Has any "Evidence" Baffled Real Scientists?

[nyuk]

Thats quite a collection of videos to trawl through

Hmmm, im starting to think ghosthunters might be embellishing the odd thing :unsure2:

Or, they could just be making the whole show up and reading from scripts :unsure2:

Failing that :sleepy: sorry, past my bedtime

There are ghosts wall to wall, just waiting in line to jump out at the camera crew

[Sakari]

I have to add 2 more.....Sorry to take it off topic a bit, but I feel this needed to be here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqJ0hmh4mvE&feature=related

Edited February 14, 2012 by Sakari

[Erowin]

Being a lover of science, this is why I have a hard time believing in ghosts. Though I could see how they could exist and science could never really confirm them... a ghost cant be measured or studied or tested multiple times. I don't think scientists will EVER accept ghosts, even if they do exist. It is simply not something science could confirm and write peer reviewed journals about.

[nyuk]

Being a lover of science, this is why I have a hard time believing in ghosts. Though I could see how they could exist and science could never really confirm them... a ghost cant be measured or studied or tested multiple times. I don't think scientists will EVER accept ghosts, even if they do exist. It is simply not something science could confirm and write peer reviewed journals about.

I reckon you made a good point here.

Personally, i believe ghosts/spirits/energy signatures do exist.

The biggest problem is there are millions of cameras, hell maybe billions considering all the mobile phones have cameras too. Not great cameras on phones, but good enough to figure out whats been photoed/videoed.

Yet we still dont have a good photo of a ghost.

Maybe they cannot be caught on film.

Maybe they are memories from previous lives or exist in a parralell dimension.

Yet there are soooo many reports.

I sometimes wonder, if someone actually got or gets a perfect photo

Would anyone believe it was real??

[rodentraiser]

So I just had to throw this out there about the jacket thing on Ghost Hunters. I had heard that both Jay and Grant were angry enough about the incident being used in the TV series that they basically took over production of the show so something like that wouldn't happen again. Remember, they have hours and hours of an investigation compressed into about 43 minutes and there are still a lot of things on that show they don't control.

By the way, I'll add this to the mix here. I read a book about a year or two ago about a study made on dogs called "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals" by Rupert Sheldrake. It was very interesting and no, there is as yet no explanation. Some of the documented cases were very thought provoking. In one case, a dog began to get excited as though his owner was coming home. Then he settled down again. A while later, he became excited again and it turned out his owner had left the office, changed her mind and gone somewhere else for a while and then started home again.

And I found out one other very interesting tidbit from the book. That's the precognition of people people arriving before they actually arrive. It's so common that people have a name for it in Norway: vardøger. You can read a little more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vard%C3%B8ger

[ChrLzs]

I read a book about a year or two ago about a study made on dogs called "Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals" by Rupert Sheldrake. It was very interesting and no, there is as yet no explanation.

In Rupert's opinion, do you mean? Was this study peer reviewed? Properly set up, with controls, repeatability, a null hypothesis, etc, etc? Or was it set up in order to sell his book?

Some of the documented cases were very thought provoking.

I suspect they were presented in that way, but if properly analysed, the truth may be revealed.

In one case, a dog began to get excited as though his owner was coming home. Then he settled down again. A while later, he became excited again and it turned out his owner had left the office, changed her mind and gone somewhere else for a while and then started home again.

So, they showed all the other times the dog's behavior was recorded? You saw evidence that this happened over and over again? Or did they just find a match.. How could a skeptical person like me verify all this? Can you actually cite these studies - especially the one you found most compelling?

And I found out one other very interesting tidbit from the book. That's the precognition of people people arriving before they actually arrive. It's so common that people have a name for it in Norway: vardøger. You can read a little more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vard%C3%B8ger

I'd love to see a thread about this, for it is something I have considered in some depth - like the fact that some people seem to (and in some cases do) just *know* when someone is likely to call them on a phone... and they do..

There are a lot of things that are completely ignored by people making these claims. One of which is that the brain is an incredible instrument and has some almost incomprehensible ways of 'predicting' things. Incomprehensible because they just happen automatically and effectively subliminally - you don't have to comprehend why it happens and instead marvel at it and attribute it to some sort of esp...

Anyway, too many opinions, so little time..!

[Sakari]

So I just had to throw this out there about the jacket thing on Ghost Hunters. I had heard that both Jay and Grant were angry enough about the incident being used in the TV series that they basically took over production of the show so something like that wouldn't happen again. Remember, they have hours and hours of an investigation compressed into about 43 minutes and there are still a lot of things on that show they don't control.

I am confused, first where did you hear this?......Second, the jacket pull is a obvious faked set up, and that video shows that.So what you are saying is Jason went through all of the work to set this up, but did not want it on TV?If not, than who was it for, because there was no one else to show this to?.......Sorry, that is bogus.Grant barely even answered any questions on this event, and Jason will not say a word or speak about it.

FRAUDS

[hilton1337]

I sometimes wonder, if someone actually got or gets a perfect photo

Would anyone believe it was real??

there is a few photos out there but because there is so many programs that can be used and props to be used and all sorts of flares and problems with lights and lenses to replicate a photo its hard to believe pretty much all of them, to be honest every photo i guess is a have to be there moment to know if its 100% true...

most shows stay at a location for 12 hours maybe 2 days at the most, they are limiting there time on catching anything which wouldn't surprise me if most are faked due to this timing effort

to get the best out of it, take your time and know your area and familiar sounds from that area

1337

[rodentraiser]

I am confused, first where did you hear this?......Second, the jacket pull is a obvious faked set up, and that video shows that.So what you are saying is Jason went through all of the work to set this up, but did not want it on TV?If not, than who was it for, because there was no one else to show this to?.......Sorry, that is bogus.Grant barely even answered any questions on this event, and Jason will not say a word or speak about it.

FRAUDS

I know someone who knows them and he also knows people that know them. My friend is as honest as the day is long, so I don't doubt his word at all.

As to the jacket, I had thought originally that it might have been a recreation from something that had really happened but didn't get caught on film. Now that happens a lot on TV. They may also be bound by a contract about what they can and can't say about their show. Bottom line is, it's Syfy's network and when all is said and done, Syfy has the final say on a lot of stuff for the most part. Jay and Grant are damned if they do and damned if they don't, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. If I didn't like the show, I wouldn't watch it. It's no skin off my nose if they start doing fraudulent things on the show and if that day comes, then I figure I'm smart enough to know how to press the OFF button rather than get my bowels in an uproar. It's TV. It's entertainment. I am entertained and there's way more important other stuff in my life to worry about besides Jay and Grant on Ghost Hunters.

[rodentraiser]

In Rupert's opinion, do you mean? Was this study peer reviewed? Properly set up, with controls, repeatability, a null hypothesis, etc, etc? Or was it set up in order to sell his book?

I suspect they were presented in that way, but if properly analysed, the truth may be revealed.

So, they showed all the other times the dog's behavior was recorded? You saw evidence that this happened over and over again? Or did they just find a match.. How could a skeptical person like me verify all this? Can you actually cite these studies - especially the one you found most compelling?

I'd love to see a thread about this, for it is something I have considered in some depth - like the fact that some people seem to (and in some cases do) just *know* when someone is likely to call them on a phone... and they do..

There are a lot of things that are completely ignored by people making these claims. One of which is that the brain is an incredible instrument and has some almost incomprehensible ways of 'predicting' things. Incomprehensible because they just happen automatically and effectively subliminally - you don't have to comprehend why it happens and instead marvel at it and attribute it to some sort of esp...

Anyway, too many opinions, so little time..!

They may have had a cattle call for dogs that alerted to their owners who they sensed were coming home and then selected the dogs that were the most reliable. And I think the way they did this was to set up a camera in the house with the dog and/or have someone actually be in the house with the dog to record the actions. I think, but don't quote me on this because I really don't remember, that they even called a couple owners to tell them when to leave to come home, or one of the owners didn't actually tell the researcher he was delayed coming home one day, which made for some control in the experiment. I remember I had to read the book really fast because I also had Laurie Garrett's book out at the same time (Betrayal of Trust) and that was something like 600 pages of heavy, albeit very, very interesting reading, not including the index at the back which I also wanted to read, and both books were due in 3 weeks. You should contact your local library to see if they will do a library search for the book. I drive my library crazy because I'm always doing that. The vardøger thing was in the same book. The author was trying to draw a parallel between the dogs and the people who hear the footsteps. I do remember being absolutely fascinated by this book so by all means, try to grab a copy if you can.

[rodentraiser]

Being a lover of science, this is why I have a hard time believing in ghosts. Though I could see how they could exist and science could never really confirm them... a ghost cant be measured or studied or tested multiple times. I don't think scientists will EVER accept ghosts, even if they do exist. It is simply not something science could confirm and write peer reviewed journals about.

This is why I have been advocating for years for a systemized, continuous study of a haunted area. It shouldn't be hard to find an area, a room someplace for example, that has paranormal happenings on a regular basis. Then set up cameras, recorders, and all the other equipment that is being currently used and do this for several weeks at a time or longer without stop. I do know the biggest difficulty would be that the tapes and recorders would have to be analyzed round the clock and it could be very difficult. But maybe it could be done.

One of the things that I have a problem with is that people go into a place already knowing it's haunted, supposedly. What I would like to see more of is people just being sent to a house selected at random not knowing whether or not it's considered to be haunted, and then see what they find. It would be very interesting to see if people come up with "evidence" at houses where there has been no recorded paranormal activity. The knife would certainly be seen to cut the cake with that kind of a control. If you were in a group that did that and you got evidence 100% of the time, then you'd know for sure you have some refining to do in how you were conducting paranormal searches.

[nyuk]

This is why I have been advocating for years for a systemized, continuous study of a haunted area. It shouldn't be hard to find an area, a room someplace for example, that has paranormal happenings on a regular basis. Then set up cameras, recorders, and all the other equipment that is being currently used and do this for several weeks at a time or longer without stop. I do know the biggest difficulty would be that the tapes and recorders would have to be analyzed round the clock and it could be very difficult. But maybe it could be done.

One of the things that I have a problem with is that people go into a place already knowing it's haunted, supposedly. What I would like to see more of is people just being sent to a house selected at random not knowing whether or not it's considered to be haunted, and then see what they find. It would be very interesting to see if people come up with "evidence" at houses where there has been no recorded paranormal activity. The knife would certainly be seen to cut the cake with that kind of a control. If you were in a group that did that and you got evidence 100% of the time, then you'd know for sure you have some refining to do in how you were conducting paranormal searches.

Now this sounds like a great idea.

It would be proof to the group of people who carried the study out.

But when the group showed evidence confirming what happened, i feel whatever they showed would still be dismissed as fake

[ChrLzs]

Now this sounds like a great idea.

It would be proof to the group of people who carried the study out.

But when the group showed evidence confirming what happened, i feel whatever they showed would still be dismissed as fake

It most certainly, and rightly, will - if the study isn't done properly. And if those who set it up are not experienced in how to ensure a study produces useful, unbiased, verifiable, testable, repeatable and real results, then that will be the likely result.

[nyuk]

Well said Chrlzs,

I knew it

btw, i spelled your name right, i used to think it was a i but read a post recently where i realised it was an l

nyuk.

[wittyusernamefailed]

What you mean that Zach Baconbits, Jason Howesitgoin, and other docutainment "ghost hunters" are not real scientist??!!! Next you'll be telling me the Trix rabbit isn't real...But on a serious note, the best way to get actual scientist looking at the "ghost" issue may be to approach it from a quantum physics bent (such as a wrinkle in time, or some other distortion of this dimension) rather than as a spiritual nature; sounds a little less silly in the science journals, and is probably closer to the truth.

[rodentraiser]

Now this sounds like a great idea.

It would be proof to the group of people who carried the study out.

But when the group showed evidence confirming what happened, i feel whatever they showed would still be dismissed as fake

Don't forget though, one of the requirements for a proof is that the experiment has to be able to be recreated. With the paranormal, recreating an experience is exactly what you can't do. You can only measure it while it is happening. So it seems that no matter what you do, there will always be that doubt and there will always be doubters.

I try to be a little lenient with people when they say they don't believe in ghosts and call it all fake. I'm still not sure I believe in ghosts myself except for those few weird things that have happened to me and can't be explained. Likewise, there are tons of people who believe in angels and I'm a not believer in those, so.....I'll put it another way: I can say I've experienced a paranormal happening once or twice. What caused those experiences has yet to be scientifically explained. And that's it in a nutshell.

[rodentraiser]

What you mean that Zach Baconbits, Jason Howesitgoin, and other docutainment "ghost hunters" are not real scientist??!!! Next you'll be telling me the Trix rabbit isn't real...But on a serious note, the best way to get actual scientist looking at the "ghost" issue may be to approach it from a quantum physics bent (such as a wrinkle in time, or some other distortion of this dimension) rather than as a spiritual nature; sounds a little less silly in the science journals, and is probably closer to the truth.

Be a heck of a thing if Hawking looked for answers to the cosmos and came up with answers to the paranormal. LOL But what about a time slip? You know, I really enjoy reading about those and I don't recall seeing anything about them here. Does anyone else know if a thread was started on time slips?

Edited February 23, 2012 by rodentraiser

[Judeaous]

Sakari, forgive me, I just read your question on St, Vitus dance. To answer a liftle bit of your question, it was not hundreds of people, it was tens of thousands of people. The dance could not be explained away by "psychology", or by touting it off as "religious ferver"..... It was SPIRITUAL ATTACK.... Look it up Sakari, before the psychological point of view here fools you into believing otherwise. The dance could not medically be explained. They danced till they died, unable to physically stop. Religious fervor!!!! Lol, "this happens all the time right???, people dance tl they drop"!! Religious ferver!!!! No, like the laughing disease in Africa where they had to close 5 schools....( not sure of the number).... This is called "when spirits attack"..

In Italy they blamed the dance on a "spider bite".... (it was not). The dance you see in "pulp fiction" , the tarentulla was derided from tarantism, another case of spiritual attack. Look it up, draw your own conclusion, don't be blinded by scientific mumbo jumbo, there was no explanation for it.....

"religious fervor"......lolllll

[Judeaous]

Oops, I meant to answer cake or death, whom asked, sorry sakari.

[Sakari]

Oops, I meant to answer cake or death, whom asked, sorry sakari.

I was starting to think my age was really getting to me, I was sitting here trying to figure out what you were talking about.

[ChrLzs]

The dance could not medically be explained.

???

Judaeous - please point us to a peer reviewed article showing any dance being medically explained.

If not, then stop making such illogical comments, and perhaps consider actually ungluing yourself from that PC to go spend some time at pretty much any pub/club.. There you will see some other inexplicable dancing and people in weird trances... And sometimes this behaviour is not related to chemicals.. It's just the joy of life!

Maybe one day you will experience it too...

Edited February 26, 2012 by Chrlzs

[aquatus1]

Look it up, draw your own conclusion, don't be blinded by scientific mumbo jumbo, there was no explanation for it.....

"religious fervor"......lolllll

I think, more than anything else, this statement here emphasizes the difference in thinking between scientists and believers.

Scientists look for data to disprove their hypothesis. Believers look for data to prove their hypothesis. Scientists are not "baffled" by a lack of data; they simply do not come to a conclusion either way. Believers, on the other hand, consider a lack of data as a confirmation of their beliefs.

Which is kind of a shame, really, but it does explain why science has been so succesfull at making new discoveries, compared to belief. After all, very few people keep looking for data once they are convinced they are right.

[Judeaous]

Well Chris,  it was looked at like a disease back then, not "religious ferver"...  They couldn't explain it.  It was an involuntary, frightening, unexplainable phenomenon involving the Gensral public, not just the religious.  Tarentism, (the same DISEASE!)...  Was thought to be caused by a spider bite, and the only "relief" the people had, was to dance it out for weeks, and months or until they died.  Where does " religious ferver" have anything to do with it??   It was not "an act" by the religious.....or most of all.... Not...."the joys of life".  Aquantus1.....  I've said this b4......  Take a look at the original lord cumbremere ghost photo from the 1800s.  Look at that ghost for a while, the detail!!  Then 

Metaphorically remove the scientific blindfold from your eyes.  "science says it's not there".  

When science gets to a point

That it tells you not to believe what's in front of your own eyes!!.......  I believe my eyes.  Science "sweeps St.. Vitus dance under the rug". Most people have no clue....  I "sweep it out".   

[aquatus1]

Aquantus1..... I've said this b4...... Take a look at the original lord cumbremere ghost photo from the 1800s. Look at that ghost for a while, the detail!! Then

Metaphorically remove the scientific blindfold from your eyes. "science says it's not there".

When science gets to a point

That it tells you not to believe what's in front of your own eyes!!....... I believe my eyes. Science "sweeps St.. Vitus dance under the rug". Most people have no clue.... I "sweep it out".

Well, seems to me there are two issues here:

First, the above does not really address my point regarding the difference between scientists and believers. The question that was asked is "Are scientists baffled?" The answer is no. To expand on that: Given the same amount of incomplete data, a scientists will conclude that there is no reason to believe, whereas a believer will conclude that there is no reason not to.

Second, you are not operating with a correct understanding of how scientific methodology works. Science never categorically states that "Something is not there." Indeed, we use that very example to punctuate one of our guiding principles: "One cannot prove a negative". Nor does science ever tell you not to believe what is in front of your own eyes. What it does do is give you alternatives that do not require anywhere near as much belief to be valid. In other words, the probability of the other explanations being correct is higher than that of the supernatural explanation being correct.

Which, again, emphasizes the difference between scientists and believers: Scientists do their best to prove themselves to be wrong. Believers accept pretty much anything that allows them to be right.

Edited February 26, 2012 by aquatus1

[Sakari]

Well Chris.............................................

Hey Judaseasor,

I think you do the miss-spelling of names on purpose, as someone on another thread pointed out to you that you were spelling mine wrong.I ignored it then, but now I see it here again, and you have been corrected on Chrlzs also......Maybe you should stop using names, unless of course it is on purpose.

It is Sakari - S-a-k-a-r-i

And Chrlzs - C-h-r-l-z-s

Edited February 26, 2012 by Sakari