<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ghostly Spectacles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:10:23 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: brainwave</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-213678</link>
		<dc:creator>brainwave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:07:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-213678</guid>
		<description>Great post! I really am getting heavily into this subject.  Do you happen to know where I could find any connected forums? Thanks :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post! I really am getting heavily into this subject.  Do you happen to know where I could find any connected forums? Thanks <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ghosts in the light &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-97666</link>
		<dc:creator>Ghosts in the light &#124; Bad Astronomy &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-97666</guid>
		<description>[...] of course, we all know that in real life, when you turn the lights on, the ghosts disappear, because they&#8217;re not real at all. So there&#8217;s a tie-in* with skepticism that makes this [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of course, we all know that in real life, when you turn the lights on, the ghosts disappear, because they&#8217;re not real at all. So there&#8217;s a tie-in* with skepticism that makes this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DavidPace.com</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-4938</link>
		<dc:creator>DavidPace.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-4938</guid>
		<description>[... There are plenty of people who bring down ghost stories with a swift swing of the skeptical hammer. ...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[... There are plenty of people who bring down ghost stories with a swift swing of the skeptical hammer. ...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neologasm &#187; Blog Archive &#187; creduloid</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-4937</link>
		<dc:creator>Neologasm &#187; Blog Archive &#187; creduloid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-4937</guid>
		<description>[...] Noun. Creduloid was coined by Albert Einstein to make fun of his mistress, Grace Kelly, who was a professional Nessie hunter. And if you believe that, you just might be a creduloid yourself &#8212; someone who believes what they hear without applying any critical thinking to it. Someone who takes credulity to new and scary and non-scientifically-approved heights. Phil Plait: &#8220;Ghostly Spectacles&#8221; on the Bad Astronomy Blog: As a kid, my brain went through many years of training as a creduloid, someone who believes just about anything, simply because someone told me so. UFOs, astral projection, the Bermuda Triangleâ€“ at some point, I believed in it. Over time I figured out how to ask for evidence, how to evaluate it, and how to form an opinion based on that evaluation. Iâ€™ve had a long time to make that procedure second nature.  (June 7, 2005) Akusai: &#8220;The 54th Skeptics Circle: The Stuff that Woos Are Made Of&#8221; on Action Skeptics: &#8220;You&#8217;re probably right, Mr. Bixby,&#8221; the Doc said. &#8221; What about the coroner? What&#8217;s the verdict there?&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Noun. Creduloid was coined by Albert Einstein to make fun of his mistress, Grace Kelly, who was a professional Nessie hunter. And if you believe that, you just might be a creduloid yourself &#8212; someone who believes what they hear without applying any critical thinking to it. Someone who takes credulity to new and scary and non-scientifically-approved heights. Phil Plait: &#8220;Ghostly Spectacles&#8221; on the Bad Astronomy Blog: As a kid, my brain went through many years of training as a creduloid, someone who believes just about anything, simply because someone told me so. UFOs, astral projection, the Bermuda Triangleâ€“ at some point, I believed in it. Over time I figured out how to ask for evidence, how to evaluate it, and how to form an opinion based on that evaluation. Iâ€™ve had a long time to make that procedure second nature.  (June 7, 2005) Akusai: &#8220;The 54th Skeptics Circle: The Stuff that Woos Are Made Of&#8221; on Action Skeptics: &#8220;You&#8217;re probably right, Mr. Bixby,&#8221; the Doc said. &#8221; What about the coroner? What&#8217;s the verdict there?&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dorothyblueeyes</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-4936</link>
		<dc:creator>dorothyblueeyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-4936</guid>
		<description>Hi, very interesting about the glasses, which I wear, too, and I often get that phenomenom.. Now, there is a very well known woman, who lives in a country area of England, (I think,)who brags to everyone, that they have very active ghosts in their place,; and these are not &quot;illusions&quot; or scary stuff; they act exactly like people,and they see them exactly, walking around,and are not any accident,or illusion; they act just like they[re living with the people there,and are annoyed,and make a racket,and try to get them to leave. If that were recorded,and got a good picture,and recording, witnessed, of this, I believe that this type of ghost sighting is a lot more realistic,and has more evidence. (If you can actaully get the evidence, which I kind of doubt; I doubt the whole thing.)

   Rather,there is no mistaking what they look like; real people, who are actaully ghosts, very very clear and active. (Although I doubt the whole thing completely.)    THAT is the only kind of ghost sighting anyone should even consider to investigate; visible, witnessed, accurate, and recorded sightings, with no &quot;moodiness&quot; or &quot;eirryness&quot; . This English bunch of ghosts are not eirry at all. Not at all!! They are supposed to be more like unwelcome relatives, who make plentyof real noise,and show up clearly. (If you want to even believe in that kind of ghost, at all.) Any other type of &quot;haunting&quot;, yes, I would not even consider.

     Traditionally, real &quot;ghosts&quot; are often seen as real people, very solid, clear, standing in front of you, making real noises, very real noises,and making a profound prescense in the house they are &quot;haunting&quot;. People in the house, think they are real, solid people, until they find out they&#039;re ghosts, tradtionally,and this is how they appear.

Those are the very old,tradtional instances of &quot;ghosts&quot; haunting a house,and those you can read ancient or more contemporary sightings of. (I&#039;m not saying they&#039;re real,or that they&#039;re not, but they are a heck of a lot more than sighing wind, or creaking doors, or shining glasses.) Read up on old instances of ghost sightings, those are the instances that people usually take seriously; not all this other stuff, that&#039;s so phony.

 Now, I&#039;m not saying they&#039;;re real ghosts, just that this is the tradtional, better viewpoint of witnessed(well witnessed) &quot;ghost&quot; sightings, and if you want to take ANY &#039;ghosts&#039; seriously, then, look into those old fashioned sightings, where the ghost looks just as solid as a real person. (ok, ok, I am just providing information, I am not saying theyre real or not.) That is up to you.  But, they don&#039;;t appear as clunking, wind singing, or unseeable imagery.   Those &quot;ghost-hunters&quot; are full of crap.

   All these movies that have &quot;noises&quot; &quot;creepiness&quot; and atmospheric &quot;ghostliness&quot; are not even like tradtional ghost sightings, from old houses in tradtional writings!!Phooey!!And, we were not there,so we can &#039;t say they were real ghosts!!! Too hard to prove what it was, that looked like a real person, hanginging out in someone&#039;s house, refusing to leave the place. (maybe someone&#039;s motherinlaw.)   Real, good evidence of real &quot;ghosts&quot; is just too hard to establish. Yep. Even Houdini, who went to psychic perveyors,and tried to talk to his dead mother, for years, found out all the psychics were fake. All of them. He WANTED to believe they were real, and yet, in investigation, he found out they were all phony. sigh. So much for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, very interesting about the glasses, which I wear, too, and I often get that phenomenom.. Now, there is a very well known woman, who lives in a country area of England, (I think,)who brags to everyone, that they have very active ghosts in their place,; and these are not &#8220;illusions&#8221; or scary stuff; they act exactly like people,and they see them exactly, walking around,and are not any accident,or illusion; they act just like they[re living with the people there,and are annoyed,and make a racket,and try to get them to leave. If that were recorded,and got a good picture,and recording, witnessed, of this, I believe that this type of ghost sighting is a lot more realistic,and has more evidence. (If you can actaully get the evidence, which I kind of doubt; I doubt the whole thing.)</p>
<p>   Rather,there is no mistaking what they look like; real people, who are actaully ghosts, very very clear and active. (Although I doubt the whole thing completely.)    THAT is the only kind of ghost sighting anyone should even consider to investigate; visible, witnessed, accurate, and recorded sightings, with no &#8220;moodiness&#8221; or &#8220;eirryness&#8221; . This English bunch of ghosts are not eirry at all. Not at all!! They are supposed to be more like unwelcome relatives, who make plentyof real noise,and show up clearly. (If you want to even believe in that kind of ghost, at all.) Any other type of &#8220;haunting&#8221;, yes, I would not even consider.</p>
<p>     Traditionally, real &#8220;ghosts&#8221; are often seen as real people, very solid, clear, standing in front of you, making real noises, very real noises,and making a profound prescense in the house they are &#8220;haunting&#8221;. People in the house, think they are real, solid people, until they find out they&#8217;re ghosts, tradtionally,and this is how they appear.</p>
<p>Those are the very old,tradtional instances of &#8220;ghosts&#8221; haunting a house,and those you can read ancient or more contemporary sightings of. (I&#8217;m not saying they&#8217;re real,or that they&#8217;re not, but they are a heck of a lot more than sighing wind, or creaking doors, or shining glasses.) Read up on old instances of ghost sightings, those are the instances that people usually take seriously; not all this other stuff, that&#8217;s so phony.</p>
<p> Now, I&#8217;m not saying they&#8217;;re real ghosts, just that this is the tradtional, better viewpoint of witnessed(well witnessed) &#8220;ghost&#8221; sightings, and if you want to take ANY &#8216;ghosts&#8217; seriously, then, look into those old fashioned sightings, where the ghost looks just as solid as a real person. (ok, ok, I am just providing information, I am not saying theyre real or not.) That is up to you.  But, they don&#8217;;t appear as clunking, wind singing, or unseeable imagery.   Those &#8220;ghost-hunters&#8221; are full of crap.</p>
<p>   All these movies that have &#8220;noises&#8221; &#8220;creepiness&#8221; and atmospheric &#8220;ghostliness&#8221; are not even like tradtional ghost sightings, from old houses in tradtional writings!!Phooey!!And, we were not there,so we can &#8216;t say they were real ghosts!!! Too hard to prove what it was, that looked like a real person, hanginging out in someone&#8217;s house, refusing to leave the place. (maybe someone&#8217;s motherinlaw.)   Real, good evidence of real &#8220;ghosts&#8221; is just too hard to establish. Yep. Even Houdini, who went to psychic perveyors,and tried to talk to his dead mother, for years, found out all the psychics were fake. All of them. He WANTED to believe they were real, and yet, in investigation, he found out they were all phony. sigh. So much for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-4935</link>
		<dc:creator>CR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-4935</guid>
		<description>Of course, I&#039;m sure everyone&#039;s done this at least once: you try to take a photo through glass, but not only do you stand directly in front of the glass (instead of standing at an angle off to one side, to avoid photgraphing your own reflection), you use the flash as well. The effect of your reflection looking like your head is going supernova is fairly funny (and disappointing at the same time).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, I&#8217;m sure everyone&#8217;s done this at least once: you try to take a photo through glass, but not only do you stand directly in front of the glass (instead of standing at an angle off to one side, to avoid photgraphing your own reflection), you use the flash as well. The effect of your reflection looking like your head is going supernova is fairly funny (and disappointing at the same time).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/comment-page-1/#comment-4934</link>
		<dc:creator>CR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/07/ghostly-reflections/#comment-4934</guid>
		<description>Well, I once partly exposed a roll of film while loading it, so that the first couple of frames looked like orange, blobby messes when I got the prints back from the processor. In fact, some of the people in the shots appeared to be on fire (as did the backgrounds and everything else). So, did I photograph &quot;proof&quot; of spontaneous human combustion? :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I once partly exposed a roll of film while loading it, so that the first couple of frames looked like orange, blobby messes when I got the prints back from the processor. In fact, some of the people in the shots appeared to be on fire (as did the backgrounds and everything else). So, did I photograph &#8220;proof&#8221; of spontaneous human combustion? <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
