What would it take to confirm a ghost

[ghosthunterbebunker]

People believe! And in surveys about 60 percent believe in ghost's! So what would it take to positively
prove a ghost is a real thing. Personally it cannot be done and I don't care what personal experences have done for you in your belief. Real proof is what is needed and nothing less. Photos and video will not do without proper controls, and knowing without a doubt that the electronics didn't cause the ghost.
Orb's, don't get me started! Claiming dust and moisture is a ghost, give it up! So what do we think, can it be done? And what would it take for you the skeptic to believe in the ghost. And for the believers what
can you do to sway us skeptics, to believe. What evidence does a believer think can sway a skeptic to their
side?

[Dr B]

Like everything else, high quality replicable, measuarable, observable evidence that helps us to generate testable predictions.

However there is one thing to be clear on. Ghosts are real...... :D......as an experience. In that, there is little doubt. However, this of course does not make them a physical reality out there in the world. But in order to ever understand these experiences properly one needs to make that distinction. O0

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Like everything else, high quality replicable, measuarable, observable evidence that helps us to generate testable predictions.

However there is one thing to be clear on. Ghosts are real...... :D......as an experience. In that, there is little doubt. However, this of course does not make them a physical reality out there in the world. But in order to ever understand these experiences properly one needs to make that distinction. O0


What evidence that you could look at and say, I beilieve. Personally I don't think it can't ever be done!

[Dr B]

I think you will find I have answered the question O0

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I think you will find I have answered the question O0


Okay well I think you answered it the best way you could...I guess.

[Dr B]

Your question is answered, whether you recognise it or not has nothing to do with the answer.

Do you disagree with it - if so in what way and why? It seemed a nice straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

Of course, I could have elaborated greatly, but there did not really seem to be a reason to do so. ;)

I was hinting in a subtle way that the same applies (more or less) to this area as many others. In other words, just apply the principles of science and you will be fine O0

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Your question is answered, whether you recognise it or not has nothing to do with the answer.

Do you disagree with it - if so in what way and why? It seemed a nice straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

Of course, I could have elaborated greatly, but there did not really seem to be a reason to do so. ;)

I was hinting in a subtle way that the same applies (more or less) to this area as many others. In other words, just apply the principles of science and you will be fine O0

Well exactly what do you mean by predictions?

[Dr B]

Scientific predictions - i.e., generating hypotheses and then setting about and testing them.

A fundamental aspect of science is that claims / theories / hypotheses can be tested. We must be able to conceive of evidence that, if it existed, could falsify a claim or theory.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Scientific predictions - i.e., generating hypotheses and then setting about and testing them.

A fundamental aspect of science is that claims / theories / hypotheses can be tested. We must be able to conceive of evidence that, if it existed, could falsify a claim or theory.


Sure but hypotheses throws me less than predictions! I just have a problem with that word being used with sceince.

[Araneus]

Sure but hypotheses throws me less than predictions!

They are not the same thing. A hypothesis is "X is an explanation for effect Y", whereas a prediction is "If X is the correct explanation, than experiment E should display result R".


I just have a problem with that word being used with sceince.

Tough. It is a valid term with a specific meaning in scientific contexts, it has nothing to do with the woolly "predictions" made by psychics.

[Dr B]

Sure but hypotheses throws me less than predictions! I just have a problem with that word being used with sceince.


Its perfectly legitimate common terminology in the field of science. Models and theories make testable predictions....we zoom in on these with more formalised hypotheses. I am not sure what the mystery is here :-\

[Admin]

In order to test something scientifically (the only way to get meaningful results) investigators have developed a ‘cycle of enquiry’ system. So, if a phenomenon has been reported, be it ghosts or anything else, then the cycle of enquiry is used.

This goes along the lines of:

<blockquote>1) develop meaningful questions (hypotheses) to answer;
2) collect data to be used in evidence which addresses the questions;
3) evaluate the data/evidence;
4) formulate a theory from the evidence.</blockquote>But it’s not a one-shot process. At any stage you can always go back to an earlier one and repeat the process (hence the term 'cycle').

This is how the ‘hypothesis’ (stage 1) fits in – it’s just an idea that needs testing in order to formulate a theory.

A good theory not only explains things as they are but should also be capable of making predictions (like the theory of gravity predicting that we weigh less on the Moon than on Earth). If the predictions hold true then they support the theory.

That’s where predictions fit into the system.

So it’s not being vague to use such terms in a scientific sense even though they may be taken that way in a non-scientific sense.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

In order to test something scientifically (the only way to get meaningful results) investigators have developed a ‘cycle of enquiry’ system. So, if a phenomenon has been reported, be it ghosts or anything else, then the cycle of enquiry is used.

This goes along the lines of:

<blockquote>1) develop meaningful questions (hypotheses) to answer;
2) collect data to be used in evidence which addresses the questions;
3) evaluate the data/evidence;
4) formulate a theory from the evidence.</blockquote>But it’s not a one-shot process. At any stage you can always go back to an earlier one and repeat the process (hence the term 'cycle').

This is how the ‘hypothesis’ (stage 1) fits in – it’s just an idea that needs testing in order to formulate a theory.

A good theory not only explains things as they are but should also be capable of making predictions (like the theory of gravity predicting that we weigh less on the Moon than on Earth). If the predictions hold true then they support the theory.

That’s where predictions fit into the system.

So it’s not being vague to use such terms in a scientific sense even though they may be taken that way in a non-scientific sense.


Jon Donnis came up with the best that I have heard to date. Video tape a alleged apparition with 2 or 3 video camera's all at different angles. Then you may have something or not, I would still have to have the video looked at
by experts and know that it was looked at by them. But In reality alot of these ghost hunting groups reuse video
tapes for their cameras, alot. So I believe that after talking to someone into video commercially, she said alot of the alleged ghosts are nothing more than previous video coming thru a tape used again and again.

[Admin]

Jon Donnis came up with the best that I have heard to date. Video tape a alleged apparition with 2 or 3 video camera's all at different angles.

Are you sure that it wasn't a poster on the BadPsychics forum called The Inquisitor who explained about using at least 2, but preferably 3, synchonised cameras to capture orbs?

If the 'something' can be caught by 3 cameras, which is in the same place at the same time, then it is good evidence that 'something' was actually there. It doesn't mean it was of paranormal origin, but it's good quality evidence that could support a hypothesis if other, independent evidence was also obtained.

The Inquisitor was me BTW. ;)

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Jon Donnis came up with the best that I have heard to date. Video tape a alleged apparition with 2 or 3 video camera's all at different angles.

Are you sure that it wasn't a poster on the BadPsychics forum called The Inquisitor who explained about using at least 2, but preferably 3, synchonised cameras to capture orbs?

If the 'something' can be caught by 3 cameras, which is in the same place at the same time, then it is good evidence that 'something' was actually there. It doesn't mean it was of paranormal origin, but it's good quality evidence that could support a hypothesis if other, independent evidence was also obtained.

The Inquisitor was me BTW. ;)

I seem to remember that could be! And maybe Jon just repeated it ot brought up the point that it's never been done.

[tablemonkey]

I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

I thought that way it would show up if there was an anomaly in the camera.

I don't think it would prove or disprove, necessarily their existence or lack of. The cameras would still all pick up dust particles or hairs at the same time or maybe not. ??? I think there are far too many ways that any 'evidence' can be taken to prove both possible reasons of the phenomena.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

I thought that way it would show up if there was an anomaly in the camera.

I don't think it would prove or disprove, necessarily their existence or lack of. The cameras would still all pick up dust particles or hairs at the same time or maybe not. ??? I think there are far too many ways that any 'evidence' can be taken to prove both possible reasons of the phenomena.




I am curious about your orb theory! Are you saying you were experimenting to see if an anomaly might be there.
But not really expecting any or do you believe in ghosts and orb's.

[Admin]

I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

Yes, it's an obvious thing to do and it's not exclusively my idea. O0

I'd been on MSN last night with a :booze: or two and just remembered making the post when I saw the comment. So thought I'd mention it. ::)

'Tis very important you know. ;D

[Cuddles]

I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

I thought that way it would show up if there was an anomaly in the camera.

I don't think it would prove or disprove, necessarily their existence or lack of. The cameras would still all pick up dust particles or hairs at the same time or maybe not. ??? I think there are far too many ways that any 'evidence' can be taken to prove both possible reasons of the phenomena.

The thing is, most orbs are simply small things reflecting light and being caught out of focus by a camera. Just because you have 3 cameras that aren't focussed at a point just in front of them doesn't make the orbs any more real. Even if they did only get caught by one camera, just imagine what peopel would say about ghosts that can impose themselves straight on the CCD instead of having to float around in front of the camera. :o

[tablemonkey]

I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

Yes, it's an obvious thing to do and it's not exclusively my idea. O0

I'd been on MSN last night with a :booze: or two and just remembered making the post when I saw the comment. So thought I'd mention it. ::)

'Tis very important you know. ;D


;D I know. I said it while smiling and was glad that my thoughts on it were in such illustrious company. ;)

I am also not arguing with anyone just adding my agreement and support to a good idea and a topic that interests me. Someone once asked me why I kept my support for an idea to private messages, but sometimes people can take your support the wrong way.





I thought that about catching supposed orbs with more than one camera at the same time too, quite some time ago.

I thought that way it would show up if there was an anomaly in the camera.

I don't think it would prove or disprove, necessarily their existence or lack of. The cameras would still all pick up dust particles or hairs at the same time or maybe not. ??? I think there are far too many ways that any 'evidence' can be taken to prove both possible reasons of the phenomena.

The thing is, most orbs are simply small things reflecting light and being caught out of focus by a camera. Just because you have 3 cameras that aren't focussed at a point just in front of them doesn't make the orbs any more real. Even if they did only get caught by one camera, just imagine what peopel would say about ghosts that can impose themselves straight on the CCD instead of having to float around in front of the camera. :o


Yes. That is what I meant.



I am curious about your orb theory! Are you saying you were experimenting to see if an anomaly might be there.
But not really expecting any or do you believe in ghosts and orb's.



I can't say I believe in any unexplained phenomena, but I do have an open mind. I haven't experimented on orbs. I have read that people have wondered if orbs/anomalies are something to do with the digital camera itself, so my thoughts on it were to have more than one camera and see if the anomalies occured on all of them.
Also more than one camera to record other phenomena in the same way.

[Admin]

Someone once asked me why I kept my support for an idea to private messages, but sometimes people can take your support the wrong way.

Well he sounds like a right nob to me. ;D

[Admin]

The idea of using multiple cameras is that most dust particles etc. are captured as 'orbs' as they are close to the lens. So if orbs appear in one photo but not on another one that operated simultaneously then they are obviously an artefact of the camera taking the picture.

If an orb really was present in the distance (like they appear to be) it should be picked up by more than one camera and its position could be worked out.

It wouldn't mean it was a ghostly manifestation of course, but at least it would be proof that something was physically there.

It's really a method of eliminating all the spurious orbs.

[Melanie]

For info on the work that has been done towards explaining orbs, see this site;

http://www.paullee.com/ghosts/orbs.html

It's a little wordy, but there's an interesting excerpt from a letter from Canon, written as a form letter apparently because they receive so many queries about orbs from digital camera users.

Note also the work done by ASSAP who, without too much trouble, rigged up a way of making sure orbs did appear on photos. They demonstrated this as a Fortean Times convention where visitors could 'have their photo taken with the Orbs'...

[Cuddles]

The idea of using multiple cameras is that most dust particles etc. are captured as 'orbs' as they are close to the lens. So if orbs appear in one photo but not on another one that operated simultaneously then they are obviously an artefact of the camera taking the picture.

If an orb really was present in the distance (like they appear to be) it should be picked up by more than one camera and its position could be worked out.

No, no, no. If orbs appear only on one camera it is just proof that ghosts can choose to emit photons only in certain directions. Or possibly they can just cause an image on the camera without bothering with all that messy light business. If the person taking the picture doesn't see anything, why should other cameras? ;)

[Jocky]

The idea of using multiple cameras is that most dust particles etc. are captured as 'orbs' as they are close to the lens. So if orbs appear in one photo but not on another one that operated simultaneously then they are obviously an artefact of the camera taking the picture.

If an orb really was present in the distance (like they appear to be) it should be picked up by more than one camera and its position could be worked out.

No, no, no. If orbs appear only on one camera it is just proof that ghosts can choose to emit photons only in certain directions. Or possibly they can just cause an image on the camera without bothering with all that messy light business. If the person taking the picture doesn't see anything, why should other cameras? ;)

;D

Cuddles, you do a great impersonation of an unsinkable rubber duck (http://urducks.wordpress.com/about/) - although you had me worried for your sanity for a second until I saw the ;)

[Admin]

No, no, no. If orbs appear only on one camera it is just proof that ghosts can choose to emit photons only in certain directions. Or possibly they can just cause an image on the camera without bothering with all that messy light business. If the person taking the picture doesn't see anything, why should other cameras? ;)


I feel embarrassed now :-[ - I obviously wasn't in parapsychology mode when I typed that up. ;D

[Admin]

For info on the work that has been done towards explaining orbs, see this site;

http://www.paullee.com/ghosts/orbs.html



Is Paul Lee still active in this area of investigation?

I remember reading quite a few pieces from him 2 or 3 years back but he seemed to have dropped out of the scene (a scene that I haven't really been into mind you).

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I can't say I believe in any unexplained phenomena, but I do have an open mind. I haven't experimented on orbs. I have read that people have wondered if orbs/anomalies are something to do with the digital camera itself, so my thoughts on it were to have more than one camera and see if the anomalies occured on all of them.
Also more than one camera to record other phenomena in the same way.


Understandable!

[ghosthunterbebunker]

No, no, no. If orbs appear only on one camera it is just proof that ghosts can choose to emit photons only in certain directions. Or possibly they can just cause an image on the camera without bothering with all that messy light business. If the person taking the picture doesn't see anything, why should other cameras?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[DrPL]

Yes, Paul Lee is still around. Well, he's here in fact.

My interest in ghosts took a bit of a battering after some confrontations with bogus ghost groups. I'm gradually working my way back into the field of research, but I have become interested in researching some of the classical, historic case. I've taken to posting on www.badghosts.co.uk quite a bit too.

As for what I am doing: I am currently in the Midlands, between jobs, taking a sabattical whilst I gather some ideas to write a book. Easier said than done with funds running low....perhaps I should start looking for another job....

Best wishes

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com

[Admin]

Welcome to UKS Paul. O0

I think you must have gotten your 'battering' just as I was becoming active in skepticism. I remember finding your site and reading your articles (which were refreshing to read amongst a sea of nonsense) but you seemed to disappear from the scene about the same time.

Anyway, if you're becoming more active again, keep us posted with what you're up to.

We're scientific skeptics here so we're not opposed to research in this area - well apart from the silly stuff of course. ;D