Ghost Hunters - Bullshit or real?

[Marcus Aurelius]

That's actually pretty neat, but yeah, the easiest explanation is that somebody, possibly having heard the claims of these 'Australian tourists' that there was a ghost about, just went and opened the doors one night.

It is telling that nobody was supposed to be in that part of the building, but apparently the whereabouts of all employees are not known in any exact manner. So it it's either an employee or an employee's friend in a period dress. Since going to that part of the building without a good reason, let alone letting a non-staff member inside is not allowed, it is not like the culprit is going to tell anyone what he or she did. Nothing was apparently stolen and nobody was hurt, so the case does not interest the police much and nobody else really has the authority and means to expose the culprit.

[Solauren]

Ah, ghost-photos, the biggest pile of * there is.

The only way I believe a ghost photo (I've seen one I can't explain away) is if you take a brand new camera (as in just out of the box), put in a brand new roll of film, snap a picture, and then see a ghost.

[Lagmonster]

Ah, ghost-photos, the biggest pile of * there is.

The only way I believe a ghost photo (I've seen one I can't explain away) is if you take a brand new camera (as in just out of the box), put in a brand new roll of film, snap a picture, and then see a ghost.

...and then answer the question as to why an out-of-the-box camera can see it, but you can't. Besides which, mysterious photographs are a dime a dozen. And the same question for each 'ghost photo' still applies: "Okay, you don't recall that fuzzy light was there when you took the picture. What possible reason could you have to say that it's residue from a dead person? Particularly when there are *dozens* of ways to reproduce fuzzy lights on film via perfectly mundane means?"