How can you discredit ghosts and hauntings?

[mayday]

I understand it is fairly easy to expose clowns like Sylvia Browne and those types of paranormal claims, but what about hauntings and ghosts? I wonder how Mr. Randi feels about alleged hauntings. Since a haunting isn't a result of a person's claim of a certain ability, how does he debunk it? I know a door opening spontaneously or a lamp turning on and off by itself in the middle of the night is probably not a ghost, but what about apparitions like this one on youtube? (you type in "Ghost Apparition on Phone Camera")

I'm sure Mr. Randi would be the first to admit he doesn't have all the answers for things that happen. What do you think?

[wahrheit]

James Randi never claimed to have all the answers. Also, it doesn't matter how he "feels" about alleged ghosts or hauntings. Do you claim there are ghosts and hauntings? Then you prove it. Not the other way round.

Do you mean this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[PB2007]

Quote:

but what about apparitions like this one on youtube? (you type in "Ghost Apparition on Phone Camera")

There was someone there and then they ducked out of sight, either on the floor or behind the chair. The camera operator is in on it....

Simple really.

Also it's not down to anyone to show sightings and recording are fake but the burden of proof is on the claimant to show it's real. A poor camera phone video is NOT proof.

[seayakin]

One way to debunk is to find the known cause for the phenomena (e.g. creaking door, draft, optic issues, fraud, etc.)

[Senex]

hotpatootie says:

Quote:

How can you discredit ghosts and hauntings?

How can you not?

[Alice Shortcake]

Of course it's a trick! The standard lamp and curtain tiebacks resemble the outline of a human figure (head, spine and outstretched arms). I would suggest that someone rigged up a jacket and trousers on a hanger and pulled them out of shot when the camera pans back.

By the way, a site that still touts the "Three Men and a Baby" ghost as the real thing shouldn't be taken TOO seriously...

[Big Les]

You really have to wonder, as with a lot of woo, why given the rapid and near-universal proliferation of mobile phones with integral digital cameras of increasingly high resolution, we aren't getting any better pics of ghosts. Practically anyone witnessing any "phenomenon" in anything other than total darkness and lasting longer than 10secs ought to be able to capture it on their phone. But what do we see? Nothing but orbs and other easily debunkable photography-related artefacts.

[RemieV]

Quote:

"You can't prove there's no such thing as ghosts, but you can't prove there's no Santa Claus either.

If you say there is, you're required to prove it."

-- James Randi, five minutes ago.

[Tobermory]

I think that in this case, wiki does a great job of covering some related issues in painful, graphic detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Negative statements often contain claims that are hard to prove because they make generalized predictions about things that cannot be observed in a given time (or due to human limitations of perception). For example, the statement that "ghosts do not exist" implies that there are no ghosts in this or any universe. Since we do not have the ability to conduct an investigation of this scope, this assertion cannot really be tested. In such a case, we can still probably find proof of a related negative (e.g., there are no ghosts in a particular house), just not the negative of the broader proposition (there are no ghosts in existence). This, of course, is further complicated by semantics, since when it comes to nebulous concepts such as "ghosts," your definition may be very different from mine.

Obviously, it is far easier to prove that something does exist, since only one example is needed to complete the proof. But in the end, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth and meaning of the assertion in question.

As to the lack of ghosts in a certain space, proof (though perhaps not definitive proof) can generally be accomplished through an alternative and logical explanation of the particular phenomenon, as someone stated above.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Big Les

You really have to wonder, as with a lot of woo, why given the rapid and near-universal proliferation of mobile phones with integral digital cameras of increasingly high resolution, we aren't getting any better pics of ghosts. Practically anyone witnessing any "phenomenon" in anything other than total darkness and lasting longer than 10secs ought to be able to capture it on their phone. But what do we see? Nothing but orbs and other easily debunkable photography-related artefacts.

The same goes for UFOs and camcorders. There are a lot of people outside, with camcorders. They record disasters (e.g. the 9/11 attacks and the tsunami), but where are the increased number of videos of UFOs (as in "spaceships")?

The widespreading of cell phone cameras only drives a lot more nails into the coffin.

[mayday]

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

How do you know what it wasn't?

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

Ok, there are two explanations:

a) Someone put some clothes on a hanger panned by it and then removed the clothes before the camera panned back.

b) It was a ghost that appeared just long enough to get caught on video and then disappeared.

Without any other (extraordinary) evidence, which one is the more reasonable? And before you answer, please look-up "Occam's Razor".

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

Unless you were there (as you did not state previously), you have no idea what it was or wasn't. The idea presented reasonably explains the event based on the only data available and makes experiential sense. Feel free to present proof either that it was a ghost or that the explanation offered cannot be correct.

[ChristineR]

I'd be more willing to seriously consider that the curtain was actually a ghost if there were some unequivocal evidence of a ghost, somewhere, such as the translucent floating objects that you see in movies (either caught on tape or seen by lots of people), or validated claims of communications from a dead person giving information that wasn't available elsewhere, or objects flying through the air when there wasn't a troubled teenager nearby, etc., etc.

As it is, all known ghost phenomena can be explained by non-supernatural means, including this one. So no, I don't take it seriously. So while nobody is going to argue if you claim "there is a one in a trillionth billionth millionth zillionth chance that this is a ghost," it doesn't make much sense to be expending theories on it.

If you have any real hard evidence that this or any other sighting is an actual ghost, present it and people will take it seriously.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain?

I can't claim to know exactly what it is, because I was not there, and the image is blurry.

However, I know that almost anyone can duplicate that kind of footage very easily, using clothes on a hanger and stuff like that.
I suppose it could also be an actor, or a puppet, or a forced-perspective trick, etc.

So, none of these "half-baked" theories might be the actual answer, but the fact that we have so many possible ways to pull this off, makes it unconvincing as "real ghost" footage.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

Ok, there are two explanations:

a) Someone put some clothes on a hanger panned by it and then removed the clothes before the camera panned back.

b) It was a ghost that appeared just long enough to get caught on video and then disappeared.

Without any other (extraordinary) evidence, which one is the more reasonable? And before you answer, please look-up "Occam's Razor".

Well, not to defend woo believers but I don't see how one is less reasonable than the other. Deciding that B is less reasonable is a personal choice because as someone else pointed here, we don't know. In other words, we don't have proof that it was a ghost and we don't have proof that it wasn't a ghost, so saying that B is less reasonable than A is already assuming.

What I will say is that the video itself looks staged.

But even if it was a ghost, there's no way to prove it.
It's simply believe what you wanna believe... cause in the end it won't really make a difference at all. You cannot prove either.

In other words: a waste of time.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

So, here's what you'd have to believe in order to think that this was possibly a ghost sighting:

1. Some guy for some reason decided to stand up and film an empty room.
2. He saw a person standing there in what he thought was an empty room.
3. He did not focus in on the person. He did not drop the camera and scream. He did not react to seeing the person in any way. He just kept filming more of the room.
4. When he did realize that he'd seen a person, he did not stop filming or look up from his camera. Instead, he swung the camera back around to the same spot.
5. When the person appeared to have vanished, he still did not drop the camera, scream, call the police or do anything like that. He just called to his wife to report what he'd seen and continued to film curtains.

Now, I don't know what really happened in that cruddy video. However, I am possessed of reason. When the entire incident appears suspicious and when the actors behave in a manner inconsistent with normal human reactions and when there is no other evidence for the validity of this video or the existence of ghosts, I feel justified in saying that it has been proven to my satisfaction that this was a hoax.

I am open to receiving more evidence but I believe that the evidence I have now supports my conclusion.

[wahrheit]

The weirdest thing about this video is that the guy reacts ("huh?!!") when the alleged person is GONE. The person standing there in the room did not bother him, he only reacts when that "ghost" is gone. I would scream when I see that guy, not when he's gone.

The second most astonishing thing is that ghosts obviously prefer to show up when a low quality camera and a doddery cameraman meet.

[Tirdun]

I have an old tape where I'm filming a lake and don't realize there's something surprising in the video. I panned past a group of people in a boat who were having trouble. It wasn't what I was filming and I wasn't really paying attention to the near/right side of the lake.

If you watch it, the two people + boat move from lower center to lower right, then vanish when the camera lens attempts to focus on gravel at my feet. Why? I stopped looking through the viewfinder to pay attention to the people bailing out their canoe after struggling to recover their oar.

This, IMHO, looks staged.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Well, not to defend woo believers but I don't see how one is less reasonable than the other. Deciding that B is less reasonable is a personal choice because as someone else pointed here, we don't know. In other words, we don't have proof that it was a ghost and we don't have proof that it wasn't a ghost, so saying that B is less reasonable than A is already assuming.

I disagree. A is far more parsimonious an explanation than B, so it is more reasonable. If you accept B, you've raised a whole lot more questions that need to be answered. (Is a ghost material or not? If not, how do you photograph it? If it is, can it walk on floors but through walls? How is that possible? Is a ghost conscious? If so, how, since everything else we know about consciousness and the mind shows that these are things dependent on an actual brain? Etc.)

While you're correct that there is not proof of either of these explanations, one is much more reasonable than the other. It's the same as when a good magician reproduces Uri Geller's tricks. The reproduction isn't proof that Geller has no PK powers, but it certainly offers a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't require wholesale revamping of several fields of science.

[Showmeproof]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics.

What if the form wasn't clothes on a hanger or part of a curtain? Those (half-baked)theories are just flippantly dismissive. It's more noble to admit you really don't know what that was, because you don't.
I'm not saying that was a ghost, but I know what it wasn't.

In my opinion, the "apparition" was clothes being held up by something in the shape of a man. Obviously, based on the 30 seconds of evidence and a crappy camera phone, I cannot say 100% that it wasnt a ghost, but I am definitely skeptical that it was a ghost. In essence, I am more prone to believe that it was not a ghost based on unsufficient evidence. For people that have claims like this, you need to PROVE IT! If you have unsufficient evidence, naturally people are not going to believe it. For example, if next halloween, I dress up as an alien and come to your house for candy and you open the door, are you really going to believe it's an alien even if I tell you I am really not an alien? Probably not. The evidence isn't sufficient enough for you to assume otherwise. Same with the video on youtube.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I disagree. A is far more parsimonious an explanation than B, so it is more reasonable.

Next time: "It's more reasonable to me". Not "It's more reasonable"

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

If you accept B, you've raised a whole lot more questions that need to be answered.

I didn't imply I knew the answer to them. That's why it's perfectly possible for both of them to be reliable to happen, up until there is evidence to prove one and debunk the other one.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

(Is a ghost material or not? If not, how do you photograph it? If it is, can it walk on floors but through walls? How is that possible? Is a ghost conscious? If so, how, since everything else we know about consciousness and the mind shows that these are things dependent on an actual brain? Etc.)

Like I said, these are questioins we don't have an answer for and many of them are irrelevant to the video because we never see the supposed "ghost" go through a wall, so the one about "can a ghost go through a wall but then why does he walk on the floor" is irrelevant (Also, if we had to go there, a possible explanation for that one would be that the ghost hovers slightly over the floor)

And assumptions such as "everything else we know about consciousness and the mind show that these things depend on an actual brain" are much more wide open and have nothing got to do with a "ghost video". Who said the ghost has a conscious in the first place?[/quote]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

While you're correct that there is not proof of either of these explanations, one is much more reasonable than the other.

To you. remember that part: It's more reasonable to you.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's the same as when a good magician reproduces Uri Geller's tricks. The reproduction isn't proof that Geller has no PK powers, but it certainly offers a much more reasonable explanation that doesn't require wholesale revamping of several fields of science.

Ok, I see your point: Same way Randi debunking Geller offered a much more reasonable explanation to his "magic", we also have many reasonable explanations on how a ghost video such as that one can be faked. I agree with that. However, I don't see how it is unreasonable to believe in the possibility. Besides, in many of his demonstrations, Randi actually took hidden-camera video shots of Uri Geller and actually proved that he was lying (such as the one where he peeks over the girl's drawing or the one where we see him bending the key that he said he's not bending). In the ghost video, no matter how unlikely it is (And I'm with the ones who say it is VERY unlikely) that it is actually a ghost, we haven't actually seen any debunking of this video in particular. So just because you've seen endless cases of liars, it doesn't mean that the next time you see someone who really looks like a liar, you're inmediately going to assume that he is, and that such assumption is more reasonable. Technically and empirically speaking, nothing is more reasonable until it's proved.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Next time: "It's more reasonable to me". Not "It's more reasonable"




I didn't imply I knew the answer to them. That's why it's perfectly possible for both of them to be reliable to happen, up until there is evidence to prove one and debunk the other one.





Like I said, these are questioins we don't have an answer for and many of them are irrelevant to the video because we never see the supposed "ghost" go through a wall, so the one about "can a ghost go through a wall but then why does he walk on the floor" is irrelevant (Also, if we had to go there, a possible explanation for that one would be that the ghost hovers slightly over the floor)

And assumptions such as "everything else we know about consciousness and the mind show that these things depend on an actual brain" are much more wide open and have nothing got to do with a "ghost video". Who said the ghost has a conscious in the first place?

To you. remember that part: It's more reasonable to you.



Ok, I see your point: Same way Randi debunking Geller offered a much more reasonable explanation to his "magic", we also have many reasonable explanations on how a ghost video such as that one can be faked. I agree with that. However, I don't see how it is unreasonable to believe in the possibility. Besides, in many of his demonstrations, Randi actually took hidden-camera video shots of Uri Geller and actually proved that he was lying (such as the one where he peeks over the girl's drawing or the one where we see him bending the key that he said he's not bending). In the ghost video, no matter how unlikely it is (And I'm with the ones who say it is VERY unlikely) that it is actually a ghost, we haven't actually seen any debunking of this video in particular. So just because you've seen endless cases of liars, it doesn't mean that the next time you see someone who really looks like a liar, you're inmediately going to assume that he is, and that such assumption is more reasonable. Technically and empirically speaking, nothing is more reasonable until it's proved.[/quote]
Occam's Razor, considered pretty useful among scientist types, says you are wrong on that assumption.

[Alice Shortcake]

I'm still convinced that the "ghost" is merely articles of clothing on a hanger, but as others have pointed out the cameraman's behaviour is less than convincing.

It reminds me of another supposedly paranormal video in which a solid-looking ghost peers into a hallway from behind a bathroom door. Not only does the woman filming the incident not scream or drop the camera, she actually continues filming as she walks into the haunted bathroom (cue for a sneaky edit). A dog present throughout this terrifying encounter doesn't react in the least, which suggests that nothing unusual is going on.

Have you come across any other ghost videos you find convincing? Please present your best evidence - everyone here would be most interested in seeing them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I didn't imply I knew the answer to them. That's why it's perfectly possible for both of them to be reliable to happen, up until there is evidence to prove one and debunk the other one.

I'm addressing your statement that both explanations are equally reasonable. They are not. The one comes with a large cost (it is unparsimonious).

Quote:

Like I said, these are questioins we don't have an answer for and many of them are irrelevant to the video because we never see the supposed "ghost" go through a wall, so the one about "can a ghost go through a wall but then why does he walk on the floor" is irrelevant (Also, if we had to go there, a possible explanation for that one would be that the ghost hovers slightly over the floor)

I'm attempting to assess how reasonable each of the two explanations are. What I'm doing is considering what you'd have to answer by accepting either one. A mundane explanation (that the video is a hoax--clothing or whatever) has no such baggage.

The questions raised by accepting B are relevant to the discussion of whether B is equally reasonable.

Quote:

To you. remember that part: It's more reasonable to you.

No. B is less reasonable in that it would require major revisions of science, or at least it would raise many more questions than the issue it is meant to explain.

Quote:

Ok, I see your point: Same way Randi debunking Geller offered a much more reasonable explanation to his "magic", we also have many reasonable explanations on how a ghost video such as that one can be faked. I agree with that. However, I don't see how it is unreasonable to believe in the possibility. Besides, in many of his demonstrations, Randi actually took hidden-camera video shots of Uri Geller and actually proved that he was lying (such as the one where he peeks over the girl's drawing or the one where we see him bending the key that he said he's not bending). In the ghost video, no matter how unlikely it is (And I'm with the ones who say it is VERY unlikely) that it is actually a ghost, we haven't actually seen any debunking of this video in particular. So just because you've seen endless cases of liars, it doesn't mean that the next time you see someone who really looks like a liar, you're inmediately going to assume that he is, and that such assumption is more reasonable.

And just because Geller was caught cheating on some occasions doesn't prove he always cheats. Yet it is unreasonable to assume otherwise.

Quote:

Technically and empirically speaking, nothing is more reasonable until it's proved.

I utterly disagree. An extraordinarily unlikely explanation (that raises more questions than it is meant to answer and that conflicts with the current state of knowledge) is less reasonable than one that comes with no such baggage.

When you say it's unlikely that this video is a ghost, you're talking about a different kind of "unlikely" than saying, for example, it's unlikely that I'll be hit by lightning today. Both are improbable events, but my being hit by lightning today would not require a paradigm shift in any of the sciences.

The reason it's unlikely that this is a video of a ghost isn't really an issue of probabilities (like there x number of ghosts and y number of cameras, so the odds of catching one are slim). It's the existence of ghosts that could be photographed that is an unreasonable idea.

[slingblade]

One way to discredit this is to actually be there when claims are being made.

Here's a blast from my past I thought you all might enjoy. It's from the old Fox show, "Sightings."

My husband, his son, and I all worked for Bill and Becky (Bill Pentland is Roseanne's first husband) at this restaurant when this was filmed. In fact, my stepson was interviewed for the show. I don't think it's in this episode, but in the follow-up show they did on Georgetown, CO.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

As you may expect, this is all bunk. At 7:13 in the clip, Peter James asserts the ghost can talk, and a high-pitched sound can then be heard.

What they don't show you is the orange cat that made that sound, which leapt out from behind the attic junk and bolted down the steps past me. A bunch of us had followed Peter James and the crew up to the attic. I was not the only one who saw the cat, but I don't think Peter saw it...he was too far away from the steps by that point. Later, I was the only one who was still willing to admit there was a cat...for everyone else, he simply faded from their minds.

Near the end of the clip, we can see Becky and Peter looking at an old photo of the supposed ghost and his brother. What you don't see in that clip is how Peter first focused on the brother in the left side of the photo. He got no reaction from Becky or anyone else. But when he turns his attention to the other brother, Becky gets all squirmy. That's the part you see in the clip, and likely is how Peter knew to focus on the brother on the right. There were also rumors that PJ had seen all the "evidence" before the taping, but I can't prove that, so I won't assert it.

Also seen is town historian Ron Neely, who asserts the restaurant is in the old "Fish Block" of town. This is untrue. The Fish Block is across the street, east of the Full Circle, and can't be seen from the restaurant, which faces south. But hey, it makes for compelling TV, so a little fib can't hurt, right?

In the days before the show, it had been my habit to come to work with my husband at 4 am for his shift, since mine didn't start until 9 and he wouldn't be able to come back up the mountain to get me. I would head upstairs to the attic and sleep another couple of hours on an old mattress lying up there. After the show was taped and aired, people would ask me if I wasn't scared to be up there, knowing there was a ghost.

I told them no, not at all! In fact, sometimes the ghost even laid down with me.

Then I'd brush the cat hair off my coat, and go change into my work clothes.

[mayday]

Originally Posted by Showmeproof

In my opinion, the "apparition" was clothes being held up by something in the shape of a man. Obviously, based on the 30 seconds of evidence and a crappy camera phone, I cannot say 100% that it wasnt a ghost, but I am definitely skeptical that it was a ghost. In essence, I am more prone to believe that it was not a ghost based on unsufficient evidence. For people that have claims like this, you need to PROVE IT! If you have unsufficient evidence, naturally people are not going to believe it. For example, if next halloween, I dress up as an alien and come to your house for candy and you open the door, are you really going to believe it's an alien even if I tell you I am really not an alien? Probably not. The evidence isn't sufficient enough for you to assume otherwise. Same with the video on youtube.

This is perfectly reasonable. I believe the so-called actors were sincere. I'm a graduate student in psychology, so I understand how the response could be the way it was. For example, someone pointed out that the guy wasn't surprised when the camera passed by and he saw a person standing there, but it's obvious his reaction was a result of not expecting to see something standing there then doing a double take.

As far as the reason they were recording a room, I'd like to know that myself. My impression was they were in a historic house and he was capturing some images of it. No one knows for sure, but I think one explanation is as good as another. Also, don't be so arrogant as to assume I need to look up Occam's Razor to know what it means...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

Well, it's obvious we have more cynics than skeptics. . . .

No, a cynic would say, "I think hotpatootie is just here to troll and isn't interested in real discussion."

[my_wan]

The most convincing ghost pic I have ever seen is of me.
This is exactly how the pic looked when it was copied from
the digital camera. I would like to know how to recreate the
effect but I certainly can't take fuzzy pics of ghost seriously
when I'm certainly not a ghost. At least I hope

http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?i...hostbignd4.jpg

[mayday]

Originally Posted by slingblade

One way to discredit this is to actually be there when claims are being made.

Here's a blast from my past I thought you all might enjoy. It's from the old Fox show, "Sightings."

My husband, his son, and I all worked for Bill and Becky (Bill Pentland is Roseanne's first husband) at this restaurant when this was filmed. In fact, my stepson was interviewed for the show. I don't think it's in this episode, but in the follow-up show they did on Georgetown, CO.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

As you may expect, this is all bunk. At 7:13 in the clip, Peter James asserts the ghost can talk, and a high-pitched sound can then be heard.

What they don't show you is the orange cat that made that sound, which leapt out from behind the attic junk and bolted down the steps past me.

So, this explains every haunting and sound of unknown origin there is.

Case closed.

[mayday]

Oh, wan, that picture looks so real...not.

[wahrheit]

Originally Posted by my_wan

The most convincing ghost pic I have ever seen is of me.
This is exactly how the pic looked when it was copied from
the digital camera. I would like to know how to recreate the
effect but I certainly can't take fuzzy pics of ghost seriously
when I'm certainly not a ghost. At least I hope

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2...hostbignd4.jpg

This is not an exact copy as you claim, the image lacks the EXIF data of a digital camera. You are a mean liar.

If you want to reproduce this effect, simply use a long exposure time on your camera.

Also, you might consider posting a thumbnail here which links to the original. The huge size of your pic messes up the forum display and will drive people on a slow connection crazy.

Finally, and most importantly: your swivel chair is broken!

[Fnord]

How can you discredit ghosts and hauntings?

First, understand that it is the person making the claim who must validate the claim with verifiable, first-hand proof. They discredit their own claims when they either can not or will not provide verifiable, first-hand proof of their claim. The claimant's use of phrases like "Prove that ghosts and haunting are not real" automatically discredits their own claims.

Second, understand that it is the CLAIMS of ghosts and hauntings that can be discredited, not the subjects of the claims themselves or the person(s) making the claims.

Third, understand that "discredit" means "to cast doubt upon," and does not mean "disprove."

Now, how to go about discrediting claims of ghosts and hauntings:

1) Demand verifiable, first-hand proof from the claimant. If no proof is provided, then the claimant has automatically discredited his or her own claim.

2) The proof must contain as many details about the claim as possible.

- Who witnessed the events. Accept nothing less than actual names of people who were actually there, and who actually witnessed the event. Reject the claim if anonymity is desired, if the claimant was not present and witnessed the event, if the claim is made second-hand, or if the identity of the witnesses is vaguely described ("Some friends of mine," "Someone I know," etc.).

- What happened. Step-by-step accounts of what was seen, heard, touched, scented, or tasted bear more credibility than a description of a witnesses emotional state. Ignore adverbs, adjectives, and superlative descriptions. Scalar measurements bear more credibility than relational descriptions.

- When did it happen. Complete date and time of day. Anything less provided by the claimant discredits the claim.

- Where did it happen. Complete address or description of the location. "The field southwest of I-95 and M-100, about 100 meters due south-southwest, near the boulder that looks like a frog." bears more credibility than "a field near near the airport."

- How did it happen. Every event has a leading cause. "It just happened" discredits the claim.

- Why it happened. If the only stated precedent is a legend or myth, then this discredits the claim.

3) Check the story with a reliable source, like www.Snopes.com for descriptions of similar events, and how they were discredited.

4) Prepare a written account of the events. Here is a useful form:

================================================== ====

(Name of Claimant) ________ claims that at (Location) ________, on (Date) ________, and at (Time) ________, he or she directly observed the following events, and further claims them to be paranormal in nature and scope:

{A non-superlative description of the events as witnessed, and in chronological order.}

The following events and conditions immediately preceded the alleged paranormal events:

{A non-superlative description of all known conditions existing immediately before the events, and in the immediate vicinity of the events.}

* These events were directly witnessed by the claimant and by:

{Names and addresses of witnesses who were both present during the event, and who actually observed the event.}

* The following material evidence is provided by the claimant:

{Unaltered photographs or video footage of the claimed event, for example.}

* The following historical evidence is cited by the claimant:

{Archival newspaper accounts, for example.}

(*NOTE: Corroborating evidence is required. Failure to provide corroborating evidence is grounds for dismissal of the claim.)

[Yoink]

I'd have thought the "innocent bystander" whistling was pretty much tantamount to shouting "I'm performing a little trick with my digital camera and a clotheshanger to entertain the young and feeble minded." The unbelievably bad acting in the double-take just seals the deal.

Seriously--whoever made this film did not for a second think that anyone over the age of six was going to be taken in by it.

[Showmeproof]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

This is perfectly reasonable. I believe the so-called actors were sincere. I'm a graduate student in psychology, so I understand how the response could be the way it was. For example, someone pointed out that the guy wasn't surprised when the camera passed by and he saw a person standing there, but it's obvious his reaction was a result of not expecting to see something standing there then doing a double take.

As far as the reason they were recording a room, I'd like to know that myself. My impression was they were in a historic house and he was capturing some images of it. No one knows for sure, but I think one explanation is as good as another. Also, don't be so arrogant as to assume I need to look up Occam's Razor to know what it means...

I just graduated with my MA in psychology and am currently applying for my PhD in clinical psych. Where are you going to graduate school?

[my_wan]

Originally Posted by wahrheit

This is not an exact copy as you claim, the image lacks the EXIF data of a digital camera. You are a mean liar.

If you want to reproduce this effect, simply use a long exposure time on your camera.

Also, you might consider posting a thumbnail here which links to the original. The huge size of your pic messes up the forum display and will drive people on a slow connection crazy.

Finally, and most importantly: your swivel chair is broken!

Careful who you call a liar. I realized I no longer had the metadata version when I posted about it before. I kept my original pics on a USB drive and used a program called StripFile to remove metadata on the pics I kept on my computer. The metadata alone could be several megs per pic. My house burned late last December and I lost large amounts of stuff, including much of my library. That pic was taken at my brother in laws and is not the house that burned.
http://www.nuetools.co.uk/stripfile.html

The pic does in fact appear exactly like what came from the camera. That is a bright fluorescent light on the wall behind me exactly like the one you can see on the ceiling in the hallway. I was not perfectly still but the lack of a double image and completeness of the background image I don't know how to explain. I would like to reproduce the effect but so far no luck.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by my_wan

I was not perfectly still but the lack of a double image and completeness of the background image I don't know how to explain. I would like to reproduce the effect but so far no luck.

A slightly longer exposure will make clear images of things that hold still and more or less transparent images of things that were moving. It looks like you held still for part of the exposure time and moved (became invisible) for part. (If I had to guess, I'd suspect you used a timer, and ran into the frame during the exposure.)

If your camera doesn't let you change the exposure time, try turning off the flash. It should compensate for insufficient light by opening the shutter for a longer time.

(Thanks for the info on stripping metadata--that'll come in handy.)

[wahrheit]

Originally Posted by my_wan

Careful who you call a liar.

Well, sorry, but I really wouldn't know how to put more obvious irony in a post than I did above. My fault, I guess. I hoped the smiley would do it.

Originally Posted by my_wan

The metadata alone could be several megs per pic.

No, I don't think so. The EXIF stuff is no more than a few bytes. If that's what you are refering to, I might again misunderstand here.

Originally Posted by my_wan

My house burned late last December and I lost large amounts of stuff, including much of my library.

That's really bad, I'm sorry about this, I had no idea.

Originally Posted by my_wan

I would like to reproduce the effect but so far no luck.

As I've posted above, I would go with a long exposure time. Something between 1 and 2 seconds should do it, just make sure you are moving while the shutter opens, and stay still for a moment before it closes.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by hotpatootie

So, this explains every haunting and sound of unknown origin there is.

Case closed.

No. Just your mind.

What, exactly, did you hope to accomplish with that bit of deceptive smart-assery? I know you got me to drastically lower my opinion of your discussion skills, maturity, and manners. Congratulations.

In any case, this is one place in which your strawman won't burn. Here, such tactics are all wet.