Ghost Sighting On Tape

Great Debates
261

Just because you can’t find how something could be impossible, doesn’t make it possible. It should help people understand better, the way you think though.

You’re repeating yourself again, dear.
Here just to help you out, I’ll bring back some of your standard answers for quicker reference. I think a lot of those pesky things “disappeared” onto the other page. I have noticed you don’t seem to want to respond to my posts and while rather crushed, can understand how you would find it difficult. Sadly I did leave your standard reference to creationists off this list, but I see you used it in this post, so I just left it at the bottom. That did work out nicely.:wink: There are some other standard answers that I regret now leaving off, but at least you keep bringing them up. Oh, you know your links didn’t work, none of them. Maybe I’m just having a little ghostie in my computer. Pity.

262

In the interests of accuracy, so no one can accuse us of covering up possibilities, I would like to use my lifelong experience as a photographer to amend others’ comments about what can and cannot be done naturally (that is, excluding deliberate fraud) with film or digital media.

It is true that film captures only what images are presented thru the lens. But there are other ways that the final image can be formed than just by light. Film can be scratched, dust can accumulate, and chemical alterations can happen during processing. Also, there are slight but sometimes significant differences between how a human eye sees an image and a camera does; the eye doesn’t use a fractional-second shutter for example. This can lead to things like “rods” which are certainly only light images; hard to see with an eye, easy with a camera.

When I first began processing film in the lab, I often ran across little semicircular patterns on the film that could not have been captured with light. Further investigation showed that I had handled the substate poorly, and the marks were due to a sharp, but brief bending of the film while in the developer.

I once unwittingly put some car keys on a polaroid SR70 picture before it was fully developed. The pressure on the plastic layers created interesting, weird patterns without the use of light. Also interesting was the fact that the next day, they had disappeared! Paranormal, right? No, probably the chemicals had spread thru the layers and removed the pressure effects over time.

And digital photography has its own kind of non-light-produced artifacts. I have a camera that turns very bright spots into green blobs with sharp, yellow fringes. Might be ghosts, but I think it is more likely a characteristic of the electronics and software.

So it is not true that film or digital media shows only that which light sends thru the lens.

And, just like it is advantageous to have a magician on staff when investigating paranormal phenomena, it is wise to have an experienced photographer on call when examining images. I often see “anomoly” photographs that look exactly like common photographic errors or unplanned processing. Not mysterious at all to those that have seen it all before.

263

Sorry if the links aren’t working. I typed in MS Word first, then pasted (because stuff typed into this window tends to disappear–very paranormal!). At any rate, that doesn’t make the url’s appear properly. For some reason.

They will work if you paste them into the address line. Enjoy!

264

That’s not jumping to conclusions at all. We know precisely how video cameras work, because we created them. We know precisely how the human eye works, because we have studied it for centuries. We know that they both respond to electromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range. And since we designed cameras to record stuff we can see, it responds to the same frequency range as the human eye.

So no, there is no jumping to conclusions involved when someone says “If the ‘ghost’ appears on film, then it was visible to the human eye.” Of course, there are some photographic artifacts that do not appear directly to the human eye – stuff like lens flare, double exposures, streaking, etc – because of the nature of how cameras work. Fortunately, we know how these things happen because humans designed the cameras in the first place.

But more frames of video are taken every day than photos, therefore it stands to reason that there should be more ghost videos than photos. Yet that does not appear to be the case. Thus I must conclude that the vast majority – if not all – of ghost photographs are either photographic artifacts, or images that have an optical-illusion-like ability to be seen as something that they’re not for a single frame, but lose that attribute when seen in sequence with other images of the same thing from different angles or over time.

Care to elaborate?

But evolution has mountains of testable evidence. Ghosts have a bunch of photographs and eyewitness accounts, but nothing more. For you to compare the two is laughable.

And really, even if we look at all these pictures and eyewitness accounts and take them at face value, it says nothing at all about this phenomenon being ghosts. They could be psychic projections, aliens, extra-dimensional travelers, fairies, etc. To claim that they are ghosts is attempting to reach a conclusion that the (extremely lacking) evidence does not even indicate. Instead, it’s a personal interpretation based on societal beliefs. If you had been raised in a society that had never believed in ghosts, but believed in aliens, then these pictures would no doubt be interpreted by you as being evidence of aliens.

And therein lies the problem. If evidence can be interpreted however you want based on what you want to believe rather than what the evidence shows, then it’s not evidence at all.

Just because you don’t understand relativity well enough to argue it doesn’t mean that anything that you believe but don’t understand very well is true.

There are experiments you can do to confirm relativity. There are no such experiments to confirm ghosts. There is a vast body of knowledge and research on quantum mechanics, while ghosts have only personal accounts of strange happenings and some fuzzy pictures.

Just because you believe it to the same degree as relativity and quantum mechanics doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near as likely.

And people have likewise believed that gods hurled lightning from the clouds and that the Earth was flat. Does the phrase Argumentum ad antiquitatem ring a bell?

265

Aeschines:

I’m still waiting for a workable theory of ghosts. How can anyone say that they’ve seen or photographed a ghost if they can’t explain what a ghost is?

What is a “ghost?” What is it made of? What physical properties does it possess?

Until these questions get answered then no scientific investigation is even possible. We need something predictable, man, something testable. It’s hard to debunk what isn’t defined. For instance, how you know that what people think are ghosts in those photographs are not actually glunks or dwizzles? The word "ghost has just as much meaning at this point.

266

You are correct that I enjoy this Aeschines, it is an education and a good research exercise.

Regarding the Toys ‘R us ghost:

http://riptx.dns2go.com/ToysRUs.htm
The person was identified by the ghost chasers:

Earlier you stated that:

http://www.creativespirits.net/paranormal/famouspics2.php

The lack of historical proof is one big strike against it being a ghost.

racinchikki’s point is still valid: people in a séance look at the person organizing it, or to the object of attention, plenty of opportunity for a bystander to walk in, look at some peculiar people and then leave, the true definition of a lurker, only that this time the lurker left his heat imprint, you just need everybody to not look at the area were he lurked, timing was (unintentionally) everything.

Regarding the csicop case, you missed the point, although I am beginning to think you are doing it in purpose: other researchers investigated later (1997) and found the mars effect to be bogus. Pointing at those specific skeptics, that got stuck in the tar pit that the astrologers opened (remember: they used the astrologer’s flawed data), as typical of all skeptics is silly. It also ignores that the same or worse behavior was verified on the astrologers that proposed this silliness in the first place (I call it worse since the inescapable conclusion is that they cherry picked the data). You missed also that now those skeptics concur that the data they found should be excluded from further consideration on this matter.

And excluded it was form the new findings, so the skeptics there lost their efforts, the believers however lost the whole shebang: but you linking to an older, already discredited, (the data not the man) position speaks volumes of your inadequate system of debating.

Time to get a feel of what the Ghost chasers consider “research”:

http://www.theness.com/articles/warrens-cs0203.html

267

That’s not jumping to conclusions at all. We know precisely how video cameras work, because we created them. We know precisely how the human eye works, because we have studied it for centuries. We know that they both respond to electromagnetic radiation within a certain frequency range. And since we designed cameras to record stuff we can see, it responds to the same frequency range as the human eye.

Unless there is something we don’t know.

So no, there is no jumping to conclusions involved when someone says "If the ‘ghost’ appears on film, then it was visible to the human eye."

In certain cases that does not appear to be so.

Of course, there are some photographic artifacts that do not appear directly to the human eye – stuff like lens flare, double exposures, streaking, etc – because of the nature of how cameras work. Fortunately, we know how these things happen because humans designed the cameras in the first place.

And there are some photographic phenomena we nevertheless do not understand.

But more frames of video are taken every day than photos, therefore it stands to reason that there should be more ghost videos than photos. Yet that does not appear to be the case. Thus I must conclude that the vast majority – if not all – of ghost photographs are either photographic artifacts, or images that have an optical-illusion-like ability to be seen as something that they’re not for a single frame, but lose that attribute when seen in sequence with other images of the same thing from different angles or over time.

This is indeed an excellent argument. One would have to study a lot of videos frame by frame to see if anything shows up. It is a good idea for an experiment.

But evolution has mountains of testable evidence. Ghosts have a bunch of photographs and eyewitness accounts, but nothing more. For you to compare the two is laughable.

A gross simplification. Evolutionary theory is the playground of the creationists precisely because you can’t do lab experiments. I don’t know what you mean by “testable.” Ghosts have a lot more evidence than even photos and eyewitness accounts, which is quite substantial anyway.

And really, even if we look at all these pictures and eyewitness accounts and take them at face value, it says nothing at all about this phenomenon being ghosts.

Yeah, it says something, considering the actual content of the observations.

They could be psychic projections, aliens, extra-dimensional travelers, fairies, etc. To claim that they are ghosts is attempting to reach a conclusion that the (extremely lacking) evidence does not even indicate.

No, the content of the data allows for a very consistent and simple framework.

Instead, it’s a personal interpretation based on societal beliefs. If you had been raised in a society that had never believed in ghosts, but believed in aliens, then these pictures would no doubt be interpreted by you as being evidence of aliens.

Irrelevant, considering that the interpretational framework called “ghost” has been stable for thousands of years. Anyway, I could just as easily and glibly claim that, had you been raised in a fundamentalist Christian family, you would interpret the fossil record as being evidence for a great flood, and not for evolution.

And therein lies the problem. If evidence can be interpreted however you want based on what you want to believe rather than what the evidence shows, then it’s not evidence at all.

Then there is no evidence for evolution, since a creationist can interpret it however he wants?

Just because you don’t understand relativity well enough to argue it doesn’t mean that anything that you believe but don’t understand very well is true.

Certainly, this is true of every person on the planet.

There are experiments you can do to confirm relativity. There are no such experiments to confirm ghosts.

Sure there are: people go to reportedly haunted places and look for evidence of the haunting. And there they find it.

There is a vast body of knowledge and research on quantum mechanics, while ghosts have only personal accounts of strange happenings and some fuzzy pictures.

There are also pictures that are not fuzzy.

Just because you believe it to the same degree as relativity and quantum mechanics doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near as likely.

No joke. That wasn’t my argument.

And people have likewise believed that gods hurled lightning from the clouds and that the Earth was flat. Does the phrase Argumentum ad antiquitatem ring a bell?

The point was regarding the purported “unusualness” of ghosts. You are talking about something else.

268

Gigo:

You are correct that I enjoy this Aeschines, it is an education and a good research exercise.

I thank you, my friend.

The lack of historical proof is one big strike against it being a ghost.

No records of a 19th century person? How rare.

racinchikki’s point is still valid: people in a séance look at the person organizing it, or to the object of attention, plenty of opportunity for a bystander to walk in, look at some peculiar people and then leave, the true definition of a lurker, only that this time the lurker left his heat imprint, you just need everybody to not look at the area were he lurked, timing was (unintentionally) everything.

Hell if I know. I wasn’t there.

Regarding the csicop case, you missed the point, although I am beginning to think you are doing it in purpose: other researchers investigated later (1997) and found the mars effect to be bogus. Pointing at those specific skeptics, that got stuck in the tar pit that the astrologers opened (remember: they used the astrologer’s flawed data), as typical of all skeptics is silly. It also ignores that the same or worse behavior was verified on the astrologers that proposed this silliness in the first place (I call it worse since the inescapable conclusion is that they cherry picked the data). You missed also that now those skeptics concur that the data they found should be excluded from further consideration on this matter.

The link I posted describes the misbehavior of the CSICOP gang, the all-out fuctness of the whole thing. Again, I have no personal knowledge of the case and have no opinion on the actual data being investigated.
Time to get a feel of what the Ghost chasers consider “research”:

I read a good chunk of it. Yeah, it sounds like these people are wackjobs. And many people I know personally have said they have seen ghosts, sometimes more than one person at the same time.

269

Good to know you can identify wackjobs. However, you did not notice that the researchers on the Toys ‘r us case are worse than the ones in the last link, The evidence for the name and history of the ghost was obtained not through historical evidence, but by that great convincing evidence of psychic powers. :rolleyes:

270

I followed the TRUs links and did not see any evidence of whackjobbery.

271

So, you don’t see that a ghost researcher claiming to get the name of the ghost by psychic powers is a wackjob? :rolleyes:

I forgot another point that should have been obvious: on the so-called misbehavior of those specific csicop skeptics: the uncorroborated testimony of one researcher, which has not been updated in more than 10 years. With not even a note that the skeptics admitted that the data was not good to begin with, tells me of an effort to mislead. You are getting close to doing it yourself.

272

No misleadning is allowed on SDMB, so I would never do that.

273

I think linking to digital photographs of any kind is a waste of time. Digital editing technology is so good now it is essentially impossible to detect deliberate alteration. I would only trust evidence presented in digital format if some verifiable disclaimer from an independent peer-reviewd body were provided that could attest to the quality of the original image and the fact that the capture and reproduction of that image was observed under strictly controled conditions, to rule out any attempt at forgery. Given the human penchant for lying, and the ability we now have to make such lies believable and undetectable, there is now no substitute for this level of quality.

The only way any rational person should have confidence (never belief) that an image of an apparition is real is if folks using the scientific method capture said image under validated conditions. That means the conditions are well controlled, that they can, at least in principle, be reproduced by independent investigators, that all details about how, where, and when the photographs were taken are provided, that the original images are freely available to any and all who wish to inspect them for flaws of any kind, etc.

No photograph of a ghost has ever been produced under such conditions. Nor of a UFO, nor the Loch Ness monster, nor Sasquatch, the Yeti, Champ, Casper the Friendly Ghost, ET, not any of them. This is not for want of trying. Plenty of honest folks with cameras have taken photos of weird stuff, and those witnesses have been sufficiently credible that real honest-to-goodness scientists have spent real time and money to search for verifiable proof of the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. Google the “Wow!” signal some time; it’s the best example we have ever found of a potential extraterrestrial signal of intelligent origin. In fact, it satisfies EVERY criterion for being a real message from ET, except that no one has ever seen it again. Folks have searched and searched with the most powerful radio telescopes we have, to no avail. To this day, nobody knows what the Wow! signal really was. I bet there are some scientist out there who wish they could prove it really was an extraterrestrial signal. But wishing it was true doesn’t make it true, and wishes are all they’ve got beyond the original observation. As Carl Sagan said (he certainly knew about the Wow! signal, but not ET), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence, the discovery of the Wow! signal remains a tantalizing mystery, and nothing more.

Anyone who believes in ghosts based on the available evidence lacks sufficient proof and is instead taking it on faith ghosts exist. There is absolutely no other valid way to describe the situation as it presently stands. Aeschines, you can argue until you are blue, but on this point, there is no disputing the facts. If you don’t accept the necessity of the burden of proof I have described above, simply say so, and the discussion can end. Admit your standards are not the same as those that meet scientific muster, and publically join the ranks of the believers. There’s no shame in it; lots of people believe in supernatural beings like the god of Abraham despite the fact there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that belief. It’s something ostensibly sane people do on a regular and widespread basis.

But don’t say the proof is out there. Maybe, MAYBE there’s some evidence worth verifying, but no verified evidence. NONE. Zilch. Zero. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

274

Fine, then please stop bringing misleading cites on csicop, and behaving like shaky evidence of ghosts means that psychic powers are confirmed too.

275

Loopy:

I think linking to digital photographs of any kind is a waste of time.

Etc. etc. The ghost researches agree with you!

http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/articles/digital.html

The only way any rational person should have confidence (never belief) that an image of an apparition is real is if folks using the scientific method capture said image under validated conditions.

Bullshit. A rational person could experience ghost phenomena himself and come to that conclusion for himself.

That means the conditions are well controlled, that they can, at least in principle, be reproduced by independent investigators, that all details about how, where, and when the photographs were taken are provided, that the original images are freely available to any and all who wish to inspect them for flaws of any kind, etc.

There are photos that have met these criteria.

No photograph of a ghost has ever been produced under such conditions. Nor of a UFO, nor the Loch Ness monster, nor Sasquatch, the Yeti, Champ, Casper the Friendly Ghost, ET, not any of them.

Well, if you say so, I guess not. The conditions you are imagining are what you are imagining. You can make them as stringent as you choose.

**This is not for want of trying. Plenty of honest folks with cameras have taken photos of weird stuff, and those witnesses have been sufficiently credible that real honest-to-goodness scientists have spent real time and money to search for verifiable proof of the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. **

And such proof is never forthcoming, since any evidence is just dismissed by those who wish to dismiss it. No matter what!

Google the “Wow!” signal some time [snip].

Who the fuck is talking about ET signals?!

Anyone who believes in ghosts based on the available evidence lacks sufficient proof and is instead taking it on faith ghosts exist.

Or personal experience, etc. etc.

There is absolutely no other valid way to describe the situation as it presently stands. Aeschines, you can argue until you are blue, but on this point, there is no disputing the facts.

The facts are what we are disputing.

If you don’t accept the necessity of the burden of proof I have described above, simply say so, and the discussion can end.

Yes, I understand that you have a particular burden of proof in your mind, to which I do not have access.

Admit your standards are not the same as those that meet scientific muster, and publically join the ranks of the believers.

I’ve explained why I believe elsewhere in the thread.

There’s no shame in it; lots of people believe in supernatural beings like the god of Abraham despite the fact there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that belief.

No evidence! No missing links! Same ol’ shit. And no, I do not believe in the god of Abraham, thank you very much.

It’s something ostensibly sane people do on a regular and widespread basis.

Maybe, but it has fuck all to do with this discussion.

But don’t say the proof is out there.

The proof is out there.

Maybe, MAYBE there’s some evidence worth verifying, but no verified evidence. NONE. Zilch. Zero. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Your shoddy use of vulgarized, pseudo-scientific terms–“verified evidence”–leads me to take you about as seriously as I do others in this thread.

276

Gigo:

Fine, then please stop bringing misleading cites on csicop, and behaving like shaky evidence of ghosts means that psychic powers are confirmed too.

Wha’? Psi phenomena are well confirmed by good, solid experiments. Case closed!

277

Aeschines, it sure would make it easier to read and to interpret what you intend to show if you would use vBulletin quote coding. It’s pretty simple, really, not much different from the bold tags you are already using.

Here’s how your above post might look:

Wha’? Psi phenomena are well confirmed by good, solid experiments. Case closed!

{end of your post}

How to code this?

If you are not using the “quote” button, but hand-coding, here’s what your above post would look like to you, before hitting “Submit Reply.” Just be sure to preview to avoid silly mistakes. Try it – you’ll like it:

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gigo[/i]
Fine, then please stop bringing misleading cites on csicop, and behaving like shaky evidence of ghosts means that psychic powers are confirmed too.[/quote]Wha’? Psi phenomena are well confirmed by good, solid experiments. Case closed!

278

Many would feel stunned by such affirmation; fortunately I am not like that.

This takes the cake, for while there are serious doubts on the ghost evidence, there has not been a solid confirmed experiment for Psi phenomena.

It is a big fat lie that the case is closed.

In all the so called good cases for evidence of Psi powers, the sad reality is that confirmation or replication of the so called experiments, have encountered failure.

http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95sum/para.html

279

What, you think I’m gonna open my mouth and let everybody else know I can communicate? No way!

All mind, baby, all mind…

:cool:

-Rav

280

Aeschines:

You’ve stated your belief in ghosts is based on the following factors: photographic record, secondhand accounts, and firsthand experience. What I would like to know is this: at what point did you determine that ghosts definitely exist? Would two of those three factors have been enough for you to make that determination? Would you be so sure of the existence of ghosts if you didn’t have any personal experience of the phenomena?