I still think there are monkeys in the butt that we just haven’t found scientific proof of yet. They use spirit monkey power.
What? There’s TONS of proof for it out there! Really!
Wouldn’t “nerve” have to indicate cognitive reasoning? I’d have to ask for some empirical evidence on that one.
And yet, you have not answered my point.
-To paraphrase a rather annoying Bushism and risking a DNFTT violation, bring it on, son.
What evidence was discussed? Oh, that’s right, none, because you refused to provide any. You basically made two claims in this thread: 1) ghosts exist, and 2) there is a mountain of evidence supporting (1). After you insisted that both were true time and again, and provided zero evidence of even the existence of evidence, you claim a draw. Now you’ve made three false assertions with zero evidence to back them up. It’s like a swordfight where a guy stabs himself three times, calls his opponent a bad swordsmen, and declares a draw.
You believe ghosts exist because many people say it is true, and here you are saying you’ve successfully defended your position in spite of the fact that many people tell you it’s not true. Ironic, really.
You’re right, I hadn’t really kept up with those threads after reading the OPs. If he keeps up the dismissive, “I’m right, case closed” kinds of tactics withouts cites or logical arguments he will continue to get his ass handed to him.
Some people seem to be immune to that, though, and they keep posting blithely away, oblivious to all logic, unaware of defeat. I used to try to engage with lekatt a lot but found it was like trying to nail jello to a tree. I still like him, though. I think his heart is in the right place even if he does seem to be on the moon a lot of the time.
Better the moon, than cheerily tossing people into hell. I at least understand where he’s coming from and he hurts no one. Unlike a couple of others. Hmm… nailing jello. That describes those exchanges with lynn73 & vanilla perfectly. Love [sorry, couldn’t resist]
Recall that I am just playing devil’s advocate here.
No physical part of the body remains. Classically, it would be the soul of a person or the life essence–the will to exist.
Obviously I have no cite for this, since no one has actually gotten close to proving it. Even so, that is what many people believe to be the case, as is seen in many sci-fi movies and books. Literature tends to reflect widely held beliefs, whether they are supportable or not. You can a possible model in any episode of Casper.
Unknown. Yet, from my studies of material science, I know that gaseous forms of a substance react to their environment very differently than solid or liquid forms. So, when you show me that liquid and gaseous forms of water can pass through a net, but the solid form can’t, I’m not particularly surprised.
So, why do you immediately dismiss the notion that ghosts both can and cannot walk through walls when you’ve seen, with your own eyes, a similar thing happen with water?
“Hey, I just invented a device that allows me to see through a brick wall.”
“Amazing! What do you call it?”
“A window. Do you want to hear about the device that allows me to walk through a brick wall?”
I don’t know exactly how a ghost walks through a wall.
But, I do recall that Helium, for example, can’t be kept in a common platic bag, since the molecules are small enough that they pass through the fabric of the bag. Similarly, potato chips have to be sold in mylar bags because oxygen can pass through common platic wrap and would make the chips go stale.
In fact, all solid substances are almost all empty space, filled with only a molecule now and then. That’s how radiation can pass through solid objects–the objects are mostly empty space.
Once again, I am not trying to convince you that ghosts exist, I’m simply pointing out that some of the things that ghost supporters claim that ghosts do (e.g., walk through walls) are similar concepts to real, proven science.
Granted, I’ll agree that it’s very unlikely that ghosts exist, but I’m not ready to completely close the book on them.
Er…G-d’s advocate here, ahum…
So this soul, which we still have no definition of and no real likely reason for it’s existence is stuck “doing time” in all these kind of dark shadowy places? Or it might be really mischevious and like to run through the room just as the camera is about to go off. We know it’s not physical because we took a picture of it??? Can something non-physical smile for the camera? I would be more likely to believe that this “soul” projects an image into our brain, mind meld or something than that a camera takes a picture of something not physical?
Are we going to figure out if this “essence” can go through a wall, without knowing the make up of this essence. How does material science figure out whether A(unknown) can go through B(the wall)? It’s been a while since I took any science, but how does that work?
No reason to close the book. Just no reason to write one either. But don’t you have to prove what it is before you can prove what it does? Good thing you’re the devil’s advocate.
I can just see you as a stump on the ground, hollering, “Come back here, you yellow! I’ll bite your legs off!”
Re: the Toys ‘R Us “ghost”. I saw that episode of That’s Incredible!, and, IIRC, the words “A Dramatization” were superimposed over the footage of toys working without apparent human provocation. So contrary to Aeschines’ assertion, TI! did not broadcast any film or video of the phenomena, just an approximation of what it would look like if the store really was “haunted”.
BTW, GIGObuster, I followed the link you posted on the previous page, and I looked at some of the other photos. I absolutely love the first one on page 1.
This incident which you claim was a) over 25 years ago, b) only invovled a handful of members of CSICOP c) actually invovled no data fudging, as CSICOP did not provide the data and the incident involved the checking of a baseline.
Its referred to as the ‘sTARBABY’ affiar and was 10% screwup (which was admitted to in 1983), and 90% ego-based temper-tantrum by Dennis Rawlins.
Rawlins’ nature was later shown when he tried to take on the National Geographic society. He refused to comprise on any aspect of the issue and demanded total capitulation from the NGS on all fronts. He was later shown to be dead wrong and humiliated. This was his nature.
99% of paranormal believing fools don’t really know the true events surrounding this incident. They just list it as a reason to dismiss CSICOP and run along happily playing with their goblins and unicorns.
Just one question.
have you ever seen a brain that looked like an egg?
[sub] apologies for the hijack
[/quote]
The web site doesn’t provide much in the way of verifiable background. Therefore the whole story of the guy getting killed by a propellor and being immediately recognisable by those who knew him is all pretty much hearsay and just the sort of standard ghost story that would get added to embelish the tale.
There appear to be a number of uncertain shapes in the dark background, one of which is a face. I would suspect some kind of double exposure. or, more likely, someone stepping up at the back for too short a time to get a proper exposure. This being WWI, exposure times were numbered in seconds rather than fractions of seconds.
The second picture, as has been suggested, bears testimony to the human mind’s gift for constructing faces where there aren’t any. What makes it a ‘little girl’? It resembles a face, but could be of a boy, or even a man. But, of course, that doesn’t fit in with the story, and a little girl caught in the fire provokes more of an emotional reaction. It makes for a better tale.
You realize that you’re still not defining anything don’t you? All you’re doing is comining up with different words for “ghost.” To debate this scientifically we still need a testable theory of ghosts. Until someone can come up with some hypothesis for what a ghost is (meaning, physically, materially what it is…“spirit,” “soul,” etc. do not have any empirical meaning) it’s virtually impossible to apply any sort of scientific investigation or analysis to them. It seems to me that people hypothesize “ghostly” explanations to a wide range of disparate events and phenomena without really ever saying what a ghost is or isn’t. Toy fell off a shelf? Must be a ghost. I feel cold? Must be a ghost. Photographic anomalies? Weird sounds in a graveyard? Some smoke that looks kind of like a face? Guy in a costume opens a fire door? Ghost, ghost, ghost, ghost ghost.
It’s a nonsense word until it is clearly defined in physical terms.
My impression is that a ghost would have to be a physical entity–probably gaseous or particle-based.
Of course, this would make a ghost measurable. This is where the whole ghost idea tends to break down, however.
In theory, various armies of ghost hunters should start looking for evidence with a wide variety of detection devices. After a few people register “hits”, the rest of the hunters should figure out what kind of substance they should be looking for and arm themselves with the appropriate device. The number of verifiable sightings should go way up.
But, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Apparently, everyone still uses widely random equipment. There is no convergence of ideas.
Therefore, I currently conclude that ghost hunters aren’t really finding ghosts–they are simply finding random physical phenomenon and calling them ghosts.
By comparing the size of the particles of “A” with the size of the gaps in substance “B”. It’s similar to a tuna net. Minnows swim right through it, while dolphins cannot.
Without a vial of substance “A”, however, the point is moot.
Not at all. If I gave you a hunk of metal or a box with a big wind-up key on top, you could certainly begin examining and testing it without knowing exactly what it is. In fact, almost all discoveries (as opposed to inventions) started off with someone examining something new, before they knew what it was.
So, if someday I do see a potential ghost, I see no reason why I wouldn’t be able to describe what it is doing, even if I don’t quite know what it is.
Agreed. I’m just saying that some of the attributes classically given to ghosts aren’t at odds with science.
True. But then, that’s kind of the way medicine started. When someone came down with a fever, the local shaman had no real idea what caused the sickness. They often attributed the disease to “bad air” or an ancestor’s evil doings. The shaman didn’t actually need to know the cause to take a shot at fixing the problem. Eventually, science discovered viruses, molds, and bacteria.
Some might be. Most probably aren’t. Until someone actually captures and studies a ghost, no one really knows what they can really do.
From my point of view, it does no harm to search for ghosts. If, by some wild chance, a ghost hunter actually finds one and is able to scientifically document and study it, the world could be turned upside down overnight.
I say that ghost hunters should be taught good scientific methods and unleashed on the castles and battlefields of the world.
If there WERE ghost hunters who used good scientific methods and came up with real evidence and such, I’d be all for it. However, as it stands now, the ghost-hunting community seems to be 98% credulous fools who are willing to accept nearly anything as a ghost without even attempting to find any alternate explanations or even supporting evidence.
Well I hate to do this but…
Ummm, what? Where exactly was this stance proven? Need I remind THIS board, or all boards, that simply stating something does not make a fact? You can call that picture a guy in a robe, but you have proved nothing, I repeate, nothing. If you refute someone calling it a ghost, I must also refute you calling it a guy. We have NO proof for any of it.
Several posters have posted links to sites with ghost pictures. Are they ghosts? I have no idea, but simply dismissing them as smoke and flames does not “debunk” them in any way what-so-ever. To debunk you must also provide proof, not just an alternate theory.
So for the OP, and the following debates, it really is a draw. No one on this board can prove the picture was ghost, anymore than someone can prove it was a person in a dress! For me, I think it was a hoax. Not from any proof, just more of a “hunch”. And for the record I do believe in “ghosts”, but like DtC I think we need a better word for them.
OK Diogenes, how’s this- Soul- n. The difference between the person you love the most in the world, and 42-dollars worth of offal, meat, and bones. (Depending of course on fair market value at the time)
I think this is where most of this belief comes from- one minute granny is alive, the next she’s gone- where did that “energy” go. Surely there is some quantifiable difference between a living being and a corpse? So I guess heat would have to be one part of the makeup (not sure why there’s all that cold around 'em). Maybe they’re mostly heat. I could use some of them around here right now, come to think of it. OK there you go - ghosts are comprised mostly of heat. Since ghosts are comprised mostly of heat, you’d expect to find more of them at a football game than, say, a hockey game. Therefore, the Vikings lost due to ghosts. Howzat? Maybe you should start following the Wild…
Even if for some reason, we could not come up with the right equipment to measure the actual ghost, there should be a way to measure it’s direct affect on it’s surroundings. Sort of like it’s artifact affect.
It seems to me, just from what I’ve read that there have been a wide variety of detection devices and nothing that has scientifically been able to narrow it down. Hard to figure out what I’ll need to look for and detect an IPU.
I think this would be my biggest beef with the whole process. If I came across something shadowy, noisey, unexplainable; I might possibly believe it had something to do with energy, which to me might be reasonable. I would not make the leap to it being some sort of soul. I know energy exists, but why add extra details. They need to use Occam’s Razor on this or something. That’s what hurts the ghost hunters case more than anything. Turns it from an investigation of some unexplained phenomena into the hunt for Great great Aunt Bertha’s soul. It kills any respect or credibility someone might be able to generate and makes them look like fools. If I approached scientific professionals with some data on an unexplained energy field, they might look at it. Not going to get in the door with the data on Aunt Bertha’s soul.
Exactly.
There’s a different between not being able to define something that you can at least observe and trying to define what something unobservable is able to do.