• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Ghosts where is the evidence

T

thethingishere

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
49
Have been thinking about this for ages I have had an interest in the paranormal for almost 35 years and been doing investigations for more than ten years. Seen lots of photos and video photoage some of which has made it in to books as evidance of ghosts but personally i dont think ive ever a seen anything that could be put forward as evidance. that my view and i understand that this is not a view that alot of people will agree with so is there any evidance out there that could change my mind. Ps before started to investigate I was able to accept more evidance than I do now.
 
I think when it comes to paranormal evidence, especially ghosts, we might never be able to get evidence in our reality. Mostly when it comes to ghosts, there is a lot of inner personal experience involved. Some people are more sensitive then others for example. The fact [to them] is that the experiences are real but very difficult to convert into anything concrete in our dimension.
We want images and when we get them we believe them to be hoaxes. In reality it is similar to the UFO phenomenon, 99% of paranormal occurences are easily explained but there is a small amount that can't be.
To me it is amazing that there is even that much.
I believe that there are other dimensions with which we are intrinsically connected, what happens there affects us here, in many ways not just ghosts. Many of these effects we don't consider paranormal, still we wouldn't make that connection if there is a reasonable "normal" explanation to it from our side.
I am somewhat glad that the human mind is in general not able to tap into these realms and lack the ability for tangible evidence because our whole raison d'etre would collaps. I mean if we had evidence for an afterlife, I wouldn't waste my time hanging about in our world as it is quite a chore.
Evolution has made sure [oximoron] that we don't know.
However every now and then cases crop up that may well be true [as in reincarnation stories for example] but we can never prove it.
I still believe in ghosts, be they souls of the dead or quantum physical causes but I am still very glad we'll only find out at the end.
 
I dont class myself as a sceptic. and i know what you mean about sceptics been smug but ive also met believers that are just as smug. I always try to be open minded but with my feet firmly on the ground. when Ive been told a story by someone I weigh up the facts for myself but also know that it is a true event to them.
 
Don't feel awkward about being a sceptic, I'd say I'm more sceptic than believer but it's the sceptics that give fortean subjects credibility. I personally think that's what makes being a "Fortean" different to being a "beleiver in the paranormal", Forteans apply latteral thinking, logic and a scientific approach rather than just a blind belief.

The question "where is the evidence?" can obviously be applied to most things Fortean. Unfortunately the answer is not as straight forward or as convenient as one might like. One might equally ask a Christian the same question and yet there are billions of believers in God and yet relatively few people chaseing ghosts!
 
linesmachine said:
Unfortunately the answer is not as straight forward or as convenient as one might like.
Click to expand...

Aye there's the nub!

What would constitute real evidence of a ghost?

In this age of typing into a search engine the phrase "Ghosts. Where is the evidence?" the results are numerous and a lot are "OMG!!!! PROOF AT LAST ABOUT GHOSTS!!!! GENUINE!!!!!" hits.

None of which will provide that proof.

If anything skepticism is on the rise due to the visual technology at peoples disposal and the net as a platform for such things.

Therefore the definition of "evidence" is in flux.

I would think it near impossible to present anything these days as real evidence of any Fortean subject unless of course you've experienced it yourself.

mooks out
 
If by 'ghosts' we mean 'apparent visits by the spirits of the dead' then I can see a problem with the presentation and collection of verbal evidence.

What I've learned, by listening respectfully to lots of bereaved people at first hand (including close relations and friends of my own as well as strangers) is that very often the experience of seeing a 'ghost' is so personal to them that they will never publicly share it.

It happened: they now believe, where they possibly didn't before, that the person they loved still exists somewhere in a different state and is waiting to be reunited with them.

It's all suddenly self-evident to them, so they feel no need to trumpet it from the rooftops: and anyway, it's private, between them and the person they've 'seen'. They don't care whether anyone else believes because, well, we'll all know the truth one day anyway, no point arguing about it. ;)

This has happened to me and to plenty of people I know, both IRL and on here.
We only tell people we trust and we know they'll keep quiet about it because they've had the same experience.

I've had lots of weird experiences which I love to tell about, but I'd never dream of sharing those particular ones on here. They're private. ;)

Plenty of people do share, of course, and that's their choice. But look what happens to them when they do. At best, they're seen as people stuck in the bereavement 'process': at worst, as nutters. Better to keep schtum.
 
Otto_Maddox said:
evidence? forteans have a big problem with evidence
Click to expand...

Well if solid evidence for something exists then it becomes mainstream and accepted. Fish falls and ball lighting spring to mind.

Photographs are near worthless as good fakes abound and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to hoax for mishief or gain. When the evidence is objective or too fleeting to be examined properly then then its just interpretations which vary as much as opinions. Personally I think there is a core of phenomenon like stick men, dog headed men, polts etc that is in some way real - but the more I think about it the less idea I have beyond some archtype / trickster - and that seems too cute and tidy an answer.

If you have experienced the twighlight zone you will know it, but everyone else will just assume mistaken sighting of something mundane, confabulation or some sort of 'episode'.
Even those who believe your story won't truly believe it in their heart - and that includes other Forteans.
 
it seems to me that we will never have evidence of ghosts , they are "real" but it is something putting images into the human mind , and no evidence will be forthcoming , its a personal thing.
 
thethingishere said:
Have been thinking about this for ages I have had an interest in the paranormal for almost 35 years and been doing investigations for more than ten years. Seen lots of photos and video photoage some of which has made it in to books as evidance of ghosts but personally i dont think ive ever a seen anything that could be put forward as evidance. that my view and i understand that this is not a view that alot of people will agree with so is there any evidance out there that could change my mind. Ps before started to investigate I was able to accept more evidance than I do now.
Click to expand...

As a kid I believed fully but as I grew up and discovered all the things I believed in were not true - Papa Noel, the Bigfoot video, Nessie pics, unbias referees in the SPL - I've become far more sceptical.

I've never seen anything I can out and out put down as a ghost and until I do I will always be on the fence. I live in a very old village and while working shifts regularly drove down all the creepy, windy lanes without ever seeing a thing.

That said, I know people I trust fully who have told me of things they have seen and I have no reason to doubt them. And a few things that could have been ghostly have happened to me - but never convincingly enough to confirm my beliefs.

I think it is down to the individual. Show 10 people a ghost photo and maybe 3 will buy it as 100% proof, 4 will put it down to simulacra, and the other 3 won't really care. What you see I think is dictated by what you want to see.

Saw a brilliant thing on one of the docu channels that explained how the brain works and how it is programmed to process images into things that are familiar. Thus at night in the dark when you sight is diminished you may see some leaves blowing on a tree but your brain will process the image into something familiar - like a face.

It's all in the mind is a very dismissive sounding response, but I genuinely do feel it is most likely 'all in the mind'.
 
That's what they want you to think. ;)
 
Science has given us the knowledge of things around us and has been an amazing achievement. I'm not sure that it is the right tool to use exclusively for the paranormal.
I'm always drawn to the example Kit Pedler gave, in his programme and book Mind Over Matter (if anyone knows how to get hold of the TV series I'd love to know). Basically, in a talk he asked for the audience to try to levitate a bowl from a table with the power of their mind. He played a tape of monks meditating and asked them to join in. The bowl lifted about two inches off the table and then placed itself down. After the talk he says that one elderly woman said how amazed she was and that she could see the 'psychic rods' holding the object aloft. A scientist disagreed and said the bowl had nt moved at all. The fact was that it has, simply because the tape recorder was switched on to disguise the sound of a powerful magnet which was lifting the bowl.
I like it because, not matter what may objectively be there, our mind will construct something which is consistent with our world view.
There is some truth to me that if you are a believer no proof is necessary and if you are a sceptic no proof is ever enough.
 
Spudrick68 said:
Science has given us the knowledge of things around us and has been an amazing achievement. I'm not sure that it is the right tool to use exclusively for the paranormal.
I'm always drawn to the example Kit Pedler gave, in his programme and book Mind Over Matter (if anyone knows how to get hold of the TV series I'd love to know). Basically, in a talk he asked for the audience to try to levitate a bowl from a table with the power of their mind. He played a tape of monks meditating and asked them to join in. The bowl lifted about two inches off the table and then placed itself down. After the talk he says that one elderly woman said how amazed she was and that she could see the 'psychic rods' holding the object aloft. A scientist disagreed and said the bowl had nt moved at all. The fact was that it has, simply because the tape recorder was switched on to disguise the sound of a powerful magnet which was lifting the bowl.
I like it because, not matter what may objectively be there, our mind will construct something which is consistent with our world view.
There is some truth to me that if you are a believer no proof is necessary and if you are a sceptic no proof is ever enough.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Sure, there are people who will deny what they see, because it goes against what they believe, just in the same way some people will refuse to see reason and logic, because what they claim to see benefits their belief, and they need that to get by.

But surely the idea of science is to judge things with a reasonably open mind. For every one person seeing a bowl levitate, and refusing it, and every person seeing a light in the sky and claiming with 100% certainty that it's an alien spacecraft, there's a lot more out there who will try and judge things as best they can, even if the data is something extraordinary.

Remember, the paranormal is just that, anything outside the realms of normal, once science backs it up, or finds it to be something real, it becomes normal. Science has been the tool used to prove and disprove many paranormal events in the past.
 
While I generally admire what science has contributed to our society, it appears in various discplines that it is self regulating, take a look at the letters page in the current issue of FT. It regards astronomy, and an opinion that if you wish to persue an unpopular theory you will simply be denied the tools to undertake your research. That of course is just an opinion. The money left for parapsychology research left by J.B. Rhine (am I correct on that?) appears to have been kidnapped by those with a different agenda so that the money is not funding what it was intending to fund.

Surely they are a mirror image? Whether sceptic or believer (in broad terms), both are greatly influenced by their world view, and statistics can tell you anything you want them to?
 
That's not just science though, that's everything around us. The best singers don't come through, because you've more chance selling records if you're on X-factor, and you've more chance winning that if you have a sob story, or a wacky side to your personality, etc, rather than actually having the best talent.

Just because there isn't the funding to look into certain things, maybe ghosts or alien abduction, doesn't mean if evidence was to show up, scientists wouldn't suddenly be interested. They would, because there'd be a lot of money and fame in it.

If someone suddenly got proof of life after death, or spirits that walk the earth, etc, it would be huge news. The paranormal is still big business. Just look at hollywood, or book releases, etc. People are certainly interested in it, proof would be huge news.
 
With respect I would disagree with that. Who funds science generally? The drug companies and the GM crops crew have a huge say in what is and isn't 'fact'. How can I be sure what these people tell me is objectively true?
If research came along which contrdicted everything we have ever been told, thousands of respected scientists would lose their reputation and career. That, to me, is motivation enough for them to be not scientific.

I am not saying anything earth sharreting is out there. But I would like to see the further reaches of research available to me to peruse to make my own decisions, instead of scientific cencorship.
 
There's sufficient anecdote from antiquity to the present day and across cultures with a variety of beliefs to suggest that a consistent group of phenomena occurs we can call 'ghosts'. Reading and hearing narratives of eye witnesses as a whole I'd conclude ghosts are not independent phenomena in the sense they occur without being seen, but require a perceiver to manifest.

That puts the phenomenon outside most objective scientific tests. There are saccade tests (eye movement) that can indicate the perceiver is seeing 'something' and they have been used in the Medjugorje BVM case which appeared to conclude that all the initial marian witnesses moved their eyes as one towards an unseen subject, but that's a long way from the kind of objective proof a scientist would be satisfied by.

For similar reasons I have little faith in cameras, temperature gauges and magnetic detectors to detect ghostly phenomena to anything approaching proof level. The sheer numbers of CCTV cameras continually recording suggests that if ghosts occured independently they would be captured on video with reasonable frequency when compared to the number of eye witnesses. OTOH it's presumptious to write off ghosts because they don't lend themselves to traditional forms of data recording.

I believe 'ghosts' occur in various, probably completely unrelated, forms but they need separate consciousness to 'exist'. Ghost hunting in the contemporary manner looks to be good fun but next to useless as a means of proving their existence.
 
Spudrick68 said:
With respect I would disagree with that. Who funds science generally? The drug companies and the GM crops crew have a huge say in what is and isn't 'fact'. How can I be sure what these people tell me is objectively true?
If research came along which contrdicted everything we have ever been told, thousands of respected scientists would lose their reputation and career. That, to me, is motivation enough for them to be not scientific.

I am not saying anything earth sharreting is out there. But I would like to see the further reaches of research available to me to peruse to make my own decisions, instead of scientific cencorship.
Click to expand...

If you follow that through, then you can't trust anyone or anything. If proof ever came forward that ghosts did exist, it could be argued that the information might not be trustworthy, because it served someone well to make it so.

In which case, it doesn't matter if science looks at it or not.

Personally speaking, I don't think that argument holds much weight. Sure, it might be contradictory to information we already have and hold dear. But do you honestly think the people in power care about which cause they push, as long as it makes money, or keeps them in power?

The same people who are making fortunes out of drugs, would just as happily make their money out of selling their links with ghosts. They'd go from making millions out of cancer medication, to selling the promise that their psychics have a special link with the spirits and can offer a full healing in the spiritual realm. We can already see this on a small scale now, both in religion and secular spiritualism. If there was proof to back up the existence of these beings, the big businesses would be right in there.
 
colpepper1 said:
There's sufficient anecdote from antiquity to the present day and across cultures with a variety of beliefs to suggest that a consistent group of phenomena occurs we can call 'ghosts'. Reading and hearing narratives of eye witnesses as a whole I'd conclude ghosts are not independent phenomena in the sense they occur without being seen, but require a perceiver to manifest.

That puts the phenomenon outside most objective scientific tests. There are saccade tests (eye movement) that can indicate the perceiver is seeing 'something' and they have been used in the Medjugorje BVM case which appeared to conclude that all the initial marian witnesses moved their eyes as one towards an unseen subject, but that's a long way from the kind of objective proof a scientist would be satisfied by.

For similar reasons I have little faith in cameras, temperature gauges and magnetic detectors to detect ghostly phenomena to anything approaching proof level. The sheer numbers of CCTV cameras continually recording suggests that if ghosts occured independently they would be captured on video with reasonable frequency when compared to the number of eye witnesses. OTOH it's presumptious to write off ghosts because they don't lend themselves to traditional forms of data recording.

I believe 'ghosts' occur in various, probably completely unrelated, forms but they need separate consciousness to 'exist'. Ghost hunting in the contemporary manner looks to be good fun but next to useless as a means of proving their existence.
Click to expand...

But there's anecdotes for all sorts of things, from history. Vampires, werewolves, Jesus as the son of God, angels, demons, dragons, etc. Doesn't make them real.

Also, when people are hallucinating, don't their eyes move according to their hallucinations? Whether the thing is there or not?

I have to say, I partially agree with you. I'm of the opinion there's some merit to the case of something being out there. But we run into a huge problem when we start relying on the perceiver.

If we say ghosts are real, but only when someone sees them, through their eyes, we have no way of measuring it or judging it. I could argue that there are fairies in my back garden. I could then say that the fairies are shy, and won't show for anyone else, even if I'm standing there at the time. Nor can they be recorded by any means. Does that mean they're real?

If that really is the case, then there's no real way to test it. But we have to take in the information we have at hand, and make a judgement. I might well have real-life fairies in my back garden, but if I can't back it up in any way, you'd be better off doubting my story.
 
DieDieMyDarling said:
But there's anecdotes for all sorts of things, from history. Vampires, werewolves, Jesus as the son of God, angels, demons, dragons, etc. Doesn't make them real.
Click to expand...
Ghosts are reported far more commonly than any of those and are cross cultural, indeed I know of no cultures where ghostly phenomena are not identified. However I believe there's a tendency to attribute all such manifestations to 'spirits of the dead' whereas there is no compelling evidence that such is the case.

Crisis apparitions are one of the more obvious signifiers of a passing 'soul', someone known closely to the deceased appearing after the time of death, frequently without the perceiver being aware death has occured. These are numerous enough, and sufficiently similar to suspect a recurring phenomena. OTOH poltergeists may be due to various unknown causes while still being a recurring, if exotic display of weirdness.

The factor that's lacking may not be the accuracy of the reports but our sense of what terms like 'soul', 'death, 'ghost', 'seen' and so on actually mean in the context we presume.
 
colpepper1 said:
DieDieMyDarling said:
But there's anecdotes for all sorts of things, from history. Vampires, werewolves, Jesus as the son of God, angels, demons, dragons, etc. Doesn't make them real.
Click to expand...
Ghosts are reported far more commonly than any of those and are cross cultural, indeed I know of no cultures where ghostly phenomena are not identified. However I believe there's a tendency to attribute all such manifestations to 'spirits of the dead' whereas there is no compelling evidence that such is the case.

Crisis apparitions are one of the more obvious signifiers of a passing 'soul', someone known closely to the deceased appearing after the time of death, frequently without the perceiver being aware death has occured. These are numerous enough, and sufficiently similar to suspect a recurring phenomena. OTOH poltergeists may be due to various unknown causes while still being a recurring, if exotic display of weirdness.

The factor that's lacking may not be the accuracy of the reports but our sense of what terms like 'soul', 'death, 'ghost', 'seen' and so on actually mean in the context we presume.
Click to expand...

But again if you're not going to accept the terms, you can make anything fit.

I'm about to read a book called Inivizikids, by Michael J. Hallowell. Which deals with this subject. He concentrates on invisible friends that kids have, but it sounds like he pulls it all in to there being actual entities, above all of our meanings and understandings, which change form according to our beliefs. So there's still one entity, but some see it as a UFO, some a ghost, some a vampire, etc, based on what they already believe in, or what their culture allows.

It sounds really interesting.
 
The question that's proven to my satifaction is people do, and always have seen things they believe to be ghosts. The word 'ghost' in our culture has accumulated a load of baggage most of which can be dispensed which still leaves hard cases like crisis apparitions that aren't easily explained away as anything other than a life-after-death visitation. CAs still beg numerous questions (how long does the soul survive after death, is it the dead person or a relic phantasm, is the apparition created by the survivor and deceased in some way, etc).

The approach that's less fruiful IMO is to dismiss every haunting, apparition, poltergeist as imaginary. Even a superficial reading of sources confirms 'something' is going on and it occurs across beliefs and disbelief.
I haven't read Invizikids but spoke to Mike Hallowell about it and IIRC, he believes an object thrown by a child was returned from a source invisible to an adult. I've no strong feelings on the matter either way.
 
Good idea, if true. I could not find anything decent to confirm. However I like the idea.

http://www.ourstrangeworld.net/index.ph ... the_grave/


Rockport, Texas - With use of a special computer, researchers have achieved an astounding breakthrough in life-after-death research.

The computer, nicknamed Li Bai, was designed to pick up signals from those who have died, and record their messages from beyond the grave.

Researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China say they have successfully intercepted several dozen messages from a man they call Subject 37.

The university researchers spent 13 years working with 37 terminally ill subjects, training them to operate a specially designed computer program using only the electrical impulses generated by their brain.

The program runs on a highly sensitive computerized machine which responds to the slightest changes in electro-magnetic fields. The machine was designed to connect with the patients thought waves and convert them to text messages.

Thirty-six subjects passed on without a successful contact. But two months ago Subject 37 succeeded, and spoke to the scientists from the after-life.

To date, much of the communication with the deceased man has concerned the amount of energy he must expend, and probing the techniques he uses to send signals to the machine in the university research lab.

He said he was unable to signal them for several weeks after his death, but finally changed his method of transmitting signals - which involves a process similar to mental telepathy - and made contact at last.

The university will not discuss who Subject 37 is, saying only that he was a physician who died at the age of 68.

In his after-life messages he verified his identity by means of an assigned code name, known only to the researchers and himself. He also signaled pre-arranged answers to a series of questions correctly.

Scientists say the messages are allowing them to construct the first ever verified description of life-after-death, saying apparently death is a pleasant process leading to an existence in which all sensations of pain, anxiety and sadness ceases to be.

Subject 37 has indicated that, although he left a wife and children behind, he is with his family constantly, as though he were alive.

Researchers have faithfully recorded Subject 37’s messages and plans are to publish them.

The messages continue to arrive, although the dead man has indicated he plans to stop the communications eventually.

Subject 37 has indicated he made contact with the computer to assure the living that death is nothing to fear, and when he has made that clear he feels his work is done. - Dean Terry
 
but finally changed his method of transmitting signals - which involves a process similar to mental telepathy - and made contact at last.
Click to expand...
Very dodgy. Scientists working on procedures, using methods which are not scientific, or have any basis in reality or fact. The whole thing stinks of pseudo-science. Also, if it worked from signals generated by the human brain, how could it pick up signals after the brain ceased to function? :roll:
 
Of course the first thing that came to mind was that someone was playing a prank. This is a very flimsy story anyway. The reason I posted it was that I like the idea of using computers to contact the dead.
We have ouija boards, spirit writing, mediums, evp and so on. All working on energy. Some believe others don't. This is more for those that have experienced something odd themselves or are interested in alternatives.
Compared to pushing objects or using the limbs of mediums or even producing noise, influencing a program seems like a doddle ;)

Regardless of the truth of this story, it is a good idea, after all times have moved on. I can't wait for quantum computers and then do this test. Ha!
 
If ghosts could be sold in pharmacies, there'd be all sorts of studies that would prove their existence.

Same as with homeopathy, really! :lol:

(Actually, I think there's a greater chance the ghosts really exist rather than that homeopathy actually works)
 
Moooksta said:
unless of course you've experienced it yourself.
Click to expand...

But herein lies yet another problem - the notion that, because you've experienced something, then that thing evidently must be true / right. I'm sure most people who're reporting ghostly experiences - but have, in reality, just mis-interpreted something mundane - also reckon their experience was 100% bona fide because they believe they can trust their own perception too, etc.

Discussing such things with a psychologist a while ago, the point was raised that quite normal / rational people - with no history of mental illness - can be prone to hallucinatory experiences for a variety of different reasons at any given time. Suggest this as an option to people who are speaking to you about their alleged ghostly experiences..... and see what sort of reaction you get, however!! Laugh, laugh!!!!

Regards,

Nick
www.westmidlandsghostclub.com
 
Lets say everyone [and there are a hell of a lot of people throughout earliest history, age, sex, belief, race etc] is hallucinating ghosts.
Lets say everyone who could swear what they saw was 'real' are all [and I mean absolutely every single one of them without exception] having very similar experiences [i.e the sight of a humanoid that isn't quite there, throughout the world. Then the whole 'Ghost malarkey' becomes a completely new yet still very Fortean/ strange/ weird phenomenon and as such still a massive mystery.
 
And throw in dogs and cats reacting to something,in an area where a human saw something and things get very strange.... sharing your hallucination with a pet ,well i suppose it could happen...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top