Ghost Sighting On Tape

Great Debates
201

handsomeharold? No offense, but I’ve also been to Humboldt county – I was raised a little to the south of there (in Mendocino county) and my dad was raised in Rohnerville. I’m going to ask you what I would ask anyone from that area with a story like yours: What were you on?

It’s Occam’s Razor, my friend – the simplest explanation is most likely to be true. And, in Northern California, when you hear that someone has had a seemingly inexplicable experience the most likely explanation is that that person was under the influence of one of the several types of Good Stuff so readily available up in God’s Country.

Now maybe you, like me, are one of the very few teetotal (from an illegal drug perspective) Northern Californios in existence. Maybe you were stone-cold sober and absolutely wide awake when you spoke to the energy beings. But, frankly, if I were a betting woman, I’d bet with Occam.

202

Re ghosts. I believe in ghosts; they fit in my picture of the world. I think a good working definition of “ghost” is a dead person who does not know he/she is dead and futilely engages in the activities he/she engaged in while alive. Ghosts are material beings like us, but only their astral body remains. Further, this body vibrates at a level fairly close to early bodies, allowing interaction with the physical world.

The term “spirit” is far more inclusive: ghosts, higher beings, lower beings (demons), etc.

In any event, whether you accept this framework or not, there are still lots and lots of phenomena that require explanation. Sure, these phenomena don’t slap you in the face on a daily basis, but they have been reported in all cultures and at all times in history. Further, as technologies have been invented that can reflect these phenomena, they have: “ghosts” have been captured on film (still and moving) and tape, and these images and sounds have reflected what eyewitnesses themselves reported.

The skeptics reply: it’s all hoaxes, hallucinations, goofs, and mistakes.

As always, the skeptics show what poor scientists and logicians they are. So eager to dismiss the theory that spirits exists, they dismiss these extremely interesting phenomena under the rug and fail to engage with them. Even if one is to engage with phenomena under a framwork that considers them “goofs and/or trickery,” there is still much to be investigated and explained (such as the consistency of reportings over the centuries, etc.).

But so it always is with the skeptics.

Re this footage. The stories say that a guest signed the guestbook and wrote that she had seen a ghost in the area at the time. This is another piece of evidence that hasn’t been discussed. Of course, this could also be part of a hoax.

If the footage is real, it’s some of the most remarkable ever taken. Looking at the movie, I see one thing in its favor: there is a kind of protoplasmic swirl in view before the figure actually appears. This would be hard to fake if it is indeed just someone in a costume. However, for all I know the entire tape is a fake.

One poster mentioned that the face brightens as the figure emerges. I don’t think this is a fair objection, as the ghost could be sufficiently materialized to reflect light at that point. This fact is, however, consistent with the hoax hypothesis.

At this point, I have no opinion either way as to the genuineness of the tape. Certainly more investigation is called for.

To Chicksdigscars

Try not to take this forum too seriously, as the people who self-label as “skeptics” certainly don’t feel the need to observe the rules they impose on others.

They cry “cite” but simply will not engage with the links you provide. Then you say, “Hey, what about that link?” but they ignore that some more, flip the record over, and proceed with the same spiel.

Keep in mind that most self-labeled skeptics treat materialism as a first principle, a postulate, a given. They may affect a pose that they are open to data, but in fact they consider everything that they label “paranormal” to be a false a priori.

Many atheists, agnostics, and “skeptics” get a kick out of thinking themselves as intellectually superior to “believers,” who are irrational, credulous rubes, in their view. Hence, not only is their reasoning extremely poor and disingenous, their tone is arrogant and nasty as well.

So, like I said, try not to take many of the participants of these boards too seriously, as their behavior does not promote such treatment.

203

Some prefer their picture of the world to be accurate.

Has there in all of the stories and reports, ever been one spirit or ghostly event proven?

Scientists and logicians work with facts, or even stretching it, with theory that is possible under natural law. I don’t consider false claims about phenomena to be all that interesting.

Consistency. That’s good.

But yet you believe in other phenomena without proof.

Links with more unproven ghost stories and other unscientific “proof” has nothing to do with why a cite is usually provided. It is for “factual” information, not anecdotal.

Your statement is half true.

Many of the people here are intellectually superior and most don’t mind being insulted by credulous rubes. What you don’t even attempt to understand is that GD is set up in such a way that usually factual information is requested during the debate. This is not Aesop’s Fable’s or story time at the library. You are trying to play basketball during the football game. There is no way to relate to you and your ghost stories unless you have something factual to back them up. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is an atheist or agnostic. I am neither and I still like factual information and am fairly skeptical on some matters. SDMB has two other forums that don’t have the tougher requirements for providing cites and and you don’t have to prove much of anything. Are you sure your intent for being here is honest debate?

204

Sorry Aeschines, but I was one of the credulous ones before, I found better explanations on my own, skeptics do actually get an attitude, specially when encountered with attitudes like yours.

“Try not to take this forum too seriously”?
Since you are posting here, we could assume you are not serious regarding this subject, I guess we can then dismiss your entire post. But, I doubt that was your intention, (Yes, I have been accused of being a fair minded skeptic before, since I give people with an attitude like yours, the benefit of the doubt)

I doubt that :slight_smile:
WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (1997, W. H. Freeman) by Michael Shermer)

As for THIS ghost, you said it better: more research is needed, oops, that is what a skeptic will do. :wink:

Of course, it is a lie to say we are not open to data, I am, and one has to be very careful when people close to you believe the paranormal is true as “a first principle”. It is not a priori that we think past ghost cases have to be dismissed, it is because we already investigated and found evidence to be lacking. The ball is really in your court, or it is that unlike serious researches, you really fear what you may find? Or feel sad that what you think is there is not?

205

Gigo,

I’ve been there and back again. I was raised Catholic, became an atheist under my own power by age 13, and gradually changed my viewpoint to what it is now.

I understand the atheist/agnostic perspective and certainly don’t consider to be absurd and worthy of mockery. Most atheists aren’t nasty, either.

But on-line you will find nasties and griefers of all stripes, and these boards seem to have more than their fair share. I think a little respect is in order. I’ve thought over so-called “paranormal” matters deeply, have read a lot of lit on both sides of the debate, and approach the matters with what I consider a fair, decent, and logical manner.

When following the purported rules of the forum, however, I have not felt the action to be reciprocated. Also, the level of logic and reasoning to be found here often approaches the piss-poor.

Certain individuals think they’re all “bad” with their “enlightened” approach, but to me they sound like 12-year-olds, both in tone and in level of thought.

So I’m telling Chicks not to sweat it. Don’t let the button-pushers push, as it were.

206

I think you are dismissing the point Aeschines: when you said those things about skeptics on your other post, you grabbed a big brush and painted most of them as something that they are not (regarding evidence); and in your last post, there was nothing to show you taking that back.

At this time, it is clear that someone else is having a childish attitude here.

But back to the matter at hand: that working definition of ghosts was IMO flawed since the freeways of America would be filled with them, also the universe is so big out there that hanging around this insignificant speck of dirt makes no sense at all.

As you notice: those are opinions only, but valid as criticism since you don’t point at cites with the info needed to have us investigate your allegations. Specifically, the one were you claimed other videos and pictures exist. I am beginning to think your refusal to point us to that evidence is because you fear other people have already investigated and found other explanations. I am curious to see if you found cases not examined yet.

207

And he is still lookin for his cat…

208

Gigo,

I’m saying that I’m going play on this playground precisely as I please, albeit keeping within the boundaries set by the moderators and common decency.

I don’t see the skeptics here as eager to engage with evidence, so my motivation to provide any is less than meager.

209

Depends on what your evidence is. If the pics that were submitted for our approval was it, it was weak evidence.

Is there more?

210

Besides a poorly shot photo of a guy in a costume standing in a doorway, of course.

211

Um…What evidence hasn’t been engaged in?

212

You’ve cited nothing in this thread. Don’t tell anyone they are ignoring your evidence when you have presented none. Additionally, saying “Well you’ll just ignore whatever evidence I show you so I’m not going to show any,” doesn’t help your case at all.

Define “astral body.” Do you have any evidence of this claim?

What is an “early body?” How do you know the “astral body” is vibrating; how do you measure these vibrations? Cite, perhaps?

You want to provide an example or two to back that accusation? Looks more to me like the “skeptics” are questioning the legitimacy of highly suspect footage and “evidence.”

Somebody writing down that they saw a ghost does nothing to prove the evidence of their existence. There, it’s discussed.

Uh, black-and-white shaky surveillance footage, and you picked out a definite “protoplasmic swirl?”

Provide some links, then complain that they are getting ignored.

213

Correction. IMAGES have been captured on film and tape. If these images represent ghosts, it is up to you to prove it. Meanwhile, I’ll stick to the real world.

A fantastic premise does not a solid proof make.

214

Aeschines:

You still haven’t really defined what a ghost is. All you’ve done is give us a lot of semantically void terms like “astral bodies” and “higher and lower beings.”

You say these spooks of yours are “material.” that’s the closest you’ve come to an empirically testable claim. What kind of material are they made of? How do you Know? What is the chemical composition of “protoplasm?” Why is this material not readily detectable to anybody? How does this material sustain consciousness, move itself around and manifest sensory perception?

Can you answer even one of those questions much less all of them?

215

Ah, I understand: because we do not automatically believe that ghosts exist, you can accuse people of “not engaging with the evidence.”

Evidence means that which is seen; a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; something plainly visible. All of the skeptics on this thread have engaged with the evidence to the extent that it is possible to do so: we agree that there is a tape with footage of what appears to be a doorway, and we agree that the footage shows something in the doorway with a human countenance. From the evidence available, we cannot (here comes the definition again) form a conclusion or judgement that ghosts exist. The evidence is scant.

We have also come to the firm conclusion that the following logic is fallacious: “Because I have seen other ghosts before, logically this must also be a real ghost.” This argument simply won’t do. Even if I give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did see a ghost, that proves nothing about the image on the tape, does it?

As for the other evidence, well, there isn’t any. There was a link to a website that had nothing to do with ghosts, and… well… no further evidence was forthcoming (except eyewitness accounts of other ghosts, which again prove nothing about the image on the tape).

I am not going to ridicule you or anyone else for your beliefs, Aeschines. I cannot say with confidence that ghosts exist as I understand them, but neither can I say with honesty that given the limitations of my understanding that I know any broad defintion of “ghosts” or “spirits” can never exist in any way. That’s what skepticism is, man, and if you don’t get that, then you’re playing on the wrong freeway.

One is inclined to wonder how you are able to recognize a protoplasmic swirl when you see one; obviously you are comparing this wibbly-wobbly swirly thing to a protoplasmic swirl already positively identified. If you know of a positively identified protoplasmic swirl, can we see a picture of that, please?

FISH

“I have seen movie stars before, therefore this person is a movie star.”

216

Dialog with Senor Fish

Ah, I understand: because we do not automatically believe that ghosts exist, you can accuse people of "not engaging with the evidence."

No. On another thread I and others linked to scientific studies, but such links are ignored and the same mantras uttered. So, if that’s the way the game is played, I’m going to call the bluff and just post as I please. “Cite” my can.

Evidence means that which is seen; a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment; something plainly visible.

Right, and scientific studies and personal testimony. All is rejected *a priori/i] by skeptics.

All of the skeptics on this thread have engaged with the evidence to the extent that it is possible to do so: we agree that there is a tape with footage of what appears to be a doorway, and we agree that the footage shows something in the doorway with a human countenance. From the evidence available, we cannot (here comes the definition again) form a conclusion or judgement that ghosts exist. The evidence is scant.

Here’s another thing about skeptics, at least the amateurs on this board; they don’t even bother to check what your actual opinion is. I agreed that this could easily be a hoax, so I don’t know who you’re arguing against.

The skeptics on SDMB don’t distinguish between who are dogmatic believers (e.g., fundamentalist Christians) and people who have weighed the evidence and believe for that reason. There is a difference there, and a measure of respect should be accorded those who are applying scientific principles to the data and coming up with different results. I’m not saying you are bad, but there are plenty of people here who are not interested in an honest debate.

We have also come to the firm conclusion that the following logic is fallacious: “Because I have seen other ghosts before, logically this must also be a real ghost.” This argument simply won’t do. Even if I give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did see a ghost, that proves nothing about the image on the tape, does it?

Again, not my argument.
As for the other evidence, well, there isn’t any. There was a link to a website that had nothing to do with ghosts, and… well… no further evidence was forthcoming (except eyewitness accounts of other ghosts, which again prove nothing about the image on the tape).

No, I haven’t provided any evidence here; the link wasn’t mine. I feel that at least the phenomena of ghosts have been demonstrated beyond any doubt; the question is what interpretive framework to apply to those phenomena. Skeptics are at a disadvantage here because they try to deny that even the phenomena exist.

I am not going to ridicule you or anyone else for your beliefs, Aeschines. I cannot say with confidence that ghosts exist as I understand them, but neither can I say with honesty that given the limitations of my understanding that I know any broad defintion of “ghosts” or “spirits” can never exist in any way. That’s what skepticism is, man, and if you don’t get that, then you’re playing on the wrong freeway.

I think the term “skepticism” has become too loaded to work with. It no longer indicates a cognitive approach; self-labeling skeptics are always hard-core materialists who will fight tooth and nail against any claim for what they consider “paranormal.” It is an agenda and an ideology.

Lacking either the sophistication or the will to recognize this, however, skeptics congratulate themselves for their enlightened approach, when in fact they always argue in concordance with a predetermined ideology, to wit, reductionist materialism. So it’s both funny and frustrating to a person such as myself, who clearly sees the ideology, but who must listen to boilerplate apologies about how skeptics (by definition!) are open to any and all data. Haw haw haw.

One is inclined to wonder how you are able to recognize a protoplasmic swirl when you see one; obviously you are comparing this wibbly-wobbly swirly thing to a protoplasmic swirl already positively identified. If you know of a positively identified protoplasmic swirl, can we see a picture of that, please?

Go to any site with ghost pictures, and you’ll see what I mean. Your logic is off with the term “positively identified,” too, although I believe your intent was to mock. These phenomena exist, and names and interpretations are applied to them. The constant emphasis on definitions is just plain ol’ bad science. You don’t first define “black hole” and then go out and check for them. No, you note certain phenomena (wobbly stars, etc.), and apply a framework.

217

Scientific studies, you say? Where can we find some of those?

218

Dialog with Algorithm

You’ve cited nothing in this thread. Don’t tell anyone they are ignoring your evidence when you have presented none.

Explained in post above.

Additionally, saying “Well you’ll just ignore whatever evidence I show you so I’m not going to show any,” doesn’t help your case at all.

No, but it helps my sanity.

Define “astral body.” Do you have any evidence of this claim?

The evidence comes from OBEs, NDEs, and from spiritual research. As for definitions, explained in post above.

What is an "early body?"

“Earthly body.” Typo.

How do you know the “astral body” is vibrating; how do you measure these vibrations? Cite, perhaps?

“Vibration” here is similar in concept to the vibrations of electromagnetic radiation, or the electron cloud of an atom. All matter might be vibrations. Likewise, spirit is not something categorically different from matter/energy, but substance operating at a different frequency/amplitude/etc.

You want to provide an example or two to back that accusation? Looks more to me like the “skeptics” are questioning the legitimacy of highly suspect footage and "evidence."

Yes, and I agreed pretty much with the skeptics regarding this particular case. I’ll continue to point out poor logic in posts as I come across it. My big point, however, is don’t pretend to be open-minded when you really believe that something is impossible a priori. Skeptics conflate, in practice, approach and agenda.

Somebody writing down that they saw a ghost does nothing to prove the evidence of their existence. There, it’s discussed.

You don’t “prove evidence.” OK, a slip. Yes, witnesses provide evidence.

Uh, black-and-white shaky surveillance footage, and you picked out a definite "protoplasmic swirl?"

Did I use the word “definite”? No, I said “a kind of.”

219

Do you not understand that if you expect anybody to accept any of your assertions, you will need to back them up? I don’t care what happened in another thread, cite the claims you’ve made here in this thread. You call me skeptical, of course I am; you’ve done nothing to support your case at all.

Back up any assertion you’ve made with something more than hand-waving and vacuous terms, and you’ll be taken seriously.

220

Aeschines
I’m just curious about the reason that you’re even interested in participating in this setting. There is no true debate going on. Every thread I’ve seen you in seems like your main agenda is negative. Your purpose seems to be to run down atheists and skeptics and if other people don’t agree with you, then you just give them one of those titles. Maybe I’m missing something and if so, I’m sorry. But, why are you here? Below is just a quick hilight of of your participation here so far. It seems your agenda or purpose isn’t the paranormal or any enlightenment at all. It is simply your forum for your bias against skeptics. If that is the case, why don’t you stop pretending to be interested in honest debate? You are just wasting the time of those who are here for the right reason.