Why are the majority of 'ghostly encounters' short?

Something occurred to me earlier. When people report seeing a ghost it is always a very short incident, sometimes even just seconds. Why doesn't it last longer?

Have there ever been any reported cases of somebody interacting with a ghost on a regular basis, and for lengthy periods of time? As in having a conversation with it for hours? Or even living* with it?

*(Ut ita loquar. Yes, I realize that using the term 'living' when talking about a ghost is ironic lol.)

reply to post by Xaphan


Just guessing, but maybe it takes too much energy for a ghost to manifest. Hence the shortness.

Great question. Yes, maybe it takes too much energy for ghostly apparitions to appear. Some ghostly sights are merely imprints on the environment.

They aren't necessarily short. If someone inexperienced notices a presence, they may not be able to "hold onto" it. These things are rather fluid in any case and experience is invaluable in understanding the paranormal.

We have had all sorts of presences for varying durations of time. Sometimes even a few years, in a couple of instances. That's not to say that they're hovering every moment but they have been regularly noticeable.

There are quite a lot of different kinds of entities and they all have their own personalities and behavioral traits that vary according to type. It's a very rich world once you really start exploring it.

The more I experience of the paranormal, the more I feel there's nothing "para" about it. We too easily accept ignorance as "normal and healthy" and call anything beyond that "fantasy" or similar/worse.

my one and only experience with anything ghostly felt like moments but in reality a day had passed by

Maybe ghosts are just ripples in time. And to them you look like a ghost too.

Personally, the only cases with documentation to support them for credibility on what you're asking are ones dealing with extreme malice and evil that I know of.. The best case to immediately come to mind would be the one the movie "The Entity" was based loosely on. I'd STRONGLY recommend the book, not the movie...if someone wants to learn what happened on that case. Here is a little summary and link for more info:

The investigation on August 22, 1974, in Culver City California was to be like any other one Dr. Barry Taff had done. Believing that this would be an open and shut case they showed up at Doris Bither’s house. Not expecting much. Little did they know this would be one of the biggest cases in the annals of paranormal history.

Doris Bither claimed that spirits would physically attack her. The reports ranged from Doris walking around her home and bumping into the ghosts, to actual spectral rape. Of course, Taff and Gaynor were skeptical of all this. Ghost apparitions are a hard thing to prove and collect evidence for (from a scientific perspective). “Ghostly rape” is even harder to believe. It was not until they saw the bruises in her inner thighs and all over her body, as well as people outside the family corroborating by testifying that they had also seen apparitions that both investigators started to take heed as to what Doris was saying. Doris claimed that the ghosts were of Asian men. The children, also saw these beings. The visions were so frequent that they children dubbed one of the more prominent ghost as “Mr. Whose-it.”

Source

It's the second most disturbing case I've personally read about for that sort of haunting. #1 is Amityville by a country mile...but not for the famous claims. The latest remake has a DVD extra section with Medical Examiner and Police interviews for the multiple murder case that came out of that house before the Lutz family moved in and became famous. The real case that had real bodies still chills me physically to think too much about. It's another worth looking into though for real events. Not Hollywood stuff..

I *like* to think that ghosts don't exist in any real independent sense and are an outcome of a particular environment interacting with a particular cycle of consciousness. This would mean that ghosts and apparitions would possibly be as fleeting as dreams. Sightings would occur when conditions are right like the witness being in a heightened state or perhaps drowsy?

Psychologist Dr Wiseman studied standing waves of infrasound because they can cause brief hallucinations of shadows and give us the creeps. They tried a beer cellar in an old pub that was known for being haunted. Yes it had standing walls of infrasound so the team suspect they have an answer for hauntings. At the same time, the figure that was allegedly reported most frequently was a female in brown clothing. Infrasound doesn't quite explain why hallucinations would be so similar but it might be close enough to the cause of sightings...who knows?

Wiseman - Something in the Cellar (pdf)
Tandy - Ghost in the Machine (pdf)

You might find a thread I wrote last year interesting as it covers the same idea >> Apparitions? Glimpses of Ghosts? By the end of months of reading, I could only conclude that we don't yet know enough to brag about any explanations and that studies should continue.

reply to post by Xaphan


I watched an invisible "ghost" or whatever it was move my rocking chair for half an hour. And when I say move. I mean MOVE. Like rocking back and forth as hard as it could go.

Had a friend that lived with a ghost. They communicated quite often. Usually daily. I myself also saw the ghost.

And some people have claimed to have written entire books that they supposedly received from spirits. It's called Automatic Writing.

Now i'm not trying to prove to you ghosts are real. But why the majority are short? I have no idea. They're perfectly capable of hanging around longer.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I *like* to think that ghosts don't exist in any real independent sense and are an outcome of a particular environment interacting with a particular cycle of consciousness. This would mean that ghosts and apparitions would possibly be as fleeting as dreams. Sightings would occur when conditions are right like the witness being in a heightened state or perhaps drowsy?

By the end of months of reading, I could only conclude that we don't yet know enough to brag about any explanations and that studies should continue.

I'll challenge your research with some REAL LIFE experiences, Mr. Moderator.

I saw my first ghost when I was six years old. I was about to show my cousins how to turn a cartwheel.
It was turning dark outside, and I was on the walkway to the house while my cousins sat in the porch swing watching me.
I was getting into position with my hands over my head when something caught my eye at the corner of her house. I looked, and saw a tall, white, transparent figure standing there. Seeing a ghost was the last thing on my mind! I almost fell trying to get traction to run!

From that point on a ghost, or something, was with me or my cousin at all times until I was in my mid-teens. If I went through one day without something happening, I knew it was with my cousin. We would call each other if nothing happened to see what it had done to the other one. It was always with one of us.

I wasn't in a "particular cycle of consciousness" when this thing wrapped unseen hands around my ankles and pulled me out toward the foot of the bed. I had just got in the bed and wasn't even thinking of anything scary.

Another time when I was around twelve, I think, my mother was going to town for groceries but I wanted to stay home, so she let me. I was at that age where I looked forward to being home alone to turn up the music and dance, and just do what kids that age do... feel a little independence.
I was feeling rather happy when all of a sudden the stereo comes on by itself and I got "that" feeling that always came over me when it was present. I knew it was there!
I slowly walked over to the stereo and turned it off then looked at the corner of the hallway to see a tall, dark shadow person standing there peeping at me!
I walked straight out the door and stayed outside until my mother returned. From the highway I could see it standing in the picture window staring at me.

I could tell many things that debunk the theory of having to be in a certain state of consciousness to experience a haunting/ghost, but it would take several pages. So I'll stop with these three incidents.

You are correct... more studies need to be done.

reply to post by sled735

I could tell many things that debunk the theory of having to be in a certain state of consciousness to experience a haunting/ghost, but it would take several pages.

You don't really need several pages at all. Just three words. Pictures, video, and audio. Ghosts have have been recorded on all three and none of them are conscious.

Does a video camera have to be in a certain state of consciousness to see a ghost? That doesn't make any sense. They don't have consciousness.

When a ghost manifests it manifests. You can see it, the video camera can see it. It's just there. That's all there is to it.

reply to post by sled735
Hey, I could tell you some experiences I've had over the years too. Don't mistake scepticism for debunking or disbelief! My folks' house has had years of strange happenings experienced by multiple people at different times of day and night...including yours truly.

The thing for me is to keep a cool head and look for explanations that make sense to me. I'm not keen on the 'ghosts are dead people' idea and have suspended judgement. It seems, however, likely that our consciousness is stimulated by something that leads to these experiences. My big question is whether that *something* is internal or external?

With respect,
'Mr Moderator'
(still a member looking for answers)

changed mind on post. Deleted.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by sled735

 

Hey, I could tell you some experiences I've had over the years too. Don't mistake scepticism for debunking or disbelief! My folks' house has had years of strange happenings experienced by multiple people at different times of day and night...including yours truly.

The thing for me is to keep a cool head and look for explanations that make sense to me. I'm not keen on the 'ghosts are dead people' idea and have suspended judgement. It seems, however, likely that our consciousness is stimulated by something that leads to these experiences. My big question is whether that *something* is internal or external?

With respect,
'Mr Moderator'
(still a member looking for answers)

That's cool, Mod!

In my case it must have been external, because I sure didn't go looking for this thing to invade my childhood the way it did! I always wondered who I pis**** off in a past life to deserve this?!

With Respect,
Sled

reply to post by sled735


He meant that the equipment recording them wasn't conscious. But his assertion applies only to those which manifest some detectable variation in the environment. Things make their presence known in ways that are possibly undetectable by equipment. I know that I've had feelings rather than some physical stimulus. I can then, for example, ask that the "person" confirm their presence by moving something, and very often they do.

My daughter is clairvoyant and has always seen things of all descriptions. She is my best confirmation of what I feel (as an empath) when the presence is quite subtle.

Electronic equipment is nowhere near as sensitive as the human body, once you open yourself up to those realms. For those of you who will now chime in with all manner of warnings about how dangerous an idea that is, I will say to you in the most absolute terms that your greatest danger is fear. I've said it before more times than I can begin to remember: Fear is our only killer. I've personally had all sorts of confrontations with all sorts of entities and even on the one occasion when one did manage to sneak past me, I was easily able to gain control over it.

There is nothing to fear except fear itself.

That applies equally to life on mundane levels.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by sled735

 

He meant that the equipment recording them wasn't conscious.

Yes, I misunderstood his statement. So I went back and deleted my post.

I agree that fear is what these entities are after... well, the bad ones. It makes them stronger.
Not all ghosts are evil, for sure. Some are family members who come to check on us, or who stick around to help keep the bad spirits away from us.
Nice to know you have your ability under control.

If someone can see ghost or anything kind of, they can see or interact longer, as long as they or the ghost want.
But if they cant, it mean the ghost show itself and unless that ghost is powerfull, they can only show themself shortly, not even solid most of the time because they need a lot of energy to manifest.

Another reason is for security,when they manifest themself,they are in the weakest state and if someone attack them, it will be fatal for them.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


But see that's a backwards argument. We're moving the goal posts here.

The argument started off with why can't we see ghosts all the time? The answers were we must not be sensitive enough! Our third eye must not be open! We need to be in a certain state of consciousness! Or whatever other new age stuff people usually throw out when this is asked.

But then I bring up video cameras. Like but video cameras see ghosts too! They don't have consciousness! They don't have a third eye! What gives?

Then, all of a sudden, the argument gets switched on me to well humans are much more sensitive and clairvoyant than video cameras are! That's why they can see things the video camera can't! Okay maybe that's true. Maybe they can see things that video cameras can't.

But that's NOT what the original argument was! The original argument was why aren't humans sensitive enough? Not why are humans TOO sensitive?

Why don't humans hear ghosts when the audio recorder picks up an EVP? The audio recorder doesn't have its third eye open? It doesn't have consciousness?

After being a paranormal investigator I would argue that humans do hear EVPs sometimes but not always because they're super quiet. Usually you have to turn the audio way up to hear the EVP. I would argue that it has nothing to do with clairvoyance or a third eye. It has more to do with being deaf.

Human hearing just sucks, but if you turn it up to 11 you can hear it. That's all it is. But that has nothing to do with being in a special state of consciousness. It just has a lot to do with being deaf. Especially when you compare us to other animals in the animal kingdom like dogs or cats.

That's why the audio recorder can hear it and you can't.

But if you're gonna flip the argument around backwards and argue that humans are even MORE sensitive than video cameras or the recording equipment now you haven't solved anything. Now you have more problems than you started with. You have to explain what my theory automatically explains.

If humans are more sensitive to spirits than the equipment then you have to explain why the audio device will record an EVP that the human can't hear?

My theory already explains this. Human hearing just sucks.

reply to post by Xaphan


I have a friend who's father owns an old victorian house in Evanston, Il. He has a chess board set up in the attic and plays chess with a ghost.

The have had all sorts of paranormal things go on in the house...even seeing the upper half apparition of a ghost walk through their living room, many times.

reply to post by tinfoilman


You may argue that and that may be part of it but isn't it strange that some people hear them an awful lot and others can't hear them even when recorded? Our consciousness is not static nor is it a standardized thing. The machines we create are only as good as the brains behind them. That leaves us with a serious deficit of range, don't you think?

To assume that we understand things is a huge statement of arrogance. We know nothing. We understand even less. Our senses have greater range than we presently comprehend or utilize. We are capable of much, much more. You can scoff all you like at third eyes or clairvoyance or whatever resides outside of your comfort zone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that the people who claim to use them are charlatans. Machines are only machines. We are much more. We'll be even more than that once we understand who and what we really are.

Proof does not lie in the physical.

Let's see if you can understand this too. We aren't in one place all the time. Supposing dimensions overlap or time overlaps in "places", we can assume that these presences will also appear at various intervals as well. What would make the specific conditions for an appearance? That depends on the nature of the thing. How do we discover that? Not by denial or demanding absurd "scientific rigor". We discover it intuitively, because that's our very broadest source of information. Hit and miss, trial and error, feelings in your guts kind of rigor. It takes time and a whole lot of open-mindedness.

Don't diss the spooky side. It's a whole lot more fun over here.