We have several issues here ...
The first one is with the purported definition of "ghost" :
Ghosts are the "creatures" which might be made of particles as we are, but unseen.
Thus, a "normal" man painted with an invisible painting will be a "ghost" ? According to the traditional lore, I think not : a "ghost" must be a spirit, not a bone-and-flesh "creature" made invisible.
If so, the problem amounts to :
are there immaterial beings (pure spirits) able to interact with material ones ?
This is a big and ancient philosophical problem ...
The second problem is about scientific evidence : it is easy to ask for scientific evidence about the existence of a fact or phenomenon; not so easy about its non-existence.
Trivially, the conjecture about the existence of the "well-known" Yeti is lacking of any conclusive evidence, but we still have no "ultimate" disproof of it.
Someday we can find some Yeti or some "ghost" in a far away African desert, or on the Himalaya or on the Moon...
A valid non-existence evidence can be supplied by science according to some currently agreed scientific theory able to prove that the existence of a "ghost" will contradict some basic law of the theory (e.g.conservation of energy, constancy of the speed of light, etc.).