19 replies to this topic

[Loonboy]

[blue]
We have covered a lot of ground on the subject of ghost photographs and the like on the forum but I have a question -->

Is it actually possible to capture a ghost/phantom/spirit on film or 'chip'?

I've seen plenty of orbs and we know these are photographic anomalies caused by the nature of digital cameras.
I've also seen and submitted some classic photographs of ghosts, one or two of which have still defied explanation.

But if a ghost is from another dimension, or a mental thing, can we capture it or even measure it scientifically? Surely it's nature precludes this?  :s3

[/blue] :s9

[Althalus]

the quick answer to this is no you should not be able to photograph ghosts.  

the longer one would take into account that if ghosts are from a paralel universe, or dimension, and that the dimension that they inhabit is in the spectrum, this spectrum is in the seeing range of animals such as cats and dogs. then yes under special circumstances you should be able to photo ghosts.
bearing in mind that I said if, and this theory may not be right.

[SpaceyKC]

            I saw a program recently where the narrator says that the reason new photographic equipment can capture 'orbs'/spirits is because they are made up of electric energy(I can't remember the exact phrase),  and the new cameras are just better able to pick up on this!  (at least,  I think that's what he said)   ;D  
            I tend to think it's possible,  like capturing a lightning bolt on film!

[Tommy]

I’d go along with that KC.  While capturing ghosts on conventional cameras might sound impossible, as the entity would have to exist physically, I don’t see why other measuring techniques able to see past the visible spectrum wouldn’t be more effective.  

We know of classic ghost cases where spirits are epitomized for existing in areas of coldness, so couldn’t some sort of heat detection work?  :s09

Tommy
:sd

[Loonboy]

[blue]
I still don't believe for one second that so called 'orb' photographs show spirits. I think that they are light reflections from dust motes etc magnified by the lens of the digital camera or glitches in the way the digital camera works.

It would be cool to see some thermal images of ghosts instead of the usual dubious orb photos or the even more dubious e.v.p.s.
[/blue] :s9

[Althalus]

thermal images would get ruined by the sudden drop in temperature when ever a haunting is taking place.

[Loonboy]

[blue]

I thought that thermal images showed different temperatures in different colours? - i.e. yellow-white for warm, purple-blue for cool, and green-orange for inbetween.

A thermal image film would show the decrease in temperature as it happened and we could see if it formed shapes or not. Like an ghost-negative.

[/blue]

[Althalus]

if it was cold in the room and the ghost was cold, then you would not see it, there would have to be a temperature difference.

[PurpleStuart]

yet again i feel that it totally depends on what we call ghost actually are. Hallucinations obviously can't be caught on film, so if ghosts are caused by local magnetic effects then, no camera be able to pick this up though instruments to measure magnetics should.
That said if ghosts are timeslips then there should be know reason why they shouldn't turn up on film.

I think i can probably get away with saying that  if humans can see ghosts (and by that i mean that it is your eye that senses the ghost) then ghosts should definately be able to be photographed. So therefore the reverse should hold true, if ghosts are sensed by the mind in a way that we as yet do not understand and not by sight (though our brain my percieve it that way)then all 'ghost' photographs are false.

Loonboy, it's not just digital cameras that pick up orbs, i've many photos that have 'orbs' on them which were taken with normal film, but i agree with you that orbs are just dust reflected, and that they are in no way ghostly

[Loonboy]

[blue]

I have heard of ghostly encounters in which one person has seen something and another in the same vicinity has seen nothing. So in those cases it would seem that the phantom is projected somehow into an individual's mind.

However there are cases where a number of people have seen the same thing at the same time. In those cases it would seem that the phantom is projected into multiple minds at the same time.

Neither of which indicates that the phantom would be able to be captured on film. But I don't agree that by that token all ghost photographs are fake. I believe that a number of phenomena and scientific forces are combining. To base a judgement on one force in isolation is erroneous.

Maybe the ghosts manipulate whatever forces are available to them. Maybe with one person it's a projection into their mind, and another it's a physical manifestation?

Food for thought.

[/blue] :s9

[Althalus]

there was a program on TV a while back, probably out of this world, that asked why only some people see ghosts, the answer they came up with was that when a group of people expect to see ghosts and only one person does see one, this is because that person is more lickly to see one as they are not as rested as the others, and also they may not have eaten enough, or any number of other reasons.

it still does not answer the question, if people can see ghosts can they photograph them as well?  

[Loonboy]

[blue]
What was that line in 'A Christmas Carol' which Scrooge says to Marley's Ghost? 'You could be a piece of undigested cheese!'... lol

I think that our metabolism or physical state might very well dispose us to see ghosts. It's not a far-fetched proposition. Don't shamans use drugs etc to slip into different states of consciousness?

Some ghosts are not visual at all. Poltergeists are physical phenomenon but are not visible. Some ghosts are auditory and nothing else. Some affect emotions and nothing else.

Plus, remember that photography is a fairly new device to mankind, and ghosts are ancient. Maybe we can develop our photographic technology to a point where we can capture them on an image...

I think somehow we already have. It's discovering which of the photos we already have which are the real ghosts...

[/blue] :s09

[rrainn]

Ha...." A paranormal experience"   Is a Very personal thing... this is why , and it could also be a shared one.... If you have not experienced it .... then there are no ghost ...
Yet the people that do..... well it's a very real weird ordeal......









For what its worth-
Do you know much about some of  Einstein's theories?   in one of his classes , on a table , there was a Cat and a Box.  he ,in plain site put the Box over
the Cat.... then he posed the question;   Is there a cat in this Box? well everyone had to Yes , there IS a cat in the box.   5mins. later, he removed  the table from the room   .... at the end of the class , Einstein brought the table back in front of the class -  the box was still sitting on the table, same place.. he then posed the question;   Is there a cat in this box  ?? his class said yes of course , & all agreed yes the cat was in the box....See.. It dosen't matter if the cat was in the box.  they all Failed the semeter. because,   ..................... right. they didn't experiecne it, in the moment .   ha  whatever..............

Edited by rrainn, 24 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[JesseCuster]

Althalus, on 24 May 2002 - 08:53 PM, said:

the quick answer to this is no you should not be able to photograph ghosts.  

the longer one would take into account that if ghosts are from a paralel universe, or dimension, and that the dimension that they inhabit is in the spectrum, this spectrum is in the seeing range of animals such as cats and dogs. then yes under special circumstances you should be able to photo ghosts.
bearing in mind that I said if, and this theory may not be right.

What does it mean for a "dimension" to be "in the spectrum"?

I am not a scientist, but that sounds like it doesn't make any sense at all.  A spectrum is a range of electromagnetic wavelengths.  People talk of the visible spectrum (EM radiation visible to the human eye), the radio spectrum (relatively low frequency EM radiation), etc.

It doesn't mean anything for a "dimension" or "parallel universe" to be "in" a spectrum.  

Can you clarify what you mean?

Anyway, the way I see it, if it can be seen, there is no theoretical reason (other than the usual made-up excuses) why anything visible to humans can't be captured on camera (digital or film or other) even if it's necessary to use film or a CCD device designed to capture EM radiation from outside the visible spectrum.  Scientists and astronomers capture images from all over the EM spectrum from the extremes (gamma ray and radio wave images of galaxies and stars) to the more banal (visible light, infra-red and ultraviolet).  If it emits EM radiation there is theoretically no reason why it can't be detected with the right equipment.

[JesseCuster]

rrainn, on 24 January 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Do you know much about some of  Einstein's theories?   in one of his classes , on a table , there was a Cat and a Box.  he ,in plain site put the Box over
the Cat.... then he posed the question;   Is there a cat in this Box? well everyone had to Yes , there IS a cat in the box.   5mins. later, he removed  the table from the room   .... at the end of the class , Einstein brought the table back in front of the class -  the box was still sitting on the table, same place.. he then posed the question;   Is there a cat in this box  ?? his class said yes of course , & all agreed yes the cat was in the box....See.. It dosen't matter if the cat was in the box.  they all Failed the semeter. because,   ..................... right. they didn't experiecne it, in the moment .   ha  whatever..............

That's the most mangled explanation of Schrodinger's cat I've ever heard.  The scientist wasn't Einstein, it was Erwin Schrodinger (that's why it's called Schrodinger's Cat), there was no experiment performed in front of any class, in fact it was only a thought experiment therefore there was no actual cat or box.  

The thought experiment involved putting a cat in a box with an radioactive isotope that had a 50% chance of decaying a radioactive particle that would simulate the release of poison that would kill the cat.  The thought experiment was meant to illustrate what Schrodinger felt to be what was wrong with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, as according to it, when the box was closed, until it was opened again, as no-one was observing the cat and aware of its status, it existed in a bizarre superposition of being alive and dead at the same time (according to the Copenhagen interpretation) until the box was opened, the cat's waveform collapsed and we could only then assign it the status of being either dead or alive.  Schrodinger intended it simply to show how nonsensical be believed that interpretation of quantum physics is.

http://en.wikipedia....hrodinger's_cat