hubby says he has seen a ghost five times so far.

[lowresidue]

Hubby has taken our dog to a local wood, and lets the dog go for a run.
He goes at different times and different days.
He came home and told me that he has seen the same woman ghost five separate times so far. Tonight with bonnet wearing woman made him jump when she popped up in front of him. When he said 'you made me jump', she smiled nodded and walked away from him.

He was quite serious but I asked why he thought she was a dead/ ghost? He said because she is wearing a long coat and a bonnet type hat.
AIBU to suggest that this woman isn't dead, isn't a ghost and is an odd lady with a strange fashion sense?
He is quite firm she is a ghost, and walks along the path but not on it though the trees.

personally I am glad we are going on holiday soon my hubby really needs it asap.
Then again AIBU?

Yeah, but how do you decide where the up to a point is?

x post

But you can't really decide on the line example by example.

Or, you can, but it doesn't create a workable framework or allow blanket statements about what's real and what's not.

@BertrandRussell you seem very dismissive of peoples experiences.I lived in that house for over a year.
I know what i heard , seen and felt.
Other people experiencedcstuff in the house.

Now maybe I'd agree with you if it was a once off encounter in a haunted location.Your brain does weird things and its wired to fill in the gaps.

But when you live in a house like that every day.Its an experience.Thats what i will tell you.

Is this the right room for an argument?

@BertrandRussell I've told you once.

No you haven't

@BertrandRussell Yes I have.

OP the woman your DH is seeing sounds an awful lot like my grandma she often wears the same clothes (long skirt) and a bonnet like hat with a flower on that she has made herself. They aren't exactly the same clothes, she has lots of them but they are all identical. And she does lots of walking.

With respect to ghosts, if we think how many people there have been on the earth over the years why aren't there more ghosts? Why arent there any animal ghosts or like mosquito ghosts? Lots of mosqiotos die pretty traumatic deaths. Why do only a very small minority of people become ghosts? Surely some places would have 1000s of ghosts if there had been a battle or disaster there. Logically most people who die are wearing pjs or a mighty of some sort but yet very few ghosts actually are. You hardly ever get baby ghosts either, toddlers and children yes but not babies.

Our minds play tricks on us all the time, think how many times have you woken up in the night and seen someone in your room only to refocus your eyes and see it was your dressing gown + lamp combination? I read that you can convince someone they've commited murder in just 3 interviews.

I think ghosts are perhaps just somethinf werid we've seen that our mind can't quite process in time so makes into a human.

It's funny how everyone can miraculously describe a ghost and others can immediately identify who it was because tbh I have never been able to accurately describe a living person I just randomly saw or had someone described to me who I've been able to identify. Can't even describe my mum very well other than "short with blonde hair"

There is no such as thing as supernatural, everything that appears is "natural" and has a logical explanation, we might not know it yet but if ghosts are real they have to be something. What are they made of? Where do they come from? Why do they form? Like what actually are they? I think that's the thing sceptics feel is people just say "its a ghost" but there's no credible or logical explanation about what they are or where they come from.

TheDish

Spot on. That’s a really good summary.

What I find so galling is people saying it’s arrogant to deny the existence of ghosts, despite the fact there isn’t a shred of reliable evidence for the existence of ghosts.

When pressed to say what might lie these completely illogical and unsubstantiated claims believers start talking about energies, slips in time and other stuff completely unknown to science.

Making up whole new scientific theories which would overturn centuries of existing science and without any reasoning or evidence at all, or even simply denying the explanations science can offer and the doubts it raises - that’s arrogant.

I still want to know whether the OP has been dog walking with her DH yet, so that she can check out BonnetWoman too.

@dustarr73 I can promise you no goats were involved in my experience

The cottage concerned was single storey and on the Renvyle peninsula in Ireland, half a mile or more down the lane from the village, and the incident was in the mid 1960s (which is doubtless 'outing' for me!).

Some 30yrs later when discussing it with the woman who'd told me about her anxiety at leaving her sick husband, she said her grandfather had come from that area and she thought the people in the village would certainly have known about it.

She also speculated it might have been the spirit of some historic and evil land agent 'bound to his room til the end of time'. I found that thought of some comfort as I had no intention of ever returning...

making up whole new scientific theories that would overturn centuries of science- that's arrogant

But no one has done this? Non-scientists might have made vague noises about scientific things (eg energy) - but the constant theme seems to be I don't know how to expain the experience There are no complex and controversial scientific theories on this thread that I've seen.

Do most people agree, though, that there is more science to discover, as it were? Or do we know it all now?

The point I was making earlier is that some sceptics have this arbitrary exclusion zone around things that they will or won't believe. Not believing in unicorns seems fair enough. But what if there comes a point where you're forced to concede, say, that people can share thoughts in a way previously considered impossible? There are loads of cases of twins, for example, having a psycic connection. The sceptics will routinely dimiss this. But what if, using scientific methods we don't yet have, scientists can explain how this happens?

Note, I'm not proposing the science of this myself - but I'm suggesting it could happen. It probably seems as impossible to some as mobile phones would to people in the Middle Ages... so you see my point.

If you have to start shifting your boundaries regarding what is science and what is fantasy - well, where does that leave you?

"but the constant theme seems to be I don't know how to expain the experience"
But people are incredibly quick to reject any obvious explanation offered "I definitely wasn't asleep" "It can't possibly have been a hoax" "I know it wasn't an optical illusion" (three very common explanations for the unexplained) They even see to get angry if someone offers those suggestions....

AnxiousPeg

I said, in full, Making up whole new scientific theories which would overturn centuries of existing science and without any reasoning or evidence at all, or even simply denying the explanations science can offer and the doubts it raises - that’s arrogant.

The arrogance is to be dismissive of scientific rigour and - worse - to make up pseudo-scientific nonsense by way of justification. (I'm not saying you do that, by the way.)

As for There are loads of cases of twins, for example, having a psycic connection. ...no, there aren't. There isn't one such case. Not one.

"But what if, using scientific methods we don't yet have, scientists can explain how this happens?"
Surely we first have to agree that it happens? The American military spent ages and mega bucks on trying to make all sorts of psychic stuff happen and then gave up because it didn't.

Yes - people are quick to reject those explanations I guess. But I know when I'm asleep. Do you?

The twin thing - there are loads of cases, and between other relatives too. I'm not saying there are loads of cases in scientific journals, to be clear.

I respect science. But I don't need it to tell me everything. I know how I feel, if I'm awake, who I love. There isn't scientific data for all that.

But people are incredibly quick to reject any obvious explanation offered "I definitely wasn't asleep" "It can't possibly have been a hoax" "I know it wasn't an optical illusion" (three very common explanations for the unexplained) They even see to get angry if someone offers those suggestions....

Sometimes these explanations do seem to fit/cannot be dismissed. Quite often, though, these kind of explanations are just wholly inadequate as an explanation for what happened. It's hard to see how an optical illusion could be a credible explanation for some of the complex, moving visions seen. Add in sounds, feelings etc and an optical illusion by itself is not an adequate explanation. To give one example.

I think it can be frustrating to the people who have the experiences to have random other people try and explain their experiences - and insist their explanation is the correct one(!) - when they weren't present, don't have all the facts, and insist on dismissing elements of the seers experience - trying to fit the events to suit the theory. We've seen that on this thread, haven't we, where numerous posters opined that ghosts are overwhelmingly Victorian, and completely ignored or dismissed the experiences of all the posters who stated this wasn't the case, with illustrative examples. It seems that confirmation bias is in play on the sceptic side too.

The tales of psychic twins, siblings, anyone frankly, 'knowing' something the other has thought of, is going to do or the circumstances they're in (assuming the facts of the tale are actually true of course) is what is called in plain English coincidence.

There is no evidence for psychic abilities or capacity. None. Nada. Zip.

I think it can be frustrating to the people who have the experiences to have random other people try and explain their experiences - and insist their explanation is the correct one(!) - when they weren't present, don't have all the facts, and insist on dismissing elements of the seers experience - trying to fit the events to suit the theory.

Why? Why is that frustrating? If random people post their experiences online and other random people point out that the supernatural is a load of garbage, that's how it goes.

I don't doubt that people experience unusual things. I do dismiss the explanation that it was a ghost. It seems incredible in this day and age that people are still willing to believe in ghosts!

You are entitled to your opinion, Plimmy. I'm not sure why you are baffled as to why other people would find it frustrating when you, and others like you, try to insist that their opinion should change to match your own. It is also very frustrating when posters are rude, which you have been on this thread. That is just nasty and unnecessary. By all means disagree, and put your own opinion/theory forward. But gratuitous rudeness, just because somebody doesn't agree? That doesn't sit well with me.

I haven't been rude at all. If the subject of ghosts is close to your heart and you take firm scepticism as an attack on your beliefs, and therefore rude, there's nothing I can do about that.

Why is it rude to say “Here are possible explanations for what you experienced - people have often had similar experiences and they have usually turned out to be one of these things”?

Butting in. I don't believe iin ghosts. Or anything supernatural.

I love a good woo thread though. And a story or novel or film. Keep the spooky stories coming!

Plimmy you have a short memory, it seems. You wrote this on 17 July at 19.33 (p10):

But you still believe? Fine, but it’s a belief. Just like some odd people believe the Queen is a lizard. Well done, you’re in with the lizard folk.

I, and others, pointed out to you at the time that this was unnecessarily sneering and rude. I'm not sure why you feel the need to descend to that level. To me, it suggests a level of contempt for those who disagree with you that is not in the spirit of these threads.

I agree Bertrand, that there is nothing rude in suggestions as you describe. However, not everybody conducts themselves with good manners.

If after searching that's the best you can do, my denial of having been rude is confirmed.

I'll be straightforward so there's no misunderstanding: I regard claims of ghosts as being as implausible and fanciful as those that the Queen is really a lizard. That's all I was saying. And I think that's obvious.

Do you really object to the comparison? If so, why? Do you think believing in poltergeists, phantoms, spooks and other ghostly apparitions is sort of OK but the lizard nonsense is unacceptable?

I think you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes decent manners, Plimmy, and my impression is that your thinking is quite rigid. I could answer your questions, but I suspect that no matter how I tried to explain how your analogy could come across as rude and sneering, you will fail to see how other people could see it that way. I don't wish to derail the thread, or cause it to descend into a slanging match, so I will leave it here.

Omg! We've all heard you now so why don't you just run along now Plimmy.
Why are you even on a thread where you absolutely disagree with everything that is being said. You just seem to want to argue!
Just go away to another thread and be happy!
We've got the message thanks! You don't believe in ghosts! Great! Now go!