Extraordinary Evidence for Ghosts?

[Beth]

Was it blue? You know, if it ain't blue it ain't true!

No. It was white. Must have been something else then.

 

[SirPhilip]

Thanks, SirPhilip. I think I understand now.

Glad you felt I was clear enough.

Have you considered explanations not involving non-baryonic matter?

I only considered it because there is thought to be ten times more dark matter than normal matter, and that includes on Earth, so where is it, and is the sun a catalyst in it's possible bioactivity? For this to work though, there's dozens of things that have to be considered. To start off with:

1) Human and certain animal physiology absorb it somehow, possibly as ejecta from the sun held in the air, or undergoes some form of change
within the biosphere to an entirely different thing altogether.

2) Something in that physiology causes it to change to a state where it reacts under certain conditions (much like lightning?), and is only visible when interacting with something else.

It's important to remember that in the future, when (if?) dark matter is understood better, biologists would also be asking these same questions about it's effect on living systems, but in the context of evolution. It would also be ironic to imagine some university inadverdantly creating a "spirit" from a rat.

 

[Beth]

Glad you felt I was clear enough.

I only considered it because there is thought to be ten times more dark matter than normal matter, and that includes on Earth

I've never heard that before. I've heard various estimates for the amount of dark matter, with estimates of up to 90% of all matter being dark matter and that it was distributed equally throughout galaxies, but I haven't heard that it included on earth. Could you provide a cite or link for this idea?

 

[Darat]

I wonder what would convince many people here that the photo was evidence of something not man made? Would it be possible?

 

[Garrette]

I wonder what would convince many people here that the photo was evidence of something not man made? Would it be possible?

This particular photo? Demonstrate that none of the methods mentioned here were used. That would be a start.

I only considered it because there is thought to be ten times more dark matter than normal matter, and that includes on Earth, so where is it, and is the sun a catalyst in it's possible bioactivity?

Considering it is fine, but not at the expense of other more mundane and likely explanations. You appear to have discarded those.

For this to work though, there's dozens of things that have to be considered. To start off with:

1) Human and certain animal physiology absorb it somehow, possibly as ejecta from the sun held in the air, or undergoes some form of change
within the biosphere to an entirely different thing altogether.

2) Something in that physiology causes it to change to a state where it reacts under certain conditions (much like lightning?), and is only visible when interacting with something else

All very interesting but it comprises pure speculation with an obvious intent to fit evidence to theory instead of theory to evidence.

There are more mundane and more likely explanations right in front of you.

It's important to remember that in the future, when (if?) dark matter is understood better, biologists would also be asking these same questions about it's effect on living systems, but in the context of evolution.

Even if true, and it is only speculation on your part, what possible bearing does this have on the existence of ghosts or the veracity of the photo?

It would also be ironic to imagine some university inadverdantly creating a "spirit" from a rat.

Why ironic?

And how is it relevant?


Pardon me for saying so, SirPhilip, but it really appears to me that you have become enamored with some science you don't understand (I'm not implying I understand it; I don't). Your sincerity notwithstanding, you are taking the road of the psychics who claim quantum mechanics explain their unsubstantiated powers.

 

[kevin]

two aspects to the question. Is this a photo of a ghost? and -- is a single photo extraordinary evidence of anything?

Don't know on first, lean towards no not a ghost, faked.

Second is definitely no. More photos, by other, not already convinced, people. Credible eye witnesses. Repeatablity of tests. Detectiblitity of some phenomenon. At least all of these would be needed for extraordinary evidence.

 

[Miggins]

I showed my 10 year old daughter this photo, and she said, and I quote-
`looks a bit computer generated don`t it? as if that`s real...`

 

[Starthinker]

Or get the film developed and made into photos, scan a photo, edit it with a computer, print it out, and take a new photo of the print.

A photo of a print will not look as real as a real photo. There are other factors that would come into play there that may be detectable. I've never been able to do it in a way that doesn't look like a photo of a photo. It may be better to take a photo of a slide but I never had the equipment to do that.

As for the actual picture, however it was done, there is no doubt at all in my mind that it is a fake.

 

[Starrman]

I only considered it because there is thought to be ten times more dark matter than normal matter, and that includes on Earth, so where is it, and is the sun a catalyst in it's possible bioactivity? For this to work though, there's dozens of things that have to be considered. To start off with:

1) Human and certain animal physiology absorb it somehow, possibly as ejecta from the sun held in the air, or undergoes some form of change
within the biosphere to an entirely different thing altogether.

2) Something in that physiology causes it to change to a state where it reacts under certain conditions (much like lightning?), and is only visible when interacting with something else.

It's important to remember that in the future, when (if?) dark matter is understood better, biologists would also be asking these same questions about it's effect on living systems, but in the context of evolution. It would also be ironic to imagine some university inadverdantly creating a "spirit" from a rat.

Dude - you were 5 and in a dark closet. Maybe your memory of the event is not exactly exactly as it happened? Maybe there was a glow in the dark Halloween mask in the closet. Maybe you had seen a movie that had a glowing orb in it that scared you, and you simply remembered it while in the closet - and over time those two memories mixed. Maybe the whole thing was a realistic dream you had at 5 that your imperfect memory thinks was real life?

I drove through my old home town the other day - I would have bet anything that my Kindergarten was on the right side of Maple Street, but low and behold I drove by and it was on the left. Maybe a glowing orb of energy transported the school across the street, but maybe my memory of those times just wasn't that great because I was 5.

 

[Nucular]

I wonder what would convince many people here that the photo was evidence of something not man made? Would it be possible?

Imo, a single photo is evidence of very little anyway. I'd be intrigued if people here who know more about this kind of thing were foxed, but they don't seem to be.

What would convince you that it wasn't man made, Darat?

 

[Darat]

I've tried to think of some thing or things but even if no one had given any reasonable sounding suggestions I would still be left with saying "it's not acceptable evidence of anything but it being an image".

ETA: just as a thought how do newpapers and other journals verifying they have undoctored images?

 

[Lynx2174]

I've always thought it odd that ghosts that people don't see turn up in pictures; you'd think that it would be the other way around. if the ghost can turn up in a picture, it's giving off light, so it can be seen by eyes. but since it's supposed to be well, a ghost, I'd expect it to show up only in people's heads.

and while modern digital cameras also pick up infra red light, even the cheapest have IR filters over the optics because the IR would wash everything out during the day. so a ghost that only gives off IR wouldn't show up even in digital pictures.

the lighting job in the photo is really sloppy, like the person didn't realize what is behind the thing, only what is to it's side. so I'm going to say it's fake, one I could do in a few minuets in photoshop.

 

[SirPhilip]

Even if true, and it is only speculation on your part, what possible bearing does this have on the existence of ghosts or the veracity of the photo?

Well none, except that there seems to be a common characteristics with many people claiming to have taken photos of them. I can't say it qualifies as circumstantial evidence against "Well, someone started painting them blue and everyone followed..", but it'll always ring my gut instinct.

Why ironic? And how is it relevant?

It's just fun speculation, although it probably would do more harm than good if anything positive came of it, with every fraudulent medium and psychic using it as leverage. You can however, discuss circumstantial evidence and try to be a reasonable as possible with what qualifies as observing it.

Pardon me for saying so, SirPhilip, but it really appears to me that you have become enamored with some science you don't understand (I'm not implying I understand it; I don't).

I brought it up for that reason. As far as I understand though, bioactivity
isn't a stretch with dark matter, and there was one paper written on the subject apparently:

http://www.esi-topics.com/dark/frd/g1.html

Your sincerity notwithstanding, you are taking the road of the psychics who claim quantum mechanics explain their unsubstantiated powers.

Of course! It's certainly a stretch to connect exotic matter to the classic ghost phenomena, but it's lighthearted speculation, and I guess difficult to really enjoy in light of how much sham and dishonesty is associated with it. In the spirit of balance, though - not sure if this has even been brought up on the subject, but this can apply to any phenomena, acetycholine inhibitors like tropanes can produce remarkable objective hallucinations of this sort, so it is entirely possible. As to the photo, it could have been painted, it still makes me curious why there's such an emphasis on blues, sometimes with white specks, like what I saw.

 

[SirPhilip]

Dude - you were 5 and in a dark closet. Maybe your memory of the event is not exactly exactly as it happened?

Traumatic memories tend to be razor clear because of emotional impact and how the body responds to life-threatning stress. This was no different.

Maybe there was a glow in the dark Halloween mask in the closet. Maybe you had seen a movie that had a glowing orb in it that scared you, and you simply remembered it while in the closet - and over time those two memories mixed. Maybe the whole thing was a realistic dream you had at 5 that your imperfect memory thinks was real life?

Nope, parents checked afterward, it was gone. Keep in mind this was a semi-solid blue human head, sticking out of a flat wall! All I remember was, I ran in there, and I was under such extreme stress by what I saw that I froze staring at it, unable to move. It was identical to recalling a traumatic event in slow motion. It is jarring to think about, especially when it's something as off the wall as that (no pun intended) and it's registering as a real event. It's seriously not as easy as you think to pass it off.

I drove through my old home town the other day - I would have bet anything that my Kindergarten was on the right side of Maple Street, but low and behold I drove by and it was on the left. Maybe a glowing orb of energy transported the school across the street, but maybe my memory of those times just wasn't that great because I was 5.

I remember it with enough clarity that I still remember it's facial features. As an aside, I can remember the color and texture of my closet doors, the color of the walls, and my dressers from childhood fairly accurately even as normal memories.

 

[Ashles]

So what would be interesting to me would be if someone with PSP genius (and there are several on this board) would replicate it, negative and all?

Ashles, I'm looking at you. Have you disappeared again?

It could certainly be faked exactly as it is. But to be honest I could fake it better including more convincing lighting at the back. But it would take a while and not prove anything.

There are a variety of ways to achieve the effect. A combination of a flat simple humanoid image, blur tools, layering then smudge and erase tools would so the job perfectly well. Indeed the lower half appears to be very smudged and erased with soft edged brush tools. The background lighting and banister shadows would require a little more work,
Also the picture could be entirely genuine and look exactly like it does. Genuine pictures can often look really odd.

That's the problem with photographic evidence now - it doesn't mean too much. Remember my Rally/Beach photo? Nobody would ever have questioned the validity of that photo because it appeared mundane.

Video evidence is still much harder to fake (but nowhere near impossible).

Beth and Darat are right to ask what evidence we would consider compelling, but of course this avoids the counter question, how little evidence would one still consider compelling?
I guess a lot of that comes down to personal bias.

The only hope would be a regular ghost that different people could come and see and measure on a known basis and build up a coherent body of evidence.
Not too likely though.

 

[SirPhilip]

That's the problem with photographic evidence now - it doesn't mean too much.

Bah, debating whether that is an actual photograph or not is silly. Heck, this entire subject is silly. Even if it is a real photo, then what? The phenomena is akin to ball lightning, extremely rare (in cases of sustained, visible observation) and lasts only a few seconds, and is totally off left field. Unfortuntately, it's probably one of those things that will never go away either unless some explanation is ever found, be it psychological or natural.

 

[Ashles]

I remember it with enough clarity that I still remember it's facial features.

Clarity of a memory is no evidence towards the accuracy or validity of a memory.

I still remember vividly the time I climbed down the outside of a school building. I remember every handhold, every bit of brick and every elaborate piece of stonework. Only problem is, I dreamt the whole thing and didn't even realise for a few days. It became a real memory for a while.

Traumatic memories tend to be razor clear because of emotional impact and how the body responds to life-threatning stress.

No they don't - they can often be the most incorrect memories. Have you never heard of the problems with eyewitness testimony?

You are really placing far too much confidence in childhood memories. It is simply incorrect to believe that a traumatic childhood memory is more likely to be any more accurate than any other memory.

 

[Ashles]

Unfortuntately, it's probably one of those things that will never go away either unless some explanation is ever found, be it psychological or natural.

Psychological explanations have been found. Believers tend not to find those explanations adequate.
Conclusion - it is one of those things that is unlikely to ever go away.

Well, until we finally end up recording everything on earth from various angles.

 

[SirPhilip]

No they don't - they can often be the most incorrect memories. Have you never heard of the problems with eyewitness testimony? You are really placing far too much confidence in childhood memories. It is simply incorrect to believe that a traumatic childhood memory is more likely to be any more accurate than any other memory.

I'm aware. Well, if you mean "Do you know it wasn't a dream that for some reason you recall as happening?", well yes, it was a real event that I actually rushed in there and saw something, because other people recall me stopping the game and mentioning it. In any case, whatever it was, it is impossible to subjectively rule it out conclusively; it's identical to remembering other actual events, so it's probably just best to leave it at that, instead of trying to make any real sense of it, which is a need everytime I ever really think back..

 

[Mongrel]

Traumatic memories tend to be razor clear because of emotional impact and how the body responds to life-threatning stress. This was no different.

Have to disagree here. I got clipped by a car at a pedestrian crossing when I was 11, all I could remember was *PAIN - OW!!* *tumbling* *there's a lot of pigeons up there...* and *Dull ache - What happened?*. No clarity, just vague sensations and emotions.