# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 21
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/401 "2003-12-31T20:58:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > \*\*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?” \*\* A bad example, even with that admission the crop circle proponents jump to say that other crop circles appeared elsewhere, they dismiss the created ones. However, it is a good example to show that beliefs overcome any evidence, once again this matters little if evidence points to explanations that are more mundane. Faith alone does not stop evidence from making the supernatural the unlikely thing. And, I bet it will be doubtful that the one that did it will come forward to admit he/she was the ghost. This is a situation were the perpetrator now has other reasons to remain anonymous, and not because he or she would lose their job, but because more money for all their coworkers is at stake (see my previous post on the greed factor). ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/402 "2004-01-01T02:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > 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. No. When I finished debating G-d, I had to admit they had good points, that I didn’t believe, but considered. They remained unconvinced. I didn’t think it was a draw though. I failed to prove even marginally of the possible existence. No draw there. I lost. > [@](#): > > 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. There are a lot of things that are unexplained. You can’t suggest the possibility that it was a ghost and without proving that ghosts exist, say that the argument gained any ground. If they said it was a tomato, at least there is proof tomatos exist. You are saying that because you can’t prove that IPU’s don’t exist, there could still be one in your garage. Nooooo.😉 ---
**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:** [January 1, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/403 "2004-01-01T04:56:58Z")
And now **IWLN** has progressed from dodging the mighty IPU sword and has learned how to wield it. You have learned well, Grasshopper. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/404 "2004-01-01T13:20:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > **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.** It is a stalemate in a sense, but only because the people who are wrong won’t back down. That doesn’t make it a draw. Using your logic virtually any discussion on any subject is a draw since you’ll find a nutcase somewhere who’ll dispute any verified fact and believe in any falsified claim, and that makes the word “draw” itself pointless and without meaning. Therefore, if we use the word at all, this is not a draw. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/405 "2004-01-02T06:51:07Z")
Great Debates are called since they aren’t easily or satisfyingly resolved to a consensus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=20)