A ghost is captured

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Starchild
Why would a ghost need to open a door?

To get out?

HOW would a ghost open a door?

Pull the handle?

[Nubclear]

In the mirror I take it?

Walking up the stairs actually.

How come the ghost looks like something taken out of a Frankenstein movie?

They usually don't.

It looks a bit solid for a ghost.

Ghosts can be solid.

Why would a ghost need to open a door?

They don't.

HOW would a ghost open a door?

In many ways.

Why would a ghost let itself be caught on some random security camera?

This is what makes me think it's a hoax.

[Chemical Ollie]

The door to my steam boiler room opens by itself 1-2 times a week. And I know it's not the cat who does it, and no other member of the family either

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Thorn
There are different kinds of ghostly asperations, two of which would be capable of opening doors. I'd say if it was a film that it would be more unlikely, as usually the interactive ghosts do more of such things.

And where is this from? Ah, more baseless conjecture. This is the joy of the supernatural--you can just make up the rules as you go along.

If I had that power I wouldn't come forward with it either, it is not mere parlor tricks, it is serious ability. And can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands.

Ah, so obviously only good people have telekinetic powers. Just like in the movies. Because if the power happened to manifest itself in some unscrupulous person, you'd think he'd be using it to rob banks, molest women, etc.

And as for the poltergeist telekenesis, it is uncontrollabe and unconscious which makes it extremely difficult to study. Getting someone to have poltergeist activities in a laboritory isn't exactly that easy. It is probably a mix of mental energies (remember we don't use most of our brain) with an energy disturbence of some kind in the area.

It's great you can make these things up, but where's the evidence? You know, the empirical study? Isn't it just a little too convenient that the phenomena is just so elusive?

Btw, it's a myth that we don't use most of our brain--we use all of it.

Have you ever read about the United States government's Philidelphia Experiment during World War II

*snip*

That would be interesting, if any of it were true. But it's a complete bunch of BS:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm

There's never been any substantiation of the experiment, and there aren't even tons of supposed eye witnesses.

No not out of unreasoned bias, they are lies told to children for whatever reason. Ghosts were not some concoction designed to entertain people with thrill and fright, in fact no one designed ghosts as they aren't straight fiction like these other things you describe.

Not designed to entertain? That's precisely what ghosts do! How many haunted house movies, books and stories are there? How often to kids try to scare each other around camp fires with ghost stories? Ghost stories are made up to make old, atmospheric places more interesting to tourists and to provide some drama.

I think it is unreasonable that you link a supernatural phenomon to a children's story, particularly you are being an ASS, SO STOP IT!!

Unreasonable? Not at all...my positioned is quite reasonable, since there's nothing supporting the existence of such things except stories.

And me being an ass? Let's look at your first post:

I find it really pathetic that atheists don't believe there are ghosts, just because they wish to rebel against this so called norm of believers. Well actually Christians can't believe there are ghosts it is against their religion... so you atheists are screwing yourselves an opportunity to thwart Christianity.

You swooped in and attacked atheists, when atheism hadn't even been mentioned yet. You made a blanket assumption that someone like myself only disbelieves in ghosts because of "rebelling." It just so happens that I don't believe in ghosts because I've looked at the evidence and reasoned that their existence is highly improbable. I certainly don't need to be insulted by you, of all people, about the nature of my beliefs. I don't believe or disbelieve things out of any agenda with regards to Christianity--my beliefs are soley predicated on what I rationally believe to be true or false.

And I don't think I've been an ass, as all I've done is disagreed with you and your claims. Just look at your next post, when Az "dared" to disagree with you:

YOU ARE ARROGENT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING....

So if there's an ass here, sir, it is you!

[Thorn]

Go to hell Boris.

Unreasonable? Not at all...my positioned is quite reasonable, since there's nothing supporting the existence of such things except stories.

And personal accounts, including mine (regardless of whether you believe it).

You think that you know everything, you are just as closed minded as other ignorant people you claim to be better then, enjoy your religion of skeptism... it will ill comfort you in your time of need... you'll live and then die a wretched ignorant fool... just like so many others... you are not free in your thinking, you are trapped....

[Boris Godunov]

I rest my case. Despite the fact that nobody was attacking anyone here, you come in and start firing off ad hominems and bitter attacks. I'm certainly glad most people who believe in such things are capable of asserting their position without snarling and lashing out with insults like you do.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I see. So it's "ignorant" and "stupid" of us to say we don't believe in something because, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics/nature/etc. that it is impossible. Interesting.

So, by this rationale, why don't we all go around believing in pink unicorns, garden fairies and the Easter bunny? What separates the superstition of ghosts from these other superstitions? If you're going to insist that we can't disbelieve in ghosts because maybe in the future the laws of science as we know them will be turned on their heads, then you might as well believe in everything!

Oh wait...you WANT this particular superstition to be true, so obviously critical thought need not apply...

Well, I would say that what separates the superstition of ghosts from say the tooth fairy and the easter bunny, is that many many people have said that they have experiences with ghosts, where as no one says they saw the easter bunny (unless they are humoring a young one)

this story is proof of what separates the two.

no leading news agency such as those that reported this story in all seriousness, would do the same thing if santa clause was caught on tape.

the seriousness with which this story was reported tends to separate ghosts from other myths I think.

My critical thought for the night.

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I rest my case. Despite the fact that nobody was attacking anyone here, you come in and start firing off ad hominems and bitter attacks. I'm certainly glad most people who believe in such things are capable of asserting their position without snarling and lashing out with insults like you do.

Forgive me, I'm not in the best mood as I have the flu. A lot of my attacks are uncalled for. Sorry.

[vee4473]

well, I would say that any assumption that those who disbelieve this story are atheists may stem from an assumption that if you were indeed a religious person, then you would not reject the possibility of ghosts so matter of factly. I mean after all, beliveing in religion automatically means you are open to such unproven things.

I'm not trying to defend the assumption that those who disbelieve are atheists, just trying to shed light on where such an assumption might spring from.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vee4473
Well, I would say that what separates the superstition of ghosts from say the tooth fairy and the easter bunny, is that many many people have said that they have experiences with ghosts, where as no one says they saw the easter bunny (unless they are humoring a young one)

But there's absolutely nothing empiric about this distinction. Why on earth should I believe something that has absolutely no scientific evidence in its favor just because a whole bunch of other people believe it? I'm not one for bandwagons.

Certain superstitions are bound to be more popular than others. Ghosts capture the imagination, as they play to primitive instincts of fear at the unknown and the mysteries of a world that was vastly incomprehensible. But having more people eager to believe a superstition doesn't have the slightest effect on its being true or not.

Lots of people report seeing ghosts, yes--but how reliable are these reports? Lots of people claim lots of things. If every claim of such occurences were true, that would mean that every day thousands upon thousands of people would be having supernatural encounters or anal probes or whatever.

The fact is, the more we learn about the brain, the more we know that it is an instrument that is very susceptible to suggestion. And that's exactly what ghosts are, IMO. Spooky environs and old legends suggest themselves to people, and the belief that they've experienced a ghost, whether it be an apparition, a chill, a noise, or just a creepy feeling. And people who really want to believe its true will believe it and magnify it to be something it really wasn't. I think deja vu is the perfect example of this kind of thing. It's something pretty much everyone experiences, and it's pretty easy to see that it's a brain glitch, a momentary little fussiness among the synapses. But when it happens, it feels so real, and someone prone to believe that it means something deeper will, naturally, jump on it as somehow indicating premonition.

In short, the mind plays tricks, and tons of suggestion and a willingness to believe just makes the potential all the greater.

[vee4473]

I agree with alot of what you are saying Boris, but when a camera catches these things, the human brain and all of its mysteries are removed from the equation.

You can't say that the camera was having a brief misfire of synapses.

and when no one can explain why a camera records what it records, that is odd.

also, looking at this phenomenon through the "there is no empirical evidence" glasses tends to make others believe that someone may be an atheist.

once again not saying that you are or aren't, just that such scrutiny could be perhaps misconstured as someone who has no religious beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Every established scientific theory began as a guess of some crackpot who was ridiculed and dismissed.

This does not confer any real evidence for crackpots who are ridiculed and dismissed. Statistically, you're better off saying the crackpots are wrong, because staticstically, they are in a very FEW cases has a crackpot been right.

Oh yes. Remember how in eons past, "scientists" were studying such things as alchemy and the like? Just because someone decides they want to BS their way through to a doctorate degree in something doesn't mean they're studying something that's real. We have entire philosophy departments as proof of this.

[Kuciwalker]

If I had that power I wouldn't come forward with it either, it is not mere parlor tricks, it is serious ability. And can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. And as for the poltergeist telekenesis, it is uncontrollabe and unconscious which makes it extremely difficult to study. Getting someone to have poltergeist activities in a laboritory isn't exactly that easy. It is probably a mix of mental energies (remember we don't use most of our brain) with an energy disturbence of some kind in the area.

"Mental energies" "energy disturbance"

Way too much Star Trek there, boy

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by vee4473
I agree with alot of what you are saying Boris, but when a camera catches these things, the human brain and all of its mysteries are removed from the equation.

You can't say that the camera was having a brief misfire of synapses.

and when no one can explain why a camera records what it records, that is odd.

also, looking at this phenomenon through the "there is no empirical evidence" glasses tends to make others believe that someone may be an atheist.

once again not saying that you are or aren't, just that such scrutiny could be perhaps misconstured as someone who has no religious beliefs.

I am an atheist. My argument with Thorn was about his wildly inaccurate assumptions as to why atheists don't believe in ghosts.

But as to the camera--when has a camera ever shown definitive proof of a ghost? Take this artile. Nothing in that photo is proof of a ghost--it may be suggestive to one to some people, but all I see is a figure opening a door. Considering the noted problems with a non-corpreal being actually opening a door, I'm inclined to believe that's a living person in the photograph.

Camera photos can lie. Besides the obvious of intentional hoaxes, there's a matter of coincidental images. A smudgy shape in a photograph will look like a spectre to some, but until someone can prove to me it isn't a flaw of the photo, trick of light, etc., I don't feel inclined to dismiss the laws of science and physics as we know them and give creedence to superstition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Sava]

If ghosts go through stuff, how come they don't go through the ground and get sucked into the core of the Earth... or, if gravity doesn't affect them, how come they don't fly off into space?

And if everyone becomes a ghost, it seems as if there would be a ****load of ghosts running around. And who gets to be a ghost and who doesn't?