One of my most prized friends believes in ghosts. Her and I have more or less just agreed to disagree on the issue and tried to avoid bringing it up, but - of course - it tends to crop-up here or there. It did again last night, and - as she always has - she stood unshakably on the grounds that there is far too much photographic and, recently, video evidence, to remain skeptical of the existence of ghosts. She linked me to a couple YouTube videos, and asked me to humor her and take a look.

So, of course, I did.

Feel free to look yourself:

Videos Being Discussed Here

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

The first thing to going ahead and lay out on the table as a sign of piss poor 'investigation' or 'research' is the use of presupposition. We're told what we're supposed to be seeing before being shown any footage, and in many cases the narration only furthers this along. This intentionally erodes the viewer's objectivity.

Viewing with the sound turned off helps (though, in many cases, we still have on screen text throwing-out serving as a leash).

That being said:

Exhibit A

Well, I'll give these clips this: With the exception of two (both of them G/H/O/S/T clips: the scene in the graveyard and the scene taken while driving), no natural phenomena I'm aware of can account for what's being filmed. Either the filmer is fabricating a hoax or they have actually captured the supernatural on film.

Now, do we have compelling evidence to give credit to the latter notion?

Parapsychologists are fond of pointing-out that video and photographic imagery of this calber would likely be admissable as credible evidence in any other established body of study. The problem here is the word established. It was through rigorous testing and exploration that current scientific bodies of knowledge were established, and through the same process that they continue to grow. Parapsychology is not established to the same degree, so it should not enjoy the same benefit of the doubt.

The claim being made is extraordinary: there are spectral entities amok in our world, of whatever nature, capable of exerting physical force on people and objects.

Evidence supporting this claim must, therefore, be equally extraordinary before it becomes compelling.

Take a look at the 'poltergeist' activity. How often are we shown a full view of an object in motion, allowed to follow it's full movement path and shown where it ends up? Why are even the most allegedly troublesome of poltergeists apparently content with sliding tables and chairs around, rather than violently overturning them or levitating them through the air (as with smaller objects)? Moreover, why are the interactions limited to one object at a time? I would argue that watching all of one's kitchen drawers open-up and begin exchanging cutlery, glasses and dishes through the air would be far more frightening and far better evidence than a series of movements of single pieces of furniture.

Exhibit B and C

All of the above still applies, with the exception of 'The Mist' being very easily dismissed as a natural phenomena. I'd like to highlight here, however, the circular reasoning that binds this kind of irrational thinking to other kinds of irrational thinking. Even if we gave the family being 'attacked by a poltergeist' the benefit of the doubt, how can one arbitrarily stake the claim that 'the ghost is of the devil'. Since I claim one exists, the other must too, and vice-versa.

The other thing to note is the passing mention of expert analysis, often without the inclusion of said analysis's results (or even, for that matter, the expert's credentials) - giving us very clear evidence already of dishonesty on the part of documentary maker.

She asked me this after I explained the above to her, and the question is fair enough.

Well, the best sort of evidence would be physical. Since the alleged nature of ghosts appears to make this impossible, 'good enough' film evidence would have to be really damn good:

 - The phenomena would be to be shot from multiple cameras from multiple angles. This would make direct film tampering an extremely unlikely candidate for producing what is seen.

 - No 'wishing to remain anonymous', closed-door bullshit, with the occassional appearance on a talk show or special interest 'documentary'. Someone on the verge of making a fantastic new discovery should act like it. There should be full media coverage to give full and accountable public scrutiny and disclosure regarding the claims.

 - The paranormal activity and/or manifestation must be in plain sight, preferably diretly centered in the lens of a majority of the cameras that are capturing it. It must also be clearly paranormal, of high enough resolution to make out clear details, and the cameras should not be shaky.

Those are my big three. I'm sure other members here would have other qualifiers.

So, she says she'll try to dig up something that meets those three criteria for me to look at. While she's at it:

I presume at least a couple of theists here believe in demonic poltergeist attacks? Do you happen to know of compelling film evidence I could look at? While I humor a friend, I suppose I'll humor you as well.