| Types of Ghosts. Residual Hauntings. Flawed? |
[26 Mar 2008|11:50am] |
Types of Ghosts
Go to any paranormal groups' website and you'll probably see it. In their 'educational articles' they may have something about the "types of ghosts" or ways to classify hauntings. So wait, we can't even get to the point to prove that the phenomena is real, but we're picking it apart and making different types of it?
Now, okay. I'll give some leeway here again and understand that, people make observations and create ideas based on those observations. Even though there's no proof of the overall phenomena in general, people still experience odd things and want answers, so they try to classify it to fit somewhere within what most believe it to be (ghosts). Understanding through classification, not through actually knowing.
Then the idea takes off and you see investigators left and right talking about "Oh, that sounds like this kind of a haunting" as if it's fact. Go ahead, do a web search for 'types of ghosts' or visit a teams website and you'll see it all over.
This is jumping the gun I think. Yes, we all want answers. But lets take things one step at a time instead of going with ideas just because they're popular. That seems to be what the paranormal teams are full of now adays. Just people going along with what the last person (or popular person on TV) said/believes. Where'd all the thinkers go? Paranormal conferences used to be filled with actual people thinking and doing decent research into things and sharing their findings, now it's all about who's the biggest name the conference can book, the most popular face on TV, etc.
It's turned into "Oh, an EMF detector finds ghosts? Okay, lets go with that and wave it around like we know what we're doing. And there's different types of ghosts? Okay, post it on our website so it looks informative and we can share that information for the next person to pick up and spread around also."
Investigator Maurice Townsend says: "Theories should start with the actual evidence, not with popular assumptions.", and I agree with this.
Residual Hauntings
A popular 'type of ghost' that's mentioned alot is called a residual haunting. Basically, it's said that the location records an event (imprint), and then that event is played back over and over again. People see wars going on in old battlefields, people see a person walking down stairs, etc. The 'ghost' doesn't interact, it just does whatever it was recorded doing. It's a nice idea. I'd love to see a day when we'd be able to tap into these imprints at will and experience key parts of history right in front of us! But is there any truth to the idea?
Well, first there's science. It's known that for energy to be absorbed into something, it has to exceed a certain threshold value. UL light from the sun is absorbed into our skin (sunburn), radiation can be absorbed into things, etc. But it's doubtful that the environment would absorb a moment in time. It just doesn't work that way. The interactions of matter and energy have been well studied and documented. Try telling a science teacher your idea on residual energy and they will more then likely laugh at you.
Of course, it is possible to imprint sounds and recordings onto something and play them back. We have video tapes and audio tapes to prove that. But we had to create ways to record and play back these things. Can the environment record and play back things like this on its own?
If it *could* be possible, I'd lean more towards believing in it recording sounds then images. It'd seem easier to record a sound and play it back, then to record a moving image and play it back. And even more hard to record a moving image _and_ sound and have them play together at the right time to be in sync. This is all ifs though. *If* the environment could record this, *if* if could play back that, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if it could though. The environment and our world, and the entire universe actually, is an amazing thing. But until evidence comes out to show that yes, the environment CAN record an event and play it back for us, I'm iffy about it all.
Origins of Residual Hauntings?
So where did the the idea come from? In the 1960's there was a researcher by the name of Thomas Charles Lethbridge who wrote a book called "Ghost and Ghoul" which promoted these ideas. Many believe he may be one of the first to spread the hypothesis of a residual haunting.
Then in the 1970's there were stories told about how a room’s fabric could hold audio and visual imprints from people to be replayed later on [see: Nigel Kneale's "The Stone Tape"]. Although this play/story was meant for entertainment and was widely based on fiction, people still may have held onto this idea and made it into what most call a residual haunting today.
Then we have gemstones. Some believe that gemstones retain energy, and this energy can be used to influence peoples lives. It's believed some stones have healing energy, some bring focus, some calm nerves, etc. There's no real proof though that the stones retain any energy like this. But still, people have reported feeling better when having the stones on them. Maybe it's a mind over matter type of deal. If you believe in the power, it will work kind of thing.
Out of the belief that stones retain energy, this may also have fueled the residual haunting idea. Natural rock deposits like limestone and quartz are thought to be good rocks to capture this "imprint". Some teams may look at the area of a supposed haunting and see these rocks nearby, and claim this is why the residual haunting is taking place. But when asked how the rocks are capturing and playing back the event, you're left with blank stares. Going back up to the science part of this article, telling a scientist how a stone captured the energy of a moment in time and is playing back the event for you to see, it will probably get you laughed at.
Despite Evidence (or lack of), Residual is Still Going Strong
It would seem that, after all these years that this idea has been out there, it would be the perfect setting to capture evidence by. An event, happening over and over at the same location? Usually around the same time every time? It's all right there for the capturing! No waiting, no 'not being at the right place at the right time'. All you have to do is know when and where, and tada! But still, no solid evidence has been found to prove this phenomena.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all for new ideas. And even though the root of the idea (ghosts) hasn't even been proven yet, I'm still okay with hearing other peoples thoughts to describe what they experienced. But if after all this time it can't be proven, try something else to explain your encounters. Don't keep jumping back to an idea that has many holes in it. Don't keep promoting and spreading around something like it's a fact when there's no proof.
I still stand by the thought that theories should start with actual evidence, or at the very least, well thought out ideas. Not with popular assumptions. And that's what the residual haunting idea has turned into. It's a popular assumption that investigators throw around and talk about as if it's fact. It fits a hole in the "types of ghosts" that people are said to encounter, so people just go with it and don't question the many unanswered areas of it. No new ideas to explain the experiences are being tested and put out there. Just the same old "it's a recording on the location" used to explain the phenomena.
We need to move forward. I'm not saying to totally throw out the residual haunting idea. But don't keep going around promoting it like it's a proven thing that happens. You can keep it in the back of your mind, but try new things. Even if no new explanation is found, still, trying new things is always good for moving any subject forward. Sitting on an idea that hasn't provided any evidence (and spreading that idea around like it's fact) doesn't get us anywhere.
-------------------------
Further reading:
http://www.p-s-i.org.uk/stonetapearticle.htm
http://www.sgha.net/articles/residualhaunt.html
http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Recording%20ghosts.html
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
matt_ferrell's journal