# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/41 "2003-12-21T06:21:36Z")
And so is my spelling. ---
**Author:** ![chicksdigscars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@chicksdigscars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chicksdigscars)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/42 "2003-12-21T06:24:50Z")
NO ONE has yet offered a definition of PROOF. Other people have posted on this same topic and did not offer proof. They weren’t harrassed. I thought this was DEBATE, you know, differing opinions on a subject. The thread isn’t called PROOF. Like I said, if something is stated as a known fact, where does the debate come in? And I’d appreciate it if you told me what you need proof of in my post. Okay, so you don’t accept my ghost sightings. I understand that. Would you only accept something as proof if I researched it myself? No one else here is held to that standard. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/43 "2003-12-21T06:28:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\* > As for proof, I have asked before, what do you consider proof? You have not attacked others who posted before I did, and they offered less “proof” than I did. > > BTW, if I have to PROVE everything I say, then where is the debate? If something is known to the entire world as a fact, then there is NOTHING to talk about. \*\* I empathize with your position, but standred debate procedure is such that if you aren’t stating an opinion but rather a fact, you must argue argue in support of it. Typically, the most effective way to do is to provide proof or evidence in favor of what you are proposing. This is often done by providing links and cites from peer reviewed studies and investigations. You do not have to do this if stating the obvious, but if stating something controversial, then you are asked to back up your arguments with cites to support your logic. You can argue logic, but cites can often go a farther in supporting it. There is a collary that goes “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you claim something quite amazing, be prepared to support it with some amazing evidence, or you’re not going to convince many people. If you claim that George Bush is a Serpent person from the planet Venus, you had better have some damn good proof to support that that we can all see. Debates are often proof againest proof, evidence againest evidence, logic againest logic, and while having it may not make you a winner, not having proof of your stance while the other guy has proof of his, you are going to have a hard time convincing much of anyone. You made the claim that there are ghosts. Fine. Provide proof for us all to see. Just providing stories or personal experience does nothing to convince us because we weren’t there and can’t tell how accurate your perpective was. If you can’t, then you are basically asking us to take it on faith(in which case it becomes much like a religous debate and we can stop right there). On a personal note, I myself believe in the possibilty of ghosts, but until a see either proof or one with my own eyes, it’s just a possibility for me. Strangely enough, certain people believe my house is haunted and claimed to have seen ghosts here(It’s at least 50 years old), but in the 12 years of living in this house, of occasionally being alone in it, of staying up late on many, many occasions, I have yet to see or hear anything that I feel was evidence of a ghost. And I occasionally get paranoid too…but no ghost sightings, despite what others living here have said. They may indeed be here, but if they are, they’ve left me totally alone. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/44 "2003-12-21T06:28:48Z")
Tears before bedtime. ---
**Author:** ![rolandgunslinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cdc98d/32.png) [@rolandgunslinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rolandgunslinger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/45 "2003-12-21T06:29:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\*NO ONE has yet offered a definition of PROOF. Other people have posted on this same topic and did not offer proof. They weren’t harrassed. > > I thought this was DEBATE, you know, differing opinions on a subject. The thread isn’t called PROOF. Like I said, if something is stated as a known fact, where does the debate come in? > > And I’d appreciate it if you told me what you need proof of in my post. Okay, so you don’t accept my ghost sightings. I understand that. Would you only accept something as proof if I researched it myself? No one else here is held to that standard. \*\* just let it go. be cool. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/46 "2003-12-21T06:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > **Yeah, well you didn’t PROVE that this so-called tape wasn’t real, either.** No one is doubting that the tape _itself_ is real, just that the tape shows an actual ghost. > [@](#): > > **But you have no right to say I was hallucinating.** Sure he did. People hallucinate all the time. Hell, I once saw a **giant** spider crawling on the ceiling directly over my bed. Scared the crap out of me; I _jumped_ out of bed and hit the floor running. When I looked back, no spider. And really, that thing was at least twice the size of a large tarantula, so it was obviously not real. > [@](#): > > **Why the hell do you have to insult me like that?** I don’t think he was insulting at all. If I saw a ghost, the first thought through my head (after “WTF was _that_?!”) would be “Am I hallucinating?”. If I _repeatedly_ saw ghosts, I would schedule an appointment with a doctor to try to find out if I was schizophrenic, or suffering some other form of mental illness. > [@](#): > > \*\*If something is known to the entire world as a fact, then there is NOTHING to talk about. \*\* But we’re not talking about something that is known to the entire world as a fact. You can say “I saw a ghost” if you like, but most people around here would not take your word for it any more than _you_ would take them at _their_ word if they said “I saw Elvis yesterday in Walmart.” ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/47 "2003-12-21T06:30:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\*As for the photos, I’m not an expert, but I know the person who took the pictures very well. Other people have also photographed ghosts. Just because YOU don’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. \*\* So, one needs to be a HSP to see a ghost, but a camera can take a picture of it anyway? If a camera can register a ghost, anyone with functional eyes can too. And for the photos, I am some kind of expert on photo retouching, computer graphics, etc; and I can tell you that faking a ghost (or anything else) is not that difficult. ---
**Author:** ![chicksdigscars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@chicksdigscars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chicksdigscars)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/48 "2003-12-21T06:43:45Z")
Asking yourself if you’re schizo is one thing, but asking somebody else is quite another. As for my stating that if something is known as a fact then where is the debate, I meant in general, not about ghosts or the paranormal. Sorry for that confusion. My post started out about the ghost in HCP and whether or not I thought it was real or fake. It ended up personal. Some of you may not think that Diogenes’ posts were insulting, but they were to me. All I asked is what type of proof you need. Except for HPL, no one has commented. And I will clarify my statement about the tape further, Diogenes DID NOT prove that the ghost on the tape wasn’t real. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/49 "2003-12-21T06:46:57Z")
It’s probably just me, but did the shadowy figure emerging from a doorway remind anyone of the dream sequence transmitted from the future in John Carpenter’s _Prince of Darkness_? ---
**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 21, 2003, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/50 "2003-12-21T06:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > **Yeah, well you didn’t PROVE that this so-called tape wasn’t real, either.** I don’t know what youmean by “prove it isn’t real.” the tape clearly _exists_ and I have not argued otherwise. Whether the image on the tape is that of a ghost is for someone else to prove, not for me to _dis_prove. > [@](#): > > **And as for “chilling out,” I’ll do that as soon as you stop insinuating that I hallucinated.** I _suggested_ that you had hallucinated and asked if you might be schizophrenic. Hallucinations are very common and there is no empirical evidence that anything like “ghosts” exist. Occam’s Razor says that a hallucination is far more likely than a supernatural hoodoo. As for “asking” if I am schizophrenic, you may have just as well stated it for a fact. The way you worded it was insulting. I didn’t insult you by stating that I saw a ghost. If you don’t believe me, fine. But you have no right to say I was hallucinating. You said “It’s nothing to be ashamed of if you are (schizophrenic).” Let me state for the last time, I AM NOT SCHIZOPHRENIC. Why the hell do you have to insult me like that? I can take criticism, but I haven’t read you posting anything so hateful in response to anyone else in this thread.\*\* [/quote] What’s insulting about being asked if you’re a schizophrenic? what do you have against schizophrenics? If you see stuff that isn’t there you have to consider the possibility that you’re hallucinating. It’s a far more plausible explanation that hoodoos. > [@](#): > > **As for proof, I have asked before, what do you consider proof? You have not attacked others who posted before I did, and they offered less “proof” than I did.** Nobody else is making factual assertions about the existence of ghosts. > [@](#): > > \*\*BTW, if I have to PROVE everything I say, then where is the debate? If something is known to the entire world as a fact, then there is NOTHING to talk about. \*\* Facts are used as tools in a debate. We can draw different conclusions from the same set of fact but the facts themselves have to be solid. If you’re going to assert anything as an objective fact you have to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/51 "2003-12-21T06:50:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ale \* > **So, one needs to be a HSP to see a ghost, but a camera can take a picture of it anyway? If a camera can register a ghost, anyone with functional eyes can too.** And this leads to the obvious question of “where are all the ghost videos?” Sure, we have the one currently under discussion, but consider: There are tons of photographs of “ghosts”. Video cameras capture images many times a second for the duration that they’re recording. Thus, it should be _easier_ to capture a “ghost” on video, since you don’t need precise timing. Since there is a relative lack of “ghost” videos compared to photographs (even though it should be the other way around), one must assume that there is something about the photographic medium that makes it more likely to capture an image of a “ghost”. The only thing that makes any sort of sense is that the vast majority (all, in my opinion) of “ghost” photographs are cause by anomalies such as double exposure, lens flare, odd shadow, etc that are either less likely to occur, or easier to identify, in a video. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/52 "2003-12-21T06:51:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I can take criticism, Cite? Hee. Okay, sorry, that was cheap. Anyway, **Chicksdigcars** , with the respect due to a fellow newbie, I really really recommend that you lurk around a bit more and become acquainted with the methodology and tenor of the SDMB fora. The whole _raison d’etre_ of the place is to fight ignorance using facts, research, verifiable evidence, etc. So no, personal experience is _not_ enough for us here. Someone who makes a claim that cannot be verified by some objective outside source, or that cannot be duplicated by an unbiased observer, should be prepared to have their claim highly scrutinized and, quite probably, doubted in the extreme. To use a standard analogy: if I claimed that I’d seen a pink unicorn in my bedroom, wouldn’t you expect me to back up my assertions with more than a staunch “I say it therefore it’s true!” I hope you wouldn’t take me on my word. Might be flattering to be trusted that way, but it could prevent my getting the mental help I need. 😉 So when **Diogenes the Cynic** (waves to one of my favorite posters) asks quite seriously if you’re on any medication, or have been hospitalized, or have schizophrenia, it is _not_ intended as an insult. (Having cousins who are schizophrenic, I find it insulting that anyone would get so disgusted at such an implication, but that’s my own issue.) No, DTC is simply trying to discover if there are any possible physical, down-to-earth explanations for your having seen phenomena that others haven’t. Many medications can cause such hallucinations, as can illnesses (not just schizophrenia; high fevers can wreak havoc that way as well, and I’m sure other syndromes can do the same). Seeking to find a rational, likely basis for such visions is NOT an insult – it is the most common and effective method of uncovering the truth behind mysteries and puzzles. My question is, why would you get so upset and defensive when putting your claim up to some honest scrutiny? If it’s true, you should welcome the opportunity to answer these questions, since your responses could hypothetically strip away the layers of doubt. Getting back to the OP: IMO, hell yeah, it’s a fake, of course it’s a freakin’ fake! 16th century ghosts who know how to open fire doors??? 16th century ghosts who even _need_ to open fire doors in the first place? Jeebus. BTW, I suspect the ghost is probably intended to be a woman, since that looks like a gown to me. Maybe one of Henry’s condemned wives, Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard. LOL, of course, if it were really one of them, they would be headless, wouldn’t they? Argh. I don’t understand why this dumbass thing is getting such huge play in the media. Oh wait, yeah, I do. The media suck. “Smoke and mirrors, kiddies! Pay no attention to the war, death, scandals and poverty that surround you! Lookie here at the bright video candy!” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/53 "2003-12-21T06:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I said that I had seen ghosts. That isn’t enough proof? It isn’t proof at all, it’s barely evidence. How did you ascertain that they were ghosts? Since no one else could see them how did you conclude that thy were not products of your imagination? What we have is that you saw something that no one else can see. People on drugs and people with fevers see such things all the time. Ho do you know that what you saw was a ghost and not an hallucination? What criterion separates the two phenomena? [quote] You can read a little bit about being a Highly Sensitive Person. [quote] You can read lots of things on the internet. 70% of it is pornographic and 15% is erroneous. What reasons do you have for believing this site falls into the other 15%? > [@](#): > > Some of the traits of HSPs are being aware of subtleties in the environment, being affected by other people’s moods, the ability to notice and enjoy delicate or fine scents, tastes, and sounds. You mean like everybody who isn’t autistic does. What exactly are the criteria that separates a HSP from a non-autistic? > [@](#): > > I just believe that HSPs are more in-tune with their surroundings and are able to “see” things that some others cannot. You can believe what you like, but if it’s not based on anything more concrete than an hallucination then it’s not really very sensible. What criteria define an HSP? How does one measure an HSP. That website manages to blather on for pages without ever once answering these basic question There is a slef-test, which is the closest I could find. If that’s how this trait is defined it is quite frankly a crock. The test consists of two types of questions questions. The ridiculously vague and subjective like “I am easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input.” What the hell does that mean? How does one define ‘easily’ and ‘overwhelmed’. Do you need to sip into a coma at the opening bars of Beethoven’s fifth? Do you just need to find dance clubs unpleasant. Then there are the everyman questions. “I seem to be aware of subtleties in my environment.”, “Other people’s moods affect me”, “I am conscientious.” Hell, what adult human would answer no? Can you really imagine anyone saying “Nope, not me I’m a complete arsehole, unaware of what is happening around me and don’t give a shit about anyone or anything”? These questions seem very familiar. They are the same crap that is routinely put on astrological personality types. They are questions that everyone thinks describes them The ‘syndrome’ looks to me like the latest version of repressed memories. It’s a way for people who feel inadequate to make themselves feel special while having something to blame for there problems. > [@](#): > > but if you read about people like Edgar Cayce, even though the trait of high sensitivity wasn’t really named then, I do believe that he was a HSP. I do believe he was a charlatan. So does Cecil. [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html) > [@](#): > > I saw ghosts. You don’t believe me? How am I supposed to prove that to you? That is the very crux of the problem. If you can’t prove it to us then how do you prove it to yourself? How did you distinguish between a ghost and an artefact of your mind? We both accept that hallucinations exist I assume. Why not just chalk your ghosts up to hallucinations rather than dead people? > [@](#): > > What kind of proof would you accept? Something objective would be good. Anything at all! > [@](#): > > Do you get to decide what is real or not? No, but we get to decide what seems like baloney and to state that belief. More importantly we get to say what makes your argument bunkum. And while we can say why we believe something is not real you seem to have hard time explaining why ghosts are real. > [@](#): > > Yeah, well you didn’t PROVE that this so-called tape wasn’t real, either. True, but this is an argument from ignorance. That is all we need to say to completely discredit your reasoning. > [@](#): > > You have not attacked others who posted before I did, and they offered less “proof” than I did. They did not claim that ghosts are real. You did. You have made a statement. In Great Debates you will need to either defend that statement or withdraw it. Those are the ‘rules’. If you choose to defend it, as you have, then we will attack that defence and try to falsify it. Those are also the rules. If you want to post lame arsed opinion post it in IMHO. That’s the place for it. This is the place for facts and reasoned argument, which you seem very short on. ---
**Author:** ![chicksdigscars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/838e76/32.png) [@chicksdigscars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chicksdigscars)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/54 "2003-12-21T07:02:27Z")
I NEVER said you had to be an hsp to see a ghost. Where is your PROOF that I did? And I never said that it was impossible to fake a photograph. Where is your PROOF that I did? Other people have posted that they believe this ghost was real. Why aren’t you demanding to see their proof? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/55 "2003-12-21T07:16:50Z")
**CDS** : If you have some peer review scientific articles demonstrating that ghosts are real, I think everyone in this forum (including **DtC** ) would be thrilled to read them. Anything less will not constitute proof. Not here. **DtC** : The wise thing to do would be to apologize for the offense, even if none was meant. It is not unreasonable that someone might be insulted by the question “Are you schizophrenic”. Especially in a debate. ---
**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 21, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/56 "2003-12-21T07:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Diogenes DID NOT prove that the ghost on the tape wasn’t real. Your statement is framed incorrectly. Your statement that there is an image of a “ghost” on the tape which must be proven not to be “real” is backwards. There is an omage on a tape. You are asserting that it is the image of a ghost. It is up to YOU to prove that assertion. The burden is on YOU. I have no burden as I am making no assertion. ---
**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 21, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/57 "2003-12-21T07:46:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\*As for proof, if no one believes what I saw, then what do you accept as proof? I guess the multitude of “ghost sightings” out there just aren’t convincing for you. Do TWO or more people need to see a ghost at the same time for you to believe it? I gave you the link to the one site and pointed out legit credentials that Diogenes apparently ignored. > \*\* Well, surprise, surprise, I also in one occasion was face to face with a haunting: a TV that acted like it was possessed, I came close to believe a ghost was controlling it, but an investigation of the surroundings proved that a remote controller was being squashed by a pile of books and walking next to the pile caused the remote to go wild! What was telling was that the owner was terribly disappointed that it was nothing special! So like that, there are thousands of testimonials from people that later find mundane explanations for similar phenomena, those tales don’t make the news. (I have to share some blame, I did feel ashamed to approach the networks and say: "hey, look what uncle’s stupidity did, 10 years ago!) Even if you saw a ghost, there are many other explanations for the sighting rather than the supernatural, and (by experience) always there is no way to replicate the sighting again when serious research takes a look at it. So, here you have a testimony for a weird phenomenon, you have yours. The difference in the testimonials is the search for a likely explanation in one and finding evidence for it. My uncle got his TV back, but I bet he still feels disappointed his life was not touched by “something special”. Such is the lure of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/58 "2003-12-21T07:48:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chicksdigscars \* > \*\* > And I never said that it was impossible to fake a photograph. Where is your PROOF that I did? > > Other people have posted that they believe this ghost was real. Why aren’t you demanding to see their proof? \*\* No one claimed that you claimed photograph photographs could not be faked. They said a photograph could be easily faked. They are scrutinizing evidence, ie photographs that are presumably of ghosts. That’s par for the course in debates. It is not the same as attacking you and acting like it is does not help you. And the burden of proof is on the side just as much as the person. Since you have been the most active and vocal on the “Ghosts are real” side, then most of the debate is focusing on your evidence specifically. ---
**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 21, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/59 "2003-12-21T07:51:35Z")
> [@](#): > > DtC: The wise thing to do would be to apologize for the offense, even if none was meant. It is not unreasonable that someone might be insulted by the question “Are you schizophrenic”. Especially in a debate. I thought about your suggestion, I really did, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. I honestly don’t think I’ve said anything offensive and to apologize would imply that there is something inherently shameful about schizophrenia. I still think it’s a valid question and **CDC** has yet to tell us how she can know that what she saw was not a hallucination (not necessarily schizophrenia, either. There are any number of things which can cause hallucinations). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158/60 "2003-12-21T09:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by choie \* > **16th century ghosts who know how to open fire doors??? 16th century ghosts who even _need_ to open fire doors in the first place? Jeebus.** So? 16th century ghosts need fresh air. Don’t they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghost-sighting-on-tape/220158.md?page=4)