Paranormal Investigations and Belief in Ghosts 606
Esther Schindler writes "Sure, everyone uses technology on the job. But you may not have contemplated the tools used by paranormal investigators (at least, not until you began thinking about Halloween) who look for the truth in ghosts and other things that go Bump in the Night. In Paranormal Investigations and Technology: Where Ghosts and Gadgets Meet, CIO's Al Sacco writes about the most unusual of tool chests, with everything from thermometers to blimp cams." You want spooky? An anonymous reader passed a link to a survey that says a third of Americans believe in ghosts. Who you gonna call?
Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago a fellow I knew took to hanging out in graveyards with his camera and film sensitive to Infra Red (pick up the background IR, except where spirits, which apparently suck the energy out of their surroundings when they manifest themselves.) He claimed to have taken actual photos of ghosts hanging about graves, including some which were posessed. He offered to show me some of his work, but I wasn't in a mood for it as my Grandmum had recently passed away.
So here's this bloke:
I do believe in spooks! I do, I do, I do believe in spooks! Oh, sod, who was it then? [thinkgeek.com]
So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not knocking the religious, just saying that 1/3 of Americans believing in the supernatural should not surprise anyone.
Re:Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
That why we have gone to pictures with ghosts that look like humes.(Actually a person from a previous pictures.
To nothing for a long while because they fixed the camera.
To blobs which are an artifact of digital photography.
AS well as a myriad of things out side the camera body.
Re:Photos (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, though, most of the people involved have no clue what they are talking about. They want to see a ghost and prove their existence so badly that they see them anywhere. They also do not understand the technology they are using.
The fools in this article seem to be the same... at least one of them, who talks of photographing ghost orbs. Ghost orbs are the most ridiculous load of crap. You know what else causes those orbs? Dust in the air. Moisture in the air because you're outside at night when the temps are changing (I've got just such a picture about with hundreds of "ghosts"). That streetlight off in the distance that you didn't notice while just standing there because it's just a streetlight (I've seen this from a local ghost hunting group with pictures of a place that was maybe 10 minutes from where I lived at the time). Reflections off of shiny polished headstones. About a billion other things.
I think the following quote sums up nicely exactly what the problem with the whole paranormal investigation field is, why it gets no respect, and why it deserves no respect.
To paraphrase, "I can't tell what it is in this picture, so it must be a ghost." That's their most solid evidence is a picture that they're not sure what it is. What the hell is a "reverse shadow" anyway? Light?
Ghosts vs. Neutrinos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey, let's add some secular mysticism.... (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly are origins not part of science? If you want to know how a system originated, you might carefully study its current state and the manner in which it develops over time, and thereby attempt to deduce by reason the state it would have occupied in the past. Or alternatively you might invoke God. One of these approaches is science, the other is not.
I know, I know! (Score:3, Interesting)
Listening to the skeptics guide to the universe podcast. It has helped me learn how to deal with these people and how to bring them back to reality.
Re:Ghost Hunters (TAPS) on SciFi (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why... (Score:3, Interesting)
(There is nothing particularly supreme about any of the Greek, Nordic or Celtic "Gods", for example. Nor were they ascribed unique ownership of any segment of worldly affairs. As best as I can tell, such views seem to originate more with the Semitic peoples and it is largely Judeo-Christian anthropologists who attach such views to others.)
Without a clear, meaningful definition of what it is a person is rejecting, it makes no sense to talk about rejecting it, because what you are rejecting, what others think you are rejecting and what you think you are rejecting are not going to be the same except by chance alone. However, this gets interesting in the case of anything which, by definition, transcends that which can be defined. It's like asking a computer to solve a non-computable problem. If a computer could solve it, it would not be non-computable.
The easiest way to handle this case is to simply place it into the category of "unknowable", along with all of the things that science has firmly and definitively shown to be unknowable. If you add two unknowables together, you still end up with an unknowable, so it really doesn't matter which of the unknowables are real and which aren't. At least, from any kind of scientific perspective.
Re:Hey, let's add some secular mysticism.... (Score:3, Interesting)
...and I believe the other poster's point was this:
While science has some really interesting guesses about the origins of the universe, as does religion, the simple fact remains that they're BOTH guesses. True, it's more systematic with science. However, most real agnostics and atheists I know will admit it's a guess either way, and as a Christian I need to honestly admit the same.
Folks, I'm with Jubal Harshaw [wikipedia.org] on this:
I see ghosts all the time (Score:4, Interesting)
Ghosts!
Or...maybe not. I went to the optometrist for my regular check-up, and she found a bunch of "floaters" in my eye. If I look at a blank wall, I can see them sometimes, they drift in and out of my field of view, and if I look steadily, the optic system edits them out and they vanish.
So, of course, when it was late at night and I was already tired, and moved my eyes after staring at something steadily (the book) a floater would sometimes wander into view briefly, and I'd "see" a moving shadow for a second or two.
Re:Okay, I'll bite. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
The IR sensitive film on the market is only sensitive at very near infrared wavelengths. See this [kodak.com] spectral sensitivity curve. Note that 500nm is about the bottom end of color the human eye can see and peak sensitivity occurs around 550nm.
"Suck the energy out of their surroundings" sounds like this would make the temperature plummet. If you want to photograph something cold like that, the temperature inside the camera must be lower than what you are photographing and the film would have to have been kept cold since its manufacture. Otherwise the film would just get fogged from the ambient IR given off by the camera body and/or film canister. This is the reason that most forward-looking infrared systems use a super-cooled CCD. It just isn't that practical with regular film.
Re:Okay, I'll bite. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Photos (Score:5, Interesting)
About a year or so ago, I wrote myself some notes about a possible short story, and had a premise very similar to what you mention. The gist of it was that "souls" (for lack of a better word) were proven to exist, and then promptly exploited for the special properties they exhibited, creating a clean, limitless energy source. The downside? To the "souls" being used in this manner, the process was basically hell--fire, brimstone, unending torment, etc.
Hmm. Maybe I'll work on that now, since you've brought it back to mind... thanks!
Re:Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an excellent picture of some orbs [cowlark.com] I took in a cave in Greece. What it actually is? Falling drops of water from the cave ceiling lit up by the flash.
Somewhere --- unfortunately, I seem to have lost it --- I also have a photo with a ghost on it. What it actually is? A strand of my own hair straying in front of the camera lens and being illuminated by the flash. It forms a vague bright blur overlayed over the image that could quite possibly be interpreted as a human figure. I must try and duplicate it intentionally some time.
Oh, yes, and for good measure, here's a picture of a UFO [cowlark.com] I took once. (Actually a flaw in the film. But an impressive one, nevertheless.)
Re:Hey, let's add some secular mysticism.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Science does guess. That's the scientific method. Guess, and then see how well your guess conforms with observation. It is the nature of induction. It doesn't deduce anything directly from observation. Furthermore, science can say nothing about the actual origin of the universe, or its cause; it can only form conclusions about the things that happened immediately after the origin.
First of all, all denominations of Christianity, as well as Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, acknowledge that the one infinite, timeless God created all of nature and humanity. There is no disagreement whatsoever on that point. There is observable proof of God, and of God's influence, which is why these religions have so many adherents. However, it is internal rather than external proof. It cannot be measured by machines or even quantified, so it is outside the reach of science.
No witness, no proof. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the thesis that I am arguing against. I say that there are scientists or at least people that speak for it, who argue that science does KNOW, as in factually, how the universe was made and how we evolved. They cross in their minds a preponderance of evidence based largely on internal consistency with a faith that the fabric of physics has been constant and unchanged over the life of the universe. It is faith, it is unprovable, and that's the point... until you actually say you went back in time and saw the universe born, or talked to someone who was there, you haven't really proved a thing. The essence of true science is roof requires witness, get it?
In other words, what really differentiates science from mysticism is the idea that you can do something, and show it to somebody else, by doing the same thing again. You can't show someone else your little angel, but you can show someone vinegar and baking soda fizzing when you mix them. But now, some would have us believe that you don't have to witness to have science, and really, that's simply not true. Evolution, creation physics, all of that, IS NOT SCIENCE. Period. It's a good story, for sure, and to some extent, based on the evidence of what we have, is interesting, but, until you can say that you've seen the universe born or the first step of man yourself, and can show someone else, than, you don't have much more than Noah... its a cool story. Yes, evolution fits together well, and, you could probably walk into a court and slam the Creator down as guilty of it, but, there's that nagging issue of witness that must cause us to say that, we will never, ever, ever, really KNOW. No witness, no proof, and no proof, no science. It's really very simple. Anything else is faith.
Re:Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I had seen the Matrix. I disagree with you that it's almost exactly the same, though--I agree that it boils down to the same point of morality (slavery) but the Matrix is little different than the present day real world. Only a VERY small percentage of the population even realizes that anything is wrong--and even those that do, how many are like Cypher, who would actually be happier as slaves? There's also the point that the machines knew exactly what they were doing to the humans.
Contrast this with a situation where everyone affected knows something is horribly, horribly wrong--evidenced by the constant, unending agony. On top of this, none of the living (well, maybe a small percentage--I hadn't developed my notes to that point yet) realize the results of their actions. So what happens when they find out?
In my opinion, that's what good science fiction has always been about: putting humanity in some situation (usually as the result of technology) and then looking at the results... or the consequences.