Paranormal Underground

Explore the Unexplained

twitterfacebookyoutubeyoutuberss

Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!

Guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Ghosts not really visable
February 4, 2010
11:18 am PDT
HeidiAnn67
Member
Forum Posts: 15116
Member Since:
June 14, 2009
Offline

There was a discussion on the Paranormal Media board,

that made me think of something. I'm posting it here too,

because it might not get seen there.

Note to Admin: If you want to poof

one because I'm saying the same thing,

poof the one in the Media thread /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

the discussion was why with all the cameras out there

has there never been any really good documented proof

of a ghost. so this thought hit me…

my post from the thread

maybe seeing a ghost isnt really a visual event that can be captured on a camera.

maybe it's more of a mental event. maybe ghosts trigger something in our brain

that lets us "see" them. i dont mean "imagine" them, but actually "experience"

them. if that's the case then all the cameras in the world wouldnt matter. we'd

never be able to photograph them.

i have no basis for this theory, but it's just something that hit me this morning.

maybe it's even been discussed before, I dont know. but we dont "see" with

our eyes, we "see" with our brain. maybe ghosts arent really "things" meaning

not made of matter (which would explain how they can be "seen" and can go

through walls). maybe they are some how able to trigger something in our

brain that lets us perceive them. there is a poster at another board who told

of an incident where he and another person both saw something, but their

camera pointed in the same direction never picked it up. this would account

for that. i wont pretend to have an idea HOW this could happen, but there is

so much possible in the universe that we have no clue about yet.

February 4, 2010
3:54 pm PDT
NoWhammies
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3983
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
46934

Loyd Auerbach talks about how if there is an image of a ghost in a photograph, it has been because the ghost has psychokinetically acted on the camera. He also said that when we see a ghost it is a psychic encounter and a clairvoyant one – not actually seeing them with the eyes.

February 4, 2010
4:22 pm PDT
MysticalKnight
California
Admin
Forum Posts: 5544
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
46943

Loyd Auerbach talks about how if there is an image of a ghost in a photograph, it has been because the ghost has psychokinetically acted on the camera. He also said that when we see a ghost it is a psychic encounter and a clairvoyant one – not actually seeing them with the eyes.

Loyd's theories make total sense to me. The discussion with him was fascinating.

If anyone hasn't heard our podcast with him, check it out!

So Heidi, that is a very interesting theory, and one that could be the reason why ghost in photos is a rare thing.

Fairy.jpg
February 4, 2010
4:34 pm PDT
Bryan
Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 18, 2010
Offline
46945

Well first of all allow me to clarify something you said… you said we don't see with our eyes we see with our brain…actually we see with both. Our irises convert light to electrical impulses that our brain interprets as images. What you are delving into is more of an existentialist philosophy on what is real and what isn't. It makes for interesting discussions – sure, but poor science. If it exists solely in one's brain and no other evidence of it's existence can be extrapolated from external factors, then you can't distinguish between something that is real – in a communal sense – and something that is delusional and subject only to your perception. This is a big problem in the paranormal community – we come up with theories that are impossible to test and are comprised of nothing more than conjecture. Don't get me wrong – I find the idea interesting – but not at all useful in trying to actually determine the nature of certain phenomena we experience.

February 4, 2010
5:17 pm PDT
MissingK8
Member
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
Offline
46965

i am very leery of sharing experiences i've had concerning caitie. people here don't know me enough to know if i am delusional, a broken-hearted mom grasping at straws, a mom who has had experiences and gone thru all other explanations and 'debunked' as much as possible or just a crazy lady.

in the end, i know what i've experienced and i know myself. i am not trying to prove anything to anyone. i can only tell what i've experienced. i will take a baby step here.

the first time i 'saw' cait was after we had moved 2 times after we lost her. mick, danny and i were getting ready to leave the house, it was very hectic. it was winter, danny was 3 and we were getting his snow suit, boots etc on him, getting ourselves ready…most of you know how it gets crazy doing all that.

i stood there waiting as mick was zipping danny up when this 'shadow' (not the right word, really) just walked past me. it wasn't really a shadow, more like sepia colored shape of a person. it seemed comprised of tiny dots of colors mixing to make the color. it was the exact outline of cait: my height, her curly short hair…her walk, everything. it seemed to last forever but was over in the blink of an eye. i know that makes no sense, but it's how it felt. there was no cold spot or anything like that. it anything i felt suddenly flushed, but that could have been due to my reaction to seeing what i saw.

i felt my eyes get big and i had a quick intake of breath. it was loud enough so that mick asked if i was alright. i just nodded as i couldn't speak. i was digesting what had happened.

so that's it. it happened when i was totally distracted, was not expecting anything, not looking for anything. but that would be just like caitie to just casually stroll by in the midst of bedlam…

(if admin feels this belongs in personal experiences rather than here, feel free to move it.)

"We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams." - Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)




"God is a kid with an ant farm." Constantine
February 4, 2010
5:30 pm PDT
NoWhammies
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3983
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
46974

i am very leery of sharing experiences i've had concerning caitie. people here don't know me enough to know if i am delusional, a broken-hearted mom grasping at straws, a mom who has had experiences and gone thru all other explanations and 'debunked' as much as possible or just a crazy lady.

What if strong emotion and strong love opens you up to that type of an experience? Not because you are crazy, delusional or grasping at straws but because you are that connected.

My ghost sighting (the only one I've had) doesn't compare at all to you seeing Cait or your relationship with her. But, I will say that when it finally came it was through emotional attachment and love. I had developed a "relationship" with the ghost that showed itself to me. It was the last time I was going to be in that location for a long time, which made me sad. I was feeling a sense of connection and a sense of loss in the moment when the ghost appeared. But it was there, and it was solid.

February 4, 2010
6:08 pm PDT
MissingK8
Member
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
Offline
46988

karen,

a psychic once called me and spoke with me for probably an hour and a half because cait had come thru to him so strongly when my best friend had been to one of his readings. he told me that cait stayed near us because she loved us and wanted to be there.

yes, i think the connection is vitally important for some sightings. as has been said elsewhere here, investigators look for famous ghosts a lot of the time, which is understandable. but i think the vast majority of sightings may happen like your and my experiences.

bill has seen cait more often than i have. at first she was a shadow but then he saw her in color, at first part of her then full-body. like she had to learn how to do it or gain strength or something.

i asked the psychic why bill could see/feel her more than i could, why when the grief was the worst i felt her the least. he told me that the strength of the emotion, the strength of the grief was blocking her getting thru to me. (i am not saying bill doesn't grieve for her or doesn't have deep pain at her loss; he does. it's just that i was the one on the front lines for 5 years. and i fell in love with her from the moment the test read 'positive'.)

am no fool. i am wise to how some so-called psychics dig out info without one being aware, but this guy knew stuff he had no way of knowing, things even my best friend, my husband, my son didn't know. but because cait and i had become so close over weeks at a time in hospital together, she knew. nothing bad, just the intimate stuff that gets shared between people who are in a terrible situation.

"We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams." - Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder)




"God is a kid with an ant farm." Constantine
February 4, 2010
6:45 pm PDT
RyanNREMTP
Moderator
Forum Posts: 7427
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
47004

You know, I don't really know where I stand on this. I've seen plenty of pictures over the years from the past since the camera has been invented to believe that a ghost could be captured on film. To me it really comes down to being prepared. It surprises me (and I'm guilty as well) how so many people go ghost hunting with cameras and the sort and then can't manage to get it on film. It's either they freak out too bad or the camera is pointing the wrong way. I hate to say that the shows on TV are the best example of this. I've seen a brown mass move in front of me at a cemetery that I've caught EVPs at but didn't think to get my cellphone out to take a picture. It seems the paranormal reveals itself to us when it knows we are unprepared.

February 4, 2010
6:54 pm PDT
Bryan
Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 18, 2010
Offline
47008

You know, I don't really know where I stand on this. I've seen plenty of pictures over the years from the past since the camera has been invented to believe that a ghost could be captured on film. To me it really comes down to being prepared. It surprises me (and I'm guilty as well) how so many people go ghost hunting with cameras and the sort and then can't manage to get it on film. It's either they freak out too bad or the camera is pointing the wrong way. I hate to say that the shows on TV are the best example of this. I've seen a brown mass move in front of me at a cemetery that I've caught EVPs at but didn't think to get my cellphone out to take a picture. It seems the paranormal reveals itself to us when it knows we are unprepared.

That kind of goes hand in hand with the other post talking about why paranormal shows haven't captured any compelling evidence. It could be that there is intelligence behind such avoidance – OR it could be that the factors of probability don't favor the chance of capturing a significant anomoly on camera. If paranormal events are rare – let's say that a paranormal event happens .001 % (and I think that's being extremely generous) of the time and let's say that you actually carry a camera around .01 % of the time it is highly improbable that a paranormal event will occur at the same time you are carrying around a camera….[is there a mathmetician in the house that can figure out what that probability is?]….and then you have to throw in the preparation factor that you just mentioned.

February 4, 2010
7:01 pm PDT
RyanNREMTP
Moderator
Forum Posts: 7427
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
47010

Exactly, I think most people when they see something is a little bit scared so they aren't thinking straight. No matter how long someone does this, it still catches us off guard.

February 4, 2010
7:17 pm PDT
NoWhammies
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3983
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
47014

Exactly, I think most people when they see something is a little bit scared so they aren't thinking straight. No matter how long someone does this, it still catches us off guard.

Isn't that the truth? When I have an anomalous experience, I still get chills. Not because it scares me – but because it catches me by surprise and it is still darn exciting. I hope that never changes.

Embarrassingly, when I saw my ghost I didn't have my camera with me. We were having a party. There were a ton of people in the immediate vicinity. Even though the party was in the ghosts' honor, I didn't expect them to come out with so many people there.

February 4, 2010
8:53 pm PDT
HeidiAnn67
Member
Forum Posts: 15116
Member Since:
June 14, 2009
Offline
47031

Well first of all allow me to clarify something you said… you said we don't see with our eyes we see with our brain…actually we see with both. Our irises convert light to electrical impulses that our brain interprets as images. What you are delving into is more of an existentialist philosophy on what is real and what isn't. It makes for interesting discussions – sure, but poor science. If it exists solely in one's brain and no other evidence of it's existence can be extrapolated from external factors, then you can't distinguish between something that is real – in a communal sense – and something that is delusional and subject only to your perception. This is a big problem in the paranormal community – we come up with theories that are impossible to test and are comprised of nothing more than conjecture. Don't get me wrong – I find the idea interesting – but not at all useful in trying to actually determine the nature of certain phenomena we experience.

but Bryan, if it does exist solely in ones brain then there may not be a way to prove it.

that wouldnt make it any less true (just saying if that's what it really was), maybe some

things just cant be proved at least not with current scientific knowledge and equipment.

February 4, 2010
9:36 pm PDT
Bryan
Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 18, 2010
Offline
47034

but Bryan, if it does exist solely in ones brain then there may not be a way to prove it.

that wouldnt make it any less true (just saying if that's what it really was), maybe some

things just cant be proved at least not with current scientific knowledge and equipment.

Well, Heidi, it's an interesting thought – I'm not discounting that. I love engaging in philosophical conversations – they can be intriguing. All I am saying, for those of us who are actually seeking some answers – something we can measure, test, catalog, etc. – it's somewhat impractical to entertain these ethereal ideas that can't be tested or proven. If it can't be tested or proven, then how could it be true? How does one define true – other than something that can be tested and validated through laws and facts? Otherwise, any thought no matter how sound or how absurd, that I choose to dream up could be true? Again – this is one of the weaknesses in the paranormal community. Now I understand that you are just kind of brainstorming here, and I can appreciate your creativity…it's just not something that can ever be proven.

February 4, 2010
10:06 pm PDT
HeidiAnn67
Member
Forum Posts: 15116
Member Since:
June 14, 2009
Offline
47039

Well, Heidi, it's an interesting thought – I'm not discounting that. I love engaging in philosophical conversations – they can be intriguing. All I am saying, for those of us who are actually seeking some answers – something we can measure, test, catalog, etc. – it's somewhat impractical to entertain these ethereal ideas that can't be tested or proven. If it can't be tested or proven, then how could it be true? How does one define true – other than something that can be tested and validated through laws and facts? Otherwise, any thought no matter how sound or how absurd, that I choose to dream up could be true? Again – this is one of the weaknesses in the paranormal community. Now I understand that you are just kind of brainstorming here, and I can appreciate your creativity…it's just not something that can ever be proven.

but really you cant say that, we dont know what the future will bring.

think about the things they thought we could never prove 100 years

ago, 1000 years ago. who knows what they will be able to tell in

100, 1000 years.

February 4, 2010
10:14 pm PDT
Bryan
Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 18, 2010
Offline
47040

but really you cant say that, we dont know what the future will bring.

think about the things they thought we could never prove 100 years

ago, 1000 years ago. who knows what they will be able to tell in

100, 1000 years.

I agree… a friend of mine once said "if you don't think there are any answers, why are you doing this?" I'm not saying I have the asnwers Heidi – I don't…I'm just trying to find a logical way to address the questions that I have.

February 4, 2010
10:30 pm PDT
HeidiAnn67
Member
Forum Posts: 15116
Member Since:
June 14, 2009
Offline
47047

I agree… a friend of mine once said "if you don't think there are any answers, why are you doing this?" I'm not saying I have the asnwers Heidi – I don't…I'm just trying to find a logical way to address the questions that I have.

And I understand as someone hunting for answers the idea that maybe

the answer is something you wont be able to find with current knowledge

and technology would be discouraging. But again, this is my wild theory

based on nothing more then a thought that popped into my head at four

in the morning /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' /> , so in other words, not very scientific.

February 5, 2010
4:03 pm PDT
Larry DiSciullo
Member
Forum Posts: 55
Member Since:
April 23, 2009
Offline
47155

And I understand as someone hunting for answers the idea that maybe

the answer is something you wont be able to find with current knowledge

and technology would be discouraging. But again, this is my wild theory

based on nothing more then a thought that popped into my head at four

in the morning /biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> , so in other words, not very scientific.

I was thinking the same thing(on one of the other forums I frequent):

Assuming ghosts are real, I would expect…

"The reason no concrete physical evidence has presented itself is that ghosts don't manifest physically at all but interact with some part of the brain that allows us to 'see' them."

Great minds think alike!

I realize the frustration such a thought causes among those hoping to uncover physical evidence.

Like saying, "You can't get there from here".

February 5, 2010
4:19 pm PDT
NoWhammies
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3983
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
47158

I am a big believer that just because we can't prove something doesn't mean that it isn't true. We progress, we move forward.

For instance, in the past decade, there have been huge leaps forward in brain science; however, our brains remain mostly an enigma wrapped in a mystery to scientists. Still, I just read in either SciAm or Discover Magazine (I can't remember which) that brain mapping has come so far that there are machines that can almost read minds.

What we can't prove now, maybe we can in the future. And maybe, sometimes, logic fails us because we reason on a macro level when everything in our universe is first carried out on a quantum one. And that quantum world – at least as we currently understand it – is pretty darn chaotic and can appear to be quite illogical given our current models and constructs of the world. In the quantum world, everything can exist as two things at once (known as a state of quantum superposition) until it becomes one of the two things when it is observed (known as wave function collapse). There are folded dimensions in our physical universe about which we know little other than that they are there.

Our propensity is to have everything be one thing or another. It is how we are wired. Black and white is easy to understand. Shades of gray are not. Computers operate on logic that is binary – a series of yes or no questions, a series of ones and zeroes. And yet, here come quantum computers that work on shades of gray. Everything between one and zero.

This is all my long and windy way of saying that we fail to see and understand things in our universe because they are presented to us in packages that we don't yet have models for. If ghosts exist, I believe that we can't currently prove it because they present themselves to us in such a package. They are that gray area between one and zero – between black and white.

February 5, 2010
4:32 pm PDT
Bryan
Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 18, 2010
Offline
47159

I am a big believer that just because we can't prove something doesn't mean that it isn't true. We progress, we move forward.

For instance, in the past decade, there have been huge leaps forward in brain science; however, our brains remain mostly an enigma wrapped in a mystery to scientists. Still, I just read in either SciAm or Discover Magazine (I can't remember which) that brain mapping has come so far that there are machines that can almost read minds.

What we can't prove now, maybe we can in the future. And maybe, sometimes, logic fails us because we reason on a macro level when everything in our universe is first carried out on a quantum one. And that quantum world – at least as we currently understand it – is pretty darn chaotic and can appear to be quite illogical given our current models and constructs of the world. In the quantum world, everything can exist as two things at once (known as a state of quantum superposition) until it becomes one of the two things when it is observed (known as wave function collapse). There are folded dimensions in our physical universe about which we know little other than that they are there.

Our propensity is to have everything be one thing or another. It is how we are wired. Black and white is easy to understand. Shades of gray are not. Computers operate on logic that is binary – a series of yes or no questions, a series of ones and zeroes. And yet, here come quantum computers that work on shades of gray. Everything between one and zero.

This is all my long and windy way of saying that we fail to see and understand things in our universe because they are presented to us in packages that we don't yet have models for. If ghosts exist, I believe that we can't currently prove it because they present themselves to us in such a package. They are that gray area between one and zero – between black and white.

I agree with much of what you say here, Karen. You are right – this is a vast universe, and it would be arrogant indeed to think that we have a complete understanding of it. I wasn't trying to imply that just because we lack the ability to prove something with our current base of knowledge – that it can't necessarily be true. What I am trying to convey, is that, unless we can develop a device (and who knows – maybe this is forthcoming) that can scan one's brain and transfer that data into a medium that others can view and study – it's a fruitless endeavor to theorize that one's real environment consists of not only the external environment but that "perceived environment" that is encapsulated in our brain. Perhaps you and Heidi have a point…maybe someday medical science will further our understanding of the human brain and just how much of our reality consist of our own perception…but we certainly aren't there yet…

ok – my brain hurts now!

February 5, 2010
4:46 pm PDT
NoWhammies
Moderator
Forum Posts: 3983
Member Since:
December 29, 2012
Offline
47163

I agree with much of what you say here, Karen. You are right – this is a vast universe, and it would be arrogant indeed to think that we have a complete understanding of it. I wasn't trying to imply that just because we lack the ability to prove something with our current base of knowledge – that it can't necessarily be true. What I am trying to convey, is that, unless we can develop a device (and who knows – maybe this is forthcoming) that can scan one's brain and transfer that data into a medium that others can view and study – it's a fruitless endeavor to theorize that one's real environment consists of not only the external environment but that "perceived environment" that is encapsulated in our brain. Perhaps you and Heidi have a point…maybe someday medical science will further our understanding of the human brain and just how much of our reality consist of our own perception…but we certainly aren't there yet…

ok – my brain hurts now!

Actually – we're closer on that brain scanning thing than you might imagine. I'll try to find that article I mentioned. I know it is in the January issue of one of those two magazines, so it should be easy to find. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />

I understand what you're saying, Bryan. I hope we develop that type of device. It would be totally cool.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 151

Currently Online:
9 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

norcalmonkey: 24961

HeidiAnn67: 15116

wrightghost: 8521

duckie7694: 5868

movieman1500: 3314

milomilford: 2589

pooperdooper: 2049

sympathyforthedevil: 1912

BornAware: 1741

ediaz65: 1447

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 3

Members: 2962

Moderators: 5

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 14

Forums: 47

Topics: 1893

Posts: 104956

Newest Members: zoinsimark, tymnBalaync

Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427), jackny46 (0), Jack K. (0)

Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5544), sithy (1330)

Close Box

First Time back?
You must reset your password
to log in to the new site.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Please enter your username or email address.
You will receive a link to reset the password via email.