Do you believe in ghosts?

12526272830

Comments

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 12,043
    I believe in 'The Flaming Hand' from LTK's cursed La Rumorosa Pass in Mexico, and the one from NTTD - that creepy face seen next to the Aston Martin
    in the forest.

    *shudder*

    I also believe the Land Rovers and Citroëns in NTTD have been anthropomorphized through ghostly possession.

    The hard proof:

    Flaming Hand from LTK:
    the-flaming-hand-of-license-to-kill.jpg

    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg

    NTTD vehicles possessed by evil:
    51031314907_8d386ef271_o.png

    Scary stuff.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger @!#¤%^§
    Posts: 43,594
    QBranch wrote: »
    I believe in 'The Flaming Hand' from LTK's cursed La Rumorosa Pass in Mexico, and the one from NTTD - that creepy face seen next to the Aston Martin
    in the forest.

    *shudder*

    I also believe the Land Rovers and Citroëns in NTTD have been anthropomorphized through ghostly possession.

    The hard proof:

    Flaming Hand from LTK:
    the-flaming-hand-of-license-to-kill.jpg

    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg

    NTTD vehicles possessed by evil:
    51031314907_8d386ef271_o.png

    Scary stuff.

    Absolutely, especially the Fleming hand.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2021 Posts: 20,651
    I found the following statement on a rather playful yet dubious website as "proof" that ghosts exist:

    If ghosts weren’t real, it’s unlikely that so many ghost hunters and paranormal experts would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and attractions that are dedicated to ghosts.

    This is a very popular conclusion, albeit a fallacious one. After all, if the statement were true, the same thing would also apply to the many more people who don't believe in ghosts. Fact is, I could easily submit the following:

    "If ghosts were real, it's unlikely that so many non-believers and sceptics would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and books dedicated to refuting the existence of ghosts."

    A "look at the numbers!" argument isn't rock-solid at all. Let's say as many people believe that Donald Trump is a good thing for America as there are people who believe he is a bad thing for America. The case can be made for both that, just because there are so many of them, they must both be right. The contradiction becomes evident.

    Likewise, Christians could argue that, simply because there are so many of them, their faith in Jesus as the son of God isn't misplaced. Jews and Muslims do not, however, see Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, and there are many of them too. So either both are right, which is impossible, or the "numbers" argument doesn't hold up.

    Furthermore, people have spent ages being absolutely sure that the Earth is flat. All those people, all those centuries, everywhere... surely they cannot have been wrong! Well, we now know they were. People can be wrong; many people can be wrong; "all those people", surely, can still be... well, wrong.

    Lastly, the initial statement from that website contains the word "unlikely", which weakens their "hard proof". I'm not unsympathetic towards that, though, as scientists do the same, often, wisely and in doing so acknowledging the fact that future observations may yet reveal things we don't yet know. For example: it's highly unlikely that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated in the sense that we have never observed such a thing (and not for a lack of trying) but perhaps not every single option has been exhausted just yet. So whenever we use "(un)likely", we state something with a caveat. And that means the authors of the website on ghosts are also not quite sure.

    I don't believe in ghosts, but I admit that the number of people either believing or not believing is not a waterproof argument to back up any statement regarding ghosts. In essence, we are all, believers as well as non-believers, agnostics. We just don't know. No matter how many of us there are, we don't know whether ghosts exist or don't. Even if over 7 billion people believed in ghosts (or not), they'd still not know. ;-)
  • Posts: 9,154
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I found the following statement on a rather playful yet dubious website as "proof" that ghosts exist:

    If ghosts weren’t real, it’s unlikely that so many ghost hunters and paranormal experts would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and attractions that are dedicated to ghosts.

    This is a very popular conclusion, albeit a fallacious one. After all, if the statement were true, the same thing would also apply to the many more people who don't believe in ghosts. Fact is, I could easily submit the following:

    "If ghosts were real, it's unlikely that so many non-believers and sceptics would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and books dedicated to refuting the existence of ghosts."

    A "look at the numbers!" argument isn't rock-solid at all. Let's say as many people believe that Donald Trump is a good thing for America as there are people who believe he is a bad thing for America. The case can be made for both that, just because there are so many of them, they must both be right. The contradiction becomes evident.

    Likewise, Christians could argue that, simply because there are so many of them, their faith in Jesus as the son of God isn't misplaced. Jews and Muslims do not, however, see Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, and there are many of them too. So either both are right, which is impossible, or the "numbers" argument doesn't hold up.

    Furthermore, people have spent ages being absolutely sure that the Earth is flat. All those people, all those centuries, everywhere... surely they cannot have been wrong! Well, we now know they were. People can be wrong; many people can be wrong; "all those people", surely, can still be... well, wrong.

    Lastly, the initial statement from that website contains the word "unlikely", which weakens their "hard proof". I'm not unsympathetic towards that, though, as scientists do the same, often, wisely and in doing so acknowledging the fact that future observations may yet reveal things we don't yet know. For example: it's highly unlikely that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated in the sense that we have never observed such a thing (and not for a lack of trying) but perhaps not every single option has been exhausted just yet. So whenever we use "(un)likely", we state something with a caveat. And that means the authors of the website on ghosts are also not quite sure.

    I don't believe in ghosts, but I admit that the number of people either believing or not believing is not a waterproof argument to back up any statement regarding ghosts. In essence, we are all, believers as well as non-believers, agnostics. We just don't know. No matter how many of us there are, we don't know whether ghosts exist or don't. Even if over 7 billion people believed in ghosts (or not), they'd still not know. ;-)


    Again you say there is no reason to scientifically research this my question is why? to quote George Harrison "isn't the most important question Why do we die and what happens after?"


    I have gone over this many times but for why I believe the evidence just is what it is and before people claim "well you were just indoctrinated as a child" My father died at 7 and I spent the next 23 years researching everything from Atheism to Wiccan and beyond... and the case for Christ is quite compelling because it all comes down to the empty tomb.


    I have heard very argument against the empty tomb. All of them

    Some of my personal favorites are
    The Disciples took the body... except they were all tortured for their faith for what reason?
    The disciples hallucinated Jesus... except that doesn't explain Thomas, Paul James etc.. Also Hallucination doesn't exactly work that way.. also the Romans can just show the body and kill Christianity right there
    They got the wrong tomb.. again Romans can drag the body and destroy christianity
    there was a huge gap between the death and the myth of resurrection.. not really the written versions or at most 60 years after Christ's resurrection but more likely 30 -40 years.

    Like I said you don't believe fine. I do...

    You think there is no reason for Scientific investigation that's cool... I do...

    I prefer when skeptics get down and dirty with the legends.. Spend nights in supposed haunted houses research ufo sightings talk with people... I dislike the arm chair historians


    Again legends are fun but at certain point I want proof I am a Historian its not enough to her a story for me I want to know who what why when where and see the evidence.


    Remember Troy was once considered as real as Hogworts would be considered today.. until it was proven to be real in the late 1800's


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited June 2021 Posts: 20,651
    Risico007 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I found the following statement on a rather playful yet dubious website as "proof" that ghosts exist:

    If ghosts weren’t real, it’s unlikely that so many ghost hunters and paranormal experts would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and attractions that are dedicated to ghosts.

    This is a very popular conclusion, albeit a fallacious one. After all, if the statement were true, the same thing would also apply to the many more people who don't believe in ghosts. Fact is, I could easily submit the following:

    "If ghosts were real, it's unlikely that so many non-believers and sceptics would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and books dedicated to refuting the existence of ghosts."

    A "look at the numbers!" argument isn't rock-solid at all. Let's say as many people believe that Donald Trump is a good thing for America as there are people who believe he is a bad thing for America. The case can be made for both that, just because there are so many of them, they must both be right. The contradiction becomes evident.

    Likewise, Christians could argue that, simply because there are so many of them, their faith in Jesus as the son of God isn't misplaced. Jews and Muslims do not, however, see Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, and there are many of them too. So either both are right, which is impossible, or the "numbers" argument doesn't hold up.

    Furthermore, people have spent ages being absolutely sure that the Earth is flat. All those people, all those centuries, everywhere... surely they cannot have been wrong! Well, we now know they were. People can be wrong; many people can be wrong; "all those people", surely, can still be... well, wrong.

    Lastly, the initial statement from that website contains the word "unlikely", which weakens their "hard proof". I'm not unsympathetic towards that, though, as scientists do the same, often, wisely and in doing so acknowledging the fact that future observations may yet reveal things we don't yet know. For example: it's highly unlikely that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated in the sense that we have never observed such a thing (and not for a lack of trying) but perhaps not every single option has been exhausted just yet. So whenever we use "(un)likely", we state something with a caveat. And that means the authors of the website on ghosts are also not quite sure.

    I don't believe in ghosts, but I admit that the number of people either believing or not believing is not a waterproof argument to back up any statement regarding ghosts. In essence, we are all, believers as well as non-believers, agnostics. We just don't know. No matter how many of us there are, we don't know whether ghosts exist or don't. Even if over 7 billion people believed in ghosts (or not), they'd still not know. ;-)


    Again you say there is no reason to scientifically research this my question is why? to quote George Harrison "isn't the most important question Why do we die and what happens after?"

    No disrespect, @Risico007, but I often have the feeling that we're not sharing the same discussion. Please re-read my previous post. It is entirely devoted to the Ad Populum argument as a logical fallacy. There is nothing in my post, absolutely nothing that says we have no reason for scientific research. Such a thing is neither explicitly stated, nor implied. I fail to see where you're getting that from. That's a discussion we've had in an entirely different thread.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I have gone over this many times but for why I believe the evidence just is what it is and before people claim "well you were just indoctrinated as a child" My father died at 7 and I spent the next 23 years researching everything from Atheism to Wiccan and beyond... and the case for Christ is quite compelling because it all comes down to the empty tomb.

    I have heard very argument against the empty tomb. All of them

    Some of my personal favorites are
    The Disciples took the body... except they were all tortured for their faith for what reason?
    The disciples hallucinated Jesus... except that doesn't explain Thomas, Paul James etc.. Also Hallucination doesn't exactly work that way.. also the Romans can just show the body and kill Christianity right there
    They got the wrong tomb.. again Romans can drag the body and destroy christianity
    there was a huge gap between the death and the myth of resurrection.. not really the written versions or at most 60 years after Christ's resurrection but more likely 30 -40 years.

    See? This is my point. How and where in my previous post did I encourage this? This is all very interesting and certainly something we can talk about, but it feels like you posted this in defence to something I wrote. What has any of this to do with the argument that appeals to popularity?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Like I said you don't believe fine. I do...

    You think there is no reason for Scientific investigation that's cool... I do...

    I prefer when skeptics get down and dirty with the legends.. Spend nights in supposed haunted houses research ufo sightings talk with people... I dislike the arm chair historians


    Again legends are fun but at certain point I want proof I am a Historian its not enough to her a story for me I want to know who what why when where and see the evidence.


    Remember Troy was once considered as real as Hogworts would be considered today.. until it was proven to be real in the late 1800's


    I could only repeat myself.

    @Risico007, you seem always so eager to defend yourself. Have I attacked you? I thought my post was very neutral. I tried to sound reasonable rather than anti- anything. My post was about the fallacious nature of an argument. It wasn't a one-person referendum on ghosts...
  • Posts: 9,154
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I found the following statement on a rather playful yet dubious website as "proof" that ghosts exist:

    If ghosts weren’t real, it’s unlikely that so many ghost hunters and paranormal experts would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and attractions that are dedicated to ghosts.

    This is a very popular conclusion, albeit a fallacious one. After all, if the statement were true, the same thing would also apply to the many more people who don't believe in ghosts. Fact is, I could easily submit the following:

    "If ghosts were real, it's unlikely that so many non-believers and sceptics would even exist, not to mention the many TV shows, websites and books dedicated to refuting the existence of ghosts."

    A "look at the numbers!" argument isn't rock-solid at all. Let's say as many people believe that Donald Trump is a good thing for America as there are people who believe he is a bad thing for America. The case can be made for both that, just because there are so many of them, they must both be right. The contradiction becomes evident.

    Likewise, Christians could argue that, simply because there are so many of them, their faith in Jesus as the son of God isn't misplaced. Jews and Muslims do not, however, see Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, and there are many of them too. So either both are right, which is impossible, or the "numbers" argument doesn't hold up.

    Furthermore, people have spent ages being absolutely sure that the Earth is flat. All those people, all those centuries, everywhere... surely they cannot have been wrong! Well, we now know they were. People can be wrong; many people can be wrong; "all those people", surely, can still be... well, wrong.

    Lastly, the initial statement from that website contains the word "unlikely", which weakens their "hard proof". I'm not unsympathetic towards that, though, as scientists do the same, often, wisely and in doing so acknowledging the fact that future observations may yet reveal things we don't yet know. For example: it's highly unlikely that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated in the sense that we have never observed such a thing (and not for a lack of trying) but perhaps not every single option has been exhausted just yet. So whenever we use "(un)likely", we state something with a caveat. And that means the authors of the website on ghosts are also not quite sure.

    I don't believe in ghosts, but I admit that the number of people either believing or not believing is not a waterproof argument to back up any statement regarding ghosts. In essence, we are all, believers as well as non-believers, agnostics. We just don't know. No matter how many of us there are, we don't know whether ghosts exist or don't. Even if over 7 billion people believed in ghosts (or not), they'd still not know. ;-)


    Again you say there is no reason to scientifically research this my question is why? to quote George Harrison "isn't the most important question Why do we die and what happens after?"

    No disrespect, @Risico007, but I often have the feeling that we're not sharing the same discussion. Please re-read my previous post. It is entirely devoted to the Ad Populum argument as a logical fallacy. There is nothing in my post, absolutely nothing that says we have no reason for scientific research. Such a thing is neither explicitly stated, nor implied. I fail to see where you're getting that from. That's a discussion we've had in an entirely different thread.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I have gone over this many times but for why I believe the evidence just is what it is and before people claim "well you were just indoctrinated as a child" My father died at 7 and I spent the next 23 years researching everything from Atheism to Wiccan and beyond... and the case for Christ is quite compelling because it all comes down to the empty tomb.

    I have heard very argument against the empty tomb. All of them

    Some of my personal favorites are
    The Disciples took the body... except they were all tortured for their faith for what reason?
    The disciples hallucinated Jesus... except that doesn't explain Thomas, Paul James etc.. Also Hallucination doesn't exactly work that way.. also the Romans can just show the body and kill Christianity right there
    They got the wrong tomb.. again Romans can drag the body and destroy christianity
    there was a huge gap between the death and the myth of resurrection.. not really the written versions or at most 60 years after Christ's resurrection but more likely 30 -40 years.

    See? This is my point. How and where in my previous post did I encourage this? This is all very interesting and certainly something we can talk about, but it feels like you posted this in defence to something I wrote. What has any of this to do with the argument that appeals to popularity?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Like I said you don't believe fine. I do...

    You think there is no reason for Scientific investigation that's cool... I do...

    I prefer when skeptics get down and dirty with the legends.. Spend nights in supposed haunted houses research ufo sightings talk with people... I dislike the arm chair historians


    Again legends are fun but at certain point I want proof I am a Historian its not enough to her a story for me I want to know who what why when where and see the evidence.


    Remember Troy was once considered as real as Hogworts would be considered today.. until it was proven to be real in the late 1800's


    I could only repeat myself.

    @Risico007, you seem always so eager to defend yourself. Have I attacked you? I thought my post was very neutral. I tried to sound reasonable rather than anti- anything. My post was about the fallacious nature of an argument. It wasn't a one-person referendum on ghosts...

    No I don't feel attacked sorry if it came across that way.. .

    all is well sorry if I misunderstood you
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
    An 1872 description of President Lincoln's phantom funeral train:

    https://mysteriouschicago.com/lincolns-phantom-funeral-train-described-in-1872/
  • Posts: 13,656
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    An 1872 description of President Lincoln's phantom funeral train:

    https://mysteriouschicago.com/lincolns-phantom-funeral-train-described-in-1872/
    That was a while after the alleged facts.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2021 Posts: 15,405
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    An 1872 description of President Lincoln's phantom funeral train:

    https://mysteriouschicago.com/lincolns-phantom-funeral-train-described-in-1872/
    That was a while after the alleged facts.

    Yes, and it reads like it's been embellished with time as the article itself says. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and the ghost train was first seen a year later in 1866. This story was recounted in 1872 so six years had passed since the ghost train was first seen although the train was said to haunt the track every April after the assassination. I remember reading about the Lincoln ghost train complete with skeletons in a book about ghosts years ago so I decided to look it up online.
  • Posts: 13,656
    Was it that book? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49573218-all-about-ghosts

    Often traumatic public events (9/11, the assasination of JFK, the death of Marilyn Monroe) lead to the creation of urban legends, obviously not always involving ghosts. So I would take that one about the ghost train with a barrel of salt.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2021 Posts: 15,405
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Was it that book? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49573218-all-about-ghosts

    Often traumatic public events (9/11, the assasination of JFK, the death of Marilyn Monroe) lead to the creation of urban legends, obviously not always involving ghosts. So I would take that one about the ghost train with a barrel of salt.

    No, it was this book, The World's Greatest Ghosts, by Nigel Blundell and Roger Boar:

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/197646.The_World_s_Greatest_Ghosts#

    It had this older cover:

    9780706421354-uk.jpg

    It was originally published by Octopus Books as part of a series under the same initial title of The World's Greatest... and my older brother had bought a few of them in the late 1980s so that was my first exposure to ghosts in the mid-1990s along with shows like Strange but True on ITV. I think those Octopus Books series were quite famous at the time and have been republished in new editions right up until more recent times.
  • Posts: 13,656
    Can't beat good old Usborne's World of the Unknown series, but kudos for the sensationalist cover.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2021 Posts: 15,405
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Can't beat good old Usborne's World of the Unknown series, but kudos for the sensationalist cover.

    Those Octopus Books are the type of mass produced thing you see everywhere from discount bookshops to charity book tables in supermarkets and secondhand bookshops. I've picked up a few copies of it cheaply in different covers and layouts over the years. I think the first edition of the book dates from 1984.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited October 2021 Posts: 15,405
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,387
    QBranch wrote: »
    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg


    I cannot for the life of me find a face in that window.
  • mattjoesmattjoes What is the BUDANAYCHUR?
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,172
    QBranch wrote: »
    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg


    I cannot for the life of me find a face in that window.

    I believe he means this: look at the 5 in the license plate. From that point, go straight upwards in the photo, until you reach the windshield. There is a face there, mouth open.

    Edit: And look at the full-sized image.
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg


    I cannot for the life of me find a face in that window.

    I believe he means this: look at the 5 in the license plate. From that point, go straight upwards in the photo, until you reach the windshield. There is a face there, mouth open.

    Edit: And look at the full-sized image.

    That's probably why! I was looking in the door window on the left side of the picture. I had actually just started to see something there just next to Craig's hip that looks kind of like a shadowed goblin face with a big chin and a bulbous nose looking in his direction.

    Directly up from the "5," I can see half of a smiling face looking into the car, but the mouth is closed.

    There's also the obvious one on Daniel Craig's body.

    I think you can find faces everywhere. If you're looking for them. ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
    As it's Halloween once again:


  • Posts: 9,154
    I do and I wish I didn’t
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,651
    Evidently, I can't since, well, ghosts obviously don't exist (duh!), but I certainly wish I could believe in them. Would make things much more exciting. ;-)
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 595
    QBranch wrote: »
    Creepy face next to the Aston Martin from NTTD, peeking through the left window:
    51031306457_a0bfd354c3_o.jpg


    I cannot for the life of me find a face in that window.

    Yeah it's tricky to spot. I believe the 'face' in question is on the right of the picture as you look at it almost directly above the number 5 in the licence plate.
    It's a distortion of the tree in the back ground, a reflection of someone near by or just a random shape of nothingness that resembles a face in my very humble opinion. The human brain is almost pre programmed from birth to make out faces, it doesn't take much of anything to be able to make a face out of it. Just look at the sky on a cloudy day, you'll spot the face of a 'ghost' in seconds.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 595
    The flaming hand from LTK is cool though.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
    cwl007 wrote: »
    The flaming hand from LTK is cool though.

    Yes, that one would be perfect for a place in the Fortean Times's "Simulacra Corner" monthly feature.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 214
    I love paranormal things.

    The field is littered with charlatans and professional bullcrap artists.

    But yes, there are thing that go bump in the night.

    You don't need fancy infra-red and scientific equipment....if your dog or cat suddenly gets agitated and seems to be tracking something moving across the room...or running from it....you have issues....
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
    Haunted Britain, (Channel 5, 2000):

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger @!#¤%^§
    Posts: 43,594
    wumo5825bd6ce679f3.76814577.png
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,405
    wumo5825bd6ce679f3.76814577.png

    Sounds like one for the lawyers to get a hold of. They'd have a field day with that!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger @!#¤%^§
    Posts: 43,594
    ed5264abdbfd9eeae0971238885a896c.gif
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited May 12 Posts: 15,405
    Virgin Mary Apparition in Wexford, Ireland [1971]:

Sign In or Register to comment.