You are hereForums / Investigation / Investigating the Paranormal / Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?

Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?


46 replies [Last post]
Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Mysteryshopper wrote: Ian
Mysteryshopper wrote:
Ian Topham wrote:

There could be another reason we don't get dinosaur ghosts.  The land masses have changed and they may all be wandering around under the Pacific.

Plenty of dinosaur bones have been found in the UK. Your point relies on a ghost being tied forever to a fixed latitude and longitude rather than a bit of the Earth's crust. There is an implicit assumption there about the nature of ghosts.

So what theory of ghosts are you proposing? :)

Hehe, I knew I couldn't get away with slipping that one in.  Your right there is an assumption in there about ghosts, but it isn't a scientifically proven rule of thumb.  The theory that ghosts haunt a location is probably culturally based. 

However, if you don't like that idea, I doubt you'll entertain the idea that all the dinosaurs have been re-incarnated and therefore none of their spirits are left to go around haunting :).

I think I'll crawl back under my rock now :) lol

BaronIveagh's picture
BaronIveagh
User offline. Last seen 46 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2008
I disagree with the idea

I disagree with the idea that animal ghosts tend to be domesticated: ghostly stags, big cats, and even wolves have been reported.

The thing that I notice is that almost all reported ghosts are of mammels.

Now: why don't we have ghostly mammoths and glyptodonts I have no idea.  I would conjecture that time, indeed, does erase all things.  Perhaps over time ghosts experiance something like radioactive decay, or even just slowly run out of energy.  One thing I have noticed is a tendency in hauntings to occur in locations that one might call emotionally charged.

Perhaps the relitive rarity of animal ghosts is due to such only rising from a sort of 'perfect storm' of conditions, similar to fossilisation.  The problem with this is once again, we're treading in unknown territory, since we can only broadly guess at what actually occurs to create a ghost.

Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

Mysteryshopper
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
BaronIveagh wrote: I
BaronIveagh wrote:

I disagree with the idea that animal ghosts tend to be domesticated: ghostly stags, big cats, and even wolves have been reported.

So, in your experience, what proportion of animal ghosts are domesticated?

Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008
Bit of a digression, but we

Bit of a digression, but we should remember that not all animal hauntings are ghosts in a typical "residue of the past" vein.

Sightings of animals such as dogs and rabbits have long been associated with both forewarnings of terrible events (mine disasters etc) and also a form of marker or echo of those events. Up here in Kidsgrove, for example, there are a number of black dog sightings down the years associated variously with the forewarning of a disaster and a murder that was thought to have been committed along the canal. The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they're not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.

Mysteryshopper
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Matt.H wrote: The
Matt.H wrote:

The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they're not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.

I'm going to make the 'heretical' suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I've been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I'm talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected 'traditional' ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).

Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008
Mysteryshopper
Mysteryshopper wrote:
Matt.H wrote:

The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they're not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.

I'm going to make the 'heretical' suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I've been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I'm talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected 'traditional' ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).

I think the assumption that ghosts are largely (or in some people's opinions exclusively) imprints/echoes of the dead is a big barrier to any true understanding of what's going on in such experiences.

Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Mysteryshopper wrote: I'm
Mysteryshopper wrote:

I'm going to make the 'heretical' suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I've been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I'm talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected 'traditional' ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).

I think this is an excellent point.  From actual investigations I have been involved in, I can't think any ghost that can be accuratly identified as someone who has passed away.  There are of course many accounts of hauntings that name the ghost, which I think has been a fashionable approach for many years. 

Perhaps trying to identify ghosts is a pactice that should be abandoned.

Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008
I tend to agree, although

I tend to agree, although I'm aware of a handful of credible reports that seem to have a clear link between a historical character and a ghost sighting. For example, a case where someone saw the apparition of a prison guard in such detail (officer number etc) that they were able to pinpoint someone who worked at the location at that time.

Hardly concrete evidence of the ghost:history link (and it's admittedly second-hand information) but food for thought all the same.

StrangeRichard
User offline. Last seen 5 years 29 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Sticking my nose in here .

Sticking my nose in here . Maybe we are just to genetically different from dinosaurs to see them? we share common ancesters but not directly. Maybe the way our brains are wired is too different to receive the sightings?

When I was at college (studing animal husbandry) we got invited to a uni up in london (sorry can't remeber which one but it was fairly close to the station (waterloo)) we went to a animal rights and care conference (not the most scientific place) but there was one study done by some "real" scientists (psychologists) that made a link between domesticated animals and psychic phenomena. The study revolved around that animals (dog and cats) "knew " when their owners were coming home even if the owners didn't. This was "proved" by the dog or cat sitting in the window of the house or in a specific location awaiting the owner when they got in the door. Usually the animal would get up before the engine of the car was heard by some 2-3 minutes and assume the location.
now this sounds off topic but maybe, familiarity forms the link? yes we don't personnally know the animals in question but they know humans by the association of neurons that you guys discussed earlier.

Maybe we should see ghosts more like replacement organs from a body. We can get a close enough match the intensity of the experience is greater as the wiring in the brain is closer or your double helix is closer to the subject. This would explain why ghosts have been witnessed speaking but not being heard.

I must put my head in the noose hereand say that maybe the ghosts are erased by the action of the tectonic plates and the rocks that they walked upon have been melted down and returned to the soup that makes up the mantle, very much like a wax recording.

Saying that eeg brainwaves are very smallis quiet true butthey do come through the skull as the collectors are placed on the skin not through the bone. Only if the surgeon wants a better look does he get out his power drill and poke holes in your skull.

just a thought cheers Richard

gonna hide in my bunker now with the arp helmet on!

Mysteryshopper
User offline. Last seen 3 years 14 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
StrangeRichard
StrangeRichard wrote:

Saying that eeg brainwaves are very smallis quiet true butthey do come through the skull as the collectors are placed on the skin not through the bone. Only if the surgeon wants a better look does he get out his power drill and poke holes in your skull.

EEG waves are the sum of many underlying neuron firings in synchrony. What you can't detect outside the skull is small numbers of neurons firing individually. EEG waves don't give you details about how the brain is working, just overall states.



Share/Save

Navigation

Recent comments

Featured Site