Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. So move on if you don't care. Noone makes you hang out in this forum getting all upset. That's your choice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is Noone? Why does he have this power over everyone but the batshit dude who sees ghosts everywhere?

Oh, wait...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reported for insult...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you asked me for examples in post 25, I made it very clear in post 26 that we are only on step one.

If you're not ready to learn about the fallibility of human perception, there's no point in proceeding to step 2.

I'm not. You are self-admittedly unaware of the highly fallible nature of human perception, processing and our dependency on memory recall. I didn't say that; you did.

Don't take any of my word for it. You shouldn't be needing me to tell you any of this. If you have anything to do with the study of human eyewitness account, you are obliged to be well-read on how the process works.

 

Still waiting on studies showing normal people can hallucinate people before them. Everything else you post is tapdancing.

There is nothing to be unaware of because your claim is fallacious. No normal person hallucinates or imagines a person in detailed clothing walking before them. It doesn't happen.

 

Detailed???
I have never yet seen any photo of any supposed supernatural/paranormal event that was detailed.
And yes, every one is capable of hallucinating. Especially those claiming they have seen ghosts and goblins, or Bigfoot and Aliens.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When's the last time you hallucinated? Details please.

 

Details? I can't remember the last time I hallucinated, probably as a teenager when I had too much to drink...Otherwise I don't hallucinate...dream? certainly, and sometimes quite realistic.
Is that enough detail?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and the photos proved nothing except that photos can be faked.

 

Again, hallucination is a word you are using incorrectly. It is not helping convince anyone that you understand perception.

Still at step 1. Did you do the blind spot test? Do you acknowledge that your mind inserts things into your perception so that your vision appears uninterrupted?

That is a rhetorical question. You won't answer it because you know that it is a demonstrable and irrefutable property of human perception.

You asked a question about why people see things. I have, at length, addressed that question well within the basic science of human perception.

The fact that you outright deny it is your undoing. You deny well-established fact.

 

You are alleging normal people can see people before them that aren't really there. As I already posted, that is the definition of hallucination.

Still waiting for that study proving sightings of full body apparitions are hallucinations. And no I never asked you how people see things. I asked you to show how people can see things that aren't there. As in full body apparitions. You have completely failed to do that. And you continue to fail. Nothing you have posted explains why people see ghosts, not to mention being able to photograph them as well.

 

Then your claim that other normal sober people hallucinate is unsupported.

 

No..the onus is on you to show that people hallucinate full body persons in front of them. I have already provided evidence that they see them, that they wear period clothes, that they are often transparent, and disappear. That's the definition of a ghost. If you are claiming they didn't see this but hallucinated it, then just show that normal undrugged sober people hallucinate such things. There should be some well-known experiments proving this by now. Where are they? Better yet, provide some personal experiences of you hallucinating people in front of you. If it happens all the time, then it should be happening to you as well.

 

No..that people describe things that happened to them is always sufficient to believe them. Nobody but a prick would go around demanding everyone to provide evidence of all the things they say they have experienced. That's just stupid. Eyewitness direct experience is the gold standard of what happened in every case, from the news to history to autobiographies. And it's sufficient for the paranormal as well. We believe what people say they experienced when there is no compelling reason to doubt them.

 

I believe what people say they've experienced when I see they have no agenda or reason to be lying about it. That's just normal sane living. It may make me gullible, but at least I'm not an obnoxious nut who is obsessed with proving everything he hears. That's the risk you take for being able to get along in our society. It's call good faith.

But that's just it. When something is reported often by people, we accept it not as extraordinary but as rather mundane and as evidence of a real event. The reports of paranormal phenomena are both numerous and worldwide, crossing all cultural and class boundaries thruout history. And the reports show the same patterns over and over again. Traits of an objective phenomenon that actually occurs in typical and predictable ways. That people DON'T report being able to leap over buildings hardly ever WOULD make that rather doubtful and demanding of extraordinary evidence. So yes, when a claim is extraordinary in that it is hardly ever made by sane people, then I would demand corroborating evidence. But ghosts are not that extraordinary. They are certainly more common than ball lightning, which we have all readily accepted.

Eyewitness accounts are very reliable when it comes to seeing an actual person with certain clothes walking in front of them. The unreliability comes in with details like what they looked like. That's to be expected. When you experience a ghost otoh, you KNOW you've experienced it. There is little confusion about what you saw.

I 've never heard of autobiographies disagreeing with biographies. But if they did, I'd certainly go by the autobiography.

The number of sightings demands that it be taken seriously as a phenomena. Why are people seeing the same things over and over again? How is that more than one person can see the same thing? Why are things not only seen, but heard as well? Details like these show it is not some alleged visual hallucination. If you were prone to hallucinate anyone, it'd be someone you knew and missed. An old flame maybe or a childhood buddy. You wouldn't hallucinate total strangers with period clothes who intimidate you and scare the daylights out of you.

What are you talking about? These are the things commonly reported by people all over the world. Nobody would make up something so outlandish and then tell other people about it. And they certainly don't hallucinate such things either.

Hallucinations by normal sane people of full bodied persons in period clothes walking before them and then disappearing? No..I'm afraid not.

I have never hallucinated a person before me in my whole life because it doesn't happen. Ghosts on the other hand? Well, I haven't seen one of those either yet mainly because I don't hang out in haunted locations late at night. But then I haven't seen ball lightning either.

Exactly. It is the preponderance of paranormal reports that demands we take them seriously. There are 3500 paranormal investigator clubs in the U.S. alone. That means a whole lot of people are reporting paranormal phenomena. It also means people are scientifically measuring and recording this phenomena all the time in nearly every major city. Ofcourse often times it is debunked as raccoons in the attic or pranks or perhaps mental illness, But to dismiss it as always hallucinations is ridiculous. It just happens way too often.

 

The trick here is simply the art of distraction. When one sees a ghost before oneself, there is no distracting trickster changing anything on them. It is a simple naturally occurring event, much as you'd see anything else before you. You can't use a stage trick as evidence for a misperception where no trickery is present.