I have watched all kinds of TV shows on supposedly “haunted” houses, and read lots of books on the subject. Why hasn’t anyone tried this rather simple way of settling the question (whether these “hauntings” are a geniune phenomenon)? Why not put sensitive microphones and video cameras (with recorders) in these haunted houses. Then record several days worth, and have a computer analyze the noises/images recorded. If nothing pops up (like a ghost or unexplained noises), then I think we can lay the whole thing to rest.
My question: has this been done? And if so, what were the results. If "ghosts’ are an actual phenomena (and not the product of imagination) then surely the microphone and video camera should be able to reveal their presences 9or absence).
Many years ago, i was watching TV (on Halloween eve). There was a TV show on, and an english ghost hunter had set up a video camera in the basement of a “haunted pub” in london. I recall that the camera seemed to be recording something moving in the room 9it was reportely haunted by the ghost of a royalist nobleman from the 17th century). Anybody remember this? So what’s the record of ghost on videotape?
What makes you think our superior technology can pick up apparitions? I have seen supposed candid photographs showing spirits in them… but I bet experts could explain away what these images were.
People claim to have video evidence of poiltergists (sp?) but how can you verify that it wasn’t faked? Trying to explain something unscientific, such as ghosts, using strictly scientific methods is difficult if not impossible to do.
To answer your question, people have tried what you have suggested… but the basic question remains unanswered… to the best of my knowledge.
A picture of a ghost on videotape would carry the same weight as a picture of a flying saucer on videotape. Pictures of gostly images are almost always discounted as photographic anomalies, usually because the alleged gostly image (halo, or whatever) can be duplicated in other pictures taken in ordinary (non-haunted) locations.
Sometimes even eyewitness accounts are misleading because the observer saw a play of the light through some gossamer curtains while s/he was half asleep. Adding a camera just introduces more opportunity for errors or misinterpretations.
Sounds of goasts moaning are equally worthless for hopefully obvious reasons.
Ansence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
How about using a ghost-to-ghost hookup?
[sub]I really, really apologize. It was Attrayant’s typo in the previous post that made me do it, I swear.[/sub]
Y’know, if we punished Uke appropriately for that ghastly pun, we might get a chance to experiment with a haunted message board. Then we could just log the IP traffic–that would be much less vague than photos or audiovisual recordings.
[sub]Actually, I probably would have done it myself if Uke hadn’t beat me to it. :D[/sub]
Seriously, the problem with the approach suggested in the OP is that you’re dealing with True Believers[sup]TM[/sup] on either side. On one side, you have people who will claim every smear and lighting artifact as concrete proof, and on the other side you have people who would happily debunk real pictures if they ever came along.
You can’t settle this because people don’t want it settled.
Just for that, I’m going to haunt you when I die.