Ghost Sighting On Tape

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Originally posted by Flash-57 *
[BWell, just to play Devil’s Advocate here, the classic “cartoon” perception of a ghost nicely covers this point. A ghost seems to be the spiritual remains of a real person.*

What do you mean by “spiritual/” What physical part of the body “remains?”

The ghost would seem to have the memories and habits of that person,

Cite?

so using doors is the preferred method. Many ghosts eventually realize that they are not limited to corporeal movements and can move through walls and knock stuff off shelves when they want to.

AQre they material or aren’t they? If they are then how can they move through wall? If they are not, then how can they interact with physical objects. Also, ifr they are nort material, what are they? What is the substance of “spirit?” What physical properties does it possess? How doe it perceive light and sound without organs? How does it retain consciousness without a brain? How does it move without muscles or limbs? How does it generate kinetic energy?

It’s similar to the way non-dead people approach things. When you are in a room, you have the choice of leaving the room through the door, window, or burrowing through a wall. In almost all cases, you will use the door because it’s easier and habitual.

Non-dead people as opposed to “dead” people? Dead people are, by definition, the corpses of physical bodies. Corpses do not move around or “make choices.” Defining ghosts as “dead people” is a non-definition.

Also, please explain how ghosts can go through walls if they are material and how they interact with the physical world if they are not. Plus you really need to explain how something can exist without being material (and don’t say “enegy.” Energy is still material. It doesn’t get you off the hook.)

Similarly, almost all of the time, you don’t knock things off the shelf. But sometimes you do, whether it’s an acident or on purpose.

I’ve never once walked through a wall. Please explain how ghosts do it. “HOW” is the operative word here. Speculations as to WHY are irrelevant until it can be shown that any such phenomenon actually happens.

[GIGObuster]

Aeschines

On a previous post, I explained why you saying “the case was closed on Psi phenomena” is a lie, since in real research, the best that it could be said is that psychic researchers are just only beginning to do serious work on it. So far, very little has been found. If you want to declare it was not a lie, saying “case close” was at best misleading again, so much for a draw.

The conclusion on your misleading links on the SCICOP case showed that there is already a tacit admission that the skeptics goofed, and they goofed because the astrologers got the wrong data, the larger lesson has to be spelled because for some reason it never got to you: The believers were wrong in the phenomenon they were trying to prove, the skeptics were wrong only in the original method of debunking.

There is a lesson there for both believer and skeptic alike. As a skeptic that has never been a member of SCICOP, I will take the lesson to heart; of course, it is meaningful that the mountain of evidence against astrology was vindicated. The lesson the believer should take is obvious, but believers usually never follow it, would you?

[racinchikki]

*Originally posted by Aeschines *
**Gigo, are you calling me a liar? **

He’s asking you a question, and you’re responding like somebody who’s about two steps away from challenging all of us to meet you on the green at dawn, and bring pistols and seconds. (I’m referring to the act of calling for a duel, which is not meant to be interpreted as any sort of physical threat. Consider it a metaphor.)

Look, as far as I can tell, with the technical photography aspect of it you are basically saying “well, sure, we know that film isn’t sensitive to wavelengths that arent’ visible to the human eye, but there COULD be and we just don’t KNOW about them yet.” Heck, there COULD be magical flying monkeys living in your butt and you just don’t KNOW about them yet.

Yeah, I’m sure that after over 150 years of photography, and all the technological and scientific developments that have come along, and all the experimentation done by photographers, and all the testing by the film laboratories, there are just BILLIONS of thigns we don’t know about how to expose film. Because none of the scientists who make the damn stuff would bother to test that sort of thing. And quite frankly, as soon as you start saying that it’s “spirit energy” I’ve lost all respect for your position and your debate skills, at the very least on this topic if not in general.

Yes, there are anomalies on film, but ALL of them have repeatedly-proven explanations - temperature changes which alter the film’s reaction to exposure, weird tricks of the light causing lens flare (a lot of people who wear glasses have seen this with their own eyes, btw, myself included), dust motes in the air causing “orb”-like images (again, if you go into the attic and kick up some dust, then stand in the window at the proper angle, the sunlight will illuminate the dust just like it does on film), mishaps in handling the film and the negatives and the processed prints, dust and scratches on the lens and the film and the printing equipment… it’s all repeatable, proven and logical. I can prove that kicking up dust and taking a photo with the flash on will create orb-like phenomena. You cannot prove that an orb-like phenomena is a ghost - or at least you haven’t shown yourself able to. The same applies to translucent human images. I can prove that double exposures or carefully-timed long exposures will result in translucent human images, as will a carefully-aimed and -focussed shot of a reflection in a window. You cannot prove that the translucent human image is a ghost.

[Doc_Nickel]

*Originally posted by Aeschines *
**Yawn. Fighting 15 close-minded skeptics at once is indeed a challenge. I was hoping to have a few allies in the battle. **

-Ah yes. Because I don’t believe you when you say “ghosts are real”, but provide NO further information, link to NO coroborrating websites, give NO detail to your personal experiences or anyone elses’ experiences, and actively distance yourself from the one bit of information you did post, that makes ME “closed minded”.

Gotta love it.

I already successfully defended my position.

-Eh heeheehee! Excuse me, what?

[R. Lee Earmey]

Son, you couldn’t defend a cup of rice pudding. Now sweep up your dignity and go home.

[/RLE]

**Many in the room are bloody at this point. **

-Oh? Who would that be, and with what keen edge of rapier wit was the blood drawn?

Surely you don’t mean this gem:

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

Ooh, the unassailable “Trust me, I’m right!” defense, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Truly the work of a master.

I have admired your strength in battle, all of you,[…]

-I wish I could say the same, but to be perfectly honest, I have yet to see you fight. I’ve had considerably more difficulty from the Creationists, Theists and gun-control types. This wasn’t even shooting fish in a barrel.

Hell, the guy that insisted that NASA was covering up photos and information about ancient alien cities on the Moon put up more of a fight.

but at this point I would call it a draw.

-Of course you would. It somehow sounds a bit better than “Got your ass handed to you in a sack”.

Since, however, it was the one against the many, I feel quite proud of my battle prowess at this point.

-I’m sure. And, other than the fact this was hardly a skirmish, let alone a battle, you fired only blanks, your infantry was a no-show, and you just dropped your rifle in what can only be termed unconditional surrender, I’d imagine you think it is indeed something to be proud of.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by coven *
**OK, so this thread has caused me to look at a lot of ghost photographs, and I remain skeptical that they are all deliberate hoaxes. Clearly a lot of them are explainable by various operator errors, or errors in the lab, but for the sake of satisfying my curiosity and playing “devil’s advocate”, let’s hear the debunking of these:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Ghosts/WW1Ghost.html
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Ghosts/Werm.html
I am not saying that these photos in any way prove the existence of ghosts, but I also don’t think that either is easily explained. Of course,I could be wrong. The one of the “little girl” in the fire seems particularily compelling. Just curious how the panel of experts explain the images. **

Thre first one looks like a perfectly ordinary photograph to me. It’s just a bunch of guys in unoforms. So what?

The second one is obviously a suggestive cloud of smoke and nothing more. It reminds me of the “face” on mars. The human mind is rather susceptible to creating false human faces out of a few suggestive details.

Actually, it looks rather like Jesus to me. It seems to have a beard.

[Aeschines]

Doc,

But we’re still buds, right? We’re okay, right?

[Jon_the_Geek]

Hmm, on preview it looks like I somehow missed several posts. I’m still replying to this, but I’m sorry if I repeat what’s already been said

*Originally posted by coven *
**OK, so this thread has caused me to look at a lot of ghost photographs, and I remain skeptical that they are all deliberate hoaxes. Clearly a lot of them are explainable by various operator errors, or errors in the lab, but for the sake of satisfying my curiosity and playing “devil’s advocate”, let’s hear the debunking of these:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Ghosts/WW1Ghost.html
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Ghosts/Werm.html
I am not saying that these photos in any way prove the existence of ghosts, but I also don’t think that either is easily explained. Of course,I could be wrong. The one of the “little girl” in the fire seems particularily compelling. Just curious how the panel of experts explain the images. **

Ok, I’ll bite.

For the first… well, I need more than claims on that website about the backstory for it to be strange at all. My current theory would be that someone was standing just behind that guy in the back row (note that there are other people behind that “back” row, they’re just centered better between people so they aren’t partially blocked).

For the second… I’ll agree with the expert described in the notes on the site, who stated that it was “an illusion caused by some of the smoke, shadows, flames and angles.” Note that the “little girl” looks FAR less like a little girl in the zoom. Also, I believe the “belt” at her “waist” is something on the ground.

I obviously would need more info to fully debunk it, but I’d need FAR FAR more info to take it as anything approaching proof of the existance of “ghosts” or “spirits” or “glunks” or “dwizzles”

[Doc_Nickel]

*Originally posted by Aeschines *
[…] There is room for disagreement and mutual respect to exist in the same space.

-I, for one, would have respected you a great deal more had you actually defended your position.

To paraphrase George Carlin, this has been little more than a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

**Now I hope that I’m just misunderstanding a word here and a phrase there, and that we can all become good friends. Let me know what you think. **

-Certainly. Here’s what I think, no beating about the metaphorical bush:

You got drawn into this argument in an attempt to “assist” chicksdigscars, and in doing so you made some rather interesting claims, stated as proof.

Other readers asked for some substantiation to those rather wild claims, to which you, at no time in this thread, replied with anything the least bit more substantial than “there’s lots of evidence out there”.

Period, end of discussion.

Now, several pages later, after repeated and increasingly-pointed questions, and repeated requests for any sort of additional information whatsoever, you decide to basically pick up your ball and go home, with a couple of parting jabs about us being “closed minded” and for some reason thinking you gave as good as you got.

Running away doesn’t win your argument.

[Aeschines]

I’m glad that we can agree that it was a draw, and that we are all still friends and feel good about the interaction. And with that I vote to close the thread.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It seems that Aeschines is dropping out of the debate while declaring a draw.

Don’t take it so personally, A. You picked a virtually impossible hill to defend. That doesn’t mean you won’t do better at some other topic of debate and it doesn’t mean that we’ve decided we don’t like you. We tend to wait for someone to try their hand at a variety of topics before we pass ultimate judgement. One quirky belief isn’t going tp make you a pariah unless you become a one-trick pony.

[Jon_the_Geek]

*Originally posted by Aeschines *
**I’m glad that we can agree that it was a draw, and that we are all still friends and feel good about the interaction. And with that I vote to close the thread. **

I’m beginning to think this guy might be a clever troll. He failed to debate anything in this debate thread, claimed it was a draw, and now thanks us for agreeing with him (after several posts laughing at the idea that it was anything even close to a draw)…

[Aeschines]

Hey, at least a “clever” troll, ness-pah?

I’ve had fun with it, and I’m sure I’ll be the stauch ally of the skeptics on many topics.

[Quint]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *

The second one is obviously a suggestive cloud of smoke and nothing more. It reminds me of the “face” on mars. The human mind is rather susceptible to creating false human faces out of a few suggestive details.

Actually, it looks rather like Jesus to me. It seems to have a beard. **

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. I don’t think there’s anything “obvious” about this being smoke, and saying that it’s “obvious” is somewhat dismissive. It would have to be some particularily dense smoke. I also think it looks a lot more like Abraham Lincoln than Jesus.

[GIGObuster]

Mmm, actually here it is not kosher to call someone a troll, admitting to being one, even less.

[Jon_the_Geek]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**Mmm, actually here it is not kosher to call someone a troll, admitting to being one, even less. **

Argh, sorry about that. My bad. Won’t happen again.

[Doc_Nickel]

So, with Aeschines slinking off the “battleground”, 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.

Kind of a pity, really, but hardly unexpected.

[Aeschines]

Doc,

Are you kidding? There is tons of evidence out there, which we have already discussed. I thought we were done. Please don’t make me go another round with you. It won’t be pretty this time.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
That doesn’t mean you won’t do better at some other topic of debate and it doesn’t mean that we’ve decided we don’t like you. We tend to wait for someone to try their hand at a variety of topics before we pass ultimate judgement. One quirky belief isn’t going tp make you a pariah unless you become a one-trick pony.

DtC, He hasn’t been different in this thread or this one. Asking for cites or anything more than just his biased opinion, fell on deaf ears. He could have 10 quirky beliefs if he’d just back them up with something. A letter from his mother, anything! Not interesting enough to be a pariah, though. Hey, if I would have got away with as much as he is, I’d probably still be a Christian! :rolleyes:

[Ale]

*Originally posted by Aeschines *
**Doc,

Are you kidding? There is tons of evidence out there, which we have already discussed. I thought we were done. Please don’t make me go another round with you. It won’t be pretty this time. **

Now, I must admit I admire this guys nerve.

[GIGObuster]

Aeschines, we already saw that regarding the “the tons of evidence”, that even ghosts chasers say more than half is not reliable. In addition, we already found flaws and in many occations, debunked even the ones that they declared genuine.

Tons of it? more bluffing from your part.