Captain Bob Thread

I wonder if the apparition was visible to other people or just Bob ?

There are so many cases like this one. I can totally understand that when the paradigm is changed and ghosts are accepted by 'everybody', how it becomes 'self evident' very quickly.

Maybe at some time in the future we will look back at threads like this one and say "what were we like?":)
I agree. If Bob's case was unique, we could dismiss it, but such accounts are numerous and widespread. They are usually accompanied by commentaries which state, "science tells us these these can't happen", as here, whereas science tells us no such thing. It can only say there's no known mechanism for such manifestations, which isn't the same thing at all.

Of most interest to me, is the way such reports are dismissed by skeptical apparatus until one could believe they never happened. Repeat on a grand scale, and anyone encountering such things for the first time could easily believe they'd all been comprehensively debunked by a better theory, whereas they have merely been sidelined from serious scrutiny. No one is saying we can absolutely know what happened in Bob's case, but there are a sufficient number of similarly compelling accounts by expert witnesses to suggest a consistent phenomenon.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/living/crisis-apparitions/index.html
 
Last edited:
When people offer explanations like this, I'm keen to know what they mean by it. Are you saying Bob had a momentary mental collapse of some kind? If so, what variety of collapse offers such mundane manifestations, and allows the victim to continue their day as normal?

Two things happen in threads with apparently strong evidence like this. They are turned into jokes (alien ghosts ha ha), which allow the case to evaporate harmlessly, or they are subject to bizarre rationales that are passed off as likely, or even probable, when they are neither. What is being proposed are incredibly unlikely explanations that are not supported by the evidence.

I don't know what anybody else means by it, but I accept that ALL vision is 'hallucination' like. Qualitatively indistinguishable from everyday vision which we can confirm quantitatively via our other sensory perceptions.

When people use the term 'hallucination' to describe these sorts of experiences I don't consider it a dismissal anymore, even if it was meant to be one from a debunker. It's just a blunt term for visual perceptions which are not generally shared or agreed upon by third parties.

So Capt Bob had a hallucination in my view...
 
I don't know what anybody else means by it, but I accept that ALL vision is 'hallucination' like. Qualitatively indistinguishable from everyday vision which we can confirm quantitatively via our other sensory perceptions.

When people use the term 'hallucination' to describe these sorts of experiences I don't consider it a dismissal anymore, even if it was meant to be one from a debunker. It's just a blunt term for visual perceptions which are not generally shared or agreed upon by third parties.

So Capt Bob had a hallucination in my view...
But it wasn't just visual. It was a complex visual and auditory hallucination. To the point of having a conversation with someone in the middle of the day. I'm not a neurologist, but perhaps we should ask one how common are hallucinations of the complexity and magnitude and under the conditions that Bob experienced it. What would likely causes be--fatigue, drugs, psychiatric disorder? Does it match anything described here:

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

It just does not sound right to me.

Cheers,
Bill
 
But it wasn't just visual. It was a complex visual and auditory hallucination. To the point of having a conversation with someone in the middle of the day. I'm not a neurologist, but perhaps we should ask one how common are hallucinations of the complexity and magnitude and under the conditions that Bob experienced it. What would likely causes be--fatigue, drugs, psychiatric disorder? Does it match anything described here:

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

It just does not sound right to me.

Cheers,
Bill

I don't want to put words into Max's mouth, but I think he is getting at the more mechanical aspects of what is happening rather than the spiritual ones. The recent posts on hallucinations caused by electrical stimulation to the brain are reminiscent of complex hallucinations that even have components that blend the hallucination into the current environment. Bob is seeing something, and either his physical eyes or his inner eye is creating a representation of this apparition. Either way he sees it as a convincing and "real" visual phenomena. These ideas don't really confirm or deny the presence of spirit I don't think. Just coming at it from another angle.

You can think of it from a virtual reality angle, which is related I think. If this is all a virtual reality then the information to create the apparition must be presented in some way in order to create the phenomena.
 
Well, here's the problem. We don't know hardly anything about the case, and the reports we have are all slightly different. Between Tricia Robertson, the Herald, and Bob himself we have slightly deviated stories, so right off the bat we know there is room for some kind of error. There has to be, because they can't all be right. For example, Robertson says a friend was there to pick him up, and Bob says he was going to catch a bus. Bob says his friend said goodbye and walked away after refusing to shake his hand, and the Herald says Bob claims his friend vanished into thin air.
I read the chapter in Robertson's book. The above are all correct. A friend told Bob that he would try to be there to pick him up, but didn't make it. Bob was looking for him when Jack (the name they are using for the dead guy) approached him. He ended up going for the bus after seeing Jack. After their conversation, Jack said he was in a hurry and had to leave. That was when Bob tried to shake his hand. He then saw Jack heading in the direction of one of the gates. Shortly after picking up his bags and getting ready to head out he glanced back towards the gate and Jack was no where to be seen. Bob noted that as odd, just like the handshake, that he could have borded that quickly.

Robertson does not confirm that the coffin was for Jack or Robert Macleod.
This is true, they do not specifically say they confirmed it was Jack'c coffin. They say that a coffin of an airline captain, which Jack was, was transferred through the airport from Edinburgh (the city where Jack died) to Jack's hometown. They also confirmed that the 3PM flight from the exact gate that Bob saw Jack head towards was for a flight to Jack's hometown.

If it was a case of mistaken identity, it was not because Bob was confused about who he thought he was talking to. Jack had a space between his teeth and wore glasses that looked too large for him. He was completely shocked when he saw Jack's obituary, and later when recounting it to the investigators broke out in tears from the emotional impact of the situation. Bob's credentials were pretty impressive. Not that this makes someone incapable of making errors, etc., but he is someone you would think would usually have his wits about him.

Also, the weight loss Bob noted on Jack did occur before he died due to illness.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Last edited:
I don't want to put words into Max's mouth, but I think he is getting at the more mechanical aspects of what is happening rather than the spiritual ones. The recent posts on hallucinations caused by electrical stimulation to the brain are reminiscent of complex hallucinations that even have components that blend the hallucination into the current environment. Bob is seeing something, and either his physical eyes or his inner eye is creating a representation of this apparition. Either way he sees it as a convincing and "real" visual phenomena. These ideas don't really confirm or deny the presence of spirit I don't think. Just coming at it from another angle.

You can think of it from a virtual reality angle, which is related I think. If this is all a virtual reality then the information to create the apparition must be presented in some way in order to create the phenomena.
I agree--as I said earlier, I would have doubted seeing the other guy had the security camera caught the event. I'm just distinguishing between the kind of hallucination caused by some brain abnormality or event.

Cheers,
Bill
 
But it wasn't just visual. It was a complex visual and auditory hallucination. To the point of having a conversation with someone in the middle of the day. I'm not a neurologist, but perhaps we should ask one how common are hallucinations of the complexity and magnitude and under the conditions that Bob experienced it.

I appreciate what you are saying Bill, but vision is hallucinatory in my view, visual perception is indirect. Same goes for all our other sensory data presented to our brain, it's indirect, and as you mention, Bob had auditory hallucinations as well. I just don't get concerned about the term 'hallucination' it's just a blunt term for visual perceptions which are not generally shared or agreed upon by third parties.
 
I don't want to put words into Max's mouth, but I think he is getting at the more mechanical aspects of what is happening rather than the spiritual ones. The recent posts on hallucinations caused by electrical stimulation to the brain are reminiscent of complex hallucinations that even have components that blend the hallucination into the current environment. Bob is seeing something, and either his physical eyes or his inner eye is creating a representation of this apparition. Either way he sees it as a convincing and "real" visual phenomena. These ideas don't really confirm or deny the presence of spirit I don't think. Just coming at it from another angle.

You can think of it from a virtual reality angle, which is related I think. If this is all a virtual reality then the information to create the apparition must be presented in some way in order to create the phenomena.

Yeah, I'd say that whatever is the mechanism for Bob's experience, is a similar mechanism which we use for other visual perceptions. It just throws the question further back to what is visual perception.
 
I read the chapter in Robertson's book. The above are all correct. A friend told Bob that he would try to be there to pick him up, but didn't make it. Bob was looking for him when Jack (the name they are using for the dead guy) approached him. He ended up going for the bus after seeing Jack. After their conversation, Jack said he was in a hurry and had to leave. That was when Bob tried to shake his hand. He then saw Jack heading in the direction of one of the gates. Shortly after picking up his bags and getting ready to head out he glanced back towards the gate and Jack was no where to be seen. Bob noted that as odd, just like the handshake, that he could have borded that quickly.


This is true, they do not specifically say they confirmed it was Jack'c coffin. They say that a coffin of an airline captain, which Jack was, was transferred through the airport from Edinburgh (the city where Jack died) to Jack's hometown. They also confirmed that the 3PM flight from the exact gate that Bob saw Jack head towards was for a flight to Jack's hometown.

If it was a case of mistaken identity, it was not because Bob was confused about who he thought he was talking to. Jack had a space between his teeth and wore glasses that looked too large for him. He as completely shocked when he saw Jack's obituary, and later when recounting it to the investigators broke out in tears from the emotional impact of the situation. Bob's credentials were pretty impressive. Not that this makes someone incapable of making errors, etc., but he is someone you would think would usually have his wits about him.

Also, the weight loss Bob noted on Jack did occur before he died due to illness.

Cheers,
Bill

Interesting.
 
I appreciate what you are saying Bill, but vision is hallucinatory in my view, visual perception is indirect. Same goes for all our other sensory data presented to our brain, it's indirect, and as you mention, Bob had auditory hallucinations as well. I just don't get concerned about the term 'hallucination' it's just a blunt term for visual perceptions which are not generally shared or agreed upon by third parties.
The next case in Robertson's book after Capt. Bob sounds similar to the hallucination you report on your blog, in that the person saw a full, vivid, yet partial body--in his case it was from the waist up rather than just the shoulders. It also happened mid-day. In his case he recognized it as someone who used to frequent his shop, and had died a few years before, and it gave him a message. He relayed the message to the person's widow and it turned out to be correct advise to a situation she was experiencing at the time.

Cheers,
Bill
 
We should be wary of the connotations of words like hallucination, which suggest the vision is somehow 'unreal or 'imaginary'. They serve to undermine testimonies like Bob's unless qualified, and assist in their dismissal from the record. I suspect Bob's encounter is of a different order than real or hallucinatory, something that takes place outside of ordinary time or space. If a security camera had picked up the meeting, I very much doubt it would have seen a 'ghost', it would most likely have filmed Bob catching his bus without any interruption, or have seen him pause for a moment. This is conjecture, but I don't believe the physical intervention by the dead person is literal, neither do I think it was a figment of Bob's imagination, but the encounter with 'Jack' was as real for Bob as any other meeting. We do not presently have a taxonomy for such liminal events.
 
We should be wary of the connotations of words like hallucination, which suggest the vision is somehow 'unreal or 'imaginary'. They serve to undermine testimonies like Bob's unless qualified, and assist in their dismissal from the record. I suspect Bob's encounter is of a different order than real or hallucinatory, something that takes place outside of ordinary time or space. If a security camera had picked up the meeting, I very much doubt it would have seen a 'ghost', it would most likely have filmed Bob catching his bus without any interruption, or have seen him pause for a moment. This is conjecture, but I don't believe the physical intervention by the dead person is literal, neither do I think it was a figment of Bob's imagination, but the encounter with 'Jack' was as real for Bob as any other meeting. We do not presently have a taxonomy for such liminal events.
I agree. Also, with regard to what a security camera may or may not have picked up, it is interesting to consider Barry Taff's "entity" case. They were filming during the occurrence, but the film did not capture what they saw. It did however capture some weird visual effects, as if whatever was causing it did transmit or impart something--energy, light...?

Cheers,
Bill
 
I agree. Also, with regard to what a security camera may or may not have picked up, it is interesting to consider Barry Taff's "entity" case. They were filming during the occurrence, but the film did not capture what they saw. It did however capture some weird visual effects, as if whatever was causing it did transmit or impart something--energy, light...?

Cheers,
Bill
That's true. There's also the breakdown of cameras and draining of batteries, so loved by debunkers, which plague attempts at recording such phenomena. Poltergeist cases are notorious for this kind of problem.
 
We should be wary of the connotations of words like hallucination, which suggest the vision is somehow 'unreal or 'imaginary'. They serve to undermine testimonies like Bob's unless qualified, and assist in their dismissal from the record. I suspect Bob's encounter is of a different order than real or hallucinatory, something that takes place outside of ordinary time or space. If a security camera had picked up the meeting, I very much doubt it would have seen a 'ghost', it would most likely have filmed Bob catching his bus without any interruption, or have seen him pause for a moment. This is conjecture, but I don't believe the physical intervention by the dead person is literal, neither do I think it was a figment of Bob's imagination, but the encounter with 'Jack' was as real for Bob as any other meeting. We do not presently have a taxonomy for such liminal events.

I don't feel the need to be wary about using the term hallucination anymore. When people use it to me, I know we're talking about the same thing, something we both don't understand.

However, where I do often get crossed wires, is when people who have undertaken very little exploration of a subject, invoke the term 'hallucination' as if it somehow offers an explanation. An explanation which they then generally use to draw a line under the experience, as though not worthy of further exploration.
 
The next case in Robertson's book after Capt. Bob sounds similar to the hallucination you report on your blog, in that the person saw a full, vivid, yet partial body--in his case it was from the waist up rather than just the shoulders. It also happened mid-day. In his case he recognized it as someone who used to frequent his shop, and had died a few years before, and it gave him a message. He relayed the message to the person's widow and it turned out to be correct advise to a situation she was experiencing at the time.

Cheers,
Bill

I'm waiting for my copy of Tricia's book to arrive...
 
I guess what we have from Bob Hambleton-Jones is testimony. Unless we consider it impossible that he spoke to his deceased friend, then it seems to me the most probable explanation, although not the only one possible. For those who do not admit the possibility of survival, clearly that is unacceptable and there must therefore be a different explanation and that's how we end up down the hallucination/lying/fraud/error route I suspect.

I don't think his experience can be cited as strong evidence of survival for anyone other than himself, as we can't share his experience. This type of personal evidence seems to occur quite a lot, and is often corroborated by others however I can see why a genuine sceptic might not be willing to accept it as conclusive.
 
I don't think his experience can be cited as strong evidence of survival for anyone other than himself, as we can't share his experience. This type of personal evidence seems to occur quite a lot, and is often corroborated by others however I can see why a genuine sceptic might not be willing to accept it as conclusive.
Such evidence is never conclusive, highly suggestive maybe, but not case closed. This case demands a high level of explanation to address all its different aspects, more so because it sits within a known framework. To dismiss it outright requires strong belief in the nature of reality.
 
Well, here's the problem. We don't know hardly anything about the case, and the reports we have are all slightly different. Between Tricia Robertson, the Herald, and Bob himself we have slightly deviated stories, so right off the bat we know there is room for some kind of error. There has to be, because they can't all be right. For example, Robertson says a friend was there to pick him up, and Bob says he was going to catch a bus. Bob says his friend said goodbye and walked away after refusing to shake his hand, and the Herald says Bob claims his friend vanished into thin air. Robertson does not confirm that the coffin was for Jack or Robert Macleod.

And the sum total of what we know about their conversation with each other: "How's it going you old bastard?".

I want to be extremely clear that I'm not trying to debunk this story. In fact, if anyone is willing I would recommend as an exercise that we jointly pursue more information about it. Unless of course we're happy to unconditionally accept it on one side, and unconditionally dismiss it on the other. Then we can just argue until we're blue in the faces.

It's also curious that the book by Tricia Robertson says that the friend died 2 days before the meeting, but the article in the Herald Scotland says it was 4 days before the meeting...

here's that article from the Scotland Herald : http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-ghostly-meeting-with-dead-colleague-1.463338

"The two men had known each other for nine years and Captain Hambleton-Jones, who lives in Paisley, said: ``I'm not some kind of crank. I know who I saw and who I spoke to. ``He came up to me and said, `How's it going, you old bastard?' It was great to see him. We chatted for a couple of minutes and then he said, `I must go now.' ``I picked up my bags and turned around but he wasn't there. He was gone.'' It was the following day, last June 16, before a friend drew his attention to Mr Macleod's obituary in a newspaper, which confirmed he had died in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on June 11. "


and here's the link to Robertson's book, which you can read on amazon for free, and where it is stated that the meeting took place only 2 days after the death (page 10):

http://www.amazon.com/Things-When-Y...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399475510&sr=1-2

I don't know what this means, other than that obviously one or both of the reports are incorrect about when the man died and/or when the meeting took place. As such, I offer another possible (though highly unlikely, explanation): That Captain Bob saw the man before he died, not after, and that when Bob read the newspaper story about the death, he mis-remembered when he'd last seen his friend. Now, I don't believe this is what happened, but I thought I'd throw it out there since people seemed to be exploring possibilities and I found the discrepancy between the two sources curious, if nothing else.
 
Back
Top