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.

 

Why Ghosts are not Real

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Hey Camo and Woody

I made a post about that I would love it if you put your input and thoughts into it.

the post is Angels Devils Aliens Ghosts maybe the same ?(or something like that lol) there are some links in there about those devices you talk about Camo and my theory about it all it is similar to what you said ....Check it out .


[edit on 30-8-2008 by Simplynoone]




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
wow i didn't realize the book "Flatland" was available right on Google...

books.google.com...

...it's a very interesting read, although it's somewhat hard to follow because it was written in 1884. i remember having to read it in 7th grade, but the whole class was having trouble figuring out what it was all about. there's actually 2 films that came out last year based on the book - one's a short film called Flatland: The Movie and the other's a full-length film called just Flatland that's closer to the book. it's some far out stuff man!

[edit on 30-8-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Yes, exactly my point. Thanks for clearing it up for some!!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


Sweet. I have heard good things about this book



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


well this certainly gives me a different concept of thinking....
I am "open minded" enough,to accept that there could possibly be other explainations as to what I have witnessed,not sure the goverment though,but certainly would except it could be visitors from another planet..



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
But you really want to though, huh? Lots of emotion in your post. And yeah, stuff happens that cannot ever be explained by corporal laws.

Edit and animal ghosts do exist. A family ghost story...St. Bernard walking around a Swiss Mountain Cabin...of course they exist.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Sonya610]



'Lots of emotion in your post' ? I have to pull up things like that, no offence but I dont know how you interpret the post as having lots of emotion.

When I read the OP in my head it was perfectly calm and quiet and getting the point across.. people who add emotions to sentences that wasnt there need to stop doing that cause its obviously themselves who are emotional and they project it back onto the the other guy.

As for ghosts not being REAL.. what - is REAL ?
hallucinations are said to be not REAL.. not everyone can see them they cant be REAL.. but the one seeing them can define it, talk to it, get a conversation out of it, etc.. its pretty REAL to them... WE cannot see atoms without electron microscopes (or '___' type substances) but we know they are REAL.

I know what you mean by why arent they more common... I think its more a case of why arent WE humans more common in our numbers of being able to see them? not everybody sees them.

If we took an MRI scan of somebody who claimed to see ghosts and for the sake of this sentence .. actually does see them.. well I bet their brain scan would show different than most other peoples.

Children are said to see plenty of ghosts and 'imaginary' friends but as they grow up and get programmed by society they often lose the ability.

So... life isnt quite ghostbusters ..and quantum physics hasnt exactly hit ghost territory yet.... when it does Im sure we will know what ghosts are and why and more.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by True-Light
 


I enjoyed your post much. Some cool points
. Starred.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by special
 


Considering the possibility that paranormal phenomenon does not instantly equal ghost was the only point I was trying to make. You are more open-minded than most. Maybe other believers will be open-minded enough to consider that what they have seen is not the work of energy remnants from dead humans.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by special
 


Considering the possibility that paranormal phenomenon does not instantly equal ghost was the only point I was trying to make. You are more open-minded than most. Maybe other believers will be open-minded enough to consider that what they have seen is not the work of energy remnants from dead humans.


Heh, my thoughts exactly.
Almost every ''area'' you can think of has people like this.
UFO's equals Aliens.
Moving object equals telekinesis.
Weird unexplained sounds equals Ghosts.

Reminds me of the times of "Chad Drone" where you had one half saying CGI! And one half saying Alien spaceship with symbols that contain power!

Fact remains that until something is shown to be this or that, it might just as well be a fabrication by a flying pink pony, as well as an optical trick played on you by the mind.

[edit on 30/8/08 by -0mega-]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Have you ever been there? I grew up in Ohio and live in S. Central Ky now and had heard about it for years. I have not been there first hand but do know some people I went to school with a few years back that got to try and stay in there all night. The video and audio tapes were pretty unsettling. The ended up leaving before sunrise.

I'd like to hear more about the place from people that have been there. The things I have heard to date are wild.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Soulstone
 


There's more Scientific, Photographic, Personal encounters, High Profile Witnesses, etc...., for the existance of Ghosts, than there is for the existance of UFO's, ET's & other un-explained phenomenon.

Do some actual research before posting about a subject with just your own opinions & nothing to back them up.

There's more evidence backing up Ghosts, than there actually is denouncing their existance.

Some of the research & experiments that I have witnessed, and others carried out and openly published have shown that there is very definately a possibility that they exist.

If your gunna de-bunk something, try it with something that can be credibly de-bubked on just a statment alone.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


Wrong. We have whole towns seeing UFOs. Your telling me there's a holy grail similar to the Phoenix Lights that a whole nation observed, but for ghosts? Proving the possibility and proving it's existence are two different things.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
so let me get this straight? They don't exist because more people don't see them. More specifically, because more people don't see ghosts from the twin towers deaths?

I'm sorry, but that is just a very limited way of thinking. I don't know who sees what and if it is truth or just in their heads and neither do you. Just because you don't see it and others don't say they see it either does not mean it doesn't exist. That is almost a cat mentality.. 'If I can't see you, you don't exist".

Fact is, you don't know.. no one knows for sure.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


No, there is exactly the same amount - none. Don't elevate one phenomenon over others simply because you want it to be real.

There is nothing to debunk, as no-one has any evidence ghosts exist.

We need scientific evidence, not anecdotes and "oh my mate reckons ghosts are real because once he saw a shadow" nonsense.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
It seems there is a communication breakdown here as to the definition of "evidence". Neurobiology studies at MIT constitute evidence: your aunt hearing whispering in the next room only to find it empty does not. Multiple readings from various instrumentation in a controlled, repeatable setting constitutes evidence: a blurry photograph (or a youtube video) of some sort of light-streak does not.

I think it's also worth pointing out that, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a total lack of concrete evidence after several centuries of earnest and deep investigation by droves of researchers is probably a good indicator that what you are looking for isn't there.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Heh - I've seen, heard, felt and experienced enough to certainly make me a believer.

When you're talking with someone about *something* in their house, describe *it* to them and hello its their brother, sister, whomever...I guess that could always be just lucky guess, cold-reading, palour tricks and well...even just someone making stuff up for whatever reason. Certainly it could. Logically it is. What other option is there? That there is a spook or whatever?? I can totally see that the more rationale explaination is that its luck, coincedence, trick, whatever.

Of course the cry - and far enough too - is always where is your proof? Where is your evidence? This is just anecdotes, this is just opinion, where is your proof?? Show me now, do it now, how come you just can't turn it on like tap...on demand...leap through my hoops...where is it?

Far enough - such is the very precept this website was founded on...digging a bit deeper and not taking everything on face value.

Hmmm - though I sometimes think the real question being asked is not "Where is your proof?"...but rather "Where is my proof?"

My proof...because I sometimes think the real demand is of conformity to what the questioner dictates. To bend to their understand and provide *proof* to their satisfaction based on their accepted rules.

No wait - its the rules of logical analytical scientific research and verification! Really? Its your rules if those are the rules that you have taken onboard. They are not someone elses...but your own due your placing yourself under the mantle of them.

...and its a good thing that no person in this thread is the judge...not one...not me, you, him, her...none...



Peace.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


No, I want scientific evidence, not 'your proof'. I've said that about 3,000 times in this one thread alone. I know that is not convenient, as you (and everyone else has none), but it's what I, and anyone who is being even remotely rational about this, requires before believing in ghosts.

And no, not one person in this thread is a judge. Logic and reason are the judges, and they'll repeatedly condemn any attempt to elevate anecdotes and photographs to scientific evidence. They're not my rules, they are the rules of learning.

DENY IGNORANCE!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


You're right - it is my proof...just as 'scientific evidence' is your proof.

I'm aware you've asked for it numerous times - just as you are no doubt aware I'm telling you its not going to happen.

Of course the usage of such inferences as "...anyone who is being even remotely rational requires before believeing in ghosts" serves nothing - just as my lack of 'scientific verifiable quantifiable non-deniable' proof does no doubt.

Rules of learning. Interesting. To me - though granted I may be one of those people lacking even remote rational process - there are rules and there are ways. Your ways or other peoples ways may not be mine...and thats fine.

At the end of the day, no man is my organ-grinder and I am not their dancing monkey...and so I will not perform to their music...

I'm not too sure why the insistance of such happens. Is someones belief of such things hurting those who demand 'scientific proof'? Is my belief hurting anyone? I don't think so.
So wheres the big issue? I'm not too sure why there is insistance to deliver on the terms set by that person - and again I say set by that person irregardless if that person claims that the terms are not theirs - my point is those terms are theirs my the nature of them aligning to them. They have taken on those rules as being the acceptable rules of engagement.

I choose not to play the game however. Perhaps thats the issue and the rub.

I say that I believe for my own reasons. As irrational as they may seem to others. I do not expect people to believe - do not demand it in the slightest...so am somewhat mystified when demands are made to 'prove' what I believe.

Hey...maybe I believe in the toothfairy or Santa or that Jessica Simpson is a great singer (yeah okay, so maybe that last one is a bit too out there even for me)...and? Wheres the rub for the non-beliver? Unless I am demanding that the non-believe *believes* then I don't see the issue.

I force not my beliefs on someone - I see no reason for another person to force theirs upon me.


Peace.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by True-Light
'Lots of emotion in your post' ? I have to pull up things like that, no offence but I dont know how you interpret the post as having lots of emotion.

When I read the OP in my head it was perfectly calm and quiet and getting the point across.. people who add emotions to sentences that wasnt there need to stop doing that cause its obviously themselves who are emotional and they project it back onto the the other guy.


I read the question, and the phrasing of the questions, and interpreted the tone as coming from an individual that thinks a fair amount about ghosts and whether they exist and probably wants them to exist.

If the op thought the topic of ghosts was truly ridiculous, why would he even post the question? And he surely would not have gone into depth and asked about animal ghosts and such.

Just as a true atheist would not ask questions such as “why does god let little children die?” “why does god let bad things happen?” “why doesn’t god answer my prayers?” True atheists would not waste their time asking those questions because they do NOT believe god exists therefore asking those questions would be silly! Unless of course they are bored and just trying to annoy or make fun of religious people, but then usually their insincerity comes through in how they phrase their questions.

Oh…regarding ghosts at the 9/11 site. Realize that even if there IS activity there, people may not want to talk about it. Turning that site into a side-show and having ghost hunters trampling around could upset the families of the victims, and could upset people in general. It would be in really bad taste for tv shows to have ghost hunters or psychics reporting that they ”See things, hear cries, hear people screaming, etc…”

Edit and if ghosts ARE simply a figment of people's imaginations, then it still would not explain the "lack of stories" at the 9/11 site, as people should be imagining stuff left and right! The lack of stories means nothing.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
So paranormal Investigators, with Science Degrees & heaps of Sensitive equipment, etc, etc, etc... don't really count as real scientists, just because the thing they are studying is a myth?

There's mountains of Data that has been accumulated by Researchers (Real Researchers & not weekend ghost hunters), over the last 20 years & yet this is still not enough for ppl like you to even consider the possibility.

I have seen things with my own eyes, that would make you Poop your pants & I know they are real..!!

[edit on 8/31/2008 by Ironclad]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join