86 replies to this topic

[OMPRDave]

I've been to plenty of locations and experienced various things, but have yet to say that there are ghosts or spirits of dead people hanging around. I'm just not able to base my beliefs on unexplainable experiences or attach them to popular belief.

[stevenedel]

Vampchick21, on Jan 21 2010, 11:13 PM, said:

There is a huge difference between skeptic and scoftic. Yes, a credible investigator is usually skeptic, but true skeptics are open minded enough to not scoff, to accept when a known explanation cannot resolve a photo, recording, experience or other piece of evidence.

A scoftic will dismiss everything and if they don't accuse someone of outright fraud, they generally disparage the person's mental state and WILL deny any piece of evidence as what it is no matter what. (evidence being that which after much honest review and investigation cannot yet be given a known, natural explanation.)

There seems to be a contradiction here. If no known explanation can be thought of for what is seen in a photo or heard in a recording, how can that be evidence of anything? To say 'we can't explain it from any known causes, so it must be supernatural' is faulty reasoning. If it can't be explained all you can say is that it's inexplicable. If you want to link the new observation to, for instance, ghostly activity, you'll need evidence to support that link; you cannot support it with lack of evidence. How do you know that the bright spot in your picture is NOT a speck of dust?

I must add that I am often surprised by the casual ease with which paranormal investigators conclude that a certain observation cannot be explained from natural causes -as if they are instantly aware of all possible natural causes, universal experts, apparently, in the fields of photography, meteorology, sound technics, physics, psychology and what not.

In the end, the question is not if evidence will stand up in a court of law; the question is if evidence meets scientific standards. I must agree with Reality101 on this: I've never seen any evidence of the paranormal for which this holds true. I've seen high-flying claims made about paranormal evidence, oh yes, and bold statements about the 'irrefutable proof' that is around, but I've never seen it, anywhere. I've read books about hauntings purporting to be definitive, yet in the end containing no more than lots of hearsay and some inconclusive imagery with wild interpretations attached.

The best way to shut up scoffers (am I being one...? ) is by producing solid evidence before making far reaching statements about a supposed reality that is not underpinned by any systematic empirical data at all (which is a pretty good definition, I think, of the realm of fantasy).

[Robot]

My friend, Professor Richard Blade, was with Murray Gel-Mann when he was told he had won the Nobel for Quark Theory.

The first thing Murray said was, "Imagine that! people are now talking about Quarks as if they actually exist".

A Nobel in Physics for "something that isnt real"..................................

Many things in Physics are NOT proven.

A useful model is far more important than proof. We dont need proof of ghosts, only useful models. I am trying to construct such models, with the help of (3) Physicists.

[stevenedel]

Robot, on Mar 23 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

My friend, Professor Richard Blade, was with Murray Gel-Mann when he was told he had won the Nobel for Quark Theory.

The first thing Murray said was, "Imagine that! people are now talking about Quarks as if they actually exist".

A Nobel in Physics for "something that isnt real"..................................

Many things in Physics are NOT proven.

A useful model is far more important than proof. We dont need proof of ghosts, only useful models. I am trying to construct such models, with the help of (3) Physicists.

That quarks are real was proven as early as 1968.

Of course there are things that are unproven in physics or in any science; without unproven theories sciences would be dead. But ideas about such things are based on solid theorizing and rational thinking, and will eventually be discarded if evidence remains elusive or if a better theory comes along. Moreover, these theories fill in gaps to explain observations that the accepted theory can't explain.

It would be a good thing if the paranormal world came up with a few well-reasoned, consistent theories about truly inexplicable things. To find the latter might prove more difficult than it seems. Paranormal lore as I see it is very much an elaborate answer to non-existing mysteries. But I wish you and your physicists every luck!

[Ryuu]

To me you can't truly prove ghosts exist until you have a paranormal experience yourself and believe you had that experience.

[Old Guy]

Reality 101, on Jan 14 2010, 02:04 PM, said:

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?
Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.
There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

Easy. Because there is no proof.

However; there is ample proof that bio-electrical organisms, such as ourselves, are susceptible to influence from any number of bio-electrical influences. IMHO - That's where the focus should be.

[PhenomInvestigator]

In fact Parapsychology research (not to be confused with ghost hunting or paranormal anything) has demonstrated many anecdotal claimes in controlled laboratory conditions. This includes anomalous information reception, the basis of mediumship and psychic functioning, as well as micro-PK and macro-PK, the latter of which is far more interesting since it evidences quantifiable proof that objects can be moved beyond any explanation from classical mechanics. This work is detailed in the Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, European Journal of Parapsychology among others, all peer-reviewed journals. The work is summarized in more modern publications by various Parapsychologists including Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, PhD.

[Robot]

PhenomInvestigator, on Apr 21 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

In fact Parapsychology research (not to be confused with ghost hunting or paranormal anything) has demonstrated many anecdotal claimes in controlled laboratory conditions. This includes anomalous information reception, the basis of mediumship and psychic functioning, as well as micro-PK and macro-PK, the latter of which is far more interesting since it evidences quantifiable proof that objects can be moved beyond any explanation from classical mechanics. This work is detailed in the Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, European Journal of Parapsychology among others, all peer-reviewed journals. The work is summarized in more modern publications by various Parapsychologists including Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, PhD.

Agreed,"for the most part". I am currently corresponding with SSE members,Academics, who believe these PSI mechanisms, generated by "certain people with abilities" ARE in fact the "Ghosts". I am trying to fully understand their hypothesis before I comment. I think I would currently say these people may be the catalysts for "Ghosts"

Long explanation short, The best Ghost Hunters may be unconciously "creating" their own "Ghosts",hence their success at "Ghost Hunting"

[Vampchick21]

Such as the Phillip Experiment? (which was a fascinating experiment and showed me that there is far more to the human brain than we know, hence the import of studies such as the one on ESP and the one for NDE)

[Robot]

Vampchick21, on Apr 22 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Such as the Phillip Experiment? (which was a fascinating experiment and showed me that there is far more to the human brain than we know, hence the import of studies such as the one on ESP and the one for NDE)

There are many being discussed between the two Professors, both Professors were involved in some of these experiments, here are some quotes:

"Serios/Eisenbud, specifically an experiment where the most profound experiment was done at the Denver University EE labs. A camera was placed in a light-tight box with a photocell replacing the film, and the photocell hooked to an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope indicated Ted was able to "remove the light" a little at a time down to zero, but then he claimed to be able to "bring the curtain down even more" (beyond zero indicated light level). He did! I have no idea if that was ever published. I think it was very late in the period of experimenting on Ted, though.

In regards to Randi, he attended the national physics meeting in NYC that I attended where Schmitt presented his findings on human ability to control radioactive decay. Randi said he couldn't find any flaw in it, but he also never offered Schmitt the reward. I don't know if Randi ever did studies on remote viewing, but I would certainly like to see if he could reproduce that."

There is also reference to Cal-Tech's early 1970's involvement with the C.I.A. remote viewing experiments, Richard had direct involvement in this.

I am fortunate to correspond to these two Professors, I am personally trying to get up to speed on all this data, so I can make up my own mind on PSI influence on, or creation of Paranormal Phenomenon................

There is a Society of Science Exploration meeting in Boulder that Richard and I will try to attend. They will be discussing such things, from a formal Scientific/Academic perspective:

http://www.scientifi...g_meetings.html

[Robot]

"PEAR" Princeton University, PSI studies are also being discussed.....................

[stevenedel]

There seems to be an awful lot of argument by authority here. I don't want to shock anyone, but professors can be remarkably stupid or at least gullible in some cases, just like other people. If they have good research and solid data, they should submit it to a well-established peer-reviewed periodical, rather than to one of those hobbyist, DIY paranormal journals (I have read them, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...).

And once again, please don't just tell us about the research, give us a link or a reference or better still the article itself. Becasue I've never found anything warranting the conclusions stated in previous posts, and if it's there, I'd love to see it!

Edited by stevenedel, 25 April 2010 - 07:50 AM.

[Robot]

stevenedel, on Apr 25 2010, 08:49 AM, said:

There seems to be an awful lot of argument by authority here. I don't want to shock anyone, but professors can be remarkably stupid or at least gullible in some cases, just like other people. If they have good research and solid data, they should submit it to a well-established peer-reviewed periodical, rather than to one of those hobbyist, DIY paranormal journals (I have read them, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...).

And once again, please don't just tell us about the research, give us a link or a reference or better still the article itself. Becasue I've never found anything warranting the conclusions stated in previous posts, and if it's there, I'd love to see it!

Links were posted, right above your post, but here we go again:

http://www.scientifi.../about_sse.html

A quote from the above page " We publish a peer-reviewed journal, host annual meetings, and engage in public outreach. While our Full members are professional or experienced scientists and scholars"

These are "Real" Scientists, Physicists, and Professors from many disciplines. In this case you obviously dont seem to know what you are talking about.

I have spent many many hours researching this group, Physicist Richard Blade and I will attend their June meeting. Richard has experience with many of the topics found here:

http://www.scientifi...l/articles.html

Richard and I are currently discussing many of these topics with the SSE's Editor, Professor Stepen Braude.

So far this is the ONLY group I have found that meets the criteria you are talking about................

Edited by Robot, 26 April 2010 - 05:29 AM.

[duncan36]

Reality 101, on Jan 14 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

If Ghost exist how come nobody can prove it?
Millions of people believe ghost exist but nobody can prove it.
There is not even enough evidence to win n a court of law.

The answer to this that spirits dwell in areas with negative energy and require this kind of energy to manifest. If a photo was going to have 100% verifiable proof of a haunting almost everyone on earth would see the photo.

Long story short the basic positive nature of humanity prevents 100% verifiable evidence of ghosts to exist.

If your question is 'how does people looking at a photo alter it when it was taken some time back'. You need to read and understand the theory of relativity. Time is relative.

[OMPRDave]

But what is negative energy? What kind of energy is it? The more we tie what we think we know to the unknown, the more complicated it gets.