Are Ghosts a Global Phenomenon Beyond Mythology?

[PIT2]

Here's the kicker : your subjects must be completely unaware they're being roped in as spirit sensors. This is blinding, of a sort (well, there is no control group, but this methodology does prevent biasing the data).

Not too long ago, i read about exactly this kind of experiment on some news site. People reported seeing all kind of weird things, and one of them even saw a person that wasnt there. The conclusion was that humidity was to blame.

I shall try to find the actual story.

 

[setAI]

while I think that the interpretation that ghost/haunting phenomenon are some sort of mythical spirits is SELF-EVIDENTLY wrong- to say that there are no phenomenon to interpret is ABSURD-

there are more observations of these phenomenon [filtering out any possible psychological or other misinterpreted action going on] than just about any factor in REALITY- BILLIONS of events-

I have observed many many such phenomenon personally- in fact my first memory as a child [2 1/2 years old]was fleeing from a house in which me and mother just moved into and encountered some very intense 'poltergeist' activity- she was even injured [something tried to pull her out of bed- and carried me away from my bed- I screamed "the white lady! the white lady!"- could have been a movie!]- the house was condemed and we got in the paper because of it- she died a year later- the case is probably in many parapsychology-nut's scrap-books! I feel that these phenomena are ENVIRONMENTAL either some sort of 'natural recording' process where photons and sound loops are somehow recorded/played back- like limestone wallls acting like a wax cylinder phonograph- or perhaps there is even some kind of Locality glitches from quantum entaglement going on- brief random swaps of random sets of quantum state vectors from decohered spacetimes- whatever the weird cause of past human [and animal-especially CATS!] images/sounds/kinetics observed- it seems there is a psychological component- perhaps the ultra-dense electrochemical processing of animal brains/nervous systems through their consentration of activity somehow trigger or 'complete the circuit' of random feedback loops of states that cause images/sounds/activity that amplifies glitches and causes observable events?

 

[Curious3141]

Not too long ago, i read about exactly this kind of experiment on some news site. People reported seeing all kind of weird things, and one of them even saw a person that wasnt there. The conclusion was that humidity was to blame.

I shall try to find the actual story.

Please do. I'll be very interested in seeing their protocol, to see if they actually cued the subjects in any way.

 

[Chronos]

Can you name one credible scientist who studies ghosts?

Here's one to consider:
http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/
There are any number of apparently credible groups who attempt scientific study of anomalous phenomenon. Examples:
http://www.assap.org/index.html
http://www.eerieok.com/home.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

in fact my first memory as a child [2 1/2 years old]was fleeing from a house in which me and mother just moved into and encountered some very intense 'poltergeist' activity- she was even injured [something tried to pull her out of bed- and carried me away from my bed- I screamed "the white lady! the white lady!"- could have been a movie!]

Why were you screaming "the white lady"?

 

[Curious3141]

Why were you screaming "the white lady"?

He might have spotted Michael Jackson coming for him !

 

[zoobyshoe]

He might have spotted Michael Jackson coming for him !

Please! I'm going to have nightmares!

 

[Curious3141]

Please! I'm going to have nightmares!

No, no, that's jus' ig-norance.

 

[Overdose]

*Sorry for the late reply to your post zooby, i totally forgot about this thread with the terrorist attacks on london this past week.
Anyway on with the debate...

I said this already:

Originally Posted by zoobyshoe
The only reports that make me prick up my ears so to speak, are the ones where two or more people are claimed to have seen the same thing at the same time. That stands out as something that needs further listening to.

This is what kind of baffled me, you were asking me a question 'how might we distinguish real ghosts from hallucinations' (in your original reponse to me) that you already answered yourself earlier in the thread as you have drawn attention to with that quote.
To me this comes across as confusion of one's own stance on the subject, but that's just my opinion of course.
Anyway In reference to your quote, yes reports like these do need listening to and taking seriously but as I've learned over the years things like these useally get filled away into the draw marked 'weird stuff' and people forget about it. The trouble is people will frequently say 'more investigation and attention is needed here' the problem being that that very rarely happens.

I haven't heard of any. I saw a show where a film that had been declared "authentic" by one analyst was then easily reproduced as a fake by another.

well theyre out there, and probably just a click away...

This, then, would be an excellent one to investigate. Five different people all reporting the same apparition at the same place is about as good as I've ever heard.

Well, its certainly not that outstanding of a case as far as ghost sightings are concerned, a lot of houses that are haunted have a long history of being haunted, and previous owners and people in the local area can useally atest to experiencing the same things in the house/building.

Did all five people see the ghost in the same room of the cottage? Has your brother seen it? What does it look like?

No from what i understand people have seen it in separate rooms, it looks like an old women, and by brother has seen it, but tends to get abit cagey when you bring it up since he 'doesnt believe in ghosts' officially.

What I am trying to explain is that over the internet, here at Skepticism and Debunking, there is no way to distinguish a report of an hallucination from a report that may be a real ghost, because they sound the same.
In person, on a specific case, someone might be able to pin things down much more solidly.

This seems like a pretty contradictary statement to me, phrased (almost) in such a way as to detract from that fact.
You seem to be saying in this paragraph and earlier in the thread 'we can't distinguish a ghost from a hallucination, but sometimes in special cases we can' clearly this doesn't make sense, could you either set me right or clarify your position?

You don't get what I'm saying at all, I think.

I now understand the distinction you wished to make between something being a hallucination and something being indistinguishable from a hallucination. But as a said i don't see the logic in saying, 'we can't tell them apart' and then saying 'oh but sometimes we can'

There is no evidence for me to look at. There is only: a lot of eyewitness accounts. A mass of eyewitness accounts doesn't prove ghosts, or the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot.

Well evidence is commonly perceived to be something that compells and makes a case for something, just because a piece of evidence isn't direct proof of something doesn't therefore mean it is not evidence.
(I seem to remember having this exact discussion with russ once actually)

There just comes a point where you have to face the facts as they are. Well, maybe you don't, but I do. The main fact to face is that if you can't prove something to other people then you have to ease up on the subject. Lake monsters are mostly probably sturgeon and weird optical effects, and ghosts are mostly probably hallucinations.

But surely if someone quotes my comments and asks me questions then its only natural to answer? I am hardly pushing my beliefs down peoples throats and insisting people should accept that ghosts are 'real' I am simply saying that people should look at the evidence that's out there.
At the end of the day we're both here to poke holes in each other's belief systems and come up with some new ideas in between, and so far i personally think we're both doing that pretty well.

 

[Overdose]

Actually, Ivan, it's up to a believer to define a "ghost". So far, there is no clear definition. Ghosts seem to be a broad collection of poorly reproducible subjective sensory phenomena that may comprise visual, auditory, tactile, thermal and on occasion, even olfactory and gustatory facets. Some of these sensory perceptions are accompanied by strong emotional responses, though it is unclear whether the emotional responses are primary (intrinsic to the phenomenon) or secondary (a subject's reaction to the apparent stimulus). Occasionally, objective phenomena such as movement of inanimate objects and physical changes in the surroundings have been noted, though the reliability of these accounts is doubtful.

All the above things could pertain equally well to UFOs and Nessie sightings. The phenomena are only called "ghosts" when there is an (again, subjective and ill-founded) association of the perceptions with the idea of a dead being (person or animal).

So you see, "believers" should get their act together and define their terms accurately before any serious investigation can take place. Doing this is not the job of a skeptic, who has no reason to assume it is a bona fide phenomenon in the first place. I don't consider running around haunted houses with EM sensors, PK meters, Geiger counters or pendula to be anything approaching a serious scientific investigation. Before such a thing can take place, the phenomenon must be unambiguously defined (a job for the believers) then it can be looked for scientifically.

Sounds like youre saying 'real science' won't touch the subject with a barge pole until its been worked out what they are and what exactly is going on.
'do our job for us, then we'll come into claim the glory'.
Got to the love the irony of it all..

 

[Curious3141]

Sounds like youre saying 'real science' won't touch the subject with a barge pole until its been worked out what they are and what exactly is going on.
'do our job for us, then we'll come into claim the glory'.
Got to the love the irony of it all..

That's not what I'm saying at all. Got to love your lack of reading comprehension.

Until "ghostologists", for want of a better word, rigorously define what a "ghost" is, no serious scientific study is possible. The definition can be purely phenomenological or experiential. It need not have causal implications or hypotheses (i.e. what is the origin of the "ghost" phenomenon ?) That can come later. First, define the phenomenon and where and when it can be expected to manifest itself so that people know exactly what to look for, and how to look for it. Then scientists will investigate it.

 

[Overdose]

while I think that the interpretation that ghost/haunting phenomenon are some sort of mythical spirits is SELF-EVIDENTLY wrong- I feel that these phenomena are ENVIRONMENTAL either some sort of 'natural recording' process where photons and sound loops are somehow recorded/played back- like limestone wallls acting like a wax cylinder phonograph- or perhaps there is even some kind of Locality glitches from quantum entaglement going on- brief random swaps of random sets of quantum state vectors from decohered spacetimes- whatever the weird cause of past human [and animal-especially CATS!] images/sounds/kinetics observed- it seems there is a psychological component- perhaps the ultra-dense electrochemical processing of animal brains/nervous systems through their consentration of activity somehow trigger or 'complete the circuit' of random feedback loops of states that cause images/sounds/activity that amplifies glitches and causes observable events?

I think this is the most interesting part of the whole subject, what are ghosts when not hallucinations? I tend to agree with your general ideas on the subject, and i offen think that it will be concluded (in experiments and theories non-related to ghosts) that past events can somehow be retriggered in the future. It will probably then (begrudgingly) be applied to ghosts, and the mystery will be indirectly solved.
Sadly as its already been pointed out in this thread, the issue i don't think will ever be tackled directly, not due to any lack of evidence, but most certainly due to a great deal of stigma.

 

[Overdose]

No, no, that's jus' ig-norance.

hehe actually it is, and humour is always the greatest substitute for it

 

[Overdose]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Got to love your lack of reading comprehension.

Until "ghostologists", for want of a better word, rigorously define what a "ghost" is, no serious scientific study is possible. The definition can be purely phenomenological or experiential. It need not have causal implications or hypotheses (i.e. what is the origin of the "ghost" phenomenon ?) That can come later. First, define the phenomenon and where and when it can be expected to manifest itself so that people know exactly what to look for, and how to look for it. Then scientists will investigate it.

For someone who holds comprehension in high regard you seem to totally misunderstand what science is; defining is what science is for and does best. As i said earlier youre asking the general unqualified public to do the job of scientists which is absurd beyond belief.
As for where to find ghosts, that's a non-issue, it requires only a little asking around and investigation, not much leg-work if any to be done in that respect.

 

[Curious3141]

For someone who holds comprehension in high regard you seem to totally misunderstand what science is; defining is what science is for and does best. As i said earlier youre asking the general unqualified public to do the job of scientists which is absurd beyond belief.
As for where to find ghosts, that's a non-issue, it requires only a little asking around and investigation, not much leg-work if any to be done in that respect.

Read back a few posts, I've proposed a fairly scientific "open minded" study that someone can do for very little $. Tell me what you think about it. If someone has already done something like this let me know. If not, go out there and do it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is what kind of baffled me, you were asking me a question 'how might we distinguish real ghosts from hallucinations' (in your original reponse to me) that you already answered yourself earlier in the thread as you have drawn attention to with that quote.
To me this comes across as confusion of one's own stance on the subject, but that's just my opinion of course.

There is no confusion on my part. More than one person reporting the same apparition at the same place isn't proof of anything in particular without a more detailed investigation. It is far less likely, however, to be "mere" hallucination since no two disconnected people are likely to have the same hallucination except by sheer coincidence. If I were collecting anecdotes I would much rather talk to people involved in a situation like this, than anyone who saw something when completely uncorroborated by someone else.

The trouble is people will frequently say 'more investigation and attention is needed here' the problem being that that very rarely happens.

I am not of the opinion more attention is "needed" at all. I am saying that if someone were already inclined that the best, most potentially fruitful, stories to look into would be multiple witnesses of the very same apparition.

What I think is "needed" is for ghost believers to learn much, much more about hallucinations. I've had them myself and can tell you: seeing should not be believing.

No from what i understand people have seen it in separate rooms, it looks like an old women, and by brother has seen it, but tends to get abit cagey when you bring it up since he 'doesnt believe in ghosts' officially.

Separate rooms is more convincing. It lessens the possibility that everyone is seeing the same freak illusion caused by some intricate play of light in a single location, or something along those lines.

You seem to be saying in this paragraph and earlier in the thread 'we can't distinguish a ghost from a hallucination, but sometimes in special cases we can' clearly this doesn't make sense, could you either set me right or clarify your position?

No, I never said in some special cases we can. Not by anecdote over the internet. In the case of multiple unrelated witnesses the chance of it being hallucination starts to drop dramatically, provided it turns out they did all see exactly the same thing.

In two haunted house cases I've heard about, the famous Amityville Horror, and another much less well known one I saw featured on a TV program a few years back, it turns out that while everyone in these families all saw and heard frightening, mysterious things, each separate family member saw and heard separate things. No two reported seeing or hearing the same thing even when they were seeing things at the same time.

Why aren't all the family members seeing the same ghostly apparitions, etc? The obvious explanation is that it's because they are all hallucinating. Why? Because it started with some core family member upon whom all the others rely for their sense of stability. If Dad or Mom starts to break down and hallucinate, everyone else will follow suit by sympathetic reaction. Some families are, indeed, that close, and that interdependent.

Well evidence is commonly perceived to be something that compells and makes a case for something, just because a piece of evidence isn't direct proof of something doesn't therefore mean it is not evidence.

I understand this distinction, and stories aren't evidence, they are eyewitness testimony. In other words, they are the report of someone's first hand experience, not something you or I can physically examine. Evidence for ghosts might consist of a piece of ectoplasm left by the ghost that you or I could examine and test, in the way that alleged bigfoot hair is presented from time to time for testing.

At the end of the day we're both here to poke holes in each other's belief systems and come up with some new ideas in between, and so far i personally think we're both doing that pretty well.

Well, I' not out to poke holes in anyone's belief system as some kind of pastime or chess-like intellectual excercize, if that's what you're suggesting.

In the case of ghosts, as with a few other "paranormal" subjects, it's clear that the average person is completely uninformed about any possible neurological explanation. They never even think along these lines in trying to sort the experience out. The result is that just about all ghost reports are taken at face value. Taken together, they have a sort of avalanche effect that persuades because of the huge number of stories there are out there. In fact though, all individual visual sightings of ghosts are all perfectly consistent with what you'd expect to find in the hallucinations of simple-partial seizures, fatigue hallucinations, auto-suggestive hallucinations, and hallucinations from serious organic brain problems like Multiple Sclerosis or brain tumors.

I also hope I made my point about the assumption that, even within the paranormal range of explanations, the fact that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "ghosts" are the spirits of dead people makes the issue suspect.
-----

 

[SGT]

Here's one to consider:
http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/
There are any number of apparently credible groups who attempt scientific study of anomalous phenomenon. Examples:
http://www.assap.org/index.html
http://www.eerieok.com/home.htm

Well, professor Wiseman and the other members of his investigative team, seems to be a credible investigator. More, being a former magician he is aware of tricks, so is much less prone to be duped than most scientists.
His protocol is not very different from the one proposed by Curious and the only positive results they found were odd sensations felt by participants, most of them explainable by drafts and appearance of the place. It should be noted that believers had much more of those feelings then skeptics.

 

[PIT2]

I just saw a ghost story on a TV show.

An 18yr old guy was on a show called 'miracles exist' and he told about how he saw his old grandfather die at age 10. When he was 10, in the middle of the night he suddenly found himself in a strange room looking at his grandfather laying in a bed(his grandfather lived at the salvation army at the time). The old man got up and coughed, tried to walk to the door but fell back against the bed. The boy then saw a grey fog/smoke come out of the old mans body.

The next day his mother told said to him that something happened. The boy replied that he already knew that his grandfather died.

During the show they took the now 18yr old guy to the salvations army building, and into the room where his grandfather had lived(which he had never seen before). He said that it matched exactly what he saw in the room(he had mentioned the details before entering the room), and was even able to tell that the bed was in another location at the time, which also was true. Btw it was a much more detailed description, but these are the basic facts. The woman who worked in the salvation army and found his grandfather died, verified where he was found and in what position(on the floor leaning with his back agains the side of the bed)

So we have here a person who witnessed another persons death (by some kind of remote viewing or whatever), saw a 'ghost' appearing from the old mans body, and these observations turned out to be true.

The story was backup up by the boys mother, and the woman working in the salvations army who found the grandfather and worked there at the time(and still does).

I can think of 3 explanations:
-a hoax
-a coincidence
-paranormal event (whether the boy actually saw his grandfather die, or a greek eudemon was copying his grandfathers death )


Anyone know any other explanations?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Anyone know any other explanations?

Don't forget false memory in your list.

 

[PIT2]

Don't forget false memory in your list.

He told his mother about it the night after he experienced this. The idea that both his mother and he developed a false memory falls under the term 'coincidence'.

Also, that he instantly developed a false memory of his grandfather dying at the same time his grandfather actually did die and before he was aware of him dying, is also coincidence.

 

[Evo]

Here is a link to some paranormal researchers that are in my town. I heard about them watching documentaries on the Discovery Channel, etc... They're highly rated in the "paranormal" research field.

Interesting photos if you guys want to take a look. Of course they could have been faked, they could be coincidence, but I thought some of you might be interested in looking at them.

They are a non-profit group.

http://www.millersparanormalresearch.com

 

[SGT]

He told his mother about it the night after he experienced this. The idea that both his mother and he developed a false memory falls under the term 'coincidence'.

Also, that he instantly developed a false memory of his grandfather dying at the same time his grandfather actually did die and before he was aware of him dying, is also coincidence.

There is a phenomenon called déja vu. After experiencing something you have the sensation of having had this experience before. For instance, you go to a place for the first time and yet you feel like you have already been there.
Mystics say that you have been there in a former life. Scientists say that your brain made a wrong connection. Instead of sending the information to the recent memory, it sends to the ancient memories, so the recent experience feels like an old one.
It could be that hearing the news of is grandfather passing, his brain could create a sensation of already knowing that.
Before Ivan starts accusing me, let me say that this is only a hypothesis. I am not saying this is what happened, only that it is an alternative explanation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

He told his mother about it the night after he experienced this.

What was his mother's account of the whole thing? Did they interview her separately from him, or were they interviewed at the same time?

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is a phenomenon called déja vu. After experiencing something you have the sensation of having had this experience before. For instance, you go to a place for the first time and yet you feel like you have already been there.
Mystics say that you have been there in a former life. Scientists say that your brain made a wrong connection. Instead of sending the information to the recent memory, it sends to the ancient memories, so the recent experience feels like an old one.

The Deja Vu is probably the most common simple partial seizure. The experience is caused by seizure activity in a part of the brain called the hippocampus (and surrounding tissue) which is a vital area in all things pertaining to memory. The seizure activity causes the hippocampus to generate a kind of supercharged version of the physiological reaction a person normally has to seeing something familiar, and this unbelievably strong , but false, reaction becomes applied to whatever the person is looking at or thinkng about.

Simple Partial Seizures : Epilepsy.com
Address:http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/seizure_simplepartial.html

People who have a lot of deja vus often come to believe they can tell the future. This is because, during the course of the day we are quite frequently speculating about what is going to happen next; when a deja vu hits during one of these speculations, the speculation takes on a feeling of such strong and solid familiarity that you become convinced you know what is going to happen next. In fact, though, what you thought was going to happen almost never actually does happen. You're right maybe 5% of the time. (The times you aren't right, you may just have another deja vu which makes the actual outcome seem unbelievably familiar. You say to yourself, "I knew I knew what was going to happen next I just forgot the details!")

Anyway, the hypothesis about short term memories getting accidently stored in long term memory, is bogus. It is simply a matter of the organ that governs the feeling of familiarity being grossly overstimulated by seizure activity. This has been proven by direct EEG readings from the hippocampus by means of depth implanted electrodes while the patient is reporting the Deja Vu experience. They could reverse it as well: by sending electrical stimulation down the electrodes into the hippocampus they could induce the deja vu experience.
Abstract: The Anatomical Origins of Deja Vu and vivid `memories' in Human Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Entrez PubMed
Address:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8149215&dopt=Abstract



A deja vu might induce a kind of false memory in the way you suggested, but false memories are a phenomena unto themselves that don't require a deja vu to be put in place. They are more a hypnotic phenomenon, and can be set up either by another person or through some process of spontaneous auto-hypnosis that isn't deliberate. False memories can be unbelievably elaborate and indistinguishable from real memories in quality. The only way you can expose a false memory is if it involves something you can prove can't have happened.

 

[SGT]

The Deja Vu is probably the most common simple partial seizure. The experience is caused by seizure activity in a part of the brain called the hippocampus (and surrounding tissue) which is a vital area in all things pertaining to memory. The seizure activity causes the hippocampus to generate a kind of supercharged version of the physiological reaction a person normally has to seeing something familiar, and this unbelievably strong , but false, reaction becomes applied to whatever the person is looking at or thinkng about.

Simple Partial Seizures : Epilepsy.com
Address:http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/seizure_simplepartial.html

People who have a lot of deja vus often come to believe they can tell the future. This is because, during the course of the day we are quite frequently speculating about what is going to happen next; when a deja vu hits during one of these speculations, the speculation takes on a feeling of such strong and solid familiarity that you become convinced you know what is going to happen next. In fact, though, what you thought was going to happen almost never actually does happen. You're right maybe 5% of the time. (The times you aren't right, you may just have another deja vu which makes the actual outcome seem unbelievably familiar. You say to yourself, "I knew I knew what was going to happen next I just forgot the details!")

Anyway, the hypothesis about short term memories getting accidently stored in long term memory, is bogus. It is simply a matter of the organ that governs the feeling of familiarity being grossly overstimulated by seizure activity. This has been proven by direct EEG readings from the hippocampus by means of depth implanted electrodes while the patient is reporting the Deja Vu experience. They could reverse it as well: by sending electrical stimulation down the electrodes into the hippocampus they could induce the deja vu experience.
Abstract: The Anatomical Origins of Deja Vu and vivid `memories' in Human Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Entrez PubMed
Address:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8149215&dopt=Abstract



A deja vu might induce a kind of false memory in the way you suggested, but false memories are a phenomena unto themselves that don't require a deja vu to be put in place. They are more a hypnotic phenomenon, and can be set up either by another person or through some process of spontaneous auto-hypnosis that isn't deliberate. False memories can be unbelievably elaborate and indistinguishable from real memories in quality. The only way you can expose a false memory is if it involves something you can prove can't have happened.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Ultimâ]

I'm sure you've all heard about the person in York who was in the basement of a bar when he saw a roman legion march past. He described a piece of equipment that the leader was carrying (I can't remember what), but was riduculed by historians and archaeologists as no one had ever seen such an item. But later, some excavation was done and it was discovered that the Romans 'Northen Road' actually passed through the spot, and the described item was found (amongst other things). I'd call this very strong proof.

I personally believe ghosts exist. I think to some extent you have to be at the right place at the right time and in a certain state of mind to see them though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

He described a piece of equipment that the leader was carrying (I can't remember what), but was riduculed by historians and archaeologists as no one had ever seen such an item.

In a case like this I would want to know the exact identity of the historians and archaeologists who ridiculed the "piece of equipment" and also if that ridicule is on record in any form dated prior to the discovery that thing actually exists. I would also investigate whether or not any record of the story of seeing that equipment in the apparition can be found that predates the actual discovery. In other words, we have to rule out that the man reporting it didn't start telling this whole story about the vision only after the discovery of the artifact.

If all that were to check out, then the other problem is that museums are packed full of things in storage no one has properly cataloged or described. The man with the vision might have seen that generally unknown, but actually previously discovered, equipment while poking through a museum storage, forgot about it, and unconsciously incorporated it into his vision. We would have to do some research into what the man with the vision actually did already know about the Roman occupation of GB and whether or not there is, in fact, any mention of that equipment in any of those sources which he could have been exposed to but forgotten about.

 

[Curious3141]

In a case like this I would want to know the exact identity of the historians and archaeologists who ridiculed the "piece of equipment" and also if that ridicule is on record in any form dated prior to the discovery that thing actually exists. I would also investigate whether or not any record of the story of seeing that equipment in the apparition can be found that predates the actual discovery. In other words, we have to rule out that the man reporting it didn't start telling this whole story about the vision only after the discovery of the artifact.

If all that were to check out, then the other problem is that museums are packed full of things in storage no one has properly cataloged or described. The man with the vision might have seen that generally unknown, but actually previously discovered, equipment while poking through a museum storage, forgot about it, and unconsciously incorporated it into his vision. We would have to do some research into what the man with the vision actually did already know about the Roman occupation of GB and whether or not there is, in fact, any mention of that equipment in any of those sources which he could have been exposed to but forgotten about.

Here is the story :

The Treasurers House



The Treasurer's House is a large stone-built house in the centre of York, next to York Minster. Its original purpose was as an administration centre for the Minster and to house the regalia and valuables, hence the name. The building had a change of ownership in the nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century, was bought by the department of the environment, now the National Trust.



The Treasurers House is home to the most famous ghost story in York - In 1953 work was being carried out in the cellars by a man named Harry Martindale, an apprentice plumber. He was working alone in the cellar when heard the sound of a horn nearby and assumed it to be outside, a short while later he heard the sound again, this time much closer, seemingly in the cellar itself, Harry looked around and was shocked by what he saw. A horse stepped into view through the wall of the cellar, and Harry fell off his ladder in shock. On the horses back was a man, helmeted and armoured in what appeared to be the style of a Roman soldier. As the horse and rider walked across the cellar, they were followed by a column of soldiers, all helmeted and wearing a red kilt and carrying round shields and dressed in rough green tunics, carrying short swords or spears. One soldier carried a long trumpet, which looked very battered and worn instrument. This was obviously the source of the noise heard moments earlier. Harry was now backed into the corner of the room, totally taken aback by what he was seeing, they were so real that he could have reached out and touched them. He noticed that the bottom of their legs were all missing and he could only see from the knee upwards. When they reached the hole he had dug to install a heating system he could see the rest of their legs as they passed through the hole. Shortly afterwards the area was excavated and a roman road was found along the exact route Harry had seen the soldiers walking. He described the soldiers and the way they were dressed to some local Roman experts and they were identified as the 9th Legion of Rome who mysteriously disappeared and were never found. You can visit the Treasurers House but unfortunately the cellar is closed to the public but they have a camera rigged up in the room you can watch in the hope you will see the Roman soldiers.

From : http://ghostsofthenortheast.150m.com/York.htm

 

[SGT]

Here is the story :



From : http://ghostsofthenortheast.150m.com/York.htm

The description of the outfit of the soldiers matches what Roman soldiers in biblical Holliwood pictures of the fifties wore.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am not totally sure these are the same story. Curious3141's version doen't have the important piece of equipment and ridicule by authorities elements of Ultima's story.

 

[Overdose]

Read back a few posts, I've proposed a fairly scientific "open minded" study that someone can do for very little $. Tell me what you think about it. If someone has already done something like this let me know. If not, go out there and do it.

I will look into it, it would be interesting to see if anyone has : ) but I am not going to do it myself, that's absurd; and a way of calling someone's bluff to my mind that someone always tries in everyone of these kinds of threads.

 

[Curious3141]

I am not totally sure these are the same story. Curious3141's version doen't have the important piece of equipment and ridicule by authorities elements of Ultima's story.

That's all I could find after a moderately exhaustive search for a good reference.

You are right, zooby, my story is far less "colorful"/"convincing" than the one hinted at by Ultima. Which goes to show that anecdotal accounts change profoundly in the retelling, as they get embellished and polished by countless lips and tongues. Finally, the story becomes wildly different from the original (if there ever really was an original to begin with). In a word, they are unreliable. Of such stuff are myths, fairy tales and major world religions made.

There was a time in my life I was interested in the study of coincidence and synchronicity. I briefly read Carl Jung on it, discarded his notions as being arrant unprovable nonsense for the most part. But there was one incident that sticks in my mind as being an especially significant (statistically improbable) coincidence. Here's the story.

This happened about a decade ago, I think. At the very least 8 years ago. I was in my medical undergrad days, and like all highly lazy people was looking to get through the thing as quickly and as painlessly as possible, with the absolute minimum of effort. So I got interested in speed-reading around this time. (As it turned out, I found all those techniques to be useless, I just settled on my own style, which was fairly quick yet retentive - but I digress).

My friend and I were out seeing a movie at a shopping center with a cinema incorporated within it. After the movie, we were just browsing around the shops with no real aim, when he spotted a (to him) unfamiliar device in the window of a music store. When asked what that was, I answered that it was a "metronome", and that it was used to time music, with the adjustable bob setting the period of the pendulum, etc.

Directly after the music store was a book store. We wandered in and drifted to the self-help section. I was the first to pick out a book, and the book I picked out was one on speed reading. This was not improbable given my interest in the subject at the time. What *was* improbable was what happened next : I flipped open the book at random to somewhere in the middle and it was the title page of a chapter entitled : "Using a metronome to time your speedreading" (or something to that effect).

What are the odds, eh ? First spot and ponder a metronome by accident, then go to a bookstore and the first reference I see is pertaining to a metronome. And it wasn't in a music book either ! I can't enumerate the odds, but I'm guessing they're pretty low.

Spooky ? Shivers down the spine ? Not really, because this story, while unusual, had none of the usual trappings of portents, premonitions or dead people in it. Any reasonable person would just dismiss the whole thing as an interesting coincidence. But just imagine the same story transformed as follows (I'm assuming the role of irrational spirit-believer in this fictionalised first person account) :

"At this time in my life recently after the passing of insert loved one, my thoughts were consumed by bereavement. I happened to be walking through the street one day when my friend and I went into a bookstore just to browse around. I spotted this great book on ornamental vases, so I picked it up and opened it up at random. Imagine my shock when the first picture was of a beautiful vase holding six lilies ! Lilies were the favorite of my dearly departed insert loved one and he/she was taken from us six weeks ago at the age of sixty ! What are the odds ?

I am certain this is a message from insert loved one, and I am now completely sure there is an afterlife and he/she is watching after me from the great beyond..."

A fairly analogous story, and it seems even a little more probable than my story. Yet it is loaded with a lot of subjective significance, and these may be seen as intelligent messages from paranormal forces by the gullible. You and I would likely dismiss it as a simple coincidence and possibly overthinking the significance of minor events, but you'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) by how many people really think in this fashion. Sad.

What is worse, the story will likely become even more embellished by selective memory and wishful thinking. Little remembered details of the event may become molded to align with strongly recalled details surrounding the death. The vase may become transformed in the mind to be the same design as a favorite of the deceased. The bereaved one may suddenly recall that the deceased was also interested in vases, so it was a paranormal force that was prompting him/her to pick up that book in the first place. The page number may be numerologically linked by suitable contortions and bad math to bear some relation to the death date, birth date, marriage date, or any darn date that had the remotest connection to the deceased. Vagueness/inexactness never fazed a numerologist. I think we all know how these things go.

Sorry for the long winded stories, and I know this has little to do with the thread topic. I just wanted to illustrate a point or two about the unreliablity of anecdotal accounts and the gullibility of people, especially at emotionally fragile times.

 

[Curious3141]

I will look into it, it would be interesting to see if anyone has : ) but I am not going to do it myself, that's absurd; and a way of calling someone's bluff to my mind that someone always tries in everyone of these kinds of threads.

Calling your bluff ? Well, I guess I am. You propound, you prove. Isn't that fair ?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I just wanted to illustrate a point or two about the unreliablity of anecdotal accounts...

Well, I don't think anyone disputes that any given story might be a garbled third hand version. That's the main reason I start asking various questions like, is any of this on record anywhere with a date attached, and do all the participants agree to the version presented. How many times has the plumber told the story? Does it change with each of his retellings? That's more to the point than if other people have been discovered to be dressing it up.

I would imagine that if we dug into it we could find the plumber's original report written down somewhere, as well as something about the "expert" opinion that he was seeing that particular Roman regiment. We could also look into SGTs suggestion about how Romans were costumed in any color movies, or colored representaions of any kind, that existed when he had his sighting.

As far as the version that you linked to goes, I believe I have seen that one talked about on a TV program, and there was an important detail not mentioned in your version, which is the alleged explanation for why he couldn't see them from the knees down, which was something to the effect that they discovered that there used to be a Roman era low stone wall in front of where he saw the soldiers marching. In other words, the reason he couldn't see their lower legs was attributed to them being blocked by the now-missing ancient wall. That may be the thing that Ultima garbled into a disputed "piece of equipment."

 

[Ultimâ]

Well, I must admit I could only vagely recall the details, but it something I've read about and heard about on various ocassions in the past. The quote of Curious is a more accurate version. I'm not sure where zoobyshoe's wall comes into the equation though, who'd build a wall at knee level?

Colour tv in England was sometime after 1960 I believe.

One point in Harry's account that adds a lot of validity is he described their shields as being round rather than rectangular. This suggests that they were auxiliary troops rather than regular legions and is a historical detail that was not known at the time of his experience but has later been validated.

=)