Photo of Ghost in the Palace? (1 Viewer)

[James T]

There appears to be a lot of skeptics that seem to hold the opinions for society as a whole.

The picture looks to good to be true. Ya, it resembles King Charles the first, but there just doesn't exist a picture that looks that good(even though it is a bit blurry). Most ghost pictures are of orbs and/or ecto plasm that form figures.

 

[John_Berger]

Oh, here we go again. The all-knowing, all-seeing naysayers come forth (once again) with their ever-to-be-right "fact" about ghosts. Looks like Steve even decided to throw in a little name calling this time around.

:rolleyes

 

[BrianShort]

I don't think any of the skeptics here claim to be all knowing and all seeing. It's just that we have never seen any sort of evidence that would conclusively point to a spirit from beyond. Pictures don't tell you anything, since that can easily be faked, or have some wierd lens effect that is misinterpreted as a ghost, or any number of things. And the human brain can easily play tricks of the subconscious on itself. A skeptic will always look for natural answers to something before jumping to a supernatural conclusion.

Brian

 

[Bob Turnbull]

I completely agree with Brian's comment here...Don't confuse skepticism with cynicism.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You can also use Occam's Razor in cases like this which states that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. A hoax driven by publicity would be the likely solution.

Although the UK as a whole might be more "accepting" of ghosts, I think North Americans have a very high level of belief in paranormal events as well. Whether it be ghosts, UFOs, psychics or those who talk to the dead (James Van Praagh or John Edward), there seems to be a great deal of desire to believe.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Photos and videos are too easy to hoax. Until I see a ghost with my own eyes, I'll take these pictures with a grain of salt.

 

[Kevin M]

Well The UK isn't as excepting of Toothbrushes either so let's not get all exited about their "open-mindedness".

Seriously..
..perhaps The Amazing Randi would like to have a look see...if not them I'm sure the Sci-Fi channel is looking for more material to pad out any new season of "Tuesday Declassified if they decide bring it back.


...well okay, maybe not all that seriously.

 

[Sam Posten]

So THAT is what those little packets are for!

Sam

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Is there a place on the internet to see the video of this ghost?

I have only seen the picture on news sites and would love to see the entire video.

Paul

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Anyone worth their weight in silica knows you can bake the material at 200° for an hour to release the absorbed moments... and any moisture.

 

[John_Berger]

There's nothing to confuse. There is a distinct difference in tone between a belief-presented-as-fact "Ghosts don't exist" statement and "I believe that ghosts don't exist." I don't think it's too much to ask that room be left for all beliefs, although there is no place for the degrading comments against those who don't necessarily believe your own view.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Yes, you're absolutely right John. And that was my point...Being skeptical about the existence of something or the veracity of a certain statement is simply a matter of not believing there is enough evidence in order for acceptance. I don't see a problem with asking for further proof or at least some use or knowledge of the scientific method.

Being cynical in these cases leads to blanket statements as well as mocking of those who believe. I'm not immune to this, but I certainly strive for the former...

 

[RobertR]

No, different people simply interact differently with reality and/or have different knowledge of it. Stick your hand in a 600 degree oven for 15 minutes and then tell me that whether or not your hand is burnt is just a matter of one's subjective viewpoint.

Skeptics simply say "show me", and all the explanations for why there is NO solid evidence for ghosts still leaves us with the fact that we have NOT been shown. There is absolutely NOTHING about that picture that compels a supernatural explanation.

 

[Jason_Els]

Hrm. We can never be sure what is perceived is what is real.

That statement might sound flip but it really isn't.

People who have never been exposed to perspective drawing don't interpret it as perspective drawing. They see a melange of shapes on a flat plane.

The colors of objects we see are the opposite of what they actually are.

And further.... The "Double Slit" Experiment which illustrates that by merely observing something we can change its behavior.... or so we think. Time it seems, doesn't just go away.

You're right. There is absolutely NOTHING about that picture that compels a supernatural explanation. What does compel a supernatural explanation is the circumstance in which the picture was taken. But forgiving that explanation, perhaps something else took place; something which illustrates that time, it seems, doesn't go away (as the double slit experiment demonstrates); that what we see and what camera can capture depend upon our cultural perspective of what we expect to see and perhaps we interpret these things using the most at-hand explanation our brains expect. Ergo our perception of reality creates a ghost where our rational thought tells us one should not exist.

Perhaps ghosts are slices of time caught in an eddy.

 

[RobertR]

Nope. All you have is a news report quoting some palace officials who say they don't know how it happened. This is laughably far from a serious investigation involving knowledgeable, competent, skeptical observers present to ensure no fraud took place.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I agree, don't make that mistake.

 

[Jason_Els]

Not nonsense. Our experience of the world is limited by our perceptions and we have nothing else by which to examine it as we have nothing but our perceptions to observe. You can only prove that you perceive something, you cannot prove that a thing or event is what you perceive it to be. Our senses are a prison from which we cannot escape. Mathematics, computers, and any other data from which we can derive any explanation of the world at hand still can only be comprehended via our perception.

Objective reality is something we can never truly experience. We do experience something, which indicates it is likely that something exists, but we cannot prove that our interpretation of it is the objective interpretation because all reasoning is limited by the subjective interpretations of our sensible reasoning.

This has been a foundation of epistomology since Kant's refutation of a priori Forms first proposed by Socrates.

I'm not suggesting there's a "mystical" explanation for anything. Ockham's Razor demands that we must seek the most simple explanation first which, in this case, would be a hoax. It does not, however, mean a hoax is the correct explanation.

Likley millions of people throughout history have seen ghosts in one form or another. Not only do they transcend culture but their various forms do as well. I submit that some kind of noumena is occuring but we interpret it as ghost phenomena because our awareness of the noumena is culturally and scientificly deficient. When we understand what causes ghost phenomena then they will cease to be ghosts as we presently understand them to be. The answer may come from physics or from psychology but I do not believe all ghosts as seen since time immeorial are hoaxes. It will take some bold scientists willing to investigate and withstand the ridicule of those who outright dismiss them as crackpots. Science is a cultural and sociological process which attempts objective investigation into natural processes. When society ceases to laugh at serious investigation into ghosts so will the scientists.

And what we perceive to be the color of an object is actually the absence of the color perceived (as regards reflected objects). For more fun on color theory see Theories of Color from The Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind.

 

[Kevin M]

What does all this bickering matter in the end? The Mothman is going to kill us all anyway...

 

[RobertR]

What you call “laughing” I call critical analysis by scientific peers. ANY scientist studying ANY phenomenon is subject to such rigorous scrutiny, and that is how it should be. Whining about those “mean old skeptics” critically evaluating the evidence produced by psychic researchers is a useless response. If you REALLY want to stop the laughing, PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. No one has.

 

[Jason_Els]

Where did I bring psychic researchers into this? I didn't. I also didn't call anyone a, "mean old skeptic".

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. If I didn't want a critical investigation into ghostly phenomena then I wouldn't be calling for scientists, I'd be calling for Miss Cleo.

But if your reaction is just half of what scientists who really do want to investigate ghostly phenomena have to be subject to then it's not hard to fathom why so little good research has been done and the field has been left to the psychic researchers who, as you point out quite truthfully, are unable to produce acceptable evidence. So why leave the whole field to them?

You're illustrating a very true problem in this arena, that you can't get evidence without funding and peer acceptance but no funding and acceptance until you produce the evidence. It's a classic chicken/egg paradox.

And the reason why ghosts, like the one in Hampton Court, will remain enigmas.

 

[RobertR]

You call it an enigma, I call it an anecdote that shows NO evidence of having been subject to scientific scrutiny, therefore it is WORTHLESS as evidence of anything.