The video also showed the alert. That’s the main reason why I mentioned it. The screenshot of the alert could potentially be evidence, though maybe it could be fake.
What is the purpose of YouTube? Are you seriously considering it as a source of accurate information. Okay, you heard a story on YouTube. Now, what research did you do to verify the story as true. 1. How did you determine the mother was telling the truth. 2. How did you determine it was actually a ghost that she saw. 3. How did you decide ghosts are real. 4. How did you rule out camera tricks or a practical joke on mom? 5. How did you rule out a money making plot to get YouTube clicks? The first words uttered in the video are: “IT’S DEFINITELY UNEXPLAINABLE.” Hello? Why aren’t you paying attention. IT IS UNEXPLAINABLE calling it a GHOST is not an explanation. It’s a story.
Do you not see how might be, but might not be, tells us precisely nothing?
The thing is, if someone were to actually take a picture or record a ghost, people would just say that it’s edited.
I don’t know the details of this case; but I’ll assume alerts are easy to fake?
Perhaps try thinking about it this way:
Let’s assume for the moment that I believe in leprechauns. And I gave you a video that was very similar to the one you got off You-tube; except with the “ghost” stuff replaced with leprechaun stuff (for example: perhaps having a vaguely leprechaun shaped blob).
Would that convince you leprechauns are real?
It is kind of a gotcha question. Consider:
- If your answer is yes, then at least you are consistent in your credulity; although I’m concerned you are going to spend the rest of your life getting fleeced by conman.
- If your answer is no: then it would seem you have some strange bias in favor of the existence ghosts over leprechauns.
1 Like
Ok, it’s time for an editorial intervention here. Centring upon what scientists think about the possibility of life on bodies other than Earth.
First of all, let’s get out of the way, the silly cartoon little green men with anal probes. This is beneath deserving of a point of view.
Instead, let’s start from some basic facts, and work on from there. The first basic fact being that molecules implicated in life as we know it on Earth, have been found in meteorites (the Murchison meteorite alone yielded 70 amino acids), and in ininterstellar gas and dust clouds containing cometary ices. Indeed, I’ve covered in the past, some of the experiments demonstrating that molecules such as glycine and tryptophan can be synthesised in cometary ices via ultraviolet photolysis. Very recently, I also encountered this extremely interesting paper, in which a variety of nucleobases were synthesised in the laboratory, under conditions present in interstellar gas clouds[/url] (high vacuum and 10 kelvin temperature). Since the paper is a free download from the journal, I’ll let interested parties peruse the paper directly.
Then, of course, we have the research conducted in the field of prebiotic chemistry, about which I’ve posted voluminous posts in various threads here in the past, and the diligent won’t take long to track them down. Indeed, one of those posts covers much of the state of the art in prebiotic chemistry, and the steps from simple molecules to self-replicating RNAs, leading to much more recent research on synthetic model protocells. But I digress.
Since it has been established that molecules relevant to life on Earth are pretty much ubiquitous in both the Solar System and interstellar space (if memory serves, one paper even discusses the presence of polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the outermost envelopes of cool stars), it’s not unreasonable for scientists to hypothesise that life could well be present on bodies other than Earth. Though usually, the discussion centres upon single celled life forms of the sort that were inhabiting the Earth’s oceans 3.5 billion years ago.
Of course, thre’s also the matter of which bodies are likely to provide us with direct evidence of this. Exoplanets tens or hundreds of light years away are, of coursse, unavailable for direct close observation, and while interesting spectroscopic data may indirectly point to the presence of at least a primitive biosphere on some of those eoxoplanets, that’s the best that these bodies will provide for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, there are two bodies that are within reach of space probes in reasonable time, and which possess interesting features rendering them worthy of investigation. Namely the Jovian moon Europa, and the Saturnian moon Enceladus. both of which possess substantial subsurface oceans under their icy crusts. Flybys through the ejecta from Enceladus has already provided tantalising hints that some sort of life may be present there, but tantalising hints they currently remain, until we send a mission constructed from the outset to detect life there properly. Likewise, Europa may offer some tantalising hints, but we’ll have to wait for a properly cnostructed space mission to answer the requisite questions centred upojn that body.
Needless to say, scientists are not expecting to find anything as advanced as, say, crustaceans or fish in those subsurface oceans. Again, they’re interested in finding possible single celled life forms, akin to bacteria or protists. Though if a future space mission to either body does find macroscopic, multicellular life forms (possibly reembling the wackiness that is the Ediacaran fossil Halucigenia, perchance?), then you can bet a lot of champagne corks will be popped!
Even hard evidence of primitive single cells will set the champagne corks popping in many quarters, of course, because we will have, for the first time if such evidence emerges, a definitive answer to the question of whether life is possible on a body other than Earth. Though obtaining that evidence is going to present formidable technical challenges. Take Europa for example. The icy crust is possibly as much as 30 km thick. Even the uppermost layers of any liquid water ocean under that crust will be under tremendous pressure, not to mention the deep parts of that ocean, which may be as much as 100 km deep. The uppermost ocean layers, under 30 km of ice, will be at a pressure of several thousand atmospheres, and direct exploration of that water via a submersible type probe, will require that probe to be built to hitherto unparalleled levels of compressive strength. Then of course, there’s the matter of penetrating that 30 km ice crust to launch the submersible.
Enceladus presents similar challenges to a mission of the sort I’ve just described above. Although the ocean of Enceladus is “only” 31 km deep, it’s under a 40 km ice crust. Again, direct exploration with a submersible, while possible in principle, will be hideously expensive to realise. Building a submersible to resist several thousand atmospheres of pressure is not a trivial task.
And, of course, once any such submersible is launched, enabling it to communicate with the surface will pose yet more extremely expensive technical challenges. Punching a radio signal through 30 or 40 kilometres of dense ice is going to need a lot of power, even if it’s found to be possible, and means that our submersible will have to be, in effect, a full-blown nuclear submarine flown the hundreds of millions of miles to its destination prior to launch. This would require constructing an operational nuclear submarine in space, one packing several thouand tons of mass for its pressure hull even without the need for life support (the scientific instruments will need protecting from the crushing pressures).
Consequently, the best we can hope for, is capturing ejecta from the two bodies, storing it safely once captured, then subjecting it to the attentions of a full-blown histology lab aboard the probe. A mission that’s “doable”, but which is going to cost a colossal sum of money regardless.
But, let’s assume that the pre-requisites are in place - the funding, the technical know-how, and the will to press ahead and build the requisite space probe and launch it. We’ll still have to wait three or four years for the probe to arrive at its destination. In the case of Europa, we’ll have to plan the mission so that the probe is exposed as infrequently as possible to the hostile radiation environment in the moon’s vicinity - a whopping 540 rems per day. Possibly we’ll need a two part probe - a “collector” that darts in close to Europa to collect ejecta, before zooming out on a highly elliptical orbit to a much safer radiation environment, where the main analysis probe will be waiting. Which will then have to dock with the main analysis probe and transfer its contents. More complicated technical issues to solve, all adding to the expense.
But, the point is, both Europa and Enceladus are within our reach, even though actual missions will cost a king’s ransom.
However, in my case, I’ll be popping the champagne cork not upon finding actual single celled life on one of these bodies, but a fully functioning RNA world instead. The prebiotic chemists will have a special reason to celebrate this,. of course. 
1 Like
As has been explained multiple times, the person claiming they had a photo of a ghost would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support the claim. Do you believe the videos of mermaids on YouTube are real?
You also didn’t answer my question:
So what in your view is objective evidence for ghosts? Because to me it seems like it’s almost impossible for there to be objective evidence for ghosts, but maybe that’s what your trying to say?
For starters, it would need to generate an effect that is measurable and reproducible. Should be simple; IF ghosts are real. If they aren’t real, what I suggested will be impossible.
Numerous cash prizes have been offered for such evidence; the JREF offered $1,000,000+ for decades.
2 Likes
Why do you suppose that is?
1 Like
What is an example of objective evidence of ghosts? If a crowd of people saw one and they all filmed it and there were thousands of photos, would you believe in ghosts then?
David Copperfield was filmed, in front of thousands of people, making the Statue of Liberty disappear. It looked real! It wasn’t real.
1 Like
There also is a video from a discord meeting. These guys were talking about Basketball and streaming it, and one person’s camera caught a shadow move across the screen. The shadow was big, it was kind of like the outline of a person. You could tell it wasn’t a person though, because you can see the wall through it. The shadow moved across the screen at walking speed, not too slow, not too fast. Right after the shadow moved, the person turned around. He later explained that he turned around because he felt a cold sensation. The other people’s reactions are very genuine. It’s wild because live footage can’t be edited. That’s the reason why I’m mentioning this. It is pretty convincing. Here is the video, you can see it easily with high brightness: https://youtu.be/kFAwnsYZ0K0
Here’s the full stream: Ja Morant & The Process | GHOST ON CAMERA NO CLICKBAIT | JayRob and Friends Ep 10 - YouTube
@Rohan01, this is getting silly. You can keep pulling these examples off the internet forever. Every time someone points out the flaws in these examples, you just present another one. You are not doing any real investigation for yourself. You seem addicted to these videos. I will say, once and for all, your examples are horseshit and I’m no longer interested. So stick a fork in me, I’m done.
2 Likes
As a voice of reason, I have to disappoint you that this is probably a simple “phenomena” of bug walking over the light source.
That would explain the reaction, we all react to light change. Especially in our own environment. However I would immediately look at the light source, rather than behind me.
It would also explain the cold sensation, because bug would also block the IR radiation from the light source.
And why wouldn’t they all arrange for a trick that would get them viral? That today is most likely scenario!
I see you are already moving on to new videos. Will you be answering my question about the old one; or have you already Gish Gallop’ed past it?
1 Like
Damn you got me there.
Pepper ghost technique 
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, did you even bother to read my post about the phone call from my wife’s deceased father?
1 Like
Yes I read it minutes after you posted it