Home > All, Essential, Paranormal, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Skepticism, Sleep, Strange Occurances > There Are No Such Things As Ghosts

There Are No Such Things As Ghosts

What is it about the thought of supernatural things that intrigues people so much? I should say alleged supernatural things. Maybe it’s not intrigue. Maybe it’s something else…

People are intellectually lazy! Why do people believe in the supernatural? ESP, psychics, Astrology, ghosts, etc? Because it’s easy to just say that something is caused by supernatural forces, rather than to actually think about things, to do a little research or even perform an experiment… to actually find out what the cause of something is. It’s really not that hard.

I want to talk about ghosts for now. What are ghosts? Or, what do people purport ghosts to be? Basically, what survives of our soul or spirit (whatever you want to call it) after we die. Okay. Let’s take a look at just what this would imply.

In order for something to exist, it has to consist of something. To start with, everything consists of atoms. From there, we know that atoms emit energy. And energy has certain limits, as does matter, or atoms. The first thing we know for certain is that one object cannot pass through another object and retain its original form. There is a certain topic in quantum mechanics called “quantum tunneling” which deals with this very topic. The quantum tunneling principle basically says that it may be possible for the energy from an object, namely on the atomic level – not automobiles or people, may pass through another object.

It follows that if ghosts are real, in that they consist of matter, then they cannot pass through walls. It is physically impossible.

The next topic to deal with are the claims that people make that ghosts throw objects, move chairs, open and close doors, etc. These claims make believers chose one or the other. Either ghosts are physical beings, or they are not. Either they consist of atoms, or they don’t. We know this is true because in order for a ghost to move or throw anything, or to turn a door handle, friction is required. And friction is caused by two surfaces working against each other. Simple physics… not to be confused with psychics.

Because friction is required, then any claim that a ghost caused some object to move locks one into saying that a ghost is a solid object, or that at least it is atomic in structure and is in some phase of matter, i.e. solid, liquid or gas… probably not plasma. And if this is the case, then the ghost could not “become invisible” unless it was bound by specific temperatures. Meaning, whatever material the ghost consisted of has a particular temperature at which it changes states of matter – boils, melts, evaporates, etc. And the way to make the ghost visible is to simply change its form from a gas to a solid… to simply lower the temperature to make its material “solid.” And with everything we know about matter, if you were to bring an actual human being to its boiling point… well, you know what would happen.

To say that the ghost is not a solid or physical object totally goes against everything that we know about science. If one claims that a ghost is not made of matter, or atoms, then it totally throws out the possibility of its existence. Everything we know about energy and matter totally contradicts this theory. In order to interact with reality, it has to consist of something. And if these alleged ghosts do consist of something other than any kind of matter or energy that we know of, then they do not even enter into our reality. They cannot interact with us on any possible level and are outside the realm of science. The most one could say, in this situation, is that they were agnostic in terms of belief in ghosts, because they would be neither visible, nor noticeable in any circumstance. They could neither show themselves to us, nor could they interact with any object in order to “show us a sign.” They would be likened to the pink Unicorn on the dark side of the Moon. No one is there to see it, and it doesn’t effect us in any way, so whether or not there is a pink Unicorn on the dark side of the Moon means nothing to us.

So what do we do? Do we rewrite every book on science, physics and biology to support the wild claims of a few people who have never actually proven any in any scientific way? Or, do we simply disregard these claims as the result of the inner workings of these people’s imaginations, and rely on thousands of years of human observation, and hundreds of years of compounded, unrefuted scientific knowledge? You tell me.

Then we come to these “Ghost Hunter” shows on television. These people are, to start with, not scientists. They say so themselves. They have an agenda. To prove that ghosts do, in fact, exist. Any evidence that points in any other direction is disregarded. And look at the equipment they bring to these sites: Geiger counters, Infrared surface thermometers. Are they looking for nuclear fallout? They wave that stupid Infrared surface thermometer around wildly and say, “Look, the temperature is constantly changing.” Yeah, no kidding. You don’t know how to use that thing. It’s for measuring the temperature of a solid surface, not for waving around the room like a magic wand. Of course you’re going to get odd readings.

The main problem is that they never actually do any real scientific research. The first main component in scientific research is hypothesis testing. Say, for example, you believe there might be ghosts in a certain location. Ok. So what are these ghosts purportedly doing? Moving an object around the room? Making the temperature change? Well, design an experiment that aims to disprove that theory. That’s how the Scientific Method works. You don’t start with a conclusion and look for every bit of evidence that supports that claim, then disregard anything that doesn’t support it. It’s the same thing with “Creation Scientists.” They want to prove that God created everything, so that’s the only evidence they look for. When they see that biology and genetics prove that people evolved from other forms of life, they throw that evidence away because they aren’t interested in the truth. They want to prove that “God did it.”

In this way, the Scientific Method doesn’t work for ghost hunters. These guys go in there with a whole bunch of crap they bought at Radio Shack, stuff that isn’t designed to “detect ghosts.” Then they go through looking for things they can’t explain. Like why they get electromagnetic readings when they’re in a room with an electrical panel. Hmmm… I wonder why? Could it be that there is electricity in the room? Then, in the true scientific spirit, instead of trying to figure out what caused the strange occurrence (say, for example, having the electric company shut off the power to the house, and then performing another reading), they simply assume it was a ghost causing these readings. How intellectually lazy these people are. It’s nonsense.

Then there are people who claim to have had very real experiences which include things such as a ghost attacking them, accompanied by the feeling of paralysis, being unable to breathe, etc. These experiences are very vivid to those who have them.

These experiences are easily explained. Here is a link to a study on the topic, although this study was done on those who claimed to be abducted by UFOs. But the situations are similar enough to note this study. Both are relatively similar experiences.

Basically, what happens is when one falls asleep, there is a part of the brain stem that paralyzes the body once you enter REM sleep. This happens so that you don’t act out your dreams. The frightening thing that can happen is that the sleeping person wakes up, but this part of the brain stem fails to release its paralyzing effect on the body. The person cannot move, possibly has a very difficult time breathing, and also possibly is still experiencing the dream they were having. It’s called a waking dream, and the person experiencing it is totally convinced that what is happening in their mind is happening in reality.

The basic point that I want to make is that instead of immediately jumping to the supernatural conclusion, try doing some experimentation to actually discover what really caused what you claim to be ghost activity. You’ll be surprised at what a little research will reveal.

Do some research and read a book.

About these ads
  1. Friday March 21, 2008 at 7:57 PM

    I keep hearing all these people out there saying there is no such thing as Ghosts or the Paranormal. You ever wonder why they say this. I strongly believe that there is more evidence to prove that the paranormal and afterlife does exists than there is to say it doesn’t. When you hear there is a scientific explanation for why things happen, I would like them to explain experiences that so many of us have. The touching we feel, The shadows we see. What I think is going on is these people who are so against believing have had something happen with them also.

    • JLP
      Saturday October 23, 2010 at 8:17 AM

      I agree with this article. You say “I strongly believe that there is more evidence to prove that the paranormal and afterlife does exists than there is to say it doesn’t.” I laugh at that statement. So you mean to say you can prove it by personal experience? I have seen and felt things that you have. But I know it’s all in my head. Because if I can’t see it, I know it isn’t real.

      • Tuesday November 30, 2010 at 6:18 PM

        Right. It’s not enough to just say that you believe there is evidence. You have to, next, come up with that evidence. That’s basically just hearsay.

      • Uop
        Wednesday July 13, 2011 at 6:21 AM

        I laugh at your ignorance. You, along with the author clearly do not know the true nature of reality.

        • Wednesday July 13, 2011 at 9:15 AM

          The true nature of reality? Why don’t you go ahead and enlighten us if you are so well informed. Don’t forget to cite your sources.

          • Lee
            Friday September 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM

            why don’t you prove and enlighten us that there isn’t a spirit world, don’t forget YOUR SOURCES TheSkepti!

          • Friday September 23, 2011 at 5:00 PM

            Logically speaking, you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. If
            something does exist, the burden is on the person making the claim. You can’t prove unicorns don’t exist.

      • random
        Friday December 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

        And what are you smoking? Or do you have paranoid schizophrenia? It ain’t in your damn head idiot. I’ve come face to face with a spirit, and that shit was not in my head. Talk to a priest…or a therapist

        • Monday December 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

          A priest? Really? Your off to a bad start already! Now, with science out of the picture, so is your logical sense of reality. You are un-Approachable to talk about the facts, when clearly, you are willing to speak to a priest, accept his answer, and move on praising will of god, and other such non-sense. And therapy is best used by those with imaginary friends, who partake in a form of cannibalism at sunday communion. Belief in sprits, gouls, even holy ghosts, are all forms of psy-co-sis!

          • T. Smith
            Tuesday June 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM

            Human logic and reason is flawed. It cannot be trusted.

        • Ethan
          Friday July 12, 2013 at 1:17 AM

          Let’s analyze your comment, shall we? You start off by insulting the author. Not off to a good start, for all this goes to show is that you are too closed minded to even consider another view on the topic, therefore automatically result to attacking what you simply don’t want to understand. It’s much easier to throw out the other side when you don’t even listen to them. You then claim that you came face to face with a spirit (and you said the AUTHOR was smoking something, ha-ha.) Well, that may be all fine and dandy to you, however I can think of many possible reasonable explanations for what you experienced, not one of them involving ghosts. If you want to prove your side, you should probably come up with a more convincing argument than “I saw one”. Perhaps something with, oh, I don’t know, evidence?

  2. Saturday March 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM

    People say they “believe there is evidence,” yet never can bring this evidence to the light of day.

    If you find yourself arguing on an emotional level about paranormal evidence, you’ve probably got an emotional attachment to the idea, and you aren’t arguing scientifically. I have no emotional investment in the non-existence of ghosts. If someone can actually prove they exist, I’d be ecstatic. Until then, I’m not going to be intellectually dishonest and accept something for which there is no evidence.

    • Wednesday April 23, 2014 at 3:47 AM

      Life itself is a scientific conundrum. According to physicists – you are just a ball of particles, bouncing randomly through the Universe. And yet – you act every day as if you are not – as if you are some kind of transcendental entity called ‘life’.
      Scientifically speaking, you are no different from the chair you are sitting on, maybe a little more complex, but complexity does not beget life.
      ‘God’ or ‘Spirit’ is the world we use to define the source of that which we perceive to animate us.
      ‘Religion’ is a series of beliefs associated with that underlying principle. Many of the precepts of religion are not material facts, but they were never meant to be taken as such. The basic rules of religion are there as guidelines for people to live their lives. The more nuanced elements of religion is the subject of metaphysics.
      Our laws are directly descendant from the ’10 commandments’ and other such epithets of that era – even modern constitutions, such as the one in Canada refer to God in the preamble as the source of our rights.
      It is rational to dispute religious dogma as material fact, but it is also irrational to fail to grasp what Spiritualiy and Metaphysics are.
      Many of you are caught in the intellectual trap of material reductionism.
      Hint: Science is just a tool. Math is a human invention and it’s just a tool. The Rational Mind is just a tool.
      ‘Who’ is using that tool? Is the real question.

  3. just wondering..
    Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 2:26 PM

    I can’t understand what possesses people to buy it and keep going with it no matter what…it just seems a waste of time and effort. (unless there is a profit to be made.) But shouldn’t regular folk be embarrassed?

    There should be a study done to figure out why ,seemingly, so many people choose to believe the most absurd even when the evidence shows contrary. Why why why!!!

    • Josh
      Sunday February 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      I don’t do much research myself so I rely on my brother. so here is his explaination he found of such things. there is a part of our brain that copes with things by making us believe in God or supernatural to explain things that we cant or wont ever be able to understand (not a direct quote but trying to resite what he said to me). he also said they found a way to stimulate this part of the brain to make these people actually feel as if God were in the room with them. like i said i haven’t done the research myself. so im sorry if this heresay was innaccurate.

  4. David
    Tuesday July 29, 2008 at 3:11 AM

    Here we go again with more people in love with science without understanding it’s limitations. First, I think most scientists would agree that at this point in time we do not understand everything that takes place in the universe and how it all works. We aren’t even close and a lot of what we do know is probably wrong or will undergo at least some alteration. Second, just because you can come up with alternative explanations to an event does not mean that you have explained that event. All it means is that you have come up with an explanation for an event that suits you better. Even if your explanation is more likely, you still have not explained that event. Third, science cannot disprove much of anything so why do so many of you people insist that it can. There is no Law of There is no Such Things as Ghosts in science, and there is certainly no evidence that ghosts, or aliens, or esp do not exist. I know this is a hard concept to get so I will try and make it easy for you. If I want to prove that something exists all I have to do is find one of those things. However, if I want to prove that something does not exist I would have to be able to observe the entire universe to even hope to disprove something.

    • Erebus Priest
      Saturday November 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM

      @David

      Yes David, science does have its limitations, but that still proves nothing to the existence of your so-called (ghostly manifestations,) nor have you offered any proof to make your case. Thusly, they’re nonexistent.

      Understanding
      No, science doesn’t yet have a clear understanding of the cosmos, but not all are as presumptuous in the assumption of apparitions either. But if we live long enough to obtain more information we’ll eventually have a clearer scope on our reality, and it’s only a matter of time.

      David, your narrowness indicates only a positive for religious doctrine, and a negative for that of science.

      Alternative explanation

      Alternative explanation works by a process of deduction to give the clearest answer. But I suppose you’re incapable of this without prejudice?
      So yes, David. Alternative explanations, if properly investigated, does mean
      you’ve explained the event without jumping to conclusions. Where did you get that hogwash from – ghost hunters? Please.

      David? I can tell you’re only making up excuses to explain the nonexistent event, and is indicative that it only serves your feeble interest to do so, and thus, shows you’re not interested in finding the truth to what really
      happened because you’ve already assumed and inserted your fictional character before trying to find the cause.
      Conformation bias anyone?

      David, science can explain things, and disprove things because it works by a process of deduction, and realism by which gives a true or false value, and that is the scientific method. So your philosophy is useless.

      Philosophy gives you three answers of, yes, no, and maybe.
      But reality only provides you with two answers, and they are:
      Either it exists or it doesn’t, it is or isn’t, one or zero, yes, or no. There is no room for maybe.

      And it is no need to be omnipresent to prove the nonexistence of a human construct. However, David on the other-hand must provide the proof to its existence, and beyond a shadow of doubt.

      • Matt
        Saturday November 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

        @David: pwned!

        • Erebus Priest
          Sunday November 4, 2012 at 2:19 AM

          Matt, I like your postings, and you’re better at debates then you think. Just don’t let them take control of the conversation, nor let them deflect your rational mind because it’s within everyone’s interests to embrace reality, and put out the embers of superstition.

      • Monday December 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM

        Beautiful reply! Nicely put!

        • Erebus Priest
          Thursday December 20, 2012 at 9:54 AM

          Thanks, Mr Mason. And I find your reply to, random a excellent read as well.

          Have a nice day

      • Witty_Punk
        Wednesday December 18, 2013 at 5:03 AM

        I think you should try looking into Steven Hawking’s pseudoscience theories. You might be able to wrap your head around the “unknown,” which for your information is a hell of a lot more than the known…

        • Cerberus Black
          Monday March 24, 2014 at 5:12 PM

          Not so witty;
          Yes, the universe holds yet undiscovered truths within, but that doesn’t add any proof to your take on reality.

    • Ethan
      Friday July 12, 2013 at 1:24 AM

      “If I want to prove that something does not exist, I would have to be able to observe the entire universe.” Correct, and this is exactly why saying “You can’t prove it doesn’t exist” is a logical fallacy and doesn’t work as an argument. By that logic, you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist, or Santa doesn’t exist, or the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist, etc., and obviously this wouldn’t bring any credit to the idea of unicorns being real, so it doesn’t work for ghost either. I do fully realize science’s limitations, however that doesn’t automatically mean that everything that science assumes is wrong, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not ghosts are in fact real. The fact that there are things we don’t yet know doesn’t bring credit to supernatural ideas, it simply means that there are things out there we haven’t discovered yet.

      • bob
        Monday July 15, 2013 at 1:21 PM

        I go strickly by the Word of God. You know-the Bible. The dead know nothing. They are demons that materialize as ghosts(people). You should read the Bible and get to know Christ.

        • Kent halseth
          Monday August 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM

          The most beautiful and most dangerous ability man has is imagination. the who god idea was an EXPLANATION for what we didn’t know….now we can soar above clouds, observe the universe, divide cells, create new ones, WATCH evolution in a petri dish…and wake up and go…we are so miniscule in this universe and man is so egotistical to think a “creator” mad e us in his image…he screwed up there then…believers of ANY unforeseen subject were TAUGHT the crap…period. I tire so easily from bible thumpers and “I saw a ghost” idiots…you IMAGINED you saw a ghost…get it? Our mind plays wonderful and exotic tricks on us daily…and at night when we sleep it starts home movies that never happened.

          • Thursday September 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM

            Well stated Kent halseth! Them ‘Bible Thumpers’ got a foothold in many pockets of the nation. I guess people feel more comfortable thinking they have ‘answers’ rather than mysteries. Did you notice that now that almost everyone has a cell phone with a camera that takes great pictures and videos – that the UFO sighting have plummeted? Interesting huh.

  5. Wednesday July 30, 2008 at 5:22 AM

    First, I think most scientists would agree that at this point in time we do not understand everything that takes place in the universe and how it all works. We aren’t even close and a lot of what we do know is probably wrong or will undergo at least some alteration.

    While this is a reasonable statement, you fail to be as consistent in your criticism of your own claim that ghosts do, in fact, exist. Why do you not have as stringent criterion for the proof of ghosts? That’s interesting. A logical fallacy, perhaps?

    Second, just because you can come up with alternative explanations to an event does not mean that you have explained that event. All it means is that you have come up with an explanation for an event that suits you better. Even if your explanation is more likely, you still have not explained that event.

    Ah, but my friend, I would only be making guesses as to what the cause might be. If you are the one claiming there are ghosts, then the burden of proof is on YOU to show that they are real. It is logically impossible to prove a “negative.” But, I’ll leave that for your next quote…

    Third, science cannot disprove much of anything so why do so many of you people insist that it can. There is no Law of There is no Such Things as Ghosts in science, and there is certainly no evidence that ghosts, or aliens, or esp do not exist. I know this is a hard concept to get so I will try and make it easy for you. If I want to prove that something exists all I have to do is find one of those things. However, if I want to prove that something does not exist I would have to be able to observe the entire universe to even hope to disprove something.

    How about instead of making it easy for me, try making it easy for yourself. You cannot logically prove a negative. You say science has no evidence that “ghosts, or aliens, or esp do not exist.”

    There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence of anything. Prove Unicorns don’t exist. You can’t. It’s logically impossible.

    If you want to show that something is real, then the burden of proof is on YOU.

    Sooooooo… when you find a ghost, go ahead and prove that it’s real. Don’t ask someone else to prove it isn’t real. That’s not how it works. That’s not how science works. If you’re going to criticize science, try understanding it first. Don’t argue from ignorance.

    That’s why our legal system is “Innocent Until Proven Guilty.” It wasn’t just because they felt like being nice that day. It’s because it’s impossible to prove that you didn’t do something. The burden is on the state to show that you DID do something.

    If I were to ask you to prove to me that you didn’t steal something yesterday, how could you prove that? You can’t. Just like I can’t prove that there aren’t ghosts. I know where the evidence points, but until someone shows me a ghost, I’m sticking to the proposition that there are no such things as ghosts.

    • Erebus Priest
      Sunday November 4, 2012 at 3:10 AM

      And to Mr Skeptical Atheist.

      You are very logical and sharp in wit, and an exceptional debater, but do not think that you’re alone because you’re a lite among may
      .. in a world of darkness.

      I thank you for the blog, and allowing myself to be a willing participant. Cheers

      If I’m ever to travel to New York before my demise I’d look forward to having a beer, and conversation with you as well. I can only hope that one day that will come to fruition.
      Anyway I just wanted to let you know that you’re not alone, and people do depend on you.

      Your big fan
      Erebus

  6. KL
    Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM

    An interesting article although, it is not quite true to say contributors to the programme “Ghost Hunter” are not scientist….some of them actually are:
    Professor Archie Roy
    Professor David Fontana
    Professor Peter Fenwick
    To name just 3.

    Also from my own experiences no “experiment” could unravel a “rational” explanation for them occuring.

    The flaw in your hypothesis is to base your arguments purely on the understandings of current scientific laws.
    Who is to say that we live in an age where everything in the universe can be explained by a scientific equation?
    If it’s “proof” that you are after then you have define what would constitute “proof”.

    If I was to produce a film recording of a ghost and the film was analysed, and determined not to be tampered, with or was not a deliberate hoax, that won’t satisfy the skeptics, who would claim, it must be the light, or a double negative etc etc. So whatever “proof” was offered up, it still wouldn’t pass the Skeptics test.
    I have yet to hear any skeptic to actually tell me what they would constitute as proof.

    It wasn’t so long ago that it wasn’t possible to provide any proof that planets existed outside of our own solar system, that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t possibly exist.
    Many people including scientists believe life and intelligent life too, exists on other planets, but there is no proof, and currently with all our current scientific knowledge we can’t prove it.
    So just because something can’t yet be proven it doesn’t follow that it doesn’t exist or can’t be proven in the future.
    The truth is man is kidding himself if he thinks he knows everything…..he clearly doesn’t.
    People argue, man has stepped foot on the moon, surely he would have discovered and examined ghosts by now if they truely existed.
    I have often heard the term “man conquers space”
    ……like hell he has!….in cosmic terms man has barely stepped foot outside his back door!.

    Just think when the pupils of the class of2508 study the history of the 21st century, they will most likely laugh at our primitive knowledge and understanding of the world….perhaps by then we will have a mechanism advanced enough to study ghosts and therefore prove there existance.

    Science can’t explain everything, and we would be presumptious to think we can use science to explain everything.
    Man might think he is very smart,but he’s not THAT smart….one day we might come up with a scientific formulae to explain ghosts, but today isn’t that day.

  7. Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM

    If I was to produce a film recording of a ghost and the film was analysed, and determined not to be tampered, with or was not a deliberate hoax, that won’t satisfy the skeptics, who would claim, it must be the light, or a double negative etc etc. So whatever “proof” was offered up, it still wouldn’t pass the Skeptics test.
    I have yet to hear any skeptic to actually tell me what they would constitute as proof.

    Well, I’m not sure which skeptics you’ve been talking to, but a cornerstone of the scientific method is that the experiment has to be reproducible. I have yet to see any ghost “proof” that was reproducible.

    To be more specific, ghost proof that could be reproduced by anyone in similar circumstances.

    If you can’t reproduce an experiment, then it’s obviously not a real phenomenon.

    And this dovetails nicely with your next paragraph…

    It wasn’t so long ago that it wasn’t possible to provide any proof that planets existed outside of our own solar system, that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t possibly exist.

    Many people including scientists believe life and intelligent life too, exists on other planets, but there is no proof, and currently with all our current scientific knowledge we can’t prove it.

    How did we discover planets existed? We designed experiments that were reproducible by anyone who could observe the sky. There was no esoteric methods like, “well, I have a special gift of my senses, so I’m the only one who can see them.”

    No, people offered up what they saw as evidence and asked others to reproduce that particular effect, and they were able to reach the same conclusion.

    No one has ever been able to reproduce a “ghost” experiment.

    …perhaps by then we will have a mechanism advanced enough to study ghosts and therefore prove there existence.

    This is based on the assumption that “ghosts” are actually some “advanced” manifestation of something other than matter… rather than just misinterpretation of our senses. That seems like a large leap of faith to make. It’s very close to the logical fallacy of special pleading. Basically saying that, “well, we haven’t understood ghosts yet because they just operate under conditions we can’t detect yet.” Too advanced for science, but not too advanced for just looking at?

    If we can see ghosts with our naked eyes, how is it that they’ve never been able to be proven to exist, like, say, polar bears or woodchucks? The only argument left is the logical fallacy of special pleading.

  8. KL
    Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 4:10 PM

    First off it is wrong to assume that we have the abilty to reproduce ghost phenomena in the lab as an experiment that is reproducable, not necessarily because ghosts do not exist, but more likely that man hasn’t yet found a way to do it.

    Sorry, but you give scientific knowledge of today way too much credit.
    Do you not think that 500 years from now scientist will think that science of the 21st century is advanced or primitive?

    You mention that percieved ghosts might just be misinterpretation of the senses, I have no doubt that many ghost reportings might just be that, but on the other there are cases which that explanation does not adequately fit.
    In my mother’s case for example she had a woman come to her and chat to her, she later found out, this woman was her deceased great grandmother, now you might argue that she must have imagined it……only this “ghost” was also witnessed at the same time by her nanny.
    My mother also witness this “ghost” on just one other occassion and that time too was witnessed by the nanny.
    If you have scientific explanation to that then I’m all ears.

    I also have an experience of my own when the springs on my bed were forced up and down of their own accord, as if a small child were jumping on the end of the bed, but noone was there…..please explain that with any current scientific laws.

    I am no ghost seeker, nor do I attribute every knock or bang, or orb of light to a be ghost, but I know what I was witness to, and it was something I could feel psysically.
    You can believe my experience or you could dismiss it, I am not here to convince you, I am just relaying what happened to me.

    As to why we can’t prove ghost exist if we can see them, well like I said ghosts aren’t polar bears that can be tracked and catalogue.
    I can’t explain the why, but I firmly believe that science doesn’t yet have all the answers.
    There is so much man doesn’t know about the world and the universe we live in, it is arrogant indeed to suggest that we do know everything.
    How to catalogue ghosts, like they were polar bears may well be one of those things we just don’t know how to do yet.

    I am not here to change your mind, but I am here to challenge you reliance on science to explain everything.
    I will also add that unless you have experienced things like my mother or I, then you won’t really see or truely understand our angle or take on things.

    I say again just because we can’t prove something, doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist, and I don’t care what fancy name you give to that logic.

    I would though add, that the next time someone recounts a “ghost” story, do not dismiss it out of hand merely because you can’t understand it, or it doesn’t fit the laws of physics as we know them.

    You claim to have an open mind, but do you really? You’ve already stated that there are no such things as ghosts, now that does’t seem to be open minded to me.
    As I said, I’m not here to change your mind, you continue to believe what you want to believe, but equally there is no way you can change my mind on the matter.
    I have read your article and as I have said it does have some merit,but I don’t agree with your conclusions.
    I would hope you view my arguments with some merit, although I do not expect you to agree with my conclusions either.

  9. Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM

    It seems that basically everything you’re saying is based on the argument from ignorance. We don’t understand it, so it’s ghosts.

    It seems that you’re unwilling to consider anything else except the ghost hypothesis.

    I’m not exercising any “belief.” I’m looking toward where the evidence points. I’ve never seen a ghost, never seen evidence of ghosts… so honestly, why would you expect me to accept the ghost hypothesis? I’m not “against” the existence of ghosts.

    I say again just because we can’t prove something, doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist, and I don’t care what fancy name you give to that logic.

    This may be true, but it says a lot about the phenomenon. If you can’t prove it, maybe there’s another explanation?

    …you continue to believe what you want to believe, but equally there is no way you can change my mind on the matter.

    And this says a lot about your view of ghosts. I don’t “believe in” anything. I look for the evidence. But as you say…

    there is no way you can change my mind on the matter.

    You’ve already decided what the “facts” are, that you know everything.

    Why should I believe in Unicorns? Fairies? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? These things are just as “provable” as your ghosts are. We just can’t detect Unicorns yet. Or Tooth fairies.

    If you’re going to have a standard of proof, you should be able to apply it universally… not just in special cases where you have an emotional attachment.

    I will also add that unless you have experienced things like my mother or I, then you won’t really see or truely understand our angle or take on things.

    You’ve completely disregarded the fact that what you’ve “experienced” could have been an illusion of some sort. You’ve not even considered it.

    You should rule out all of the natural explanations before jumping to supernatural conclusions.

  10. KL
    Tuesday September 9, 2008 at 4:59 PM

    Actually I am quite a rational person that looks at the rational before jumping to conclusions about ghosts.
    You say you are searching for evidence but what if the evidence is beyond the reach of our current science.
    Many scientists think that there is intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe apart from Earth, but there is no evidence that can be gathered to prove this claim, even though this claim may well be true.
    You can’t show me any evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets anymore than I can show you evidence of ghosts.
    As regards to my personal experience, it can’t be an illussion as I said I felt t physically.
    You have also yet to explain what scientifically can explain my mother’s sighting. If it was an illusion how come it actually spoke and was observed by 2 people at the same time on 2 seperate occassions.

    As I mentioned earlier I have ruled out all natural explanations before I came to my current conclusions.
    You have not experienced anything out of the ordinary like my mother or myself and that makes our standpoints very different.
    Had you experienced what I experienced and you managed to come up with a rational explanation then I would applaud you, but I for one haven’t found a rational explanation that could explain it and that was over 20 years of pondering what happened.
    As I said I am not here to change your mind but perhaps I can persuade you to be a little more open minded.
    I say Yay, you say Nay…..only one of us is right…..one day we will both discover the answer….today is not the day though.
    However hopefully you might still have your blog open when one or both of us are long gone from the Earth as we know it today.
    How about this, If you do discover….actually there are such things as ghost, because I now have become one, will you promise to revisit this thread and tell the world hey I was wrong ghost do indeed exist.
    If you do that then I will likewise if I am proved wrong….deal?

  11. Friday September 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM

    You can’t show me any evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets anymore than I can show you evidence of ghosts.

    While this is a good point, I think there is a difference in our philosophies. Yes, we can’t show evidence for these things, but I do not go out of my way to say that they certainly do exist in the face of no existing evidence.

    You, on the other hand, are fervent in your asserting claims that ghosts are real… regardless of the lack of evidence. This is evident by your next claim…

    As regards to my personal experience, it can’t be an illusion as I said I felt it physically.

    This statement basically means that you think there are no such things as illusions. Part of an illusion, in fact the whole idea of an illusion, is that you think it was real… regardless of if you felt it physically or not.

    You’re saying that you are not susceptible to an illusion, and neither is your mother.

    You have also yet to explain what scientifically can explain my mother’s sighting. If it was an illusion how come it actually spoke and was observed by 2 people at the same time on 2 separate occasions.

    There are many possible explanations, scientifically speaking. Hypnagogic or hypnopompic states could easily explain what you’ve seen. You haven’t mentioned your experiences, or the circumstances surrounding them, but those two mind-states are the most common reasons people claim to have seen “ghosts.”

    This is why I say that you haven’t, as you say, “…I have ruled out all natural explanations before I came to my current conclusions.” You haven’t considered all natural explanations. You are very eager to jump to the ghost hypothesis.

    Had you experienced what I experienced and you managed to come up with a rational explanation then I would applaud you, but I for one haven’t found a rational explanation that could explain it and that was over 20 years of pondering what happened.

    From what I gather, you’re saying that if you can’t figure out what actually happened to you, no one can. And because of that, you conclude that ghosts exist.

    20 years of simply “pondering” will not give you answers. Especially when the events occurred 20 years ago. This is, actually, more evidence against what you’re claiming. Human memory is more than fallible and you’re basing your belief in ghosts on something that occurred very long ago.

    I can hardly remember what happened to me last week. I’m not sure how you could call your memories of an event 20 years ago irrefutable proof that ghosts are real. More than likely, you’ve forgotten major details of what’d happened, and your mind filled in those details with ideas that match the conclusion you want to reach… that you saw a ghost.

    And as far as your proposition, why aren’t ghosts all over the world posting comments on blogs? Why has this never happened? Could it be that there really is no such thing as ghosts? Or are you unwilling to even consider that?

    I think the difference between us is that I’m the only one here who is willing to have his mind changed. If you can show me evidence of ghosts, I will certainly accept it. For you, on the other hand, no matter what I say, or what evidence I show, you will still be stuck on the ghost hypothesis.

  12. D.L.
    Thursday September 18, 2008 at 3:09 AM

    I am in the middle of both view’s.
    I along with my wife and children have been having daily encounters with (whatever these things are)
    We believe ghosts…
    Yes i can’t prove it…But even when i did not believe in them…I knew somewhere…
    I myself and my wife have brought up various thing’s we have seen,and later it turned out to be something that looked exactly like a person that once lived There..

    Couple years back when i did not believe in them..at that time i was religious and blamed it all on “demons”..which I now do NOT believe in..

    Anyhow I agree with both of you..and you both ask great questions…

    My opinion is… KL I would understand you if it was more recent and frequent…

    And GodKillzyou You are obviously a very sharp and smart guy,that brings a load of great info and fact’s with you..

    All i can say is..Until you yourself interact with something like this..(especially right in the middle of the day…when it’s still early in the day..when night/dark cannot be blamed for overactive imaginations…)
    I totally understand and used to stand right where you are now…It is logical to say you don’t believe in them unless you have been through it…
    But i strongly believe if you have something solid that happens to you,I think you’ll change your mind..
    But no one can really use logic and believe in something that they simply have not been through at the same time..

    :) Me myself..I do believe..But I really only really beleived strongly after i met my wife and had more kids and they see them too..they see the same exact things we see…We all write on paper on what we see..and it’s right on…

    So I’d understand if one person see’s thing’s..But if 5 ppl see the same exact thing…we can’t all be crazy can we?

    Anyhow peace and I hope one day we will be able to prove what these energies are..

    take care :)

    Don from hawaii :)

  13. KL
    Thursday September 18, 2008 at 9:03 PM

    Okay I can see we aren’t going to agree on too much here Godkillzyou.

    When you actually say there is a lack of evidence that ghosts exists, well actually there is plenty of evidence from other people’s accounts and video recordings the world over that ghost exists.
    Whlist I would be amongst the very first to tell you that many accounts are not due ghosts or spirits, many accounts do remain “unexplained”,mine included, and when I say “uexplained”, I mean unexplained by scientist and skeptics, and not ones that may have been solved by low frequency sound, lay lines, hallucinations etc etc.
    So there is indeed plenty of evidence to suggests that ghosts exist, it’s how you choose to interpret this evidence that seperates us.
    What ever “evidence” is presented it will not be deemed as “proof” by your good self, so really who is actually the more open minded here you or me?

    DL makes the valid point that unless, or until, you experience similar experiences that we have, then you will continue to think that eveyone else’s experiences MUST be illusions or halucinations, instead of entertaining any possibiblity of a ghost.

    As for saying memory is fallable and details can be wrongly rememembered, I would say yes, that is generally true, however even the best memory men use a technique to remember things and that is to visual something outrageous and associate it with the item or word that they are trying to recall, they call these “visual hooks.”
    Well, let me just say that there are many many things that have faded from my memory, like friends names, exact dates, location of buildings etc etc, however what I experienced that night was about as unreal an outrageous as you can ever hope to experience and that is something that will never fade from my memory till the day I die.
    In fact no retelling of the incident even come close to describing what I actually felt at the time of the experience.

    I have recalled this event on numerous occassions to people, and many have heard the story many times over ,but none has ever had to correct me on details of susequent retellings of my story.
    Indeed it is one of the experiences that remains as fresh as the night it happened.
    I somehow think that the “visual hook” technique I referred to earlier helps to explain this, in fact I would have to say that it could probably be described as “the mother of all visual hooks”!…… so I strongly disagree that just because the event happened 20 years ago, my account of it must be somewhat unreliable.

    Similarly my mum’s account has been repeated on numerous occassions, and not once has her account changed or been found to be any diffrenent on each retelling.
    Interestingly my mum quite quickly forgets things that I teach her to do on the computer, and yet her recollection of her “Ghost” encounter remains crystal clear….again another case of a very strong visual memory hook I feel.

    DL, you also made the comment about, if my experience happened more recently or more frequently you would understand me.

    Well in answer to that, I can only say I am reporting to you what I experienced in one location at the time I was studying, I am no longer in that city and haven’t revisited it in over 20 years.

    I could say to you that this phenomena happens to me every month and that it occurred just last week…..but I won’t because that would be a lie.
    I don’t really think when or how frequently it happens is really the issue.
    The fact that it did happen is enough.

    I don’t have the answers, perhaps the entity was location specific and only choose to make it’s presence felt at a time of its choosing, and fortunately for me our paths crossed one night, yes I do say fortunately because, although petrified at the time, I do look back and feel rather privaledged to have experienced something that the vast majority of human beings on this planet never will.

    It was only a week or so ago that the Large Hadron Collider was put into action by Cern in Geneva, trying to explain the mysteries of the universe.
    I watched on the news, an endless stream of excited partcle physicists explaining that although science has made great strides into understanding the universe,there was much, much more that we, 21st century man, could not understand.
    Scientist were quoted as saying that they were quite hopeful that the Cern experiments would result in the rewriting of the science text books.

    The Cern scientist enthused about hoping to find out what was dark matter, whether the supposed Higgs boson (so called “God” particle” actually exist or not).
    Some at Cern even suggested that the experiments might help to indicate that other dimensions might exist that we cannot normally see or perceive.
    Now bear in mind these people aren’t fantasists or crackpots, but are the highest calibre particle physicists, and are amonst the finest minds currently living on Earth….. is it really such a leap to suggest ghosts might just turn out to be true, and that people who swear that ghosts exist are not all deluded or suffer hallucinations?
    I think this is where we differ the most Godkillyou.
    I don’t think it’s such a huge leap to think ghosts or spirits exist, in fact I’m fairly confident it is just another process of nature, that if ever “explained”, will become a rare but perfectly “natural” phenomena.
    You on the other hand seem to think that ghost and spirits is far too “left field” to ever be even be a possibilty worthy of serious consideration.

    I guess that’s the curiosity amongst those that belive and those that don’t, they both hold polar opposite views.
    I can’t change your mind, but neither can you change my mind.
    I have experienced my experience that actually has never been satisfactorily explain by any scientist or any theory that you could care to drum up.
    Sure hallucinations due to low frequency noises may account for lots of people’s experiences, but it doesn’t come close to explaining my phenomena.
    I think you have to be careful not to label every experience as being caused by x,y or z.
    Simply because one theory “may” solve some cases, it doesn’t follow that every case can also be explained by the same theory.

    I can only really go back to the particle physicists said just a week or so ago, “there is much more that we don’t know about the universe.”
    The question is will man progress enough to provide definitive proof about the existence of ghosts or otherwise to satisfy
    GodKillzyou before you depart this Earth?

    Well to quote from the Oscar winning movie,
    “No country for old men”……

    “It ain’t watin’ on you”.

  14. Friday September 19, 2008 at 5:27 AM

    KL

    When you actually say there is a lack of evidence that ghosts exists, well actually there is plenty of evidence from other people’s accounts and video recordings the world over that ghost exists.

    When reading this statement, it makes me believe that what is setting our positions apart is our standards of proof. In other words, what we consider to be solid proof.

    I’ll refer you to another post I’ve written entitled What Is Your Standard Of Proof?.

    I don’t consider stories proof of anything. And, honestly, I don’t think it is reasonable for one to accept a story as evidence of a claim.

    I mean, what would happen if our court system’s only standard of proof was a story? I could tell a story saying I saw you steal something from a store, and since you can’t logically prove a negative, you couldn’t prove that you didn’t steal from that store. (It’s logically impossible to prove something isn’t true. You have to prove that something else is true.)

    That’s why we’re “innocent until proven guilty.” Not because they were being nice that day. But because you can’t prove innocence. It’s up to the state to prove you did something.

    They are making a claim, so it’s up to them to prove it. Just like it’s not up to skeptics to prove ghosts don’t exist. It’s up to believers to prove they do exist.

    Whlist I would be amongst the very first to tell you that many accounts are not due ghosts or spirits, many accounts do remain “unexplained”,mine included, and when I say “uexplained”, I mean unexplained by scientist and skeptics, and not ones that may have been solved by low frequency sound, lay lines, hallucinations etc etc.

    So there is indeed plenty of evidence to suggests that ghosts exist, it’s how you choose to interpret this evidence that seperates us.

    From what I gather, you are claiming that because a phenomenon is “unexplained,” that means it’s a ghost. This is a false dichotomy – a logical fallacy… either it’s a or it’s b, and there are no other options.

    Kind of like the quote, “You are either part of the problem, or part of the solution.” That is a false dichotomy because there are more than just those two options in life.

    But, I think what I really want to get at is your next statement…

    What ever “evidence” is presented it will not be deemed as “proof” by your good self, so really who is actually the more open minded here you or me?

    Firstly, it’s not good to be so open-minded that your brain falls out…

    There is plenty of evidence that would convince me that ghosts are real. I’ll even tell you what I’m looking for.

    1. Use the scientific method. Make a hypothesis concerning ghosts. What is your ghost capable of? Test that hypothesis. Can it be proven false? If you can prove it to yourself, give your theory to someone else and have them test it.

    2. Here’s the big one… your hypothesis must be able to make predictions. Predicting future outcomes is the absolute key. You have to be able to predict NEW information that you don’t have yet.

    3. If your hypothesis can’t predict new information you don’t have yet, what will happen in future cases, your hypothesis is not true. You must then revise your claim.

    Basically, you need to show at least as much evidence FOR ghosts as there is AGAINST ghosts. And that’s just to break even.

    To really prove ghosts exist, you have to show more evidence that ghosts do exist than there is evidence that they don’t.

    If you can’t do that, then maybe what you believe in isn’t real. And that’s simply the scientific method and how it works. That’s how we learn about our Universe.

    And this dovetails excellently with your statements about the LHC (Large Hadron Collider).

    It was only a week or so ago that the Large Hadron Collider was put into action by Cern in Geneva, trying to explain the mysteries of the universe.
    I watched on the news, an endless stream of excited partcle physicists explaining that although science has made great strides into understanding the universe,there was much, much more that we, 21st century man, could not understand.

    Scientist were quoted as saying that they were quite hopeful that the Cern experiments would result in the rewriting of the science text books.

    This is absolutely true. I agree with you 100% on this. This is one of the most exciting moments in science in the last 100 years or more!

    What I greatly disagree with you about is that you’re using our lack of understanding about the Universe as proof of the existence of ghosts… the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance; we don’t understand it, therefore it’s a ghost.

    The LHC was designed to look for the Higgs-Boson. The particle that imparts mass to matter.

    You will not find anywhere, at any time, a scientist saying that they could possibly find proof of the existence of ghosts from the experiments conducted at the LHC. It would be absurd to make a claim like that.

    Some at Cern even suggested that the experiments might help to indicate that other dimensions might exist that we cannot normally see or perceive.

    Now bear in mind these people aren’t fantasists or crackpots, but are the highest calibre particle physicists, and are amonst the finest minds currently living on Earth….. is it really such a leap to suggest ghosts might just turn out to be true, and that people who swear that ghosts exist are not all deluded or suffer hallucinations?

    The key part of this is where you say we “cannot normally see or perceive.” Even if these ghosts exist in these “other dimensions,” you wouldn’t, as you say, be able to perceive them.

    That would logically mean that what you saw 20 years ago was not in that “other dimension” because we cannot see or perceive what is in it.

    I don’t think it’s such a huge leap to think ghosts or spirits exist, in fact I’m fairly confident it is just another process of nature, that if ever “explained”, will become a rare but perfectly “natural” phenomena.

    You on the other hand seem to think that ghost and spirits is far too “left field” to ever be even be a possibilty worthy of serious consideration.

    What I think is a leap of faith is claiming that something exists in spite of there being no conclusive evidence of it. Wouldn’t it be more rational to withhold judgment until there was a conclusive answer?

    I think it would be intellectually dishonest of myself to express belief in something for which there was no evidence of. It would be lying.

    Why not just accept belief in Unicorns? Maybe they exist in “another dimension.” You can’t prove that they don’t.

    I think your next quote summarizes things nicely, though…

    I can’t change your mind, but neither can you change my mind.
    I have experienced my experience that actually has never been satisfactorily explain by any scientist or any theory that you could care to drum up.

    This is not true, at least in my case. I gave a list of 3 things (pieces of evidence) that would certainly change my mind about ghosts. I would be more than ecstatic to accept that ghosts were real. Who wouldn’t???

    The sad part is that you admit that there is nothing that will change your mind… no matter what evidence is presented. You will continue to believe with every ounce of your being, regardless.

    What about people who believed that Zeus was the guy responsible for making lightning? What about the people who believed “God” was the cause of disease… instead of bacteria and viruses?

    It is very dangerous to admit that one will believe in something no matter what the evidence shows. It is the complete opposite of being “open minded,” as you say.

    I’ll end with a question…

    How can you claim to be “open-minded” when you’ve already closed your mind to the non-existence of ghosts?

  15. D.L.
    Friday September 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM

    Godkillz .. I agree with what your question stands for…

    I myself believe that these things that we encounter “May” be ghosts…We believe them to be…
    But i also accept the possibility of any reason why im seeing and talking with these “entities”…

    I’ve went through a bunch of different possibilities…We are totally medically healthy..nothing like that…

    But still I cannot know for sure that these thing’s are dead ppl’s soul’s or essence….It’s what we believe but…I am very open minded to any explanation..

    To me I cannot wait til they have the technology to really KNOW what’s going on.. :)

    Just putting in my 2 cents :)

    I understand and agree with both of you on multiple things..

    Don from hawaii :)

  16. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM

    Godkillz,
    I am formulating a reply to your last post but it may not be ready for posting just yet, in the meantime though I have read with interest Don from Hawaii’s recent contributions and thoughts, and would be interested in what you have to say about his particular experiences.

  17. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM

    Hi Don,

    You have some interesting stories.

    When people talk about “ghosts” people tend to lump different phenomena and their different possibilities together.
    Talking or interacting with “dead people” is just one type of explanation of one type of phenomena which we call “ghosts”.
    But again we don’t have standard definition of a ghost, so whether this phenomena is due to “dead people” is open to question.
    That said however, when we have discounted halucinations, low frequency noise phenomena, “it’s all in the mind” explanations, or other possible “scientific” explanation, then that still leaves us with the “ghost” phenomena as we know it.
    So what I’m saying is, If it’s not in your mind and not explained away by science then what you experienced are still classed as “Ghosts”, whether they are “dead people” or not.
    What these “ghosts” actually are is another question.

  18. Don.L.
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM

    I absolutely agree…
    If checked on with everything..low frequency..Even problem with eyes..
    when it was just me..I always had doubt.
    At that time,all I heard was other people stories…me deciding at the time to dismiss myself..as my parent’s ignored me about it when i was young.
    They were religious,but they listen now,as my children are pointing in the corner also and saying man..or lady or even doggy lol when there is nothing there…and in broad daylight…(which a lot of media/movies don’t say..they (whatever they are) Are all around day, night,rain snow lol…they are always out..
    Some ppl can see them when they want you to see them,some people can see them even if they don’t want to be seen..

    Another thing is..I believe maybe ppl see them differently,but as for myself,my kids and my wife,97% of the time (other than the shadow figures and or weird looking ones’)They look just like you and I..A lot of time’s we are coming home i hear my wife scream…not because it’s a ghost..(she’s used to that lol)But because she think’s a real live person is in the house trying to rob us or something lol so i come running up the stairs and..she’s tells me some one was there and they just disappeared lol..
    Like I believe i said in a past post,I really believed when my 2nd daughter was born,and she saw the same exact thing’s we did…My wife and I said nothing to her and she copied what the ghost was doing, which was opening it’s mouth and looking at us trying to say something..
    meeting my wife helped me a lot,but still she was a adult,so i figure she’d just agree to seeing anything just to not make me feel crazy lol..

    :)

  19. Don.L.
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM

    Forgot to say…(my son was kicking the keyboard) so i rushed off lol he’s 4 mo.s old lol

    I can see the possibility of a crazed person,or maybe something medically wrong..
    but for 3+ ppl to see the same exact thing
    without prior communication about it,or any affirmation of any sort is just…are we all crazy and somehow seeing the same thing? lol

    okay thats what i forgot to say the last time lol.

  20. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM

    Godkillz,
    This is not my full reply, but just as a quick reposte to a comment that you posted 2 posts ago.

    In responce to the question I posed:

    “You have also yet to explain what scientifically can explain my mother’s sighting. If it was an illusion how come it actually spoke and was observed by 2 people at the same time on 2 separate occasions.”

    You replied:
    “There are many possible explanations, scientifically speaking. Hypnagogic or hypnopompic states could easily explain what you’ve seen.”

    Hmmm, I still can’t see how being in the state between sleep and wakefulness explains my mother’s experience?
    I was careful to mention that 2 people saw and interacted with the “ghost”.
    What are you saying…that both people were in this state at the exact same time and imagined the exact samew thing?…..Hypnagogic or hypnopompic states are indeed real and I have experienced a few few things in under these states themselves.
    Sorry but Hypnagogic or hypnopompic states doesn’t come close to explaining my mother’s case.
    As for mine, well I have to remind you that I didn’t “see” anything.
    I felt my bed being jumped up and down on.
    AS I have said I have experienced things during the wakefull and sleep states and yes, your mind is indeed confused at the time of you thinking you have seen something, however when you go back to sleep and awken in the morning you are left in no doubt that what you experienced during the night was as a result of being half awake and half asleep.
    My experience was very different to any of the half asleep experiences I have previously had.
    You also mention Illussions, well I can also tell you that I did suffer halucinations when I was taken seriously ill and had to take powerful chemotherapy drugs, I halucinated that I saw spiders crawling on my celing on a number of occassions, but each time I somehow was able detach myself from what I was experiencing and knew that I was halcinating.
    Now fully recovered and looking back I know with even more certainty that I was halucinating at the time.
    So I can tell you that I have expereinced both hypnagogic or hypnopompic states phenomena and halucinations, and I can quite categorically state that my “ghost” experience resembles niether of them.
    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure hypnagogic or hypnopompic states and halucinations/illusions go along way to explaining quite a few alleged ghosts, but in my own case and my mothers these explanations simply don’t fit.
    Nice try Godkillz, but no cigar on this occassion!

  21. Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:18 PM

    So I can tell you that I have expereinced both hypnagogic or hypnopompic states phenomena and halucinations, and I can quite categorically state that my “ghost” experience resembles niether of them.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure hypnagogic or hypnopompic states and halucinations/illusions go along way to explaining quite a few alleged ghosts, but in my own case and my mothers these explanations simply don’t fit.

    Nice try Godkillz, but no cigar on this occassion!

    Look, KL, you seem very eager to try to prove me wrong. I’m not saying that hypnagogic or hypnopompic states are the only possible explanation for your experiences.

    You, on the other hand, are only willing to allow ghosts to be the explanation for your experiences.

    What seems apparent is that you are very emotionally attached to the conclusion of this debate. You, in my opinion, are not looking for truth for truth’s sake, but merely a confirmation of your beliefs – whether that proof is scientifically valid or not. You’re looking for someone to agree with your ideas, that’s all.

    If I were to agree with you, that would be the end of the story. You’d want nothing further to do with “investigating” what happened. You’d be happy with the conclusion that “ghosts exist.” Your emotions would be appeased… and science has nothing to do with emotion.

    You also mention Illussions, well I can also tell you that I did suffer halucinations when I was taken seriously ill and had to take powerful chemotherapy drugs, I halucinated that I saw spiders crawling on my celing on a number of occassions, but each time I somehow was able detach myself from what I was experiencing and knew that I was halcinating.

    Now fully recovered and looking back I know with even more certainty that I was halucinating at the time.

    You mention that you’ve had hallucinations before. Wouldn’t this be more evidence of hallucination? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable than to conclude that ghosts are real?

    Just because I said hypnagogic or hypnopompic states could easily explain your experiences does not mean that I’m limiting the explanations to those two options. That would be narrow-minded.

    The basic point I’m trying to get across is that you haven’t proven anything. If anything, you’ve only introduced more questions. A story is not evidence of anything. Even less is recollections of previous events.

  22. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM

    Come on GodKillz, all I’m asking is that you attempt to explain my mother’s case and Dan’s.
    You so far have failed to help me to see your “scientific” explanation.
    If there is a scientific explanation then go ahead explain it.

    I’m all ears!
    If your explanation is feeasble then yes I will entertain it, but so far you haven’t offered any “scientific” explanations.

  23. Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:32 PM

    KL, this is almost laughable. You’re actually expecting me to be able to explain with any type of certainty what the cause of a certain experience you’ve had… 20 years ago… when I wasn’t even there.

    What’s more, you can’t even explain it, yourself… and you’re the one claiming it happened to you!

    I wouldn’t be doing “science” if I was throwing out guesses about something that happened to you years ago. There’s no way to test those ideas. It means nothing.

    Until you can offer indisputable proof that what happened to you was “ghostly,” I refuse to accept your conclusion.

    What would you say if Phizer released a new drug for some condition you had, they say it works great but they’ve never tested it. They don’t know if it will kill you, if there are serious side effects… they just mixed a bunch of chemicals together and tell you to take it.

    What if they tell you an interesting story about someone who took the drug? Are you going to take that drug without them doing SCIENTIFIC STUDIES on that drug?

    I hope your answer is no. That’s the same reason I don’t just take your word for it.

  24. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM

    Hang on Godkillz, what is becoming laughable is yoyr apparent confusion as to which cases I’m asking you to come up with some explanation for.
    You have already attempted to explain my experience by saying it may have been an illusion.
    A fair attempt, but I know that an “illusion”just wasn’t what was happening in my case.

    However that aside, it is MY MOTHER’s case that I am asking you to explain.
    You have already said that most people may be suffeing from illusions when claiming to see ghosts, and as I have kept saying, I have no doubt that many cases can indeed be explain by mere illusions.

    Where the illusion explanation doesn’t fit is when multiple people see the same thing at the same time.
    Now you keep saying that science can explain this phenomena, so what is the explanation then?
    I would also like you comment on Dan’s experiences.
    If science can explain it then I’m crying out for you to explain it scientifically, nothing more nothing less….nothing laughable about that really.

  25. Saturday September 20, 2008 at 1:54 PM

    Again, I have no way of reliably explaining the cause of something I was not witness to. There is no possible way to do it.

    From the very few details given in these conversations, how do I know that maybe you missed something during the occurrence? You’d not be able to confirm this. It would sound ridiculous to say that you know you were aware of everything going on around you.

    You may be right about the illusion not fitting in your case. But, again, how do you know that all three of you didn’t miss something… you were busy noticing the “ghost” to pay attention to what was causing what you were seeing?

    This is the reason I cannot explain what you experienced. You couldn’t claim that you didn’t miss anything because, logically, you only saw what you saw… you can’t claim to know everything. Neither can I. Especially not being there.

    Our difference in this situation is that I withhold judgment as to the cause. You jump to the ghost conclusion.

    I feel that it’s unreasonable to jump to a paranormal conclusion in the face of contradicting evidence. When there is a precedence set, then I might entertain the idea.

  26. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM

    “Again, I have no way of reliably explaining the cause of something I was not witness to. There is no possible way to do it.”

    Well on that I actually agree on, If you wern’t there you can’t reasonable explain, which is why I get a little agrieived when people (not just yourself) say I was half asleep or imagining it…..they weren’t there so noone can tell me what happened….they weren’t there!

    So I think despite our disagreements that we might be coming to a consensus of some sorts.
    That is science cannot explain everything.

    If we put details of people’s accounts aside etc
    I put it to you, just imagine you saw and interacted with a ghost/illusion (for want of a better word).
    However you weren’t the only person that saw and interacted with the ghost..what conclusion would you arrive at?

  27. Saturday September 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM

    Well, I think go go a little far with this statement…

    So I think despite our disagreements that we might be coming to a consensus of some sorts.

    That is science cannot explain everything.

    The problem isn’t that “science” can’t explain what happened to you. I, personally, can’t explain what happened to you. I’m sure that someone with a Ph.D in the required field could easily explain the cause of your experience, provided they were there.

    Science isn’t at fault here. It’s a lack of science being performed when the experience occurred.

  28. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM

    ” I’m sure that someone with a Ph.D in the required field could easily explain the cause of your experience, provided they were there.”

    Really…..what makes you so certain of that?

  29. Saturday September 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM

    I’m not certain… just pretty sure. Nothing is 100% certain. But a lack of certainty is NOT proof of something else, like ghosts. The argument from ignorance, again. “We don’t understand it, so it has to be a ghost.” It’s just not logical.

    It seems to me that the real problem here is that, for some reason, you have a deep distrust of the scientific method.

    Without science, we wouldn’t have these computers, or this internet in which we’re corresponding. That’s got to count for something, right?

    I trust science because it delivers the goods. Anything good, technologically speaking, in our lives comes from science.

    I have a hard time understanding why someone would have such a distaste for science.

  30. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

    Hmm I think you have deeply misread me!

    I don’t have a deep mistrust of science!
    Quite frankly where you got that impression from I’m not sure.
    I am not anti science and don’t have a distaste for science.
    Just because I believe that “current” science can’t explain everything and quite clearly it can’t, somehow I’m a science hater?

    I’ll say it once again, I think science is great, but I’ll also say yet again, that science can’t explain everything.
    If current science could explain everything why do you think CERN have spent billions of dollars trying recreate the big bang?
    If current science could explain everything then it seems an awful lot of money gone to waste!

    Blind faith that science can explain everything is just as bad as blind faith that God exists.

    I’d like to quote something that echoes my views:

    “‘I’m happy to be a psychologist, and it is important to approach things scientifically, but we must never allow science to blind us to other possibilities that can’t always be explored purely by scientific methodology.’

    Professor David Fontana
    University of Minho Portugal and Distinquished Visiting Fellow of University of Wales, Cardiff.

    Blind faith that science can explain everything is just as bad as blind faith that God exists.

  31. Don.L.
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM

    I understand and agree on the sleep/awake..
    Those i have sometimes and I excuse them..but in a full waking state in the middle of the day….I would love to know what that is if it is not anything normal…Paranormal in a way i don’t like that word as it is “para”normal because we do not understand it..But all in all whatever it is..it’s prety normal and has been seen and felt for all time..as long as man has been around there has been stories of things like this..

    I am not here to take side’s nor argue..just trying to help you both out..

    I’m also a student on the subject of metaphysics and I’m in the process of getting my P.hd in metaphysical sciences..

    So I am aware of a lot of the hypnosis and alternate states on consciousness.

    But honest..we could be in the middle of walmart in the middle of the day..and see multiple “spirits”…

    Just to try and contribute to the convo..

    But on godkillz defense.. a lot of people do jump to conclusions, like some ppl who have a door slam and go Oh Oh it’s a ghost…You will find what you want to find if you are looking for it…It’s the experiences that hit you when you are not looking for it that gets me…

    NOthing to manipulate your mind from seeing things or scaring yourself..thenn all of a sudden something passes the bathroom while you are brushing your teeth and then it’s like wth? lol

  32. Don.L.
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM

    “We don’t understand it, so it has to be a ghost.” It’s just not logical.

    I agree…that’s why I am still trying to find out what these things are… :)

    good point

  33. KL
    Saturday September 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM

    “We don’t understand it, so it has to be a ghost.” It’s just not logical.

    Whilst I too agree with that comment, I think the skeptic or the “I’ll only believe if you show me proof brigade” generally think take the viewpoint below.

    “We don’t understand it,…. but whatever it was it was NO ghost”

    And also,who ever said everything followed “logic”….the Universe and nature doesn’t always follow “logic”.
    Animals aren’t logically supposed to survive in extreme heat, with no daylight…. and yet we now know creatures indeed thrive in underwater hydrothermal vents that reach up to 400 degrees celcius!

    Don,review the title of this article:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”

    Now if the writer was truely open minded the title would have been less strident in its claim.
    Would not the title:

    “I do not belive ghosts exists,”
    Be a little more reasonable?

    I have battled with other posters on other forums discussing this very topic.
    I doesn’t take long for the skeptic to voice his/her opinion.
    These skeptics claim that they are “open minded” but they make silly statements like:
    “I’m prepared to believe in ghosts if it can be proven that they exist”…..doh!

    Of course you are going to start believing something, when it becomes proven fact…..otherwise you’d look a little dumb….and the “dumb” card is certainly not the look the so called “open minded” skeptic wants to portray!

    I think the problem that many skeptics have is that they lump ALL Ghost believers as the same type of person…i.e that person is predispostioned to believe in ghosts, and believe every door banging or light anomaly must be a ghost.
    Whilst there are many that might fit the above description, there are many that don’t, and certainly don’t go out of their way to seek ghosts out,….they just happen to be in the right time at the right place.

    It must be noted that not ALL scientist are skeptics.
    Indeed a number of scientists notably,Professor Archie Roy,Professor David Fontana,Professor Peter Fenwick have admitted that the very real possibilty exists that the mind can work independently from the brain, and therefore can exist even when the brain dies.

  34. Sunday September 21, 2008 at 7:25 AM

    Ok, ok ok…

    Whilst I too agree with that comment, I think the skeptic or the “I’ll only believe if you show me proof brigade” generally think take the viewpoint below.

    “We don’t understand it, but whatever it was it was NO ghost”

    Why stop at ghosts? Why not say it was little energy crystals from the planet Mars focusing Chi on the Chakras of the dead?

    If you’re going to make stuff up, go all out. You can’t just say it’s an invisible man. You’ve got to really put some “oomph” behind it.

    And also,who ever said everything followed “logic”….the Universe and nature doesn’t always follow “logic”.
    Animals aren’t logically supposed to survive in extreme heat, with no daylight…. and yet we now know creatures indeed thrive in underwater hydrothermal vents that reach up to 400 degrees celcius!

    You’re referring to the Waterbear. And what a great attempt at misdirection is was.

    All of the mechanisms which account for the Waterbear’s extreme survival skills actually can ALL be accounted for through the use of logic. Its genes have evolved to allow it to live in such harsh conditions. Far from illogical. Nice use of the false analogy logical fallacy.

    Don,review the title of this article:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”

    Now if the writer was truely open minded the title would have been less strident in its claim.
    Would not the title:

    “I do not belive ghosts exists,”
    Be a little more reasonable?

    Or I could just call the article, “There might be Unicorns, Fairies, Ghosts, Homeopathy, Dowsing, Psychics, Etc, because I don’t want to look “closed-minded” to people who don’t utilize Science.”

    I have battled with other posters on other forums discussing this very topic.
    I doesn’t take long for the skeptic to voice his/her opinion.

    These skeptics claim that they are “open minded” but they make silly statements like:
    “I’m prepared to believe in ghosts if it can be proven that they exist”…..doh!

    I’ve very impressed with your ability to believe in things which have no support to back them up. That’s very “open-minded” of you.

    How silly of me to require evidence. What’s wrong with me?

    It must be noted that not ALL scientist are skeptics.
    Indeed a number of scientists notably,Professor Archie Roy,Professor David Fontana,Professor Peter Fenwick have admitted that the very real possibilty exists that the mind can work independently from the brain, and therefore can exist even when the brain dies.

    This is wonderful. At least you found a group of cranks with degrees attached to them. I’ll address them one at a time…

    1. Professor Archie Roy – past president of the Society for Psychical Research. Wow, surprise, surprise.

    2. Professor David Fontana – Professor at Cardiff University.

    … transpersonal psychology, which examines the more mystical states of consciousness, deep emotions, creative processes, and the paranormal. This more inclusive approach isn’t new – it was embraced by a number of luminaries in ancient times, including Pythagorus. ‘Today he is only taught as a discoverer of a particular theorum, but Pythagorus also had a mystery school,’ says David Fontana. ‘It gave people access to deeper awareness through a variety of mediums, including sacred geometry.’

    Oooh, sacred geometry. Still mining in Bronze Age mysticism.

    3. Professor Peter Fenwick:

    Dr Fenwick, who helps to run a forum on science and spirituality called the Scientific and Medical Network, claimed that he may soon be able to show the existence of consciousness after death.

    However, Professor Peter Atkins, of Oxford University, said that there was no reason to suppose that telepathy or the afterlife was anything other than a “charlatan’s fantasy”.

    Not respected as scientists in the “paranormal” field…

    Interestingly enough… here’s a quote from the “Ghosthunters” wikipedia page

    Frequently shown on the Discovery Channel and Discovery Civilizations, the first two seasons explored contemporary research in the area of field parapsychology, largely by asking prominent researchers to explain and outline their best evidential cases, and interviewing witness while placing the cases in the context of parapsychology.

    Notable researchers regularly featured on the programme include professors Archie Roy, David Fontana and Peter Fenwick.

    Who’s got the agenda here? Why is the show called “Ghosthunters?” Why not call it “We Believe Ghosts Exist?” The pot has called the kettle black…

    To sum up, there’s nothing new with your arguments. With these professors, you’ve attempted the argument from authority logical fallacy, that because they have degrees, they must be right about what they’re saying.

    Well, their claims don’t stand up under the PEER REVIEW process. In fact, they crumble. You shouldn’t be using the opinion of 2 or 3 guys to boost your claims. It’s not intellectually sound.

    Finally…

    Of course you are going to start believing something, when it becomes proven fact…..otherwise you’d look a little dumb….and the “dumb” card is certainly not the look the so called “open minded” skeptic wants to portray!

    Unlike believers, scientists love it when they’re wrong. That’s how science moves forward. The LHC could prove us completely wrong about the standard model of atomic theory. Will we find the Higgs-Boson?

    But, with believers, they would never admit to being wrong about ghosts… no matter the evidence. They are emotionally attached to the idea.

    I can demonstrate that cats and dogs are real. Can you do that with ghosts?

  35. KL
    Sunday September 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM

    Sorry but what you have written above Goidkillz is total bull!….with a capitial B!

    You stated that someone with a PHD could easily explain what happened in my case.
    Yet when I quote scientist with qualifications coming out of their ears….oh of course they are cranks!

    These guys aren’t cranks!

    Archie E. Roy is Professor Emeritus of Astronomy in the University of Glasgow.[1]

    He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh; The Royal Astronomical Society and the British Interplanetary Society; Member and past president of the Society for Psychical Research; Founding President of The Scottish Society for Psychical Research.

    Professor Roy is also a member of the International Astronomical Union, which recently honoured him by naming an asteroid after him. He has also been elected a member of the European Academy of Arts, Sciences and the Humanities. He is a Patron of the Churches Fellowship (Scotland) for Psychical and Spiritual Studies and a member of the Scientific and Medical Network. Archie Roy conducts research in astrodynamics, celestial mechanics, archaeoastronomy, psychical research and neural networks.

    Professor David Fenwick is a neuropsychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
    Senior lecturer at the institute of Psychiatry, Consultant Neurophysiologist at Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, and Honorary Consultant in Neurophysiology to Broadmoor Special Hospital.

    Let’s be honest here if the headline news tomorrow was the scientist have proven ghost as we know them do indeed exist what your reaction be Godkillz?

    a)Wow, what an exciting discovery!

    or

    b) That can’t be true….the data must be flawed or it is a hoax.

    It won’t take a genius to work out which one you’d pick Godkillz!

    You say you seek the “truth” ….but isn’t the reality, you seek the truth as long as it fits into what you’d want the truth to be like?
    If you were truely open minded then you wouldn’t entitle this article:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”….doh!

  36. Sunday September 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM

    You say you seek the “truth” ….but isn’t the reality, you seek the truth as long as it fits into what you’d want the truth to be like?

    If you were truely open minded then you wouldn’t entitle this article:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”….doh!

    Again, my mind isn’t so open that my brain falls out.

    I see we aren’t going to get anywhere here. Your claims are smacking more of a religious belief than of any type of scientific scrutiny. There’s nothing I’ve said that isn’t scientifically consistent.

    I’m relying on the consensus of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, whereas you are relying on the opinions of the producers of the “Ghost Hunters.” I think that point speaks for itself. It’s ignorant.

    You can call me names, use all kinds of ad hominem attacks and that only reduces the force behind your argument. You are clearly emotionally attached to your belief (religious?) in ghosts.

    There’s obviously nothing to be gained from this argument because you present your case in a way that is completely unfalsifiable (aka: not scientific).

    Your basic argument is that we don’t know ghosts exist because we don’t know how to know. You can say the same exact thing about Unicorns.

    In this case, there’s no reason to even consider it.

  37. Don.L.
    Sunday September 21, 2008 at 6:10 PM

    Ok..I agree with godkillz on the point of..not believing without scientific evidence.

    But to say….

    Or I could just call the article, “There might be Unicorns, Fairies, Ghosts, Homeopathy, Dowsing, Psychics, Etc, because I don’t want to look “closed-minded” to people who don’t utilize Science.

    I do utilize science..I’m agreeing that i cannot prove to you with hard evidence that it exist’s..But I am convinced that if you were to go through a “real” experience with something..you will KNOW..it’s not a what if type of experience…

    I can understand not believing in”i think i saw something in the corner of my eye”

    But Just to name an experience once there was a lets call it “ghost” in an apartment we lived in…It looked like a man about 5 foot 7 dark skinned and etc.. etc.. said his name and info and a message…We then later took the message to his family and it turned out the guy did die while living near our apartment…the landlord was shocked as well that we knew of this person that lived long ago…and the family is now believer’s.

    Godkillz i don’t expect you to believe..that’s totally understandable as I have seen thing’s my whole life,and only recently accepted it..

    No it’s not a fact…but i do believe in ghost’s now..

    I understand your view and respect it fully,as I have been there..

    But I believe if you have a hard in your face type of experience with this type of thing..It forces belief into you..It’s unexplainable..it’s a force I cannot put it into words…you just know…

    Very different than those experiences ppl talk about god etc…It’s really real and just..Idk..

    Imagine something appearing to you and tells you something,you check it out..and it’s all real…and you didn’t know or even see this “person\thing” ever before…

    How would you feel?

    My brother is going through what i went through when i was younger on denying what he see’s and feels…

    But I respect your view godkillz..and I am not a crank for believing in this,or going into Metaphysical sciences..

    I understand you actually i used to run around laughing at people and mocking ghost’s etc..

    Because as i previously stated I believed them to be demon’s when i was young..

    Anyhow..I don’t know if you took something wrong godkillz..I respect and understand you…

    I don’t jump to the conclusion of ghost’s at first..I have been trying to find answers since i was a child.

    :)

    Are there any questions about our experiences you’d like to ask godkillz? maybe to help You or myself in this quest for answers and or possibilities.

    If you might have a explanation I’d love to hear it as It may help me…after all if all of this that is happening may mean that something is wrong with myself or my family I’d really like to learn what it is.

    take care :)

  38. Don.L.
    Tuesday September 23, 2008 at 3:55 AM

    “There’s obviously nothing to be gained from this argument because you present your case in a way that is completely unfalsifiable (aka: not scientific).”

    “Your basic argument is that we don’t know ghosts exist because we don’t know how to know. You can say the same exact thing about Unicorns.”

    Understood..But It sounds to me by your title being there are no such things as ghosts…..etc… You are stating a fact that there are no such thing…

    And anything said is not scientific..that may be..But it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Before Science could discover Aids and what it was…Did it not exist?

    If we do not have the means to prove this to exist or not does not mean it does not..that’s like saying someone that knew aids existed before science proved it was a crank?

    So if a guy caught on or tapped into knowing what aids were before science could prove it to be real…he would be a crank? or would he be gifted in some sort of sense?

    I understand in being too open minded…I agree…But if you see for yourself Right in front of your face a red tree that everyone else in the scientific community say’s is blue but has not seen it or experienced it…

    DO you believe what you see..and be open minded to the red tree that science says no to?

    Or do you do the logical thing and know you’ve seen for yourself many times the “red tree”?

    You know what i mean?

    It’s understandable to me from both sides..as i have been on both sides…

    But trust me bud..when you see it..you know…

  39. Tuesday September 23, 2008 at 6:07 AM

    If we do not have the means to prove this to exist or not does not mean it does not..that’s like saying someone that knew aids existed before science proved it was a crank?

    So if a guy caught on or tapped into knowing what aids were before science could prove it to be real…he would be a crank? or would he be gifted in some sort of sense?

    This is the key point, and I guess maybe it’s your misunderstanding of what science is.

    If someone figured out what AIDS is, he’s doing science, whether he has a degree or not. It’s science.

    Before it was “AIDS,” it was first an unknown disease because it wasn’t studied, tested and retested and restudied over and over again… studies that were replicable, repeatable by anyone, done on anyone with the same symptoms and blood test results. These tests all yielded the same results… and that’s when the disease got its name – AIDS. It was through the use of science.

    Now, when it comes to ghosts, there are no tests to prove ghosts exist. Any time that a test fails, believers say it’s because “science can’t detect ghosts.” But yet, believers claim they can see them with their naked eyes. This is not science.

    I understand in being too open minded…I agree…But if you see for yourself Right in front of your face a red tree that everyone else in the scientific community say’s is blue but has not seen it or experienced it…

    DO you believe what you see..and be open minded to the red tree that science says no to?

    If the entire scientific community said a certain tree was blue, but I thought it was red… I would probably do my own experiment. Red light doesn’t emit as much electromagnetic energy as blue. I suppose I would design some type of experiment which would test the amount of electromagnetic energy emitting from the wavelength of light coming from the tree… provided I had the proper scientific equipment that could detect such things. I would not trust my senses. As you say…

    Or do you do the logical thing and know you’ve seen for yourself many times the “red tree”?

    Intuition has no place in science. Intuition is a feeling, and feelings can mislead us greatly.

    Just relying on our senses is not “logical,” as you call it. If we were only to rely on our senses, we wouldn’t have radios, Wi-Fi internet, broadcast television, etc. These things, radio waves, wi-fi signals, television signals, etc; are present in front of our eyes, penetrating our bodies constantly, and yet, we can’t see them.

    We would have no idea of their existence if we just trusted everything we saw.

    And how did we discover these things? Science.

    Hypothesis testing. Evidence. Testable evidence. Experimentation. Peer review.

    It’s not enough to just say, “I saw/felt something strange.” That’s fine. But can you replicate that experience? If not, maybe it was a fluke. Illusion? Mis-perception?

    It’s as I learn more about how science works that I learn to put less trust in my intuition, and more trust in experimentation and science.

  40. Don.L.
    Tuesday September 23, 2008 at 1:02 PM

    Very well written..

    My question is..although yes there is not anything to prove that ghost’s exist..

    Doesn’t me trying to find a way count as something?

    Ive tried to create electronics and gizmo’s to try and maybe hopefully find something..

    But since it’s ghost’s im not doing science? is that what you mean?

    From what my understanding of what your saying…A guy researching aids before it were to be discovered would be doing “scientific research” But someone researching anything they possibly can having to do with energy manipulation and or ghost’s etc.. is a crank?

    Is it because no one found anything yet,that makes them all cranks?

    If aids were not discovered would that person be a crank too?

    What i mean is..An emf device is placed right where i feel,see the presence…and every time the meter rises greatly…I mean…rather than me just accepting it..even after 20+ years of seeing and feeling and communicating with these “ghosts”
    I still put disbelief in it..I continue to search for an answer and or possibilities rather than just going in without logic and saying absolutely it’s ghost’s….

    I believe it may be possible that this is ghost’s that people have come to know and talk about….But it’s not fact with me..it’s a possibility..So am i a crank in your book?

    I am no longer religious as I was raised..so I scratched out demons etc…Now ghost’s is a possibility for me…a friend die’s I see and or commune with them…so with that being said..if it were you..wouldn’t it be a possibility to you as well?

    I do search and I do not just say it’s ghost’s because i do not know..It look’s like it is…But there could be some other reason for it…even time warps could possibly be a reason..I leave nothing out..I’m just trying to find a answer…

    But very well written Godkillz.

    I am not here to argue as Ive previously written,I just would like to contribute to the conversation.

    But Scientifically speaking what would some explanations be with these things?

    I’ve went through a lot of things in my search for answers…

    These thing’s seem to know a lot…They know thing’s i do not..

    Seem to know about total stranger’s lives that i have never met or seen..

    Like tell my mom this..etc..but it’s not corny like the movies lol…

    But 95% of the time’s very accurate and true.

    So how can this be from myself only?

    How am I receiving this info,if it is not from something from “beyond” so to speak.

    My kids who are very young,which we do not speak to about ghost’s etc…have been seeing the same thing’s sine she was really young.. (which helped me not feel crazy)

    So what do you think about it godkillz?

    I’d love some answers..maybe you can help a guy out :)

    Any questions so you can know my situation a little more?

    take care.

  41. jp
    Wednesday September 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM

    godkillz…. sorry to interupt this argument. im trying to follow it, im not the cleverest guy in the world but anyway i want to know if im paranoid and if my brain just makes things up for no reason

    A few times ive heard things in my house which could be anything but when its at night i get paranoid assuming its a ghost and start listening carefully to work out what it is so i can put my mind at rest and go to sleep. if i hear things in the day tho i dont care one bit i just carry on what im doing. i dont understand why it bothers me so much at night though, i dont even dare go the bathroom sometimes.
    ive never seen anything just heard noises sounding like someone was kicking the bath when theres no one there or footsteps. and a few times ive heard a clock ticking in my room when there isnt a clock in the house! i dont understand just wondering if you could help.
    im really trying not to believe in ghosts…. i really like the explanations you said at the start……

    “In order for something to exist, it has to consist of something. To start with, everything consists of atoms. From there, we know that atoms emit energy. And energy has certain limits, as does matter, or atoms. The first thing we know for certain is that one object cannot pass through another object and retain its original form. There is a certain topic in quantum mechanics called “quantum tunneling” which deals with this very topic. The quantum tunneling principle basically says that it may be possible for the energy from an object, namely on the atomic level – not automobiles or people, may pass through another object.

    It follows that if ghosts are real, in that they consist of matter, then they cannot pass through walls. It is physically impossible.

    The next topic to deal with are the claims that people make that ghosts throw objects, move chairs, open and close doors, etc. These claims make believers chose one or the other. Either ghosts are physical beings, or they are not. Either they consist of atoms, or they don’t. We know this is true because in order for a ghost to move or throw anything, or to turn a door handle, friction is required. And friction is caused by two surfaces working against each other. Simple physics… not to be confused with psychics.

    Because friction is required, then any claim that a ghost caused some object to move locks one into saying that a ghost is a solid object, or that at least it is atomic in structure and is in some phase of matter, i.e. solid, liquid or gas… probably not plasma. And if this is the case, then the ghost could not “become invisible” unless it was bound by specific temperatures. Meaning, whatever material the ghost consisted of has a particular temperature at which it changes states of matter – boils, melts, evaporates, etc. And the way to make the ghost visible is to simply change its form from a gas to a solid… to simply lower the temperature to make its material “solid.” And with everything we know about matter, if you were to bring an actual human being to its boiling point… well, you know what would happen.”

    thanks jp

  42. Don.L.
    Wednesday September 24, 2008 at 1:57 PM

    Hey jp

    To me sounds like the type of incidients me and my family encounter.

    Once my wife was home alone and called me on my cell to get me home asap..as there was a malevolent type of entity in the house..

    Music blasting ( i could hear this over the phone that’s how loud it was)At the time we had nothing that could play music like that…

    It was absolutely coming from the hallway…when nothing was there…
    She later got her hair pulled down when i arrived home..

    I believe what you “may” be hearing are these thing’s…

    You got to investigate it as much as you can…And remember if you are being “stalked” by these thing’s lol
    Don’t show fear as it worsens.

    If indeed you are having run ins with these thing’s…remember if you are fearless they cannot do nothing to you.

    I’m studying these type of energies in my metaphysics class…I’m trying to become a doctor of metaphysics and a hypnotist.

    As for the night time..I believe for one..if you are possibly inflating your fears to a higher level…most people scare themselves with their imaginations etc…not saying that’s what you are going through..

    Also you are starting to fall asleep entering different states of consciousness.
    Which that in itself may be the reasons..But that is if it only happened as you relaxed,as you fall asleep etc…

    As with me and my family..And many other people ,we could be playing sport’s and be fully conscious and awake and see feel hear all types of thing’s…just an example as it has nothing to do with the alternate states of the consciousness…

    Do you have a digital voice recorder or something like that ?

    Try and see if you can record any of these sounds…

    take care…

  43. KL
    Sunday September 28, 2008 at 9:25 PM

    Here’s an apt quote from the late great Carl Sagan on the subject of the paranormal:

    “Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I’ve even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it’s applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others…”

    Remind you of anyone?

  44. KL
    Sunday September 28, 2008 at 9:32 PM

    “It’s not enough to just say, “I saw/felt something strange.” That’s fine. But can you replicate that experience? If not, maybe it was a fluke. Illusion? Mis-perception?”

    ……Or maybe it was a ghost?

    If you don’t even list that as a possible option,then you are never going accept that ghosts exist even if the evidence did suggest otherwise.

  45. KL
    Sunday September 28, 2008 at 9:36 PM

    “Now, when it comes to ghosts, there are no tests to prove ghosts exist. Any time that a test fails, believers say it’s because “science can’t detect ghosts.” But yet, believers claim they can see them with their naked eyes. This is not science.”

    Why do you think that if something can be seen it must be duplicable or repeatable by scientific means?
    That my friend is not science.

  46. Wednesday October 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM

    I want to address both of these, as they dovetail nicely…

    Here’s an apt quote from the late great Carl Sagan on the subject of the paranormal:

    “Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I’ve even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it’s applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others…”

    Remind you of anyone?

    “Now, when it comes to ghosts, there are no tests to prove ghosts exist. Any time that a test fails, believers say it’s because “science can’t detect ghosts.” But yet, believers claim they can see them with their naked eyes. This is not science.”

    Why do you think that if something can be seen it must be duplicable or repeatable by scientific means?
    That my friend is not science.

    Concerning the Sagan quote, this is from the book I’m actually currently reading, The Demon-Haunted World, which happens to be about the particularly unscientific methods of believers. Strange you’d take your quote from that book.

    In any case, you should read this excerpt from the previous paragraph…

    Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened – again, because we are not wise enough to do so.

    Sagan’s point is that you can’t just use science where it helps bolster your point, but ignore it when it can’t… say, for example, providing proof of ghosts.

    And this speaks to your misunderstanding of science, as you say…

    Why do you think that if something can be seen it must be duplicable or repeatable by scientific means?
    That my friend is not science.

    My friend, that IS science. It’s the foundation of science. If you see something once, but can’t replicate it, there’s no reason to, nor is it reasonable, to make conclusions about it without replicable proof or evidence.

    Science isn’t about seeing something one time and making grand assumptions about what it is.

    “It’s not enough to just say, “I saw/felt something strange.” That’s fine. But can you replicate that experience? If not, maybe it was a fluke. Illusion? Mis-perception?”

    ……Or maybe it was a ghost?

    If you don’t even list that as a possible option,then you are never going accept that ghosts exist even if the evidence did suggest otherwise.

    What you’re saying is that I should give special attention to the ghost hypothesis over every other possible explanation. That it’s more important than any other explanation.

    It’s the same thing religious people do, same methodology. They make the assumption that the idea of God is beyond criticism, that God should just be assumed as real. Anyone who questions it is a heretic. Just by me merely questioning the reality of ghosts sets you off emotionally. Just by the fact that you get aggravated when someone questions the reality of ghosts pangs of unscientific thinking… that you are emotionally attached to the idea.

    I have no feelings either way. I would much rather that ghosts WERE real. It would possibly be evidence of some type of “after-life.” But, I won’t go out of my way to accept shoddy, substandard claims as proof of something so important. No more than I’d accept that type of proof from a pharmaceutical company about a drug.

  47. KL
    Thursday October 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM

    “It’s the same thing religious people do, same methodology. They make the assumption that the idea of God is beyond criticism, that God should just be assumed as real. Anyone who questions it is a heretic. Just by me merely questioning the reality of ghosts sets you off emotionally. Just by the fact that you get aggravated when someone questions the reality of ghosts”

    ” I won’t go out of my way to accept shoddy, substandard claims as proof of something so important.”

    Not exactly, most religious people, of which I am not, do have “blind faith” into believing that God exists, and Jesus was real, or that Mohammed did indeed get the words of God from the Angel Gabriel.

    Sure there will be be some ghost believers,
    that believe, based on blind faith.
    There will be those that believe based on false sightings, and hoaxes, TV shows, illusions, low frequency sound phenomena or otherwise explanable phenomena.
    But then there will be others like myself who have experienced something that has no explanation, whilst there may be an explanation in the future, that shouldn’t rule out the possibility that what I or others have experienced was due to a ghost.

    What really aggravates me is your title, you’ve already discounted any possibilty that ghosts exists by naming the tile:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”

    Well that’s an easy and may I say a little lazy a conclusion to come to, particuarly as you haven’t experienced things that I or others have.

    What we can say is that if ghosts do exist they currently exist outside the laws of our current thinking, now you might claim this to be a “cop out” but in reality it may well be closer to the truth than you imagine.

    You say I have emotional attachment to the idea whereas you don’t….well there is a simple reason for that, which keeps repeating itself in this thread:
    I have experienced something very strange indeed,…. you haven’t.
    Now I put it to you had you experienced what I or others had experienced, whilst you may not be 100% convinced it was a ghost, you’d be a damn sight more open to the possibilty, and that is a given.

    Your “shoddy and substandard claims” is also unfair, many of us are merely retelling our own experiences, there is nothing “shoddy” or “substandard” about that.

    All I and others that believe ghosts are asking is that people don’t just dismiss our accounts,as if we were deluded or dumb to think that ghosts exist, we aren’t.

  48. Saturday October 11, 2008 at 9:31 AM

    What really aggravates me is your title, you’ve already discounted any possibilty that ghosts exists by naming the tile:
    “There are no such things as ghosts”

    Well that’s an easy and may I say a little lazy a conclusion to come to, particuarly as you haven’t experienced things that I or others have.

    I would hardly consider it “lazy.” After hundreds of years of claims of ghosts, and not yet one being substantiated… you might consider my conclusion somewhat vicarious in nature, but not at all lazy. In fact, my conclusion would probably be considered more intellectually rigorous – scientifically speaking.

    Through the tireless work and dedication of people such as Joe Nickell, James “The Amazing” Randi, and organizations such as CSICOP, we can be pretty certain that, thus far, no claims of “hauntings” have turned out to be “paranormal” in nature.

    While you may be right that it doesn’t completely rule out the existence of ghosts, the probability that they DO exist decreases with each disproved claim.

    All I and others that believe ghosts are asking is that people don’t just dismiss our accounts,as if we were deluded or dumb to think that ghosts exist, we aren’t.

    I’m not dismissing your claim. I’m only saying that you shouldn’t insist that whatever happened was absolutely paranormal in nature. It basically amounts to saying that BECAUSE you don’t know what it was, THEREFORE it’s a ghost. Putting the cart before the horse, in a way.

    It is interesting to entertain those types of claims, but at the same time, I would find it very difficult to being accepting them without evidence.

  49. kl
    Monday October 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM

    “I’m not dismissing your claim. I’m only saying that you shouldn’t insist that whatever happened was absolutely paranormal in nature. It basically amounts to saying that BECAUSE you don’t know what it was, THEREFORE it’s a ghost. Putting the cart before the horse, in a way.”

    But aren’t you doing exactly the same, insisting that what ever happened was NOT a “ghost” or “paranormal”?

    Like you said ghosts haven’t been proven but,neither have ghosts been unproven.
    And yes I know your going to quote the old “Spaghetti Monster” or the “don’t be so open that your brain falls out” cliches but the fact remains,ghosts haven’t been disproven by anyone.

    Just out of curiosity take a look at these photos presented by Maurice Grosse, who investigated the world famous “Enfield Poltergeist” case.
    The first photo was particuarly intriguing.
    I would like to hear your take on it.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gmYc6UlKZ6o

  50. Tuesday October 14, 2008 at 5:44 AM

    But aren’t you doing exactly the same, insisting that what ever happened was NOT a “ghost” or “paranormal”?

    By definition, “paranormal” is outside the realm of science, or experience. If it suddenly became understood, it would simply be “normal.” Part of the understood Universe. It would be open to testing.

    I cannot concede to believe in something which cannot be verified, as paranormal is essentially “unknowable.”

    Like you said ghosts haven’t been proven but,neither have ghosts been unproven.

    And yes I know your going to quote the old “Spaghetti Monster” or the “don’t be so open that your brain falls out” cliches but the fact remains,ghosts haven’t been disproven by anyone.

    It is not possible to “unprove” something. It is not logically possible to prove a negative. One making a positive statement about the existence of something must show that it does, in fact, exist. It is not up to everyone else to prove it doesn’t exist. It cannot be done.

    Think of when Einstein developed his theory of Relativity. He didn’t just come up with some random formula and say “prove it isn’t true.” No, he had to do all the work to show that it IS TRUE.

    In order to prove a negative, you’d have to have knowledge of everything – which is impossible. You’d have to know and understand the entire Universe to definitively prove a negative… whereas, in order to prove a positive statement, you just have to show evidence that it is true.

    What about Unicorns? Or precisely that Spaghetti Monster? Is it up to you to “unprove” the existence of these things? Or is it more reasonable for someone claiming they are real to prove they are… by showing them? Or, at the very least, showing evidence that they could be real?

    As far as the photos, I’m very suspicious of anything claiming to be a “ghost photo,” because anything visible to a camera is visible to the naked eye. There is nothing about a camera that is different from our eyes. In fact, our eye is more sensitive than a camera lens when it comes to gathering and interpreting images.

    Basically, if there was a woman floating around, people would have seen it. There is nothing that would cause a human eye not to see something that a camera would. The camera and the eye work on the very same principle of optics. There is nothing special about a camera lens that would pick up more light (ghosts) than the human eye.

    The camera is actually more flawed because of the flash. It causes distortions in the light coming into the lens, creating anomalies which people could, and do, easily mistake for what they want it to be… ghosts.

    These photos clearly look faked. I’m not even really sure what I mean by “faked” because there is no “golden standard” as to what a “ghost” would look like. It’s simply taking strange photos and ascribing the word “ghost” to the anomaly.

    Again, there is no difference between the light that enters a camera lens and the light that enters the lens of a human eye. It is simply mystery-mongering. Trying to exploit people’s ignorance of the science of optics, to try to gain support for the existence of ghosts.

    If you can see a ghost in a camera, you can see it with your naked eyes.

  51. KL
    Tuesday October 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM

    “These photos clearly look faked. I’m not even really sure what I mean by “faked” because there is no “golden standard” as to what a “ghost” would look like. It’s simply taking strange photos and ascribing the word “ghost” to the anomaly.”

    Hmmm interesting that you should use the words “These photos clearly look faked”
    I’ve studied the photos,the first one taken in Austria with the group of friends around the table.
    I can’t see any “fakery” being evident.
    If you look carefully you will see the “ghostly” image appear through the beer glasses.

    Please tell me in what way you think that “clearly” that photo was a fake.

    It seems to me that your mind somehow, like it or not is predisposition to see fakery in anything that looks odd or out of the ordinary…hense your words “clearly look fake.”
    The photos do look odd, but they certainly aren’t in the “clearly look fake” category.

    Another thing to note is that this footage is over 14 years ago,long before digital cameras came onto the market,and long before computer photo manipulation was common place.

  52. Tuesday October 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM

    Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you misunderstand the laws of optics.

    If there was a woman floating there, or whatever you might say is in that picture, it would have been seen by people with their naked eyes, as well as with the camera.

    You haven’t even conceded that point. You are trying to deny the science so that your hypothesis still has a leg to stand on.

    By continuing to deny this point, you’re simply exercising denialism, and your argument fails to pass even the most simple logical muster in order to make a valid point.

    Another thing to note is that this footage is over 14 years ago,long before digital cameras came onto the market,and long before computer photo manipulation was common place.

    As for this point, before computers and digital cameras, modifications are easily made to photographs in the darkroom. That’s how photographers did things in the “old days.”

    Modern technology merely mimics the manual techniques originally done in the darkroom… with major improvements, of course.

    What seems apparent is that your arguments are based entirely on a lack of understanding. Not having a grasp of how things actually work.

  53. KL
    Wednesday October 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM

    You haven’t answered my question.

    What in that particular photo leads you to the conclusion that you think they are “clearly” fake?
    Please point me out specifics in the photo.

    As for not understanding about photographic techniques, well whilst I don’t claim to be Lord Snowdon, I am not exactly a novice with SLR cameras or 35mm film.

  54. Wednesday October 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM

    These photos strike me as fake because the claim is that the “ghosts” that are allegedly in them weren’t “there” when the photo was taken. The “ghosts” only show up in the photo.

    People would have seen them with their eyes before the photo was taken.

    As for not understanding about photographic techniques, well whilst I don’t claim to be Lord Snowdon, I am not exactly a novice with SLR cameras or 35mm film.

    And because you don’t (want to) understand the laws of optics, you don’t fully grasp the fact that cameras work on the same principles of optics that our eyes do. A fact that you still are avoiding in order to artificially maintain your argument that ghosts can be visible only to cameras.

    There is nothing unique to a camera lens when compared with a human eye. It is, again, mystery-mongering. Exploiting ignorance in order to maintain an invalid argument.

    If there was a woman floating in the middle of that table, everyone sitting there would have seen it.

    What is a photograph? It is, essentially, a collection of photons (light). Light reflects off of a surface and enters the camera lens – more light when the flash goes off. This alleged ghost would have to have a surface for which the light would reflect off and enter the camera. And light cannot choose which direction it goes it. That light would have entered the eyes of everyone in that room.

    If this alleged ghost had a surface which light could reflect off, this ghost would also be visible to everyone in the room, camera or not.

    Because everyone who has a “ghost photo” claims that the ghost wasn’t there before the picture was taken, it is clearly either (a) an artifact created by the flash (an illusion), or (b) a faked photo, which by the way, can be done without computers or digital cameras… darkroom tricks.

    It’s not even that it defies the laws of physics. It’s that it defies common sense. A camera can only see light that we can see. If a person didn’t see a ghost, then a camera didn’t see a ghost. It’s as simple as that.

  55. Don.L.
    Thursday October 23, 2008 at 7:03 PM

    Hey godkills how you doing bud? :)

    ..I agree about the optics etc..
    That camera’s are similar to the human eye..
    But what they can do that we can’t is capture an event that takes place in a split second..for others to see, and you will have a photo that you can observe and study for as long as you like…

    Though your eyes might be able to see a supposed “ghost”, For you to make a good decision on what you might have seen..it’s very hard..because with your eyes..it’s a split second you see it..then it’s gone..
    You know what I mean..?

    I think people can see them..In most cases,but before you can make a judgment call…it’s gone..and then you go into denial of what you think you saw…Start making up things for it to make sense etc..

    With cameras not only can you capture what you saw..but others can see it too…

    But I do agree about those pictures, about 99% of ghost pictures are faked in my opinion.

  56. KL
    Sunday November 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM

    Still not really answered my question about what specifically looks fake.

    Quite suprisingly an unscientific like response.

    Give me specifics about the photo!
    Or have you gone all Palin on me?

    As for your argument about the camera is no different to the eye, and that the eye would see what the camera sees, what you seem to forget is that the camera captures this image in a fraction of a split second, something that the eye cannot reproduce.

    Also the first photograpth was taken from the front using the automatic timer so the people in the photograph wouldn’t have seen the figure as it appears in the photo anyway.

    Don L, whilst photos can be faked, I don’t think there is anything in photo one, that one can conclude that it was fake.

  57. Monday November 24, 2008 at 6:07 AM

    KL:

    It’s not up to me to decide what is fake. You may think that my response is “unscientific.” But, it IS logical. Before I can describe what is fake about this photograph, there has to be some standard as to what is a REAL ghost photograph.

    There has never been established a standard as to what a real ghost photograph consists of.

    As far as your next argument:

    As for your argument about the camera is no different to the eye, and that the eye would see what the camera sees, what you seem to forget is that the camera captures this image in a fraction of a split second, something that the eye cannot reproduce.

    You intend to tell me that this ghost was only visibly present for that one split second when the shutter of the camera was opened, and then disappeared when it closed? You really are going out on a limb here, aren’t you? Looking for anything that could give your hypothesis legs to stand on.

    Let’s look at what this would mean…

    The shutter speed on an average camera (depending on settings) is around 1/250th of a second. That means, break a single second into 250 parts. The shutter is open for only 1 part of those 250 parts.

    Now, you’re going to tell me that this “ghost” just happened to be visible on that particular 250th of a second, on that particular moment when the person snapped this photo? And it was only visible for that 1/250th of a second?

    That is simply outrageous and I’m really surprised you’d resort to such far-fetched grasping for straws. This is not evidence. This is special pleading. An attempt to make your claim unfalsifiable…

    Well, no one saw the ghost because it was only visible when the photograph was taken. It was only visible for the 1/250th of a second when they took the picture, then disappeared for the rest of history.

    It is absolutely ridiculous to make a claim like that.

    Also the first photograph was taken from the front using the automatic timer so the people in the photograph wouldn’t have seen the figure as it appears in the photo anyway.

    They would have seen something, though.

    And then…

    Don L, whilst photos can be faked, I don’t think there is anything in photo one, that one can conclude that it was fake.

    Before it can be determined as fake, there has to be a standard as to what is REAL. There has never been established a standard for “real ghost photography.”

  58. Emma Lee Sanders
    Saturday May 23, 2009 at 5:58 PM

    hi, i just wanted to say that you are a seriously misguided person and its sad to hear you thinking this way. I truely hope that you someday realize how untrue what you are saying is… Im not talking about the ghosts. well, maybe i am, but HOW can you relate the possibility of ghosts to God? I mean, if you say that we probably came from other forms of life, how? and then you are saying that we all came around by some random chance of atoms combining in space? sorry, but i dont have enough faith for that… and according to how much you rely on science and proof, neither do you. if i didnt need the opinions of non believers for my project, i would pretend i had never seen your site. so take your own advice and read a book…
    Pce!

    • Saturday May 23, 2009 at 8:56 PM

      Emma,

      Your argumentation is fueled by emotions, where you should be including arguments against my points. You’ve not demonstrated anything in terms of why or how I am wrong. I will address your points that you brought up, one at a time.

      …HOW can you relate the possibility of ghosts to God?

      First of all, I don’t equate the possibility of ghosts with God at all in this article. I’m simply pointing out the fact that people who argue for the existence of ghosts use the same bad logic and pseudoscience that “Creation Scientists” use to try to show that “God did it.” No real proof. Just statements like, “I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.”

      If you make a claim that something is real, then you have to prove it. You can’t say that people who don’t believe you are “closed-minded.” If believing every word the comes out of another person’s mouth is “open-minded,” there is no room for open-mindedness in my life.

      …if you say that we probably came from other forms of life, how? and then you are saying that we all came around by some random chance of atoms combining in space?

      As far as the “random chance of atoms combining in space,” I never referred to abiogenesis in that way, so you’re attempting to mischaracterize my arguments to make them seem weak… commonly referred to as the “Straw Man” logical fallacy. Not a good way to make a point.

      Until you can explain with a more cogent, and provable mechanism for life coming into being, I suppose it is a bad idea for you to attack that mechanism in light of the fact that you don’t understand its claims to begin with.

      And this brings us to where you left off on that note…

      sorry, but i dont have enough faith for that… and according to how much you rely on science and proof, neither do you.

      There’s no faith involved on my part. Faith would be me believing in ghosts, contrary to every bit of evidence that has been shown to me. Faith would be believing that the world was created by an invisible wizard with no evidence pointing in that direction.

      I don’t need faith. The echo of the “Big Bang” can be seen by telescopes capable of viewing microwave radiation. It’s called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. Actual, visible proof of the “random chance of atoms combining in space.” No faith involved.

      Of course, that’s only one avenue of proof. I’m sure you’re not interested, so I’ll leave it at that. I’ll only conclude that it seems like you haven’t read much on the topic you’re trying to debunk, because the CMB radiation is pretty much common knowledge to anyone interested in random chance of atoms colliding in space.

  59. Matt
    Tuesday July 7, 2009 at 3:21 AM

    Fantastic work Godkillzyou.

    Bravo, you are very patient. I would have started swearing at these pagan worshipping fools a long time ago.

    Moronic beliefs in ghosts, god, ESP, psychic abilities, tarot cards, past lives, really would be laughable…..except that far too many supposedly educated people cling to these crutches in their lives. Its sad.

    Science will conquer all. Anyway keep it up!

  60. Trip Swindell
    Wednesday July 29, 2009 at 5:37 AM

    As I’ve seen stated in this blog, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Much evidence has been found to completely discredit ghostly experiences, and none to completely prove them. I once heard a speaker on this topic refer to anyone who claims to have experienced a ghostly encounter as either being very gullible or a liar. Personally, I think it’s either a psychological issue or a matter of carrying on familial ideologies.

    • Wednesday July 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM

      Trip,

      You’re absolutely right. The obligation is not on the skeptics to disprove the existence of ghosts, no more than it was anyone’s obligation to disprove Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

      It was up to Einstein to show conclusively that Relativity was true. And so it is with those who claim the existence of ghosts. It is up to them to demonstrate conclusively that ghosts DO exist.

      • Benny
        Thursday July 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM

        There is brilliant evidence for the afterlife,the scole experiment for one..just google it or read one of thousands of books on the subject. In particular ”is there an afterlife” by David fontanna,an overview of the evidence of 25 years research,almost 500 pages.Or better still,challenge victor zammit,a lawyer presents a case for the afterlife..He has set out a challenge for any sceptic to rebut the empirical evidence for the afterlife? $500’000 is yours if you can?

        • Friday July 31, 2009 at 11:25 AM

          Benny,

          The Scole Experiments were not credible. First, and foremost, they weren’t published in any scientific journal. That’s the first red flag. To publish a “study” only in a book or a press release is a sign that the tests performed were not very rigorous and the controls were weak, at best.

          I wouldn’t look to books as evidence of anything. On their own, anyone can publish anything. Look at all the rubbish Sylvia Browne publishes! One must look in the scientific literature. Journals that are peer reviewed. The only thing a book publisher looks for is correct spelling and grammar and whether or not the author could be sued for the book.

          As far as Zammit and his “challenge,” it reads as follows:

          Professor Dawkins is on record for claiming that all paranormal activities including materializations are “fraudulently and dishonestly conducted”. There is *$U.S.500,000 on offer for Professor Dawkins or any materialist/debunker to show that the Circle of the Silver Cord Sunday night materializations- where we communicate directly with materialized entities- are ‘fraudulently or dishonestly conducted.’ I will be willing to pay his expenses to Sydney for this endeavor. But if he fails, Professor Richard Dawkins will have to pay our materialization medium, David Thompson, $500,000 – and all costs. Conditions apply.

          Essentially, this amounts to a logical fallacy: requiring Dawkins toprove a negative. You cannot prove that something isn’t true. It’s up to the person making the claim to demonstrate that the claim IS true.

          Believers always fail to grasp this point. Skeptics are not obligated to prove things untrue. We are skeptics because we don’t accept the shoddy evidence presented for claims unproven to BE true.

          It IS up to everyone involved to examine the evidence given, to see how credible it is, and only through careful scrutiny can the truth really be uncovered.

          One final point. Zammit seems to be using his position as a lawyer to pose the argument from authority. Because he is a lawyer, people should automatically believe what he’s saying. Not a logically sound argument.

  61. Alyssa
    Sunday August 16, 2009 at 4:09 AM

    Sure, I get the logical points but I find this all to be bull. What, you ask? The whole “there is no such thing as paranormal” thing. It’s got to stop. I know people are entitled to there own opinions but everyone who’s going against this is all wrong. Allow me say my side of things; Ya’ll are believing something that does exist, you just prefer to ignore it. Your mind tells you “oh, it’s an overactive imagination since science tells you there’s no possible way they exist.” That’s like saying God doesn’t exist because there’s no ACTUAL evidence. Do you know how many people, probably mostly religious, would stand against that? Millions. Billions. Trillions. Think about that, okay? THEN tell me the supernatural doesn’t exist. See, Science is more something to explain things that definitely exist. HOWEVER, scientists are NOT trained to explain things that are unexplainable. And even then there’s STILL things in science we can’t explain yet because currently, we lack the technology to figure it out. Even Einstein’s breakthroughs didn’t stop the evolution of science. Scientists beyond him used his findings to find even more. But because ghosts aren’t 3rd dimensional plane of existence, they don’t make any logical sense.

    For example: Let’s say the basis of truth was the theory where ghosts stay because of the unfinished business, they still have an emotional attachment instead of their soul passing on and the attachment keeps them in-between, essentially making ghosts be the middle ground of the 3rd and 4th dimensional planes.

    Hence why spirits [ghosts] can go invisible but can still be visible to those with a 6th sense. The reason why I say 3rd and 4th is because of my theory on the afterlife is transgression from one dimensional plane to the next. Basically, it’s one state of living to the next higher one.

    I even quote, “Death is but the next great adventure.” From Dumbledore in Harry Potter.

    Heck, there is also no evidence that spirits DON’T exist.

    What we currently understand of Universal Physics in its entirety: It has been scientifically confirmed that we as an intelligent species only understand 25% of matter, 5% of which we actually fully know. The rest of the 75% is Dark Matter. Meaning, we’ve only merely scratched the surface of understanding the Universe. And further improvements will help us understand things we know about even further. What science doesn’t seem to understand is that all these physical “discoveries” actually validate all these timeless philosophies that have been looked down upon as “debunked.” Why I quote “discoveries” you ask? Because in reality, Science doesn’t really prove anything. It just merely states what they observe. Basically, the current limits of human thinking doesn’t help. And because of that, observations are prone to change. Heck, even scientific laws can be torn down. The right mind can see something in a way unnoticed before, to further understand something. Like Einstein did a lot for physics. Then came other scientists after him who made new discoveries using his old discoveries. So pretty much, science starts a basis for something. As for the aspect of “Objective Logic”—Logic is just as subjective as philosophical perspective, just only with the actual physics. Could Einstein’s theories be called the basis of modern physics? There are many great debates among many scientists on many subjects. So, not even the awesome and all-be-all “Logic” is flawless. Logic is but scientific understanding; just like Faith is that of religious understanding. That’s all it really is.

    • Sunday August 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM

      Alyssa,

      I just want to say firstly that I edited your comment. I think you had it written, and then pasted it in the comment box twice. I didn’t change anything you said. I just took the double copy out.

      To start out with a response, I want to say that I understand where you’re coming from. But, at the same time, I can’t agree with you.

      You said that…

      Ya’ll are believing something that does exist, you just prefer to ignore it. Your mind tells you “oh, it’s an overactive imagination since science tells you there’s no possible way they exist.”

      This is not the case, at least for me. What it boils down to is a standard of proof. For me, personally, I’ve never in my life witnessed “ghostly” activity. And, on top of that, I would require real proof of something existing before I accept it.

      Look at your next statement…

      That’s like saying God doesn’t exist because there’s no ACTUAL evidence. Do you know how many people, probably mostly religious, would stand against that? Millions. Billions. Trillions. Think about that, okay? THEN tell me the supernatural doesn’t exist.

      From what you’re saying here, I can only conclude that you think people should believe in everything unless someone can demonstrate that it doesn’t exist. And that is an impossible standard. And it’s not how science works.

      By your standards, we should believe in Unicorns because no one has ever proven that they don’t exist. And you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. It violates the laws of logic. You can only show that something does exist. Here, I’ll give you an example.

      Consider a courtroom. Suppose you’ve been taken into court and the judge says, “Prove you did not steal something yesterday.” What do you do? You can’t do anything. You cannot prove that you didn’t steal something yesterday.

      This is why our legal system is set up the way it is. It is up to the State to prove that you did steal something yesterday. And, in the same way, it is up to you to prove that ghosts do exist. It is not up to anyone to prove that they don’t exist.

      Non-belief in ghosts is the default position until someone can show that they do, in fact, exist. Just because a large amount of people believe something, doesn’t make it true.

      Of all the billions, or trillions of people you claim who believe in God, a conservative estimate would say that 75% of them are wrong. There are many gods and many religions, and they all contradict one another with their own “Holy Books.” They can’t all be right. I, personally, opt out of all religions because there is no evidence to support believing in any of them.

      I guess next I would bring attention to your next few statements…

      Science is more something to explain things that definitely exist. HOWEVER, scientists are NOT trained to explain things that are unexplainable. And even then there’s STILL things in science we can’t explain yet because currently, we lack the technology to figure it out. Even Einstein’s breakthroughs didn’t stop the evolution of science. Scientists beyond him used his findings to find even more. But because ghosts aren’t 3rd dimensional plane of existence, they don’t make any logical sense.

      I think your misunderstandings arise from not having a real grasp on what science and logic really are, or what the limitations are of human reasoning are.

      To say that scientists are not trained to explain the “unexplainable” is really a meaningless statement. If something is “unexplainable,” then how can you suppose YOU can explain it? Unexplainable, by its very definition means there is no explanation, including “paranormal.”

      This is called the logical fallacy of special pleading. Only under your special conditions is a certain circumstance true. You don’t apply that same standard to anyone else’s arguments except your own. It is inconsistent, and intellectually dishonest.

      I’ll take your example as further demonstration…

      For example: Let’s say the basis of truth was the theory where ghosts stay because of the unfinished business, they still have an emotional attachment instead of their soul passing on and the attachment keeps them in-between, essentially making ghosts be the middle ground of the 3rd and 4th dimensional planes.

      Hence why spirits [ghosts] can go invisible but can still be visible to those with a 6th sense. The reason why I say 3rd and 4th is because of my theory on the afterlife is transgression from one dimensional plane to the next. Basically, it’s one state of living to the next higher one.

      How would one scientifically approach this example?

      First, you’d have to establish that there were entities called “ghosts.” Then you’d have to establish how these “non-physical” beings could possess physical characteristics, such as emotions, bodies, souls, etc. Define what a soul is. Establish the existence of dimensions for which these entities could “exist” in.

      There is no evidence of anything like what you’re proposing. They are statements which seem to “make sense” on a very basic level, but have no real evidence to support them. In fact, they only make sense until you begin to think about them in a critical light.

      It would be up to you, or any paranormal researcher to provide the mechanism for any of this to actually take place.

      If we can see it with our eyes, then the question is not whether we have scientific equipment (technology) to detect it. We have detectors that can see well beyond what our eyes can see, e.g. the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

      You’ve also said that…

      Heck, there is also no evidence that spirits DON’T exist.

      Again, there is no such thing as evidence of something NOT existing. It is logically impossible.

      I think one of the more important misconceptions you have is revealed when you said…

      What we currently understand of Universal Physics in its entirety: It has been scientifically confirmed that we as an intelligent species only understand 25% of matter, 5% of which we actually fully know. The rest of the 75% is Dark Matter. Meaning, we’ve only merely scratched the surface of understanding the Universe. And further improvements will help us understand things we know about even further. What science doesn’t seem to understand is that all these physical “discoveries” actually validate all these timeless philosophies that have been looked down upon as “debunked.”

      The Dark Matter in our Universe has absolutely nothing to do with ghosts. A lot of people who support paranormal ideas use this ruse to try to get traction for their beliefs. Saying that, “because we don’t understand what Dark Matter is, therefore there are ghosts.” It simply doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

      First of all, Dark Matter doesn’t behave randomly, or in ways which we might expect from a “ghost.” It behaves, essentially according to specific laws; it has no “Free Will” of its own. Dark Matter is an inanimate particle of some sort. We just haven’t discovered exactly what it is yet. That is far from claiming that it has to be supernatural.

      I’m also fairly certain that you don’t understand what Logic actually is from your following statement…

      As for the aspect of “Objective Logic”—Logic is just as subjective as philosophical perspective, just only with the actual physics. Could Einstein’s theories be called the basis of modern physics? There are many great debates among many scientists on many subjects. So, not even the awesome and all-be-all “Logic” is flawless. Logic is but scientific understanding; just like Faith is that of religious understanding. That’s all it really is.

      Logic has nothing to do with science. Logic is, basically, the laws concerning the structure of arguments which allow one to reach a true conclusion based on those arguments. Have you ever studied logic? “If A, but not B, then not C.” Stuff like that.

      It has nothing to do with evidence. It’s how to arrive at a valid, or “logical” conclusion based on the claims of the premises.

      Without logic, we couldn’t make sense of anything. We’d have no way to judge true conclusions from false ones.

      Science and logic are not the same as Faith. Faith implies belief despite a lack of evidence. Science is based entirely upon evidence, and we use logic to deduce valid conclusions from statements of fact.

      To conclude, I want to say thank you for taking the time to write. I think it’s important that dialogue like this continues to happen among believers and skeptics. When we stop listening to each other, that’s when we close our minds and stop progressing scientifically as a human species.

  62. Benny
    Thursday August 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM

    Perpetual Denial of Evidence and Cognitive Dissonance

    Pseudo-Skeptics are always saying, “There’s no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena” no matter how much evidence is shown to them, even if it’s a mountainful. They always find excuses to deny or dismiss the evidence, even in the most unreasonable and irrational manner, then go back to repeating this claim as though it were a religious Gospel Law that could never be overturned. This is extremely aggravating because it’s like trying to reason with someone who chooses to be blind and ignorant, and in total denial of facts and reality.

    But the reality is that for some popular paranormal phenomena such as ESP or ghosts, there is plenty of long standing evidence of several types – anecdotal, experiential and scientific. Controlled scientific experiments have yielded positive results for ESP for many years. From the 1940’s with JB Rhine, to the current day with Dr. Charles Tart, Dr. Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake, and many other scientists, positive and consistent results for psi have been found to exist far above chance under controlled conditions. And series of psi experiments that have been repeated for years known as The Ganzfeld Experiments, Autoganzfeld Experiments and PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) have yielded statistically significant and consistent results above chance as well.

    In addition, the anecdotal and experiential evidence is overwhelming. Studies show that at least half the population of the world has had paranormal experiences, and according to the National Science Foundation, “60% of American either AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE that some people either possess psychic abilities or extrasensory perception”. That’s A LOT, no doubt. Common sense would tell you that if half the people in the world have experienced something, then it’s pretty much certain that there’s something to it other than fraud, misperception and fantasy, especially since a good number of these experiencers include credible down-to-earth people as well. Likewise, large percentage of people of all types from all walks of life have experienced ghosts too.

    So you see, the evidence for such common paranormal phenomena is huge. As Parapsychologist Author Dean Radin has said, the evidence for psi is so solid and robust that if the same quality of evidence existed for something non-paranormal, it would definitely have been accepted as proven. But because the paranormal is considered taboo in the scientific establishment, there is a sort of censorship and knowledge filtration toward it. There is an automatic negative stigma and bias toward it that assumes that only crackpots believe in such things. So any scientist who openly supports the legitimacy of paranormal phenomena seriously jeopardizes their career and image among their colleagues. Thus, most scientists who believe in some paranormal phenomena will not declare it publicly, but become close enthusiasts. Mr. Radin discovered this, as many scientists confided in him their secret unofficial interest and belief that some of the paranormal is real.

    • Thursday August 27, 2009 at 10:01 PM

      Benny,

      Quantity of “evidence” is not synonymous with quality of evidence. You can stack cow pies all day, but it won’t turn into a gold brick when you finish. But, I won’t harp on this too much. I want to get to the “evidence” that you’ve cited here in your comment.

      Firstly, I’m awestruck that you’d even consider citing Rhine’s work. Not only Rhine, but the work of Tart, Schwartz and Sheldrake. The very idea that you accept the “studies” by these people goes to show that you don’t understand how science works.

      Firstly, none of the work done by these people has ever been replicated. The results that they’ve arrived at, especially from Rhine and Tart, were not only derived from flawed studies, but were not repeatable under identical lab conditions. This seems to point to either intentional misrepresentation of the data, or flaws in the experimental design.

      To say that “the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming” is meaningless. Stories are not evidence, and you should know better than that if you’re going to talk about standards of proof. I’d recommend, if you’re going to use anecdotes as proof of a claim, that you explain how you could prove something with a story.

      Let’s use an example. When Einstein proposed his theory of General Relativity, did he tell a story in order to prove it? Did he say that it “felt real?” Of course not. The experimental data had to be replicated, repeated and repeated, over and over again, until it couldn’t be denied that Relativity was true.

      You can’t just tell a ghost story and instantly get published in a scientific journal.

      I think your next paragraph is very telling of someone who has no idea how science works, and are basing your conclusions on emotion…

      In addition, the anecdotal and experiential evidence is overwhelming. Studies show that at least half the population of the world has had paranormal experiences, and according to the National Science Foundation, “60% of American either AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE that some people either possess psychic abilities or extrasensory perception”. That’s A LOT, no doubt. Common sense would tell you that if half the people in the world have experienced something, then it’s pretty much certain that there’s something to it other than fraud, misperception and fantasy, especially since a good number of these experiencers include credible down-to-earth people as well. Likewise, large percentage of people of all types from all walks of life have experienced ghosts too.

      You’re essentially basing the existence of ghosts on the opinion of “a lot of people.” You could use that same logic and say that “a lot of people” accept Islam as the True Religion. By your logic, they have to be right because it’s “a lot of people.” But then, what are you going to tell all the Christians? They’re wrong? Or are the Christians right because there are more of them that believe?

      The truth value of a claim is not dependent upon the number of people who accept it.

      As far as your Dean Radin quote, that…

      …the evidence for psi is so solid and robust that if the same quality of evidence existed for something non-paranormal, it would definitely have been accepted as proven. But because the paranormal is considered taboo in the scientific establishment, there is a sort of censorship and knowledge filtration toward it.

      This is rubbish. Our own government studied paranormal phenomena in the form of Remote Viewing with the Stargate Project. This project was canceled because, as the report said…

      Actually, the study came up with an estimate: Star Gate psychics got it right only about 25% of the time. Typically, their reports included “a large amount of irrelevant, often erroneous information,” the study said. And when the reports did seem on target, they were “vague and general in nature.”

      Also, from the same article…

      “There’s no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community,” says David Goslin, of the American Institute for Research, which the CIA hired to do the study.

      The article from which these quotes came was printed in Time magazine. The link is here.

      Believers love to cite studies, even when they’re bad studies. I’m assuming you’re taking the position that “something is better than nothing,” and just putting forth anything you can find on the topic.

      The reason Psi isn’t studied in the lab is because it can’t be taken seriously. There’s no mechanism for it. There isn’t even any hint that there’s anything taking place. There are only anecdotes, and we’ve heard them all before. There is nothing substantive to Psi claims.

  63. Benny
    Friday September 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM

    That’s a laugh ”there is no mechanism for it”is there a mechanism for consciousness?

    • Friday September 4, 2009 at 12:58 AM

      Yes there is. The physical, functioning human brain. When we die, that brain decays and that which makes up who we are no longer exists.

  64. Benny
    Thursday September 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM

    you know nothing about the subect.
    goodbye.

  65. Zamiel
    Friday November 6, 2009 at 10:12 PM

    It’s called “mass hysteria”, as well as “mob mentality”. Essentially, being the stupid herd animals we are, humans have a tendency to see and hear what the majority say they saw and heard. If one person in a group (the alpha, the most charismatic, the de facto leader, etc.) says “I saw the shadow of a man where there was no man!” then the other members of the group will, through their own psychological self-trickery, begin seeing shadows of men where there are no men.

    This is why religion has had such a powerful presence in our history. People are susceptible to suggestion, and they’ll see, hear, and believe things without ever knowing that it’s their own brain tricking them into it.

    The chemicals our brains can kick out are amazing. We’ve got a virtual drugstore in our heads. The part of our physiology that makes the placebo effect work is also responsible for making us see things as if we’ve been taking drugs. The experience being similar to that of others in our group is a matter of psychology, a dash of pareidolia, and our incredible human imagination.

    There are no ghosts. There are just people who say there are ghosts, and a whole bunch of people who automatically agree and begin “seeing” them, too.

    And don’t get me started on psychics and mediums— All B.S., and anyone claiming to be one should be arrested for scamming people.

  66. Sunday December 20, 2009 at 2:58 AM

    GHOST ARE REAL NOW IT IS TRUE ITS REAL STUPID

    • Sunday December 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM

      Is that a sentence, or did you just pull words out of a hat?

      • Tuesday December 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM

        He and Joseph Smith were looking in a hat!

  67. Monday February 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM

    Yoo there’s such thing as ghosts, you think cuz you’re talking smart and stuff everyone will believe you, I reallly think there’s stuch thing as ghsots, and there’s a lot of things you might have missed that it you can’t explain.
    Pce – from steve

  68. Osmium
    Sunday February 21, 2010 at 3:37 AM

    Of course there’s no such thing as the supernatural for the following glaring reason: The word ‘supernatural’ is a self refuting one. If it could be truly shown that things like ghosts exist then they would necessarily be a part of nature, hence, ‘natural’.

  69. Kynarii
    Wednesday April 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM

    ghost exis and so does God.
    just think: Satan

    but if your christian ou shouldnt be afraid in ghosts

    • Wednesday April 28, 2010 at 9:39 AM

      If I’m not convinced of one supernatural type of entity, why would trying to scare me with another invisible, supernatural entity work to persuade me? Just saying that something exists isn’t going to help the discussion at all.

  70. Robbie Baker
    Wednesday May 19, 2010 at 4:42 PM

    what is it with you air head? You make up stories about ghosts to scare people and you try to scare yourselves. I’ve met a former Ghost Hunters show producer who told a huge group of people, even me, that the show is all acting and they bribe people to play along when they ‘look for sprits’ in homes and hotels. He said that there is not such thing as ghosts but it is a good topic to earn money for. So there you have it. you can cut the act retards.

  71. NSFX
    Tuesday July 20, 2010 at 3:15 AM

    I agree with almost all of your points GodKillzYou. You are extremely articulate and well read. Well done. As i do not have time, i do not wish to get sucked into this lengthy argument/discussion with the other posters. Good Luck. Keep on posting.

  72. Mardi1
    Friday July 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM

    Well, i’ve got to say, that was a thoroughly entertaining read. I absolutely agree 100% with everything GodKillzYou has said. Looking through some of the other posters comments and beliefs, i find it astounding that so many seem to believe in supernatural phenomena. Some of their arguments bordered on plain ludicrous, and strikes me as people who lack a proper education. In particular, I couldn’t help but laugh when i read Bennys comments on consciousness, followed by your response. His last reply, ‘that you do not know anything about the subject, and goodbye’, sum these kinds of people up pretty well. You have argued your case exceptionally well, and demonstrated how not to lose your temper in the face of such absurd and proposterous claims. It is a shame that people like Benny can not see the logic in your responses, and would prefer to close their mind to any refutal to their beliefs. There is not alot more you can do when people steadfastly cling on to their wild ideas, instead of becoming more educated. Again, I salute you, for excellent counter arguments against such fools.

    • Friday July 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM

      Thanks for the awesome comment. I really appreciate that. Sometimes it’s lonely being a skeptic, as so many people argue with their emotions.

  73. Friday December 17, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    I tottle disaqure on that point, I really belive there is such a thing as a humman being like you and I, as a ghosts. Just from my past exsperencing with on arind my house hold in less I am inmajering such a thing and just herir vicies that are made up! I herir them in my car I also think that I can see them. Things disapering every one and a blue moon. Shit never retering back, I have all ways thought that there was a such a thing that there is two towns in one meaning for exsample you can all of a sudden be invisable to an ex boyfriend but he is around he’s in a nother town like yours.those are my strongly belives and all way’s will be!

  74. Mel Gibson
    Thursday December 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM

    Come stay a night in my apartment and tell me there’s no such thing as paranormal activity, bitch.

  75. X
    Tuesday April 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM

    To be 100% fair and non-bias, GodKillzYou seems to be the only guy rational here. Quoting what he said: “I have no emotional investment in the non-existence of ghosts. If someone can actually prove they exist, I’d be ecstatic.” This is exactly how I feel. I don’t remember him mentioning anything about current science being able to prove everything or saying he thinks ghost doesn’t exist? He sounded like he’s saying “I don’t know” more than anything else. Science can’t prove everything? Of course it can’t! It’s just common sense, nothing to brag about don’t you think? I love ghost stories, and I’d LOVE to see one. The biggest difference between those who believers and scientist is that believers get all sensitive about comments on the non-existence of ghost, and they don’t want to listen to any logical explanation. Scientists on the other hand would be delighted if someone could come up with enough evidences to prove them wrong. Says a lot about who’s smarter don’t you think?

  76. Tuesday April 26, 2011 at 6:02 PM

    wow what a topic, and credit where credit is due, the originator certainly replies to and believes in what he says, this is so rare in many blogs.
    The contributions made here both for, and against have been educational,entertaining,and intellectual, and ok silly in some instances.
    I have to admit you lost me on many occasions, but I stuck with it and read every word. Keep up the good work, looking forward to some more bedtime reading really soon

    Mel Gibson :
    Come stay a night in my apartment and tell me there’s no such thing as paranormal activity, bitch.

    I might hold you to that one, alway’s wanted to stay in an allegedly haunted house.

    Keep writing guys I enjoyed this blog.

    cheers

  77. Friday May 20, 2011 at 11:01 PM

    you see im just very different then you guys i need prove i dont know my mom says believe ur heart my dad says he thinks it 50-50 i just dont know i mean i read books with pictures!please help

  78. Casper
    Friday June 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM

    Hi guys, I just thought i would add my five cents worth. I was once a living human being and due to the unfortunate circumstances suurrounding my death, i now roam the planet Earth trying to communicate to my loved ones. Unfortunately most of them are skeptic about ghosts/paranormal beings, so its quite hard going. Fortunately ive managed to communicate to one of my great nephews who has very kindly accepted to write down everything i dictate (while switching over to facebook ever now and again). WE DO EXIST, WE CANNOT BE SEEN BY THOSE WHO DONT BELIEVE AND WE CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY ANYTHING THATS LOGICAL/SCIENTIFIC.

    Thanks
    Casper

  79. chris retzinger
    Thursday August 18, 2011 at 8:02 PM

    I just finished reading through this post. I’d love to hear from GodKilzYou again. Very articulate, logical, and extremely patient blogger who made the difference: I used to believe in ghosts… but not any more! Now I would need proof. I finally get it – stating that “ghosts are real” without doing the work to prove it, is just plain LASY. THANK YOU GodKilzYou! There is NO Such Thing as Ghosts!

    If you want to know the things that I now consider “lazy” to claim are real, do a little test to yourself: does the item in question fit on a list of known real things: polar bears, cats, dogs, bacteria, ghosts, Saturn? Even when I used to think ghosts were real, I knew somehow “ghosts” weren’t in the same “real” category as the other items. There was a least a little question of their validity in my mind. I wouldn’t have bet my life on it (A more extreme test is pick the item from the list which may not be real – or your mother, or you, will be killed—I always pick ghosts). Now with this test I have properly categorized all those types of items I consider “there’s no such thing as”. Again Thanks GodKilzYou! I have had experiences which at first glance made me think ghosts were real. Now I know, not being lazy requires me to consider other possibilities, and now I realize—it could have been almost anything instead of a ghost! I believe part of why people are particularly emotionally attached to the ghost belief is its promise of an afterlife, or that it lessens the loss of a loved one, etc. They are willing to wait for the proof of the Unicorn on the far side of the moon, but to them the ghost thing needs no real proof. “A unicorn on the far side of the moon” would be more easily dismissed as unreal than the white-knuckled, emotionally attached ghost belief.

    After reading the blog I asked myself “why is it that so many people believe these things without proof?” Alien beings, ET, flying Saucers, Ghosts, Bigfoot, ESP, God, Demons, Angels, Spirits, The Force, Elves—all the things that don’t fit on the test list. Well, my research did find a reason: the “false positive survival impulse”. If ‘evolution’ is understood then our survival has something to do with belief in these paranormal things. During our species’ evolution, those individual who sensed danger lurking were able to run from that danger and survive to reproduce. Evolution weeded-out those who did not adequately sense the danger to such a degree, the our senses got very keen. But there was no evolutionary penalty for false positives, only false negatives, so over the eons, evolution erred on the side of false positive: i.e. I think there is something there so I’ll run (even when there wasn’t). There was an evolutionary penalty for thinking nothing was there, when there really was. Part of our survival therefore depended upon believing things (dangers) are there, and that they may or may not turn out to real didn’t matter evolutionarily). This false positive mechanism, now mostly obsolete, is still part of our make-up. It makes the lazy believe in fantasies.

    So after all, we are not so dumb, ignorant, or defective because we still believe in that which is not real, like ghosts, etc., we are just lazy and more importantly: we are the human evolutionary survivors. We now have the tools to continue uncover the truth if we are willing to do the work. Let’s do the work or even wait for it to be done BEFORE we say: “I believe in ghosts”. “There is no such thing as ghosts” is the default position in the mean time.

  80. chris retzinger
    Thursday August 18, 2011 at 9:11 PM

    I just read more of your website…I mean Thank you “TheSkepticalAtheist”

    • Friday August 19, 2011 at 2:55 PM

      Thank you. I very much appreciate your comments. If you’re interested, you can also head over to my YouTube channel. It’s on the “YouTube” heading, or you can just go to this link and take a look.

    • leo steemfest
      Monday July 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

      ET actually f*ked your mother and you are the result of all this…

      • Chris
        Sunday August 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

        It is remarkable how easy it is to tell when you are hearing from a rational, intelligent adult as opposed to when an infant is replying…Just SO easy (he’s the one who is angered and replies with profanity).

  81. 1franklucas
    Monday September 26, 2011 at 8:33 AM

    i had a talk with my girlfriend about this subject and i couldnt understand how someone can believe things that were created by novels and movies….. it just makes no sense….and aliens? its physically impossible to travel that far at such a pace…..it would take millions of years…anyway…cant argue with fouls

  82. 1franklucas
    Monday September 26, 2011 at 8:35 AM

    i had a talk with my girlfriend about this subject and i couldnt understand how someone can believe things that were created by novels and movies….. it just makes no sense….and aliens? its physically impossible to travel that far at such a pace…..it would take millions of years…anyway…cant argue with fools

  83. Ray
    Monday October 31, 2011 at 10:20 PM

    I agree wih you 1franklucas, ghosts and aliens were created Hollywood.

  84. John
    Monday December 5, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    Excellent article. We should spend more time learning how are universe works and less time and money on superstitions and mythology. They just want to keep us in fear.

  85. Luciyan
    Thursday March 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    @Paranormal “I would like them to explain experiences that so many of us have. The touching we feel, The shadows we see. What I think is going on is these people who are so against believing have had something happen with them also.”
    Anecdotal stories prove nothing. Give me empirical evidence. If there are thousands of accounts, it should be EASY to give me some testable evidence. So go ahead, I’ll just wait here…

  86. Monday March 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    You say & I quote………If I can’t see it I know it doesn’t exist…………..well sir, do you have the power to see God..or on a simpler note..can you see air…you sir with all your scientific knowledge will Never convince me that the afterlife does not exist & I am Not an idiot or a child with a healthy imagination….all it takes is one occurance & science will turn the other way

  87. chris Retzinger
    Monday March 12, 2012 at 3:22 PM

    “If you can’t see it [or detect it by other means using the scientific process] my non-lazy default position is that “It doesn’t exist”…that is what I say. Of course it’s not just “if you can’t see it,…it doesn’t exist” – you must qualify the statement a bit more, silly. Remember the test: Can you put the item in question in the same category as the “platypus”? I have never seen a platypus in person but I would rather bet my life that there is such a thing than that there is a God. They are in different categories, not the same. One obviously exists, the other requires a degree of faith. The Platypus and rocks on Mars are in the SAME category – never seen in person, but willing to bet my life on their existence. God and Sasquatch – the other category…the one I’m NOT willing to bet my life on their existance….simple

  88. alexandra
    Monday April 9, 2012 at 10:55 PM

    hey you jerk ghost are real and i want to find out good things about them not this crap

    • Andy
      Sunday June 17, 2012 at 5:03 AM

      Try watching Casper the Friendly Ghost.

  89. Rick Gets
    Wednesday July 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM

    your apparently not a scientist, many partials can pass through a wall , magnetism for a start… your Guessing my Friend ,,just like me,, I have no idea if Ghosts are real or not… you see there is a big difference between belief and proof…

    • Chris
      Thursday July 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM

      I’m saying that short of proof, my default position is: “No, there is no such thing as ghosts”. Once I get proof otherwise, I can change my position. Many people are so quick to “know” (or think that is has been “proven”) that there is such a thing as a ghost, just because their aunt once saw something out of the corner of her eye that she couldn’t explain. I myself even have had experiences where I could have been ‘convinced’ that something ‘supernatural’ was real. I have now read enough on the scientific process not to jump to conclusions without proper repeatable experiments. I have read enough to know there are several way our minds can be tricked into believing all kinds of things are true, but are not (not repeatable by any experimentation). Sorry, default position = do not believe, otherwise it’s just plain laziness to believe!

    • Saturday July 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

      This is a false analogy, at best. A particle is far from a complex system of atoms which would constitute a conscious being. You aren’t trying to equate particles with conscious beings, are you? There are a lot of things particles can do that complex systems of atoms cannot do.

      It sounds like you’re grasping at straws.

      • Chris
        Thursday July 12, 2012 at 8:47 PM

        You are correct but my position is even simpler. Simply DO NOT believe in things such as ghosts, aliens (the off-planet type), god, angles, UFO, walking through walls?, conspiracies, etc until they have been PROVEN to be true by the scuientific method. My default postition until then: there is no such things as ghosts, etc. Polar Bears – yes, ghosts – no.

  90. leo steemfest
    Tuesday July 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

    Skeptics are idiots they are the other side of extreme, give them solid proof of life after death and they will still find a way to question the proof. They believe that science can prove everything when anything paranormal cannot be proved by science. Its a shame to be so stupid in some cases. I am not one to jump into anything drastic but when the burden of proof is there i can live with that.

    • Chris
      Wednesday July 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM

      Where’s the “Solid Proof”? The JREF Foundation says: “we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.” This offer has been available for many, many years and has remained unclaimed. Who’s stupid? Get the money if you can produce “Solid Proof”. I have the position that is is safe to say solid proof does not exist. Sorry, no afterlife, no Bigfoot, no Ghosts, no aliens…none of it. I would be happy if someone can produe just one of those types of fantacies as real and claim the million dollars. Please don’t be stupid.

      • leo steemfest
        Monday July 23, 2012 at 7:47 AM

        same idiot has John Landi the fraud who offers 1 million dollar but must be along is terms HA funny crap. real funny.

        • Cerberus Black
          Monday March 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM

          So where’s your proof?
          Talk about extremes.

  91. leo steemfest
    Monday July 23, 2012 at 7:51 AM

    chris have you check out quantum physics? and http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html that could open your eyes a bit too. You have no position to bargain with because science today is not advance enough to prove anything. Pam Reynolds did you ever read that, yeah it was flawed but medical evidence was well documented, how could she being dead like she was come back ad tell all here things.

    • Cerberus Black
      Monday March 24, 2014 at 5:51 PM

      I know a person in the medical profession that has certain objects within the operation room that anyone can describe if they’ve truly have an out of body experience. And yet, some have claimed this experience but have yet to describe those objects… Why is that?

      So much for your theory.

      • Chris
        Sunday April 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM

        So now I vaguely know if a person (you) who know a person (I don’t know how well you know that medical professional) who claims they know of someone (or possibly heard of the person through an acquaintances’ friend’s brother) can describe things while this person is out of their body…or was this witness – at least 4 times removed from me – just kidding or posing a hypothetical scenario? Things get so changed and distorted when you play ‘telephone’. But that game is in the same room at the same time! Let’s stick to the scientific method, shall we?

  92. leo steemfest
  93. leo steemfest
    Wednesday July 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM

    Most media, scientist, medical community are lyres , i rather listen to normal people who had encounters with ghost that are far probable then dumb things like magnetic disturbance or other that science cannot explain. My personal experience is back in 1990 when my grand father died, i was very close to him and loved him like a father, and is death was very painful to me. A week after he passed, i was in french class in high school, and i felt something grabbing me hard, it stopped, then it grabbed me again until i said OK STOP, then it never happened again. I am not crazy or in search of attention, take it has it is that is what happened. Back in the last 50 my mother, grand mother and the whole family could testify they new this women who could read the future, she never charged anything for it, she was afraid of her gift, problem was that everything she predicted used to happen. My grand father was a very sick man all is life, she told my grand father when she saw him that she never wanted to read for him bad vibrations. Has far a science is concerned chakra have been proven with energy light fields. We are energy. I don’t believe in religion, i god or Jesus but after reading studies on quantum physics its hard to believe there is nothing out there. I don’t believe or read anything by Deepak Chupra either but have to admit that Moody and is bunch wrote some very interesting books.

  94. GHM
    Tuesday August 14, 2012 at 3:44 PM

    The existence of ghosts relies on one simple concept; some type of existence after death. Since this is not the case (when you die, you are dead, and you decompose, and everything you were is gone forever) then ghosts cannot exist. The end.

  95. Kent halseth
    Tuesday September 4, 2012 at 5:28 AM

    Now…allow me to make this VERY simple…..ready? this applies to paranormal, psychics, mediums..and religious fanatics….. here is a simple equation that works for EVERYTHING in life brace yourself on it’s simplicity: If This…then that. Simple….apply it to any claims…..if a person can see the future..they would win every lottery….if mediums could talk to the dead..they would also be rich….too much buried loot out there….if there were ghosts…EVERYONE would be seing them…not a select few……it’s so easy…wake the f up

  96. H Manota
    Saturday September 8, 2012 at 9:48 PM

    Why do people tend to believe in these things. Because of fear, the biggest fear, fear of death. This is the ultimate truth that no one can escape — we all die. But for us the fear is that there is nothing else out there that’s it. Once you go you go. There is nothing else. But if we believe in the afterlife and by conclusion the things that the afterlife says exists, such as ghosts, heaven, hell, demons. Then there is something more out there, just not you die and that’s it. There is a continuation to your journey.

    The honest truth is that this fear of death has continually haunted human nature and the mind. To the point that we could create mythical creatures such as Vampires. Think about it, what do Vampires offer? Immortality. Something that allows us to escape death. But even then it is a type of ghost story because of what you have to become to achieve immortality.

    Death the ultimate mystery has caused us to create and believe in the supernatural (and dare I say even GOD) the fact that there needs to be something more and it may all be necessary just so we don’t go insane thinking about death. But the truth of the matter, this planet is on of many that exist in the universe. We are but one of the many species that inhabit this planet and this universe. When our species finally meets its end there will be no ghost, vampires, or afterlife — just the end.

  97. Matt
    Saturday October 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM

    I have read these comments and I have to say, theskepticalatheist, you are one of my new heros. I’m of the same scientific mind as you, and I only wish I was 50% as good at arguing my case as you. Let me know if you’re ever in Buffalo NY, I’ll buy you a beer. Bravo!

    • theskepticalatheist
      Monday October 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

      Haha Thanks, Matt! I really appreciate that. Glad to know I’m not alone in my reasoning processes.

      I’m actually not far from Buffalo… Syracuse, to be specific.

    • Monday December 10, 2012 at 4:55 PM

      Eye second that! Beer and wings at matts!

  98. loginman2000
    Tuesday November 13, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    Damn it, just because ghosts ain’t made of anything, don’t mean they ain’t real, get yo F*CKING head outta the clouds and and face facts!

    • Chris
      Wednesday November 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM

      “…ain’t made of anything…” Sounds like you are speaking of something that is not real. Of what ‘facts’ do you request that I face?

  99. random
    Friday December 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM

    Hey, whoever you are, your so stupid.
    I have read books and I have personal been haunted as a child, and those were the most horrifying experiences my life. You can’t make that shit up. Your so stupid, why don’t you go into an old asylum…and we’ll see how you feel about sprits.

  100. Monday December 10, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    Wow Random, I’m sorry you were so scarred by something as a child. (For the sake of an intelligent discussion, I do forgive you for calling me stupid, because there actually is a ‘silver lining’ to your “knowing” there are real ghosts). I’ll Assume you are an intelligent adult like me, and neither of us simply believe things without proof. With the proof you must have that there are ghosts – you are going to be RICH! (And of course I’d like to be your friend and help you collect the prize!).

    The Prize – Now that you’re the one with scientific proof that there are ghosts, you will be the one who will finally claim the one million dollar prize! This prize has been offered for a long time by a guy fascinated with the possibility of anything ‘supernatural’ and has been adding to the prize account for many years. Now over a million dollars, the money will be awarded to the first person who can provide definitive proof of a ghost (or for PROOF of ANY “supernatural” phenomenon, for that matter).

    This guy has set up this prize fund because he would really LOVE to see proof that any of this is real. Most factual items are easy to prove, and he wondered if there are so many of them around (billions if each of us become a ghost when we die), why is there no proof? (For example, if ghosts finally were proven real, this would mean: we would all agree in reality the Earth is round, and Ghosts are real, even though most of us don’t see either with our eyes regularly). He wanted to strongly motivate any and all available evidence brought forward so those things can be scientifically tested, and proven real (By real I mean real like: polar bears, rocks on Mars, bacteria, etc. or confirm not real, like the “Tooth Fairy”).

    He would love to prove these things real and put them on the list of other everyday real things that everyone know are real, and then we no longer have to surround them with all the mystique. Once proven real, no one will care anymore – like “Tigers, planets, ghosts, politics, WHO CARES” – they are all known facts so let’s move on! Obviously we are not there yet because we all know “ghosts” is the only thing on the above list not yet PROVEN real.

    Many have tried to claim that BIG prize, but have failed because their evidence did not meet or pass the normal way scientists have developed (over many years) to confirm or dismiss hypothesis. In short, their evidence once considered or properly tested was agreed by all to be unconvincing. I think that’s kind of weird – most things that are invisible or very hard to access which have been PROVEN real (like air or nuclear fusion powering the sun’s energy, as examples) everyone agrees are real, but required no prize money to bring forth enough evidence for scientific proof. Yet for the believe in ghosts (potentially billions of ghosts are produced if all dead people become one) no one has ever brought in a shred of real evidence which could prove them real, even though a million dollar prize awaits! Huh?

    But now you have proof, right? – That is soooo cool if it is good proof! Let me know a bit about your scientific proof before we go in and claim the million dollar prize!

    Please also keep in mind there is NO reason (for rational people like you and me) to believe something is real unless it can be tested by repeatable, controlled, measurable verification techniques (“the scientific method”), which include the best techniques the world has developed to date. This best method available and has been used many times successfully. (Trust me, I found out the hard way, because as a child I used to believe there was a Boogie Man, and what I had as my ‘evidence’ didn’t even come close to meeting the criteria as “proof” via the scientific method). All my “evidence” could easily be attributed to my growing, developing mind playing normal tricks, and to hearsay (someone saying or writing “watch out for the Boogie Man, he is real” obviously PROVES nothing). I’ve since learned that anything under the sun can be put in books and minds can play all kinds of tricks. These “tricks” also can be repeated in the lab, and show how easily the mind can be tricked in to believing all kinds of things the researchers would have sworn were real! Needless to say I no longer believe in the ‘Boogie Man’.

    I wondered “how can I ever be sure something is real, or not real?” Must I simply rely on my beliefs, what books claim, and what my friends say their brother once “saw out of the corner of his eye”? NO, I found there is a way to be sure. The best way us humans have yet developed to “PROVE” or demonstrate something to be factual, is to prove it using the ‘scientific method’. Scientists (and anyone with a logical mind, like you and me) all agree that if this ‘best available method’ fails to prove something is real, logically the position must be: “It is not real” (until any new evidence which may have been discovered, also gets properly subjected to the best available test). I hope you have that new proof. If you do, and have enough faith in your evidence to subject it to the best available controlled conditions and calibrated measuring equipment science has to offer, and the results are positive – you get a million dollars!

    Interesting to me NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THE MILLION DOLLARS which has been available for over ten years, though MANY have brought their “evidence” and tried (you can read about the claims and tests on the web). That alone STONGKY convinces me there is no such thing as a ghost, but if you have (new?) strong evidence that you, me, and anyone who is interested in knowing the real Truth, would love to see put to the test. As a bonus, if proven true – you get a million dollars!

    Again, I’m excited to hear your evidence, and will help you bring it in to get tested and claim the prize! (As a suggestion, to help be taken seriously by the scientists when we go in there, I think it might be best to say “I have great new evidence which I believe will stand up to the scientific method of verification, and we can put the question of whether ghosts are real or not to bed”. (Please don’t blurt out “I know ghosts are real cuz I read it in a book”, or “I know because I had some unexplained (and likely undocumented) experience as a child”. (I’m sure you would like any other possible explanation for your experience RULED OUT before you make absolute claims which have not yet passed at least the most basic scientific testing!

    If you think you have good evidence, then when we go in PLEASE at least act as if you are interested in “finding out the THUTH”, and “interested in finding out if my evidence will prove – per the best available testing methods – that ghosts exist or not”. I think they will take us much more seriously if you say “I’m interested in the truth” rather than blurting out an untested “opinion” as “Fact”. (The scientists are very critical of just the facts, but you & I even realize we have no business claiming ghosts are a “fact” or “the truth” until your evidence has been rigorously subjected to the best confirmation techniques available to date. (Who would?).

    I really don’t want us to be laughed out of there, I want to help you win that prize!

    Now, please let me know what EXACTLY what is that compelling evidence? (I know it must be good because most who take ghosts somewhat seriously -ghost hunters for example- claim only that they “believe” they are real, and hunt for evidence, rather than the certainty you seem to have.

    Thanks, Chris

    • Monday December 10, 2012 at 4:52 PM

      I love the way you explained things. So enlightning/refreshing to read a reply like yours. Very smart, knowledgable, informative reply. A pleasure to read.

  101. Monday December 10, 2012 at 4:37 PM

    Mr.Mason :
    A priest? Really? Your off to a bad start already! Now, with science out of the picture, so is your logical sense of reality. You are un-Approachable to talk about the facts, when clearly, you are willing to speak to a priest, accept his answer, and move on praising will of god, and other such non-sense. And therapy is best used by those with imaginary friends, who partake in a form of cannibalism at sunday communion. Belief in sprits, gouls, even holy ghosts, are all forms of psy-co-sis!

    • Wednesday November 27, 2013 at 7:15 PM

      As a Catholic school boy I was made to feel SO guilty for all sorts of mundane things. For example, I used to dream that I would go to hell for breaking the branch off of a tree (even accidently!). We would go to ‘confession’ which consisted of telling my ‘sins’ to a priest in a ‘confessional’. SINS – from a 9 year old boy? I would have to make them up on the fly when I was in the confessional (what 9 year old has any sins worth telling?). I made up the usual things: “lied to my sister”….”was mean to a friend”…”cheated at tidily-winks”… stuff like that. Now that I think of it, the biggest ‘sin’ was lying in the confessional because none of it was true. I’d get the usual penance: two ‘Hail Mary’s’, one “Our Father”…stuff like that. All the boys and girls went to the lines that did not lead to Father Hacket… hell no! I once saw a boy come out of Hacket’s confessional crying, and Hacked came out of his door still scolding this poor chap. I once got caught up in one of the Nun’s attempt to ‘even out’ the longer lines leading to the other Father’s confessionals and got put into Hacket’s short line. When my turn to go in came up, I couldn’t think of any sins to confess so once again I made some up. I’ll never forget the one I made up that day: “Oh, and I missed church on Sunday…” BIG mistake. Back then that one of the few “Mortal” sins (like murder, rape, pedophilia – the hard core stuff). I got scolded something fierce by Hacket. Got something like 10 Our Fathers and 10 Hail Mary’s if I recall. No more genuflecting for me, thank you.

  102. Kent halseth
    Tuesday December 11, 2012 at 1:52 AM

    Sadly, it is the most wonderful and the most dangerous part of mankind….imagination. It is what drives dreams and fuels anger and fear. When we observe a dog running in it’s sleep, we can imagine what the dog is dreaqming….we KNOW animals have the same dreams/nightmares, imaginations…it’s part of our brain. you go to sleep and your brain turns on a home movie of entertainment THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED! incredible! Yes, ghosts exist…in our minds…we invented them..and cherish what scares and excites us. Sadly , as with dreams we distort and embellish….and hatred and wars happen..(religion). Ad the fear of death and that what is reality (you die) is to finite…we MUST have more..there MUSt be another , new beginning….yes..IMAGINE it!….Look, what any REASONABLE and INTELLIGENT person MUST accept, is that one simple sentence…IF THIS>>>THEN THAT. Practice it….It covers EVERYTHING in life when dealing with imagination. IF a fortune teller CAN read your future..or anyone elses..THEN they would be rich…not in a little back room wearing a robe..charging $15 to play on your imagination. IF someone could talk to the dead..THEN they would also be rich because of the people who would tell them where the hidden treasure, money, dead body is buried. IF there were ghosts…THEN one of the 1 billion owners of a cell phone with a camera would record a viable video of it…and lastly….IF there were ghosts…THEN they would not need to hide in a dark , damp hallway..wtf? they would be out bothering EVERYONE…..wake the f#ck up…..get over it….Man’s imagination is the most wonderful and the most dangerous power on our planet.

    • Tuesday December 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      Well stated, Kent!
      Something else occurred to me. The belief in ghosts may be linked, to a large extent, to the fear of death you mentioned, which I have always agreed with. In other words “if there are ghosts, then there must be an afterlife, and if there’s an afterlife, then death is not so scary”. To a large extent, I believe our imagination in this area slowly but surely created the great religions.
      But consider this you religious fanatics: maybe there should be a GREATER fear of an afterlife (if there is one) than there should be of fear of death!
      When I think about it, religious individuals spend just 85 years or so (a lifetime) doing good so they can spend eternity in heaven. (By ‘good’ I mean the all kinds of things their faith seems to dictate – from the ‘kind’ or relatively harmless, to the truly reprehensible.

      During that one lifetime they may stray from their religion’s definition of ‘good’, to ‘bad’ (which may result in HELL for an eternity, etc), and back to good and so forth, and I guess hopefully end on a “good” note. (Kind of like playing Russian Roulette with your eternity). Tough to do for 85 years, but try to it for eternity! So if they make it, does that mean once in heaven the believer has to be “good” forever? No choice? Or maybe you can sometimes be bad but have a pass to stay? Or does he change so much from his fundamental nature which he’s had for 85 years that it’s not even him anymore (magically turns to a happy saint with a painful GRIN plastered on his face FOREVER)? (If in the afterlife it’s not even the “he” he used to be, he’s dead and gone anyway!).
      Logically, I can safely guarantee there will be no chance of even the slightest spec of pain or discomfort if, when we die, (along with the body and brain no longer functioning) if we simply cease to have any kind of consciousness. Hey – No chance of pain there! Isn’t that more comforting?
      Now can we please stop the Jihad? (Crusade, Holy war, etc)?
      Thank you.

  103. Tapan
    Tuesday January 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM

    G

  104. Tapan
    Tuesday January 8, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    I’m leaving this as a comment but its actually a message (request). I’m 16 yrs old and i want to write an article on ghosts magazine(school). If you don’t mind can i please include some part of ur article in mine. Please if u wish give me the permission with conditions. Reply me as a comment here on this page.

    • Friday January 11, 2013 at 9:39 AM

      Sure, I’d have no problem with that. Just be sure to cite me, David Garrett, in your sources and link to the post. Other than that, thanks for reading!

  105. Con
    Saturday January 12, 2013 at 11:44 PM

    I my first exp was when I was 6yrs old and sometime later in my teens and early 20s depends on how clear it was at the time and how many ppl was there when I exp it but yeah I don’t doubt there is things around us that we don’t have full understand of yet.

    I see hear and sense things one point I had the spirit wall right through me in broad daylight I felt the chills as feeling as it passed through me I told my friend and we got out f ther place ASAP! Her partner said I was full of shit but not soon after that he himself saw the spirit as he went to the bathroom a night I always second guess myself until someone els confirms they exp what I have aswell. There for the cases I know as most true is the ones I exp with. Other ppl present and ones that happens out of the blue eg while I’m on the phone the door opened and someone walked out I assumed it was my brother but when I spoke no answer to I checked the room it was empty. No one can explain what I see n feel but it doesn’t matter to me life goes on it’s not a big part of my life just lucky to exp what many ppl don’t often get to exp.

  106. Realo
    Thursday February 14, 2013 at 11:55 PM

    Ghosts are not what you think. Ghosts are Demons and not the spirit of the dead one unless they are an Angel. But they either go to Hell or Heaven.

  107. Saturday March 16, 2013 at 11:38 PM

    When I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and
    from now on whenever a comment is added I recieve four emails
    with the exact same comment. There has to be a means you can remove me from that service?
    Thank you!

    • Joseph
      Wednesday May 1, 2013 at 4:18 AM

      I have to say that there probably isn’t much my eye can see that another piece of equipment cannot. The only major differences I can see is my eye is alive and attached to brain . So it would be cool to set up a test to see if a brain produces a different image than a camera. I will hypothesize that it does.
      I do have to say though that just because something can’t be reproduced doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

      • Joseph
        Wednesday May 1, 2013 at 4:33 AM

        I also have to say that people seeing things in dark could be attributed to humans being vulnerable in the dark and is a defense mechanism. If you think about it only complete idiots wander in the dark hoping to get killed by something. Most probably are leery of dark places for their safety so I would hypothesize that would make someone feel uneasy. I would set up another test putting people in fully lit rooms and measuring there stress levels. Then putting them in darkness to see their stress then.
        Honestly if ghosts are so powerful they can manipulate or just supercede all laws of science why don’t they just crush you? Nobody could stop them.

        • Joseph
          Wednesday May 1, 2013 at 4:39 AM

          One of my favorite quotes on this topic:

          “It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive shortcut of supernaturalism.”

          H.P. Lovecraft

          • avatar321
            Sunday May 26, 2013 at 12:21 AM

            I found a long lost friend on Facebook and started chatting about old times. Both of us are much older than last time we hung out so I made the assumption that she (being older and wiser) did NOT believe in things such as ghosts. When she mentioned a little something about a ghost she thought she heard about, I thought for sure she was kidding around. I said “can you believe some people still believe in such things?” What surprised me was how offended she was that I began stating my case against the belief in ghosts. It was like I was insulting her religion! She hangs onto that belief like it is some kind of security blanket. I just don’t get it. I would have a least expected “well I’m not sure either way” or something like that…but NO! “I know there are ghosts” was her response. And the reason amounted to “well, my cousin’s friend knew someone who was attacked by a ghost, or so said my mom when I was 11 years old”. I liked the way she arrived at her conclusion using the scientific method…..NOT!

            On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM, In Case You’re Interested… wrote:

            > ** > Joseph commented: “One of my favorite quotes on this topic: It is only > the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by > the primitive shortcut of supernaturalism. H.P. Lovecraft” >

  108. The curious girl.
    Thursday May 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

    I agree 100% with ‘Godkillzyou/theskeptic’. I have always been in the middle of believing and not believing just because of stories I read of “Encounters” when I was younger, but I had never experienced anything people have described. I now point completely to the non-believer/It’s kind of bullshit the stories people come up with/non-sense direction of this argument. I mean people can think whatever their imagination tells them but I won’t believe until I have cold hard proof..

    NOW I do have something that happened to me tonight and would like someone to help me out a bit.. I looked out the window tonight up to the window/balcony of upstairs bedroom opposite my bedroom and saw two bright eye type shapes and as I starred they got brighter. I mean this could have been my imagination as I tend to be quite paranoid when It comes to night time but can anyone explain it? could it have been just a reflection that got brighter as my eyes adjusted to it or could it have been a possum on the balcony? (I’m from New Zealand so possums are very common. I live in the country and the house I live in has trees surrounding near-ish that area)

    Help me out here :)

  109. Wednesday June 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM

    I’ve personally recorded many hundreds of EVPs. I personally believe they are spirits and other entities. If it isn’t something paranormal, what is it? You can check out what I’ve recorded on investigations, and let me know what prosaic explanation could explain it. You’ll probably say I must have faked everything since you seem to be such a non-believer, but I know it is all real, so that may fool some people if that is your answer, but it isn’t the truth. Anyway, you can listen to what I have captured at http://www.bestevps.com. I’d recommend checking out the Old South Pittsburg Hospital one, especially. It has some truly amazing captures in it, and there is no prosaic explanation that I can come up with to account for it. Anyway, let me know what you think.. even if you do think I faked it.

  110. bob
    Saturday July 13, 2013 at 1:11 PM

    There is no such thing as ghosts. Uncle Frank or Aunt Betty do not come back. Once a person dies, they either go directly to Heaven to be with the Lord. Or they go directly to the center of the earth-where they wait for their Judgement then,they they eventually go to hell. If anything, they are demons playing with you, pretending to be your loved ones. Don’t play back. because if you do and you are UNSAVED-they can (demon) screw you up big time or even posses you. A demons duty is to keep you from believing in God/Jesus Christ and to destroy you. Fallen Angels HATE Humans. Good luck.

    • Monday July 15, 2013 at 2:12 PM

      You say: “There is no such thing as ghosts.” my question to you, bob, is – are you saying there is another category of unseen ‘entities’ such as ‘demons’ or “God/Jesus” that most us can’t see (or at least see plainly, just like we see ‘the navel oranges on sale at the supermarket”?). Why can’t we just see them like most other things that are visible? Are they ‘bashful’? Or are they like ‘air’ in that it is not (normally) visible (but can easily be felt, measured, compressed into a visible form, etc.). What makes demons different than the ghosts – which you say are not real? Or does this other category of ‘sometimes slightly visible’ entities have bashfulness (or something else) that motovates them do everything in their power to make them less visible than Navel Oranges? Is this why we can only see or ‘sense’ them slightly in times of emotional stress or change? Or is it because others to whom you are associated SAY they are real? Maybe instead, just possibly, they are just as unreal as ghosts?

  111. You all are funny
    Monday November 11, 2013 at 7:06 PM

    I just think it’s hilarious that people get insulted about what other peoples’ opinions.

  112. You all are funny
    Monday November 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    I just think it’s hilarious that people get insulted about other peoples’ opinions.

  113. Sureshbabu.c
    Friday December 27, 2013 at 6:06 AM

    This scientific approach was very helpfull to me to avoid ignorance.

  114. Aamir Akhtar
    Monday January 20, 2014 at 12:23 AM

    Its Good

  115. dvazq
    Monday January 27, 2014 at 10:17 PM

    I am not one to discourage anyone from having their own opinions or beliefs, nor do i have a reason to anonymously lie about what i have experienced. There is no incentive nor any other reason for sharing this information other than to encourage you to not be so arrogant. Life is a mystery otherwise people woldnt’t wonder so much about it. I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a haunting in my home. Desperatly i seeked help from any and all sources (im”christian”) and found help from a cuban babalao which cleansed my home and rid it of all spirits. I was weary at first but realized that in fact this had definitely worked!!!! Embarrased because i had turned to the wrong religion i kept this a secret from certain family members. However, i know now that there may be a bit of truth in all religions. There are things we cant explain i certainly cant!! And thats okay, we need to be conformed that we do not know EVERYTHING-and perhaps not allowed to really ever know for a reason. The path to enlightenment isnt for everyone. This life lesson taught me that there are indeed things we cant explain such as spirits, but if there are spirits surely there is a God…. And that in itself give me a reason to hope and to live my life as humble and righteously as possible.

  116. Kari SHINee
    Tuesday July 1, 2014 at 7:27 PM

    Yes there is such a thing as ghosts. If ghosts weren’t real then my sister would be dead. wanna know why or how? well it’s simple. My sister was chocking on something in the middle of the night, but no one knew because back then it was only my 2 sisters and my mom, and my mom and my other sister were both fast asleep. then a ghost woke my mom up. at first my mom was scared and hid under the blankets, but then after a while she noticed that the ghost was trying to lead her somewhere. So she followed the ghost who led her to my sisters room and my mom was able to save her. She never saw that ghost again.
    Another story of a ghost is a while later when I was about 3 years old. it was me my mom and my 2 sisters. We were living in a house and there was a ghost who kept playing with me. she would even have tea partys with me. At first my mom thought that it was just an imaginary friend, but then she woke up in the middle of the night and saw my ghost friend standing in the hall. Later she asked around the neighborhood if there where any little girls who died in/by our house before we moved in. One of the neighbors told her that there was a little girl who use to live there, but she was accidentally shot in the head and killed by her little brother who was playing with a gun. We did eventually move, so I don’t see her anymore, but I wish I could see her at least once again.
    May I be struck down by lightning if I’m lying about this.

  1. Saturday May 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Tell Me What You Think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: