# Walhalla Ghost



## Red_LaCN (Apr 18, 2012)

My son went out last nite in a town called Walhalla in Victoria, Australia. He was on a hunt to find ghosts!!! I didnt think much of it wen he told me in facebook that he was doing this. He put up sum nite pics on his facebook this morning thinking of sum ghostly mists that dont quite look like much of anything,but there IS something there.

If u click here,u will see a wiki of Walhalla which says it was a gold mining boom town in the late 1800's. This matches up with the little girl in the pic below. This photo was taken with a mobile/cell phone camera. It has not been altered in anyway. If u still cannot see the little girl,look at the bush on the very left,she is half behind it. Hopefully i have put the pic in here correctly.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2012)

I like it! 

This kid hiding behind the tree when you "up the brightness & contrast" etc is the really creepy one


----------



## Shotta (Apr 18, 2012)

HOLY crap
WHEN I SAW THAT I AMLOST CRAPPED MY PANT'S!!
I SAW A FREAKI'N ghost!!!


----------



## Khagan (Apr 18, 2012)

That is cool!


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2012)

Ok... so we all know ghosts don't exist... (and let it begin)


----------



## Snake-Supplies (Apr 18, 2012)

Who ya gunna call?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2012)

I just wanna vote you down Slim :lol: (Where's the button???)


----------



## Shotta (Apr 18, 2012)

JoshuaAtherton said:


> Who ya gunna call?



GHOST BUSTERS!!

lol sorry had to


----------



## dihsmaj (Apr 18, 2012)

lol


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 18, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> I like it!
> 
> This kid hiding behind the tree when you "up the brightness & contrast" etc is the really creepy one



Nice work... I did'nt catch that on the first pic.


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2012)

Red_LaCN said:


> If u click here,u will see a wiki of Walhalla which says it was a gold mining boom town in the late 1800's. This matches up with the little girl in the pic below.



How does it match up ?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> I just wanna vote you down Slim :lol: (Where's the button???)



Well, vote all you like, it won't change the existence (or non-existence as it stands) of ghosts... I vote myself down to... I only wished there were ghosts out there... Because that would be so cool... It would ruin 'scary' movies though, because if they did exist, then we'd know there's nothing to be scared of... 

Anyway - we all know ghosts don't exist... That's all there is to it!

Australis - are you blind?? The wiki clearly says it's a 'ghost town' - that means ghosts live there... right?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2012)

But Slim!!!  I just highlighted a creepy girl hiding behind a bush...and you still don't believe??


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Australis - are you blind?? The wiki clearly says it's a 'ghost town' - that means ghosts live there... right?



Oh i see. Ghosts of dead industry.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> But Slim!!!  I just highlighted a creepy girl hiding behind a bush...and you still don't believe??



No, I believe you... You definitely did highlight a creepy girl hiding behind a bush...


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2012)

Yay!


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2012)

What is it that looks female to you guys ? looks like a genderless noob to me JMO


----------



## Khagan (Apr 18, 2012)

joshuaatherton said:


> who ya gunna call?



He-man!


----------



## Red_LaCN (Apr 18, 2012)

Australis said:


> How does it match up ?



It matches the time period,the style of clothing. There were NO children on this 'ghost hunt' as my son called it. Directly in the middle of the photo is like a heavy 'mist',that 'mist' is actually a headstone from one of the graves. This graveyard if people have been to Walhalla is situated on a very very steep hill.


----------



## sara_sabian (Apr 18, 2012)

Does anyone else see a dalek? ... just me?


----------



## Emilie (Apr 18, 2012)

if you look at the white shadow on the right hand side, there is a girl there too. Must have been an awesome ghosthunt. And totally agree, WIKI says its a ghost town


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2012)

Red_LaCN said:


> It matches the time period,the style of clothing. There were NO children on this 'ghost hunt' as my son called it. Directly in the middle of the photo is like a heavy 'mist',that 'mist' is actually a headstone from one of the graves. This graveyard if people have been to Walhalla is situated on a very very steep hill.



Sometimes i take a drive and see if i can find some snakes crossing the road, often i see one pull over and its just a stick. When im not looking for snakes, sticks look like sticks again.



Honestly i cant even made out a person, let alone gender specific period clothing.



Is snake oil made from snakes ?


----------



## Red_LaCN (Apr 18, 2012)

Australis said:


> Sometimes i take a drive and see if i can find some snakes crossing the road, often i see one pull over and its just a stick. When im not looking for snakes, sticks look like sticks again.



Ah but sometimes those 'sticks' really are snakes are they not?  Its ok,not everyone is a believer and i respect your right to not believe


----------



## Australis (Apr 18, 2012)

True sometimes they are actually snakes... maybe she is a stump :lol: i demand day light comparison!


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 18, 2012)

Great pic, please feel free to post more pics that your son takes (love the paranormal).


----------



## Manda1032 (Apr 18, 2012)

cool


----------



## Norm (Apr 18, 2012)

Cool, we went to Monte Cristo homestead in Junee in January. Supposedly the most haunted house in Australia. Took heaps of photos and then about three days later noticed something creepy. I`ll see if I can upload the shots.


----------



## Batanga (Apr 18, 2012)

I think people are a little too quick to pass off the possibility of things we don't understand in this world.
Take "Poltergeist" for example, there are an absolute mass of documented cases which couldn't be explained using conventional theories and it is now suggested that "Poltergeist" is actually the energy of a living person going through tense emotional feelings.......most cases also have a teenager going through puberty in the house while poltergeist activity is happening.

Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of it is crap and I also find clairvoyance an absolute crock of cat excrement but simply there are things we can't explain.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 18, 2012)

Batanga said:


> I think people are a little too quick to pass off the possibility of things we don't understand in this world.
> Take "Poltergeist" for example, there are an absolute mass of documented cases which couldn't be explained using conventional theories and it is now suggested that "Poltergeist" is actually the energy of a living person going through tense emotional feelings.......most cases also have a teenager going through puberty in the house while poltergeist activity is happening.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of it is crap and I also find clairvoyance an absolute crock of cat excrement but simply there are things we can't explain.



I actually think it's the other way around, people are too quick to believe....

So, show us EVIDENCE of this "Poltergeist" - now.... evidence doesn't have to be explained does it - for example, while making copper sulfate crystals one day a student asked me, why is copper sulfate blue... So I replied it must be something to do with the atomic layout and just left it at that... Of course... If I dehydrated the copper sulfate it turns white... Now, I know full well water isn't blue, yet, that's the only thing that's being removed... Now could explain it with some scientific mumbo jumbo... But I think you'll all be better off just knowing copper sulfate is blue until dehydrated....


----------



## Stompsy (Apr 18, 2012)

I took a picture of my a few years ago and in the background there's a face in green. It's not a digital pic though and I don have a scanner! Very creepy!


----------



## Snowman (Apr 18, 2012)

I used to see ghosts all the time.... After clocking Pacman I didn't see them again.


----------



## thesilverbeast (Apr 18, 2012)

True story... if you put your finger in your ear and scratch you will hear the pacman noise.


----------



## Renenet (Apr 18, 2012)

Did your son see the ghost, then take a photo? Or did he see the ghost only after the photo had been taken?

I saw the little girl right away. I still see her. I see three or four other fuzzy shapes in that photo that could be ghosts. Or they could be headstones or shadows or artefacts from a low-resolution phone camera - or nothing at all. Humans are very good at making patterns out of blobs, especially if they resemble faces or people. Remember the photo that depicted a giant face in the smoke from the World Trade Centre collapse? There's no way that could have been a face, yet many people could see it very clearly.


----------



## Megzz (Apr 18, 2012)

I'm a complete believer... awesome photo!


----------



## Renenet (Apr 18, 2012)

JoshuaAtherton said:


> Who ya gunna call?



Chuck Norris! Duh!


----------



## Snakewoman (Apr 18, 2012)

The ghost of Tupac performed at coachella 2012. Oh wait, that was a hologram...


----------



## smithson (Apr 18, 2012)

That's cool I want to go on a ghost hunt !!!


----------



## Jande (Apr 18, 2012)

That's really cool. Thanks for sharing. I find this sort of thing really interesting.


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Apr 18, 2012)

why do ghosts these days happen to be little girls all the time,how come there not like some badass dude with an axe,but noo there a little girl in a dress where all doomed


----------



## Snakewoman (Apr 18, 2012)

$NaKe PiMp said:


> but noo there a little girl in a dress



When I see ghosts of little girls in dresses in horror movies I find the dress more scary... those things are EVIL :lol:


----------



## Red_LaCN (Apr 18, 2012)

Renenet said:


> Did your son see the ghost, then take a photo? Or did he see the ghost only after the photo had been taken?



He actually just posted the photo up on facebook not realising,he thought he would put it up there coz of the mist which looks eerie. It was only after he put it up there that we all saw this little girl,he didnt see her himself until someone pointed her out. At the time of the 'ghost hunt' i dont think they saw anything. Due the fact he has come back with this photo he didnt know he had,and knowing my son as i do,i highly believe that him and quite a few more of his mates will soon go on another 'ghost hunt' so yes,if he posts more i will share them.
I should also point out that i am such a terrible mother,i used to wait until dusk then take my children on evening walks,thru the local cemetary,then turn a torch on my face and say 'BOO'. Got them everytime. I dont think i will be doing that anymore.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 18, 2012)

To be absolutely honest, I didn't even read the bit about the girl. I just pumped the contrast and brightness up and looked around a little more for myself! Oh boy! I didn't have to be told what I thought I'd just found myself :shock:


----------



## Asharee133 (Apr 19, 2012)

I actually just stuck my finger in my ear.. Low and behold, IT WORKED! I'm so bias...


----------



## Lizzy90 (Apr 19, 2012)

That's kinda creepy. I go through phases where I believe in ghosts, and then I think logically it cant be true, but DAMN that looks like a ghost to me :shock:


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2012)

When a camera takes a photo at night... Regardless of the objects it is taking photos of, the shutter is required to stay open slightly longer in order to attract light to the sensors. If something should move during that time that the shutter is open (in the case above it looks like it could be around 3/4 of a second or more) then that object appears to 'ghost'. 

It doesn't matter what the 'ghost' is, it looks 'ghostly'... 

Here is a prime example (I did this one on purpose, using an open shutter and just a street lamp for effect):







Also from the same night we took some other photos (unfortunately I can't actually find them, they're on my broken computer) - in these other photos we went down to a house (now converted to a museum) built in the 1800s, my brother took his flash (one that is separate from the camera), he walked in front of the house (this is all at night) and then flashed his flash while my cameras' shutter was open. The camera picked up what would appear to be a 'ghost'.

Of course it was my brother, very alive, but the appearance of a ghost is far more dramatic. 

Now, I'm not saying that your photo here is because of this same effect, because that would be stupid to think that considering the reality of ghosts... Ghosts are real people (jeeepaz, wake up!!!).

BTW - I tried the pacman thing, you know, with my ear.... And I didn't just hear the sounds - ghosts came after me, but I took magic pills and listened to repetitive music and I was fine again... 

I'll leave you with this...

Ghosts don't exist... there's no phenomenon to observe...


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 19, 2012)

And I'm going to leave you with this Slim


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> And I'm going to leave you with this Slim



At work - will check later...


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 19, 2012)

I really should be working but no instead im commenting on here. . . no wonder Im poor :cry:. To dismiss the possibility of Ghosts or the paranormal is limiting ones own ability to see beyond ones own self imposed box. from the beginning of recorded history man has described things beyond the obvious. Every culture has descriptions of ghosts and other worldly beings that go far beyond the physiological fear of the unknown. If it cant be proven by contemporary science then a lot of people will dismiss it as impossible, including a lot of highly intelligent people. This form of imposed box of logic helps keep people comfortable so it is no surprise that it is easier to dismiss than consider the alternative. I have seen on more than one occasion things that many would consider impossible or ludicrous and while i have no explanation for those events does not mean it was not real so by reasonable logic I would not dismiss it. The world is an amazing place and how boring it would be (and extremely arrogant) if we believed we knew it all. Keep an open mind (not a fearful one) and enjoy every thing life has to offer. Oh and if any one lives on the sunshine coast and has an interest in the unexplained etc pm me as we occasionally do some investigating for fun. 
Kam


----------



## slim6y (Apr 19, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> And I'm going to leave you with this Slim



HOLLY MOLEY!!!

You just sank my battleship... 

I have no come back dude... You win this round.... But there's plenty more where I come from....


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 19, 2012)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 19, 2012)

Off topic... 

Thanks moose and Slim... we could all use a bit of levity on the forum at times. Sometimes things get too serious around here too fast.


----------



## mysnakesau (Apr 20, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Ok... so we all know ghosts don't exist... (and let it begin)


Just another topic to argue about eh 



Australis said:


> Sometimes i take a drive and see if i can find some snakes crossing the road, often i see one pull over and its just a stick. When im not looking for snakes, sticks look like sticks again......



I find lots of rubber snakes on the roads. I check out every stick and long, thin piece of rubber making sure it isn't a snake.


If ghosts were real how is it that only some people see ghosts and others can go through life and never see or feel anything. Those who believe in ghosts will swear black and blue that their sightings are real even if no one else can see it. They have photos and video to prove it yet someone like me can go to the same house with my video camera and don't see them nor do i feel their presence.


----------



## Stompsy (Apr 21, 2012)

Maybe the ghosts don't like you?


----------



## mysnakesau (Apr 21, 2012)

Don't know why. They should know I am a nice person. How can they not like me...lol


----------



## Snakewoman (Apr 21, 2012)

mysnakesau said:


> Don't know why. They should know I am a nice person. How can they not like me...lol



Maybe you walked through one them and made them mad :lol:


----------



## Origamislice (Apr 21, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> I really should be working but no instead im commenting on here. . . no wonder Im poor :cry:. To dismiss the possibility of Ghosts or the paranormal is limiting ones own ability to see beyond ones own self imposed box.



i like my box, it's warm.


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 21, 2012)

Why are ghosts generally nocturnal?


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 21, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Why are ghosts generally nocturnal?



They have night vision


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 21, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Why are ghosts generally nocturnal?



People are easier to scare in the dark


----------



## slim6y (Apr 21, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Why are ghosts generally nocturnal?



I actually think it has something to do with the refractive index of bioelectrical energy.

In other words, they are out during the day, you just can't see them... Unless they're Michael Jackson (he had a refractive index below that of air).


----------



## Renenet (Apr 21, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> To dismiss the possibility of Ghosts or the paranormal is limiting ones own ability to see beyond ones own self imposed box. from the beginning of recorded history man has described things beyond the obvious. Every culture has descriptions of ghosts and other worldly beings that go far beyond the physiological fear of the unknown. If it cant be proven by contemporary science then a lot of people will dismiss it as impossible, including a lot of highly intelligent people. This form of imposed box of logic helps keep people comfortable so it is no surprise that it is easier to dismiss than consider the alternative. I have seen on more than one occasion things that many would consider impossible or ludicrous and while i have no explanation for those events does not mean it was not real so by reasonable logic I would not dismiss it. The world is an amazing place and how boring it would be (and extremely arrogant) if we believed we knew it all.
> Kam



In defence of science, it's a bit of a myth that science closes minds, or that scientists have closed minds. In my opinion the best scientists are open-minded. There are cases where closed-minded scientists have delayed scientific progress for years. Plate tectonics took around 40 years to be accepted as a theory. Medical science didn't take quite that long to accept that helicobacter pylori caused stomach ulcers, but it certainly took longer than it should have. A good scientist is sceptical, but once the evidence is there and has withstood many tests, he or she has to accept the evidence, no matter how radical or inconvenient it might be. The trick is, to paraphrase a line from Buffy, not to be so open-minded your whole brain falls out. 

Scientists would accept the existence of ghosts if there was evidence of a scientific standard to support it. As far as I'm aware - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - there has been no such evidence. All sightings have alternative explanations that, on the balance of probabilities, are more likely. This photo, although it's undoubtedly cool, has other, more likely explanations that have been mentioned already.

The world _is _an amazing place. I started a science degree this year and some of the stuff I've been learning about has bowled me over with how astounding it is - and it's all the more astounding because it's demonstrably true. Science certainly doesn't know everything. I don't think any scientist could or would say that, or they'd all give up and go home. We're at the point where we know enough to realise how much we don't know - a very exciting prospect! Some might see science as being limiting, but without science there are plenty of things we wouldn't know at all.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

Renenet said:


> In defence of science, it's a bit of a myth that science closes minds, or that scientists have closed minds. In my opinion the best scientists are open-minded. There are cases where closed-minded scientists have delayed scientific progress for years. Plate tectonics took around 40 years to be accepted as a theory. Medical science didn't take quite that long to accept that helicobacter pylori caused stomach ulcers, but it certainly took longer than it should have. A good scientist is sceptical, but once the evidence is there and has withstood many tests, he or she has to accept the evidence, no matter how radical or inconvenient it might be. The trick is, to paraphrase a line from Buffy, not to be so open-minded your whole brain falls out.
> 
> Scientists would accept the existence of ghosts if there was evidence of a scientific standard to support it. As far as I'm aware - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - there has been no such evidence. All sightings have alternative explanations that, on the balance of probabilities, are more likely. This photo, although it's undoubtedly cool, has other, more likely explanations that have been mentioned already.
> 
> The world _is _an amazing place. I started a science degree this year and some of the stuff I've been learning about has bowled me over with how astounding it is - and it's all the more astounding because it's demonstrably true. Science certainly doesn't know everything. I don't think any scientist could or would say that, or they'd all give up and go home. We're at the point where we know enough to realise how much we don't know - a very exciting prospect! Some might see science as being limiting, but without science there are plenty of things we wouldn't know at all.


Buffy is not a reliable source as she dated a vampire and while it seems to be all the rage at the mo the point remains she was supposed to be a slayer! Which means impaling not being impaled (conflict of interest).
I think that you may have misunderstood my post as I do not think science is narrow minded or limited, quite the contrary. Science needs to be open to the infinite possibilities of the unknown or as you pointed out it would not and could not advance forward. My point was that people use science in it's currently limited scope of information to remain in there comfort box. There is also the problem of scientist not agreeing or the current government bodies promoting one view supported by (well paid) scientist and their apparent findings that are not necessarily supported the scientific community as a whole. despite fluoride being a poison (yes it's poisonous and illegal in several countries also rat poison in china) and numerous scientist and doctors saying it is highly toxic the gov had it's own scientist support it's introduction into the water ways. And now the public believe it to be safe based on scientific fact. And before we get of topic with people saying conspiracy theorist (and when did questioning dishonest behavior become a bad thing) and getting of topic, go out and do the research as being spoon fed is for infants. Science can not be proven only supported by the information available to conclude a probable outcome this can be seen by scientist deciding that one lot of information (previously considered facts) is incomplete and incorrect or misidentified etc. We are humans and subject to mistakes (and delusions of grandeur), it is only natural that we can not have an definite answer to everything. The unknown is what drives scientific discovery and therefore by that very reason ghost etc should not be dismissed only pursued. An interesting point to consider, a 100 years ago in asia a rock was proven to be a rock by being there as a rock and not having it's molecular structure broken down to prove it a rock. Yet eastern religion tried to understand it's existence with evidence. yet western man tried to prove the rocks existence buy scientific evidence (despite the obvious - it's a rock) yet based it's religious ideas on blind faith. 

Kam


----------



## Australis (Apr 23, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> despite fluoride being a poison (yes it's poisonous and illegal in several countries also rat poison in china) and numerous scientist and doctors saying it is highly toxic the gov had it's own scientist support it's introduction into the water ways. And now the public believe it to be safe based on scientific fact.



Which waterways ?
Banging on about fluoride being a toxic poison is B+ fear mongering at best...table salt is a deadly poison as well. Did government hire some puppet scientists to get that on our tables... or is it part of a NWO scheme.


When there is a shred of evidence for "ghosts" maybe someone should pursue it, its like suggesting a conservation group needs to be set up for bigfoot or unicorns you know because they could exist and geez they are hard to find so they might be on the verge of extinction :lol:. 

So until evidence for unicorns or ghosts come to light i would rather science stuck with pursuing real world problems... things like cancer, HIV...climate change.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

Australis said:


> Which waterways ?
> Banging on about fluoride being a toxic poison is B+ fear mongering at best...table salt is a deadly poison as well. Did government hire some puppet scientists to get that on our tables... or is it part of a NWO scheme.
> 
> 
> ...



Oh ignorance is bliss, please the debate is not on fluoride as I said do your own research before screaming fear mongering (obviously you hadn't as apparently you did not know it's put in our drinking water, which is common knowledge). Anything in excess is toxic so the table salt comment is childish and unwarranted science tells us that fluoride (a bi-product of aluminum manufacture) has a higher toxicity than lead. Believe whatever you choose to believe but if you wish to discuss please keep your input in a non aggressive and intelligent manner. If scientist wish to pursue the possibility of life on mars or ponder upon string theory or even yes the phenomenon commonly called ghosts is their prerogative. Go back read my point about what I said as there is nothing in there about what scientist should or should not study. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of intelligent discussion your retort did nothing for me, sorry but this thread obviously is not for you.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 23, 2012)

Climate change :lol: The only way to deal with climate change is to accept it. We're only human, it's not as if we can change anything globally. We can make things better, but we can't alter the weather or the elements  Let's get back to talking about ghosts


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

Ghost friendly thread sounds good :twisted:


----------



## slim6y (Apr 23, 2012)

Kam333 - I have enough evidence to start an anti-anti-fluoride campaign....

The positives well outweigh the negatives.

Generally, however, I find people who believe in ghosts, paranormal activities etc - often believe that fluoride is a form government control and that JFK was a conspiracy... Plus we didn't land on the moon.... 

Do you fall in to that category?


----------



## Ramsayi (Apr 23, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> Climate change :lol: The only way to deal with climate change is to accept it. We're only human, it's not as if we can change anything globally. We can make things better, but we can't alter the weather or the elements  Let's get back to talking about ghosts



Thought it was getting a bit hot in this thread,bloody climate change!


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Kam333 - I have enough evidence to start an anti-anti-fluoride campaign....
> 
> The positives well outweigh the negatives.
> 
> ...



Was this supposed to be derogatory ? I am not here to discuss my opinions on past or present possibilities or impossibilities of conspiracies. As stated previously and is being proven by the very post you just made people are divided in opinion including scientists I just used fluoride as an example, as stated previously this is not about fluoride.( if you feel the need start a new thread).
It is about the genuine discussion on the possibility of ghosts, if you cant consider the possibility or have nothing of value to add then dont bother.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> .. Plus we didn't land on the moon....



We what?????


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> We what?????



And this is why they De-sex Palm squirrels


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 23, 2012)

Well all i can add is having travelled to Indonesia , mainly to a little island just off the coast of bali nusa lembongan, i can honestly say i have kept an open mind to all this ghost stuff and the afterlife , i mean the people who have been to bali and seen the hindu way of life close up and made close friends with them will know what im talking about.

I have been lucky enough to go to alot of their ceremonies including one of the big public cremations (its only a small island and with only a small population and not much money, they bury the deceased and wait until their is enough people to be cremated and put on a massive ceremony ) our friend was in the cremation so we decided to make the trip over for it . I got to take part in the part where they put all the bones into a big bamboo pyramid sorta thing and have a few people up the top singing and a whole heap of us went underneath it and carried it up and down the main street bouncing it up and down and spinning around in circles it was a pretty different experience.

They believe so much in spirits and all that stuff that they do daily offerings to the gods and spirits and every house or building has to have a mini temple thing to place the offerings , they don't let their new born children touch the ground for about the first 6 months i think it is because thats where the bad spirits are 

im not at all saying that i believe all this sorta stuff just that having the experiences ive had over there and i haven't even really scratched the surface but it has definitely made me keep an open mind about it all


----------



## Australis (Apr 23, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Oh ignorance is bliss, please the debate is not on fluoride as I said do your own research before screaming fear mongering (obviously you hadn't as apparently you did not know it's put in our drinking water, which is common knowledge). Anything in excess is toxic so the table salt comment is childish and unwarranted science tells us that fluoride (a bi-product of aluminum manufacture) has a higher toxicity than lead. Believe whatever you choose to believe but if you wish to discuss please keep your input in a non aggressive and intelligent manner. If scientist wish to pursue the possibility of life on mars or ponder upon string theory or even yes the phenomenon commonly called ghosts is their prerogative. Go back read my point about what I said as there is nothing in there about what scientist should or should not study. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of intelligent discussion your retort did nothing for me, sorry but this thread obviously is not for you.



Some nice assumptions on what i know.
Again ill ask "which *waterways?*" are you referring to? 
Ive only taken a couple or marine biology classes so maybe you have some deeper knowledge on what a waterway is?

By all means, show me a credible reference to the dangers of fluoride in tap water at current levels. To be clear, credible is say, something publish in a peer reviewed journal. Not something from a pseudo-science website.

Right now i can pretty much give the same scary buzzwords for table-salt as you put out there for fluoride. 
Even coma is listed as a risk related to salt exposure, should we avoid salt in all concentrations because of this ?

I love it when someone makes out like the scientific community is divided on an issue :lol: usually they cant substantiate the claim, then its onto the next step "the government is hiding it, but dang i swear the evidence is there, they just be hiding it bubba". Or... "Science got it wrong before, so my baseless theory could be true" and it continues.... on and on  Which path will you take, im guessing not the first life line, of providing some proof.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

Australis said:


> Some nice assumptions on what i know.
> Again ill ask "which *waterways?*" are you referring to?
> Ive only taken a couple or marine biology classes so maybe you have some deeper knowledge on what a waterway is?
> 
> ...



And still no credible argument about ghosts ? I could bite and this could go on for ever and ever, could be fun but not in this thread. Babble babble some of you might know the MM song. Anyway start a new thread if you so please and leave this to the ghosts  .


----------



## Australis (Apr 23, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> And still no credible argument about ghosts ? I could bite and this could go on for ever and ever, could be fun but not in this thread. Babble babble some of you might know the MM song. Anyway start a new thread if you so please and leave this to the ghosts  .



Im not aware of any credible arguments for ghosts anymore than i have any for unicorns or fluoride boogieman.

If you want to start a thread for the evidence supporting these today-tonight style pseudoscience claims you spout on fluoride go for ya life. Incredible claims require incredible evidence, if you don't have any, no sweat.. i didn't expect you would.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

Australis said:


> Im not aware of any credible arguments for ghosts anymore than i have any for unicorns or fluoride boogieman.
> 
> If you want to start a thread for the evidence supporting these today-tonight style pseudoscience claims you spout on fluoride go for ya life. Incredible claims require incredible evidence, if you don't have any, no sweat.. i didn't expect you would.



Ok, thats IT! . . After school, behind the shelter sheds. . .your in for it buddy! :evil:


----------



## slim6y (Apr 23, 2012)

What I can't believe, Kam333 is that you've never watched a show by Penn and Teller called BS... Because basically, that's what you're 'spouting' off... 

You would like people to believe, or at least be open minded to believe - I don't think anyone here is so narrow minded that they wouldn't believe with evidence (oh, wait, yes, there's MILLIONS of people who believe ghosts exist without evidence - that's the narrow mind we're talking about). 

Personally... I'D LOVE ghosts to be real... I'd spend days playing poker with my grandma and grandpa who I loved dearly and would like to win my $20 back off them... TYhey scammed me... I'd love to play footy with my ghost dog (named Radar after the M*A*S*H character)... 

Ghosts would be super super cool... (that wasn't science speak).

However, my incredibly open mind (that wishes ghosts were real) has one limiting factor.... Evidence!

This photo, this thread, these people... Not one shred of evidence... And then.. on top of that there's conspiracy believers...

I strongly suggest you watch the aforementioned show - and even if you still think that what you believe is right (or wrong) it won't matter... You might have 'evidence' to back it up!

After school it is.... I'll be there....


----------



## Australis (Apr 23, 2012)

Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out -Richard Dawkins


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> What I can't believe, Kam333 is that you've never watched a show by Penn and Teller called BS... Because basically, that's what you're 'spouting' off...
> 
> You would like people to believe, or at least be open minded to believe - I don't think anyone here is so narrow minded that they wouldn't believe with evidence (oh, wait, yes, there's MILLIONS of people who believe ghosts exist without evidence - that's the narrow mind we're talking about).
> 
> ...



Ok you and australis - Tag team. at the shelter sheds.

I used to enjoy Penn and Teller but they lost credibility with me when they tried arguing that cigarettes wont do you harm (oh hang on they must also be conspiracy theorists). 

Maybe the whole ghost thing is viewed from a negative one point view instead of considering that there could be more than the horror movie style perspective.

And when did conspiracy theorist become a dirty word. . . all through history right up to todays news is filled with people in positions of power abusing it with misinformation for there own benefit.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 23, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Ok you and australis - Tag team. at the shelter sheds.
> 
> I used to enjoy Penn and Teller but they lost credibility with me when they tried arguing that cigarettes wont do you harm (oh hang on they must also be conspiracy theorists).
> 
> ...



They didn't say smoking would do you harm - they suggested second hand smoke was not as harmful as shown based on evidential tests...


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 23, 2012)

Are you suggesting there is no holy ghost? :lol:


----------



## slim6y (Apr 23, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> Are you suggesting there is no holy ghost? :lol:



Nope... there is none... They say In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit... Since ghosts don't exist....


----------



## Ramsayi (Apr 23, 2012)

I see dead people


----------



## Mo Deville (Apr 23, 2012)

Ramsayi said:


> I see dead people



i gotta ask do you really?


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 23, 2012)

mo-deville said:


> i gotta ask do you really?


maybe he works at a morgue


----------



## Mo Deville (Apr 23, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> maybe he works at a morgue



lol did't think of that haha!


----------



## Red_LaCN (Apr 23, 2012)

Some people believe,some dont believe. I do believe,but i also respect those who dont believe. You have the right to believe in what you wish,but at the same time i will not judge you on your beliefs nor make fun of them. Each person is an individual with differing opinions,that doesnt mean we have to argue about those opinions,just respect the persons right to believe or not to believe.


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 23, 2012)

mo-deville said:


> lol did't think of that haha!


see gotta keep an open mind  other wise you may miss certain things


----------



## cwebb (Apr 23, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Ok... so we all know ghosts don't exist... (and let it begin)




shun the non believer chaaaarlieee? shuuuuuuunnn


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

cwebb said:


> shun the non believer chaaaarlieee? shuuuuuuunnn



No, Charlie the mono-kidney unicorn exists.... Ghosts... Do not!


----------



## longqi (Apr 24, 2012)

Scientific facts change daily as we begin to understand more 
If you look at some of things that occur during real animist ceremonies they are simply inexplicable
So keep an open mind


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

longqi said:


> Scientific facts change daily as we begin to understand more
> If you look at some of things that occur during real animist ceremonies they are simply inexplicable
> So keep an open mind



Examples please? 

And, we're not narrow minded (the non-believers) we're just after evidence!


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

There's no evidence of aliens, but you'd be crazy (and incredibly foolish) to think there is nothing else out there. Life and it's origins are unexplainable, yet it's there for all to see  I'm not a god-man as it pushes the boundaries too far for me, but I'd like to think there is such a thing as spirit or a soul. A lantern needs a fire for it to work, as I think a body needs something more than just flesh and bone to give it life. Not all questions can be answered, as hard as we might try.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

Awwww Moosey.... You'd be crazy and foolish to believe there is.... (it's also not the same as ghosts either....)


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

I know, but just keeping you on your toes


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> I know, but just keeping you on your toes



Ok.. so... The other night... I went into my lounge and I noticed it was darker than it usually is... There were lights on in the lounge, but it was definitely not as light as it used to be. I questioned this with my scientific mind and looked for evidence at why the room was darker than usual even though the lights were on...

As it turned out the evidence supplied was overwhelmingly pointing towards the fact one of my Osram energy efficient 11W light bulbs had blown.

So I turned to my GF and asked - did you know a light bulb was blown?

She replied... "Yes, I did know that there was a light bulb blown... Do you know it blew when I was in the room?"

I didn't know it had blown when she was in the room... But that's not all... 

She went on to tell me more of the story....

"Just before it blew the dog started to growl. He wasn't looking at me (my GF), he was looking at a point behind me, I couldn't see anything, he just growled. He never growls, but he growled this time. Then... The light bulb blew."

Paranormal activity???

Was the dog barking at a ghost that blew my light bulb?

This of course is not the first explanation I have for this... And the dog wasn't growling - he was talking (he does this lots).

So - I could turn a simple light bulb blowing story into one of paranormal activity... Yet, in reality, I am just damned annoyed I spent $5 on an 11W Osram light bulb that blew within one year when it says it will last for 90,000 hours!!! 

The dog talking....? Well, simple... Dogs hear sounds out of our frequency... 20,000Hz is not out of their range, but it is out of our range (maybe kids could hear 20,000Hz). Before the light bulb blew there was possibly some electronic malfunction that let off a high pitched noise inaudible to humans but clearly annoying to dogs. He was politely asking for this to be turned off...

Either that - or ghosts... you choose....


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

or your dogs just a super dog and he was annoyed about the light emitted by that particular light and decided to use his super bark to shatter the glass  just thought id throw it out there seeing as where thinking out side the box and keeping an open mind


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

Sounds like a ghost


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> or your dogs just a super dog and he was annoyed about the light emitted by that particular light and decided to use his super bark to shatter the glass  just thought id throw it out there seeing as where thinking out side the box and keeping an open mind



He is a super dog... There's nothing wrong with that. But when he uses his super bark, not one light bulb blows... But an entire nations' does!


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> He is a super dog... There's nothing wrong with that. But when he uses his super bark, not one light bulb blows... But an entire nations' does!


maybe he's learning to focus his strength into one position , like all good super dogs


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> maybe he's learning to focus his strength into one position , like all good super dogs



He's still only a puppy - they don't learn that till they're 2 years old... Do you know anything?


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> He's still only a puppy - they don't learn that till they're 2 years old... Do you know anything?


then he's clearly not a good super dog , although my super dog has different powers she had it down pat by the age of 6 months or maybe your scientific mind is holding you back from training his powers properly


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> then he's clearly not a good super dog , although my super dog has different powers she had it down pat by the age of 6 months or maybe your scientific mind is holding you back from training his powers properly



No, he just likes to lick his non-existent testicles instead of learning his super powers - note - your dog is a bitch... No testicles... earlier super powers... Again I reiterate, do you know anything at all?


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 24, 2012)

I didn't know you had a dog Slimey, i was going to suggest you get one.


----------



## Red_LaCN (Apr 24, 2012)

Um,what evidence do people want? A ghost to jump out n say 'BOOO'? I posted a pic my son took,are there no more pics forthcoming from others who have captured ghosts on camera?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> I didn't know you had a dog Slimey, i was going to suggest you get one.



You wouldn't be the first to suggest such a thing... I'm just checking now.... Yes... I have a dog....



Red_LaCN said:


> Um,what evidence do people want? A ghost to jump out n say 'BOOO'? I posted a pic my son took,are there no more pics forthcoming from others who have captured ghosts on camera?



See, now that's the attitude.... 

What more evidence do we need? We all see ghosts... Light bulbs get blown by super dogs... Do I really need more evidence than a lengthy exposure from an iPhone?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

I used to watch the Ghost & Mrs Muir, evidence enough for me I'm afraid! 







btw: this one is my favorite : Real Ghost and Demon Hauntings - Paranormal, Unexplained Mysteries: Real Ghost Photo: World War I Soldier


----------



## dihsmaj (Apr 24, 2012)

to the guy who said there was no evidence of aliens yet, what about those bacteria that were found on mars?


----------



## snakeluvver (Apr 24, 2012)

Dont you think its interesting that the people who believe in ghosts are more likely to think they saw them, while the skeptics never have any sightings?


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

dihsmaj said:


> to the guy who said there was no evidence of aliens yet, what about those bacteria that were found on mars?



What about those bacteria that were found on mars? And... What bacteria were those again?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> .. Light bulbs get blown by super dogs...



Maybe it was your cat?


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> No, he just likes to lick his non-existent testicles instead of learning his super powers - note - your dog is a bitch... No testicles... earlier super powers... Again I reiterate, do you know anything at all?


what do you mean you had him desexed ? god , ill ask you your own question do you know anything? desexing a super dog just makes them a normal dog nothing super about him now , god you've ruined a perfectly good dog , and robbed him of his manly hood


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> what do you mean you had him desexed ? god , ill ask you your own question do you know anything? desexing a super dog just makes them a normal dog nothing super about him now , god you've ruined a perfectly good dog , and robbed him of his manly hood



I didn't have him desexed... But during a robbery attempt on the local bank he jumped up to save a little old lady and he accidentally got caught on those brass bar things that hold that fluffy string to guide the queues that are waiting for the teller - I bet they have a technical name... Anyway, the ball on the top of the brass thing that holds the fluffy string to guide the queues to the tellers caught him at an odd angle - he lost his testicles saving an old lady during a bank robbery... 

He was only 6 months old... 

He's still a super dog.


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I didn't have him desexed... But during a robbery attempt on the local bank he jumped up to save a little old lady and he accidentally got caught on those brass bar things that hold that fluffy string to guide the queues that are waiting for the teller - I bet they have a technical name... Anyway, the ball on the top of the brass thing that holds the fluffy string to guide the queues to the tellers caught him at an odd angle - he lost his testicles saving an old lady during a bank robbery...
> 
> He was only 6 months old...
> 
> He's still a super dog.


still no balls = no super dog


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> still no balls = no super dog



Your dog has no balls....


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Your dog has no balls....


ah but its a female and still has all its reproductive organs so still a super dog


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

and a bitch....


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> What about those bacteria that were found on mars? And... What bacteria were those again?



It was from a contaminated asteroid, possibly the scientists dandruff, certainly not bacteria from mars which would be the find of the century. About as scientifically valid as a fuzzy blob that if you tilt your head right you may be able to make out a shape that almost resembles a human.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 24, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> It was from a contaminated asteroid, possibly the scientists dandruff, certainly not bacteria from mars which would be the find of the century. About as scientifically valid as a fuzzy blob that if you tilt your head right you may be able to make out a shape that almost resembles a human.



There was one of those there too wasn't there?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 24, 2012)

I only "liked" the last thing I "liked" cause I giggled when it finally had 69 likes


----------



## Renenet (Apr 24, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Examples please?
> 
> And, we're not narrow minded (the non-believers) we're just after evidence!



To the first: Yes please. Longqi, I'd love to hear some examples. (I'm not being sarcastic either, just in case that's not coming across.)

To the second: Exactly.


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 24, 2012)

Please people, post anything so that all the bullies can knock you down and not give you the confidence to post. Sounds like a plan. Oh You must give evidence or blah blah blah. Everyone gets it, move on.


----------



## mysnakesau (Apr 24, 2012)

I want to believe so I can see what the believers see, but I still see nothing.


----------



## Renenet (Apr 24, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> Please people, post anything so that all the bullies can knock you down and not give you the confidence to post.



I hope I haven't come across as rude because I certainly didn't mean to be. However, asking questions or being sceptical is not bullying. More people should get into the habit of doing it.

For the record, I'm genuinely interested (for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread) in Longqi's experiences. Longqi, please feel free to PM me if you don't feel comfortable explaining it here.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> Please people, post anything so that all the bullies can knock you down and not give you the confidence to post. Sounds like a plan. Oh You must give evidence or blah blah blah. Everyone gets it, move on.



_Ad hominem_.....

I see no bullies where gaining greater knowledge is sought after. 

All you're trying to do is destroy the good character of the names of people here who genuinely would like to see 'evidence' and you've just re-instated the pseudoscientificness (if there is such a word) of these claims...


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 25, 2012)

Not that I do have any proof, but if I did I would not post it on here due to being shot down, ridiculed or as I see it, bullied.
Thats all, For the record I am on the fence as far as ghosts are concerned (love the paranormal) and am willing to keep an open mind and unbiased opinion on other peoples beliefs. 
Proof they do exist vs proof they do not exist.

By the way, what evidence would be needed to silence the most stubborn critic about the possible existence of ghosts?
Pics and video footage are obviously out. I guess that leaves us good old fashioned dna or a specimen captured and placed in a cage. What else would be acceptable? 

Cheers


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

James Randi Educational Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does that help Jeffa? The fact money is offered for those that believe should be motivation enough to provide evidence....


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 25, 2012)

Is that not for psycic mediums? I mean evidence of ghosts, not channeling or whatever they do.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 25, 2012)

Guess who's back. . . back again.

Nice to see that the battle still rages on! It does not take a genius to know that most 99.9999999999% of clairvoyants and mediums are full of oral excrement. That does not mean that there are some people out there that may experience something akin to being such. Scientific facts were once speculations, before the telescope a man was burnt to death as he refused to retract his claims that there were other planets. Unfortunately for him a year later the telescope was invented proving his theory. Interestingly if any one had questioned the governments sentencing (burning to death = silencing a man who had ideas outside of Catholicism) would be a. . . . "conspiracy theorist"


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 25, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> By the way, what evidence would be needed to silence the most stubborn critic about the possible existence of ghosts?
> Pics and video footage are obviously out. I guess that leaves us good old fashioned dna or a specimen captured and placed in a cage. What else would be acceptable?
> 
> Cheers



Good question Jeffa, I'm not sure what it would take to be honest.


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 25, 2012)

My best friend is a ghost


----------



## Australis (Apr 25, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Guess who's back. . . back again.
> 
> Nice to see that the battle still rages on! It does not take a genius to know that most 99.9999999999% of clairvoyants and mediums are full of oral excrement. That does not mean that there are some people out there that may experience something akin to being such. Scientific facts were once speculations, before the telescope a man was burnt to death as he refused to retract his claims that there were other planets. Unfortunately for him a year later the telescope was invented proving his theory. Interestingly if any one had questioned the governments sentencing (burning to death = silencing a man who had ideas outside of Catholicism) would be a. . . . "conspiracy theorist"



Are you able to name the man you are you talking about? Or is this more of a ghost story.


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 25, 2012)

Australis said:


> Are you able to name the man you are you talking about? Or is this more of a ghost story.



Giordano Brunno 1548 – February 17, 1600.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Giordano Brunno 1548 – February 17, 1600.



I'm not out there to say you're wrong - but weren't planets (especially Mars, Venus and Jupiter) discovered long before telescopes were invented? 

Planets were first thought to be 'wandering' stars... But it was clear that they weren't stars, even to pre-telescope scientists. I'm pretty certain that the Greek's originally named the planets after their gods and the names were modernised to Roman gods which we continue to use in present day. This suggests to me there was plenty of knowledge that these were planets and not stars....


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I'm not out there to say you're wrong - but weren't planets (especially Mars, Venus and Jupiter) discovered long before telescopes were invented?
> 
> Planets were first thought to be 'wandering' stars... But it was clear that they weren't stars, even to pre-telescope scientists. I'm pretty certain that the Greek's originally named the planets after their gods and the names were modernised to Roman gods which we continue to use in present day. This suggests to me there was plenty of knowledge that these were planets and not stars....



Google - brunno


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I'm not out there to say you're wrong - but weren't planets (especially Mars, Venus and Jupiter) discovered long before telescopes were invented?
> 
> Planets were first thought to be 'wandering' stars... But it was clear that they weren't stars, even to pre-telescope scientists. I'm pretty certain that the Greek's originally named the planets after their gods and the names were modernised to Roman gods which we continue to use in present day. This suggests to me there was plenty of knowledge that these were planets and not stars....



Do you have scientific proof?


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 25, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Google - brunno


oh god i hate that movie


----------



## Ramsayi (Apr 25, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Giordano Brunno 1548 – February 17, 1600.



Seems the guy copped it in the neck for his religious views not his views on astronomy


----------



## Australis (Apr 25, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Giordano Brunno 1548 – February 17, 1600.



He certainly pissed people off at the time with his ideas.
To say he discovered the planets is probably a stretch though as well as the telescope being invented one year after his death is pretty dubious.

What i do see is a guy who was persecuted for being a non-believer, by believers. But i don't think that was the point you wanted to make.


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> Is that not for psycic mediums? I mean evidence of ghosts, not channeling or whatever they do.



I am pretty sure that it's for any supernatural phenomena as well - however, if it is not, here's another:

Independent Investigations Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately, as it's never been my field of expertise, I can only speculate what the conditions required for actual proof would be. But it appears you don't need to be an expert to see one... Just an expert to believe they don't exist... Quite counterproductive really... 

As I've mentioned earlier, ghosts would be awesome to be living amongst... But it appears they are no more than fiction to fill your heads with grief and hope (that there is something in the after life). Unfortunately there are many unexplained phenomena - gravity being just one of them... Even magnetism (as earlier pointed out) - but those things can be scientifically tested... We can even account for constants... It happens everywhere... Apparently, just like ghosts... Yet, there's no constants... There's no testable conditions.... Does seem a little bit to pseudoscientific for us open minded folk....

I am one who strongly believes that the powers of pseudoscience affect the uniformed far more than those who seek the truth.



Jeffa said:


> Do you have scientific proof?



Well - yeah... I guess, the writings of Pythagoras for one.... But as I wasn't around (and I can hear the sarcasm in your tone...) during that time (or was I???) I can't really account for what was and wasn't discovered...

However, I am pretty convinced planets (being a Greek name) were fairly well discovered... I discovered planets when I first looked at the night sky with my naked eye - I discovered Venus first... Mars wasn't far behind... I didn't count the moon... Because at that time, I was fairly sure the moon wasn't a planet!



Kam333 said:


> Google - brunno



I did, but I just got pictures of a weird, gay Austrian man....


----------



## Kam333 (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I did, but I just got pictures of a weird, gay Austrian man....



Sorry, I thought that was what you were looking for


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> .. There's no testable conditions....
> .


now while i have no idea how you would test for it ( which is probably the real problem scientists face not that there are no testable conditions for it to be done)

as i said in my earlier post i have traveled to Indonesia since i was very young and i once went to a ceremony thing that was at the local cemetery ( i know fits right in with ghost stuff) this ceremony is only for the older people of the village no children at all even tourists ( they believe that a child's body is to weak to fight off the bad spirits)

now i cant really remember exactly why they do this but we went to about 100m away from the local cemetery ( our local friend that took us didn't want us right up near the action ) basically they sort of go there and the spirits sort of takes over them and they run around chanting all this random stuff , we were sitting off to the side of the road in a dark spot under a walkway into someones family compound when we seen three men running up toward the cemetery the middle one seemed to have no control of what he was doing and was basically getting forced up to the cemetery by his mates , he was possessed if you'd like to call it that ( im not saying i believe all of this just saying what i seen) and they where taking him to the cemetery to get rid of the evil spirits inside him 

now im not sure if i got all the details of this correct as in the why they do it stuff and exactly what was going on that night im not real sure ,so if any body has more of an understanding of the ceremony im talking about please feel free to say so 

as i said i don't know whether or not to believe this stuff but ill always keep an open mind and ill probably find out one day 

but as you said slim6y that there is no testable conditions does this not count as one ? or is it as i said that they just have absolutely no way of testing for it because there is things that we don't yet understand


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> but as you said slim6y that there is no testable conditions does this not count as one ? or is it as i said that they just have absolutely no way of testing for it because there is things that we don't yet understand



Not so sure about possessions - but I assume if someone is possessed and they then lose the spirit then they're exercised... But if that spirit re-enters them, are they repossessed?

Anyway... As far as ghosts... All I can think of for testing conditions would be - when a ghost is seen, can ANY other alternative explanation be claimed for it?

For example - cupboards banging, was there wind (that sort of thing, but I seriously don't know...).

For example, we know many constants already (natural phenomena) - if those remain constant at a 'sighting' of a ghost then surely you'd have something... 

But - there has been 1000s of scientists who have actively pursued this avenue and have come up with nothing. It's not a new idea out there. There have been plenty of tests.

I watched a documentary about this once, it had Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray in it and they drove around in a white Hearse checking out paranormal activities... Was a very interesting documentary.


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Not so sure about possessions - but I assume if someone is possessed and they then lose the spirit then they're exercised... But if that spirit re-enters them, are they repossessed?
> 
> Anyway... As far as ghosts... All I can think of for testing conditions would be - when a ghost is seen, can ANY other alternative explanation be claimed for it?


im not talking about ghosts being seen , im talking about going to one of these ceremonies and testing one of the possessed ( i guess is the only word for it ) why have they not done this, you don't need to be a believer or not to see these events just go to the villages in which these take place , when they take place and you will see it ,why have they not tested for this yet is it because as i said there is no way of testing for it because to me the conditions are right for it to be done


----------



## slim6y (Apr 25, 2012)

How do we know they haven't tested these ceremonies?

I'm guessing there's not a lot of funding in the scientific community to debunk pseudoscience... But it doesn't mean to say that this sort of thing hasn't been tested before.

Unfortunately I've not found any recent scientific journals with anything paranormal in them... So I can't say if it has or has not been tested and what the conditions of testing were.

There's this one:

Is there any scientific explanation of the paranormal?

or this one seems to suggest how you could actually scientifically evaluate claims:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2003-02869-000 

I think the above paper would be very interesting....


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 25, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> im not talking about ghosts being seen , im talking about going to one of these ceremonies and testing one of the possessed ( i guess is the only word for it ) why have they not done this, you don't need to be a believer or not to see these events just go to the villages in which these take place , when they take place and you will see it ,why have they not tested for this yet is it because as i said there is no way of testing for it because to me the conditions are right for it to be done



Thomasssss, while I can't speak for the Bali ceremonies, a lot of these spiritual ceremonies in traditional cultures, the possessed person or the one who speaks to the spirits is jacked up on hallucigens, deprived of sleep, and then forced to dance to exhaustion, combine this with some superstition and you have apparent paranormal activity.


----------



## Australis (Apr 25, 2012)

thomasssss said:


> im not talking about ghosts being seen , im talking about going to one of these ceremonies and testing one of the possessed ( i guess is the only word for it ) why have they not done this, you don't need to be a believer or not to see these events just go to the villages in which these take place , when they take place and you will see it ,why have they not tested for this yet is it because as i said there is no way of testing for it because to me the conditions are right for it to be done



I dont know anything about the specific example/location you mention Thomas but are you maybe asking if there is alternative explanations for what is perceived as some kind of "supernatural phenomenon" ?

If so, there is a lot out there kinda showing the reverse of what the case you gave might propose... for example people professionally diagnosed with having some form of mental illness by a psychologist are re-diagnosed by someone else to be suffering from some supernatural phenomenon (possessed etc). The only thing that seems to validate this is the persons world view.

Maybe this would be a better example.. Haitian folklore on Zombies... and what is really going on there.
Zombie ? News in Science (ABC Science)


----------



## thomasssss (Apr 25, 2012)

slim6y said:


> How do we know they haven't tested these ceremonies?
> 
> .


you bring me back to my first point , you said there where no testable conditions , does this not count as one ?

as i said before i don't necessarily believe in this sort of thing but i wont just try to palm it off and say that there drugged and mentally ill


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 25, 2012)

Any of the skeptics experienced something they can't explain?


----------



## junglepython2 (Apr 25, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Any of the skeptics experienced something they can't explain?



Plenty, but that doesn't mean it was a ghost, alien or bigfoot.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 25, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Plenty, but that doesn't mean it was a ghost, alien or bigfoot.



Yeah... same here, forever deemed "un-explained". Some people are too quick to want things "defined" I reckon.


----------



## Renenet (Apr 25, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Any of the skeptics experienced something they can't explain?



Yes. I felt someone or something kick me in the back of the knee while on a ghost tour at Port Arthur. I was standing at the back of the group and to the side and the nearest person I could see was two or three metres to the side and slightly behind me, just out of my peripheral vision. As Junglepython said, it doesn't mean it was a ghost. That person, although he seemed too far away, might have been playing a trick on me and being so quiet and quick I couldn't see or hear him move. Maybe someone was hiding in the shadows and poking me with a pole. Or perhaps I was getting too much into the spirit of things, so to speak, and had a psychological response to the ghost tales. There are too many other possibilities for me to say "ghost".


----------



## Jeffa (Apr 25, 2012)

Renenet said:


> Yes. I felt someone or something kick me in the back of the knee while on a ghost tour at Port Arthur. I was standing at the back of the group and to the side and the nearest person I could see was two or three metres to the side and slightly behind me, just out of my peripheral vision. As Junglepython said, it doesn't mean it was a ghost. That person, although he seemed too far away, might have been playing a trick on me and being so quiet and quick I couldn't see or hear him move. Maybe someone was hiding in the shadows and poking me with a pole. Or perhaps I was getting too much into the spirit of things, so to speak, and had a psychological response to the ghost tales. There are too many other possibilities for me to say "ghost".



Of course. process of elimination is a great procedure to follow wether you are a sceptic or believer.
In this scenareo one would take a step to the next level and confront the possible pranksters, look in the shadows to see any observation or movement and discount this observation if it was the case. You saying that there were too many other possibilities without asking questions for it to be a ghost is imo is not open minded. Open minded people on both fronts would again use the process of elimination from the most likely to the most unlikely. Great story by the way.


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 26, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Any of the skeptics experienced something they can't explain?



This is a true story. It happened to me annd then to a mate entirely independant of each other and about a month apart.

I was hunting with my skin brother and his son on a billabong in Oenpelli. We shot heaps of ducks and geese, had a great afternoon and were heading home. On our way we stopped just under the escarpment to collect firewood. The sun had just dipped below the horizon and the first stars were coming out.

As we were putting the wood into my ute the escarpment roared at us. It sounded like a jet taking off, was really loud and lasted about 5 seconds. I looked at my skin brother and before i could say anything he dropped the wood he was carrying and got straight back in my car and we pretty much ran away. I quizzed him about it once we got home and his explanation was that it was the rainbow serpent telling us that we weren't meant to be there. 

Same thing happened to a mate who was walking his dog a few KM from where i heard the noise about a month later. He thought i was talking smack until he heard it.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 26, 2012)

Great story Gordo....

I specially like the visuals I was getting of the sunset... would love to see that one day.

Any other explanation you could come up with? What time did your other mate hear the noise?


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 26, 2012)

How do you explain this then???


----------



## waruikazi (Apr 26, 2012)

I think it was probably a land slip or mini-earth quake in the escarpment, no jet aircraft or explosive blasting around here. It was about 7pm.



Red-Ink said:


> Great story Gordo....
> 
> I specially like the visuals I was getting of the sunset... would love to see that one day.
> 
> Any other explanation you could come up with? What time did your other mate hear the noise?


----------



## mysnakesau (Apr 26, 2012)

Coles in Kempsey have video footage of what appears to be footsteps stalking a cleaner. When he mopped the floor he turned around on more than one occasion to find a muddy footprint behind him and he swore his own shoes were not dirty. Then the cameras picked up foot prints walking around the ATM machine before it disappeared. Another episode happened early one morning when the early deli and bakery workers were standing around gasbagging, and they swear something lifted the glass deli-case lid and dropped it, smashing it to pieces. They too, swear, that they did not leave the lid up for it to drop down. Something lifted the lid and slammed it back down, shattering the glass.

Regardless of these stories, I still have not had an encounter with the coles ghost. I started work at 5am one Sunday morning and was the only person in the building. I felt a little nervous and kept looking behind me. Not because anything was making me, but because of the stories I've heard. I guess the ghost had no reason to bother me.

The manager at the time the video footage was captured, was quite freaked out and called a medium in. I never heard what the outcome was, but an old hotel was knocked down on that land site, when Coles bought the land and many people talk of a ghost of an old lady who lived there. Perhaps it was her, still there. Who knows. Only those who believe in the ghosts will ever experience an answer. I see nothing.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 26, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> How do you explain this then???



A long and very painfull labour...


----------



## moosenoose (Apr 26, 2012)

Mum was getting kicked to Kingdom-come :lol:


----------



## longqi (Apr 30, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Examples please?
> 
> And, we're not narrow minded (the non-believers) we're just after evidence!



thats the problem

in West Africa I will always believe I saw a witchdoctor turn into a hyena
I deliberately neither ate nor drank anything that was offered to me and they area was not smokey

I watched a very old elder walk into waist deep water with two assistants and sit a huge crocs head across his lap while he sang to it
Afterwards it simply swam away

With the older Dayaks I have seen a few things that involved animals and people doing things that normally would be considered not in the nature of either one

I hunted with bushmen in the Kalahari Desert and watched them 'pray' an animal to come and describe it perfectly the day before we saw its tracks and the next morning this very elusive animal was perfectly placed for a kill within 100metres of our camp

In Northern Canada I watched the Innuit [eskimos] do a very similar thing with Artic Foxes

I firmly believe that I know what I saw and felt
But that belief is not scientific evidence and I am in no way suggesting it is


----------



## slim6y (Apr 30, 2012)

This morning, I was watching snooker, I placed a bet on Mathew Stevens to win a frame... He was doing well, but then all of a sudden, for no apparent reason what so ever, he missed an easy shot... My money wasn't safe... Barry Hawkins took the table, 59 points down.. It seemed impossible but he carefully took every shot... I couldn't believe it... I kept willing him to miss a shot or make a foul so I could win some money... But he kept on successfully potting the balls over and over....

Do you know what - he needed the pink and the black to win the frame.... He sunk the pink and the black was on its spot and all he had to do was sink the black to win the frame... I wanted that money pretty badly...

I willed him harder and harder to miss an easy shot - this is a professional snooker player... We're not talking someone who comes in for a day and wins then goes back to work as a forklift driver and Dunder Mifflin Paper Supplies... 

This is a shot even I could take... But I summons all the power of the TAB and I said 'MISS THE SHOT' out loud... I must have said it loud enough, because Barry Hawkins missed - I guess you could see the replay if you don't believe me...

He missed - what would seem to be the easiest shot...

So Stevens took to the frame again - 59 all... Black needed....

But unfortunately he missed and Barry Hawkins got the frame and I lost my money.... Oh well.. I guess there's nothing mystical there at all!


----------



## Asharee133 (May 1, 2012)

moosenoose said:


> :lol: :lol:


 :facepalm:


----------



## moosenoose (May 1, 2012)

I posted it, and I'm still laughing about it ....... I'm easy to amuse!


----------



## Kc_read (May 1, 2012)

Just putting it out there that there is an app that embbeds a ghostly girl figure into a photo much like that photo at the start of this thread, my step mum had me beleiving it was real for so long...

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk





Barney found a ghost
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Red_LaCN (May 1, 2012)

My son did not know it was even there. It was only when a friend on facebook commented on it that he freaked out.


----------



## Australis (May 2, 2012)

would be funny if it was all a hoax though


----------



## Red_LaCN (May 2, 2012)

Australis said:


> would be funny if it was all a hoax though



I would kick his ****!! But its no hoax,he seriously freaked out when it was pointed out to him.


----------



## slim6y (May 2, 2012)

Red_LaCN said:


> I would kick his ****!! But its no hoax,he seriously freaked out when it was pointed out to him.



How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up? 

Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar. 

You can prove this by taking a photo of a rainbow or refraction/dispersion off of a CD when you shine it into the sun. The camera picks up ALL of the visible wavelengths of light and does not show you light you 'can not' see. 

So - I ask you - how can this be anything other than a hoax?


----------



## Kam333 (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up?
> 
> Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar.
> 
> ...



Look up orbs, they have been scientifically studied for a few years. They are only visible under certain light wavelengths including a camera flash and can be seen by both the human eye and the camera.
There has been a lot of theories but no conclusions have been proven but what is known is they are free moving and can appear individually or a group and can be proven to exist. . . . but we dont know what they are. . . . like ghosts


----------



## waruikazi (May 2, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Look up orbs, they have been scientifically studied for a few years. They are only visible under certain light wavelengths including a camera flash and can be seen by both the human eye and the camera.
> There has been a lot of theories but no conclusions have been proven but what is known is they are free moving and can appear individually or a group and can be proven to exist. . . . but we dont know what they are. . . . like ghosts



We certainly do know what orbs are. They are light that is reflecting off dust particles in the air that aren't quite visible to the naked eye. Very natural and don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain them.


----------



## Red_LaCN (May 2, 2012)

I know my son,and i know he took the photo,and i also know that he was unaware of what was on it when he posted his night time ghost hunting activity pics in his facebook. I trust him.


----------



## Red-Ink (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> How could it be anything else? Just out of curiosity - how do you think that a camera picked up a picture (in a noisy photograph) that the naked eye didn't pick up?
> 
> Cameras are limited in the type of Electromagnetic Radiation they can pick up - because it would be pointless for a camera to pick up infra red or ultra violet, because we wouldn't be able to see it! So therefore the camera sensors usually pick up pretty close to the same spectrum we pick up with our own eyes. So it's not some magical energy spectrum that doesn't exist... The wavelengths of light we can see and the camera can see are too similar.
> 
> ...



CCDs and CMOS chips are sensitive to IR Slimy, they put IR filters in front of the sensors on Digicams. From my studies, on paper Sensors should not be sensitive to UV as they are silicon based and silicon naturally blocks out UV but would'nt you know it... They do pick up UV as well (though in minute levels).

The anomally in the image could be due to interpolation as well, the camera trying to make sense of data it is only partially capturing and the algorithms going.. meh close enough


----------



## Kam333 (May 2, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> We certainly do know what orbs are. They are light that is reflecting off dust particles in the air that aren't quite visible to the naked eye. Very natural and don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain them.



Did that take a whole 3 secs to gain that info, cause then we can go into describe all the obvious descriptions of said orbs. . . and who said they were supernatural? 
If you look a little further and dodge the Fairy worshiping sites you will discover that there has been a phenomenon being studied for a long time with a lot of theories but no solid proof. Some places are known for high activity in all elemental conditions. The basic belief is that they are something akin to a plasma ball. Some really interesting info available worth reading, regardless of how you might feel about ghosts.


----------



## slim6y (May 2, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> CCDs and CMOS chips are sensitive to IR Slimy, they put IR filters in front of the sensors on Digicams. From my studies on paper Sensors should not be sensitive to UV as they are silicon based and silicon naturally blocks out UV but would'nt you know it... They do pick up UV as well (though in minute levels).
> 
> The anomally in the image could be fue to interpolation as well, the camera trying to make sense of data it is only partially capturing and the algorithms going.. meh close enough



Yes, I am very aware they pick up IR - hence why I know people who remove the filter to pick up IR - take a photo of a rainbow in IR - it's very very interesting... But we still can NOT see in the IR spectrum - hence, the requirement for the filter.

The UV - in minute levels doesn't change the overall appearance of the photo - I have taken 100s of photos with and without UV filters (tho, I am never 100% convinced about UV filters - because glass itself is a UV filter without the magnesium coating). Anyway... Noise (in a photo) is also the inability of a camera to make sense of the date it is processing. Just like the human eye - the thing is, this 'girl' or 'apparition' behind the tree was not picked up by a camera flash - though the foreground looks like it has been lit by a flash.

The 'girl' behind the tree, to me, appears to be nothing more than a slightly delayed exposure (maybe 1/10 of a second or more) - and any opbject able to move and reflect the limited amount of light will show up on the camera as a blur - it is certainly that or as pointed out - an app for an iPhone... It wouldn't matter if I was wrong, because, the overall outcome will be the same - it is merely a trick of the camera and not of the eye!


----------



## waruikazi (May 2, 2012)

Kam333 said:


> Did that take a whole 3 secs to gain that info, cause then we can go into describe all the obvious descriptions of said orbs. . . and who said they were supernatural?
> If you look a little further and dodge the Fairy worshiping sites you will discover that there has been a phenomenon being studied for a long time with a lot of theories but no solid proof. Some places are known for high activity in all elemental conditions. The basic belief is that they are something akin to a plasma ball. Some really interesting info available worth reading, regardless of how you might feel about ghosts.



Orbs as in the round light white coloured balls that we see in photographs and video footage? Plasma? Reference please!


----------



## Red-Ink (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Yes, I am very aware they pick up IR - hence why I know people who remove the filter to pick up IR - take a photo of a rainbow in IR - it's very very interesting... But we still can NOT see in the IR spectrum - hence, the requirement for the filter.
> 
> The UV - in minute levels doesn't change the overall appearance of the photo - I have taken 100s of photos with and without UV filters (tho, I am never 100% convinced about UV filters - because glass itself is a UV filter without the magnesium coating). Anyway... Noise (in a photo) is also the inability of a camera to make sense of the date it is processing. Just like the human eye - the thing is, this 'girl' or 'apparition' behind the tree was not picked up by a camera flash - though the foreground looks like it has been lit by a flash.
> 
> The 'girl' behind the tree, to me, appears to be nothing more than a slightly delayed exposure (maybe 1/10 of a second or more) - and any opbject able to move and reflect the limited amount of light will show up on the camera as a blur - it is certainly that or as pointed out - an app for an iPhone... It wouldn't matter if I was wrong, because, the overall outcome will be the same - it is merely a trick of the camera and not of the eye!



Agreed

On a side note Slimy... if your interested in UV photography I may be able to help you out with a list of equipment that will let more UV into your images. It was my main point of interest while I was at Uni...

Speaking of the unseen...

Not supernatural or a ghost just the part's of the UV spectrum captured by a camera.


----------



## slim6y (May 2, 2012)

That's SWEET!!!

I have tried taking good photos of rainbows - but only with the allowable spectrum the camera permits...

Have you ever taken a photo of a rainbow with the filter you used above? That would be so cool! I love IR photos of rainbows... There was a perfect one here yesterday - even with the double rainbow - I wished I had an IR camera and one to allow UV too so I could compare... But it was such a clear rainbow - just at sunset against super dark clouds!

What was the light source on above? 

I always find it incredible what we're actually missing out there - I am teaching light and waves to my year 12s at the moment and even just seeing the tiniest part of the EM spectrum that we can see, and then pointing out the other 10s of 1,000,000s of wavelengths we don't!


----------



## Red-Ink (May 2, 2012)

*typos and more typos*



slim6y said:


> That's SWEET!!!
> 
> I have tried taking good photos of rainbows - but only with the allowable spectrum the camera permits...
> 
> ...



The light source is a Reptilglo 10.0 (Thank youuuu... reptile hobby lol)

I ran the light through a condenser to get it uniformed, then a concave mirror to focus it to a fine point which i then broke up with a flourite prism to get the spectrum. I projected that spectrum onto a peice of paper to get a focus point. I then focused the camera on the peice of paper being the visible part of the spectrum, took the paper away (effectively focused in mid air) and took the photo. There were several shots taken at multiple exposure times to get the UV part to show up.

The first bright bar (spike) is around 550nm - green, the second bar is 410-390 - deep blue/indigo (to give you an indication on where they are on the rainbow). Past that at the last double bar is 364-365nm as indicated by the known spike in the light source... The spectrum goes beyond that to what looks like 330nm but without a known spike I can't confirm it with just the image.

There was no filter on the camera for that just a very very dark room and that was the only light source.

I was actually researching the UV imaging capabilities of a "marketed" UV forensic camera. My research showed it can image into the UV spectrum but only when used in specific parameters.


----------



## slim6y (May 2, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> The light source is a Reptilglo 10.0 (Thank youuuu... reptile hobby lol)
> 
> I ran the light through a condenser to get it uniformed, then a concave mirror to focus it to a fine point which i then broke up with a flourite prism to get the spectrum. I projected that spectrum onto a peice of paper to get a focus point. I then focused the camera on the peice of paper veing the visible part of the spectrum, took the paper away (effectively focused in mid air) and took the photo. There were several shots taken at multiple exposure times to get the UV patrt to show up.
> 
> ...



Sorry to take up the ghost thread for this - but this is deeply interesting and (loosely) fits the bill of photographic representations...

I am colour blind (not fully, but I do miss some colours in the spectrum - but it gives me real good night vision instead) so forgive me if I am wrong here - but where is the red side of the spectrum from that? 

Or do reptile lamps not put out anything in the red spectrum? (which does make some sense to me).

Or is it the camera unable to pick up the red?

I can see a pinky tinge on there, but I assumed (because it was on the blue side) it was just heading into the indigo part of the spectrum and the red should be on the left side of the photo - which I can't see... But red is one of the colours I miss frequently.


----------



## junglepython2 (May 2, 2012)

How does being colour defective give you good night vision slim6y????


----------



## waruikazi (May 2, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> How does being colour defective give you good night vision slim6y????



I'd love to hear about this too Slimey, a mate of mine is colour blind and also night blind. I assumed the two were connected.


----------



## Red-Ink (May 2, 2012)

The pinky tinge (rightside of the image) is the UV spectrum picked up by the camera...

The reptile light I chose was a compact flouro so not much heat from them, not much IR.

I did not look at the other end of the spectrum unfortunately Slimy, I cut off the capture at the green spike. I was looking at the UV side of it but...

May or may not be of interest... Same camera so it does pick up IR

















I was going to look into body mapping of the UV absorption areas on bearded dragons as a final year research, unfortunately that did not come through. Ethics board and working with animals and the like, plus being a Scientific imaging student and not a biology student meant I would not be able to get it through as a research.

The areas I have marked in the UV image show areas of less reflectance (in red box), my theory was these were areas of absorption - hence flattening like a pancake as well when basking. The IR image was taken on the hypothesis that these areas would be more sensitive to heat as well (IR manifested)...

Apologies as well for de-railing the thread.


----------



## slim6y (May 2, 2012)

I feel like we're hijacking the thread...

"Color vision deficient people have a tendency to better night vision and, in some situations, they can perceive variations in luminosity that color-sighted people could not. In fact, most color blind people can easily read what is written in the picture below..."






Source: Color Blindness Tests and Facts

I'm only reiterating what I've already read elsewhere - apologies if it isn't conclusive... I just want to feel better about my colour deficiencies!

I have never actually seen 'real' evidence of this - but I'm happy if people can pass the above test that they all join up with a bunch of people who failed the above test and then go into rooms of varying light to identify particular (changing) objects... And if the people who pass the test can accurately identify the objects more frequently than those who did not pass the test we can assume colour blind people are more likely to have better night vision... 

We are all very aware that cats, dogs and many other animals have much better night vision (not only because of the shape of their eyes and pupils, but because they have many more cones that pick up in the darker part of the spectrum). Sorry if I can't be any more conclusive and for hijacking this thread... 

But - test it if you don't believe it 

BTW - I can see MUCH better at night than my GF, daughters and other people who are not colour deficient.

@Red-Ink - You need to start an entire thread devoted to these photos - I am so interested.... In fact, a whole website should be devoted to this! 

So are you also saying that there may be some (albeit small) amounts of red from the Reptaglow?


----------



## Red-Ink (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> So are you also saying that there may be some (albeit small) amounts of red from the Reptaglow?



The IR pic of the BD was done under a Mercury vapour bulb to ensure that I had enough IR for the image.

If a source emits heat.. it has IR in varying quantities (this includes us and all other mammalian as well as avian life), though part of the "spectrum", IR can be read as heat - hence IR temp guns

Which could mean if the "ghost/supernatural" entity or anomally emits heat or is of a different wavelength to the surrounding source the camera may register it... just to get us back on to the topic


----------



## Australis (May 2, 2012)

If i was a ghost i would go to live events and knocks things over... cause that paranormal white noise stuff at live music things... troll people from the other side! The lack of ghosts trolling is enough proof for me ghosts have no human origin.


----------



## Mo Deville (May 2, 2012)

man if i were a ghost i'd be living in the cheer leaders locker room!!!:twisted:


----------



## Skeptic (May 2, 2012)

I stand by my user name


----------



## junglepython2 (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I feel like we're hijacking the thread...
> 
> "Color vision deficient people have a tendency to better night vision and, in some situations, they can perceive variations in luminosity that color-sighted people could not. In fact, most color blind people can easily read what is written in the picture below..."
> 
> ...



Night vision is governed by rods not cones, most colour defectives just have a slight shift in there wavelength sensitivity in there red or green cone. (rods not affected) While it is true that people with colour vision deficiencies can sometimes perceive things that colour normals can't (eg. they are sometimes better at identifying objects hidden by military camouflage) I can't for the life of me see how they would be better with night vision.


----------



## thomasssss (May 2, 2012)

slim6y said:


>


what does it say ive stared at it for ages and every time i think ive got it my eyes get all confused:? , is it written in the orange dots or the yellowy brown ones :?


----------



## Renenet (May 3, 2012)

Jeffa said:


> You saying that there were too many other possibilities without asking questions for it to be a ghost is imo is not open minded. Open minded people on both fronts would again use the process of elimination from the most likely to the most unlikely. Great story by the way.



I don't know what investigation I could have carried out that would have had any validity. How could I know for sure if I was having a subconscious psychological reaction to the eerie atmosphere? Or if I'd asked the person closest to me if he was kicking me in the back of the knee, how could I be certain he was telling me the truth, whatever answer he gave? It would have been great if they'd had security cameras there, that might have eliminated some possibilities or provided some evidence.  

As it is, I can't come to any kind of conclusion.


----------



## Red_LaCN (May 3, 2012)

In regards to hi-jacking the thread,i dont feel that way. Its all ghost related due how we perceive images or how a camera picks up images.

If i was a ghost,i would slime people


----------



## Mo Deville (May 3, 2012)

If i was a ghost,i would slime people [/QUOTE]

as a ghost i'd be doin that in the cheer leaders locker room aswell haha!!!:lol:


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

junglepython2 said:


> Night vision is governed by rods not cones, most colour defectives just have a slight shift in there wavelength sensitivity in there red or green cone. (rods not affected) While it is true that people with colour vision deficiencies can sometimes perceive things that colour normals can't (eg. they are sometimes better at identifying objects hidden by military camouflage) I can't for the life of me see how they would be better with night vision.



I don't write these websites, I merely copy them... Can't help what's written out there... But I live in hope that my colour deficiency has an advantage... And all I want is to say... I can see better at night than you!!! Sucked in! 

Which... Coincidentally is probably why I don't see ghosts at night - because there aren't any to see 



thomasssss said:


> what does it say ive stared at it for ages and every time i think ive got it my eyes get all confused:? , is it written in the orange dots or the yellowy brown ones :?



I'm never going to tell you muahahahahahahaha (but my GF can read it and she's not colourblind, so now I am worried....)


----------



## Red-Ink (May 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I feel like we're hijacking the thread...
> 
> "



It's a sailboat!


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> It's a sailboat!



No, it's orbs... multi coloured orbs....


----------



## Skeptic (May 3, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Any of the skeptics experienced something they can't explain?



Haha, everyday  Thats fine, but when you jump to a conclusion without any degree of certainty you are committing a logical fallacy. Specifically 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or an argument from ignorance. Just because something appears to be unexplainable does not mean it cannot be explained. Simply applying Occam's Razor should lead you to a more earthly conclusion. What is more likely, that its simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person or that the natural laws of the universe have been suspended and it is indeed a ghost?


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

So what you're saying is that this picture might not be a ghost?

But, there's still an inkling of hope for the believers that this is a ghost - assuming the above conditions of natural law of the universe have been met....


----------



## Skeptic (May 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> So what you're saying is that this picture might not be a ghost?
> 
> But, there's still an inkling of hope for the believers that this is a ghost - assuming the above conditions of natural law of the universe have been met....



I'm not saying it might not be a ghost, I'm flat out saying it isn't a ghost. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sorry, but a blurry photo that kinda looks like it may be a person doesn't qualify.


----------



## Australis (May 3, 2012)

Sagan was such a boss.


----------



## Red-Ink (May 3, 2012)

Skeptic said:


> Haha, everyday  Thats fine, but when you jump to a conclusion without any degree of certainty you are committing a logical fallacy. Specifically 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or an argument from ignorance. Just because something appears to be unexplainable does not mean it cannot be explained. Simply applying Occam's Razor should lead you to a more earthly conclusion. What is more likely, that its simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person or that the natural laws of the universe have been suspended and it is indeed a ghost?




What if Occam's razor solution offers no degree of certainty and is committing logical fallacy in itself. 
In this scenario one side of the opposition as concluded that it is a ghost applying subjectively Occam's razor reasoning that the other opposing arguments in itself can not provide evidence with all certainty; that the anomally is in deed an equipment malfunction or higher formed intelligence just simply applying the Gestalt principles.

Would your counter reasoning not apply in retort as well to your arguments.

I am not stating that the image artefact is in deed of a supernatural nature nor am i stating that it is not.... It is simply an anomally with an inconclusive explanation.

If you follow my thought process a few post down from the one you qouted me on I believe that you will see I'm neutral on the matter. I was simply asking people if the skeptics themselves had some experiences that they could not simply explain.


----------



## Skeptic (May 3, 2012)

Australis said:


> Sagan was such a boss.



Sagan was THE boss 



Red-Ink said:


> What if Occam's razor solution offers no degree of certainty and is committing logical fallacy in itself.
> In this scenario one side of the opposition as concluded that it is a ghost applying subjectively Occam's rezor reasoning that the other opposing arguments in itself can not provide evidence with all certainty that the anomally is in deed a a equipment malfunction or higher formed intelligence just simply applying the Gestalt principles.
> 
> Would your counter reasoning not apply in retort as well to your arguments.
> ...



Occam's Razor isn't a tool to reach certainty on any subject. It's merely used to say what is most likely. And in this situation I can't take anyone seriously who comes to the conclusion, using Occam's Razor, that this artefact in a blurry photo is of supernatural origins. So no, my reasoning could not apply in retort as the supernatural side requires an order of magnitude more explanations. I do agree with you 100% that "It is simply an anomally with an inconclusive explanation" as of yet. However, I'm certain that an explanation could be achieved by someone trained in forensic photography.


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

What I find hard to swallow is:

A camera which can pick up a multitude of electromagnetic radiation (EMR from herein) also picks up, and displays EMR from a different part of the spectrum - one that can't be seen with the naked eye and it then prints it as data of sorts. 

This in itself is surprising as a camera has very preset parameters that guides what the sensors can pick up and print. These are factory preset and can be tampered with - you could allow for more IR for example or as Red-Ink has done set it up for more UV... 

But this iPhone all of a sudden is catching something in the spectrum that could be in the range much much smaller than microwaves or even x-rays perhaps. I am guessing it's not in the 'raqdiowave parts of the spectrum.

From all modern beliefs - it appears ghosts (if there were any) were a form of energy, however insignificant, the energy would be measurable... It is possible for us to detect minute amounts of EMR - this is what things like SETI was set up for. 

So basically, the test for ghosts would not be out of our range and ability (imo). 

I'm not saying we've discovered everything in the EMR spectrum, I'm merely saying that an iPhone in it's complexity would be unlikely to have sensor capable of picking up EMR outside of very preset parameters. I am guessing Apple had never intended their phones and camera equipment to be used for such specialised purposes, other than for hoaxes or... At the very best, a slightly long exposure of a tree which (as so elegantly put) "that it's simply an artefact in the photo that pattern seeking mammals see as a person."

What I can't contend with is people continually believing in things that time and time and time again have been proven incorrect, inconclusive or at the very least hoaxes!


----------



## Australis (May 3, 2012)

Take enough photos and one will show something ghost like... i don't know, it doesn't seem anymore amazing than say looking at every piece of nutrigrain until you find one with a loose resemblance to E.T.


----------



## Red-Ink (May 3, 2012)

It may not just be a question of EMR slim... Schlieren imaging effects may also be a factor. If light is seen at an angle where it is a flat polarised linear field any discrepancy in the refractive index of this light will be picked up by the naked eye. It is the same effect that give objects in the distance on a hot day that "shimmering" effect, the heat waves from the ground become visible to the naked eye as well as any run of the mill imaging device in that flat linear field of light.


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> It may not just be a question of EMR slim... Schlieren imaging effects may also be a factor. If light is seen at at angle where it is a flat polarised linear field any discrepancy in the refractive index of this light will be picked up by the naked eye. It is the same effect that give objects in the distance on a hot day that "shimmering" effect, the heat waves from the ground become visible to the naked eye as well as any run of the mill imaging device in that flat linear field of light.



So, in this case, as above, it's still EMR - whether the light is reflected, refracted, dispersed, total internal reflection - what ever the light does, it's still EMR... Isn't it? 

Polarised light is still EMR... 

The camera, the eye... Designed to pick up EMR within a certain spectrum (except mine don't, because they're bung).


----------



## Red-Ink (May 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> So, in this case, as above, it's still EMR - whether the light is reflected, refracted, dispersed, total internal reflection - what ever the light does, it's still EMR... Isn't it?
> 
> Polarised light is still EMR...
> 
> The camera, the eye... Designed to pick up EMR within a certain spectrum (except mine don't, because they're bung).



Yes still EMR but having the visible parts of the spectrum polarised and linear now allows us to see (given it's already the visible part of the spectrum) any discrepancy in the refractive index. When we set up this experiment in the lab at uni we watched heat rising from our hands when it was placed in that field of light. Something that would have never been possible unless we had polarised and made that field of the visible spectrum linear. Now given that this can happen naturally on a hot summer day... I would hazard to guess it could happen "unwittingly" in other natural situations giving us the ability and the imaging device to see what was previously unseen due to the disturbance of the refractive index in that polarised linear field of light.

Maybe "ghost" have a different refractive index not visible under normal conditions which we are exposed to everyday... vary that factor or add another one and we "may" be able to make them visually present...

Yes I know that sounds crazy... but it is in the realms of scientific possibility.

Not saying thats what happened but it may be a factor worth considering in looking for explanations to visual anomalies.


----------



## junglepython2 (May 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> I don't write these websites, I merely copy them... Can't help what's written out there... But I live in hope that my colour deficiency has an advantage... And all I want is to say... I can see better at night than you!!! Sucked in!
> 
> Which... Coincidentally is probably why I don't see ghosts at night - because there aren't any to see
> 
> ...



Ok Slim6y you sparked my interest so I delved further, apparently some colour vision defectives can perform certain discriminatory tasks better under sodium lighting then colour normals, as they are good at differentiating on luminosity differences rather than colour. Which is what I think your website is referring to, though under true scotopic conditions I wouldn't think you have any advantage. For the record I don't see ghosts either


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Yes still EMR but having the visible parts of the spectrum polarised and linear now allows us to see (given it's already the visible part of the spectrum) any discrepancy in the refractive index. When we set up this experiment in the lab at uni we watched heat rising from our hands when it was placed in that field of light. Something that would have never been possible unless we had polarised and made that field of the visible spectrum linear. Now given that this can happen naturally on a hot summer day... I would hazard to guess it could happen "unwittingly" in other natural situations giving us the ability and the imaging device to see what was previously unseen due to the disturbance of the refractive index in that polarised linear field of light.
> 
> Maybe "ghost" have a different refractive index not visible under normal conditions which we are exposed to everyday... vary that factor or add another one and we "may" be able to make them visually present...
> 
> ...



Can't discount anything (of course) - but... Let's face it - different refractive indexes of ghosts.... Hmmmm

(google) Unfortunately searches for the RI of ghosts doesn't come up... Which to me would signal that either a) they don't know the refractive index of ghosts or... b) ghosts don't exist.

And... If by chance any form of the EMR ends up on film, albeit refracted or what ever... It would certainly be testable under normal conditions - and as Walhalla appears to be ghostly, would this not be a good place to test it?



junglepython2 said:


> Ok Slim6y you sparked my interest so I delved further, apparently some colour vision defectives can perform certain discriminatory tasks better under sodium lighting then colour normals, as they are good at differentiating on luminosity differences rather than colour. Which is what I think your website is referring to, though under true scotopic conditions I wouldn't think you have any advantage. For the record I don't see ghosts either



I don't like you referring to the non-colourblind people as normals, it makes my kind feel abnormal, which we're not, we just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else, even if I am wearing a watermelon coloured shirt with my flame red trousers... I don't need anyone pointing out that these colours clash - because in my eyes, they're just wonderful  and nothing clashes in nature (colour wise) and I consider myself part of nature... I am the colour normal - you're just colour gifted...


----------



## Red-Ink (May 3, 2012)

slim6y said:


> Can't discount anything (of course) - but... Let's face it - different refractive indexes of ghosts.... Hmmmm
> 
> (google) Unfortunately searches for the RI of ghosts doesn't come up... Which to me would signal that either a) they don't know the refractive index of ghosts or... b) ghosts don't exist.
> 
> And... If by chance any form of the EMR ends up on film, albeit refracted or what ever... It would certainly be testable under normal conditions - and as Walhalla appears to be ghostly, would this not be a good place to test it?



Now were cooking... I bags you carry the equipment though


----------



## slim6y (May 3, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> Now were cooking... I bags you carry the equipment though



I bags you pay for it  (and my trip to Walhalla and my incredibly heavy appetite for drinking (all of a sudden) and I'll be there)...

BTW - would we be up for $1million if we can prove the existence of the ectoplasm?


----------



## moosenoose (May 3, 2012)

There's a few ghosts in the photos ya spoil-sports! Just get over it!


----------

