Reply With QuoteAnother point that many ghost hunt teams don't consider is the situation that they are putting themselves in. For example, when they enter a location they are leaving themselves open to huge accusations. Theft, assault, criminal damage etc.
On the surface, ghost hunting seems pretty harmless - a few people sitting around in the dark in a supposedly haunting building spooking themselves with ambient sounds. But there is a dark side to this apparently innocent pastime.
Sometimes alleged ghosts are 'identified'. If the site had a suicide or tragic accident, the ghost will usually turn out to be victim. The method by which the ghost is 'identified' is often obscure but strangely predictable!
But what about the relatives of the person who is now an alleged ghost? At the very least it will remind them of a bad time. At worst they will have the horrible thought that their loved one is now a restless spirit being gawped at by all and sundry!
The Bluebell Hill road ghost is a case in point. A ghost has been seen by the road there by several witnesses. It has become 'associated' with a tragic accident in 1965 which is always mentioned in the press, to the distress of relatives, whenever someone sees the ghost. However, there is no evidence actually linking the accident with the ghost apart from the fact that the first sighting was around a year after the accident!
Last edited by Harryprice; 27th October 2009 at 07:35 PM.
Another point that many ghost hunt teams don't consider is the situation that they are putting themselves in. For example, when they enter a location they are leaving themselves open to huge accusations. Theft, assault, criminal damage etc.
Often the relatives promote the story but it is still not something to be encouraged.Originally Posted by Harryprice
I've told this story before, but, I was on a TV show with a women claiming to be haunted by her dead son. She was a single parent, he was an only child, she was naturally very upset by his death. Instead of getting appropriate help she was invited onto national TV and mocked and laughed at. Her only "haunting" evidence was that he left messages on the telephone: "Hello, John's not in at the moment but if you leave a message after the tone I'll"...
It certainly can be very cruel to push people towards a belief that a departed loved one is now a ghost.
I agree 100% with the above opinions. "Ghosts" have always fascinated me, but I'm sure there is a rational, scientific explanation for the phenomenon. Any kind of preying on those in grief to further one's own morbid interests is indefensible.
The problem with rational, scientific explanations is that they must confine their explanations to natural terrestrial frame of reference. Rational science rules out extra-terrestrial and supernatural (not necessarily of God/gods) explanations which of course rules out possible real explanations.
Don't tase me, Bro!
Does it? I thought it just required evidence for any putative explanations.
The problem for you is that "they" must confine their explanations to facts, not fantasy. If the evidence suggested aliens, gods or whatever then that would be a "rational, scientific explanation". It's not that we are ruling out "possible real explanations", it's that you want to rule in fiction.
Firstly, extra-terrestrial explanations are NOT ruled out. There is no reason why we should not be visited by advanced aliens. It's just that the evidence for alien contact so far is much more easily explained by terrestrial causes. When the evidence changes, so will the explanation.
Secondly, if someone found incontrovertible evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, it would no longer be paranormal but would become part of science.
Thirdly, if you mean we are not about to abandon science and use explanations based on theoretical constructs, like spirits, for which there is no compelling evidence to date, you're right.
Last edited by Harryprice; 1st December 2009 at 09:21 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks