True story of ghost experience

[zoobyshoe]

BTW zoobyshoe, people with synesthesia do have abnormal psychology by definition because synesthesia is rare.

They are abnormal neurologically, it's a relatively rare neurological condition, but there's no automatic conclusion to be drawn about their psychology from that, any more than you could draw a psychological conclusion about all colorblind people.

 

[DocZaius]

Couple points:

1. I will add myself to the list of people who have had a clear auditory hallucination while being perfectly sane. However the couple of times this has happened, it was associated with sleep paralysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

Auditory hallucinations are strongly associated with sleep paralysis. I would also hear my name being called, clear as a bell. Now unlike the other claims here, it was clear to me that I was experiencing something related to my brain (rather than possibly being a ghost) because of the sleep paralysis. This wasn't a dream by the way. I could look at my room but simply could not move for what seemed like a very long time, then was able to move and checked outside my door to make sure no one had actually called me (by some coincidence with my sleep paralysis). Of course no-one had. But I can attest to the creepiness that comes with hearing a clear voice that was never uttered.

2. If someone lives in a house that has as many paranormal phenomena associated with it as rockhouse's house does, why not try to record it with video or audio? It seems like a win-win situation.

If you do record it, then you receive full validation for your claims and help science with evidence that must be investigated further. If you do not record it but do experience things, you know that it comes from your brain, and if it continues long enough you will know to medically investigate what is responsible for all the hallucinations (which is a good thing for your health!).

Now, if the ghosts chose not to come out when there is recording going on, then that seems like a good anti-ghost device! I suppose another possibility is that you do hear things that the recordings don't pick up and claim that the ghost is communicating straight to your brain. In that case, I am not entirely sure how distinguishable that would be from having a physiological/psychological disorder.

 

[rockhouse]

I expected all of these responses, after all it's the skeptic and debunking forum.
When you take ALL the experiences, independently of one another, there is something "paranormal" that went/goes on at that site. Like i said, maybe someday technology will explain what these anomalies are, or maybe not...but one things for sure, they were not hallucinations...i'd bet my life on it...literally.
Oh and BTW, not everyone experienced these things. One of my cousins wanted to see/hear something in the house SO bad, but never did. He lived with us for a few months and never even heard a peep, and yet others who knew nothing of the stories would visit and hear all sorts of unexplainable things. It was really a hit-or-miss type of thing...but when it hit, it would scare the crap outta you cause it was real and no reason could be found for it.
Anyway, carry on.

 

[rockhouse]

Anybody know anything about the HAARP project blue beam? What's up with that thing? Is it real?

 

[DaveC426913]

When you take ALL the experiences, independently of one another, there is something "paranormal" that went/goes on at that site.

But there is a perfectly valid and highly plausible explanation: human beings are very well-known poor sensors and recorders.

How can you even begin to look for an alternate explanation until you have somehow ruled out this highly confounding factor - you have no baseline for the reliable sensing and recording of events by humans.

I'm not trying to suggest there is no alternate explanation - I'm saying your search for it is stillborn.


It's be like looking for cosmic gravity waves in a laboratory situated on the San Andreas fault line. You're showing me charts rife with squiggles and wondering why I'm suspicious of your evidence.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I expected all of these responses, after all it's the skeptic and debunking forum.
When you take ALL the experiences, independently of one another, there is something "paranormal" that went/goes on at that site. Like i said, maybe someday technology will explain what these anomalies are, or maybe not...but one things for sure, they were not hallucinations...i'd bet my life on it...literally.

Usually when I talk with someone who says they've seen a ghost, they're fixed on the fact that it was a ghost. I can't provide any explanation other than ghost, or else it's immediately shot down by a reason why my explanation can't be it.
I don't bother trying to explain it anymore, so since I'm not the type of person to flat out call somebody a liar, I just act like I believe them: "Really? That's crazy."

You've stated that it's "unexplainable" several times, indicating that you don't want to accept any explanation, since you've already concluded there are none.

 

[DaveC426913]

Usually when I talk with someone who says they've seen a ghost, they're fixed on the fact that it was a ghost. I can't provide any explanation other than ghost, or else it's immediately shot down by a reason why my explanation can't be it.
I don't bother trying to explain it anymore, so since I'm not the type of person to flat out call somebody a liar, I just act like I believe them: "Really? That's crazy."

You've stated that it's "unexplainable" several times, indicating that you don't want to accept any explanation, since you've already concluded there are none.

I agree. Sometimes people must believe it's supernatural.

But now that you put it that way, it makes me see the issue in a different light (that, and I have a compulsion to be contrariwise...):

I'd have strong experiences that afterwards I've tried to communicate to other people (not paranormal, I just mean, something like a row with stranger, or a powerful dream or etc.). I find people listen only long enough to find the first pidgeon-hole they can slot my experience in to. ("Oh that, it's just a X").

Over the years, I have come to realize that as long as long as they continue to respond this way, I feel I have not been "heard". I cannot change tacks until I feel I have been.

What I really, really am looking for is for my audience to just hear me first - to take it at face value. To just say "Huh, that is hard to explain. You definitely had a very strange experience there." (Period.). To acknowledge that, just for this moment, this is my story; not merely a chance for them to flex their ego.

Then, once I'm acknowledged, I'm happy to begin exploring options.

This has become an important insight I keep in mind when discussing others' personal experiences and convictions.

 

[DocZaius]

I am still curious why all those experiencing frequent, consistent and blatant supernatural phenomena such as the one in this case aren't positively excited at the opportunity to advance science by introducing evidence that is hitherto unexplained.

I really am genuinely asking rockhouse why he didn't install a sound recorder next to his side of the bed after he heard his name twice, so that he could positively have proof, if only for himself, so that he can confirm it was a ghost. In other words, even if he was cynical and thought that no one else would believe him, wouldn't he want to dispel all possibilities of this being a hallucination by having his name being said by a ghost on tape? I would personally be worried that I was going crazy in his case, and would try my best to gather evidence to see if I am.

I realize the above might sound like I am being sarcastic, but I assure you that I am not and am curious on his attitude towards this suggestion. Rockhouse, if you simply hadn't even thought about setting a recorder up, I understand that too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am still curious why all those experiencing frequent, consistent and blatant supernatural phenomena such as the one in this case aren't positively excited at the opportunity to advance science by introducing evidence that is hitherto unexplained.

There are many thousands if not millions [by now] of photos, and video and audio recordings of alleged ghosts. People claim to measure inexplicable EM disturbances, temperature changes, and even "EVPs" - electronic voice phenomena that can only be heard on recordings. You can see it on TV. You can Google on the net. There is tons of the stuff. The problem is that no such evidence is acceptable. Why? The geological community accepted barely more than a few photos as proof of earthquake lights. A handful of photos of ball lightning established the existence of that phenomenon. However, as is often referenced here, when it comes to extraordinary claims, we require extraordinary evidence. So in a way the scientific community has pulled a fast one. I have yet to be given one example of ANY evidence for "ghosts" that could meet the criteria for being scientific evidence, or at least evidence respectable enough to be published, even if they [ghosts] exist. When a phenomenon is rare, transient, and random, it can be extremely difficult to obtain evidence. Beyond catching Casper in a trap or finding a ghost that responds to commands on queue, I can't think of any evidence for real ghosts [whatever that might mean, if anythying] that would suffice.

I am sure that if the scientific community would set the standards for acceptable videographic evidence, for example, they would find many thousands of ghost hunters trying to meet the standard.

Ironically, it is conceivable that some "ghost" claims are not be extraordinary claims - we assume that they are by imposing the label, "supernatural". Perhaps some claims only seem extraordinary because we can't make sense of things; but we have no way to know that.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am sure that if the scientific community would set the standards for acceptable videographic evidence, for example, they would find many thousands of ghost hunters trying to meet the standard.

If the problem is merely about setting the standards, then there should be a range of quality out there, including some that are high-quality.

Are there any exemplars that come up to the standard and leap like a gazelle right over it? That are blatant and virtually incontrovertible?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the problem is merely about setting the standards, then there should be a range of quality out there, including some that are high-quality.

Are there any exemplars that come up to the standard and leap like a gazelle right over it? That are blatant and virtually incontrovertible?

That is the problem. Even if some videos are authentic, there is no way to prove it. Sure, there are many examples that come to mind of seemingly impressive videos. If you can stand it, watch a season or two of the Ghost Hunters. I have seen quite a few videos that would be impressive if known to be authentic. It is tough to take though: The technical babble is thick, absurd at times, but possibly innocent naivety. Are these videos all staged? Make any assumptions that you wish but we have no way to know. The fact is that even Government agencies like the US Coast Guard, and the Navy, have called them in. They did so because of the seeming credibility of their own reports. So when the "Ghost Hunters" do produce alleged evidence, it often seems to confirm the original claims. To their credit, they also debunk many claims by finding reasonable explanations for the reports. Unfortunately, even some of these explanations are peppered or buried in pseudoscience.

The bottom line is this: At what point would a publication like Nature, or Science, include this sort of evidence in a publication? What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would they publish?

 

[GeorginaS]

I'd have strong experiences that afterwards I've tried to communicate to other people (not paranormal, I just mean, something like a row with stranger, or a powerful dream or etc.). I find people listen only long enough to find the first pidgeon-hole they can slot my experience in to. ("Oh that, it's just a X").

Over the years, I have come to realize that as long as long as they continue to respond this way, I feel I have not been "heard". I cannot change tacks until I feel I have been.

What I really, really am looking for is for my audience to just hear me first - to take it at face value. To just say "Huh, that is hard to explain. You definitely had a very strange experience there." (Period.). To acknowledge that, just for this moment, this is my story; not merely a chance for them to flex their ego.

Then, once I'm acknowledged, I'm happy to begin exploring options.

This has become an important insight I keep in mind when discussing others' personal experiences and convictions.

Yes! I agree with this entirely. First and foremost, listeners should nod. As in, bounce their head up and down and let me know that they've listened to me and heard what I've had to say. Then jump in with your ideas but always, always, nod first. Acknowledgement. It's huge.

And the Internet is a terrible place for people not nodding. All sorts of arguments and misunderstandings arise from that.

Sorry to derail this thread a bit, but I wanted to say, yes, Dave, absolutely.

 

[DocZaius]

Just to clarify my request to rockhouse a bit...Ivan Seeking I agree with your assessment about the standards for evidence when it comes to the scientific community having been set so high as to be quasi impossible to meet. So it makes sense that someone would be wary of trying to gather evidence for science.

But I am still always surprised when stories of people who experience things as frequent and blatant as what rockhouse did, do not (as often as I think human nature dictates they should) include a part where they say "and so to decide if I had gone insane or not, I decided to setup a recorder and prove, if only to myself, that these things were really happening." I would be so terrified about such occurrences as a ghost whispering my name in my ear that merely the prospect of chasing them away by trying to record them would be worth it.

I just don't understand how people can have been 100% convinced they have one or more ghosts running around their house and simply shrug and say "well, looks like we got a ghost!" To me that seems like situation-control time, not shrugging time. When you are as sure as rockhouse obviously is that your house is haunted, doesn't your safety become an issue? Aren't you afraid that the spectre of a little girl in victorian clothes prancing her way to the kitchen singing "lalala" will prance her way back with a knife in her hand?

Again I know based on the video footage that's out there that many do record (or many fake recordings, or record things that end up not being ghosts) My question is directed at those who do not attempt recordings, or shrug their way through hauntings.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just don't understand how people can have been 100% convinced they have one or more ghosts running around their house and simply shrug and say "well, looks like we got a ghost!"

I guess not everyone is afraid of ghosts.

 

[DocZaius]

I guess not everyone is afraid of ghosts.

But (putting aside the creepy factor) aren't they, by their inherent unpredictability and (much more often than not) strong associations with negative events and feelings, an obvious safety hazard?

Aside from Occam's Razor, here's the main reason why I have trouble believing people who tell stories with blatant, and unambiguous ghosts: They are the same people who will take normal human nature safety precautions, such as telling their children to clear the toys out of the way because someone might trip on that, or will make sure to fasten the dresser to the wall in case of an earthquake. Yet an explicit apparition by an often malevolent ghost doesn't register on their safety checklist. It seems very inconsistant with their normal lives in regards to safety.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I just don't understand how people can have been 100% convinced they have one or more ghosts running around their house and simply shrug and say "well, looks like we got a ghost!"

I think of this every time someone casually tells me they saw a ghost.
If the same thing happened to me, it would turn my world upside down and change my life forever.
Some people not only see ghosts, but talk with them or even have physical contact with them, yet seem unphased. It's so farfetched.

 

[GeorginaS]

But (putting aside the creepy factor) aren't they, by their inherent unpredictability and (much more often than not) strong associations with negative events and feelings, an obvious safety hazard?

Is it possible that there is a strong assertion with negative events and ghosts because that's the story? That's the folklore? This reminds me of the straight-faced discussion we had on the General Board about whether or not you could kill a zombie by tasering it. We had to compare older movie versions of zombies to newer ones, and argued various zombie qualities that would or would not allow that to be effective on them. We all had a surprising amount of information about zombies and their physical qualities, when and where you'd find them, and etc. People here are really well versed in zombie lore. That doesn't, therefore, mean they're real or that the ideas surrounding them are valid. It simply means that we're versed on the stories. Drawing a parallel, then, people having "strong associations with negative events and feelings, an obvious safety hazard" with ghosts doesn't in any way support the existence of them or constitute proof that when people experience negative events that ghosts are involved. It simply means that people are versed in the lore.

Aside from Occam's Razor, here's the main reason why I have trouble believing people who tell stories with blatant, and unambiguous ghosts: They are the same people who will take normal human nature safety precautions, such as telling their children to clear the toys out of the way because someone might trip on that, or will make sure to fasten the dresser to the wall in case of an earthquake. Yet an explicit apparition by an often malevolent ghost doesn't register on their safety checklist. It seems very inconsistant with their normal lives in regards to safety.

Emphasis mine. Do you have any statistical evidence, anything that supports that assertion?

 

[DocZaius]

Is it possible that there is a strong assertion with negative events and ghosts because that's the story? That's the folklore? This reminds me of the straight-faced discussion we had on the General Board about whether or not you could kill a zombie by tasering it. We had to compare older movie versions of zombies to newer ones, and argued various zombie qualities that would or would not allow that to be effective on them. We all had a surprising amount of information about zombies and their physical qualities, when and where you'd find them, and etc. People here are really well versed in zombie lore. That doesn't, therefore, mean they're real or that the ideas surrounding them are valid. It simply means that we're versed on the stories. Drawing a parallel, then, people having "strong associations with negative events and feelings, an obvious safety hazard" with ghosts doesn't in any way support the existence of them or constitute proof that when people experience negative events that ghosts are involved. It simply means that people are versed in the lore.

I am simply commenting on the large majority of stories I have heard regarding blatant ghosts. You are assuming I am basing the negative association on my own knowledge of lore, but I am putting that aside and merely trying to analyze the explicit claims that I've heard, and noticing that the large majority of them recount ghosts with negative associations.

Now, I think that this is due to the knowledge of lore of the people telling the stories, but that's another matter. I am merely stating that in this case, it is not due to my knowledge of the lore.

And of course I agree with what seems to be your first paragraph's point; that the most likely reason why people report seeing ghosts is because something they didn't understand happened to them, and they are (often subconsciously) using their knowledge of lore to explain what that was. However I am trying my best to take their claims at face value.

Emphasis mine. Do you have any statistical evidence, anything that supports that assertion?

Every story that I've heard with blatant ghosts in them, have been told by people for which I would have no reason to believe that they would stray from normal safety behavior in a statistically significant way. I assert that people who report experiencing blatant ghosts are no different from a safety standpoint than people who do not. As such, the burden would be on you to show (if, for some reason, you wanted to make the case) that people reporting blatant ghosts are less safety conscious in other areas of their lives than people who do not.

Again, let me be clear that my point only concerns people who report blatant explicit undeniable apparitions, not those who feel their experience is slightly ambiguous.

Anyhow, I apologize for taking the thread slightly offtrack due to my quite specific (but I feel reasonable) point.

 

[rockhouse]

Well, at the time i was broke as hell and couldn't afford any video or audio recorders. My life was busy enough with being 20 and having an infant daughter, a broke down truck and a wife who was a superb***h.
After awhile we all got relatively used to the weird crap happening. Like putting something down on the table, turning around, and then it's at the other end of the table. After awhile you just kinda shrug your shoulders and live with it.
I'm pretty sure that i could have recorded/videoed it and people still wouldn't believe. There were about 15 people total that experienced the activity...not counting the people who work in the doc's office on top of the old site now that said they experience stuff too.
As much as skeptics say the "believers" have confirmation bias towards believing, the same could be said about the skeptics and their skepticism. All i know is that i DIDN'T believe in crazy crap like that until i lived it...and others who i know and trust lived it too. There was only one other place that was as crazy as my GG house...that place was a trip too. AH hell, i guess i'll go ahead and tell the tale...

 

[whome9]

"60 Minutes" did a piece where hotel guests saw and heard stuff that wasn't there. I doubt it was from carbon monoxide.

My 1980s Britannica has a picture of a ghost.
A man visits his mother's grave, he looks back at the car (circa 1930s) and sees his mother sitting in the car. He takes a photo. You can see right through her.

 

[rockhouse]

It was a 100 year old victorian style house in the middle of a 50 acre field in central texas.
My cousin and I got hired to remodel about 50% of the house. The owners wanted bathrooms moved, walls knocked down, windows moved, tile, trim, etc.
Anyway, it was indeed a spooky house, but we for some reason never even thought anything about it being "haunted" or anything...i think it's cause we were both constantly ready to punch the contractor over his inability to pay us on time...we were always too busy cussing and working our asses off.
The guy in charge named Kurt would drop by once or twice a day and drop off material and check on us...other than that we were all alone out there, way out it the country.
We had to plug our air compressor into the outlet in the houses kitchen, so the back door had to stay slightly ajar for our hoses to go through the door. Anyway, it all started about a week into the tear-out when we would hear the FM radio in the kitchen come on by itself. We always would think Kurt had shown up and was messin around with the radio, so we would go in there to see and there wouldn't be anyone around.
We never really thought much about it, i even told my because it was an old stereo and was prolly just weird like that.
Then it got to were the radio would turn on then turn up real loud. It was annoying more than anything, but we beagn to just jokingly say stuff in the kitchen like, "Ok, Ok, we get it! Yall like music. Now quit F'ng around with the stereo!"
The house had a long history. There were really old tin-style photos of various generations of the inhabitants throughout the house...those were creepy as hell too. So anyway, other things started happening...mainly like setting your hammer down RIGHT next to you, then turning back around and it's on the other side of the room. At first we both thought it was each other playin around but later it was obvious it wasn't us.
Atleast one of us used to get to the house right before sun-up to roll out the tools and plug in the compressor. One morning i pulled up and my because was already there and was standing by his car white as a sheet and with big eyes that were all watery.
I pulled up and was like, "dude, WTF's wrong with you?"
This is his story:
He got there about 20 minutes earlier and needed to take a dump. The Br's were outta commission so he grabbed a bucket and added a little water to it and headed over to the other side of the house. He was ALL ALONE out there as i was still 20 minutes away.
So he's sittin on his bucket smokin a cig with his back leaned against the outside of the house. All of a sudden he hears what sounds like a broom handle drop against the hardwood floor inside the house, (It's SUPER quiet out there so someone could fart upstairs and you could almost hear it outside if you were close enough to the house)
So he kinda perks up and listens harder at this point. He knew it wasn't me or Kurt cause he would've heard us drive up, (the dirt driveway was about 1/4 mile long).
So he's sitting on his bucket listening real close and he hears boot steps coming down the stairs inside the interior area of the house. At this point he's trying to finish his dump fast cause he's trippin out a little. After the steps sounded like they stopped at the bottom of the stairs he couldn't hear them anymore. So he's all perched up on his bucket, trying to wipe his butt and listening for anything else from deep inside the house were the stairs are at when all of a sudden he hears a loud coughing and clearing of the throat of an old man...right on IMMEDIATE OTHER SIDE of the wall to him!
He jumps up, pulls his britches up, and runs around the side of the house to his car as i pull up.
After he told me what happened we got brave and both stealthy surrounded the house from either side. We entered from different doors and searched the house but it was empty. When Kurt got there later we told him and he said he didn't like talkin about it. We were like, "about what?!" and he was like, "Tom the owner told me it was haunted by an oldman and woman from his family back in the day, and when i first came out here alone to measure up for materials, i kept hearing footsteps right behind me...thats why i don't like hangin out here during the day, this place freaks me out!"
So after this incident we asked Tom the owner and he said that they have been dealing with the noises and such for years and that occasionally someone will actually see the oldman or woman walking around the house as clear as day.
I sometimes wish i could find Tom's number and ask him if i could come back and try and record something.

 

[mugaliens]

But there is a perfectly valid and highly plausible explanation: human beings are very well-known poor sensors and recorders.

How can you even begin to look for an alternate explanation until you have somehow ruled out this highly confounding factor - you have no baseline for the reliable sensing and recording of events by humans.

I'm not trying to suggest there is no alternate explanation - I'm saying your search for it is stillborn.


It's be like looking for cosmic gravity waves in a laboratory situated on the San Andreas fault line. You're showing me charts rife with squiggles and wondering why I'm suspicious of your evidence.

Totally agreed! We're awesom at pattern recognition! The problem is, we're wrong about 95% of the time

 

[DaveC426913]

Totally agreed! We're awesom at pattern recognition! The problem is, we're wrong about 95% of the time

 

[ideasrule]

I'm pretty sure that i could have recorded/videoed it and people still wouldn't believe.

Try recording and videotaping. I want to see what's happening, even if the skeptics remain skeptical.

 

[GeorginaS]

Again, let me be clear that my point only concerns people who report blatant explicit undeniable apparitions, not those who feel their experience is slightly ambiguous.

Okay, but, what constitutes "blatant ghosts"? I don't understand. The supernatural has never been proven. There is no evidence to support that experiences people describe or recall is evidence of the paranormal. I also don't understand what an "undeniable apparition" is.

I'm sorry that you appear to have missed my comparison, or didn't catch the point of it, or something, when I talked about the zombie discussion on the General Board of this very site. The undeniable or obvious characteristics you're ascribing to ghosts is similar to the undeniable and obvious characteristics people can name to you (not "you" personally -- "you" in the generic "you" sense here, because you -- in the personal you -- appear to take issue with the use of that pronoun) as it pertains to zombies, werewolves, vampires, witches, ad infinitum. Saying that each has specific characteristics that everyone's familiar with does not prove anything in terms of the existence of such a thing. All that's demonstrated is that there's a common notion in a culture and/or everyone's heard the same stories. That's all we can be certain of; the content of the stories and the ascribed characteristics to various characters is consistent. There's no evidence of "blatant" or "undeniable" anythings.

 

[DocZaius]

Okay, but, what constitutes "blatant ghosts"? I don't understand. The supernatural has never been proven. There is no evidence to support that experiences people describe or recall is evidence of the paranormal. I also don't understand what an "undeniable apparition" is.

I'm sorry that you appear to have missed my comparison, or didn't catch the point of it, or something, when I talked about the zombie discussion on the General Board of this very site. The undeniable or obvious characteristics you're ascribing to ghosts is similar to the undeniable and obvious characteristics people can name to you (not "you" personally -- "you" in the generic "you" sense here, because you -- in the personal you -- appear to take issue with the use of that pronoun) as it pertains to zombies, werewolves, vampires, witches, ad infinitum. Saying that each has specific characteristics that everyone's familiar with does not prove anything in terms of the existence of such a thing. All that's demonstrated is that there's a common notion in a culture and/or everyone's heard the same stories. That's all we can be certain of; the content of the stories and the ascribed characteristics to various characters is consistent. There's no evidence of "blatant" or "undeniable" anythings.

Wow, we must be really talking past each other on this one. I'll try to be very clear because I am surprised you think I believe there's evidence for ghosts.

My personal opinion is that the likelihood that ghosts exist is astronomically, ridiculously low. Low enough to live my life as if they didn't exist. It is much more likely that a ghost story teller is mistaken, or hallucinating, or even lying. Now having said that, here's what I do when someone reports to me an experience where they encountered a ghost, and they are 100% sure it was a ghost. I can't tell them "the chances that you are lying to me, or were hallucinating are greater than the chances that you actually saw a ghost." The conversation ends there at best and the person is insulted at worst.

So what I do is I approach the situation with this attitude: "Assuming that what you are saying is true.."

And this is what I am doing in this case. Assuming that what rockhouse is saying is true and there is this ghost, "shouldn't you have done this, or wouldn't you have done that" etc... I think that you are picking up the parts where I am granting the story teller's ghost story for discussion's sake, and you are assuming I believe in ghosts.

Now the reason I bring up the "blatant" and "undeniable" adjectives is because that is important when I am granting the story teller's story. If they claim they saw something that might or might not be a ghost, there isn't much to talk about. But if they are making a claim that what they saw is impossible to be mistaken for anything else than a ghost, then my "shouldn't you have done this.." arguments are valid. Again, I don't think anything is undeniable. The "undeniable apparition" would be their claim.

Hope that clears up my stance!

PS: Why would I take issue with the "you" pronoun? I kinda like it...

 

[rockhouse]

Ok, let me flip the script...
What would you suspect if you were a healthy, 30 year old man with no history of mental illness, 100% sober on a bright sun-lit day, in a house where you set your hammer down on the floor, 1 foot from you, then take 1 measurement with your tape measure that takes about 10 seconds, turn around to grab your hammer from the floor but it's not where you saw yourself put it...it's actually sitting 10 feet from you on the otherside of the room, and you were the only one in said room during that time?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It was a 100 year old victorian style house in the middle of a 50 acre field in central texas...
...I sometimes wish i could find Tom's number and ask him if i could come back and try and record something.

Neurologist Oliver Sacks once broke his leg running in terror away from an hallucination. He was hiking up a mountain in Switzerland where there was known to be a feral bull which had attacked people. The path up the mountain was blocked by a gate and on the gate was a sign with a warning cartoon depicting a large bull flinging a person into the air with its horns. Sacks smiled at that, and put it out of his mind, thinking the danger of an encounter was slim. However, after a couple hours of hiking up the path...

"I had, indeed, just emerged from the mist, and was walking around a boulder as big as a house, the path curving around it so I could not see ahead, and it was this inability to see ahead which permitted The Meeting. I practically trod on what lay before me-an enormous animal sitting in the path, and indeed totally occupying the path, whose presence had been hidden by the rounded bulk of the rock. It had a huge horned head, a stupendous white body and an enormous mild, milk-white face. It sat unmoved by my appearance, exceedingly calm, except that it turned its vast white face up towards me. And in that moment it changed, before my eyes, becoming transformed from magnificent to utterly monstrous. The huge white face seemed to swell and swell, and the great bulbous eyes became radiant with malignance. The face grew huger and huger all the time, until I thought it would blot out the Universe. The bull became hideous, hideous beyond belief, hideous in strength, malevolence and cunning. It seemed now to be stamped with the infernal in every feature. It became first a monster, and now the Devil."

A Leg To Stand On
-Oliver Sacks
Harper Perennial, 1984, page 20

(The upshot was that he turned and ran so recklessly away that he tripped down an incline and suffered a massive injury to one leg.)

Startle, not to mention outright fear, can do an amazing number on your perceptions, and the point of quoting the Sacks story is to demonstrate that, and also that people don't exclusively hallucinate "ghost" experiences, they hallucinate all kinds of things spontaneously. Sack's bull was probably real, but its transformation before his eyes into a super bull monster certainly wasn't. He was primed to hallucinate a monstrous bull in reaction to his startle by the cartoon on the gate, and his realization he'd stupidly walked miles from help to find himself alone with an animal that had already attacked people. In the same vein, families who move into houses only to find them "haunted" are almost certainly reacting to authentic strange noises and events that trigger hallucinatory exaggerations of those stimuli, the content of which is directed by all the previous ghost lore they've heard. Given the spooky atmosphere of the house you were working on, all it would take was one instance of the radio apparently coming on by itself (some mundane electrical phenomenon) to trigger a cascade of related "poltergeist" hallucinations.

You really ought to watch as many of those Derren Brown youtube episodes as you can. His ability to confuse people rather quickly and then lead them into outright hallucinations is both alarming and entertaining. He specializes in "alert hypnosis"; subtly confusing perfectly conscious people (i.e. not in a trance) and planting ideas that take hold because they apparently offer a way out of the confusion.

In the case of "hauntings" you don't need a hypnotist there to plant the ideas. In our culture people are programmed with those ideas as a matter of course. As I pointed out "ghost" lore is in the air, everywhere: we grow up hearing ghost stories and they're reinforced in movies and on TV and in books, by stories like yours.

You don't need to be mentally ill or on drugs to hallucinate. There are many purely accidental routes to various kinds of hypnotic hallucinations. Know about phantom cell phone vibrations? :

http://www.google.com/#q=phantom+phone+vibration+&hl=en&sa=2&fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a

 

[leroyjenkens]

Ok, let me flip the script...
What would you suspect if you were a healthy, 30 year old man with no history of mental illness, 100% sober on a bright sun-lit day, in a house where you set your hammer down on the floor, 1 foot from you, then take 1 measurement with your tape measure that takes about 10 seconds, turn around to grab your hammer from the floor but it's not where you saw yourself put it...it's actually sitting 10 feet from you on the otherside of the room, and you were the only one in said room during that time?

Once, I was watching TV and eating Hot Pockets and after I was done with the first one, I reached down to get the second one, but it wasn't there. Apparently I had already eaten it, but I didn't remember grabbing it and I thought I only ate one. I was wrong.

Maybe your tape measure took you 10 feet away from the hammer while you were measuring out 10 feet.
Or maybe you do have a ghost on your hands, but I don't think anyone here will give up and admit that's what it must be.

 

[rockhouse]

Haha, nice one about measuring 10 feet...hehe. Nah, actually the times it would happen would be like when i measured a vertical piece of trim, or when we were laying tile, on our knees obviously, the trowel would move from right next to me as i set the tile in the mortar, to way to the back of the room...as my cousin was on his knees on the opposite side of me.

But whatever...keep on writing it off with scientific/biological explanations...it's all good.