Max The Skeptic

John, clearly you have only a rudimentary understanding of photography, and logic, and apparently no understanding of Occam's razor. Unfortunately, I have neither time nor inclination to personally instruct you. There are many good sites available on these subjects on the Internet that will illuminate how and why your assertions are logically and verifiably incorrect. However, I will suggest that pulling out an arbitrary numberof 1/20th of a second without knowing the lighting conditions, aperture or sensitivity of the medium is meaningless, and that none of your assertions represented anything but a misunderstanding of photography. (As predicted) What we can deduce from this photo is that the apparent depth-of-field and lack of barrel distortion suggests a relatively long lens and small aperture, which necessarily means a longer exposure. We can also safely presume that the medium on which the image was recorded was probably much less sensitive that any currently available, and the optical quality of the glass in 1919 was also probably nowhere near what it is today as well, all of which also suggests a longer exposure. Your assertion that it is a "fact" that a longer exposure will necessarily result in a blurry photo is also simply incorrect. A medium with poor light sensitivity will collect solid sharp images whenever an object and camera is stationary for a sufficient period in long exposures. An apparently translucent object will result when the object is moved during exposure and then allowed to sit for a longer period during the rest of the exposure thus making it appear solid. Because of lack of sensitivity, a motion blur will not be present, as the medium will not have enough time to collect light during movement. All of these elements are factual and support my perception and not yours. This does not even approach the erroneous assertion that your "ghost" solution in terms of probability and necessary assumptions even approaches the validity of even the most unlikely solution known to be factual, which clearly represents a misunderstanding of Occam's razor. As far as the rest of your assertions go, they are either already addressed in the article with known and accepted scientific theory, or represent logical fallacies (straw man arguments) based on a distorted perception of my position and magical belief-based assumption of evidence that is better addressed with mundane explanations. Both of your ghost photo examples fall exactly into this category. Addressing one illogical assertion after another is irrelevant to my purpose and wastes my limited time, but I assure you that there are many who would enjoy pointing out your factual errors on the Internet. I do however, thank you for correctly pointing out that I need to clarify the definition of the, "P.O.R." which represents a "coined" term for a previously unrecognized trigger for the target response. That is the key element in my hypothesis, and yet unlike elements in the hard sciences, it is far from the only possible trigger that results in the target response. An example of this would be the General Adaptation response, which cannot be minimized to a single element, and will vary significantly with situation and individual. As far as testing my hypothesis that is actually relatively uncomplicated. Professor Richard Wiseman, did a series of experiments several years ago at two reportedly haunted locations, which determined that individuals are able to correctly determine a, so called, haunted environment from a non-haunted environment and reported a variety of odd experiences (including odors) in these environments. Both occurred at a level above the reports in the control areas and above chance. All that would need to happen is to repeat the experiment with a scented mask covering the mouth and noses of the participants, repeat the experiments, and collect the data. Then compare the data produced in this variation of the experiment with the previously acquired data. I predict that there would be a profound reduction in accuracy and reported incidents, significantly greater than the contradictory trivial data used to support his conclusions. Repeating the experiment in other locations should produce similar data. In any case, I wish you the best of luck in your quest, and I hope that you will find the answers you seek.

The hypothesis does deal with this, but apparently, you did not understand how. Ghost photos are comparable to, Santa Claus photos; once you understand the true nature of, Santa Claus, the only thing you can say about a supposed photo of him with absolute certainty is that it was not caused by a fat jolly old elf. The same is true of all ghost photography. In the first photo, you sent, (Freddie Jackson) the error was cause by a single person in a group who moved during a long exposure. This often happens in group photos, as there is invariably one person who will not follow instructions and hold still. You will notice that the face of the man behind whom the "ghost"appears, has the same distinctive features as the "so called" ghost. The most likely scenario in this photo was that the fellow forgot to put on his cover and thought he had time to do so before the photo was taken. In the second photo of a "ghost" in the choir loft, there is a light anomaly against the wall. Of course, you are suggesting that it is more likely that it is a "ghost" than a light effect taken in a room illuminated by stained glass windows! It makes me wonder if you are at all familiar with Occam's razor. I suggest you look up a photo near the end of that list (#26) called, The Pink Lady at Greencastle. Then go and watch the (The Pink Lady at Greencastle) video of the ghost investigation group that took it on, youtube. Watch what happens when the investigator encounters a strange and overpowering odor (sulfur and roses both of which are known odors of putrification caused by biological remains) in the house that they are investigating, and assess whether or not they respond exactly as predicted by my model! The resultis far more compelling and supportive of my hypothesis than any of these tired old photos that you claim prove something that I have not already refuted beyond a reasonable doubt, are of yours. Their reaction in this video is truly compelling evidence because it was not contrived or intended, but happened nonetheless, and was obviously beyond their control! Not only does the investigator run from the house within five seconds of encountering the odor, but also he does not stop running until he gets to his van! (Smile) I did mention that I have been looking at evidence for over thirty years haven't I? This is a perfect example of (Primal Olfactory Response) "POR" about which you had inquired earlier. The reason you have not found it referenced is because it is a coined term for an observed behavior for which there was no term assigned previously, but has been observed and alluded to by half a dozen scientific diciplines as being casued by an unknown trigger. It's funny that you thought that I would not be intimately familiar with all of these "so called" best ghost photos as I have been looking at most of them and certainly both of your examples for over thirty years. Nevertheless, do let me know what you think of the video! It was my pleasure and the best of luck with your hypothesis!!

Virtually all the, so-called, photographic evidence that has been produce since the introduction of the camera falls into three categories: 1. Operator/equipment error often caused by a gross misunderstanding of the function of cameras, optics, and visual effects. Before digital there was also the issue of old and/or poorly stored film and processing errors (you may notice that ghosts are never caught be professional cameras operated by professionals, although just about every famous and historically significant haunted place in the world has been shot or filmed. This you may notice happens with EVP as well. They never occur on the professional sound equipment just the cheap recorders often used by amateurs. 2. Hoaxes, which are produced constantly (This has been very popular virtually since the introduction of photography) 3. Mundane explanations of common occurrences that require virtually no supposition when compared to the claim of what the photo represents. (Often, once a person has had a subjective experience they become desperate to find evidence to substantiate their perception/sanity and anything odd they find is often assigned as proof.)

Your article and thoughts are interesting, but not even in the same neighborhood of my area of expertise, and consequently I struggle to even offer a seemingly intelligent response. For me, logically disputing the concept of "Free Will" is a walk-in-the-park, comparatively speaking. Nevertheless, I will give it a shot from a layman's perspective. It seems that what you are suggesting is irreconcilably complicated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle and Schrodinger's cat paradox, both negating the possibility of a definite state. Since the observer fundamentally changes the outcome of the observation, wouldn't it stand to reason that if you had sought (even mathematically) a speed and trajectory of a particle in any other position you would have found it there too? Frankly, I have no idea how this can be reconciled mathematically or demonstrated one way or another. For me, Quantum mechanics is neither logical nor intuitive and consequently, as an issue, is virtually inaccessible. I have a friend and associate who is a theoretical quantum physicist, and the next time we speak, I will ask him about it. Although, truth be told, he typically suffers from a serious case of expert bias, and he has often attempted to incorporate Quantum theory into the Newtonian level of reality with predictably poor results. This is exactly the argument against the quantum hypothesis for paranormal phenomenon, as it just seems to consistently prove irrelevant above the subatomic level. In any case, good luck with your hypothesis! Whether you are correct or not, from my perspective, is less important than the fact that you are challenging the entrenched dogma of your field, and braving the realm where true discovery exists! Although, I am certain that there are many here, much more capable that I am in this area, and who can comment on your hypothesis from a truly informed position, I applaud your efforts nonetheless! PS. I'm sure this has some relevance to the philosophical issue of human free will, but not wanting to embarrass myself further, I must admit that I have no idea what it is or how it relates?!?

"Free Will," or the concept of it, is another issue that has been debated for centuries, and although I would love to engage you on this, I simply do not have the time to do so at length. However, just from the hip: We do not choose our genetics, we do not choose our environments at the time when they have the most profound and lasting effects on the way our brains are actually wired. (From a neuro-biological perspective) Consequently, the lasting psychological processes and behaviors that result and cause us to become the individuals that we are, exist beyond our choice. If free will were true then the sociopath could choose to have an emotional process, the individual with profound retardation could choose to become the next Einstein, the schizophrenic could choose not to hear voices, the clumsy person could choose to be an Olympic gymnast, and so forth, and this is of course not the reality. All of the choices we have are invariably limited within the context of elements of which we had no control. All of the choices we do possess exist within limitations that we have no choice in, so how can one reasonably suggest that "free will"is anything more than an illusion, and an extremely limited one of choices within the aforementioned parameters. Although, I think it is safe to say that we all have some limited choices and options the concept of truly having "free will" is an illusion.

I would be happy to send you links to the journal articles, which are referenced in our article, if you send me an email from the website. All of your excellent comments and observations are worth addressing, and I would be very happy to do so, however, a dead blog does not lend itself to this end. If you are truly interested in the hypothesis, I would also welcome a chance to discuss it with you at length, and to further avail myself of your thoughts and criticisms about it. This was, after all, my whole purpose for being here! Frankly, persecution complex notwithstanding, you are the first and only person that has actually shared thoughtful observations of the article and hypothesis itself, rather than launching one intellectually dishonest, dismissive "one-liner" after another. I would be extremely interested in pursuing this more seriously than the current venue allows. As far as the domain name goes, you are correct, but what you failed to realize was the article was up before we purchased the domain name, and before the name was purchased, we were primarily contacting groups and individuals by mail and on their websites. As I must do everything out of pocket, and with very limited free time, the project has indeed been moving agonizingly slowly. This is not the result of a lack of information, but a lack of time and resources. If you were interested in helping with this by further illuminating areas that require more detail and greater clarification, your assistance would be most welcome! If it turns out that, the hypothesis has glaring holes that neither the group nor I found, it would be revised or replaced accordingly. This revision process has been occurring for some time now and, (my "stereo instruction" writing style not withstanding) may be partially to blame for its dry nature. Although, making it accurate was really the current objective, and it will eventually be handed over to someone with a far more interesting style of writing than I possess.

The Square-Peg Think-Tank is a group of individuals from various educational backgrounds and scientific disciplines informally assembled two years ago for exactly one purpose, to refute the proposed hypothesized model and to assess it for logical and factual accuracy. The results of which is the simplified synopsis written as an article online, which invites all to consider it and assess it for logical and factual accuracy. Unfortunately, challenging dogmatic positions of all sides of this debate has invariably led to a single outcome, which has been a multitude of intellectually dishonest personal attacks. In fact, in the months that we have had the synopsis online all of the responses to date have been nothing more than vague, poorly considered and researched opinions based on outdated, irrelevant, and/or mythological information by individuals who seem unable or unwilling to focus or attempt assessment or refutation of the model itself. Similarly, both sides of an industry, which has defined itself by debating every ill-conceived notion for over 150 years, have suddenly gone mute! The sole exception of this has been "paranormal" websites, which have begun doing damage control by attempting to incorporate the information into their mythology. Is it dishonest to withhold information and pursue ones agenda while conducting research? Perhaps, but our intent is far from sinister, and we should not even have to point out that this is done constantly in science if specific knowledge effects the outcome or purpose of the endeavor. It will also be necessary to withhold information and pursue our agenda when testing and evaluating the validity of the hypothesis, which will be the next phase of the project. However, withholding the source of the hypothesis or the actual focus of testing from participants invalidates neither the hypothesis, nor the data produced, but it may reduce the time wasted on personal attacks by those who simply do not like the rational and naturalistic tenor of the hypothesis. Although, we are admittedly not familiar with "Mooey's particular hypothesis, we would encourage you to send us any available links to facilitate consideration of his work. However, dark energy, which itself currently represents a hypothetical form of energy used to explain the accelerating rate of Universal expansion seems, at least superficially, to be only relevant on the super macrocosmic level of the Universe, and typically a hypothesis based on hypothesis has little weight. This appears to be an inverted perception of current Quantum theories, which are only relevant to the super microcosmic level of sub atomic particles, and simply does not function in any way relevanton the level at which we interact and experience our reality. However, we assure you that we will consider it at length and if it can withstand scrutiny, it may augment our hypothesis and represent an un-addressed feature of the phenomenon. My personal purpose in pursuing this subject for over three decades is not financial gain. (This has been a hugely costly endeavor in bothtime and resources) I wish only to find a rational explanation for why people like myself, who have no particular belief in the mythology surrounding this issue, would subjectively experience this phenomenon over long periods of time and in patterns left un-addressed and unanswered by the Skeptic's theory, which represents the only working theory currently available. We would still like to invite all to consider the hypothesis for logical and factual accuracy and send us your thoughts, which will be addressed as is appropriate as our position is fluid, as it should be. We remind all that the truth behind this ubiquitous human experience belongs to all and we encourage all to constructively participate in our endeavor!

In my opinion they are trapped in the "energy" box, which is exactly why they aren't getting anywhere with it! Just off the cuff, if this were the case I would have paranormal experiences whenever I spend a day in my home theater room, which is literally surrounded by huge speakers and powerful coils producing massive amounts of E.M. radiation! However, this is not the case. It is also not the case when you go near a MRI machine, which has an E.M.field greater by several orders of magnitude! When I do have experiences is when there is or was a dead person/biological contamination or a lingering scent of either in the environment. Think of it this way, what relevance does E.M. radiation have to us in an evolutionary context? The answer, of course, is none! However, we observe the same kind of behavior from animals and they are doing it with chemo-detection. In fact, chemo-detection is by far the oldest of all the senses and goes back billions (Yes Billions!) of years in our evolutionary line because it is the most basic. On the most primitive level, it is the one that tells you to eat it, mate with it, run from it, or kill it! Do you realize that the gene group for olfaction is the largest in the human genome by a factor of 20 compared to the next largest for neurotransmitters, and that we are only currently using about a third of what(evolutionarily speaking) we have had available in the past? The best hypothesis, in my opinion, is the one postulated by The Square-Peg Think-Tank, which suggests that this is one of many evolved mechanisms that functions out of context in the world we have created in the past several thousand years. It is, testable, based on a naturalistic model, and simply explains every thing about ghost and haunting phenomenon from start to finish, including how and why it began, why we believe it, why we needed to create the mythology surrounding it, and why we have made almost no progress exploring it in 150 years. The key to understanding the answer exists in being able to separate between what is objective and what is subjective, what is lore and what is real, and most don't have a clue where the line actually is! I have spent over a year trying to poke holes in it and have had no success. In fact, in attempting to do so I have found a great deal of supporting evidence not mentioned in their article. I have also noticed that since it was proposed some of the major paranormal sites and groups have been doing preemptive strikes and damage control trying to explain it away and without much success. If you have not read it already, I suggest you do so, and let me know what you think of it. The synopsis of their work and consequent hypothesis is here: thatwhichremains.com Let me know if you have any more success refuting it than I did … Oh, and the infra-sound theory doesn't work either and if you likeI can write back and can explain why.

I could not agree more, and you would be surprised how few actually realize it! It has been said that what we perceive as reality is actually a controlled hallucination. The simple fact is that we did not evolve in the kind of world that we have created for ourselves, but rather in a natural world governed by very different rules and priorities. Consequently, many of the adaptations that once afforded our ancestors a survival advantage now simply serve to confuse us! I am convinced that ghost and haunting phenomenon and all their associated mythologies are the result of survival adaptations that now exist out of context.

The problem with the electromagnetic field sensitivity theory is that it has already been debunked by repeated testing. (Look it up!) There has been extensive research done in this area since the initial claim, and it just does not pan out. If it were the case, why don't we experience ghosts while listening to a modern audio system, or when driving in our electric cars, or on an electric trolley? You would think every MRI lab in every hospital in the world would be so haunted people would be screaming out the exits, and this is simply not the case. Sorry but it is just another weak theory that has become popular with those who take it at face value without actually investigating its validity, and consequently fail to realize that it cannot withstand real scrutiny. The best current theory on ghost and haunting phenomenon in my opinion is the Olfactory-Chemo-Detection hypothesis proposed by the Square-Peg Think-Tank! It fits like a glove and explains almost everything! There is an article available at: thatwhichremains.com