YT2095 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 That is a very good point. People in Gettysburg report that strange events such as "ghost sightings" are most common on the days that the battle of Gettysburg occurred. I always guessed it was because those days are when the most visitors come to Gettysburg. However' date=' it may be related to time travel and the position of Earth. Perhaps time itself has holes in it, and that is why people see ghosts and other things that don't exist in our time. When the Earth is in the right position, we can see through these holes in time.[/quote'] well ok, lets imagine that we DID get a "solar anniversary" correct in space and we ignore the fact that it would only last the merest fraction of a second anyway. the Sun has moved too! as has the entire Galaxy that`s patient enough to keep us within it. I expect my figure of "a few million miles" in my last post was Grossly Conservative at best. we can NEVER attain the "Right position"
herme3 Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 well ok' date=' lets imagine that we DID get a "solar anniversary" correct in space and we ignore the fact that it would only last the merest fraction of a second anyway. the Sun has moved too! as has the entire Galaxy that`s patient enough to keep us within it. I expect my figure of "a few million miles" in my last post was Grossly Conservative at best. we can NEVER attain the "Right position" [/quote'] That is also a very good point.
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 They were taken with a camera. Of course, you should be aware of the fact that cameras can see things that the human eye can't. You can prove this right now if you have a video camera and remote control for a TV. Press a button on the remote control. If you look at the remote, you probably don't see the signal coming out of the remote. Now, if you point the remote at a video camera while it is recording, you will see the signal coming from the remote when you watch the recording. Perhaps ghosts are similar to remote control signals, and can only be seen with a camera. Those signals are IR. Nothing really mysterious about that, and nothing that can't be tested rigorously. However' date=' the ghost books I have offer a different explanation. They claim that ghosts need energy to make themselves appear in our world. They can obtain this energy from the flash of a camera. However, when the flash is gone, the ghost disappears. This could also explain why I could only see them on camera.[/quote'] Or, they are lens flares. That would also explain why you only see them on camera. You have to come up with a way of showing conclusively that it is not the simple explanation of "light reflects off of stuff." Otherwise, how do I know that the image in the reflective sheet of glass in my bathroom isn't my "spirit on the other side?" After all, it seems to do everything I do, only reversed. Creepy, huh?
YT2095 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Or, they are lens flares. That would also explain why you only see them on camera. You have to come up with a way of showing conclusively that it is not the simple explanation of "light reflects off of stuff." Otherwise, how do I know that the image in the reflective sheet of glass in my bathroom therein lies another potential possiblity (even if my editing is a little abrupt). have you ever seen a Time Tunnel? I used to make them all the time, for a DJ friend of mine, basicly a wooden box with a reflective backing and a semi-reflective front pannel with lights inside (the semi-reflective surface was opposite the backing plate). basicly if gives the impression of "Infinity" and Depth where there is non (other than maybe 8 to 12 inches in reality). Camera lenses are infrequently to Never nowadays just a single lens, but actualy a few lenses all at different distances appart, any pair of which is more than cappable of producing this Time Tunnel effect OR lens flares (a little different) and can "Place" an object at any depth within a photo, in front or behind people, and look perfectly real under certain conditions. it MAY BE that the conditions of the area that you speak of are ideal, there will be 1,000s of other places with just as good if not better conditions too, but who would go around taking random pics for the hell of it? people want to take pics of notable places, Hence all the stories you may find that the shed at the bottom of your garden is just as good! but who wants to see that? just a thought
herme3 Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 Or, they are lens flares. That would also explain why you only see them on camera. You have to come up with a way of showing conclusively that it is not the simple explanation of "light reflects off of stuff." Otherwise, how do I know that the image in the reflective sheet of glass in my bathroom isn't my "spirit on the other side?" After all, it seems to do everything I do, only reversed. Creepy, huh? You are looking into a reflective mirror. In the basement, there was nothing for the flash to reflect on. The wall is made of brick, the chair is made of wood, and the bed had material on it. Nothing is reflecting the flash. Another person took a picture with a completely different camera. There appears to be ectoplasm, a ghostly material, in the exact same spot that the ghost-like figure is standing in my picture. This is a different camera and a different person. Our pictures were taken on a different date. What are the chances of both of us getting a lens flare in the same spot? I have the other person's picture on my web site. It is at http://gettysburg.homestead.com/files/ghost2.jpg and it may take a long time to load. It hasn't been compressed, and it is a high quality picture. Look at the white object that looks like a X. It is floating above the bed.
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 You are looking into a reflective mirror. In the basement, there was nothing for the flash to reflect on. The wall is made of brick, the chair is made of wood, and the bed had material on it. Nothing is reflecting the flash. Apart from everything in the basement, unless this was the fabled Basement of Perfect Light Absorbing Materials. A lense flare is just non-image-forming light as far as a camera is concerned. It isn't required to be bright, directional, or visible to the naked eye - it's the shape of the aperture and lense that give it its characteristics in the final image, not its original source.
YT2095 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 whereas a "time Tunnel" effect will contain the original source (esp if highly illuminated against background) and will appear as an image either larger or smaller than the subject and Very distorted (as it`ll have harmonics of this image as well as vibrational distortion, 1 image is double the focal length, several amplify this), trace/trail effects aren`t uncommon either. also, these are just looking at the camera aspect as a possibility, there are many other possible explainations too
herme3 Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 Apart from everything in the basement' date=' unless this was the fabled Basement of Perfect Light Absorbing Materials. A lense flare is just non-image-forming light as far as a camera is concerned. It isn't required to be bright, directional, or visible to the naked eye - it's the shape of the aperture and lense that give it its characteristics in the final image, not its original source.[/quote'] I use that camera a lot. I've never noticed anything like that before. Look at the first picture that I took. Can't you see there is a face and body? I've noticed that it doesn't look very clear when the monitor is dark. Try making your monitor a little brighter and look at the picture for a while. I think it is very clear that this is more than a simple lens flare. When we went into that basement for a ghost tour, the tour guide was talking about how many people get these types of pictures in that exact same spot. Many people go on the historic tour that doesn't even mention ghosts. They go to that basement and take a few pictures. Then without looking for anything ghost-like to be in the picture, they see something strange. If this isn't anything ghost related, why do so many pictures taken in that spot have strange things in them?
YT2095 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 interesting pic, but you can Also see the curvature of that line with the apex crossed with clear line-of-sigh with that dudes left lens that`s brightly lit, one will act as a diffuser the other a concentrator (the right lens). there`s your Mystery or at least what I can tell from a 2D pic and a rule
MolecularMan14 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I don't think you understand how search engines work. I own an online marketing company' date=' so I know all about them. When you type in something like Bush Eats Children the search engine shows all the results for "Bush", "Eats", and "Children". As you an imagine, the results for all those keywords combined is very massive. However, if you type "Bush Eats Children" in quotation marks, it searches for the whole phrase. Only 32 web sites come up. I think that is a big difference. If you type, "Gettysburg Ghost" in quotation marks, you get over 2,000 web sites with that exact phrase. There is a big difference between 32 and 2,000 web sites.[/quote'] Would you like to hear me call myself an novice to google (dont ask me to do that, I dont like lying), or shall I explain how jokes work?...It's somewhere along the lines of poking fun at pseudoscience, so take your pick, because whether it's posted on the internet or not, Im still laughing "Bill Gates Is Satan" - 3,980...does that make it true? When searching for crap, expect to find crap. Hell, there are even tours to point out crap and make money off of it. When I searched "Gettysburg Ghost" I found loads of tours for crap...more crap....and more stories about crap, but I did get to see some good pictures of crap on peoples' personal websites Bring me a picture of you playing cards with Einstein, Jesus, and William Wallace, and you will have me, and much of the scientific community at a loss for what to say about ghosts. Short of that, no one is that affected by pictures of, to put it in swansont's words, light reflecting off stuff.
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 You are looking into a reflective mirror. In the basement, there was nothing for the flash to reflect on. Then how did any light make it back to the camera? There are two types of reflection - specular and diffuse. Diffuse reflection is still reflection.
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I use that camera a lot. I've never noticed anything like that before. Look at the first picture that I took. Can't you see there is a face and body? I've noticed that it doesn't look very clear when the monitor is dark. Try making your monitor a little brighter and look at the picture for a while. I think it is very clear that this is more than a simple lens flare. In other words, take the noise and adjust the setting to make it look more like a reconizable signal. Just like the sound recordings.
Cornelius Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 herme3, if you could find a link to the story about the Gettysburg incident, that would be wonderful. Hmm, this particular type of subject, one that is clearly unexplainable at this time reminds me of another problem. Have any of you heard of John Titor, the proposed time traveler? http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/ There was a lot of "internet commotion" when this first sprouted up.
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Hmm, this particular type of subject, one that is clearly unexplainable at this time reminds me of another problem. Have any of you heard of John Titor, the proposed time traveler? http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/[/url'] There was a lot of "internet commotion" when this first sprouted up. You have a very odd definition of "clearly unexplainable." An internet hoaxer who made some predictions. Some have been falsified (have we been having a "Waco type event" monthly for the last year? Where's the civil war?) and much of his material was really vague.
herme3 Posted July 12, 2005 Author Posted July 12, 2005 You have a very odd definition of "clearly unexplainable." An internet hoaxer who made some predictions. Some have been falsified (have we been having a "Waco type event" monthly for the last year? Where's the civil war?) and much of his material was really vague. It is unbelievable that you automatically say this is a hoax without any evidence of it not being true. Many scientists say that time travel will never happen because if it did, we would be seeing people from the future at the present time. Now, somebody claims to be from the future, and you call it a hoax!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 He just presented his evidence: Some have been falsified (have we been having a "Waco type event" monthly for the last year? Where's the civil war?) and much of his material was really vague.
Thomas Kirby Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Just a cent or two worth here: You're probably right about the plural of anecdote, but I don't think that is enough to dismiss what many many people see and sense. EVP needs to be very carefully examined. I suppose that the people who do this and write books do have to eat so they do have to publish regularly, to both eat and do research, but I would prefer to see much more carefully vetted results. One EVP that I heard clearly seemed to include Humphrey Bogart's voice from what sounded like a war movie. One thing I am becoming more and more sure of is that scientific positivism is a falsity. A lot of things have been revised over and over again since people became convinced that science would accurately predict or describe anything. I fear that scientists have fallen into mental traps where they think that they have received the invariant word of God at the same time they see the Word rewriting itself minute by minute. Also, too much of science is stuck in blind alleys right now. It really isn't in shape to dismiss much of anything. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence." EVP is a joke. You record noise' date=' and then filter it until something vaguely recognizable is found. [/quote']
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 EVP needs to be very carefully examined. I suppose that the people who do this and write books do have to eat so they do have to publish regularly' date=' to both eat and do research, but I would prefer to see much more carefully vetted results. One EVP that I heard clearly seemed to include Humphrey Bogart's voice from what sounded like a war movie. [/quote'] That would be notable only if you had some reason to think that you should hear Bogey's voice ahead of time, the person doing the filtering didn't know what you were looking for and you could repeat it. But if it's a matter of "find a pattern in the noise" it would only be surprising if it didn't happen occasionally.
swansont Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 It is unbelievable that you automatically say this is a hoax without any evidence of it not being true. Wrong burden of proof. It's not up to me to provide evidence that it's not true. It's up to you to provide evidence that it is true. Nevertheless, it has proven itself to be untrue anyway, as I have noted.
herme3 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Posted July 13, 2005 Wrong burden of proof. It's not up to me to provide evidence that it's not true. It's up to you to provide evidence that it is true. Nevertheless' date=' it has proven itself to be untrue anyway, as I have noted.[/quote'] I was going to say that John Titor is off topic, but I realized that it is actually on topic. I almost forgot how ghosts came into the conversation of time travel... Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor and read some of the evidence that points to this being true. Yes, there are also some things that are false. However, how did John know about the hidden features in the IBM computer? What about describing the technology in his time machine in so much detail? Would an ordinary Internet user wanting to create a hoax know so much about black holes and time travel? Also, you were trying to use the lack of a Civil War as evidence against John Titor. He said it will start in 2005. How can you use this against him? I'm sure that you are aware of the fact that it isn't 2006 yet. Things can change so quickly. Look at how quickly the War on Terrorism came up only after one day: September 11th. 2005 isn't over yet, and President Bush is really making some Americans angry.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor[/url'] and read some of the evidence that points to this being true. Yes, there are also some things that are false. However, how did John know about the hidden features in the IBM computer? What about describing the technology in his time machine in so much detail? Would an ordinary Internet user wanting to create a hoax know so much about black holes and time travel? He could be an IBM guy with a degree in physics. Also, you were trying to use the lack of a Civil War as evidence against John Titor. He said it will start in 2005. In different instances he also said it would start in 2004. Titor already specified that there would be "Waco-like events" every month. Have we noticed any of these? Now, I can imagine, if we could contact those who actually had contact with him in the physical world- not the internet- we could verify it. But he never left any details that would let people verify his story, besides the predictions.
Cornelius Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 You have a very odd definition of "clearly unexplainable." I'm sure you knew what I meant. Now, I can imagine, if we could contact those who actually had contact with him in the physical world- not the internet- we could verify it. But he never left any details that would let people verify his story, besides the predictions. If Titor is the real deal, I doubt he would have even considered physically interacting with the mass media because it could alter the future and result in a failed mission. Also, critics of Titor are questioning why he would even post on internet forums because it would be an off course journey to his real destination, the IBM computer, basically too much of a risk..
Sayonara Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 However, how did John know about the hidden features in the IBM computer? If there were/are hidden features, then there are people in the present who know about it in great detail. Occam's Razor says this is more likely than Titor being from the Wooorrrrld of Toooomorrrooow. What about describing the technology in his time machine in so much detail? I can tell you my time travelling toilet is powered by a trifilamental string compressor, and works by folding time in two dimensions, but it doesn't make it true. Would an ordinary Internet user wanting to create a hoax know so much about black holes and time travel? Maybe, maybe not. You seem to imply that "ordinary" is a state that precludes knowledge of black holes and/or time travel, whereas in reality most of the physicists I know who have internet access consider themselves quite ordinary people. You also seem to be suggesting that out of six billion people, someone posting about their time travel experiences on the internet to a level of sophistication that is sufficient to convince you can only be explained by them being a time traveller, which is frankly hilarious.
JaKiri Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 just a thought' date=' and I don`t know the exact maths, but it`s not heavily relliant upon that anyway. how long ago was this gettysburg thing? how fast is the earth moving in space? Multiply those 2 and you`ll have the distance you`de be away from the earth as it is now, probably millions of miles away when it took place. so if it were REAL Time Travel, it would present Problems, quite Obvious one at that.[/quote'] That implies some kind of absolute positioning in the universe.
Thomas Kirby Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I totally agree about the possibility of finding a pattern in the noise. However, like I said, I've listened to some of the samples. I might argue about the source of the sounds, but these sounds are not like finding patterns in the gurgling of water or the clicking of train wheels on the tracks. Some of them are extremely clear human voices, especially the example I just mentioned. In that sample, something about "Company A" came through very clearly. That particular one I would think would be because of radio frequency interference. One thing you learn when working with electronics is that the actions of the circuits are not nearly as cut and dried as you might expect or hope. A crystal radio set built for AM can pick up an FM radio transmission. When I attempted to build a very sensitive listening device one time, it clearly picked up someone's PA system from over a mile away. Even pretty well built electronics can generate anomalies. I'm sorry if someone feels that they have to publish such "results" uncritically, but I sympathize with where they are coming from. At the same time, when I was listening to the EVP samples, one or two of them were clearly voices, although sometimes distorted, and not noise, and not easy to write off as accidental detection of radio or TV transmissions. The only resort I would have there would be to accuse the experimenters of faking it. That is not something that I ever want to resort to just because I have trouble believing something. I would hate to be a snark hunter. I don't have the patience to pan for gold when I don't know when a nugget will show up, and I'm not sure that I will recognize a nugget, and the assay office will recognize that I have a nugget depending on the clerk's mood that day. The thing I am currently working on is mathematical, and the mathematics is not that complex, but it is taking FOREVER. At least I can work and earn a wage while I'm doing it. That would be notable only if you had some reason to think that you should hear Bogey's voice ahead of time, the person doing the filtering didn't know what you were looking for and you could repeat it. But if it's a matter of "find a pattern in the noise" it would only be surprising if it didn't[/i'] happen occasionally.
Recommended Posts