(Ghost of Raynham Hall)
(photograph of a wreck- unknown date and location)
(Above, “child’s play” January 2006)
Every debunked ghost story, is a negative. So, is any non-debunked story ‘inconclusive’, and evidence/proof of such things?
Does the answer lie in probability or proof in evidence towards the negative of ghosts existing? Without being a science or math major, you ask how it could be proved more than a 50/50 chance of probability. If you throw in the idea that perhaps it is only possible to view ghosts in first-person, supposedly unable to tape them and so forth, then there truly is no more evidence against ghosts than there would be evidence against the idea that there is a magical, wish-giving dragon that floats on the clouds in the sky. You could also argue that the odds couldn’t be MORE than 50/50 as well, if you believe no evidence exists. It could be said the scales can tip towards a higher probability factor (even if slightly) due to the amount of reported sightings or the new shows that have become favorites on the Science-Fiction channels.
Some may argue that probability is the wrong tool in paranormal study. The right philosophic tool would seem more to be the burden of evidence. Anybody who claims knowledge of ghosts takes on the burden of proof to show the rest of us that they’re right. Until such evidence is offered, the rest of the world could be perfectly justified in saying with 100% confidence that ghosts do not exist and are merely figments of over-active imaginations. Until then, there would be no philosophical reason for anyone to offer evidence against such a thing, just as there is no reason for anyone to offer evidence of the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.
That being said, what is really felt about those who actually go out into the field to study “paranormal activity”? How are they scientifically proving or disproving the theory of ghosts?
Is the scientific equipment used really capapble of “debunking”?
In one of the fastest growing, popular T.V. programs, Ghost Hunters, the team of paranormal investigators use various equipment, including digital thermometers, EMF meters, thermographic and night vision cameras, handheld static digital video cameras, digital audio recorders and laptop computers.
The team has also experimented, in at least one of their episodes, with a geiger counter. During their investigation it was used to see if any anomalous readings would register. Also, the K-2 (or K-II) meter, a type of EMF meter that uses a series of LEDs to measure the strength of an energy field instead of a numerical LCD screen, has been used in nearly all investigations.
The TAPS team ( Ghost Hunters/ The Atlantic Paranormal Society) investigated Charles Manson murders and during this investigation in particular, the team used a K-2 meter in an attempt to get “yes” and “no” responses to verbal questions posed to a “supposed entity” in a room.
Newer equipment that has been used are the custom-made geophone, which detects vibrations and flashes a series of LEDs that measure the intensity of the vibration, and an EMF detector. The EMF detector makes a buzzing sound when it senses an electromagnetic field, buzzing louder according to the strength of that field. In one of the episodes, the geophones were recorded on video flashing simultaneously with vibrations to the sounds of footsteps across a floor. No one was supposedly in the room.
We have all been raised to not believe everything you hear and now, in this day and age, with all the scientific special-effects for computer use and in movies, you can rarely believe what you see.
So, who is to say that the equipment actually and scientifically portrays proof of spiritual entities and is not just equipment showing readings of electrical fields, displaced gases, air pressure pockets and optical illusions? And if you think about it, it seems to be an oxymoron to have a show spouting “facts”/proof on a Science-Fiction ( key word being fiction ) station.
What is the probability that it isn’t just fiction?
Most, who say they have acquired proof, boil down to having personal experiences which then could be batted away as nonsense without use of such equipment.
Yet, how have we acquired most of our current scientific knowledge? We have obtained all hypothesis and most factually based answers through… well,… personal experience.
Proof or probability?
At 4 years of age, a voice without gender called to me from outside my house in the night. It remained on the outside of my bedroom wall coaxing me to let it in, to let it come in and play with me. It could not be seen out of my window. It never entered my room until I said it could come in.
Once giving it permission, a form of blackness, no bigger than a child of 8 years, materialized through the side of my bedroom wall. It glided slowly. This form had no solidity to it. It had the semblance of a head, arms and torso, yet no visibly distinct hands or feet. The only facial features, red eyes, cat-like in appearance.
I got out of bed and stood in front of it. It spoke to me with no lips. It said something that frightened me and I can never remember. All I could think to do was run to the wall and turn on my light. Flick!
It was gone.
It returned to my room on different nights until the age of 5.
No one ever believed me. No proof. So, what is the probability it existed?
Do you have a ghost story? Are you a skeptic?
Here are links to other sites involving paranormal research:
Scientists have been trying to prove the fact of life on other planets for decades. We have so many science fiction films on aliens that it has grown to an occult factor.
So, this question is posed. What of life on other planets or in other galaxies? Do you believe that we are the only intelligent lives in all the universe? And more, do you think that if we are, were we always? Does evidence of amino acids on other planets and water on the Moon say anything for the possibilities that life existed before us?
Take a look at this excerpt from a science journal and after watch the trailer of the factually based/live footage movie, The Fourth Kind.
Science 19 March 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5972, p. 1448
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference:
Lucky Glimpses of a Weirdly Wetter Moon
Richard A. Kerr
Planetary scientists recently flew a ground-penetrating radar on India’s Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter. At the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, they reported a distinctive radar signature from the interiors but not the surroundings of more than 40 small craters in the north polar region. Almost all of the craters are permanently shadowed. That combination, they argued, suggests ice, perhaps as much as 80% or 90% pure. But the Chandrayaan-1 radar is not confirming long-suspect reports of radar detection of massive ice in the south, so most researchers are reserving judgment.
Is it all just a hoax or could it truly be a reality?