Hey you Atheist... Explain ghosts!

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Of course it's not EXACT. Hell, not all people see exactly the same. You might be able to sense a slightly broader range of sounds and colors than me.

But we can make general and approximate statements.

BumFluff122

But that doesn't make sense. If you can see something with your eyes, then all but the most specialized cameras will record it. For your explanation to make sense, every instance of intended ghost photography (where the photographer could physically see a ghost but the ghost did not appear in the developed photograph) would have to have been attempted with a camera that does not record in the visible light spectrum. There are very few cameras that do that. This explanation is unnecessary though. Since you need to invoke a supernatural explanation for ghosts, you could just as easily do the same for their inability to appear in photography.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Yeah, coincidentally the ONLY ones who see ghosts are the ones who just happen to be using "the wrong camera".

And it's just coincidence that the guys with "the right camera" somehow manage to NEVER accidentally film a ghost.

MrGeezer

And I claim to have once seen Pumpkinhead.

Now ask me for evidence. I dare you.

And I claim to have once seen Pumpkinhead.

Now ask me for evidence. I dare you.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="linkthewindow"]They probably don't exist. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/GhostGenetic_Code

I hate RationalWiki. There's nothing rational about it.

How could anything be worse than that?

But that doesn't make sense. If you can see something with your eyes, then all but the most specialized cameras will record it. For your explanation to make sense, every instance of intended ghost photography (where the photographer could physically see a ghost but the ghost did not appear in the developed photograph) would have to have been attempted with a camera that does not record in the visible light spectrum. There are very few cameras that do that. This explanation is unnecessary though. Since you need to invoke a supernatural explanation for ghosts, you could just as easily do the same for their inability to appear in photography.

Frattracide

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And I claim to have once seen Pumpkinhead.

Now ask me for evidence. I dare you.

BumFluff122

Cameras CAN see everything that the eye can see, and more. Again, that's a common cause of color distortion in digital cameras: insufficient blockage of ultraviolet and infrared light.

You then go on to say that ghost hunters use these cheap and easily accessible cameras to find ghosts, that those same ghosts hunters SEE ghosts, and yet those same ghost hunters never manage to capture an image of ghosts on the same cameras that they got specifically for the purpose of hunting ghosts.

All you're doing is trying to duck and jive your way around the fact that there isn't ANY evidence for the existence of ghosts.

I don't really see how ghosts would be proof of God when their is no real good proof of ghosts.

How does the existence or non-existence of ghosts even correlatewith atheism? And is the TC also implying that they've been proven to exist? *facepalm*

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

But that doesn't make sense. If you can see something with your eyes, then all but the most specialized cameras will record it. For your explanation to make sense, every instance of intended ghost photography (where the photographer could physically see a ghost but the ghost did not appear in the developed photograph) would have to have been attempted with a camera that does not record in the visible light spectrum. There are very few cameras that do that. This explanation is unnecessary though. Since you need to invoke a supernatural explanation for ghosts, you could just as easily do the same for their inability to appear in photography.

BumFluff122

Dude, we're talking about MINOR deviations off of the visible spectrum, and even the average digital camera is sensitive to quite a bit more than the visible spectrum for a human.

Either you're talking about superhumans who can see well into the infrared and ultraviolet, or you're assuming that everyone has the most ghetto and crappy camera on the market.

Cameras CAN see everything that the eye can see, and more. Again, that's a common cause of color distortion in digital cameras: insufficient blockage of ultraviolet and infrared light.

You then go on to say that ghost hunters use these cheap and easily accessible cameras to find ghosts, that those same ghosts hunters SEE ghosts, and yet those same ghost hunters never manage to capture an image of ghosts on the same cameras that they got specifically for the purpose of hunting ghosts.

All you're doing is trying to duck and jive your way around the fact that there isn't ANY evidence for the existence of ghosts.

MrGeezer

Dude, we're talking about MINOR deviations off of the visible spectrum, and even the average digital camera is sensitive to quite a bit more than the visible spectrum for a human.

Either you're talking about superhumans who can see well into the infrared and ultraviolet, or you're assuming that everyone has the most ghetto and crappy camera on the market.

MrGeezer

I don't believe in ghosts. People go ghost hunting and they see what their brain wants them to see.

Nature is a powerful thing. It can truly trick the mind into believing the supernatural.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Cameras CAN see everything that the eye can see, and more. Again, that's a common cause of color distortion in digital cameras: insufficient blockage of ultraviolet and infrared light.

You then go on to say that ghost hunters use these cheap and easily accessible cameras to find ghosts, that those same ghosts hunters SEE ghosts, and yet those same ghost hunters never manage to capture an image of ghosts on the same cameras that they got specifically for the purpose of hunting ghosts.

All you're doing is trying to duck and jive your way around the fact that there isn't ANY evidence for the existence of ghosts.

BumFluff122

Regardless, you're still acting as if it's some weird phenomenon because you saw a fire and it didn't show up in the pictures. Even if I accept that you actually DID see that fire, the fact that it didn't show up on film doesn't mean a single thing. You're essentially resorting to the "moon landing conspirist's" point about how stars weren't visible in the moon photos.

Did your grandma EXPOSE for the fire? I doubt it, if no one ever expected to see it. In which case, it's not exactly a big mystery why it didn't show up on film.

I don't believe in ghosts. People go ghost hunting and they see what their brain wants them to see.

Nature is a powerful thing. It can truly trick the mind into believing the supernatural.

Wasdie

Why does it not make sense? Different cameras are susceptible to different wavelengths of light. As someone else stated before in this thread your eyes may be able to see different wavelengths than I can. Heck butterflies can see ultraviolet light. Obviously my mothers camera, which I mentioend in my first post in this thread, was not set to view that particular wavelength of light that the fire emitted. There are many cameras that can view non-visible light. And I've neverr stated that ghosts are supernatural. If they are real then there must be a natural explanation for them. IT was stated earlier in this thread again that the supernatural does not exist. I agree with this. There is no such thing as supernatural because everythign that occurs occurs in the natural world. We may see it as supernatural because we do not know how or why it occured but even if we don't know the cause the cause is still natural.

BumFluff122

It is important to note that we aren't talking about a single event, we are talking about every attempted recording of a ghost or apparition. If it was one, specific event, poor photographic technique could explain a null result, but the chance of every single event being the result of bad photography or incorrect equipment settings is very low. Especially when you consider that many modern digital cameras have "point and shoot" features that automatically select correct settings for the user based on the current situation.

Also, if we are going to continue discussing anecdotes, I highly recommend watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/9/NPqerbz8KDc

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I don't believe in ghosts. People go ghost hunting and they see what their brain wants them to see.

Nature is a powerful thing. It can truly trick the mind into believing the supernatural.

xaos

We want to believe our world is very simple, that everything has a simple explanation. The past century has actually proven us wrong. The universe is complicated, very very complicated. This of course goes on the discussion of supernatural experiences, but looking into how nature operates you see an extremely complicated universe that we don't fully understand.

Everything that our mind's perceive to be supernatural is nothing more than a simple explanation that we created of some extraordinary circumstances that have manifested themselves in front of us that are incredibly difficult to recreate in any sort of experimental setting. Thus we label them as supernatural and move on with our lives because in the end it really doesn't matter.

Regardless, you're still acting as if it's some weird phenomenon because you saw a fire and it didn't show up in the pictures. Even if I accept that you actually DID see that fire, the fact that it didn't show up on film doesn't mean a single thing. You're essentially resorting to the "moon landing conspirist's" point about how stars weren't visible in the moon photos.

Did your grandma EXPOSE for the fire? I doubt it, if no one ever expected to see it. In which case, it's not exactly a big mystery why it didn't show up on film.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I don't believe in ghosts. People go ghost hunting and they see what their brain wants them to see.

Nature is a powerful thing. It can truly trick the mind into believing the supernatural.

Wasdie

We want to believe our world is very simple, that everything has a simple explanation. The past century has actually proven us wrong. The universe is complicated, very very complicated. This of course goes on the discussion of supernatural experiences, but looking into how nature operates you see an extremely complicated universe that we don't fully understand.

Everything that our mind's perceive to be supernatural is nothing more than a simple explanation that we created of some extraordinary circumstances that have manifested themselves in front of us that are incredibly difficult to recreate in any sort of experimental setting. Thus we label them as supernatural and move on with our lives because in the end it really doesn't matter.

Because "ignorance is bliss". Perceiving something"supernatural" could also be described as a hallucination.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Regardless, you're still acting as if it's some weird phenomenon because you saw a fire and it didn't show up in the pictures. Even if I accept that you actually DID see that fire, the fact that it didn't show up on film doesn't mean a single thing. You're essentially resorting to the "moon landing conspirist's" point about how stars weren't visible in the moon photos.

Did your grandma EXPOSE for the fire? I doubt it, if no one ever expected to see it. In which case, it's not exactly a big mystery why it didn't show up on film.

BumFluff122

Proper exposure has nothing to do with whether or not a camera is sensitive to a certain wavelength of light, so apparently you're saying that your anecdote was completely irrelevant in the first place.

More than likely, your errant blue flame was the result of an under exposure, not a camera ignoring a single wavelength inside the visible light spectrum. Unless your mother installed a filter for a specific wavelength or polarity. Cameras are engineered to record in the visible light spectrum and if you can see something a camera will pick it up, unless incorrect technique or improper settings are used.

It is important to note that we aren't talking about a single event, we are talking about every attempted recording of a ghost or apparition. If it was one, specific event, poor photographic technique could explain a null result, but the chance of every single event being the result of bad photography or incorrect equipment settings is very low. Especially when you consider that many modern digital cameras have "point and shoot" features that automatically select correct settings for the user based on the current situation.

Frattracide

Proper exposure has nothing to do with whether or not a camera is sensitive to a certain wavelength of light, so apparently you're saying that your anecdote was completely irrelevant in the first place.

MrGeezer

Vandalvideo's performance in this thread was just beautiful!

Still on the fence about whether or not I should go to law school. But that was an awesome read!

I don't believe ghosts exist, while not absolutely denying the possibility of their existence.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

More than likely, your errant blue flame was the result of an under exposure, not a camera ignoring a single wavelength inside the visible light spectrum. Unless your mother installed a filter for a specific wavelength or polarity. Cameras are engineered to record in the visible light spectrum and if you can see something a camera will pick it up, unless incorrect technique or improper settings are used.

It is important to note that we aren't talking about a single event, we are talking about every attempted recording of a ghost or apparition. If it was one, specific event, poor photographic technique could explain a null result, but the chance of every single event being the result of bad photography or incorrect equipment settings is very low. Especially when you consider that many modern digital cameras have "point and shoot" features that automatically select correct settings for the user based on the current situation.

BumFluff122

So more than likely the exposure was incorrect for the situation. Which is perfectly fine. I am not trying to say you did not see a blue flame or that the flame actually did appear in the photograph.

The problem comes when you misunderstand the cause of your phantom flame and try to extrapolate your anecdote to the subject at hand as an explanation for null results in ghost photography. Which was your original position. A position, which is ultimately untenable. I offered criticism of your argument because I though this discussion was overlooking some rather important physical facts. Although, my motivation for continuing this conversation is to demonstrate that anecdotes are not a valid form of support for a theory. I certainly bear no hostility towards you, regardless of your position. I sincerely hope you are not inferring malice where there is none.

What about them?

Ghosts don't necessarily have to be evidence of a God, or at least THE God, and even if they are their existence, despite ever improving and prevelant technology, is always conviently in the form of eye witness accounts, poor quality video, and completely meaningless interpretation of things like audio playback and ****.

Theres no evidence of ghosts.

So more than likely the exposure was incorrect for the situation. Which is perfectly fine. I am not trying to say you did not see a blue flame or that the flame actually did appear in the photograph.

The problem comes when you misunderstand the cause of your phantom flame and try to extrapolate your anecdote to the subject at hand as an explanation for null results in ghost photography. Which was your original position. A position, which isultimately untenable. I offered criticism of your argument because I though this discussion was overlooking some rather important physical facts. Although, my motivation for continuing this conversation is to demonstrate that anecdotes are not a valid form of support for a theory. I certainly bear no hostility towards you, regardless for your position. I sincerely hope you are not inferring malice where there is none.

Frattracide

What about them?

Ghosts don't necessarily have to be evidence of a God, or at least THE God, and even if they are their existence, despite ever improving and prevelant technology, is always conviently in the form of eye witness accounts, poor quality video, and completely meaningless interpretation of things like audio playback and ****.

Theres no evidence of ghosts.

Because "ignorance is bliss". Perceiving something"supernatural" could also be described as a hallucination.

Johnny-n-Roger

That statement is so stupidly true it's not even funny.

[QUOTE="Johnny-n-Roger"]

Because "ignorance is bliss". Perceiving something"supernatural" could also be described as a hallucination.

That statement is so stupidly true it's not even funny.

[QUOTE="Steameffekt"]

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists JML897

Explain this

:lol: It's a dog.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Johnny-n-Roger"]

Because "ignorance is bliss". Perceiving something"supernatural" could also be described as a hallucination.

MoonMarvel

That statement is so stupidly true it's not even funny.

Yes.

I believe ghosts exist, but that's all I got, a belief.

Some say not everyone can see ghosts, its a privilege reserve for a selected few...

I'm glad I'm not one of those lucky few

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

That statement is so stupidly true it's not even funny.

Johnny-n-Roger

Yes.

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists Steameffekt

Explain this

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

That statement is so stupidly true it's not even funny.

Yes.

[QUOTE="Johnny-n-Roger"]

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]Are you saying that all people who perceive something as supernatural are just having a hallucination?MoonMarvel

Yes.

I believe in Ghosts but a Ghost existing doesn't prove a God anymore than someone living. If anything it does more to disprove certain Gods because why are these spirits roaming the world and not in that religions determined afterlife?

There may be perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Ghosts. It could just be energy from the body, I don't know. But I do believe in them.

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="Johnny-n-Roger"]

Yes.

xaos

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]Energy cannot be created nor destroyed /thread. This being the millionth incarnation of this thread i tell all the believers not to bother, the skeptics will never believe. And if you ask them to go ghost hunting they will just chicken out. KHAndAnime

I don't feel like going through 12 pages worth of comments to know what has all been said about the dog on his shoulder pic but I personally cannot believe anything like that until I myself examine the picture. I can, most of the time, easily pick out, reveal, and prove whether one is real or not. I can't just have some guy in a white lab coat tell me the grains match. I need to see it myself. But since I do not know these people or probably not live close enough to see it myself. I cannot believe nor disbelieve it.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"] :lol: Are you trolling? Or are you serious? I just want to know before I quote you.X360PS3AMD05

EVP

Check the definition:

Electronic voice phenomena (EVPs) are electronically captured sounds that resemble speech, but are not the result of intentional voice recordings. Common sources include static, stray radio transmissions and background noise. Some people claim these sounds are of paranormal origin,[1] while there are natural explanations such as apophenia (finding significance in insignificant phenomena), auditory pareidolia (interpreting random sounds as voices in their own language), equipment artefacts, or simple hoaxes. Recordings of electronic voice phenomena are often created from background sound by increasing the gain (i.e. sensitvity) of the recording equipment.

Wikipedia

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists Steameffekt

Explain this

[QUOTE="Steameffekt"]

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]Ghosts don't exists shani_boy101

Explain this

oh Ghosts, okay that's an easy one : THEY DON'T EXIST!Wings_008

I thought ghosts were something religious people didn't believe in, isn't God supposed to save your soul? Not condemn you to wander to the Earth confused. I believe in ghosts and am not religious, to me, I will see a ghost before a miracle.

[QUOTE="Wings_008"]oh Ghosts, okay that's an easy one : THEY DON'T EXIST!FLSTS