven_ > What, do they teach courses in Obfuscational Spockinese on Noosphere these days? So you do not have a reponse to my post. Nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/386 "2003-12-31T07:42:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by coven \* > He was succinct and clever. You are being pedantic and boring. Do read the rules for GD first. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/387 "2003-12-31T08:14:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*Clearly, whoever believes this has it backwards. A person does not has any intrinsic energy _per se_ but must generate it by breaking down ingested food. Thus, the energy didn’t go anywhere, there’s no energy to begin with. \*\* I keep coming back to this statement, because I don’t quite get it. Am admitting ignorance before I ask my questions. I’m not concerned about some abstract soul thing. When you die, the energy that is produced from breaking down food stops that process, okay. Isn’t there still energy due to the immediate process, darn I was trying not to say decay, can I use entropy or something less grusome for granny. Anyway I would think that like a composte heap, there would be heat/energy remaining in granny, actually for quite a while after? Yes, no? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/388 "2003-12-31T08:33:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GIGObuster \* > \*\* > All that, points to a strengthening of the skeptic’s position. > \*\* Oh, I’ve never believed that this tape shows a ghost. I’m just here to keep the hard-core skeptics from overstaing their case. You might say I’m skeptical of skeptics. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Those who still insist in a draw have to realize it is even more silly when one takes into account other possibilities. > \*\* I think the problem here is that many people are thinking that the word “draw” is equivalent to “a 50-50 tie”. In this case, it’s not. It’s closer to a hung jury, where it’s obvious to everyone that 100% agreement will not happen. If, after all this discussion, and using your own number, there is still a 1% chance that this is an actual ghost, then neither side has completely proven its case. It is, indeed, a draw. Not a 50-50 draw, of course, but a 99-1 draw. It’s like when a pack of wild dogs chases a rabbit into a hole. The dogs aren’t gonna get the rabbit and the rabbit can’t go anywhere. It’s a draw, despite the dogs being in a far more dominating position. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/389 "2003-12-31T08:53:25Z")
I still didn’t think it was up to us to prove the non-existence of something? Only the other way around. So when I’m in a debate asserting that G-d exists and I fail to prove it, but they fail to prove he doesn’t, it’s a draw? How do you prove even 1% the non-existence of something? I think a draw would have to contain some level of possibility that either side might be right. That didn’t happen here, because the point was for ghost believers to provide fact that this video or the pictures could only be a ghost or at the very least, create a suspicion that everything we know about science is wrong. It didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/390 "2003-12-31T10:57:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*_E contrario_. These photos are bunk as far as using them as evidence for ghosts. The only reason to say they aren’t bunk is they appear to be authentic, i.e., not staged, edited, mucked with, etc. \*\* OK, so this quote annoyed me as it misrepresented my position. The original quote by Doc Nickel was: "The photos and the sites displaying them are making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof. They don’t need to be “debunked”, rather, they first need to be “bunked”. " That being said, this is a long thread, and to expect you to have read the minutiae of it was unrealistic of me. Your mistake in this case was understandable, and I apologize for my response. Your other post regarding “energy” I felt also misrepresented my position. However, upon reviewing the posts in question I see that this was not the case at all. You were making a point wholly unrelated to anything I had to say, merely pointing out that other people’s beliefs in this case were mistaken. My response to you was childish, churlish, and completely unwarranted. For this also I apologize. Urban Ranger, I am sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/391 "2003-12-31T11:14:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*I keep coming back to this statement, because I don’t quite get it. Am admitting ignorance before I ask my questions. I’m not concerned about some abstract soul thing. When you die, the energy that is produced from breaking down food stops that process, okay. Isn’t there still energy due to the immediate process, darn I was trying not to say decay, can I use entropy or something less grusome for granny. Anyway I would think that like a composte heap, there would be heat/energy remaining in granny, actually for quite a while after? Yes, no? Thanks. \*\* Yes. **Urban Ranger** merely meant that there’s no need for a mystic explanation of where the energy “goes”, it goes the same place it’s been going all of the person’s life. As Granny cools down, the atmosphere heats up ever so slightly, entropy increases and Newton’s First Law is followed. > [@](#): > > **I still didn’t think it was up to us to prove the non-existence of something? Only the other way around. So when I’m in a debate asserting that G-d exists and I fail to prove it, but they fail to prove he doesn’t, it’s a draw?** No. **Flash-57** is wrong, you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/392 "2003-12-31T16:24:08Z")
from **IWNLN** > [@](#): > > Oh. This was a lot of work. Could you please admit I am the Queen of Correct, too I stand, or kneel, corrected!!! You are indeed the Queen of Correct. But keep looking over your shoulder, I will still make you rue the day! 😉 Just not in this thread… ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/393 "2003-12-31T16:39:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > I stand, or kneel, corrected!!! You are indeed the Queen of Correct. But keep looking over your shoulder, I will still make you rue the day! 😉 Just not in this thread… Thanks **Dob**. I’ll keep my _rue_ ready. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/394 "2003-12-31T17:15:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by coven \* > quote:Originally posted by Urban Ranger > A person does not has any intrinsic energy > > coven’s response > What, do they teach courses in Obfuscational Spockinese on Noosphere these days? > > \*\* This was the quote I was talking to you about coven. The only way this statement could be considered confusing is if you did not know what intrinsic meant. If that isn’t the case, perhaps you should go back to quoting and posting class. Or go to comprehension class. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/395 "2003-12-31T18:13:50Z")
The best thing about that HPS test is even if you fail, it says you could still be HPS! Even if only a few questions are true, as long as they are EXTREMELY true, you still pass HPS! Wa hey! ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/396 "2003-12-31T19:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > quote:Originally posted by Urban Ranger > A person does not has any intrinsic energy > > \*Originally posted by Epimetheus \* > \*\*This was the quote I was talking to you about coven. The only way this statement could be considered confusing is if you did not know what intrinsic meant. > > If that isn’t the case, perhaps you should go back to quoting and posting class. Or go to comprehension class. \*\* Ya know, I already apologized to Urban Ranger for being petty in my response to him, but if you must know Epimetheus, the statement “A person does not has…” followed by anything would be confusing because it’s grammatically incorrect. I’ve already stated that this was petty, so there will be no need to point that out. However, if in your advanced grammar class you have learned that this statement is somehow grammatically correct, please feel free to share that knowledge with me. As to posting class, point me in the right direction. Is it available on weekends? ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/397 "2003-12-31T19:14:49Z")
Nah, every third wednesday; at noon. 😉 ---
**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 31, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/398 "2003-12-31T19:29:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > \*\*If, after all this discussion, and using your own number, there is still a 1% chance that this is an actual ghost, then neither side has completely proven its case. It is, indeed, a draw. Not a 50-50 draw, of course, but a 99-1 draw. > > It’s like when a pack of wild dogs chases a rabbit into a hole. The dogs aren’t gonna get the rabbit and the rabbit can’t go anywhere. It’s a draw, despite the dogs being in a far more dominating position. \*\* This is not a court house but Hampton Court. This discussion is outside the confines of the law and more close to science, so talking about hung juries is just begging for a change of venue. Using your analogy the result is still grim; I see only a foot of the rabbit made it in (1%) . Yeah, the dogs will circle around never reaching the foot, **but it matters little in the end**. Other critters then will use the foot as a lucky charm. Those critters get the pretense this is a tie, so one side can rejoice in what meager remains they have, they are free to pretend is a lucky draw like many other superstitions. Me? I’m having rabbit stew. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/399 "2003-12-31T20:07:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **I still didn’t think it was up to us to prove the non-existence of something?** Well, there were certainly a lot of posts in this thread trying to do exactly that. > [@](#): > > **So when I’m in a debate asserting that G-d exists and I fail to prove it, but they fail to prove he doesn’t, it’s a draw?** Yup. That’s about the size of it. Certainly you’ve debated this kind of thing before. Have you EVER finished such a discussion where one side has become thoroughly convinced that the other side is correct? I’d venture to say, “no you haven’t.” In other words, this kind of discussion is always doomed to end in a draw or a stalemate. > [@](#): > > \*\* How do you prove even 1% the non-existence of something?\*\* Any student of logic will tell you that you can’t. > [@](#): > > **I think a draw would have to contain some level of possibility that either side might be right. That didn’t happen here, because the point was for ghost believers to provide fact that this video or the pictures could only be a ghost or at the very least, create a suspicion that everything we know about science is wrong. It didn’t happen.** Didn’t it? As far as I can tell from this discussion and news reports, the figure in the image is still unexplained. Sure, lots of people have postulated that this is just some guard sneaking out for a smoke. And I agree that this is the most probable explanation. Yet, we don’t have confirmation of that from any relaible source. When the guard finally comes forward and says, “yeah, that’s me,” then the matter will be put to rest. At least with crop circles, we have leagues of people who say, “Yes, I created that hoax. Here’s a picture of me doing it. Want to watch me do it again?” ---
**Author:** ![Lockseer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a5b964/32.png) [@Lockseer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lockseer)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/400 "2003-12-31T20:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*I still didn’t think it was up to us to prove the non-existence of something? Only the other way around. \*\* Exactly. See my post above on the logic behind theory development, taken in bits and pieces from Reynolds’ book _“A Primer in Theory Construction”_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=21)