@ Carson wells, "Ghost stories have none of this."
Surely that's a rather unfair charge - given how difficult and time consuming it is to capture *any* compelling evidence of ghosts, let alone that of the double blind peer reviewed calibre - & please see below. Nonetheless, I'm all for more UFO cases being shown as well, especially after PW did such a fantastic job of both the Turnbull county case and the Travis Walton episode. But are there many more just as credible stores which will fill the length of an average episode left to portray?
That being said, as concerns the lack of "solid physical evidence" (as you put it) for ghosts, there is, in all likelihood, a very good reason why ghost stories usually lack such compelling proof: It usually takes many, many, many years, often decades of 24/7, day in day out, filming, before any ghost might just possibly show up, to be captured on film. And, that's only if the location is haunted in the first place AND filmed continuously, for years! Consider probably the very best available evidence that ghosts exist - the Hampton Court 'Skeletor ghost' incident. Professional sceptic, and author of 'Paranormality', Professor Wiseman, has conceded, as regards same:
"If this is a ghost, it's one of the best images ever. What's good about it is that it's not ambiguous, it's clearly a solid figure, not blurry and not a reflection. Also, it is doing something that has an effect on the real world, closing a door...The main thing is that this is a moving film which is much harder to fake."
Please consider that those very CCTV cameras were on continuously, and pointing at those fire exit doors, for well over a decade, before the fire escape doors opened one day - without any human interaction. The very next day, a ghostly figure is clearly captured on film - as it opens and closes them. The day after, the same fire-doors open once again, without any person (or even ghost form) near them. Well, that happened in 2003, and it's now late 2015. What does that suggest?
Despite the fact that those CCTV cameras have been running, and filming continuously every single day of the week, for minute after minute, for year after year, those same fire-doors - never has even a single additional frame of film, shown further evidence of spectral activity. Is it plausible to say "that ghost mustn't exist", otherwise why was it captured at least once, in 2003!? The location is clearly haunted, so that shouldn't be the problem either. Yet, despite the amount of time which has passed since 2003, we've yet to see a repeat of that incident.
That is to say, it can take an extremely long time of 24/7 filming before anything ghost-like could be captured, even briefly, on film.
Nonetheless, despite so many compelling persons coming forward, from all walks of life, sceptics still like to say that "there is no scientifically accepted evidence for the existence of ghosts." Or, to opine that "ghosts don't exist, as where is the scientific proof for their existence?"
Well scientists have far better things to do, to earn their keep, than set up 'time annihilating' experiments to find ghosts. Which is partly why, when sceptics claim that science hasn't found ghosts they might as well say that "scientists haven't found the captain of the Titanic's bones, ergo, he too, must be a fabrication!" Scientists are, and rarely have been, seeking either - because there is no money on the table in finding either!
When it comes to both proof and ghosts, the most intelligent stance is arguably that of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
After all, modern science is founded upon the double blind, peer reviewed funding model. Please do consider, when lamenting the lack of 100% conclusive and scientifically accepted evidence of ghosts, that there are currently no long-term funded research grants, into finding ghosts. So please don't believe that ghosts must be nonsense, given that science lacks any proof for them - because the truth is, once again, that science isn't even looking for them! And rarely are scientists even trying to find any. That's partly why compelling, incontrovertible evidence of ghosts is so hard to find.
However, if you look for raw evidence from impartial CCTV cameras, around this world, particularly those which have run continuously for years on end, you will indeed and occasionally find evidence which is good enough for everyone but die-hard sceptics; Some of whom wouldn't believe in ghosts if one appeared in front of them, turned off the lights in the room, and then disappeared before their eyes. Why? "Because science (which isn't even looking for proof of ghosts - because there is too little money in same) hasn't proved their existence, I must be imagining it" they must assume.
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
reply
share