WANTED: Incontrovertable and scientifically established proof that GHOSTS exist

here's a good documentary about Ghosts on the London Underground. not a believer myself, but this documentary got me wondering

www.youtube.com...

Good question :-)

Basically I'm a person with a scientific view of the world/universe and it seems to me that if some thing or some effect exists or is observed, then whatever that thing/effect is should be explainable or a reasonable theory generated to account for it.
As a species, we have been incredibly successfull in explaning the world/universe that we live in ... ok, ok, we certainly don't know everything there is to know :-)
It seems to me that whether such entities as ghosts and by extension the occult/spiritual actually do exist should have been easily settled one way or another a long time ago. But the fact that we know precious little more than we did say 200 years ago kind of offends my scientific sensibilities ... even more so when you stop to think of the untold number of people who profess a belief based on virtually no evidence and some "minor personal experience".

But I suppose each to their own beliefs ... whoa !!!! ... was that a fairy I just glimpsed at the bottom of my garden ? I "think" I saw it but can't find it to show you - but not to worry, that "proves" they must exist :-)

What proof is to you, might be " just another " pic to somebody else....Proof is within and will stay that way until our collective mind state reaches a level of understanding that we are not yet at.....


They do exist...How though we have no evidence as to how but they are real...

If only one person ACTUALLY experiences is then existence is proven...

If it is just some person's thought , then it still exists but just not in our "realm" for lack of better wording...

Like the bible..........Even though more of what we think is false is actually true and what we think is truth is actually false within the bible....

Maybe the people with " proof" don't know of this challenge.......I did not until you posted a bout it.......That option must be considered along with the rest , otherwise it is flawed....

Maybe we should stop and think about our science and it's " limitations" .......Our science has limits..........Existence and matter and reality do not...........Either does spirituality and other such things.....

Basically in 100 years we will laugh at out current science........as we do now about 1909 science...........

I don't think them being a figment of the imagination can explain the phenomenon. For one if you're actually seeing things imagination would not be the best word. I think hallucinating would be a better word.

Also, one of the the reasons I posted my horse story and not another one of my stories where I was the only witness.

Hallucinating wouldn't explain the stuff on camera and it wouldn't explain when two or more people see the the same thing at the same time. If I'm hallucinating I should be the only one seeing it, but that's not always the case.

So, what do we have? Mass hallucination maybe? But to me that phenomenon is just as odd and as entertaining the theory of ghosts. I'd also be interested in finding out what causes mass hallucinations.

But there's been virtually no testing of ghost theories compared to our other science. To say there's no evidence is a problem because it's a field that's hardly studied at all. And almost all research is focused on finding a reason why someone would hallucinate it.

It's a good theory, but if they are real then we're never going to get evidence by testing for reasons why one may hallucinate them because our starting theory is wrong.

So, if we think they're real we'll need different tests than if we think they're not real because which tests we do may depend on our theory.

I don't think we have enough evidence either way. I don't think we should just say well there's no evidence and give up because they've hardly been studied at all and too many people have seen them.

The first thing we would need is a couple theories on what ghosts might be like real spirits, hallucinations, side effects from EMF, beings from another dimension or dimensional bleed through, and things like that.

Then we would have to try and devise a few scientific tests of the theories that are actually testable with our current science to see which of our theories is more likely or if we need another theory all together.

For the theories we can't test, we just have to leave them on the shelf and say maybe they're real but we don't have the tech to test it yet.

For the theories we can test well instead of just saying there's no evidence the first thing we should be doing is trying to figure out how one might test for ghosts and get some evidence. So, that's what we should be talking about.

How best to test for them is a better conversation to have than arguing about if we have evidence or not in my opinion because hardly any theories have been tested yet. Heck even thermal cams are relatively new. We haven't even really got started yet.


[edit on 4-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

Tinfoilman - I'm in complete agreement with you !
We can toss arguments back and forth regarding the (non)existance of "ghosts" until we're blue in the face ... what is really needed is some form of concerted and truly scientific effort to determine if there's any validity whatsoever in what so many people are claiming to have seen.

Quite possibly the lack of sufficient technology in the past (thermal cameras, emf detectors, videos, etc) has been a major stumbling block to doing any kind of decent science on the phenomena. It's simply too bad now that we have such technology that nobody seems up to the challenge and we have to put up with "reality" garbage such as "Ghost Hunters" and their ilk that purport to be conducting legitimate investigations but fall far short of the mark.

But I guess that the "stigma" associated with being a "ghost hunter" will deter any serious scientific investigation by professionals :-(

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

---

But even with that equipment it doesn't mean that if such things exist they could be detected with them. There is always a room for a shadow of a doubt, despite the stance.

If we can't even get a hint of detection or analysis using modern technology, then that alone would give us valuable information that we were therefore dealing with something completely beyond our current level of comprehension. If so, then again that would imply a MASSIVE shake up for our scientific framework which I can't really see as happening ... otherwise we have to say there's a gaping hole in our general understanding of how the universe works.

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

---

I am inclined to believe this one:

american sciences are full of crap , no wonders , today americans are no good in studies and thereby USA is becoming a failed state .

russian scientists have irrefutable evidence on paranormal phonemona


www.rense.com...

also a russian scientist made a camera that can phots of the ghosts

www.forumgarden.com...

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Kombatt98]

The only way to prove to a person that ghosts exist is for said person to experience it. Ghosts have been seen on pictures and video worldwide. Some are hoaxes, some are real. To say those and the eyewitness accounts, again some hoaxed, some true are not enough is pure denialism. What do you want? A ghost to hold a press conference where it demonstrates it' ghostliness? lol. I've personally experienced enough to tell me that ghosts DO exist.

Yes, you're absolutely correct in that I want the "evidence" for ghosts to be something more substantial than a hazy, blurry blob on a photo or video or someone saying they saw a shadow or heard a noise or that a friend of a friend had some kind of "unusual experience".

Look ... honestly ... don't you think it just the slightest bit strange that with all the 1000's upon 1000's of "ghostly experiences" that have been happening for millenia that not one item of SOLID proof has yet to be produced ? Faith alone can take you just so far ....

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

---

Yet, in light of the fact that one person cannot experience all there is to experience in reality faith is largely all we have. And I mean faith in the context of trust in something else.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

Hmmm ... i just don't get it.
Am I the only one that is NOT satisfied in simply accepting the alleged existance of "ghosts" and would like to have definitive proof of their existance and how they come to be here amongst us and their purpose?
To me, a ghost is not some wonderful divine and godlike being that should simply be accepted on faith or circumstantial evidence but rather something that (if it even exists) should be studied and it's properties and makeup deduced ... if only to further human knowledge and satisfy curiousity. It's rather dark-ages and superstitious mentality to think otherwise.

Believe me, i'd LOVE to be able to get that kind of proof, I just think we simply lack the technology to do so. At least in the US anyway, and we all know that track record of supressing technology. So all we really have are blurry stuff, and eyewitness accounts of actual people walking through a wall or something. We'll figure it out, it just takes resolve.

It is sometimes hard for me to explain what goes on in my head so this might take a second and i might ramble...


You say we should have found proof by now. A man 200 years ago has no idea what the world today is like and he sits in his home saying "there should be proof of ghosts by now"

Maybe the only proof we can have to satisfy our need to know the truth is first hand experience. its hard for me to explain without telling you my experience(not a ghost experience) but you are problably tired of them by now. that might be hard for someone to hear but by all means i think i speak for everyone when i say may your passion for this answer lead you to find the facts for the rest of the world. i just believe the facts are out there and someone needs to find them.

your basically saying ''science cant prove it so i dont believe it'' which is a bit blind dont you think?
your putting too much faith in our current position in science, i mean you say ''ok we dont know everything in science but we MUST be able to figure out proof of ghosts by now''

why?

if we dont know everything then why must we be able to prove ghosts or not?

theres plenty of evidence out there of things thats been recorded/witnessed etc but when it cant be explained its just passed of as unexplained and then the eerie banging which turns out to be a pipe gets all the limelight ive seen it time and time again.

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

---

I've presented a theory that approaches 'ghosts' from a scientific approach, and you didn't reply to them...

And science can be flawed, theories can be dismissed, things can be overlooked, experiments can fail, bias can occur and some THINGS won't be treated with respect by an self-respecting scientist.

If you were to present this question to a scientist, chances are they won't explore the phenomena, you'd be laughed at...

And this is why your answers cannot be truly be found, for scientists will be afraid of being laughed at by their peers and funding cannot be provided.

Ghosts are quite real, maybe they just don't obey our rules.