Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
greywolfe

Types of Ghosts

30 posts in this topic

Ghosts

Ghosts fall into various categories:- 1)Ghosts of the dead (that do not interact with the living)

2)Ghosts of the dead (that do interact with the living)

3)Ghosts of the living (that do not interact with the living

4)Ghosts of the living that do interact with the living)

5)Ghosts of the living (that do interact with the dead)

6)Ghosts of the living (that do not interact with the dead)

7)Ghosts that interact with other ghosts.

NB:Apologies if this is a little "Alice In Wonderland" but I'm attempting to clarify the need to understand different types of entities/encounters

Ghosts of the dead (that do not interact with the living)

This group of apparitions are seen to be re-enacting moments in time when they were alive. To say "when they were alive" is misleading really as the spirit seen is still alive but is able to be viewed by another human being from another time. In this category though the ghost being observed is entirely unaware of being watched.

Ghosts of the dead (that do interact with the living)

This group is infinitely more complicated to understand. Manifestation in this section fall into the sub-catagories below:-

1)Those ghosts who are seen as they were (are) going about their daily business as it was (is) in another time. Not only can they be seen by people from the present time, they can also hold a conversation with us. Presumably they are fully aware of our presence as we are of theirs and they may even report their sighting of "Ghosts from the future " to their friends.

2) Those ghosts who seem to be stuck in a building and are unaware of their loved ones as having passed on. This type of spirit is not being seen going about his/her daily routine, as they have passed on but remain a permanent resident of a particular place. Sometimes they seem reluctant to accept they are dead. It's almost as if they're in a pemanent dream-like state of semi-consciousness loosely clinging on to familiar ground.

3) Those ghost who are dead and know they are dead but refuse to leave a building. Often this type of spirit makes a point of interacting with people from the present and this may be humorous or malicious.

Ghosts of the living (that do not interact with the living)

Ghost of the living are souls who's physical presence materializes in a place remote from their current actual location. If you dream of a nice place maybe one or two % of your material being is transported to that place.The more lucid the dream the greater %'age of your physical being is transported there. If you can visualize the place you may be 1/ 2 % physically there. If you can hear the sounds as well you may be 15% physically there. If you can feel the sun on your back, have full visual awareness and hear the sounds - you may be 40% physically there. Experts (eg: Tibetan Monks) are said to be so adept at these skills that they can be seen at places they meditate upon. There are occasions when non-experts can also display such "re-location" skills - such events though are mostly a one off and generated by stronger than usual emotions for a given place or event or caused by multiple repetitions of a particular act.

Ghosts of the living (that do interact with the living)

I once read of an extremely odd occurrence where a man used to drive the same route every day. This trip took him to his destination where he would attend to some business affairs and then return home. The tasks he had to perform were of very short duration but dealing with them personally was the way this individual liked to work. On one particular day the person in question was uncharacteristically some 15 minutes late in setting off from home. As he approached his destination whilst negotiating a round-about (traffic system) - he was horrified to see himself coming back the other way and further stunned by witnessing his other self staring back at him with equal incredulity. Clearly his vision was of himself where he would have been if he'd been on time. Never before has the quote. "There are just as many ghosts of the living as there are of the dead" - been more vividly encountered.

Ghosts of the living (that do interact with the dead)

The ghost of a living person is the substance of that person that has materialized in a place remote from where they physically are. If a person in this tenuous state was to communicate with the spirit of a dead person - then we have an occasion where a ghost of the living has interacted with a ghost of the dead.

Ghosts of the living (that do not interact with the dead)

If the ghost of a living person (detailed above), is seen by ghosts of the past but cannot see or hear those ghosts themselves - then we have an example of ghosts of the living (that do not interact with the dead).

Ghosts that interact with other ghosts

This last section identifies the most bizarre type of encounter imaginable - one where a ghost sees another ghost. As with all the above sections, these events can also involve both the living and the dead and can be interactive or otherwise.

What are ghosts & what is living

There is no doubt that a living person who sees a non-interactive ghost from the past - is actually seeing that event unfurl. From this we must conclude that we have to re-think our ideas on the passage and nature of time. If that ghost is interactive with our living observer we have to begin to accept the soul or essence of man as being immortal. When we consider ghosts of the living we are up against the possibility that all of our experiences may indeed be manifestations of our own minds will and that "Reality Creation" is a real deal. I believe that we will eventually fully understand all the mysteries behind ghost sightings. People wrongly use the phrase "super natural" as if this phrase can in some way defuse the subject by placing it beyond our reach. I say that all things "Super-Natural" will be solved when the science catches up. By science I mean the application of current laws employed to refute the super-natural. I think we need to expand science to un-ravel the mysteries before us. Currently science says if an observed phenomena is beyond the known rules it can't exist. The correct way for science to advance is to accept the obvious truth (no matter how bizarre) and then advance science to accommodate a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct way for science to advance is to accept the obvious truth (no matter how bizarre) and then advance science to accommodate a solution.

Except that's not how science works.

You don't start with a conclusion and then attempt to find evidence for it. You start with the null hypothesis and the evidence takes you where it takes you.

And in the case of "ghosts", that evidence is nowhere.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that's not how science works.

You don't start with a conclusion and then attempt to find evidence for it. You start with the null hypothesis and the evidence takes you where it takes you.

And in the case of "ghosts", that evidence is nowhere.

Yep,not one shred of evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghosts of the living ,are not really ghosts ,there are merely souls out of their living body .

It's semantics ,but to me,ghosts can only be of the dead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask.

( and I want to believe )

If not one shred of evidence has ever been introduced to support the existence of Ghosts at all, how can you break down all the different kind?

First, show us ghosts even exist, then we can go from there on breaking them down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that's not how science works.

You don't start with a conclusion and then attempt to find evidence for it. You start with the null hypothesis and the evidence takes you where it takes you.

And in the case of "ghosts", that evidence is nowhere.

I once saw a scientist on TV debunking a UFO on the grounds that wreckage found from it was incapable of withstanding the heat of atmospheric re-entry friction. My thought process tells me immediately that any advanced space vehicle is not going to have to rely on simple ballistic free-falling plantery landfall. Clearly this i very primitive and they would use propulsion systems that would cruise down to earth. Secondly the debris may not have been an external part of the vessel. This is an example of scientists saying if somethings beyond our understanding then it does not exist. This attitude is wromg and does slow us down as a race in understanding things we currenlty do not. When somebody rational tells me they have seen a figure in period dress walk through a wall I believe them. Ok there a some liars but most people are severley shaken and honest in their accounts. Millions and millions of people have seen UFO's and Ghosts and this is often backed up by hard evidence - but is labelled impossible simply because it's not scientifically viable. This argument would be just fine but can anybody really believe that our science is anything but one notch above zero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the subject of ghosts will ever be claified by science, Like I said in an earlier post the subject of ghosts and demons, and pretty much everything involving the paranormal is to random in occurance. Science needs repeated evidence of things to even start to begin to look at it as a subject.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask.

( and I want to believe )

If not one shred of evidence has ever been introduced to support the existence of Ghosts at all, how can you break down all the different kind?

First, show us ghosts even exist, then we can go from there on breaking them down.

Do you not know anyone that has senn a ghost. Do you not believe them. As for evidence there is a plenty in the form of photgraphs ,videos,infra-red footprints and so on. Gosts are not supernatural spectres - they are images (sometimes interactive) of people and events forever locked in the quantum matrix in which we all reside. Let yourself believe and try to un-ravel to phenomena instead of getting nowhere.................. :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you not know anyone that has senn a ghost. Do you not believe them. As for evidence there is a plenty in the form of photgraphs ,videos,infra-red footprints and so on. Gosts are not supernatural spectres - they are images (sometimes interactive) of people and events forever locked in the quantum matrix in which we all reside. Let yourself believe and try to un-ravel to phenomena instead of getting nowhere.................. :alien:

I have experienced things, and seen things others would " believe " are ghosts.

I am not willing to let " belief " tell me something is fact. I prefer to use facts, and evidence to support what I know.

I also know that there are countless factual, natural, and man made things that cause things that people think are ghosts.

photgraphs ,videos,infra-red footprints and so on.

Unless you have something that has not been posted on the internet, TV shows, or books, I have yet to see anything that is evidence to support that ghosts exist. Actually, from your list, I have found that evidence supports people push their imagination, and hoaxs as fact, to try to convince people they exist.

If you have anything, please share.

Edited by Sakari
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have experienced things, and seen things others would " believe " are ghosts.

I am not willing to let " belief " tell me something is fact. I prefer to use facts, and evidence to support what I know.

I also know that there are countless factual, natural, and man made things that cause things that people think are ghosts.

Unless you have something that has not been posted on the internet, TV shows, or books, I have yet to see anything that is evidence to support that ghosts exist. Actually, from your list, I have found that evidence supports people push their imagination, and hoaxs as fact, to try to convince people they exist.

If you have anything, please share.

Can you tell me about the things you have experienced and why you belive they could be explained "rationally" please ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, greywolfe, imo, you make scientists sound like they lack any curiosity and science sound like it would never advance ("getting-nowhere").

Science's lack of supporting the paranormal or cryptids or whatever you want to label it, certainly is not based on a lack of curiosity in the scientific community or the desire to operate solely and strictly under the perimeters of only what we know at this point in time.

"It can't be done" would (and has) challenge any science oriented individual, imo.

I'm not saying they operate without guidelines or ignore what they do know, that would be impossible, but...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a scientist on TV debunking a UFO on the grounds that wreckage found from it was incapable of withstanding the heat of atmospheric re-entry friction. My thought process tells me immediately that any advanced space vehicle is not going to have to rely on simple ballistic free-falling plantery landfall. Clearly this i very primitive and they would use propulsion systems that would cruise down to earth. Secondly the debris may not have been an external part of the vessel. This is an example of scientists saying if somethings beyond our understanding then it does not exist. This attitude is wromg and does slow us down as a race in understanding things we currenlty do not. When somebody rational tells me they have seen a figure in period dress walk through a wall I believe them. Ok there a some liars but most people are severley shaken and honest in their accounts. Millions and millions of people have seen UFO's and Ghosts and this is often backed up by hard evidence - but is labelled impossible simply because it's not scientifically viable. This argument would be just fine but can anybody really believe that our science is anything but one notch above zero?

Where is this hard evidence because I have yet to see any.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me about the things you have experienced and why you belive they could be explained "rationally" please ?

I do not " believe " they can be explained, I " know " they can.

I have posted thousands of replies, explaining many claims, so have others. They are all over this site. There is also a topic called " sightings from skeptics ".....

If you really need me to repeat what is all ready posted I will, after you show me evidence that has not been seen, that is compelling, and would get a Universities attention.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you do a scientific study on something that is there one minute and gone the next. It can't be done, at least not at this point. Maybe it will be back and maybe it won't and if it is a repeating phenomenon when will it be there the next time. These studies cost money and time. I have seen a ghost but how I would prove it to anyone I don't know.

I don't think there is any such thing as the ghost of the living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or not of ghosts aside... It's an interesting way to classify them. How did you come up with it Wolfe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting methodology, I'll bite.

I would add to each category the following criteria (more than one can apply):

No trace - The apparition leaves no trace of it's appearance behind. (Obviously, this excludes every other category.)

Physical evidence - The apparition leaves ectoplasm or material objects behind (objects must have materialized or "appear", not moved from one physically nearby spot to another).

Material interaction - The apparition moves objects (open doors, moves furniture or objects around). This includes recordings of this phenomenon.

Recorded evidence - The apparition was captured by audio or image recording equipment in a manner as to not leave any doubt that "something" is there. Alternatively, the apparition leaves a trace of its physical presence behind (foot prints or hand prints for example).

You might be able to subdivide or add to this as you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you do a scientific study on something that is there one minute and gone the next. It can't be done, at least not at this point. Maybe it will be back and maybe it won't and if it is a repeating phenomenon when will it be there the next time. These studies cost money and time. I have seen a ghost but how I would prove it to anyone I don't know.

I don't think there is any such thing as the ghost of the living.

But that's not always the case now is it? This site is repleat with stories of ghosts that aledgedly appear in the same spot at the same time day after day. Such occurances are also common in both ghostlore and ghost hunting TV shows.

If that's truly the case and ghosts are real as some claim, then it would be quite simple to prove their existence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not always the case now is it? This site is repleat with stories of ghosts that aledgedly appear in the same spot at the same time day after day. Such occurances are also common in both ghostlore and ghost hunting TV shows.

If that's truly the case and ghosts are real as some claim, then it would be quite simple to prove their existence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have said this a thousand times......

Ghost hunting groups here, all over the net, and those famous guys on TV claim all the time of " I just saw a ghost"...

It is amazing how many see them while investigating, but the cameras are never facing that way.

What I have said, and suggested in emails, wear a GoPro camera.....A POV camera......Simple to do, easy to do. Whatever you are looking at, the camera is looking at.

If they can do it on motorcycle helmets, Wakeboard helmets, Skateboard helmets, Skydiving Helmets, etc.... Why not on a ghost hunter?

I know the answer......

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or not of ghosts aside... It's an interesting way to classify them. How did you come up with it Wolfe?

tumblr_l4ianlKyRu1qbv3ovo1_400_large.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have said this a thousand times......

Ghost hunting groups here, all over the net, and those famous guys on TV claim all the time of " I just saw a ghost"...

It is amazing how many see them while investigating, but the cameras are never facing that way.

What I have said, and suggested in emails, wear a GoPro camera.....A POV camera......Simple to do, easy to do. Whatever you are looking at, the camera is looking at.

If they can do it on motorcycle helmets, Wakeboard helmets, Skateboard helmets, Skydiving Helmets, etc.... Why not on a ghost hunter?

I know the answer......

Yep.

How about a small helmet with four Go Pro HD cameras - one pointing in each direction with overlapping field of view?

That rig would cost less than $2,000.

And while we're at it, why are the EVPs always caught on the $20 digital recorder, but not on the $5,000 sound recording equipment that the audio engineer is running?

Edited by Rafterman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on guys.. Get off the ghosts don't exist argument long enough to let the OP explain how he came up with this theory and why he thinks it's a good one. It's not that I don't agree with you all, but I want to see where this theory is coming from, and I'll never find out if the OP keeps having to argue about the existence or not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on guys.. Get off the ghosts don't exist argument long enough to let the OP explain how he came up with this theory and why he thinks it's a good one. It's not that I don't agree with you all, but I want to see where this theory is coming from, and I'll never find out if the OP keeps having to argue about the existence or not.

Well, With the other threads he had made, e.g. alien thread and the stare straight and see ghosts thread, he has avoided asking that questions on there he got this information from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on guys.. Get off the ghosts don't exist argument long enough to let the OP explain how he came up with this theory and why he thinks it's a good one. It's not that I don't agree with you all, but I want to see where this theory is coming from, and I'll never find out if the OP keeps having to argue about the existence or not.

Well he'd actually have to come back and participate to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence or not of ghosts aside... It's an interesting way to classify them. How did you come up with it Wolfe?

I noticed that some ghost are seen just going about there business completely oblivious to the people who see them. Other ghosts interact with people and some people see images of themselves either ahead or behind in time of where they currently are. This forced me to try and list the types in an effort to understand the phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not " believe " they can be explained, I " know " they can.

I have posted thousands of replies, explaining many claims, so have others. They are all over this site. There is also a topic called " sightings from skeptics ".....

If you really need me to repeat what is all ready posted I will, after you show me evidence that has not been seen, that is compelling, and would get a Universities attention.

Photographs, voices on tapes, infra-red signatures ..............all can be manipulated to either prove or disprove the reality of ghosts. From day one I,ve always accepted the statements of observers especially when being told first hand and face to face of an encounter. If someone says to me "I saw an apparition walk through a wall " - to me this is a real deal. The strongest proof I will put forward is the sheer volume of sightings since the dawn of time. For a skeptic to decide that 1.000.0000.0000+...........events have all been errors is completely beyond my comprehension and will remain so. I want to discuss and understand the nature of reality. To still be asking the question "Do ghost exist" is wasting time. For us to converse on the subject will never be productive for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.