• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Do you beleive in ghosts?

^i was obviously being facetious with the albino remark.

but anyway, as a layman in photography, name "a number" of things it could be, considering that it appeared from all three cameras.

with that attitude, it is next to impossible to believe in anything. you could potentially see a spirit of your known departed anscestor with your waking eye and yet still say "i don't know anything about psychology, this could be any number of things".

don't be so dismissive unless you do have the expertise or knowledge to pose an alternative explanation. it shows closed mindedness otherwise.

Ok, I'm blind and need to ask - I don't see the face. The hair on the left I'm assuming is a girl sitting next to the other girl in the picture. Where is the face?

Is the hair not supposed to be there? If the hair is the "ghost" then that is fucking freaky. It looks like someone is sitting next to her.

no, i took a photo of two friends. the light that blocked them off is the strange thing.
 
I find it hard to believe that a person's wayward soul could drift in and out of these dimensions without causing some serious damage to the spacetime continuum. :\

as MDAO has explained, the appearance of these things do not have to be this definition. they're more than likely something else.
 
Yeah a lot of the people here describing seeing figures in bed and not being able to move... that's sleep paralysis. This is where succubus, ghost, aliens, lizard people etc encounters mostly come from. I used to get them a lot when I was younger, scientist think DMT might play a part in these things... and I can believe it, sometimes it would feel like years would pass as I would experience sleep paralysis.

As for the other stuff well I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth. But then they say people who are skeptics tend not to be receptive to ghosts and never see anything because they don't really believe, pretty convenient i'd say 8)
 
but anyway, as a layman in photography, name "a number" of things it could be, considering that it appeared from all three cameras.

Who knows, it could be light reflecting off something, it could be a bird flying in front of the camera very fast, for all we know you could've doctored/photoshopped that in. My point is that that picture is in no way clear enough to make a definitve guess as to what that is.
Like I said in not an expert on photography. Have to taken this photo to a professional photographer or someone involved in paranormal research? Where are the other 2 photos btw?

with that attitude, it is next to impossible to believe in anything. you could potentially see a spirit of your known departed anscestor with your waking eye and yet still say "i don't know anything about psychology, this could be any number of things".
Yes this is exactly what I would say. As I already explained, if I was to ever see the "spirit" of someone I would immediately see a psychiatrist and possibly have myself examine for mental problems.
I assume we're all talking about the "standard" ghosts, right? As in the soul or spirit of someone who died? Since I do not believe in the existance of a "soul" I do not believe in ghosts...although to be honest this is not the only reason. The whole notion of a ghots is not logical to me.
don't be so dismissive unless you do have the expertise or knowledge to pose an alternative explanation. it shows closed mindedness otherwise.
And are you an expert on paranormal events? Or photography? Or natural phenomena which could possibly cause such an image to appear.
The whole "flying rods" thing is similar. Plenty of pictures look like the ones you have(although not as close to the lens), and were proven to be just birds or bugs flying too fast to be captured clearly on film.
There's a difference between being open minded and being gullible. Believing in ghosts is absurd, as I said there is no evidence to support their existance.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between being open minded and being gullible. Believing in ghosts is absurd, as I said there is no evidence to support their existance.

i agree, but at the same time i can't discount the possibility that they do exist. i mean, what is a ghost, fundamentally? glowing plasma, vibrating at high frequencies as IP's image suggests. if this is true, then that's certainly a logical foundation upon which theories can be built. fuels are commonly vibrant plasma... like a flame, for example. the only thing we know about flames are characteristics that can't usually be SEEN, but rather felt or heard, and we discovered the limits of flame by containing it and playing around with the fuel.

the problem with ghosts is that we don't really know how to contain them since they can evidently travel through all kinds of boundaries in our world. that doesn't necessarily discount their existence though, i mean, LIGHT is also an energy that trascends many bounds. it can travel through glass, for example, but not if the glass is painted black. the other, more perplexing problem with ghosts is that we can't play around with the fuel because we have no idea what imbues them with energy!

but, assuming ghosts do exist as glowing plasma, what would likely power them? well, let's see. ghosts are visible, glowing plasma, and fire is also visible, glowing plasma. it seems rational then, that what powers ghosts is also chemical energy. and why not? chemical energy is everywhere. it's in the sun, in your car, in batteries, in all kinds of shit. i am almost entirely certain that if ghosts exist, they're powered by some sort of chemical energy since they are visibly represented as such.

but WHERE does the fuel come from? our fuel comes from food. we need it to create energy just like all energy sources require some kind of fuel to function. we have tonnes of places to fuel up: supermarket, restaurant, dumpster, host's fridge, etc. they can be observed. chemical energy can also typically be observed, but less seldom SEEN as a lot of it is gaseous form.

since i've never heard anyone describe a ghost as lugging along a jerry can, it's only rational to assume that their energy is either drawn from an unknown source when you don't see them, or that their energy is just as portable as they are. now, the former is likelier than the latter, since fuel is never as versatile as the energy it produces and so this unknown chemical energy is probably not capable of following the ghosts through walls and etc.

anyway, this is going too far. the point is that now we have a logical hypothesis from which to work. the evidence doesn't exist, but we're one step closer to FINDING that evidence to PROVE their existence. we didn't know shit about the nature of lightning till franklin strung a key to a kite and discovered it was fuelled by electricity, and in the same fashion we won't know shit about ghosts until someone with intelligence becomes interested in paranormal phenomenon and discovers what fuels them. as history tells us: just because we don't know shit about something doesn't automatically void it's existence.
 
^Oh of course. Just because science can't explain something now dosen't mean it cant explain something in the future.
I've never heard that theory though, that ghosts are made of plasma. I aways thought they were supposed to be composed primarily of ectoplasm or (electro)magnetic fields. You could be right though, honestly I've never looked into it much because I've never been all that interested.
If ghosts were made of plasma though, wouldn't that burn or harm someone who gets too close to one? Were talking about "plasma" in physics right? As in ionized gas?
 
ehh i dunno. ectoplasm seems a bit too unstable of a concept, and we would surely notice if enough magnetism were being locally manifested to create visible beings. it just seems to me that plasma is the most likely since we already know it exists in many different forms, and even forms we only have theories for. plasma doesn't have to necessarily burn either, especially since ghosts are generally not described as very bright (i.e. energetic.) we transmit fairly bright arcs all the time with just a minor zap, and i'm not sure if you've ever experienced really static bedsheets at night but there are so many weak arcs discharged at once that the sheets glow blue so it's pretty cool...
 
i don't know what is on the photo, but i was there, i took the photo. it was no bird. the other two roles of film are with my old american friends with whom i am in seldom contact.

Mind you, I took that photo almost 9 years ago and have never made a big deal of it.

Believing in ghosts is absurd, as I said there is no evidence to support their existance.

Then you've stated your opinion and there is no grounds with which we can discuss the matter with you.

and i will not get into the redundant "science versus..." conversation. it has been done to death and is no less absurd now than it ever was.
 
delta_9 said:
Have to taken this photo to a professional photographer or someone involved in paranormal research?
delta_9 said:
And are you an expert on paranormal events? Or photography? Or natural phenomena which could possibly cause such an image to appear?
Oh really?

edit - oh that. yeah that wasn't really directed at anyone in particular just a general question.
 
:) I thought you meant the most recent questions e.g. do ghosts have mass, etc.
 
for lack of a better word, the "soul" is energy and energy doesn't end; it changes.
ever since i was a little kid, i've had odd experiences, some of which i expressed openly and usually was told that "it's just your imagination."
for awhile i was kinda freaked out and kept trying to apply logical explanations to things which didn't follow logic or laws of physical science. i have had multiple precognitive experiences and not just in dreams. i pay attention now but didn't always and learned the hard way that there's no harm in taking the long way home, or turning right instead of left, etc.
i absolutely believe there is another realm, a spirit realm for lack of a better term. i think when someone you're very close to dies, they're never totally gone. there is no reason for fear if they visit. there have been too many times i have felt a presence, even smelled cologne, felt arms hold me, and heard words spoken right when i needed reassurance.

ok, enough babble. everyone has to make up their own minds and their opinions and ideas are just as valid as mine. decide for yourself based on your experiences. keep an open mind; anything is possible.
 
I believe there exists energy we perceive in some manner and often call "ghosts". Why? Because my experiences are undeniable to me - a far cry from subtle and explainable by other means. It seems clear they have something to do with energy recording, usually from human experience. Undoubtedly calling it "ghosts" loads it down with societal preconception, and for sure the classic idea of them needs some work. But be that as it may, something of the sort exists, of that I can be certain.

To deny the experiences of others just because you haven't personally seen evidence is dangerous and shortsighted. People have done this throughout history and have later come to realize otherwise. Why should we think that, at any point, what science currently knows is the limit of what there is to discover? Or that any of our current theories or evidence will end up ultimately proven correct in the long run? Science is always changing, because it's just a bvunch of theories and collected evidence. When more evidence is collected, it can re-write the entire discipline.

BurnOneDown said:
It doesn't seem to me that you are creating a distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena. and if you put it that way I think it would be difficult to characterize any type of phenomenon as supernatural.

"Supernatural" is another term that is loaded with societal preconception... it creates a false distinction between natural and the idea of "Supernatural". But supernatural is just a natural phenomenon which does not yet have a solid basis in science. The idea of radio waves and radiation and electricity would have once been thought of as supernatural. Or a better example, lightning - it was once thought of as Zeus' rage. Yet now it is easily explainable and is called natural because we have a means for understanding it as a force of nature.

delta_9 said:
Believing in ghosts is absurd

Believing in something that you personally have evidence for is not absurd, nor is it absurd to believe in something just because YOU do not personally believe. What is absurd is telling someone their belief is absurd when you do not have evidence to the contrary. You merely do not have evidence supporting it - there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
I haven't really had a head on encounter.. But my dad lives in a house that is over 100 years old, and I often had some weird feelings there that I've never experienced. One of these feeling is a sense. Have you ever been in a room by yourself, and sensed another presence, and you turn around and somebody is behind you? Well, I feel like this, only noone is there. I have that sense going haywire like someone is there but noone is there. I then start to get an increased sensory feeling and hear noises that I normally would not notice. The noises range from a number of things.. One time I could of sworn I heard my name. Sometimes the walls crack in abnormal ways, or I hear things walking in the attic. One time I even heard something walking on the roof which had to have been impossible.. All of these things can be scientifically explained but you would have just had to of been there. I think this is the case with many of peoples stories. Just had to of been there.
 
This reminds me of an interview with Margaret Atwood. The interviewer asked if she was Christian, and she went into describing the book Life of Pi. Young man on animal-filled boat has nautical problem, boat sinks, many adventures with talking animals on a raft ensue, big talking tiger, fantastic voyage, etc etc. When he washes up on shore all the animals run off and he's left alone. Three japanese accountants representing the owners of the boat find him and ask him what the hell happened to their boat. He answers with this fantastic story of a talking tiger et al.; the accountants go away and discuss, come back and say "We don't believe you." The young man says, "Okay, well can I at least ask you a question? Which story would you like better? The shipwreck without the tiger, or the shipwreck with the tiger?" They go away and discuss again, come back and say, finally - "We like the story with the tiger better."

I think that's what this is all about, religions, ghosts, whatever. People like the story with the tiger better. They like it so much that they're willing to overlook fantastical and improbable things. Most people want there to be ghosts.

Regarding IP's pictures, the much more likely explanation is, as Delta-9 is saying, something material or some trick of photography. But there are more seductive answers...

And to answer the OP's question (phew) - no.
 
Top