Okay the first half of the quote should have said appears to or been worded as an opinion, but the second half is true.
Dismissing them as insufficient evidence doesn’t mean they aren’t ghosts. It just means that the conclusion can’t be made from those pictures.
The OP came to prove ghosts were real. He was unable to do that. Everyone else here only had to prove his information and facts were insufficient, not that there aren’t ghosts. It was proven over and over that there was no empiracle evidence to be had here. It was not a draw.
Well to be fair the video is empircal evidence(AHD: Emprical a. Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment) I would say the video is observation. But just because it is empircal doesnt make it a ghost.
And the OP did not assert any position, he was just asking for explanations. I have read plenty but still no one has provided proof in any direction fraud or real. So it is a DRAW
Sometimes a plausable theory really is all that is needed to debunk something.
If I see you levitate a table yesterday, and I bring you into the lab to repeat that feat, and I catch you lifting the table with your shoes, that won’t prove whether or not yesterday’s stunt was real or fake.
All I can do is theorize that you faked it yesterday as well. I can’t prove it, but, in my opinion, I have debunked your ability to levitate tables.
Unfortunately, it is the same with ghost pictures. I’ve looked at all the pictures at the sites mentioned in earlier links. In most cases, the ghosts appear to be nothing more than random natural phenomenon that happen to look like people and faces. The rest are likely photographic errors.
In my opinion, an alternate–and more plausable–theory is all I need to debunk them.
It would be nice to “prove” them wrong, but, in each case, there are no real details about the photograph or any additional images to compare it with.
It’s not a draw. Those who have asserted the existence of ghots have failed to support those assertions or even to define what a “ghost” is.
We have anecdotes, we have photographic anomolies and that’s pretty much it. The ghosts supporters have failed to meet their burden.
If a prosecutor puts a man on trial for murder, produces no physical evidence, no theory for how the crime was committed and no victim is it a draw that the defense cannot prove that the man has NOT committed murder at some point in his life?
We have nothing here to analyze. We have no “evidence” that can’t be explained by much more prosaic natural causes and I hate to keep repeating myself but we can’t get anywhere until someone explains what a ghost is. Really we don’t have a single phenomenon which can be categorically said to be a “ghostly” occurrance and which can then be subjected to testing and analysis.
Can you prove there are no glunks or dwizzles? I assert that they exist and that you are mistaking them for ghosts. I don’t really know what glunks and dwizzles are or what they’re made of but you can’t prove that’s not a glunk in the smoky-girl picture so I guess we have a draw.
Dob
Below indicates a specific claim of factual information. An assertion of fact. There are more in other posts. This was, I believe his first one. Pictures and videos don’t seem to me like they would count as empiracle evidence unless you could prove they were of something in particular. They do prove that there are pictures of something, but not what. If these things prove ghosts, then the Bible proves G-d.
Okay, this is what I mean. Why is it okay to call them ‘photographic anomolies’, but not ghosts? Have you studied the pictures? Did you go the place it was taken, attempt to recreate the same results yourself? The safe bet is no you didnt. So you have nothing but your skeptics brain calling it an anomolie, not facts.
But you quickly dismiss it as an anomolie. Why? Because you dont believe in ghosts? If someone takes a picture of a ghost and the picture is researched to find that it wasnt a camera problem or a lens/film issue or just an outright fake, but they have no idea what caused the ‘ghost’ image, why couldnt it be a ghost?
Again, spouting an alternate explanation isnt the same as debunking. We are about fighting ignorance, not spreading more. Believe its an anomolie if you want to, but dont put it forward as fact, because its not. It may be proven to be hoax one day, then in which case you may.
On context, I disagree that it is a draw, once we take into account circumstances like the time it happened (Halloween), windy, bad quality of picture, this points to bad evidence. It is charitable to call this a draw. For that specific video that started all this, considering it a draw is charitable. It could, but only on this specific subject: “is this a tape of a ghost?”
Taking a football analogy (and Diogenes is going to hate me for this, since I am from Arizona ) in the big picture, this “draw” is actually like a cheap shot 3 point kick of the believers on the way to a 49-3 defeat. And here we see the other side claiming it was really a tie since the game was once 3-3. For this video it is about the value I would give it.
There are more likely explanations for the video, it is BAD evidence for or against being a ghost, If your point is that this is inconclusive evidence pro or con, that is ok, remember though that who is demanding a draw here is a poster that demands that that draw also include belief in the supernatural and psychic powers. The draw you are talking about it is only related to this tape, but is really silly to think that a draw in this specific case means the other side has good evidence. And that, IMO is the point.
One more thing: you should not forget, that regarding this tape, this so called tie is not taking into account that serious investigation has barely started on this specific tape; also on the circumstances surrounding the making of it. Therefore, this is not over yet Dob, so don’t even call this a draw.
"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.’
And Occam’s Razor tells you to choose mguy in a robe, until some evidence comes in that requires the addition of another entity. I know guys in robes exist, so for me, that is what this is until something shows me why this cannot be a guy in a robe.
Unlike Diogenes, I did analize several of the so called declared genuine photos, it is surprising sometimes the information one can find even in a JPEG, of course to do a better analysis one needs the negatives, but even with a JPEG one can do measurements and extrapolate camera positions, that is why I realized that even those “serious” ghost chasers are not really doing serious research. Until I see them reach a consensus on how to handle evidence, I am not willing to say they have a valid position.
Gigo So in your opinon, derived from looking at a JPEG you belive the ghost opening the door is a fake. So do I. But I cannot prove it is anymore than you can. If you have some method that you use that shows what “measurments and camera position” have to do with this, share them. Until then this is still your opinion, not anything arrived at by real study which while could be done with a still picture, wouldnt be enough to prove anything one way or another. Which is why we are debating.
-My apologies. I didn’t intend to say it was a “proven fact”. For that, we’d need, say, some fellow to come forward and say “Oh, that was me. I popped out the side for a quick fag” or some such. Maybe show the robe and mention why he was wearing it.
However, given the course of this thread, where at best the ‘evidence’ for ghosts is barely anecdotal, and anyone that bothers to link to anything more substantial takes pains to actively distance themselves from confirming or verifying an image, it would appear that any decent evidence is not quickly forthcoming.
That, added to the common version of Occam’s Razor, says that it’s considerably more likely that it’s some guy in a robe, rather than a ghost.
No, I haven’t “proved” it by any stretch of the imagination, but considering that essentially zero information for the ‘ghost’ theory has been proffered, or indeed, even just ghosts in general, we can very likely take the ‘robe’ theory as near-certainty.
-Well, actually, we have the video itself. A figure was seen opening a door and stepping through.
We are, to be sure, operating on the assumption that the video itself is genuine- IE, the camera actually recorded a figure, and not that the whole thing is, say, a remarkably well done CGI construction using Poser and other digital techniques.
So on that assumption, we return to the first decision; is it a ghost or a guy in a robe.
-Well, actually the opposite is more correct. The photos and the sites displaying them are making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof.
They don’t need to be “debunked”, rather, they first need to be “bunked”.
If I’m shown a blurry photo with something that looks like an inkblot reflected in a windowpane in the background, and I’m told that’s a ghost, the person stating that is going to have to come up with a reason it should be believed.
Additionally, that “Ghostly Research” site makes it pretty easy to simply dismiss a large portion of their images: On the “authentic” column we’re shown a photo with a single “orb”, while in the “fakes” column we’re shown an image with multiple “orbs”.
In the “authentic” section is an image of a small reddish blob in the middle of the photo. In the “fakes” section is an image with a large reddish blob in the middle of the photo, which we’re told (accurately, from my photographic experience) that the blob is the result of light leakage in the camera or cartridge.
And since the sources of the photos subtly decline to actually label the images as “authentic”, and most of them have very little corroborating evidence (for example, we’re not shown the regular non-IR photo that was supposedly taken at the same time as the Toys R’ Us infrared image) it is my opinion that the burden of proof lies with them.
I find it easy to dismiss them, since they put little or no effort into authenticating them. They’re posted purely for the Enquirer crowd, who will believe without even being “told” it’s a ghost.
-I disagree. The BBC tape is given with a half-hearted explanation. “We don’t know what it is, might be a ghost”. We have posters coming in and claiming flat-out that ghosts are real. We’re shown photos that supposedly show ghostly images.
But none of them have offered any proof whatsoever. A few anecdotes at best. That’s not a “draw”, that’s a bunch of ghost-believers making claims and not backing them up.
-And again, it is only the former that requires any extraordinary proof.
If I showed you the photo, which, say for the sake of the argument you had not seen before, and said it was a guy in a Hallow’een costume leaving by a side exit, you’d find that photo wholly unremarkable, and have no reason at all to disbelieve the description. There’s no magic, no spirits, no mythology.
However, if I showed you the same photo under the same circumstances, and told you it was the Ghost of the infamous 16th century Black Baron, executed for his crimes in 1576, whose spirit still roams the halls looking for revenge, unless you were one of the aforementioned Enquirer credulous sorts, your first reaction would be to DISbelieve it.
You would, and rightly so, ask for further proof- where was it taken? What kind of camera? Under what conditions? What time of the day? Did anyone else see the ghost that day? Has it been seen there before? Etcetera and so forth.
-And again, what leads to to believe in something for which we have essentially zero verifiable proof?
Not quite true. It could be proven, to a convincing degree, that the photo is a hoax. Maybe not by people on this board, but by others closer to the scene. The hoaxer could come forward, show the robes he was wearing, recreate the photo, etc. Or other photos can be found that show the same robed figure clearly as Bob the janitor smoking a fag outside the back door. I still want to see security footage from the reported many other times that the fire door was opened.
Yet, it would be far more difficult to come up with any kind of similar convincing evidence that would prove that the figure IS a ghost. You’d need many more unusual photos of the same figure, protoplasm detectors, eyewitnesses, etc.
To me, it’s similar to crop circles. They can be proven to be hoaxes by watching people create them. They can’t be proven to be real (i.e., the works of aliens) without seeing the aliens do it.
Read the rest of the paragraph. If he had merely stated a belief in ghosts, he would have been okay. He goes on to state that ghosts are material beings like us. Not I believe or my theory is. No, a statement of fact. I “believe” I can get you some more statements of fact from other posts, but “believe” this should suffice.
It is still NOT a draw!!! The point of your italics is sadly overshadowed by the improper spelling of dammit, dammit. I win.
The point here now is that you insisting in calling it a draw would be possible if this was the end of the discussion! Since you still acknowledge that this discussion and research will go on, regarding this video, it is premature to call it a draw.
I suppose this is what I deserve for going by the handle “coven”. FWIW it’s a reference to “American Movie”. In any case, “energy” is in quotation marks to indicate that I am not postulating it as a scientific concept, rather quoting the kind of explanation often given by folks with a strong belief in ghosts. I put up the photos to be debunked in the hope that further discussion would ensue regarding the burden of proof in this type of case. I think Doc Nickel put it best when he said the photos weren’t “bunked” yet. Good point, 'nuff said. There were also calls for a hypothesis, any hypothesis, so I put one forward regarding heat (the only measurable difference I could see between Granny and her cold dead corpse). A weak effort I’ll admit, not worth replying to, thus getting no replies. Until you Triagonal Planar. But rather than shoot the fish in the barrel, you quote me out of context. I mean I said ghosts were made of heat, why not mock that?
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. Im not trying to say the ghosts argument as a whole is a draw, just this OP piece. I havent seen anything to show this as a hoax, nor have I seen anything to show me its a ghost. Therefore, a draw. However, Gigo makes a good point, the discussion has not ended so calling it a draw may be premature!
IWLN
Damn! you will rue the day IWLN, rue it I say, rue!! have you started rueing?
I saw the link Mr. Miskatonic but I couldnt find the video they enhanced. If you have seen it, can you provide a link?
