A ghost is captured

[Az]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Well i dunno about that picture...

But ghosts do exist. I've seen one. And I've felt them.

Y'all are just closed minded. People have such faith in current science, and such a mindset that we have gone as far as we can. If there isn't proof for something in this instant then it is an impossible superstition.

Impossible superstitions of yesterday become science fact today.

There is much more mystery in this world than science understands. I wouldn't be surprized if we find Bigfood and the Loch Ness monster one day. (though i wouldn't be very surprized if we never did either). Wasn't the Oragatang a mythical animal at some point? People dismissed them as an indonesian superstition or something? Now they are in zoos all around the world.

But ghosts exists. One day there will be proof of it than can satisfy even the most skeptical people here.

I have faith in evidence. There is no evidence that ghosts exist. There is evidence that a robed figure exists, though. That robed figure can be a number of things some of them are known to exist, and others aren't. guess which way goes the 'ghost' theory.

[alva]

Not rebelling; just having a free mind...

[Ned]

Well, they ought to rig a trap. The next time that door is opened, a net falls, alarms ring and the whole thing is captured on film. It the net captures nothing and the people responding find noone, then I begin to believe.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Azazel




I have faith in evidence. There is no evidence that ghosts exist. There is evidence that a robed figure exists, though. That robed figure can be a number of things some of them are known to exist, and others aren't. guess which way goes the 'ghost' theory.

That's bullshit you know, evidence used to point that the earth was flat... You know I find it really irritating that people in this era believe, that mankind has discovered all science will ever know......... YOU ARE ARROGENT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING.... Hundreds of years from now people will be looking back at us and saying how ignorant and stupid we are, and how they couldn't believe that we hadn't discovered [something] yet, or that we don't know how [something] really works.

[Boris Godunov]

I see. So it's "ignorant" and "stupid" of us to say we don't believe in something because, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics/nature/etc. that it is impossible. Interesting.

So, by this rationale, why don't we all go around believing in pink unicorns, garden fairies and the Easter bunny? What separates the superstition of ghosts from these other superstitions? If you're going to insist that we can't disbelieve in ghosts because maybe in the future the laws of science as we know them will be turned on their heads, then you might as well believe in everything!

Oh wait...you WANT this particular superstition to be true, so obviously critical thought need not apply...

[Az]

Originally posted by Thorn


That's bullshit you know, evidence used to point that the earth was flat... You know I find it really irritating that people in this era believe, that mankind has discovered all science will ever know......... YOU ARE ARROGENT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING.... Hundreds of years from now people will be looking back at us and saying how ignorant and stupid we are, and how they couldn't believe that we hadn't discovered [something] yet, or that we don't know how [something] really works.

What a load of crap. It was evidence that brought the flat earth theory down. btw, evidence not brought by some new instruments, but by analysis of existing data.

I certainly don't think I know everything, neither do I think that humanity knows everything. But you have no evidence supporting your thoughts. This precious evidence that you claim the people of the future will have in abundance, is non-existant right now.

[Sava]

Speaking of morons who believe in crap like this... CNN did a report about the dipshits that believe they see the Virgin Mary... I found it hilarious.

[Thorn]

I see. So it's "ignorant" and "stupid" of us to say we don't believe in something because, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics/nature/etc. that it is impossible. Interesting.

How is it impossible, we barely understand atomic structure, electromagnetism....let alone alternative dimensions which there are at least 10 including curled up dimensions in physics.

Objects leave magnetic impressions, and sometimes these impressions can last over time, or be disturbed by other phenomonon. Such as the case of the recorded ghost... totally non-interactive... just like a film being replayed over and over again.

Besides scientists have seperated such things as Poltergeists, as not ghosts but some sort of telekenesis performed unconsciously by certain individuals.

So, by this rationale, why don't we all go around believing in pink unicorns, garden fairies and the Easter bunny? What separates the superstition of ghosts from these other superstitions? If you're going to insist that we can't disbelieve in ghosts because maybe in the future the laws of science as we know them will be turned on their heads, then you might as well believe in everything!

Perhaps because there is actual study going on about these phenomenom, there are doctorate programs that specialize in this... Besides millions of people have reported ghostly encounters throughout history (and that is a hell of a lot more then aliens)... I don't think the easter bunny, or pink unicorns are the same category, as they are both fictional and intended as such.

[Thucydides]

Objects leave magnetic impressions, and sometimes these impressions can last over time,

Interesting, so does that mean that ghosts can be effectively exorcised using an ordinary bar magnet? Do ghosts tend to congregate around ferrous magnetic objects? Do ghosts tend to mess up compass readings? Can a ghost be stored on a floppy disk to be sent over the internet? If so, how much storage space does a ghost take up?Can a ghost be used to generate electricity like any other passing magnet? What happens if a ghost gets struck by lightning?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Thorn
Objects leave magnetic impressions, and sometimes these impressions can last over time, or be disturbed by other phenomonon. Such as the case of the recorded ghost... totally non-interactive... just like a film being replayed over and over again.

So if this film is non-interactive, how is it opening the doors?

Besides scientists have seperated such things as Poltergeists, as not ghosts but some sort of telekenesis performed unconsciously by certain individuals.

And such things are, as of now, completely unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence. Even the scientists who study the paranormal acknowledge this.

There isn't any documented proof of telekinesis. Several research departments are offering TONS of money for someone with such powers to come forward and give proof. Nobody has.

Perhaps because there is actual study going on about these phenomenom, there are doctorate programs that specialize in this...

Oh yes. Remember how in eons past, "scientists" were studying such things as alchemy and the like? Just because someone decides they want to BS their way through to a doctorate degree in something doesn't mean they're studying something that's real. We have entire philosophy departments as proof of this.

Besides millions of people have reported ghostly encounters throughout history (and that is a hell of a lot more then aliens)... I don't think the easter bunny, or pink unicorns are the same category, as they are both fictional and intended as such.

Appeal to the masses. Millions of people report lots of crap--doesn't make any of it true sans empirical evidence. The obvious conclusion is that people WANT to believe these things, and the mind, being a rather complex instrument prone to playing tricks can, when overactive, conjur all sorts of things. Haven't you ever experienced deja vu? It's nothing more than a brain skip.

But you seem to dismiss the easter bunny and pink unicorns out of an unreasoned bias. You haven't explained why the ghost superstition is any better. After all, millions of children believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, but then they grow up and realize it's nonsense. The same should be true for ghosts.

[monkspider]

Wow, that's pretty spooky.

[OzzyKP]

Every established scientific theory began as a guess of some crackpot who was ridiculed and dismissed. For example, Plate Tectonics was first proposed in 1912, and the scientific community laughed at the idea of it. It wasn't until the 1960s that people finally accepted it.

String theory right now is not entirely taken seriously by physicists, but who knows, maybe one day it will be common understanding.

I think Black Holes were just a conjecture at some point, and then in recent years (i believe) evidence has been found to support this idea.

Isn't this the scientific method? One puts out a hypothesis and seeks to prove or disprove it.

[OzzyKP]

I'm not saying I believe this specific instance is a real ghost. Who knows.

I do know from my own experience that there are unexplained phenomena out there that seems very much like ghosts. As I said I have seen and felt ghosts, or ghost like phenomena. So have millions of other people. They aren't all crazy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Every established scientific theory began as a guess of some crackpot who was ridiculed and dismissed. For example, Plate Tectonics was first proposed in 1912, and the scientific community laughed at the idea of it. It wasn't until the 1960s that people finally accepted it.

String theory right now is not entirely taken seriously by physicists, but who knows, maybe one day it will be common understanding.

I think Black Holes were just a conjecture at some point, and then in recent years (i believe) evidence has been found to support this idea.

Isn't this the scientific method? One puts out a hypothesis and seeks to prove or disprove it.

This is true, but for every guess that ended up being true, a thousand have been shown to be completely wrong. But this isn't even the realm of scientific theory--pray tell, what is the scientific theory of ghosts? No such theory exists, because the empirical evidence is nonexistant.

Another difference to keep in mind is that plate tectonics and black hole theory (and maybe string theory, I don't know) weren't just "guesses," they were hypotheses based on the empiric observations of phenomena.

Of course, it's possible that ghosts may be real. But that possibility is just as remote as pink unicorns, Santa Claus, little green alien visitors, etc. And I think believing in one is as silly as believing in the other.

Believe in ghosts all you want, but don't ridicule folks who don't see the image in this story as proof of anything.

[Thorn]

So if this film is non-interactive, how is it opening the doors?

There are different kinds of ghostly asperations, two of which would be capable of opening doors. I'd say if it was a film that it would be more unlikely, as usually the interactive ghosts do more of such things.

There isn't any documented proof of telekinesis. Several research departments are offering TONS of money for someone with such powers to come forward and give proof. Nobody has.

If I had that power I wouldn't come forward with it either, it is not mere parlor tricks, it is serious ability. And can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. And as for the poltergeist telekenesis, it is uncontrollabe and unconscious which makes it extremely difficult to study. Getting someone to have poltergeist activities in a laboritory isn't exactly that easy. It is probably a mix of mental energies (remember we don't use most of our brain) with an energy disturbence of some kind in the area.

Interesting, so does that mean that ghosts can be effectively exorcised using an ordinary bar magnet? Do ghosts tend to congregate around ferrous magnetic objects? Do ghosts tend to mess up compass readings? Can a ghost be stored on a floppy disk to be sent over the internet? If so, how much storage space does a ghost take up?Can a ghost be used to generate electricity like any other passing magnet? What happens if a ghost gets struck by lightning?

Have you ever read about the United States government's Philidelphia Experiment during World War II findings, most of it is still classified, but the bulk of the experiment was that they were using electromagnetic energy of some type to make a battleship (A BATTLESHIP!!) become invisible to the eye, not just to radar... it was a horrible tradgedy for the sailors aboard as all died, but the ship did dissappear for a while. What kind of electromagnetisim would be able to make an object dissappear, obviously the government didn't know what the hell they were messing with when they decided to do that. But if you can't see the ship, does it mean it isn't really there anymore?

But you seem to dismiss the easter bunny and pink unicorns out of an unreasoned bias. You haven't explained why the ghost superstition is any better. After all, millions of children believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, but then they grow up and realize it's nonsense. The same should be true for ghosts.

No not out of unreasoned bias, they are lies told to children for whatever reason. Ghosts were not some concoction designed to entertain people with thrill and fright, in fact no one designed ghosts as they aren't straight fiction like these other things you describe. I think it is unreasonable that you link a supernatural phenomon to a children's story, particularly you are being an ASS, SO STOP IT!!

Oh yes. Remember how in eons past, "scientists" were studying such things as alchemy and the like? Just because someone decides they want to BS their way through to a doctorate degree in something doesn't mean they're studying something that's real. We have entire philosophy departments as proof of this.

Actually scientists now have the technology to turn an element into gold, it is ridiculously expensive to do at the atomic level (and we don't even use the gold standard anymore so why do it) and only on such a tiny scale, but it can be done.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Starchild
Why would a ghost need to open a door?

To get out?

HOW would a ghost open a door?

Pull the handle?

[Nubclear]

In the mirror I take it?

Walking up the stairs actually.

How come the ghost looks like something taken out of a Frankenstein movie?

They usually don't.

It looks a bit solid for a ghost.

Ghosts can be solid.

Why would a ghost need to open a door?

They don't.

HOW would a ghost open a door?

In many ways.

Why would a ghost let itself be caught on some random security camera?

This is what makes me think it's a hoax.

[Chemical Ollie]

The door to my steam boiler room opens by itself 1-2 times a week. And I know it's not the cat who does it, and no other member of the family either

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Thorn
There are different kinds of ghostly asperations, two of which would be capable of opening doors. I'd say if it was a film that it would be more unlikely, as usually the interactive ghosts do more of such things.

And where is this from? Ah, more baseless conjecture. This is the joy of the supernatural--you can just make up the rules as you go along.

If I had that power I wouldn't come forward with it either, it is not mere parlor tricks, it is serious ability. And can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands.

Ah, so obviously only good people have telekinetic powers. Just like in the movies. Because if the power happened to manifest itself in some unscrupulous person, you'd think he'd be using it to rob banks, molest women, etc.

And as for the poltergeist telekenesis, it is uncontrollabe and unconscious which makes it extremely difficult to study. Getting someone to have poltergeist activities in a laboritory isn't exactly that easy. It is probably a mix of mental energies (remember we don't use most of our brain) with an energy disturbence of some kind in the area.

It's great you can make these things up, but where's the evidence? You know, the empirical study? Isn't it just a little too convenient that the phenomena is just so elusive?

Btw, it's a myth that we don't use most of our brain--we use all of it.

Have you ever read about the United States government's Philidelphia Experiment during World War II

*snip*

That would be interesting, if any of it were true. But it's a complete bunch of BS:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm

There's never been any substantiation of the experiment, and there aren't even tons of supposed eye witnesses.

No not out of unreasoned bias, they are lies told to children for whatever reason. Ghosts were not some concoction designed to entertain people with thrill and fright, in fact no one designed ghosts as they aren't straight fiction like these other things you describe.

Not designed to entertain? That's precisely what ghosts do! How many haunted house movies, books and stories are there? How often to kids try to scare each other around camp fires with ghost stories? Ghost stories are made up to make old, atmospheric places more interesting to tourists and to provide some drama.

I think it is unreasonable that you link a supernatural phenomon to a children's story, particularly you are being an ASS, SO STOP IT!!

Unreasonable? Not at all...my positioned is quite reasonable, since there's nothing supporting the existence of such things except stories.

And me being an ass? Let's look at your first post:

I find it really pathetic that atheists don't believe there are ghosts, just because they wish to rebel against this so called norm of believers. Well actually Christians can't believe there are ghosts it is against their religion... so you atheists are screwing yourselves an opportunity to thwart Christianity.

You swooped in and attacked atheists, when atheism hadn't even been mentioned yet. You made a blanket assumption that someone like myself only disbelieves in ghosts because of "rebelling." It just so happens that I don't believe in ghosts because I've looked at the evidence and reasoned that their existence is highly improbable. I certainly don't need to be insulted by you, of all people, about the nature of my beliefs. I don't believe or disbelieve things out of any agenda with regards to Christianity--my beliefs are soley predicated on what I rationally believe to be true or false.

And I don't think I've been an ass, as all I've done is disagreed with you and your claims. Just look at your next post, when Az "dared" to disagree with you:

YOU ARE ARROGENT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING....

So if there's an ass here, sir, it is you!

[Thorn]

Go to hell Boris.

Unreasonable? Not at all...my positioned is quite reasonable, since there's nothing supporting the existence of such things except stories.

And personal accounts, including mine (regardless of whether you believe it).

You think that you know everything, you are just as closed minded as other ignorant people you claim to be better then, enjoy your religion of skeptism... it will ill comfort you in your time of need... you'll live and then die a wretched ignorant fool... just like so many others... you are not free in your thinking, you are trapped....

[Boris Godunov]

I rest my case. Despite the fact that nobody was attacking anyone here, you come in and start firing off ad hominems and bitter attacks. I'm certainly glad most people who believe in such things are capable of asserting their position without snarling and lashing out with insults like you do.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I see. So it's "ignorant" and "stupid" of us to say we don't believe in something because, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics/nature/etc. that it is impossible. Interesting.

So, by this rationale, why don't we all go around believing in pink unicorns, garden fairies and the Easter bunny? What separates the superstition of ghosts from these other superstitions? If you're going to insist that we can't disbelieve in ghosts because maybe in the future the laws of science as we know them will be turned on their heads, then you might as well believe in everything!

Oh wait...you WANT this particular superstition to be true, so obviously critical thought need not apply...

Well, I would say that what separates the superstition of ghosts from say the tooth fairy and the easter bunny, is that many many people have said that they have experiences with ghosts, where as no one says they saw the easter bunny (unless they are humoring a young one)

this story is proof of what separates the two.

no leading news agency such as those that reported this story in all seriousness, would do the same thing if santa clause was caught on tape.

the seriousness with which this story was reported tends to separate ghosts from other myths I think.

My critical thought for the night.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I rest my case. Despite the fact that nobody was attacking anyone here, you come in and start firing off ad hominems and bitter attacks. I'm certainly glad most people who believe in such things are capable of asserting their position without snarling and lashing out with insults like you do.

Forgive me, I'm not in the best mood as I have the flu. A lot of my attacks are uncalled for. Sorry.

[vee4473]

well, I would say that any assumption that those who disbelieve this story are atheists may stem from an assumption that if you were indeed a religious person, then you would not reject the possibility of ghosts so matter of factly. I mean after all, beliveing in religion automatically means you are open to such unproven things.

I'm not trying to defend the assumption that those who disbelieve are atheists, just trying to shed light on where such an assumption might spring from.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vee4473
Well, I would say that what separates the superstition of ghosts from say the tooth fairy and the easter bunny, is that many many people have said that they have experiences with ghosts, where as no one says they saw the easter bunny (unless they are humoring a young one)

But there's absolutely nothing empiric about this distinction. Why on earth should I believe something that has absolutely no scientific evidence in its favor just because a whole bunch of other people believe it? I'm not one for bandwagons.

Certain superstitions are bound to be more popular than others. Ghosts capture the imagination, as they play to primitive instincts of fear at the unknown and the mysteries of a world that was vastly incomprehensible. But having more people eager to believe a superstition doesn't have the slightest effect on its being true or not.

Lots of people report seeing ghosts, yes--but how reliable are these reports? Lots of people claim lots of things. If every claim of such occurences were true, that would mean that every day thousands upon thousands of people would be having supernatural encounters or anal probes or whatever.

The fact is, the more we learn about the brain, the more we know that it is an instrument that is very susceptible to suggestion. And that's exactly what ghosts are, IMO. Spooky environs and old legends suggest themselves to people, and the belief that they've experienced a ghost, whether it be an apparition, a chill, a noise, or just a creepy feeling. And people who really want to believe its true will believe it and magnify it to be something it really wasn't. I think deja vu is the perfect example of this kind of thing. It's something pretty much everyone experiences, and it's pretty easy to see that it's a brain glitch, a momentary little fussiness among the synapses. But when it happens, it feels so real, and someone prone to believe that it means something deeper will, naturally, jump on it as somehow indicating premonition.

In short, the mind plays tricks, and tons of suggestion and a willingness to believe just makes the potential all the greater.

[vee4473]

I agree with alot of what you are saying Boris, but when a camera catches these things, the human brain and all of its mysteries are removed from the equation.

You can't say that the camera was having a brief misfire of synapses.

and when no one can explain why a camera records what it records, that is odd.

also, looking at this phenomenon through the "there is no empirical evidence" glasses tends to make others believe that someone may be an atheist.

once again not saying that you are or aren't, just that such scrutiny could be perhaps misconstured as someone who has no religious beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Every established scientific theory began as a guess of some crackpot who was ridiculed and dismissed.

This does not confer any real evidence for crackpots who are ridiculed and dismissed. Statistically, you're better off saying the crackpots are wrong, because staticstically, they are in a very FEW cases has a crackpot been right.

Oh yes. Remember how in eons past, "scientists" were studying such things as alchemy and the like? Just because someone decides they want to BS their way through to a doctorate degree in something doesn't mean they're studying something that's real. We have entire philosophy departments as proof of this.

[Kuciwalker]

If I had that power I wouldn't come forward with it either, it is not mere parlor tricks, it is serious ability. And can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. And as for the poltergeist telekenesis, it is uncontrollabe and unconscious which makes it extremely difficult to study. Getting someone to have poltergeist activities in a laboritory isn't exactly that easy. It is probably a mix of mental energies (remember we don't use most of our brain) with an energy disturbence of some kind in the area.

"Mental energies" "energy disturbance"

Way too much Star Trek there, boy

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vee4473
I agree with alot of what you are saying Boris, but when a camera catches these things, the human brain and all of its mysteries are removed from the equation.

You can't say that the camera was having a brief misfire of synapses.

and when no one can explain why a camera records what it records, that is odd.

also, looking at this phenomenon through the "there is no empirical evidence" glasses tends to make others believe that someone may be an atheist.

once again not saying that you are or aren't, just that such scrutiny could be perhaps misconstured as someone who has no religious beliefs.

I am an atheist. My argument with Thorn was about his wildly inaccurate assumptions as to why atheists don't believe in ghosts.

But as to the camera--when has a camera ever shown definitive proof of a ghost? Take this artile. Nothing in that photo is proof of a ghost--it may be suggestive to one to some people, but all I see is a figure opening a door. Considering the noted problems with a non-corpreal being actually opening a door, I'm inclined to believe that's a living person in the photograph.

Camera photos can lie. Besides the obvious of intentional hoaxes, there's a matter of coincidental images. A smudgy shape in a photograph will look like a spectre to some, but until someone can prove to me it isn't a flaw of the photo, trick of light, etc., I don't feel inclined to dismiss the laws of science and physics as we know them and give creedence to superstition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Sava]

If ghosts go through stuff, how come they don't go through the ground and get sucked into the core of the Earth... or, if gravity doesn't affect them, how come they don't fly off into space?

And if everyone becomes a ghost, it seems as if there would be a shitload of ghosts running around. And who gets to be a ghost and who doesn't?