[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Might

Ah, alatar, now I understand what you meant. I thought you were asking whether Saruman was known to have had such power before or afterwards, but I see you meant it generally as in the history of M-e. In which case of course there had been others who deeply knowledged in the dark arts used them to conjure up "phantoms".

I may have meant both. Saruman never uses the power before this or afterwards, and I know of no examples of any other 'living' being using such an ability.

Take the Barrow-wights raised by the Lord of the Nazgul as a best example not to mention the deeds of Sauron during the First Age.

The Barrow-wights are dead creatures, and whatever the Witch-King did to make them, he did it to another being, not to himself. And though the wights somehow can move physical objects (like hobbits), which is completely inexplicable to me, they do not appear as visible beings. And I'm not sure what you mean in regards to Sauron. Sure, he shapeshifted, but he did not project this image at a distance.

Actually, the phantom could well fit the characteristics of a wraith as described elsewhere by Tolkien, clad in this case like Saruman and not with some dark cloaks like the Nazgul.

Saruman costumes were all the rage in Rohan, I guess. Too bad the Witch-King didn't wear an Aragorn costume.

What I am saying with all this is yes, there was a precedent so there is no reason to think that it was no longer possible - the Witch-king had done it like what, a couple of months before?

You've not provided me with enough evidence, but that could just be me.

And you also bring up Occam's razor, something I would rather object to. Why? If we were all judging by this priciple probably a lot of the threads on the forum including this one would not have existed. I would have believed it was Saruman and not questioned it.

Hmm...that was not my intent.

And even so, Occam's razor does not necessarily mean that the simplest answer is the right one:

Agreed; though simpler answers are more likely than more complicated solutions. For instance, if I stated that the hooded old man was actually a holographic projection, then I have to argue for the existence of said projector, etc. And note that I have a different definition of Occam's razor:

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation provided by the person using the phrase, "Occam's razor" to be accepted in toto. ~ Alatarapedia (yes we all should trust Alatarapedia)

Although I agree that your idea is most likely, the others are plausible and should not be discarded that easily. I was not looking for a clear answer in this thread, I doubt one can be found, what I search for is alternatives.

Agreed, though genetically it's hard for me to ignore evidence as well as extrapolating far beyond the data.

Not to say that I'm right...