There is no irrefutable scientific research that indicates the existence of ghosts.

No scientific research is irrefutable!

I think scientists are generally on the fence on this question.

There is no scientific existence of ghost – is quite a wrong fact. Science has not been able to discover or prove their existence and so they remain unknown. But this does not clearly indicate that they do not exist. The probability is still open to 50-50 % as it is not an established fact that they dont exist. They exist or not, it is yet to be explored.

Some fake theories were were produced to make certain that they exist and others that say they dont. Which one to believe is our choice as all the opinions are not accepted by all globally. This shows that science has still not been able to identify the true fact.

I don’t know, but those pictures are weird, in one there’s a kind of mist and in another it looks like there’s an old man looking through the doors. Really spooky, I would not spend a night there if anyone paid me.

No, there is no scientific evidence for ghosts. Everything that people claim as evidence for ghosts can be better explained by more rational ideas.

For example thinking that you see a human face or shape where there is none is often pareidolia, such as the pic you have shown us (assume it is the one looking down the hall through the arched doors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

There is definitely something going on in those pictures, I think it’s a woman looking through the doors. I can’t see the mist in any of the pictures.

I personally believe that spirits can manifest themselves in a form we can see. There is no way science can explain everything. There have been plenty of paranormal experiments but none have “proved” anything. And by the way – nothing is ever “proved” in science, there is only evidence to be weighed up. Even the most seemingly rock solid “proof” has an element of doubt.

Some researchers, such as Professor Michael Persinger (Laurentian University, Canada), have speculated that changes in geomagnetic fields (created, e.g., by tectonic stresses in the Earth’s crust or solar activity) could stimulate the brain’s temporal lobes and produce many of the experiences associated with haunting. This theory has been tested in various ways. Some scientists have examined the relationship between the time of onset of unusual phenomena in allegedly haunted locations and any sudden increases in global geomagnetic activity. Others have investigated whether the location of alleged haunting is associated with certain types of magnetic activity. Finally, a third strand of work has involved laboratory studies in which stimulation of the temporal lobe with transcerebral magnetic fields has elicited subjective experiences that strongly parallel phenomena associated with haunting. All of this work is controversial; it has attracted a large amount of debate and disagreement. Sound is thought to be another cause of supposed sightings. Frequencies lower than 20 hertz are called infrasound and are normally inaudible, but scientists Richard Lord and Richard Wiseman have concluded that infrasound can cause humans to experience bizarre feelings in a room, such as anxiety, extreme sorrow, a feeling of being watched, or even the chills. Carbon monoxide poisoning, which can cause changes in perception of the visual and auditory systems, was recognized as a possible explanation for haunted houses as early as 1921.

There is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead.

Critics of “eyewitness ghost sightings” suggest that limitations of human perception and ordinary physical explanations can account for such sightings; for example, air pressure changes in a home causing doors to slam, or lights from a passing car are reflected through a window at night. Pareidolia, an innate tendency to recognize patterns in random perceptions, is what some skeptics believe causes people to believe that they have seen ghosts. Reports of ghosts “seen out of the corner of the eye” may be accounted for by the sensitivity of human peripheral vision.