Do You Believe in Ghosts?

[PararealitySaint]

What is the definition of a ghost? There seems to be a Heinz 57 of them. Seen, unseen, bad and the Casper type. Those that repeat the same action and those that seem to have a freewill. Is there more than one variety? And if so, why?

While I'm at it, if a guy that plays the guitar is a guitarist. But what do you call a guy that plays the banjo? . . . . Wait. . . . Never mind . . . . I remember now. It's inbred.

ghost (g

st)n.1. The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.
2. The center of spiritual life; the soul.
3. A demon or spirit.
4. A returning or haunting memory or image.
5. a. A slight or faint trace: just a ghost of a smile.
b. The tiniest bit: not a ghost of a chance.

6. A faint, false image, as:a. A secondary image on a television or radar screen caused by reflected waves.
b. A displaced image in a photograph caused by the optical system of the camera.
c. A false spectral line caused by imperfections in the diffraction grating.
d. A displaced image in a mirror caused by reflection from the front of the glass.

7. Informal A ghostwriter.
8. a. A nonexistent publication listed in bibliographies.
b. A fictitious employee or business.

9. Physiology A red blood cell having no hemoglobin.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think the belief that ghosts are the spirits of the dead is as presumptuous as attributing UFOs to extraterrestrials. People have a strange experience and then attribute things to the experience like "that was an alien" or "that was the spirit of a dead person" or "that was a god or goddess" that they could not possible know or even guess at.

I prefer the word apparition to that of ghost.

Apparition: an unusual or unexpected sight : phenomenon

Do I believe in ghosts? No.

Do I believe in apparitions? Yes. People see strange things.

 

[PararealitySaint]

I think the belief that ghosts are the spirits of the dead is as presumptuous as attributing UFOs to extraterrestrials. People have a strange experience and then attribute things to the experience like "that was an alien" or "that was the spirit of a dead person" or "that was a god or goddess" that they could not possible know or even guess at.

I prefer the word apparition to that of ghost.

Apparition: an unusual or unexpected sight : phenomenon

Do I believe in ghosts? No.

Do I believe in apparitions? Yes. People see strange things.

Hey Don't shoot the messenger....The definition I stated came from the Webster's Dictionary. I never said I agreed with it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I think the belief that ghosts are the spirits of the dead is as presumptuous as attributing UFOs to extraterrestrials.

I don't know about that. People routinely report seeing or encountering the ghost/spirits of their dead relatives or friends. They at least know or can "identify" who they are looking at. UFOs could be anything hence being "unidentified". Not a good example, i think.

 

[trainedobserver]

People routinely report seeing or encountering the ghost/spirits of their dead relatives or friends. They at least know or can "identify" who they are looking at.

Just because someone thinks that they have seen "the ghost of aunt Martha" it doesn't make it so. To experience an apparition or any other paranormal or anomalous event doesn't mean you know what it actually was regardless of what it might appear or professes to be.

B.T.W. my new avatar is a crop of Scott Crownover's 2006 Devil's Den infrared ghost photograph.

 

[tyder001]

Just because someone thinks that they have seen "the ghost of aunt Martha" it doesn't make it so.

Doesn't not make it so either.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Just because someone thinks that they have seen "the ghost of aunt Martha" it doesn't make it so.

Well it doesn't make it "not so" either.
An associate of mine told me of a daytime visit from his long dead mother. She appeared to him as solid and corporeal as you or I. I questioned him as to his emotional state at the time, how tired he might have been, was he on any medication prescribed or otherwise. He told me that it occurred on his day off. He had gone to bed early the previous night and had a restful nights sleep and he was not taking any medication, legal or illegal.
He wasn't what i would call a true believer in the subject of ghosts or the paranormal although he had acknowledged the possibility of the existence of such in previous conversations. In fact he was the last person i would have expected to talk to me about such subjects. At first i thought it was a joke. That he may be playing a prank because he knew of my interest in the paranormal. But the more he spoke about the incident, the more i got the feeling that he was serious. In fact at times he became very emotional whilst relating what had happened.
According to him he had heard a knock at his front door, opened it to find his dead mother standing there. He said he nearly fell over in astonishment as she walked in through the door, sat down and proceeded to talk to him about his youngest brother. He said it was like talking to anyone of his other, living, family members. It had shocked him so much that he sought me out to talk to as he thought everyone else would think him crazy.
To this day i don't know what to make of the story. He was indeed sincere about it and i have no reason to disbelieve him. Was there some other explanation for why he had experienced what he did? Of course that is possible. Did the account happen exactly the way he said it did? Yes that is also possible.

Just because someone thinks that they have seen "the ghost of aunt Martha" it doesn't make it so. To experience an apparition or any other paranormal or anomalous event doesn't mean you know what it actually was regardless of what it might appear or professes to be.

Yes you are right, and entitled to think that way of course. But that is only one possible explanation. It could also be the spirit or "ghost of aunt martha". Just because you say that it must be something else or how do they really know what they were seeing doesn't mean you should discount the fact that ghosts or spirits may be able to interact with the living in some way. Your explanation doesn't preclude the possibility that they exist in the way people observe, interact with or perceive them.
I think to assign any explanation to that phenomena is fraught with danger. In that fact i agree with you.

---------- Post added at 02:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 AM ----------

Doesn't not make it so either.

Lol, you beat me to it!

 

[trainedobserver]

My point, which I don't seem to be getting across is just this. Where does our understanding about what a "ghost" is come from? Is it not on par with what people claim to understand about "aliens" in particular say "The Grays?"

I agree that people see things that they have attributed to "the spirits of the dead" throughout history. Practically everyone knows someone that claims to have seen a ghost. It happens. What is it though? I am simply saying I don't believe that these things have been positively identified as spirits of dead human beings and I prefer the term apparition. What is so controversial or challenging about that? Sheesh.

 

[tyder001]

I don't find it contrver...uhhh, controver....uhhhh, challenging at all.

If a'h could spill ah'd bea a geenius.


Serioulsy, it's all good. I find life to be a journey and I'm trying not to take myself or others to seriously these days.

 

[PararealitySaint]

My point, which I don't seem to be getting across is just this. Where does our understanding about what a "ghost" is come from? Is it not on par with what people claim to understand about "aliens" in particular say "The Grays?"

I agree that people see things that they have attributed to "the spirits of the dead" throughout history. Practically everyone knows someone that claims to have seen a ghost. It happens. What is it though? I am simply saying I don't believe that these things have been positively identified as spirits of dead human beings and I prefer the term apparition. What is so controversial or challenging about that? Sheesh.

There was a case I was on years ago where a man found himself in quite a bad situation. It came to be that a relative of his had died recently and he was very distraught about it. After a few days he began to see what he perceived of as an "apparition" of this relative, show up on the edge of his bed, just sitting there during the late hours of the evening.

Considering the "familiarity" he had with this relative all these years, and the fact that he was desperate to speak once again to her, he decided that night to attempt contact.

To make a long story short, at first it looked as though he finally found a way to suffice his loss and his sadness.....unfortunately for him, the moment this "demon" gained his confidence, he literally had a "heck" of a time living there, or happily for that matter.

The moral to the story is, things are not always as they seem.....or who they are for that matter.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

What is it though? I am simply saying I don't believe that these things have been positively identified as spirits of dead human beings and I prefer the term apparition. What is so controversial or challenging about that? Sheesh.

And thats ok Rick, i get that. I am certainly not trying to change your mind. I am simply pointing out whilst you can certainly say that they have not been positively identified as the spirits of dead humans, it may well be that they are. Nothing controversial or challenging about that at all
If you saw an "apparition" of one of your dead realtives standing before you saying "hi Rick, hows it hanging?", what would your best guess be about what it was?

My point, which I don't seem to be getting across is just this. Where does our understanding about what a "ghost" is come from?

From personal experience, personal interaction if you like. You can call them any thing you like, ghosts, apparitions, spectres, spooks etc. Different cultures attribute different names to them also. Most cultures don't have a problem with identifying ghost as spirits of the dead.
I think that there may be a wide range of explanations as to what a ghost is. Including that they may the spirits of deceased persons. It has been reported that some apparitions seem to be like a recording, a feedback loop of a person (or animal) who may have inhabited that particular building or site. Having no real life like attributes but more like a hologram.

---------- Post added at 05:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 AM ----------

To make a long story short, at first it looked as though he finally found a way to suffice his loss and his sadness.....unfortunately for him, the moment this "demon" gained his confidence, he literally had a "heck" of a time living there, or happily for that matter.

The moral to the story is, things are not always as they seem.....or who they are for that matter.

Yes. Demonic infestation or possession is an entirely different matter. Although it is said that spirits of the dead and Demons (if you truly believe that they exist) occupy the same space or dimension, for want of a better description.

 

[trainedobserver]

...the moment this "demon" gained his confidence, he literally had a "heck" of a time living there, or happily for that matter

But isn't the "demon" interpretation in the same boat as ETs or ghosts? The concepts behind demons, ghosts, and ETs are products of the human imagination, folklore, and superstition used to describe anomalous events the true nature of which can only be speculated on many cases. There are those who think they somehow know about invisible spirit realms or unseen alien worlds and dimensions and therefore can tell us about them but in all reality you must ask where does that information actually come from? The language we use to describe these things is important and shape our thinking. In my mind apparition acknowledges the presence of the phenomena and its undefinable nature rather than superimposing my or someone else's preconceived notions about it on the experience. In The UFO Phenomenon by John Michael Greer the author suggests that the UFO phenomena itself is best described as an apparition in most cases.

If you saw an "apparition" of one of your dead realtives standing before you saying "hi Rick, hows it hanging?", what would your best guess be about what it was?

I would not assume that either my perception or the apparition were telling me the truth. I know better than to believe everything I see, think, or am told. My first guess would be that I need to see a neurologist and damn quick.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Yes. Demonic infestation or possession is an entirely different matter. Although it is said that spirits of the dead and Demons (if you truly believe that they exist) occupy the same space or dimension, for want of a better description.

Hmmm....I'd be very interested in hearing where you heard that from. could you please point me in the direction of a manual, book, or anything by which I could take advantage of this information.

 

[trainedobserver]

Hmmm....I'd be very interested in hearing where you heard that from. could you please point me in the direction of a manual, book, or anything by which I could take advantage of this information.

For a small fee I will write you such a manual and include several illustrations, pseudo-scientific formula, and startling photographs (with notes and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) that will be just as valid as anything you think might be produced to back up such a notion. I'll even throw in a spooky mp3 recording to boot.

 

[stphrz]

On the subject of what we refer to as "ghosts" I think we are dealing with a real phenomenon. However, the notion that ghosts are the souls/spirits of the departed is somewhat repulsive to me.

If I believe there is something beyond after we die, I have to believe it something more amazing than mindlessly shuffling around a small area of this world, communicating with douchebag psychics and mediums.

I mean really.

 

[tyder001]

Off topic for a minute. But, is it just me (insert joke here) or has the forum been kind of slow the last couple of days?

 

[Hotkafka]

I wonder if believing in ghosts has anything to do with the phenom.

Having said that, I've met many a ghost, and some of them are stuck selling Uggs to teenage girls at malls, some are carrying on dead-end relationships yEArs after their kids have launched, and some are returning to school to receive high-priced MBA degrees. Ghosts are everywhere. Especially at Starbucks.

 

[PararealitySaint]

For a small fee I will write you such a manual and include several illustrations, pseudo-scientific formula, and startling photographs (with notes and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) that will be just as valid as anything you think might be produced to back up such a notion. I'll even throw in a spooky mp3 recording to boot.

Normally I wouldn’t do this but let’s face it; a double standard should never be allowed to rear its ugly face:

Double Standard: A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another.

In this case Trained, I don’t mean to direct this against you per say, but I do believe it is worth noting.

Some time back your favorite moderator “Angelo” insisted I shouldn’t utilize aggrandizement when it came to emphasizing my points. He stated it was necessary to be as authentic and factual as possible. This was in reaction to my observation that “thousands” of people were abducted throughout the world, most of them white, lower to middle class people. I was chastised by not a few in this and told I must list all the thousands in order to prove my case….

Well, here we see the same type of scenario, only with a ghostly twist, and I have yet to see the famed Angelo even giving a damn….

Why could that be you might wonder? Could it be because of bias instead of honest moderation?

Again trained, this is not directed to you and your reply to me, albeit sarcastic in noting how stupid it was of me to ask you in a nice way to prove what you stated, but it is to anyone else out there who thinks that it’s ok to be a hypocrite for the sake of side taking.

 

[trainedobserver]

Again trained, this is not directed to you and your reply to me, albeit sarcastic in noting how stupid it was of me to ask you in a nice way to prove what you stated, but it is to anyone else out there who thinks that it’s ok to be a hypocrite for the sake of side taking.

Good grief! What a bizarre twist. I'm afraid you aren't making a lot of sense to me here.

First of all, you asked me nothing in this thread. You asked another poster, Pair of Cats, to provide the manual describing the shared realm of demons and the dead. Please see your posting number 53 above. I responded that I could for a small fee provide you with a document as valid as anyone else might produce on the subject. Although I was humorous, I wasn't kidding, but making a rather serious point. Your interpretation of it as a personal attack on your intelligence is unintended and unfortunate.

Some time back your favorite moderator “Angelo” insisted I shouldn’t utilize aggrandizement when it came to emphasizing my points. He stated it was necessary to be as authentic and factual as possible. This was in reaction to my observation that “thousands” of people were abducted throughout the world, most of them white, lower to middle class people. I was chastised by not a few in this and told I must list all the thousands in order to prove my case….

Honestly now. Are you really trying to make this about me asking what research you were referring to? You made the following statement:

Yes, but having to delve deeply into searching for the few cases with Minorities, versus the sincere ability to pick thousands upon thousands of cases involving middle to upper class Caucasians is exactly the point we raised.

To which I asked a simple and direct question:

What study are you looking at with these "thousands upon thousands of cases?" Where are you getting your data from?

I honestly wanted to know where this "sincere ability to pick thousands upon thousands of cases involving middle to upper class Caucasians" was based on. Where did that information wind up coming from according to you? The Internet, isn't that correct? No one asked you to list all the thousands as you put it, just the study, just where you were getting your data from.

You are the one who felt a need to list several cases you apparently Googled in response to my request. At least one of those was a known hoax. I just wanted to understand what research if any that number came from. I am puzzled as to how you can misunderstand and blow out of proportion a simple request for your sources like that. That the study was your own research and that you believe that the thousands and thousands of cases can be found on the Internet would have been more truthful and straight forward answer wouldn't it? I thought you might cite a book or paper by someone like Jacobs or Mack and was surprised by your response.

Now, you are going to have to get Pair of Cats to actually tell you whatever it is he is actually talking about. Honestly, I'd be interested in the source of that information as well.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Good grief! What a bizarre twist. I'm afraid you aren't making a lot of sense to me here.

LOL! And to think it was a simple request that I made for "Pair" to enlighten me to the place in this vast array of paranormal/theological knowledge just where its known..... this understanding of the afterlife to be the case.

Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. The clear point here, and sorry if it is so above your head, is that according to your standards of discussion, anyone who actually allows for abstract (aggrandized or perhaps not able to be proven with one hypertext link or single article) answering to any point, whether they be pro or con, should do so with only a factual basis as the predominance of thought. To actually look to corner my original writing with questions as to how I came up with thousands and thousands, but not to jump on the supposed fact given here about the dead or undead or never living, is something I pray you just overlooked...because if not, then bias is a bitch kitty and you my friend like to meow (no pun intended )

First of all, you asked me nothing in this thread. You asked another poster, Pair of Cats, to provide the manual describing the shared realm of demons and the dead. Please see your posting number 53 above. I responded that I could for a small fee provide you with a document as valid as anyone else might produce on the subject. Although I was houmous, I wasn't kidding, but making a rather serious point. Your interpretation of it as a personal attack on your intelligence is unintended and unfortunate.

A. My direction with your reply in mind was done on purpose, basically to show the hypocrisy in it's truest form. To not have responded to "Pair" with the same deep seated and overtly aggressive manner, and this after his obviously unprovable comment, which anyone in the field knows is even more stretched than even my true, "thousands" response, was sadly misplaced.

B. To have responded in the fashion in which you did, and that in many respects could have easily been construed as making fun of my response to "Pair", is something even a brief observer could have taken as sarcastic and directly pointed as an insult to yours truly. Then again, it could have just as easily been a jest and agreeable to my point all along. After your background on this forum I took it as the former and thus my use of your words (as quoted) in my last reply.

Honestly now. Are you really trying to make this about me asking what research you were referring to? You made the following statement:

I am not "trying" to do anything. The fact remains that you were so all fired up to harangue and hold my statement to the coals, but ohhhh so politely looked to use some farcical retort when your friend "Pair" decided to make his latest FUBAR. This bodes badly for a someone with a fair sense about him wouldn't you say?

To which I asked a simple and direct question:

I honestly wanted to know where this "sincere ability to pick thousands upon thousands of cases involving middle to upper class Caucasians" was based on. Where did that information wind up coming from according to you? The Internet, isn't that correct? No one asked you to list all the thousands as you put it, just the study, just where you were getting your data from.

And my initial response to you wasn't to your liking, even though it showed a few hundred cases about three minutes after you posted your response. You know damn spankin' well that there have been thousands upon thousands of abduction cases (of Caucasian middle and lower class human beings) on this planet, yet you had to have a list of every one so you could eventually lose the point anyway; and this setup held forth by of all things, "a Moderator"....Someone who shouldn't be so lax in his usage of the privilege in showing such a bias in the first place. But then again, what else is to be expected by today's generation of authority.

You are the one who felt a need to list several cases you apparently Googled in response to my request. At least one of those was a known hoax. I just wanted to understand what research if any that number came from. I am puzzled as to how you can misunderstand and blow out of proportion a simple request for your sources like that. That the study was your own research and that you believe that the thousands and thousands of cases can be found on the Internet would have been more truthful and straight forward answer wouldn't it? I thought you might cite a book or paper by someone like Jacobs or Mack and was surprised by your response.

1. I wouldn't use "GOOGLE" if my life depended on it. The only search engine worth a damn is IXQUICK and honestly, I didn't have to look long...three minutes remember. And you know what, case after case after case after case were all White, middle to lower class human beings just like I said they would be....and you know what????? Not one of them other than Barney the, "I can't get that 50's sci-fi movie out of my head while under hypnosis" Hill was of a minority background.

2. Why is it that I must repeat myself over and over again to you! How many times must I state that the "hoax" as you state, was actually PURPOSELY PLACED ON THE RESPONSE TO YOU because it was A CASE....The point if you remember, wasn't whether or not they were genuine....JUST THAT THEY WHERE! Please let that finally sink in.

3. Again you misrepresent the point in terms of my supposedly stating "my research"....Those sites which I quoted I must have known very well....probably because I was able to find them within the 3 minutes it took me to respond to your reply. If I was to spend the better half of a day reviewing the books I have read, the research papers I have done, the sites I have visited, the people I have spoken with, the documentaries I have watched, etc. etc. I probably could come up with 10s of thousands....SO WHAT! The point still remains there were thousands and there still remains thousands no matter how many times you wish to bring up the same crap to waste time.

4. Siting books? Are you kidding me? Do you really want to dance this jig with me? I have a library of books on the subject my friend, and I don't think you know just what you are getting into here when you commit that little jibe in the context of inferring how I might have been more educated in the area if I only quoted authors. Perhaps you should look at your knowledge on the subject and why it is that you had no idea there were thousands of cases in the past on abductions and why they seem to happen to White middle to lower class human beings. That's where you should place the time you seem to rather waste in critiquing others.

Now, you are going to have to get Pair of Cats to actually tell you whatever it is he is actually talking about. Honestly, I'd be interested in the source of that information as well.

You and everyone else on the planet because of the impossibility of the answer.