Doubly Exposing Spirit Photography

I've gone on her ghost tour before in Marietta, Georgia, and it was quite entertaining. She's also a tarot reader, she's an astrologer, and she's an all around witchy person. And the fact that we can be such good friends speaks very highly of her patients as well. Because I am notoriously not a believer in any of those things.

But when I asked Shaye her opinion as to what I should talk about, her response was seasonally appropriate that I should do an episode about tech that folks have used in order to pull the wool over other people's eyes when it comes to stuff like ghosts and spirits. Now, in past episodes of tech Stuff, I have done episodes about ghost hunting equipment. I did a recent rerun of

ghost hunting equipment episodes. So the short version of those episodes, if you haven't heard them, is that I do not believe in ghosts, and in my mind, the equipment falls between two extremes. And on one end you have tech that actually does do something, but it's completely unrelated to ghost hunting, like an EMF reader for example. These devices measure electromagnetic fields and they're important for folks like say, electricians.

If a house has faulty wiring, an EMF meter can point an electrician in the right direction so that they can address the issue. Now, on the other end of the spectrum are tools that, as far as I can determine, have no real purpose, but they've been adopted and promoted by ghost hunter types. So an example of this category would be spirit boxes, which just scan through radio frequencies.

So the idea is that spirits are somehow capable of sending messages by manipulating radio waves in an inexplicable way, and not just manipulating radio waves, right, It's not just that you tune a radio to a frequency that's unused, so you're just getting static. That's not what you're doing. Instead, the ghost is somehow able to communicate across different frequencies.

So this would be like having a pair of walkie talkies, but in order to hear what your best friend is saying, you would have to change the frequency channel at just the right time and in sync with your friend. Otherwise you would just get a blip of what your friend was saying as they went through the different channels, and

that's it. Now. Some spirit boxes flip through frequencies relatively slowly, and that means the occasional word or sound from an actual radio station will make its way through and that you'll hear it and you'll understand it. But obviously, if it's going that slowly, that means you could just hear a local radio program and you might just use some creative thinking to make whatever you heard fit whatever narrative you are searching for in your quest to support the

existence of ghosts. Other spirit boxes are designed to rapidly scan through frequencies so that you're not likely to hear anything clearly. But how a ghost is supposed to communicate through that kind of method beats the heck out of me. Like a ghost has to be really determined to talk to you if they are going to manipulate radio waves

in a cascade of frequencies. Unless the idea is that when you hit upon something, you stop and then you try to listen in, because that would be just like hitting the scanner button on a digital radio, where it's just going to seeking out, you know, strong radio frequencies one after the other, and that doesn't really seem like a useful tool to be either. Now, this is a

really good point to drive home. So much of ghost hunting technology is based upon a very faulty premise, which is the presumption that ghosts can manipulate phenomena ranging from electromagnetic waves in general to radio waves specifically. Because here's the thing, y'all, ghosts haven't been proven to be a thing yet in the first place. So to me, that's like you're putting the cart before the horse. You know, if you say, if this meter goes beep, there's ghosts,

that's a problem. If you haven't yet proven that ghosts are even a thing. You have to do that first. Then you have to establish that these ghosts, which are definitely a thing, can do whatever it is you're cl they can do. In short, the argument the ghosts can manipulate phenomena at all presupposes that ghosts exist. That's not the way science works. This is where I have to again hammer home the fact I am a skeptic. Do I think it's outside the realm of possibility that ghosts exist? Well,

if I'm being honest, yeah, I do think that. I mean, I don't know everything though, right I do not know for sure, but I don't believe it, and I'm pretty I feel pretty confident it's not a thing. What I do know is that no one so far has produced evidence that satisfies me to suggest otherwise that I can say for sure, even if ultimately, if you put all the truth into a sieve, you would come up with

I don't know for sure. I have, however, plenty of evidence of people using technology to fake the existence of ghosts. Hoaxsters and hucksters, snake oil salesmen and con artists. These folks have made use of technology to fool wishful thinkers and those saddened by the passing of loved ones that communication beyond the veil is indeed possible, and that spirits

persist after earthly life. Has been extinguished. We don't have satisfactory evidence showing that ghosts are a thing, but we've got lots showing how unscrupulous people have tried to fool naive marks. Now, to be clear, you don't need technology to fool people. You know, some folks are just predisposed

to believing in spirits for one reason or another. They've done most of the work for you, and a charismatic medium might convince an audience that the medium can converse with spirits simply through some routines that make little use of technology at all, from an audience plant, which could be very effective, to cold reading practices, which are a variable effectiveness. It all depends upon the skill of the medium doing the cold reading, but technology we certainly can

help out. Now, in this episode, we're mainly going to focus pun intended on photography. Now, to do a full history of photography would take multiple episodes of tech stuff, So we're gonna hit some major highlights, and we're starting in the early nineteenth century because there was a French Smarty Pants who had the temerity to have the very French name of nisseephor Nips, and he came up with this mad idea of finding a means to make permanent

the images that could be projected by a camera obscura. Now, my drugies. The camera obscura was typically a darkened room where you have no source of light other than a tiny pinhole cut through one wall. Light enters through the pinhole and then projects on the opposite wall from where the pinhole is. Right, that's how light works. It travels in a straight line. The remarkable thing thing is this light would actually project an image of the scene that

was outside the darkened room on the opposite wall. So if you set one of these up and it was across from let's say a mountainscape, Like you're in a nice field and there's a mountain in the background, and you set up a camera obscura. So you've set up a room, a dark room that has just a pinhole in it on the opposite wall. You could see the scene of the mountain. It would be gorgeous, it'd be dim. Oh, also it would be upside down and reversed. Now how

is that possible, Well, it's physics. It's a property known as the rectilinear propagation of light. But the phenomena opened up artistic opportunities. You could have a sketch artist or painter set up inside a camera obscura and they have a canvas on the wall where the image will be projected. They could then use the projected light to guide their hand as they painted a copy of the scene, and then you would just turn the canvas over and you could look at it side up, though it was still

reversed right, so that was an issue. Plus, the light coming through the pinhole was not really that intense. It wasn't a very strong projection, so it's still pretty dim. However, through the use of things like optics like lenses and mirrors, it was possible to one gather more light so you get a brighter image projected. But you could also with the mirrors re reverse the image so that it was right side up and not reverse left or right. Even so,

the effect was ephemeral, right, The image wasn't permanent. You could go into the room and see the image projected on the wall, which is pretty, but you could also just go outside and look at the landscape directly without looking at the projection. So the best you could hope for was to sketch and paint a copy of the image. Nipps wanted to find a way to really capture an

image and then have it stay put. Now, about a century earlier, a German professor of a natic demonstrated that a solution of silver salts would darken when it was exposed to light. It was photoreactive, and further, he proved that it was light that caused the darkening process and not heat. That was something that some other people had put forward as a possible reason for this silver solution

to turn dark. Nips decided he would coat a sheet of paper with silver salts and project an image with a camera obscura onto that sheet of paper, and he produced his first image this way in May of eighteen sixteen. However, the image was not permanent because once you brought this image out into the light, well, that light would cause

the rest of the sheet to darken as well. It would cause the reaction on all the untouched silver salts that were coated on this piece of paper to also turn dark, so your image would fade and just turn dark across the entire canvas. Plus, the image he created

was also a negative. The areas that were hit with the most light were the darkest, and the ones that were hit with the least light were the brightest, so that meant that the brightest lit parts of your image would end up being the darkest parts in what you would get a negative image. Now, Nips experimented with photochemical compounds that would bleach rather than darken when exposed to light. But still there was the issue of this resulting image

disappearing once the whole thing got exposed. But yeah, you could bleach parts and then you don't have a negative image anymore. But once you take it out of the camera obscura and sunlight starts hitting it, the whole image begins to have this photochemical reaction. He also began to work with some chemical compounds that react to light, but they don't produce visible changes on their own unless they're

later treated to a separate chemical process. He eventually lit upon using bitumen of judea, which is a kind of naturally occurring asphalt. It's a tar like substance, and when it is exposed to sunlight it becomes non soluble with certain chemicals like nitric acid also known as aquafortis. He would coat a plate, typically a copper or ten plate,

with a varnish of this bitumen of Judea. Then he would take some translucent paper he would have like an etching on a piece of paper, treat that paper so that the paper would become translucent, and then lay that on top of one of these plates. Then he would expose the whole thing to sunlight for several hours, and enough light would pass through the translucent parts of the paper to cause a photochemical reaction to the exposed bitumen. The stuff that was shaded by etching would not react

to sunlight, right because it's not getting hit. Then once he was finished, once he had done this for a while and had developed or exposed, I guess I should say, exposed the plate to sunlight for a few hours, he would give the plate a rent in a pretty darn aggressive solution, and it would dissolve the bittermen that wasn't exposed to the light, and it left the stuff that was. The stuff that wasn't exposed to the light would remain

soluble and would dissolve. The stuff that had been exposed to light was insoluble and would stay on the plate. So what you would end up with is a negative image where the exposed plate would be the stuff that was the original etching, and then the stuff that still had Bittmen on it would be the parts where light was able to pass through. He took a similar approach to make this work with a camera obscura, using lithographic stones originally that were coded in bittermen of Judea. To

capture a scene. It would take days of exposure to have enough of the photochemical reaction take place to a point where the exposed bittermen would not wash away when

treated with these very abrasive chemicals. He would take that negative image, typically used on a plate of silver, and he would put that in a box that had crystals of iodine in it, and the crystals would evaporate, exposing the plate to iodine fumes, and this would cause the exposed silver, the bits that were not covered with the bitumen coating, to oxidize, and this oxidized silver would be

a coating of silver iodide. He then would clear the varnish of bittermen off the rest of the image, so he'd take off the stuff that had been reactive with the sunlight and he would expose it to light, which would then cause the silver iodide sections to darken, while the stuff that had been exposed to bitumen or had been covered by bittermen doesn't. So essentially he used two separate instances of photochemical reactions to create a positive image,

and photography, the early science of photography was born. We're going to take a quick when we come back, we'll talk about how developments to use another pun would change photography and open up the opportunity for the spirits to commune with us, or so we were told. All right, so we talked about nips and the invention of photography. Now, obviously, over the following years a lot of people would advance this technique, but the basic idea would remain the same.

You would take a photoreactive surface, you would expose that surface to light under controlled conditions for an appropriate amount of time. Then you would process the negative image in order to create a positive image. But there was another intriguing possibility. You could expose a photoreactive surface more than once,

and you could create really interesting effects that way. Whether it was a glass plate that had been coded in photoreactive chemicals or a film with a suspension of similar chemicals that are coding it, you could capture two images on a single surface and combine the two actually you could do it more than twice, although the more you did, the messier things would typically turn out, until you would just get a big blur. But we're going to skip ahead a little bit. You could also, by the way,

combine two different negatives together. You didn't have to actually physically take a photograph with the same negative. You could take two different negatives and combine them through superposition and develop a single image from the combination. But let's talk about how modern film cameras work to kind of understand the science of double images on photography. Now, keep in mind the principles I'm talking about applied throughout the history

of the development of this art. But let's kind of talk about the basic elements of a modern care camera. So with a modern camera, you've got your optics. You've got a lens. This lens focuses light onto the surface of photoreactive film or maybe an image sensor. If you're talking about a digital camera, you've got a shutter. The shutter's job is to block light from coming through the lens and hitting your film or sensor until the photographer

actually wants to take a photo. And you typically have a mechanism in film cameras to advance and rewind the film so that you can take distinct images. So when a photographer pushes the button on a camera, the shutter opens for a precise amount of time. Now, professional cameras let photographers adjust how long the shutter exposes the film, also how much the shutter opens in order to expose

the film. So faster shutter speeds are used to capture fast moving subjects because if the shutter's open longer, it's gathering more light. If something's moving, it's going to be a blurry image. Sometimes you might want that, that might be the effect you want. But in other cases, let's say you want to take a very precise photo of something that's moving very very fast, you need to have the shutter open and close in a fraction of a second.

So this is why cameras that are used to film extremely high speed subjects in very slow motion, they need a whole lot of light to do it. Because that shutter is open for just the tiniest fraction of a second. It has to be able to gather as much light as possible in order to form an image. So you need more light to light these kinds of scenes. Now, if something isn't moving at all, then you can use

a longer shutter speed and much less light. In the early days of photography, you often had people sitting still for minutes at a time in order for a camera to gather enough light so that you could get a decent photograph. This is one of the reasons you hear people in old pictures aren't smiling. It's not because they were all dour all the time. It's because they would have to sit for a photograph for minutes at a time, and holding a rictus grin for like five minutes is

not the most fun experience. So instead you would sit still and patient, and you would wait until the photographer said, all right, that's enough time, and then you could go about your day. So you would have a more neutral expression on your face, and that would mean that you would be able to gather enough light, even in a dim interior setting, to be able to develop a decent photograph. Well. Typically,

cameras advance the film after you take an image. Essentially, it pulls the film so that the next section of unexposed film is in place in order for you to take your next photo. To create a double exposure, you would need to either prevent the film from advancing, or you would need to rewind it back to its original frame that you had already exposed with your original photograph. Then you would take a second photograph, so you are

shooting over your previous frame. When you develop the film to produce negatives and then ultimately insper these to create positive images, you end up with a combined photograph of those two shots, the second one on top of the first one. So for your standard photography, the second photo

typically ends up being a background shot. For most uses of double images here like you might take a landscape shot as your second photograph that lets you place your first photographic subject pretty much wherever you would like them to be, or have them interact with some sort of

environment that otherwise they aren't present for now. For it to work really well, you typically want your first image to have a lot of dark areas in it, because those dark areas are under exposed to light, meaning that you haven't created this photochemical reaction for that part of the film, and your second photograph, the under exposed part of the film from the first one, are going to receive more exposure to light, and the images you capture will show up in those areas that were dark in

the first photograph. Let me explain by giving an example. Let's say you take a picture. You have a model, and your model is standing close to you, and you have your model in silhouette. You've got a source of light behind the model, so you've set your camera so that you're focusing on this model, but they are in silhouette. You know, it's a dark shape and the light is coming from behind them. You take that image, so now

you've got a picture of someone. Where that someone is you can't really see them very well, they're a silhouette. But then you take a second picture. Let's say you know, you've rewound the film so that you're using the same frame again, and you go and take a photo of a city scape at night. So it's this brightly lit city scape. Well, the under exposed parts of film from the first picture are going to bring in that light from the second one. That's what's going to show up

in the silhouette. So when you develop your photograph, you're going to have this silhouette of a but instead of it just being a dark silhouette, it's a city scape in the shape of a person. Silhouette. It's really a cool effect, and there's lots of different ways of playing with this. This is just a very basic example, but photographers have been using this double exposure technique for years to produce all sorts of interesting compositions. You can do

similar things, by the way, with digital cameras. In fact, you can do things with digital cameras where they have apps that allow you to do this and they'll just handle the whole all the processing and give you the effect. But in the old days, you could achieve this effect in camera. You didn't have to do any special processing after the fact to get it. Now you could by taking two separate images and then just combining negatives together.

You could do that as well with the superimposing one negative on top of another, but this method, you did it all in camera. Then you would go and develop your film and see the result. So the medium of choice in the old days of photography wasn't film because we weren't really into plastics yet. Instead, what was being used in say the mid to late nineteenth century were glass plates that had been coated with photoreactive chemicals, and you would slide the glass plate into a camera. Then

you would take a photograph with the camera. This would expose the areas of the glass plate to light. You could then remove the glass plate, use some chemicals to develop the image, then transfer that image to a sheet of paper where you get your positive photograph. Then, best of all, if you're a photographer, you could clean the glass plate thoroughly and then use that same glass plate again. You would coat the glass plate with new photoreactive chemicals

and use it again to take another image. Now, clearly doing that would destroy your negative in the process, like the negative that you took with the first picture, but it meant that you didn't have to throw away a glass plate and go buy a new one. Now, generally, double exposures were something that photographers wanted to avoid. If it happened, it was often due to carelessness, and typically

it resulted in an unusable image. But then we get a forward thinker, William H. Mumler, who was a true opportunist. Mumbler would take a photographic accident and turn it into a lucrative, though brief occupation. As he became a spirit photographer, some call him the first spirit photographer. Whether or not he really was the first, I can't say, but he's often credited as such. Well, he had a pretty decent

career until he got arrested for fraud. That put a small hiccup in his plans, but ultimately he would be acquitted. I'll talk more about that in just a bit. Now, here's how the original story typically is told. In the early eighteen sixties, Mumler sat for a self portrait photograp He was an enthusiast. That was not his job. He was not a photographer, but he was interested in the

art and technology of photography. So while he was taking a self portrait, he unknowingly did so while using a glass plate that had not been properly cleaned since the last time it was used to take a photograph, so the negative image of an old photograph was already on the plate when he used it. Now, this old image was of his cousin, who tragically had died more than

a decade earlier. When Mumbler developed this self portrait, he was surprised to see a faded image of his deceased cousin apparently posing with him for this picture, and he appeared solid, but his cousin appeared transparent. Mumbler then allegedly got the idea to create a whole business around this phenomena, manufacturing images of spirits to cater to a nation that at the time was stricken with grief. In the wake

of the Civil War. Countless families were mourning the loss of people who had died in that conflict, and it had given rise to a general interest in spiritualism and in ghosts. After all, families wanted the comfort of knowing that their loved ones were still out there somewhere, comforted in an afterlife, with the knowledge that those back on

earth still thought of them and loved them. Now, maybe the whole accidental photograph thing is true, or maybe Mummler had a goal in mind and kept working until he

was able to achieve it. You know, maybe he did double exposures to do it, just in camera double exposures, but he also could have used the technique of superimposing negatives before developing a final image, and that actually would give him more options to that if he just held on to negatives and then combined negatives together in the post processing part of photography. Now, the actual method he

used wasn't really that important. What was important is that Mumler got to work providing images to grieving families for a fee. Of course, Mumbler maintained that he was just as surprised as anybody else that his seemingly normal camera had somehow attained the remarkable ability to capture images of the dearly departed. His shtick was that he was just a simple man who, through reasons unexplained, could take photographs

of ghosts. He would make sure those customers knew there was never a guarantee that a ghost was going to show up, or if a ghost did show up, that that ghost would definitively be the person that the subject was hoping for, and that would mean at times that he didn't have access to a negative or a previous image that really fit a family's story, So it would leave him scrambling to work with the customer in order to figure out who a ghostly figure might actually be, like, well,

that's clearly not Aunt Midge, but maybe it's someone else, So you know, now, this is a lot like cold reading. That's a practice where a supposed psychic fishes for information with a mark and relies almost entirely upon the subject to provide all the details, and later folks will often say the medium somehow came up with all these details on their own, when in fact it was the subject who supplied everything. It's an old con and it still works today. Mumbler did get tapped for fraud, but that

took a while. I'll explain after we come back from this break. Just before the break, I mentioned that Mummler, our spirit photographer, got tagged for fraud, but it didn't happen right away. He even dodged some metaphorical bullets that theoretically should have brought things to an end much sooner

than it happened. So. For example, according to an article by David Russ inistory dot com, Mummler once took a photograph of a woman whose brother had died in the Civil War, and so he produces this image that has this ghostly figure posing next to this woman, and she goes home thinking, I now have a portrait that proves my brother still persists after his untimely death in this

terrible war. Except for one thing. Her brother later returned home, having miraculously not having died at all during the Civil War. Reports of his death, as they say, were greatly exaggerated. Now you would think that this would lead to Mummler being exposed as a fraud because here he was producing a photograph of this woman's ghostly dead brother. But he's

not dead. He comes back. The woman, however, became convinced, either through Mumbler or otherwise, that the ghostly image in her photograph was actually some sort of vengeful, malevolent entity that was intent on leading her astray. So it wasn't

Mummler's fault, it was just a malevolent spirit. Now. What was harder to explain away was a case in which a customer recognized that one of the ghosts appearing in a photograph was actually his very much not dead spouse, which indicated that Mummler was in fact holding on to old negatives that he produced in his photography business and then made use of those negatives to manufacture his spirits

for his more gullible clients. So what did Momler do in that case, Well, he followed the early advice that you would hear in McElroy brother episodes of My Brother, My Brother, and Me, and he packed up and moved out of town. He left his operation in Boston, Massachusetts, and he set off for the greener pastures of New York. However, it was in New York that he got picked up

for fraud in eighteen sixty nine. The trial had some notable expert witnesses, including the infamous P. T. Barnum, the ringleader of Circus, and Barnum brought along with him a portrait he had made that had himself in it, along with the ghostly figure of the very much dead ex

President Abraham Lincoln in it. Barnum used the photo to show how Mummler's photographs could be produced through earthly means when no ghosts required, and apparently other experts gave similar examples and showed how different photographic processes could create the very same effects that Mummler had produced. So while they could not necessarily identify the specific method used by Mummler, they showed that there were lots of different approaches that

could do it. So the jury hears about nearly a dozen different methods photographers could potentially use to produce photographs just like Mummler's, and they acquitted him. What. Well, Yeah, the jury understood that there were ways you could fake the photographs, but they said that no one had actually

caught Mummler doing any of those. So since Mumler wasn't caught in the act, And since photography was such a new and, at least to the layman, largely unknown art form, it stood to reason that, hey, maybe photographs can also be capable of capturing images of the dearly departed. So this is like the opposite of Akham's razor is the Okham's raiser says that the simplest explanation is usually the

best one. So what is simpler that photography could prove that ghosts exist something that has never once been proven ever, that it could be the one technology that cements forever the proof of spirits, or that humans, using documented, proven, replicable techniques created the effect. Well, Aukham's razor tells us that the thing we know for a fact can happen is far more likely to be the explanation than a thing we don't know at all. But the jury saw otherwise,

and Mummler walked free. He would later make more contributions to the world of photography, legitimate contributions. In fact, in one obituary his connection with spirit photography barely merited a mention at all, So I would say that he definitely got off lightly, though I don't know how much business his spirit photography received after his well publicized trial. The reports on that are varying. Some people say, oh, no, he went right back into business and people didn't care.

Others say, yeah, no, the spirit photography gig was pretty much up at that point. So I don't know what the truth is. But there are countless examples of similar photographs that have been submitted to support the existence of ghosts. And it's baffling in many ways because we know for a fact there are simple means of producing those effects, either on purpose or by accident, and yet the reliance

on these images to serve as evidence persists. There are other photographic anomalies that are often presented as evidence of ghosts. A big one would be ghost orbs. Those are little floating balls of light within the frame of an image. These sometimes show up not just in photographs, but also in video as well. They are not the product of the development process or produced by taking multiple images on the same frame of film or whatever. These are just

due to the nature of light and optics and photography, right. So, ghost orbs are something you see with photographs that are taken in dark situations or dark settings, and the orbs aren't orbs at all. They're just reflections. So in a dark place, you have to provide your own light, because

that's what a camera is doing. It's capturing light, and if there is no light, then there can be no image, whether you're talking about a digital camera that has a light sensor or traditional film camera, unless you're capturing something else. It's like infrared light, which we can't see anyway, and then using a development process to actually make that into a visible image, you need to provide some light yourself.

So you have a camera that's got a flash on it, and when you take a photograph, the flash goes off, the scene is briefly, very brightly lit. It's just long enough for light to pass through the lens as the shutter opens and exposes the film or light sensor to light. But in that flash, any motes of dust or bugs or droplets of water that are closer to the camera and the flash bulb also get illuminated, and the reflections from those tiny things show up as orbs in your

finished photograph. It's called backscatter, and it's not indication that there are ghosts. They're just reflections of particles that are reflecting light and showing up very brightly in your camera because your camera's straining so very hard to collect whatever available light is there in order to make the image. And when you know what, a lot of ghost hunting stuff takes place in dark and dusty environments, and you need a flash or some other light source to eliminate

the scene. We wouldn't see these orbs in person, but the camera, which is designed to direct light efficiently to the film or the sensor does and it's not a ghost. It's just a mote of dust or droplet of water

or tiny little bug flying around. Dust particles that are closer to the camera are going to reflect more light into the lens, and because they're not in focus, you know, you're focusing on something else, some scene in which a ghost might appear, you know, like say some old shelves in a basement, or maybe you're shooting up an old staircase in an abandoned chateau or whatever. So you're focusing on a distant scene and a close up mot of dust is meanwhile reflecting light from the flash, and boom,

you got yourself your ghost orbs. Now I think it might Next episode, I'm going to tackle some relatively recent additions to the ghost hunter's toolbox, namely the rim pod. Now, I imagine my disappointment when I learned that an rim pod is not some sort of insulated sleeping cabin that pumps songs like Losing My Religion or the Sidewinder sleeps Tonight into my ears. Now, rim pod stands for radiating electromagneticity pod, and I can't wait to dive into that

for our next episode, because golly, it's silly. But that's gonna wait for Wednesday's episode. It's another Halloween appropriate topic for tech stuff. In the meantime, I hope all of you out there are doing well. If you are someone who has a deep belief in spirits and ghosts, I am not here to tell you that you are wrong. I am here to say that based upon my view of the world and my need for extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims, go hosts and spirits remain in the

realm of fantasy for me. Maybe one day someone will produce evidence sufficient enough for me to say I was wrong. They do exist, and here's the proof that shows it. But it hasn't happened yet. Take care of my friends, and I'll talk to you again. Really, soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.