Sure. It's called science.
Ghosts
- Thread starter Joaquin
- Start date
Can you link me to the relevent research?
I can link you to a thread here discussing the subject.
What science does is negate specific claimed "abilities" of ghosts.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107280
He isn't just an inventor but an investigator of thousands of cases. wrote a book on those cases. also wiki never states that the claims were failed or false. in fact it talks about how many people were involved claiming to witness things happening. police, social workers, ect.
i guess the problem was some of the family members decided to play on it when the activity started to die down. for instance, they do have recordings of unnatural sounds. someone claims the metal was bent and others claim one of the family members were caught bending spoons. but doesn't explain other cases on the link. including pounds of couch levitated in the air and observed by police. so not all is discredited.
man my chest hurts like heart pains! bad timing here. :s
i will get more links.
the best kind of testing would be in a controlled environment with a personal haunting. i should volunteer to go see if something happens. who should i contact. shoot no loss in trying. i bet you would like to do the conducting of survellience, have handy gadgets and video ready. hook me up to electroids too would be cool. you never know. mind is a very still unexplored territory. like the ocean.
But not a scientist.
So my quote wasn't from Wiki then?
Please stop making a fool of yourself. Wiki, qua Wiki doesn't claim one way or the other. It provides both sides of the story.
Don't bother. For every link can find I can find one showing it's wrong.
So what?
Does that not suggest to you that most of these "happenings" are figments of the imagination? Made up or invented or imagined?
what i don't get and gets me angry is why...why if they have the chance could they not get good recorded evidence. or take them to a setting and try to get something. the answer keeps being, all their equipment started to go dead. same thing happened with fact or fake. the investigators recently did a show on how the ghost image was caused by vehicle lights flashing into the desert. but doing their own investigation ran into strange occurances, including their equipment all failing. thats because entities will drain electronics to gain strength.
Er, because it's bullshit. You can't get a "good recording" from bullshit.
Keeps being?
You take a TV show as factual?
Utter nonsense.
Sheer tripe.
agreed
yet I still think that an energy , bio-energy , has the ability to be different enough to be allusive for the moment
But not a scientist.
So my quote wasn't from Wiki then?
Please stop making a fool of yourself. Wiki, qua Wiki doesn't claim one way or the other. It provides both sides of the story.
Don't bother. For every link can find I can find one showing it's wrong.
So what?
Does that not suggest to you that most of these "happenings" are figments of the imagination? Made up or invented or imagined?
you can imagine all you want, but doesn't make another see things that can not be explained. the wiki did not put in those details. i searched out several different links, including those who think it all faked. i don't just read things i wanna hear. im open minded. your not. you admit to this by making a statement like you do. im open to what could be going on. i don't casually toss aside eyewitnesses, which you claim is the least credible type of evidence. which means science could not be based on observation, when that is exactly what science is about. collecting data. that means the investigator has made a science for himself on observations of thousands of cases.
you talk about facts being on the problems of a eyewitness. i say your findings along with others who make this claim , unsubstaniated dribble. no ability but hearsay to prove your claims but on the very things you claim, observation of a few.
you know as well as i do you have to have all the veribles and evidence before making such a claim. you can not do that because of lack of concrete evidence to say thats proof to eye witness testimony being the least credible. imo.
I'm not the one imagining.
Outright lie.
Try reading it again, look what it says under "Conclusion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_Poltergeist#Conclusion
And you're (falsely) assuming that I do?
Wrong.
Which statement?
And you're also grossly ignorant as to what is possible and what isn't, in addition to being irretrievably gullible.
And once again you show that you fail completely to understand what observation is about. I have explained this before. Go back and read it. And also read the FACTS with regard to eye witnesses.
Please don't repeat your ignorance, I understood how badly educated you are the first five times.
Another example that failed utterly to read my links.
science is based on observation.
are we on the same page here so far. a group of people in a court with a criminal defense lawyer draw conclusions about eye witness testimony being the worse credible evidence. based not on all facts but assumptions that can not be proven one way or the other. i am enough educated to know what science is. i also know you over generalise using the word. use it too much for a lack of arguement, so that you give yourself the ability to toss aside thousands of peoples testimony. now that is being irrational. and others can read enough to know what im talking about. your just full of put downs and hearsay. it doesn't stand up to a pile of beans. your saying that social workers, police, doctors, all only were able to give a one sided account, yet you were able to read also these people did say they witnessed things moving around with no sign of how it could happen. and so you claim all this attention was given because people were fooled.
fair enough for one case.
lets ignore all the thousands of people including myself as irrational, wild imaging people, who can't distinguish between whats real or not. how condesending to think an average person is so gulliable and unable to think for themselves.
are we on the same page here so far. a group of people in a court with a criminal defense lawyer draw conclusions about eye witness testimony being the worse credible evidence. based not on all facts but assumptions that can not be proven one way or the other. i am enough educated to know what science is. i also know you over generalise using the word. use it too much for a lack of arguement, so that you give yourself the ability to toss aside thousands of peoples testimony. now that is being irrational. and others can read enough to know what im talking about. your just full of put downs and hearsay. it doesn't stand up to a pile of beans. your saying that social workers, police, doctors, all only were able to give a one sided account, yet you were able to read also these people did say they witnessed things moving around with no sign of how it could happen. and so you claim all this attention was given because people were fooled.
fair enough for one case.
lets ignore all the thousands of people including myself as irrational, wild imaging people, who can't distinguish between whats real or not. how condesending to think an average person is so gulliable and unable to think for themselves.
now you claim beyond a doubt that ghosts don't exists. you claim eye witness testimony is not good evidence and should not be taken at face value. that they are irrational if they jump to a conclusion other than explainting it as something you believe possible, which means no paranormal possibilities. that is stating flat out your close minded. not being scientific because you disreguard evidence. my arguement is you can not disreguard eye witness testimony on that basis.
REPEATED observation. And measurement. And repetition. And verification.
Wrong. Based on FACTS. You didn't read those links at all did you?
Not on the evidence so far.
Then you obviously don't know what science is.
Wrong.
Really? Thousands of peoples' testimony? On what?
Thousands of separate and different "occurrences"?
Then you don't know what rational means either.
Hearsay? Where have I presented "hearsay"?
So how come we have not got one single case where "ghosts" have been proven to exist? How come we have not a single shred of scientific evidence? How come that, in the end, each and every case boils down to fraud, error, subterfuge or simply unexplained?
Also wrong. Why should "paranormal" be considered? There is no solid evidence that the so-called "paranormal" exists or has any validity. If evidence does arise then it will be worthy of consideration.
Then again, as we have seen, your "arguments" are hardly worth the effort to read.
Whynot should just post a poll asking people here wether or not they know scientifically that "ghosts" exist or are just something once more made up for the sheeple to talk about instead of discussing other important issues of the world today.
Scientifically...well, empirically, ghosts are not provable.
You can gather anecdotal evidence in bulk, do surveys, study it as a human phenomenon...but whether ghosts exist in any empirical sense... :shrug:
Can't be proven, can't be totally disproven, what the H do we know.
At my current job, the tissue-donation facility, I was patrolling an empty floor, when I heard someone say in a nice clear voice:
"WELL! this is not what I expected!"
Male voice, in a mild latino accent. I immediately did a fast lap of the entire floor, listening for the stairwell doors and elevator...nobody there, and nobody left.
The ghosts have not stolen my phone.
I have an online friend who believes in demons; he goes to one of those churches. Umm...yeaaaah...dude.
Currently. And even that is in question. Perhaps we have the technology, but have no applied to this issue.
I don't think science works like this. If we do not know the exact nature of a phenomenon we cannot rule it out via deduction. Within the history of science what seemed impossible, using deduction based on then current science, certain things were ruled out and later found to be true. I am not going to read the entire rather huge thread, but this seemed the approach by skeptics there.
Rogue waves are a good example. Here oceanographers and fluid scientists rejected sailors and captains claims of lone very large waves. It did not fit with current science. Later helm cameras and finally satellites - iow changes in technology and one could also say focus of technology - demonstrated the existence of these large single waves. Scientists, now believers, if confused, went back to the lab and figured out how this phenomenon could be.
Deduction from current knowledge is not contradictory evidence. It can raise excellent issues and can raise serous doubts when specific mechanisms are proposed - say someone says 'ghosts can move through wall by changing from visible light to x-rays - but in the absence of specific scientific explanations, it is poor speculation.
Last edited:
Really?
We're not "ruling it out by deduction".
We're ruling it out because some things are flatly not possible.