Electromagnetic radiation and its effects on the brain (Or, Can we see ghosts!?)

[JohnB]

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.

 

That wouldn't be because you are the founding member of said "Think Tank", would it?

 

From Yahoo answers, "Max's Activity";

I am a student of human behavior, a free thinker, and truth seeker, as well as the founding member of, The Square Peg Think Tank.

 

To pretend to be unbiased while pushing your own idea and agenda is dishonest at best.

 

Your olfactory theory is interesting and worth exploration so why not just suggest it rather than go through the rigmarole of pretending to have looked at differeing theories and impartially deciding the olfactory one is the best?

 

BTW, saying that it is "testable" without describing the tests and how they would work is pointless and doesn't add authority to your argument.

 

From my own POV, ghosts etc are quite real and have a perfectly natural explanation. I think that while some of the effects might manifest in the EM spectrum, the cause is not to be found there. Given the current thoughts concerning "dark" energy I find it quite reasonable to assume that this may be in some way responsible. Since by definition "dark" energy cannot be detected by EM equipment, then there is no surprise that EM equipment won't detect it. It's like trying to detect microwaves with a microphone, "simply ain't gonna happen".

 

As to how to detect the particular form of dark energy involved I have no idea. That is way above my paygrade and I'll leave it to the physicists like Mooey to work out. Until then it seems like a reasonable working hypothesis.

 

I am quite confident that in the future the definition of "Supernatural" will become; "A phenomenon for which we have yet to understand the underlying physical laws and theories". Just as a microwave oven is ordinary today but would have been considered "Supernatural" in the 16th century, so too will the things we now call "Supernatural" eventually fall into their correct places in the natural world.

[iNow]

I agree. I'm not convinced that EM radiation is the cause. That notion does not make much sense considering that we are emersed in EM radiation throughout most of our lives.

Even if it's not the ringing of your cell phone causing you to see grandma floating ethereally above your bedside, what these results of outside sources of EM radiation changing what we think, see, or hear DO show is that most of these "supernatural" sightings are merely certain types of electrical activity in specific parts of the brain.

 

The cause or source of this activity is quite irrelevant, and... whether the stimulus of the brain activity is external or internal... the outcome is ultimately the same. This experience doesn't require some tangible external source since the brain is often itself wired strangely and subject to misfires.

 

So, like I said... Even if it's not the transistor radio on your workshop countertop causing beetlejuice to sing and dance before your eyes, it's the same electrical activity in your brain resulting in that experience, and it can be faked or manufactured without much difficulty.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60027-philosophers-of-religions/page__p__627895#entry627895

 

 

It's quite interesting that the dead thread which got necro'd would be one about seeing ghosts. I wonder what else from 2004 will appear next, and whether or not I can attribute that too to the misfiring of someones brain.

[JohnB]

It's quite interesting that the dead thread which got necro'd would be one about seeing ghosts.

 

 

Do we have a zombie one from back then?

[Max The Skeptic]

That wouldn't be because you are the founding member of said "Think Tank", would it?

 

From Yahoo answers, "Max's Activity";

 

 

To pretend to be unbiased while pushing your own idea and agenda is dishonest at best.

 

Your olfactory theory is interesting and worth exploration so why not just suggest it rather than go through the rigmarole of pretending to have looked at differeing theories and impartially deciding the olfactory one is the best?

 

BTW, saying that it is "testable" without describing the tests and how they would work is pointless and doesn't add authority to your argument.

 

From my own POV, ghosts etc are quite real and have a perfectly natural explanation. I think that while some of the effects might manifest in the EM spectrum, the cause is not to be found there. Given the current thoughts concerning "dark" energy I find it quite reasonable to assume that this may be in some way responsible. Since by definition "dark" energy cannot be detected by EM equipment, then there is no surprise that EM equipment won't detect it. It's like trying to detect microwaves with a microphone, "simply ain't gonna happen".

 

As to how to detect the particular form of dark energy involved I have no idea. That is way above my paygrade and I'll leave it to the physicists like Mooey to work out. Until then it seems like a reasonable working hypothesis.

 

I am quite confident that in the future the definition of "Supernatural" will become; "A phenomenon for which we have yet to understand the underlying physical laws and theories". Just as a microwave oven is ordinary today but would have been considered "Supernatural" in the 16th century, so too will the things we now call "Supernatural" eventually fall into their correct places in the natural world.

 

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!

Edited October 23, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[JohnB]

Max, I'm not out to be mean, but you haven't given us much. I had to reread your original post to find the mention of the website. We do allow linking here and you can put it straight into the post like this;

That Which Remains

 

Why not start a new thread outlining your idea and take it from there so it can be discussed without necroing a very dead thread?

 

As I said, the idea is worth investigating however more work needs to be done. Your website gives your idea but is frankly as boring as hell to read. Similarly although you have titles for pages explaining why everybody else is wrong, these are all "coming soon". I'm also having trouble reconciling your comments with the available facts. You say the synopsis has been available for "months", yet the website was registered with godaddy on 15-Sept-2011.

 

There are zero references to "Primal Olfactory Response" in the literature according to google scholar and the only mentions of it that come up on a normal search are yours (or your coworkers) so it would appear that nobody is actually discussing it at all, let alone "attempting to incorporate the information into their mythology". HADD was put forward in 2000 by Barrett and there appears to be some discussion in the literature as to whether it exists or not. (What were you saying about a hypothesis based on a hypothesis?)

 

While it is all well and good to attempt a logical and factual assessment, the bottom line here is that you are hypothesising a previously unknown psychological response to olfactory stimulation. Your theory rests on the combination of a factor that may or may not exist with one that is not known to exist. Considering the extremely shaky hypothetical grounds that you are standing on, it is unwise to call other people names.

 

Put your idea forward. You claim it is testable, so describe the tests and what would be expected as results. Explain why the competing theories don't answer the various questions as fully as your theory does.

 

And leave out the persecution complex.

[Max The Skeptic]

Max, I'm not out to be mean, but you haven't given us much. I had to reread your original post to find the mention of the website. We do allow linking here and you can put it straight into the post like this;

That Which Remains

 

Why not start a new thread outlining your idea and take it from there so it can be discussed without necroing a very dead thread?

 

As I said, the idea is worth investigating however more work needs to be done. Your website gives your idea but is frankly as boring as hell to read. Similarly although you have titles for pages explaining why everybody else is wrong, these are all "coming soon". I'm also having trouble reconciling your comments with the available facts. You say the synopsis has been available for "months", yet the website was registered with godaddy on 15-Sept-2011.

 

There are zero references to "Primal Olfactory Response" in the literature according to google scholar and the only mentions of it that come up on a normal search are yours (or your coworkers) so it would appear that nobody is actually discussing it at all, let alone "attempting to incorporate the information into their mythology". HADD was put forward in 2000 by Barrett and there appears to be some discussion in the literature as to whether it exists or not. (What were you saying about a hypothesis based on a hypothesis?)

 

While it is all well and good to attempt a logical and factual assessment, the bottom line here is that you are hypothesising a previously unknown psychological response to olfactory stimulation. Your theory rests on the combination of a factor that may or may not exist with one that is not known to exist. Considering the extremely shaky hypothetical grounds that you are standing on, it is unwise to call other people names.

 

Put your idea forward. You claim it is testable, so describe the tests and what would be expected as results. Explain why the competing theories don't answer the various questions as fully as your theory does.

 

And leave out the persecution complex.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[zerotwoone]

I hate to weigh in on this thread, but if you believe in symmetry then ghosts almost have to exist since their opposites exists, as in human "vegetables." If you can have one extreme, then is the other out of the realm of possibility? My mathematics doesn't predict ghosts, but it doesn't predict life with freewill either. But to throw another wrench in the machine, my mathematics does predict possession. Yeah, I probably threw out any sort of credibility I may have had, oh well. Going back to freewill, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because I do have a mechanism for it, however fantastic it may be. I will release it on my webpage:

www.zero-2-one.com later.

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerotwoone

[Max The Skeptic]

I hate to weigh in on this thread, but if you believe in symmetry then ghosts almost have to exist since their opposites exists, as in human "vegetables." If you can have one extreme, then is the other out of the realm of possibility? My mathematics doesn't predict ghosts, but it doesn't predict life with freewill either. But to throw another wrench in the machine, my mathematics does predict possession. Yeah, I probably threw out any sort of credibility I may have had, oh well. Going back to freewill, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because I do have a mechanism for it, however fantastic it may be. I will release it on my webpage:

www.zero-2-one.com later.

 

"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.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[zerotwoone]

"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.

 

Max, thanks for your thoughtful argument. You are correct on asserting that there are areas outside of our control. However, if you feel like, please read today's entry, it may provide some interest to you.

 

www.zero-2-one.com

[Max The Skeptic]

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?!?

[JohnB]

Max, how does your theory deal with the photographs of ghosts? How do you photograph a smell?

[Max The Skeptic]

Max, how does your theory deal with the photographs of ghosts? How do you photograph a smell?

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.)

Edited October 26, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[phantom]

From my own POV, ghosts etc are quite real and have a perfectly natural explanation. I think that while some of the effects might manifest in the EM spectrum, the cause is not to be found there. Given the current thoughts concerning "dark" energy I find it quite reasonable to assume that this may be in some way responsible. Since by definition "dark" energy cannot be detected by EM equipment, then there is no surprise that EM equipment won't detect it. It's like trying to detect microwaves with a microphone, "simply ain't gonna happen".

Erregungsfang - (my word of the week).

[JohnB]

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.

(Emphasis mine)

 

This is factually incorrect. To give two examples.

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Freddy-Jackson.htm

 

While we don't have details of the photographer, one can reasonably assume that an official group photograph for the Royal Navy would indeed be done by a professional.

 

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/Ghost-in-the-Choir-Loft.htm

 

The description says it all; "In 1982, photographer Chris Brackley took a photograph of the interior of London's St. Botolph's Church, but never expected what would appear on the film."

 

I doubt that it would be hard to find more. This means however that they do indeed appear on professional equipment operated by professional people. You will have to rethink your point 1.

 

I'll admit that your 3 groupings are much as I expected. The problem with a very mundane (although very innovative) theory such as yours is that it requires such things as photographic evidence to be the result of incompetence, self delusion or outright intentional forgery. Thus we have circular reasoning. The theory says that all contradicting evidence is the result of incompetence, delusion or fraud. Therefore all contradictive evidence can be ignored as false in some way. Therefore the theory is sound due to the lack of contravening evidence.

 

The process by which you are arriving at the conclusion is flawed.

[zerotwoone]

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?!?

 

Hi Max, don't belittle yourself, I think the hallmark of being intelligent is realizing that what you know is only a fraction of what there is to know. I consider myself intelligent, but not that smart, I don't have an eidetic memory, and my interests only encompasses a small realm of possibilities. My premise is if freewill exists, then the particle that is "you," behaves in a quantum manner. But not only as a wave function, but a variable wave function, this would explain why our thoughts aren't processed linearly, but instead following every path for a solution. But this particle governs a relativistic body, so even if our minds/souls behave in a quantum manner, our actions/reactions are relativistic. You could possibly program an AI to emulate human behavour, like an emotion; response to sadness: someone died, therefore I am sad, therefore I will adjust my facial expressions to match my emotion, therefore I will shed a tear, maybe two... But it will never, well with current linnear logic, have that raw emotion when you hear someone who died who was close to you. You can also make AI emulate deceitfulness, but at it's core function, everything still has to be if/else, and/or 1/0, while humans seem to have this trait perfected. I could right a book on this "human" particle, but for now, it's your choice to believe or not, that is what freewill is all about. And I also wouldn't say "changes" an outcome, but instead, "verifies" an outcome. Thanks for your sincere response.

[Max The Skeptic]

(Emphasis mine)

 

This is factually incorrect. To give two examples.

http://paranormal.ab...ddy-Jackson.htm

 

While we don't have details of the photographer, one can reasonably assume that an official group photograph for the Royal Navy would indeed be done by a professional.

 

http://paranormal.ab...-Choir-Loft.htm

 

The description says it all; "In 1982, photographer Chris Brackley took a photograph of the interior of London's St. Botolph's Church, but never expected what would appear on the film."

 

I doubt that it would be hard to find more. This means however that they do indeed appear on professional equipment operated by professional people. You will have to rethink your point 1.

 

I'll admit that your 3 groupings are much as I expected. The problem with a very mundane (although very innovative) theory such as yours is that it requires such things as photographic evidence to be the result of incompetence, self delusion or outright intentional forgery. Thus we have circular reasoning. The theory says that all contradicting evidence is the result of incompetence, delusion or fraud. Therefore all contradictive evidence can be ignored as false in some way. Therefore the theory is sound due to the lack of contravening evidence.

 

The process by which you are arriving at the conclusion is flawed.

 

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!!

Edited October 27, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[JohnB]

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.

 

How long do you think an exposure was for a photo in 1919? Are you seriously suggesting the person put his hat on and resumed his place in under 1/20th of a second? You might be able to argue a double exposure, but if the effect was from movement during a long exposure then the person would be a complete blur and not two distinct images. The sharper the clarity the shorter the exposure, this is a basic fact of photography. The clarity of the faces of all participants points to a short exposure time and your explanation requires a long exposure time. It doesn't match the physical evidence. The explanation is physically untenable, if not outright impossible.

 

As to the second pic, I didn't think it was all that great myself. It was included because it was taken by a professional, something you said never happens.

 

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.

 

Which is the circular reasoning I was speaking of. You aren't explaining a phenomenon. You have decided on the answer and examine evidence based on that answer. Specifically, "All contrary evidence must be false" is inbuilt into the hypothesis. It's "Alice in Wonderland" stuff, "Verdict first, evidence later".

 

This is the same form of reasoning that people use to prove the existence of God. The hypothesis is "God exists and all evidence to the contrary is falsely planted by Satan". Being circular it cannot be challenged until the person realises that they are involved in circular reasoning and reject it as illogical. Another example is the "Repressed Memory Syndrome" that was fshionable for a while. The hypothesis went "Person A suffers from RMS, any testimony provided that the events didn't happen are the result of the witnesses suffering from "Denial"."

 

One of the basic tenets of science is that a theory or hypothesis must be falsifiable. Yours doesn't fit because incorporated into the hypothesis is that all falsifying evidence is wrong. It's neither your idea or conclusions I'm objecting to, but the method that you used to get there. The method (and that part of the hypothesis) is invalid.

 

The correct process is to re-examine your answer in the light of evidence, not to examine evidence in the light of the answer.

 

Consider these two different approaches to investigating the problem;

1. What is the cause of the "ghost" phenomenon?

2. Since ghosts cannot exist, what makes people think they've seen one?

 

Which is the honest and open approach? And which one do you fall into?

 

I watched the vid and was unimpressed. I've also seen the photos and didn't think much of them either. They show little and prove less. I do know some professional photogs that go ghost hunting, sometimes they come back with a reasonable pic, but most times empty handed. (And I'm almost ready to strangle with their own camera strap the next person to show me "Orbs" as evidence.)

[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 1/20^th 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.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Max The Skeptic

[JohnB]

John, clearly you have only a rudimentary understanding of photography

 

So does that mean I shouldn't use my darkroom any more?

 

You do understand that movies were being made in 1919? Strictly speaking a movie is a series of still photos taken (at the time) at a rate of between 18 and 22 per second. I chose 1/20th of a second because that is half way. What you are saying is correct but it does require long exposure times, generally in excess of 1 second. Still photography (Portraits, etc) hadn't required that for decades before 1919, even the old glass films were well under a second in the 1880s. Your explanation requires the photographer to be using a most unusual and rather incredible technique to take a simple photo.

 

Simple questions.

1. How long is your "long" exposure time?

2. Can the movements you describe be made in that time?

3. Why would the photographer use a totally unneccessary long exposure time for a simple group photo? What is the reason?

 

What I do find amusing in this exchange is that you obviously have no idea at all about HMS Daedelus in 1919. It was a training facility for reconnaissance aircrews for the Royal Navy. Presumably, then as now, military reconnaissance outfits had no knowledge of photography and access to only the poorest equipment, with neither the abilites or equipment of the lowliest Fleet Street newspaper photographer. Taking a group photo in 1919 did not require a long exposure time.

 

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/daedalus/History_WW1.html

 

As to the rest. You say I'm wrong but cannot say how or why. You accuse me of strawmanning yet can't say how or why. I'm quite well aquainted with logic, but I suggest most strongly that you investigate much further the version known as "circular". If you're going to keep using it, you should at least know what it is. Unlike you however, I feel it encumbent upon me to help you as much as I can in your further education. You might try this link or just try the Wiki one. (The words are shorter).

 

The thing is Max, you don't actually want a discussion, you want to pontificate and expect others to bow down before your impressive intellect. Sorry, but I'm not impressed. This is so very clearly demonstrated when you admonish from on high that "instructing" others is not worth your time. The simple fact here is that to actually demonstrate and explain your theory, instruction is exactly what you have to do. Anything else is to expect others to agree with the idea as some sort of "revealed truth", which simply "ain't gonna happen".

 

There, I've tried. I doubt you will listen and I'm sure that when you pass on to whatever forum you decide to inhabit next I will be simply be one more indulging in "a multitude of intellectually dishonest personal attacks".

 

One last point, you might want to read this thread. Just the first post will do.

Edited October 30, 2011 by JohnB