Ghosts....?

[TomTomKent]

I've worked in two haunted locations and "met" two ghosts. However I have seen no evidence of their having been the souls of the dead. As scary and mystifying as my experiences were I am fairly convinced that they were a mix of environmental, psychological and other effects that are generally seen as being the symptoms of, but may well be the cause of hauntings.

Like many sceptics I live in hope of there being some tangible testible evidence, but alas it is yet to emerge.

[ukranianphil]

No i don't believe in Gosts for one reason.
Why do ghosts wear clothes?
I have never been able to figure that one out.
I can understand the concept of a dead soul entering an other realm.
But clothes? No, it makes me think people are misinterpriting things they see and feel as spirits.

Although saying that, i have been fasinated by the Enfield Poltergeist case for years. And NO it has not been proven FAKE as some people claim. (they have not put forward any physical evedence to prove this) only third party stories and hearsay.
But i like to think i am open minded.

[Steve S]

I believe in them....But don't know what they are.....Actually,it's more accurate to say I believe people really see them......On Enfield....Yes,I've read an interview with Janet(?) 20+ years....I think strange stuff happened OK...........

[Beowulf]

No i don't believe in Gosts for one reason.
Why do ghosts wear clothes?
I have never been able to figure that one out.
I can understand the concept of a dead soul entering an other realm.
But clothes? No, it makes me think people are misinterpriting things they see and feel as spirits...

Or shoes. When a person hears a ghost footsteps they hear those with shoes on.

I know, my husband and I both heard a ghost walk down our hall, obviously had shoes on. We were in different rooms, confronting him I said I thought I heard you walk down the hall.

He said he thought he heard me walk down the hall.

However, we both knew it wasn't the other, as the walk was heavy and slow, like an old man...or Frankenstein, lol.

[Phil H]

I believe in them....But don't know what they are.....

I think I may have posted this explanation before.

The late Tom Lethbridge (who had a wonderfully open mind and a keen intelligence) believed that ghosts were recordings of incidents whih had a high degree of emotion contained in them - someone grieving; a last farewell, a death..

Lethbridge concluded that there was often a water flow close to the site of the haunting - a waterpipe, a stream, a sewer, even an aquifer below the ground. The magnetic flows generated by this water flow acted like an old fashioned tape-recorder or video, capturing the incident forever.

However, like a tape the image gradually wears out, losing colour (hence all the "grey" ladies) perhaps becoming fuzzy and more and more indistinct. The right atmospheric conditions cause the incident to "replay".

Lethbridge's interpretation also goes some way to explain why a "ghost" always walks the same corridor, is always seen at the same spot etc. I guess you could have a sound only ghost by the same means, or the sound might survive when the image has faded away.

This is the most practical explanation I have ever heard and it satisfies me - it may not everyone.

Lethbridge also made a distinction between ghosts (as above) and a "ghoul" as he called them - where it is a mood, an atmosphere or a "feeling" that is encountered - similarly linked to a spot or smallish area - a staircase for instance.

His books are well worth seeking out - well-wriiten, readable and ahead of their time.

His thoughts on "dowsing" - especially with a pendulum - and the avenues of thought into which that took him are deeply fascinating.

Phil

[Sally]

I too find a lot of sense in what he said, Phil. The only reservation I have is that I don't think it's that simple. Maybe it's part of the story - but it's not the whole story.

[Phil H]

Which part do you think is lacking, Sally?

Actually, I'm sure Tom Lethbridge would have agreed with you. He was no scientist (in the modern sense) - he died in think in the 60s - but he was a close observer and he had a mind-set that let him think logically and without pre-conceptions from what he saw.

I first read about him in the 70s - wish I could have met him - and have a few of his books and an edited collection of his writings. I go back to them every so often for sheer enjoyment and because they inspire me.

He actually got to the ancient aliens conclusion before von Daniken, but then died. Whether, had he lived longer, he would have revised his conclusions, I do not know. But it shows he didn't mind how weird his ideas were, so long as he understood the steps that led him to them.

Phil

[Sally]

Phil -

Which part do you think is lacking, Sally?

I don’t think it’s lacking particularly, Phil. I find the concept of a ‘recording’ compelling in cases where there are multiple sightings of a ‘ghost’ which are very similar: the apparition repeats the same actions. I’ve noticed in some cases that there is more than one type of sighting of a ghost – I can’t think of any examples right now! It’s very interesting. I wonder, if what we’re seeing is a ‘recording’ – and I’m fairly convinced by that – whether the emotions of the person have created that imprint, as it were, or whether it’s more that the site is responsible. Perhaps it’s a combination of both.

Actually, I'm sure Tom Lethbridge would have agreed with you. He was no scientist (in the modern sense) - he died in think in the 60s - but he was a close observer and he had a mind-set that let him think logically and without pre-conceptions from what he saw.

I first read about him in the 70s - wish I could have met him - and have a few of his books and an edited collection of his writings. I go back to them every so often for sheer enjoyment and because they inspire me.

He actually got to the ancient aliens conclusion before von Daniken, but then died. Whether, had he lived longer, he would have revised his conclusions, I do not know. But it shows he didn't mind how weird his ideas were, so long as he understood the steps that led him to them.

I had a much-loved teacher, now sadly deceased, who was also inspired by Lethbridge (amongst other things) so I learned all about him then.

What I meant when I said I don’t think it’s the whole story is that in my view, there are undoubtedly also ‘spirits’ – call them what you will – that are sentient to some extent. Some energy left over from the life of a person. Not all ‘hauntings’ are passive – there are those that are highly interactive with the living.
How do we account for those? They are something other than ‘recordings’.

[kensei]

Agreeing with Sally that there are multiple causes for what are usually lumped together under the term "hauntings," but as I was about to write this I thought "I wonder if I've already written this in this thread" and checked back. Sure enough, over a year ago I wrote in post #11 on page 2 my thoughts on all the different types of hauntings. So, just a few elaborations here.

What I find most interesting about the "recordings" or "tape loop ghosts" who always repeat the same motion and don't seem aware of their observers are the few cases in which people have seen apparitions of people who are actually still alive, but lived in their house before them.

But clearly, recordings are not the sole reason for hauntings. As Sally pointed out, many ghosts or other spirit beings are absolutely sentient. There are cases of people having whole conversations with the ghosts of departed loved ones, of poltergeists throwing objects around and starting fires, of invisible demons slapping people around and leaving claw marks on them, just as there are many stories of apparitions that appear over and over in the same place repeating the same activity. Clearly these are not all the same thing.

I noted that the question of ghosts wearing clothes had already been addressed as well. Basically, I think that if you accept that ghosts can be real you accept the supernatural, and if you accept the supernatural (i.e. outside the laws of the natural), then literally anything is possible. Literally. Anything. The supernatural, IF real, can not be contained within any set of rules that say "Ok, this much is possible, but no more." Ghosts wearing clothes? If there can be a ghost, it can wear clothes. Or not wear clothes. Or whatever it wants to do.

Afterthought: This might be controversial, but I was just thinking back to a funeral for a second cousin of mine who died in a car accident. The minister read the story from the Bible of Jesus' first appearance to His disciples after his resurrection. In it, Jesus says something to the effect of, "I am not a ghost, for a ghost has not flesh and blood, and I do." He did not say "I am not a ghost because there's no such thing." I remember how that struck me, in realizing that with those words He was basically acknowledging that ghosts exist, and yet their existence is somehow not officially part of Christian belief.

[Phil H]

I have no problems with anything you have said, Sally and kensei.

A few points though:

the few cases in which people have seen apparitions of people who are actually still alive, but lived in their house before them.

Lethbridge's idea has, of course, no requirement for the person "recorded" to be dead: only that a means of recording be there.

But clearly, recordings are not the sole reason for hauntings. As Sally pointed out,

can either of you cite any examples?

many ghosts or other spirit beings are absolutely sentient. There are cases of people having whole conversations with the ghosts of departed loved ones,

The sceptic in me has many many questions about that - was there a witness to the "conversation"? being foremost! Otherwise, I'm afraid, I would be inclined to say that the conversation was entirely inside the head of the person concerned. Again, examples would help.

of poltergeists throwing objects around and starting fires,

Poltergeists are, are they not, a different sort of phenomenon? I thought now often linked to pubescent girls or the energy of a person present. Correct me please if I am mistaken. Less talked about nowadays thatn in my youth is the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion. Dickens deswcribes it in Bleak House - but essentially it is where (often old) people have been found entirely or partially burned, with their surroundings untouched.

of invisible demons slapping people around and leaving claw marks on them,

Demonic possession would again seem to me to be something different - the church would offer one explanation - but again I wonder whether psychology might not hold the truth. We know that some people can have "multiple personalities". We also know that certain people can exhibit stigmata - wounds reflecting Christ's injuries. "Claw marks might easily represent something similar.

just as there are many stories of apparitions that appear over and over in the same place repeating the same activity. Clearly these are not all the same thing.

Surely, if repetition is the key feature that is EXACTLy what a "recording" would do if the required conditions are present.

I noted that the question of ghosts wearing clothes had already been addressed as well.

Also often "grey" - which Lethbridge explained. The recorded image captures the person dressed as when the "event" took place. the greyness is the fading of an older image over time.

Basically, I think that if you accept that ghosts can be real you accept the supernatural, and if you accept the supernatural (i.e. outside the laws of the natural), then literally anything is possible.

But we are talking here of an explanation that says that ghosts are no more real than a dvd playback of a film - jennifer Anniston or Brad Pitt are not actually in your living room - it is a mechanical process.

Jesus btw could have been addressing the disciples BELIEF in ghosts/apparitions without actually agreeing there were such things!

With ghosts one must address the issue of "fraud". I have read a couple of books about the so-called "Ghosts of Versailles" seen by two Edwardian ladies of scholarly bent. They may indeed have had an "experience", but there is much more to the account (evidently embroidered and "tweaked" for effect) they wrote than that. Most readers have had difficulty accepting their explanation that they somehow and uniquely entered the mind of Marie Antoinette and saw what she saw.

Equally, I was interested to see responses to the (fairly) recent thread on Borley Rectory here on Casebook, where most posters concluded it as a fraud as I recall.

There was, a few decades back, a lot of interest in people having had priro existences that could be recalled under retrogressive hypnosis. famous examples were a doctor who claimed he had been a cathar in C12th ; a man who had served on HMS Agammemnon under Nelson; and a woman who had been a nurse of the Emperor Constantine. I used to have a book by Ian Wilson which debunked them all in detail and showed that in every case an historical novel (albeit forgotten) lay behind the so-called memories.

Finally, I fully accept that our analysis has to be careful. As I explained earlier, Lethbridge drew a distinction between "ghosts" and "ghouls".

Fascinating discussion, I hope it continues.

Phil

[Steve S]

I recall reading Lethbridge years ago.......Certainly made more sense than today's "Medium-led" Ghost-Hunters!.......I have a gut feeling for "Time-Slip" theories,(probably 'cos I'd love to view such cases as Historical evidence),but have a sneaky feeling there is more than one explanation involved............

[Phil H]

I am delighted to see that so many of you know of TC Lethbridge.

Usually, if I mention his name, I am met with blank stares.

Phil

[andy1867]

The only experience I have ever had, that still unnerves me to a certain extent today,...and I saw nothing, was an off the cuff remark made by a patient on the ward I worked on.
He was in room 5 on the ward undergoing treatment for Leukaemia, which doesn't always end well,
A year previous the room was occupied by a young 19 yr old Lad who was a Sheffield Wednesday supporter, So I obviously being of the same persuasion took a liking to him, and took him to a couple of matches during the season , as he was unable to attend without a carer..no problem for me as I was going anyway...
Sadly the young lad succumbed ....
A year later the patient who occupied the same room , asked me who the young lad in the Wednesday scarf was who kept using his toilet every night...


I went cold....dunno how you explain it, but I certainly was uncomfortable about it

[Robert]

I think I understand the idea of negative emotions being involved - mental and physical suffering, anguish, guilt, extreme anxiety. But why don't we hear of happy ghosts? - say, a woman who's just given birth. Or a man who's come into a fortune. Or a gloriously drunken ghost. And I haven't even mentioned sex yet.

[Phil H]

why don't we hear of happy ghosts?

If Lethbridge is right in his idea that there is a "mechanism" behind at least some "hauntings" - then it maybe that a strong "negative" emotion will trigger things, whilst a good vibe (however strong) will not.

I note that the "young lad in the Wednesday scarf" kept using the later patient's toilet every night...

A toilet will have running or moving water won't it... in the cistern as it refills, in the pipes, in the sewers under the floor, even in the toilet pan. I just point out how that would tie in with Lethbridge's observations. The strong emotions exhuded by the tragic lad might have imprinted themselves.... as Lethbrige suggests.

Phil