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 0
LostSouls7

How can you video tape a ghost?

26 posts in this topic

Ok there was some guy out there that said if you could prove the super natural exists

that he would give you 1 million.

So my relatives say they see ghosts at their house..

if I get video. So I need a special camera to capture a ghost on film?

Also if the video is unedited will that guy still claim it's fake or doctored???

i mean live video... straight from the cam....

no video editing program nothing...

If I got a ghost on cam, would I win the million?

Also why has no one else got the million?

There are real videos of Monks moving objects across a table without touching it..

I guess since they are humble and spiritual ..

they are not trying to cash in.

But if I had those powers.. you better believe that million would be in my bank account!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you tell me, all the apperant video tapes and pics dont look well done to me! so my answer is you apperently cant, unless its a smudged out blurr in the middle of a misty field at 3 am, or thats a dust particle lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually its hard to prove it, even if you capture a ghost on film, they will say its fake, smoke, the camera is busted and so on.

The only way you can prove it with a physical evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok there was some guy out there that said if you could prove the super natural exists

that he would give you 1 million.

So my relatives say they see ghosts at their house..

if I get video. So I need a special camera to capture a ghost on film?

Also if the video is unedited will that guy still claim it's fake or doctored???

i mean live video... straight from the cam....

no video editing program nothing...

If I got a ghost on cam, would I win the million?

Also why has no one else got the million?

There are real videos of Monks moving objects across a table without touching it..

I guess since they are humble and spiritual ..

they are not trying to cash in.

But if I had those powers.. you better believe that million would be in my bank account!

I assume you're talking about the $1 million James Randi prize. You need to contact the James Randi Foundation about it. You can't just turn up with a video or photo or a ghost and ask for your $1 million.

They have specific guidelines about how these things are done to prevent fraud. The challenger and the James Randi Foundation agree on a procedure or set of procedures and test what it being claimed. For example, if you claim to have psychic powers, a test will be devised to which both you and the James Randi Foundation agree upon, in which in front of observers using a well shuffled brand new deck of cards (or what have) you where you should make predictions about what card comes next in a way that is significantly above random chance according to pre-agreed rules, etc.

It varies form claim to claim but it's all about both the James Randi Foundation and the challenger agree upon what is being claimed and how it should be tested in such a way to determine the claim is proven true well beyond what might be possible via random chance or fraud.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a video wouldn't work as proof for them

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would have to invite them to the house

and show them?

and they will will probably try to back out of saying..

we are using special hollywood effects to do it...

I have a feeling they don't want to pay the million

even if they see real evidence of paranormal activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would have to invite them to the house

and show them?

and they will will probably try to back out of saying..

we are using special hollywood effects to do it...

I have a feeling they don't want to pay the million

even if they see real evidence of paranormal activity

Nope - they more than anyone wants this stuff to be true.

Give them a call and tell them what you have and you and they can then decide on how to set up the experiments.

And it's not just Randi, there's several million sitting out there in prizes for anyone to prove any kind of psychic ability or the paranormal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The challenger and the James Randi Foundation agree on a procedure or set of procedures and test what it being claimed.

This part. Think it very hard, take time. This, how would you prove in the first place ghosts existed even if they were visible? Maybe they could say you used some psychic powers of your own instead, in which case would that qualify for anything? Can you prove they leave any mark on the physical world? Can you be sure you can measure them in any way?

Mr. Randi, would he be able to prove love exists in the same methods he'd demand to be proven ghosts exist? That there's something else than just the hormone at work, that it's more than cold mechanics? I'm just wondering about the method he would qualify to have this proven.

If you can't trust them, dont waste your time on them, my take. Your relative's house ain't the first one in the world to be haunted, so why would you think you'd be the one getting the price? The reason why no one has managed to claim this prize is what matters, and I think the reason is in that even they dont know what kind of existence ghosts would be and thus dont know what measurements for their existence would be proper.

Edited by Mikko-kun
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put a Go-Pro HD camera on the heads of Zak Bagans, Nick Groff, and Aaron Goodwin.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So you would have to invite them to the house

and show them?

and they will will probably try to back out of saying..

we are using special hollywood effects to do it...

I have a feeling they don't want to pay the million

even if they see real evidence of paranormal activity

No, your description of video footage of ghosts simply falls outside of the claims they are willing to entertain and offer prize money for.

They are all about offering the prize for demonstrating paranormal or supernatural claims under controlled conditions agreed upon by both the James Randi Foundation and the claimant.

Edited by JesseCuster
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@LostSouls7 Go for it if you want but I don't see much hope in it. Capturing a full body apparition on film is very rare and if someone actually succeeded at it, the proof must have been buried with a fake label on it.

This kind of contest show is typical of the skeptic organisations aimed at ridiculizing the paranormal. They are aware that this is out of reach. I maybe wrong but I think that even if someone would succeed in their contests, they would find a way to discredit this person. It's like saying throw yourself into the void and we will give you 1M$ if you can fly. Everyone knows we have no feathers but even if we have, we never learned how to achieve a straight flight with them. Only the fools will attempt it.

Edited by sam_comm
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This part. Think it very hard, take time. This, how would you prove in the first place ghosts existed even if they were visible? Maybe they could say you used some psychic powers of your own instead, in which case would that qualify for anything? Can you prove they leave any mark on the physical world? Can you be sure you can measure them in any way?

Mr. Randi, would he be able to prove love exists in the same methods he'd demand to be proven ghosts exist? That there's something else than just the hormone at work, that it's more than cold mechanics? I'm just wondering about the method he would qualify to have this proven.

If you can't trust them, dont waste your time on them, my take. Your relative's house ain't the first one in the world to be haunted, so why would you think you'd be the one getting the price? The reason why no one has managed to claim this prize is what matters, and I think the reason is in that even they dont know what kind of existence ghosts would be and thus dont know what measurements for their existence would be proper.

Y'know, I hope the only way you experience love is not solely inside your head.

Ideally love is demonstrated by as much physical displays as mental feeling. And there are many easy to demonstrate ways to show you love someone beyond just the chemical activity in your head.

Also, it can not be stressed enough that Randi rarely actually takes part in these tests anymore. He is 85 years old and in failing health, though he does seem to be full cognizant as ever he is now a frail, very old (and absolutely tiny!) man.

The challenge is coordinated through communication between the challenger and representatives of JREF that would have relevant qualifications to the challenge proposed.

Now, like JesseCuster said a haunted house doesn't fall under the type of claims the JREF will test simply due to the variables involved. There's to much that can affect the outcome and to many loopholes for both parties to get out of.

Though you can contact them through the JREF website and see what they could come up with.

Likewise, there are other groups that offer reward money for successful challenges that may be more local to you, like the Independent Investigations Group.

I actually got to sit in on a live Million Dollar Challenge back on the 14th of this month.

They tested a Mr. Brahim Addoun of Algeria, who claimed to be able to remote view objects.

They came up with a test where he would have his compatriot (who's name I can't remember) and three representatives from the JREF. They set u a room in the hotel, placed three objects in the room and a personal item, then first had the hotel lock the room.

Next they took sealing tape and sealed the doors, then they took a piece of paper and all of the people involved there signed it. Then this was taped over the door, then the entire thing was taped several more times.

It was left in state for three days, which was the amount of time Mr. Addoun said he would need to identify the object.

On the last day, they contacted him (as he was still in Algeria) and set about the process of identifying the itens.

Now, he said that due to it being Ramadan his powers were weaker, apparently something he had not discussed with them before hand.

They immediately were willing to put of the test and reschedule at his convenience, but he said that he was still confident he could accurately identify all of the items in the room.

So, after going over the rules they had agreed to again, and having Mr. Addoun's compatriot sign the release in his stead, and again having him agree that everything was in order and he was satisfied with the challenge, he gave his list of the items.

Unfortunately, he did not get even one right.

However, since he did state that due to Ramadan his powers were weakened they are going to work with him to reschedule and do the challenge again.

If you want to have a skeptic come and very your location is haunted, or to find natural explanations for the haunting, I can recommend two people that are well known skeptics who do onsite investigations.

Joe Nickel is a well known skeptical paranormal investigator. I've met him twice and he's a very pleasant and respectful man. Benjamin Radford is the other, I've met him as well and he's a good guy as well.

He has an excellent book detailing the Chupacabra legend. He tracked down and interviewed the original person who claimed to have seen the creature, and has sponsored many DNA testings of supposed bodies of Chupacabras following the orhing of the legend into a more canine creature.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but you can always fake those demonstrations of love or do them just because you have a passing crush on someone. I think that getting married and having a mutual future are awfully dubious and superficial ways to try to prove such a thing. If there's a connection between souls, how do you prove that? To outsiders who want scientific proof that is. Other than statistical consistency.

Forgive my scepticism, I just was left to wonder what if any means would you have to prove the existence of something like ghosts... something of which we might have no idea what the nature of it's existence is, though Sakari gave me some links related to this once. Just seems to me something more of a field research thing than something you can yet even think about proving. Some unexplained anomalies by themselves might not be ghosts or even a conscious presence... you would have to communicate with the ghost and exclude other options of anyone else doing it, yes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but you can always fake those demonstrations of love or do them just because you have a passing crush on someone. I think that getting married and having a mutual future are awfully dubious and superficial ways to try to prove such a thing. If there's a connection between souls, how do you prove that? To outsiders who want scientific proof that is. Other than statistical consistency.

Well first you have to prove souls, but to me you come off as more than paranoid if you suspect that people who appear to care for you are faking it.

And getting married, spending the rest of your life with someone, having a family and sharing mutual experiences through a life time seem fairly solid ways to prove it.

And in some instances, the length gone through to make that commitment to one another speaks a lot to itself.

For example, Randi himself just married his partner after decades of being together due to the repeal of DOMA.

Forgive my scepticism, I just was left to wonder what if any means would you have to prove the existence of something like ghosts... something of which we might have no idea what the nature of it's existence is, though Sakari gave me some links related to this once. Just seems to me something more of a field research thing than something you can yet even think about proving. Some unexplained anomalies by themselves might not be ghosts or even a conscious presence... you would have to communicate with the ghost and exclude other options of anyone else doing it, yes.

Well, ghost is a really loose term used for a wide collection of phenomena. That'd be why it'd be very important to hammer out what is meant by ghosts and try to seek every other possibility. Ghosts mean different things in different cultures and different things at different times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, ghost is a really loose term used for a wide collection of phenomena. That'd be why it'd be very important to hammer out what is meant by ghosts and try to seek every other possibility. Ghosts mean different things in different cultures and different things at different times.

In the paranormal field of research, the consensus is that a ghost is a deceased person or animal appearing in a immaterial shape. But there are various words for the same definition which can be confusing: Ghost, apparition, specter, phantom ect.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the paranormal field of research, the consensus is that a ghost is a deceased person or animal appearing in a non-physical shape. But there are various words for the same definition which can be confusing: Ghost, apparition, specter, phantom ect.

Actually, not exactly.

Even among the paranormal community at large you have debates over whether they are captured images of living people, energy forms, spirits that were never really people, and much more.

All of these, and others beside, share many characteristics that make it difficult or possible to decide which definition is the right one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but about love, marriage and spending a lifetime together and showing affection are consequences. If you can prove something exists only based on consequences, then it's a conjencture proof. Not proof of the thing itself actually, but of something which you think it caused. Of course I agree in that love exists, but I just disagree about proving it like that. I think you just can show your love in many ways.

But you know, I so much agree with you on that those things, at least ghosts, are worth proving. Love, I wouldn't mind it staying a mystery. But about ghosts... there's I think two things you can use as indicators for proof about them. First, physical anomalies occurring, like some places being colder than they're supposed to, or flickering lights or whatever those phenomena might be. Second, to somehow prove they're conscious in nature. Might not be ghosts but spirits. Maybe GoSoODE would be better, Ghost or Spirit or Other-Dimension Entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but about love, marriage and spending a lifetime together and showing affection are consequences. If you can prove something exists only based on consequences, then it's a conjencture proof. Not proof of the thing itself actually, but of something which you think it caused. Of course I agree in that love exists, but I just disagree about proving it like that. I think you just can show your love in many ways.

I was going outside of the brain chemistry evidence. You can decide something exists by the consequences of it's existence. At some point you have to apply Occam's Razor and figure they really do care for you.

But you know, I so much agree with you on that those things, at least ghosts, are worth proving. Love, I wouldn't mind it staying a mystery. But about ghosts... there's I think two things you can use as indicators for proof about them. First, physical anomalies occurring, like some places being colder than they're supposed to, or flickering lights or whatever those phenomena might be. Second, to somehow prove they're conscious in nature. Might not be ghosts but spirits. Maybe GoSoODE would be better, Ghost or Spirit or Other-Dimension Entity.

Some proof of a afterlife would be cool, though from what's been reported of ghosts doesn't seem promising. Drafty rooms in houses and poor wiring don't seem like much of a existence to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont use that razor :) dont need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Actually, not exactly.

Even among the paranormal community at large you have debates over whether they are captured images of living people, energy forms, spirits that were never really people, and much more.

All of these, and others beside, share many characteristics that make it difficult or possible to decide which definition is the right one.

You put a variety of phenomenon under the word ''ghost'' which many people do but as far as I know the consensus taken by a majority of researcher is this:

- Intelligent

ghost: deceased person or animal appearing in a immaterial shape.

spirit: non corporal existence of a deceased person or animal.

entity: something that exist though it never tread this world, never had a body in it. (Here we found the demonic forces)

- Residual

residual haunting: residual energy of the past printed in the present. It needs not be any spirits or presence it is like a recording playback over and over again

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont use that razor :) dont need to.

You never decide that the simplest answer that most successfully explains a phenomena is likely to be correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You put a variety of phenomenon under the word ''ghost'' which many people do but as far as I know the consensus taken by a majority of researcher is this:

- Intelligent

ghost: deceased person or animal appearing in a immaterial shape.

spirit: non corporal substance of a deceased person or animal.

entity: something that exist though it never tread this world, never had a body in it. (Here we found the demonic forces)

- Residual

residual haunting: residual energy of the past printed in the present. It needs not be any spirits or presence it is like a recording playback over and over again

There's not a consensus in the paranormal community on what a ghost is.

You do have individual groups that have specific working definitions of ghosts but they tend to vary between the groups and they rarely have any real justification for their classifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never decide that the simplest answer that most successfully explains a phenomena is likely to be correct?

That's not my first priority for deciding things, no. But the answer that feels right and is logically right. High-end math is not simple for me, nor is world always. But of course if it works for you, use it. For me, it doesn't feel right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not my first priority for deciding things, no. But the answer that feels right and is logically right. High-end math is not simple for me, nor is world always. But of course if it works for you, use it. For me, it doesn't feel right.

Er... it's not high end math. Love is the simplest explanation for why two people would want to spend their lives together. It's a simple and logical answer.

And be careful about what feels right, many people take what feels right over truth. Common sense often leads us astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is a feeling. And I use what I use to determine what's right for my worldview, like we all do. And through experience I probably know the faults of my protocol better than you or anyone else who doesn't use it. Though you can see where your protocol is better than mine. Such is always the case, when we look at our own protocols. Where common sense may leave you astray, logic may blind you from using your senses of mood and feelings and such so much, blind you from trusting them and instead make you think this and that. Not always a bad thing but not always a harmless one either. You can see faults in all protocols if you look into it. It's just best to use the one that's you.

But yeah, it's a simple explanation for sure. I dont just buy those things off the hat, always case-sensitive and these days so large percentage of couples break up, and back in the days many families stayed together out of necessity. I come from one of those families where parents broke up, I know through experience too just how much you can either mistreat love or mistake something else to love, both of my own and my parents. And if you're capable of mistreating love for reasons like incapability to redeem your ways nor forgive, then it's just good to ask is that really love or something else? Maybe it's love, but then, I dont like saying this, you let your weaknesses beat it. I can see love there even when those things happen, so to me staying together isn't an exclusive sign of love. If you say that's how you prove love, then you mean I'm wrong in saying there's love between separated couples too? Maybe we're both right, but I truly couldn't tell it, and I want to be sincere first and foremost.

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 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.