It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Id Expect A Lot Of Non-Debunkable Evidence Of Ghosts By 2014

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
That's not to say i haven't seen some very intriguing videos! I suppose im slightly obsessed with the idea that ghost's must exist and ive always expected, as technology improves, we would find evidence that was just jaw-dropping undeniable.
It seems like everyone has a camera, places of business have camera's and there are even more and more people "Hunting" ghosts, but the evidence always seems to be tantalizingly unfulfilled and indifferent to what is normally presented.
Orbs, EVP's, a shadow.

There are also a lot of fakes which is quite frustrating lol

Just wondered if anyone here felt the same as me?




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

The problem with the obsessively skeptical is that no amount of evidence will ever be deemed "non-debunkable" when it comes to the paranormal. A hardcore skeptic (or pseudoskeptic in most cases) could potentially be shown a 100% authentic video of paranormal activity, and still find a way to doubt what they are seeing. They will rationalize a way to debunk what they are seeing, whether or not it's real.

All they really have to do is come up with some knee jerk reaction like "cgi" or "staged" and they are off to debunk the next source of "evidence" without giving it a second thought. There is nothing that can convince them that their preconceived paradigms could possibly be in error, and that perhaps reality has more to it than they first surmised. The only thing that can change someones mind sometimes, is experiencing the phenomenon themselves.

There are lots of videos of poltergeist activity for instance, but people will always claim fakery, or call the integrity of the investigator into question, etc. How do we know that 100% of that footage is fake? We don't. Yet these people will assume it is, before doing any sort of investigation or engaging in any sort of critical thinking.

You mention cameras, yet I have experienced the paranormal where no camera was available. Broad daylight and I saw an inanimate object fly across the room seemingly of it's own power. No camera, nobody else in the house at the time, just me and the mess I had to clean up after from it. What is the knee jerk skeptical response? I'm making it up, or I hallucinated, etc etc etc. ANYTHING but the notion that I might be telling the truth and it really happened the way I say it did.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Ghosts and such will always be hard to prove, with technological advance also comes fakery improvement, that is a fact. Unless filmed by multiple live tv cameras and everybody going "WTH is that?" evidence will always be rejected and never proven authentic.

I had my multiple ghost experiences. I used to own an old bar, when I first opened, I used to see a man walk by every now and again, just a split second glympse of an eye, but enough to recall the clothes and such. And at first I wrote it off as my imagination, but I kept on seeing him more and more. Anyway I was speaking with some friends who knew the previous owner and I told them about the ghost, and described it, and it turns out they where all amazed as I was describing the previous owners father who died at the bar (electrocuted while changing a neon light the day befor opening some 20 years befor I took over the bar). I was showed some photos and yes that was the guy I was seeing.
Then after that I just didn't take much notice.
And a couple of my friends too saw him too while with me, and we would look at each other like "Hmmm did you just see that ? lol"



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc
When we shine the searchlights (!) upon the harsh mistress of truth, we still come up short. What is absolutely true is that humanity absolutely loves the idea of the existence of ghosts. What is more exciting than things that go bump in the night?
Alas, science is still unconvinced, as am I. If only, if only...



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: SearchLightsInc
When we shine the searchlights (!) upon the harsh mistress of truth, we still come up short. What is absolutely true is that humanity absolutely loves the idea of the existence of ghosts. What is more exciting than things that go bump in the night?
Alas, science is still unconvinced, as am I. If only, if only...



For believers, there was always some debate as to whether ghosts were just the equivalent of video recordings or whether they were something conscious moving around. One theory was that any strong vibration could actually record the event into quartz crystals in stone. Then that could be replayed as a hologram since, peripheral vision is sensitive to movement and changes in brightness.

But with actual physical hauntings, it's interesting to note that in small homes, poltergeists were more common, but in larger homes with multiple entrances, stairways and surrounding gardens, doppelgangers were more common. Every time there has been an investigation into such occurrences, it's always been caught out as one of the teenagers doing the "haunting".

But then there are all those possessions in places where terrible tragedies occurred.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

What you should do is go ghost hunting for yourself and see what turns up.

Heres some Ghost hunting songs to help you get started



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

I dont know what more your'e looking for or expecting. There is a ton of debunkable and non-debunkable evidence out there...way more than a few years ago. The amount of support for both is abudant.

And more positive proof is made public each day. If youre expecting some kind of "positive-ghosts-are-real-for-sure"...why now? I mean its out there, its in huge amounts, and its just about proved itself BECAUSE of all the evidence.

Like the "alien" and "ufo" issues. How much MORE positive proof is needed?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Totally agree and often think this myself. Especially in the case of the ghost hunting shows. I used to watch these things fairly religiously (ghost hunters, ghost adventures) and always said I was still waiting for the episode preview where they say "you don't want to miss the next show - zak and the boys have the most compelling evidence ever captured that cannot be explained", but no, it was always "shh, did you hear that", "woah, look over there - i think i saw something", "this mumbled evp sounds like he's saying i like spaghetti!", yadda, yadda, yadda. It's all crap. All these supposed ghost hunters using all this technologically advanced equipment, going to the supposed most haunted places, and getting nothing, nadda, zip. There would be something compelling by now, but there's not. If there is, show it to me. Until then, ghosts don't exist. Bah humbug.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
That's not to say i haven't seen some very intriguing videos! I suppose im slightly obsessed with the idea that ghost's must exist and ive always expected, as technology improves, we would find evidence that was just jaw-dropping undeniable.
It seems like everyone has a camera, places of business have camera's and there are even more and more people "Hunting" ghosts, but the evidence always seems to be tantalizingly unfulfilled and indifferent to what is normally presented.
Orbs, EVP's, a shadow.

There are also a lot of fakes which is quite frustrating lol

Just wondered if anyone here felt the same as me?


There are people who believe that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, even though thousands of people stood beneath WTC 2 and watched as the 2nd plane hit it right in front of them. If there are people who are capable of being convinced that one grainy video clip with weird "artifacts" in it can debunk what thousands of people watched with their own eyes and dozens of other cameras filmed from many different angles, then what chance does a quick paranormal incident stand with anyone anymore?

You'll find out soon enough whether there's life after death. heh heh Everyone does.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: redtic

You'll never be able to put any of it under a microscope, so the "scientific method" will never successfully determine the existence of non-material physical existence. That said, what difference does it make whether anyone is ever convinced of non-material existence? It's not as if you or anyone else will be able to avoid dealing with it eventually. Well, if it exists, of course. The physics of the non-material realm makes scientific method investigation as useful as sawing open a person's head to try and find a memory. Pretty ignorant approach, to be as charitable as possible about it.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

The problem with the obsessively skeptical is that no amount of evidence will ever be deemed "non-debunkable" when it comes to the paranormal. A hardcore skeptic (or pseudoskeptic in most cases) could potentially be shown a 100% authentic video of paranormal activity, and still find a way to doubt what they are seeing. They will rationalize a way to debunk what they are seeing, whether or not it's real.

There are lots of videos of poltergeist activity for instance, but people will always claim fakery, or call the integrity of the investigator into question, etc. How do we know that 100% of that footage is fake? We don't. Yet these people will assume it is, before doing any sort of investigation or engaging in any sort of critical thinking.

When the Wright brothers first flew, a number of people (scientists included) suggested it was a hoax or a fake. At first this can be a self congratulatory story to suggest that poltergeists can be really but the reality is much more complex but ...

A video is a very small part of a chain of evidence. To believe that ghosts change our reality on a daily basis, we also have to believe that skeptical scientists like Richard Dawkins and others are exorcists. Unlike flight, the initial evidence of ghosts hasn't been followed by further data and observations that increased the probability of the Wright brother's achievement. Whenever a serious scientific effort is made to evidence a ghost or poltergeist is undertaken, the events appear to stop.

Many video events like this are overwhelmingly marred by the same hallmarks: Events that only happen when certain people are in the room. Events that can't be replicated when certain others are in the room. Events that can't be repeated. I notice some say it's because supernatural events don't involve scientific observation but they clearly do ... If a ghost moves an object in complete defiance of physics, we can measure that. If a ghost is bumping off our eye balls it should be emitting light, we can measure that. If a ghost is hitting a CMOS sensor, then we can definitely measure that because there is no brain to act as a middle man.

Like videos, debunkers are also a very small part of the chain of evidence attached to ghosts. Debunkers and pseudoskeptics aren't the real reason why there is a lack of evidence; hundreds of incredibly smart men and women, several scientists, have tried to find evidence of ghosts and have failed. Many of these people go to lengths to ensure they have no predetermined conclusions in mind when they look for these things ... yet in my experience the people that do find 'evidence' seem to always end up on the convention circuit, running TV shows, or as a story in the Daily Mail.

It's not completely unreasonable to believe in ghosts as a possibility. Actually it's probably pretty unreasonable to assume it's completely impossible but a single person's experience of an object completely defying physics just isn't enough. If it was enough science would be in big trouble. That's much more to do with science than it is to do with pseudoskeptics.

I did go through a phase of researching ghosts, but I always found the most convincing cases ended up being purely witness based. My own experiences have all been ultimately explainable, and I don't take it personally that other people place normative explanations above the supernatural ones on the priority list for this. If they didn't, we would have to entertain the possibility that all images or sounds projected by our minds could be real.

It's not impossible. Last night's smurf dream could have been real ... but I doubt it because when I woke up my socks were still in my drawer.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think the OP has it wrong, I think as we get further into the future and science/technology gets better, we will start to see more coming up with more indisputable evidence that ghosts/spirits/demons do exist. There are numbers out that the Vatican does more exorcisms now then they ever did in the past, maybe because we are starting to become more aware of them, and because of the internet stories/accounts travel a lot faster then before.

As a kid before the popularity of the internet, I would do my own paranormal research in library books and any newspaper articles. The amount of accounts/stories that I learned about as a youngster is nothing compare to the stuff I learned about once the internet came along. Stories/accounts/historical references from all over the world from different cultures were at my fingertips once the internet came along.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join