Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Ghosts/Apparitions/Spirits etc
Comments
-
First off let me just say that i dont understand or pretend to actually know exactly why it is that "ghosts" or other entities exist o what they are actually composed of but i know that they do exist. I have had multiple experiences with them and initally was not alone when i experienced them. I'll explain what they were if someone asks.
Im essentialy saying that there is an unfair double standard in scientific circles and those who dont believe in these things.
If i say to you (and you dont know if i was alone or not but you assume like science does that i was alone) that i experienced something and there is no scientific explanation for it, you will in all likelihood say that i was imagining it, that i was on drugs, that i was pepped up on caffine, that i had sleep deprevation or paralysis- any number of things.
Why? because conventional science knows that the thing i saw cannot be currently explained by its current laws and understanding and so i MUST have been mistaken, one way or another. I just cant have seen it. Well, then how is it that others saw the same thing at the same time? science always presumes people are alone when these things occur or this thing of "shared delusion".
Plus, how is it that all around the world, some people with different cultures, religions/belief systems, upbringings, life experiences, thought process, education, interests etc all see the same thing? (again, ill ellaborate if people want) . again, science does not consider that they are not always alone and not always delusiona. The explanations they give to explain these things is always one based on that person being deluded and wrong even though they admitt they dont understand it. They admit that but at the same time they still assume they just dont understand the psycology, they never consider the science aspect because despite admitting they dont undstand they still believe its just a delusion. thats not very foreward thinking really.
I just think unless youve seen something with your own eyes and especially when you have other witnesses to it you wont ever really believe it. I use to be a total non believer. it was as simple as the big bang, evolution, you live your life and die. i dont now because of my experiences. I will never think science has it right on this stuff even if we as humans dont survive in some other conscious energy form etc because the stuff i have experienced is not currently in the remit of current scientific principles.
Science can behave like a religion when it comes to this. If you cant measure/prove that i was delusional at the time of my experince and i am telling you what i could actually see (unlike dark matter for example) then dont dismiss me and the millions of others who are telling you that they have witnessed something happen.
Plus on a lower level of being a one on one converstaion with someone who doesnt believe me its not a matter of opinion. you cant prove that i didnt see what i witnessed and I am the only one of the two of us who witnessed and experienced it. just believing i must be mistaken or delusional isnt very scientific and so the you are being a hypocrite by claiming that those principles are what you are basing that belief on.
Lol sorry VERY long rant i now over0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Why would I believe something I doubt?
I wonder if you are purposely pretending to be obtuse? You believe what you believe, doubt what you doubt and disbelieve what you disbelieve. believers believe, skeptics doubt and non believers dont believe.
Cynics on the other hand are believers (ie they believe they are correct). They arent skeptics.0 -
jessabell88 wrote: »Science can behave like a religion when it comes to this.
I wouldnt blame science... its the armchair, wannabe 'scientists' I'd be looking out for.0 -
Brillaint post,Jessabelle88.
Yes science can behave like religion at times.Science is Exellent most of the time but science thinks it knows ALL of the answers but the truth is, it behaves like a little kid when it cant explain something by coming up with its own explanation without having ANY experience in the matter and then sticks its head in the sand and say "NO, that doesnt exist because I cant measure or prove it".......thats just dumb...not all science is like this but a lot of it is but it will change as we get smarter and the answers lie in Quantum Physics.
All new discoveries existed before they were measured or proven.0 -
jessabell88 wrote: »First off let me just say that i dont understand or pretend to actually know exactly why it is that "ghosts" or other entities exist o what they are actually composed of but i know that they do exist. I have had multiple experiences with them and initally was not alone when i experienced them. I'll explain what they were if someone asks.
By all means, I'd be interested in hearing your experiences. As I said at the start of the thread, my mind is open to this whole thing...its the physics behind it which makes me doubt.
Science isn't always correct, but I don't think it pretends to be either. As Maccored says, it's merely the vehicle...its the closed minded people who give it a bad name.
Take Einsteins model, & then take Quantum Theory. They fit & describe things beautifully, & give us a set of rules so good that we can even make predictions on them and later be proved right. But something isn't quite right here, because both theories don't fit together. We have a model for the macro world, & a model for the micro world...but these models don't fit together to give us a Unified Theory of everything. Just one example of our current scientific limitations
But by all means tell us about your experiences!0 -
Advertisement
-
Take Einsteins model, & then take Quantum Theory. They fit & describe things beautifully, & give us a set of rules so good that we can even make predictions on them and later be proved right. But something isn't quite right here, because both theories don't fit together. We have a model for the macro world, & a model for the micro world...but these models don't fit together to give us a Unified Theory of everything. Just one example of our current scientific limitations
A better understanding of Consciousness(which is Quantum) is what will bring these two theories together.0 -
I actually dont take any issue with someone who says that they find it difficult to beleve because they havent seen it or reconcile it with scientific principles. Believe me, i can completely empathise with that position. If you haven't seen or experienced something and say you believe then to me thats not exactly a great move either really. I dont expect science to believe it at all but i dont like the fact it generally doesnt allow for it. science should never be biast when it cannot categorically prove that its right. As far as the establishmnt is concerned it is a non issue, similar to that trying to quantify whether or not the boogy man exists. If you have written it off without comprehensive study and analysis then thats taking a very dogmatic view. Science should never exclude certain possibilities but it does and has done in the past.
I dont for a second think that ghosts etc are all mystical and what not, i honestly think it all boils down to science in the end, i think there is a scientific explanation for it all but if they wont believe it exists thats just ridiculous.
i played the quiji board a few times when i was younger and even though i know people say its just a game I can tell you its not. we recieved information that noone knew until we inquired after the fact, we witness a black dog (extrmely detailed) shaodow on the cieling directly over the board, two people at the same time jumped apart and said they had head what sounded like somone banging on a drum right between their ears and left one girl with an asthma attack over it, i felt someone tightly grab my arm and when i looked at the person beside me they were sitting with both hands occupied. Candles blowing and flickering like crazy despite the fact the window was locked, the sitting room door was locked and no windows o doors were opn in the the house, we felt no breeze of any kind and there ws only one of those modern fake fires behind glass so no chimney!
If you google the "brown lady" (doesnt matter if its fake its what we saw) thats exactly like what a friend and i saw on a country road one night. it was only a few steps away from us, it moved slightly towards us and we jumped back and after about five minutes of wondering what to do and what it was we eventually just both hopped on the bike and went down the side road. it had the head of a person, it glowed slightly , it was milky white with slight bits of blue in it, it moved towards us.... i dont know o any scientific explanation for it and i have searched!
Another time, we had been wandering aroun time waiting to get a taxi to meet friends when we went into the old abbey, it was brightly it up by the ll the street lights, we ended up coming back up to the gate and one of the girls tired call the taxi man to see where the hell he was. I had my back to a head stone and the others were infront of me facing it. next thing they all started pointing and basically going "what the f**k" and when i turned i saw this "man" from the waste up, well over six feet tall, dressed entirely in black, he had an old fashioned hat with a really wide brim, i couldnt see his face, it was just pitch black, not a glimmer of anything else, he stood very still still looking at us, now from this story you would have to take a slight leap of faith an trust us that this was not a man, we heard not one sound eminate from him, not one breathing noise, nothing, he was lierally like pitchest of black , he literally looked like a shadow of a man but in completely solid and upright form. I just sensed , along with the others, this pure awful presence, the amount of fear i felt i swear, if you had scale to measure it it would have exploded... i literally picked up one of the girls and literally ran through the gate with her over my shoulder lol and up the road until i was well clear of him. the adrenaline i guess lol. I have also seen this in the form of a shadow on my kitchen wall. i didnt presume it was it i just assumed it looked like it from something in the kitchen casting a shadow so i wnt aroun the kitchen trying to figure out what it was, moved everything around, and it was still there, so anyway i decide after moving things, turning off all the lights and only having the hall way one barly come in to the kitchen andit ws still there that i just didnt know what it was. Went to the loo and a minute later i came back and i was gone!, nothng else had changed at all but the wall was clear of the shadow and it was all bright and shadow free again. it was such a perfect outline of that man that i saw that night and it had vanished for no reasin i can think of!! just vanished by its self.
It was only years later i was bored one eveing an googled it and so many people report the exact same thing!! some see i in broad day light, some at night, some when wide awake, others when in their beds, some with other people and some while alone. doesnt matter where you are from etc it is so common!.
there are more experiences that ive had but i was alone when i saw them so i dont necessrily think they would convince anyone even if i know they were real. aso other experinces relayed to me by my family.
sleep paralysis is another one. I dont have it but i know someone who does. Again, so many people have it an while science says it because you are caught between being conscious and unconscous it admits it has no why it is for centuries millions of peoplefrom different backrounds etc,,, have all experienced the exact same things and described them in exactly the same detail as the rest have. anyone who has it see pitch black hooded figures, again like pitch black but upright and solid in form, or the old hag lady, they all describe her in the exact same detail and what she does. I mean ok, it may not be paranormal but it is somthing that science cannot explain and to dismiss it given the details outlined above, as simply a delusion is unfair and biast.0 -
-
I wonder if you are purposely pretending to be obtuse? You believe what you believe, doubt what you doubt and disbelieve what you disbelieve. believers believe, skeptics doubt and non believers dont believe.
Cynics on the other hand are believers (ie they believe they are correct). They arent skeptics.
You just seem to be going Believer-skeptic-non Believer.
But you either believe something or you don't.
Now the non-belief category can be divided into distinct sub-groups: Unconvinced and convinced.
Where someone can be unconvinced of something because he has never heard of it, they have heard of it and not been shown convincing evidence in favor or they have not been shown convincing evidence to the contrary.
That last one is what pushes someone into the other non-belief category.
Skeptical people need to be shown convincing, verifiable evidence to be moved out of one category and into another.
Cynical people are people who think others are motivated by greed (and would therefore be less likely to believe their claims).0 -
jessabell88 wrote: »Why? because conventional science knows that the thing i saw cannot be currently explained by its current laws and understanding and so i MUST have been mistaken, one way or another.
I'd contest this bit in fairness.
My sister, right now, is working to prove something that has never been done before. If, before she started her work, she was telling people the theory she is working on is fact, she'd be told to "bollock off", and rightly so. But she didn't, she has put like 4 years of hard work into her theory and has published a paper.
Now she has her evidence, so she can tell people her theory works, and if people tell her to hop, she has her paper to back it up. She did something that was never done before, something that "cannot be currently explained by [...] current laws and understanding" but she did it the right way. She got the rules changed to better fit with our new understanding.
Can you see why comparing your descriptions of paranormal events doesn't hold the same weight as 4 years of repeatable, verifiable experiments?0 -
Advertisement
-
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »I'd contest this bit in fairness.
My sister, right now, is working to prove something that has never been done before. If, before she started her work, she was telling people the theory she is working on is fact, she'd be told to "bollock off", and rightly so. But she didn't, she has put like 4 years of hard work into her theory and has published a paper.
Now she has her evidence, so she can tell people her theory works, and if people tell her to hop, she has her paper to back it up. She did something that was never done before, something that "cannot be currently explained by [...] current laws and understanding" but she did it the right way. She got the rules changed to better fit with our new understanding.
Can you see why comparing your descriptions of paranormal events doesn't hold the same weight as 4 years of repeatable, verifiable experiments?
Hi,
Lol First of all, Until the scientific establishment actually bother to research it properly and give me a valid and detailed explanation as to what I have experienced (particularly that thing on the road) then I will continue to believe it was paranormal. whats wrong with that? science does the same. Unless they can fit it in to their (incomplete) understanding of physics they will continue to (believe) that we are all delusional. Can you tell me what it was on he road given your complete and utter faith in science on this matter?
Second, How would you define holding water? We know what we saw, there is currently no scientific explanation for it (but by all means fel free to provide one) and to be quite honest it is not like I am interviewing for funding into researching it here.This is a forum based purely on opinion. By that reckoning unless you write a paper on what you are trying to say here then nothing you are saying holds much water either. We are on an equal footing here because it is purely opinion against opinion. Your sister might have had a theory and thats great but it would also be great if funding would be provided to research a theory on the paranormal that was physics based rather than psycology based.0 -
OK, there are a couple of points to be addressed here.jessabell88 wrote: »Hi,
Lol First of all, Until the scientific establishment actually bother to research it properly and give me a valid and detailed explanation as to what I have experienced (particularly that thing on the road) then I will continue to believe it was paranormal. whats wrong with that? science does the same. Unless they can fit it in to their (incomplete) understanding of physics they will continue to (believe) that we are all delusional. Can you tell me what it was on he road given your complete and utter faith in science on this matter?
Firstly, I never said you were wrong, nor did I say you were right. All I did was vaguely describe the level of evidence necessary for the scientific community to accept a new idea.
Secondly, you argue that someone else should do the legwork to confirm YOUR claims. Does that seem fair? Why should anyone else be interested in your claims? Much less put aside valuable time and large sums of money, to verify vague claims made on the internet.
Thirdly, you are Arguing from Ignorance. It's a fairly common logical fallacy. You are basically saying, I don't know what that is, therefore it's a ghost.
Or, to put it differently, I don't know what that is, therefore I know what that is. Which, you can see, is plainly ridiculous.
Fourthly, sceptical people will assume you are delusional (I don't like using that word, it comes across as condescending) for the simple reason that no one has ever shown that ghosts, spirits and all that kind of stuff actually exists.
Consider this, which is more likely?
That you have seen more than your fair share of ghosts. Opening up a whole new world of discovery, there is life after death, humans have some kind of spirit that persists and can affect the real world in tangible ways. That there is some undiscovered dimension that these spirits exist in most of the time. Then instead of using the time they spend being visible to us confirming the latter, they use it to knock on doors and loom menacingly over gravestones.
Or.
Your mind was playing tricks on you.
You seem primed to see paranormal phenomena already, so things others would write off as normal, you may put down to paranormal.
I know no one like to think their mind isn't perfect. Hell, even I've seen stuff that I couldn't explain and still gives me shivers. But I think the most likely scenario is that my mind was playing tricks on me.
Fifthly, you attempt to move what's known as The Burden of Proof. (see Russell's Teapot) to the people who you are trying to convince. You are basically saying; I'm right, prove me wrong. If you read the article on Russell's Teapot, you will see why that just doesn't add any kind of weight to your argument.
Sixthly, how am I supposed to know what you saw? This goes back to my second point.jessabell88 wrote: »Second, How would you define holding water? We know what we saw, there is currently no scientific explanation for it (but by all means fel free to provide one) and to be quite honest it is not like I am interviewing for funding into researching it here.This is a forum based purely on opinion. By that reckoning unless you write a paper on what you are trying to say here then nothing you are saying holds much water either. We are on an equal footing here because it is purely opinion against opinion. Your sister might have had a theory and thats great but it would also be great if funding would be provided to research a theory on the paranormal that was physics based rather than psycology based.
I would say an idea holds water if it had some kind of repeatable scientific experiment to show it were true.
You don't know what you saw, you know what you think you saw. It's the same for everyone.
Think about any illusion you've ever witnessed. You think you saw the magician eat a card then it appeared under his foot.
Did that actually happen? Did the card teleport from his mouth to the ground? No, he simply exploited the human mind to give the effect that he did that. That's why magicians actually call their tricks, tricks. They are tricking you into believing something that isn't real.
This forum isn't based on opinion, it's parent fourm, maybe. Here you need evidence, so your reckoning is incorrect.
Not only do you not know what I believe in regard to your claims (well, before this post you didn't), you are doing that Burden of Proof thing again.
How do you know there has not been funding gathered for physics based paranormal research?
If you watch this video, you can see a reasonably scientific experiment that cost all of €50 to put together.0 -
no offense Genghiz Cohen, but not only does your post come across as arrogant (well, to me anyway), but I dont think you understood one thing jessabell88 was trying to say. I may be wrong though0
-
no offense Genghiz Cohen, but not only does your post come across as arrogant (well, to me anyway), but I dont think you understood one thing jessabell88 was trying to say. I may be wrong though
What do you think she was getting at? I can respond to that too, if it's appropriate. Might save a bit of time.
And why did you link to my profile? Kinda creepy
EDIT: I also apologise if I come across as arrogant. It was not my intention. I know some of the things I said could be taken that way, such as the 'Argument from Ignorance', but that's the actual name of the fallacy. And, in this context, ignorance means lack of understanding. Something we all have on certain topics.0 -
im making the point that from reading a thread, you are fit to tell her shes arguing from ignorance etc etc .... as if youve actually spent any time at all researching her claims.
You havent, yet you clearly believe you have a point.
All youve done is prove the point that people can too easily dismiss things without any critical thought being applied at all. Much the same as other people believe things without any critical thought. Two sides of the same coin. You are as bad as a rabid believer in my book.0 -
im making the point that from reading a thread, you are fit to tell her shes arguing from ignorance etc etc .... as if youve actually spent any time at all researching her claims.
You havent, yet you clearly believe you have a point.
All youve done is prove the point that people can too easily dismiss things without any critical thought being applied at all. Much the same as other people believe things without any critical thought. Two sides of the same coin. You are as bad as a rabid believer in my book.
If he/she did in fact dismiss things "without any critical thought at all", I would be very interested to hear what your definition of critical thought is.0 -
Are you telling me Genghiz Cohen researched and applied 'critical thought' to the claims the person mentioned made?
Otherwise, I'd like to hear what your definition of research or critical thought is.
unless its the James Randi "look at us smart people, we are all Skeptics and do the whole critical thought" type definition. If thats the case, then dont bother me with it.0 -
im making the point that from reading a thread, you are fit to tell her shes arguing from ignorance etc etc .... as if youve actually spent any time at all researching her claims.
You havent, yet you clearly believe you have a point.
She never presented any research! If she has some then I'm all ears.
Though she openly admits to there being no scientific explanation for what she saw, therefore, she hasn't used scientific methods to come to any conclusions that explain it. Yet she knows what it is.
She has no explanation for it, but she knows what it is.
She doesn't know what it is, but she knows what it is.
So I feel that pointing out that her argument is from ignorance is justified.
Notice that I still haven't given my opinion on anything she has said. I am pointing out perceived flaws in her arguments and more reasonable alternatives. It doesn't matter if I have researched and proven her claims beyond a shadow of a doubt, she still doesn't know and is arguing from ignorance.All youve done is prove the point that people can too easily dismiss things without any critical thought being applied at all. Much the same as other people believe things without any critical thought. Two sides of the same coin. You are as bad as a rabid believer in my book.
You seem to have this bogeyman caricature of non-belivers:
We stand there with our eyes closed and fingers in our ears yelling "No no no no! You are wrong!"
But where have I told Jessabell that she is wrong? Where have I dismissed her claims?
Plus, isn't asking Jessabell questions a form of research, interviewing subjects?0 -
Are you telling me Genghiz Cohen researched and applied 'critical thought' to the claims the person mentioned made?
Otherwise, I'd like to hear what your definition of research or critical thought is.
unless its the James Randi "look at us smart people, we are all Skeptics and do the whole critical thought" type definition. If thats the case, then dont bother me with it.
More interested to see where I dismissed anything.0 -
Lads i created this thread in order to maybe discuss the existence of the paranormal under the constraints of our fairly well established laws of physics.
These 'you didn't do research so you can't have an opinion' type posts only derail threads into a bickering mess. Without trying to backseat mod here, could we head back on topic slightly, & maybe try address these sightings/experiences Jessebell88 had.
If you see something walking along the road towards you, it's presumably solid matter given that it can generate friction to walk, is affected by gravity & so forth?0 -
Advertisement
-
Lads i created this thread in order to maybe discuss the existence of the paranormal under the constraints of our fairly well established laws of physics.
These 'you didn't do research so you can't have an opinion' type posts only derail threads into a bickering mess. Without trying to backseat mod here, could we head back on topic slightly, & maybe try address these sightings/experiences Jessebell88 had.
If you see something walking along the road towards you, it's presumably solid matter given that it can generate friction to walk, is affected by gravity & so forth?
Maybe Jessebell88 could clarify whether it was actually walking or hovering as it's not mentioned in the original post. Given she (I'm going to presume Jessebell is a she given the username) says it was exactly like the Brown Lady, the famous picture of this ghost appears to be hovering above a staircase. If this is the case then it would need some other form of interaction with its surroundings to stop it from simply drifting through the planet and off into space, and also to enable it to move in any direction. I couldn't really speculate on what that force could be.0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »OK, there are a couple of points to be addressed here.
Firstly, I never said you were wrong, nor did I say you were right. All I did was vaguely describe the level of evidence necessary for the scientific community to accept a new idea.
Secondly, you argue that someone else should do the legwork to confirm YOUR claims. Does that seem fair? Why should anyone else be interested in your claims? Much less put aside valuable time and large sums of money, to verify vague claims made on the internet.
Thirdly, you are Arguing from Ignorance. It's a fairly common logical fallacy. You are basically saying, I don't know what that is, therefore it's a ghost.
Or, to put it differently, I don't know what that is, therefore I know what that is. Which, you can see, is plainly ridiculous.
Fourthly, sceptical people will assume you are delusional (I don't like using that word, it comes across as condescending) for the simple reason that no one has ever shown that ghosts, spirits and all that kind of stuff actually exists.
Consider this, which is more likely?
That you have seen more than your fair share of ghosts. Opening up a whole new world of discovery, there is life after death, humans have some kind of spirit that persists and can affect the real world in tangible ways. That there is some undiscovered dimension that these spirits exist in most of the time. Then instead of using the time they spend being visible to us confirming the latter, they use it to knock on doors and loom menacingly over gravestones.
Or.
Your mind was playing tricks on you.
You seem primed to see paranormal phenomena already, so things others would write off as normal, you may put down to paranormal.
I know no one like to think their mind isn't perfect. Hell, even I've seen stuff that I couldn't explain and still gives me shivers. But I think the most likely scenario is that my mind was playing tricks on me.
Fifthly, you attempt to move what's known as The Burden of Proof. (see Russell's Teapot) to the people who you are trying to convince. You are basically saying; I'm right, prove me wrong. If you read the article on Russell's Teapot, you will see why that just doesn't add any kind of weight to your argument.
Sixthly, how am I supposed to know what you saw? This goes back to my second point.
I would say an idea holds water if it had some kind of repeatable scientific experiment to show it were true.
You don't know what you saw, you know what you think you saw. It's the same for everyone.
Think about any illusion you've ever witnessed. You think you saw the magician eat a card then it appeared under his foot.
Did that actually happen? Did the card teleport from his mouth to the ground? No, he simply exploited the human mind to give the effect that he did that. That's why magicians actually call their tricks, tricks. They are tricking you into believing something that isn't real.
This forum isn't based on opinion, it's parent fourm, maybe. Here you need evidence, so your reckoning is incorrect.
Not only do you not know what I believe in regard to your claims (well, before this post you didn't), you are doing that Burden of Proof thing again.
How do you know there has not been funding gathered for physics based paranormal research?
If you watch this video, you can see a reasonably scientific experiment that cost all of €50 to put together.
First, Do you really believe I need you to tell me what evidence criteria they demand in these matters? that was the whole argument i made. I know only too well how stringant they are.
Secondly, I never once made the suggestion that my own personal experiences should be enough for a random scientist to use his career to research and attempt to gain funding to do so. I made the point that given the millions of experiences world wide, some differing, some the exact same cannot all be explained by science's current explanations and theories. Given that thet do not have a complete coherent undertsanding of physics then maybe it would be productive to put even a minimul amount of research into this area. If hey cannot account for a lot of the paranormal experiences people have by psycology then maybe physics is worth investigating regardng this area. If millions of people throughout the ages talk of these things and if science constantly dismisses out of hand when their theories on it do not always ring through then maybe they need to have a rethink. That was my point.
Thridly, i said it was paranormal, that it looked exactly like the "brown lady" ghost.You would see that in my previous post where i said whether it is just some random thing or it is a spirit, it doesnt matter. The reality is people experience things that science does not have in its cataloge and they not always alone which science assumes. I never said i saw a ghost, But even if i had so what? if thats the only word there is to describe something that has not yet been defined by science. I didnt though. I said it was paranormal. Why dont you read what i said about my experience with it and then look up the brown lady and then tell me what it was?. Please, I would appreciate it if would not attempt to patronise me when you had the chance to tell me what it was already when you had the information in the previous posts. FYI, how is your point any different to what science as a collective does? "I dont know what all you people saw, I cannot explain it but i know that you are delusional". Again, to reiterate my previous post, that does not hold any weight.
Fourth, Are you saying that when more than one person witnesses something that they are delusional? I explained it in detail in my previous post and given you the information you need to undertsand what we saw. Again, Please tell me what scientific explanation exists for this. I presume you have the time to do it given the lengthy post you just sent me and given the fact that a real skeptic would do so. You haven't yet but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Fifth, primed? haha I come from a family and majority circle of friends who dont believe in any of that. I grew on the otherside of a skeptic, a total non believer. However, My experience on the road that night made a bit more open. Then throughout the years things have happened and now i believe there is something to it. I am more than willing to believe my mind plays tricks when im on my own but the things i have experienced with others cannot be so easily dismissed. I dont go around thinking i see or hear a ghost every time i go to bed or go around with my day.
Sixth, Yeah, its also a joke that the burden of proof in rape cases lies on the victim but there you have it. So you are saying to me that if i call nasa and say i just spotted a meteor with my amature telescope and tell them where that they would tell me" right, well i dont see it so i think you are wrong, but mind you, i havent bothered to actually look into it either. tell you what mr, why dont you write down all the coordinates and send them to me in the post. we eagerly await you findings". No. I think they would check it up. especially if more than one had spotted the same thing. Sure,its a silly analogy but it does hold true. How on earth does science expect ordinary joe soaps to solve such scientific mysteries if they are indeed scientific? Are you really saying that it expects us to have a comprehensive understanding of physics as we know it today and possibly research more into it and then knock on their door and say "hey, i have what you were waiting for"? I dont think so. So if thats what they expect should happen according to you, is it any wonder that it cant explain half the experiences people have other than they are mad? I dont really buy its up to me and other joe soaps to prove their existance. That is the entire profession of science. to prove or disprove. They havent disproved and they wont either until they put a bit backbone into it and (actually) research it.
Just a point here, if this forum does not allow for opinion then I am confused by your argument. You jut keep saying why I am wrong but have offered no explanation to what i saw on the road (because that is the most prominant) except to bang on about how I am a mistaken and /or delusional person who does not realise how silly my mind is. You ahve actually done what I was complaining about. So, with all due respect, I dont really care what you think.I honetly dont mean to be rude but I know what I saw, I believe it to be paranormal given the fact that science has no explanation that i could find for it. There i no point in debating that I saw hat I saw. You can debate what it was, sure. But you must have evidance that it was something other thn paranormal or delusion by your own standards. I witnessed it happen, you didnt. You are telling me that what i saw wasnt real, so tell me what it actually was then? bare in mind delusion is not really a great option given the other witness. I have seen it head on for a period of about five minutes while with someone else. Just because someone has been raped, and eventually tells someone who doesnt believe them does not mean that it didnt happen. Just because his DNA is gone , does not mean it didnt happen.
Actually, This thread is really to speculate rather than bicker. You and I clearly have pretty polarizing views, and while I respect yours because I can understand where you are coming from, I dont think you have any respect for mine given the fact that you repeatedly called me ignorant and delusional. Nothing productive will come from discussing this with you any further. You are entitled to think what you want about what i saw but given that you werent there, I really dont care if you think I am wrong. Feel free to provide answers and theories among the others about what it could be but I won't be responding to you again. Seeya.0 -
Hey guys, Listen, I just want to point our that I only posted those experiences because I wanted to hear what other people thought it was etc. I know what I believe it was and I never claimed to understand what it was ie whether or not it was a ghost or some sort of other random phenomena. I stated that I believed it to be paranormal, purely because I looked into it and could find nothing to explain it, and I could not define it under the current paramaters of science, so far as i could find. Therefore i presume it to be paranormal. I want to make it clear that while i think it looked like "ghost" and its what i think it was, I never said that it most definitely was. I just put it in here because I think it comes under this category given its look and movement.
Lol sorry I actually didnt say it walked or hovered, It was slightly off the ground while still but It deinitely hovered, not as much as you see that brown lady picture (also if you google ghost on bridge) but it was most definitely off the ground. However, when it moved towards us, it lifted slightly more off the ground while moving and sort of settled again wen it had stopped, There was not much difference in the height off the ground while being still and moving but there was a difference because it alarmed us. It had a slight milky white glow too and had a sort of light to medium sahde of blue almost crystal like things swirling in it, if that makes any sense lol, Its "head" was also slightly more distinct than the brown lady.0 -
I think it's really impossible for anyone to explain conclusively the things you have seen, given that we have no way of testing them or ruling out or in natural explanations.
The only explanations for these kind of experiences that have shown to be conclusively valid in the past have been natural ones, which is why people (especially skeptics) often put them forward when asked what their opinion on what it could have been. I do find that people often get offended at this, which is why I personally try to avoid it even though I think it is completely reasonable.0 -
jessabell88 wrote: »First, Do you really believe I need you to tell me what evidence criteria they demand in these matters? that was the whole argument i made. I know only too well how stringant they are.
But that's not what you said. You said the scientific community won't accept new ideas and that paranormal claims are all put down as purely mental occurrences.
If you had said that it is very difficult to get new ideas accepted, I would have agreed.jessabell88 wrote: »Secondly, I never once made the suggestion that my own personal experiences should be enough for a random scientist to use his career to research and attempt to gain funding to do so. I made the point that given the millions of experiences world wide, some differing, some the exact same cannot all be explained by science's current explanations and theories. Given that thet do not have a complete coherent undertsanding of physics then maybe it would be productive to put even a minimul amount of research into this area. If hey cannot account for a lot of the paranormal experiences people have by psycology then maybe physics is worth investigating regardng this area. If millions of people throughout the ages talk of these things and if science constantly dismisses out of hand when their theories on it do not always ring through then maybe they need to have a rethink. That was my point.
Millions of experiences, and yet not one piece of convincing evidence. Such low odds.
How do you know that not all experiences can be explained by current scientific understanding?
How do you know that all claims cannot be explained by psychology?jessabell88 wrote: »Thridly, i said it was paranormal, that it looked exactly like the "brown lady" ghost.You would see that in my previous post where i said whether it is just some random thing or it is a spirit, it doesnt matter. The reality is people experience things that science does not have in its cataloge and they not always alone which science assumes. I never said i saw a ghost, But even if i had so what? if thats the only word there is to describe something that has not yet been defined by science. I didnt though. I said it was paranormal. Why dont you read what i said about my experience with it and then look up the brown lady and then tell me what it was?. Please, I would appreciate it if would not attempt to patronise me when you had the chance to tell me what it was already when you had the information in the previous posts. FYI, how is your point any different to what science as a collective does? "I dont know what all you people saw, I cannot explain it but i know that you are delusional". Again, to reiterate my previous post, that does not hold any weight.
You don't know what it was, but you know it was paranormal.
You don't know what it was, but you know what it was.
I still don't see how it is wrong to call that an argument from ignorance
I'm not trying to tell you what you saw, to even attempt to do so would be futile and stupid. I'm not telling you that you are delusional, I have never met you and I am not trained to make that call. I wasn't there, I have no hard evidence and personal experience is worth very little in the scientific world. My point is that no one can say what happened with any level of confidence. You can say it was paranormal, but how do you know that? You are using other unsupported claims as evidence for yours, how do you know the Brown Lady is a reliable source?jessabell88 wrote: »Fourth, Are you saying that when more than one person witnesses something that they are delusional? I explained it in detail in my previous post and given you the information you need to undertsand what we saw. Again, Please tell me what scientific explanation exists for this. I presume you have the time to do it given the lengthy post you just sent me and given the fact that a real skeptic would do so. You haven't yet but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I never called anyone delusional. You need to stop misrepresenting my position.
Why would a 'real skeptic' even attempt to put meaning to such a claim? I feel to do so would be the exact opposite of skepticism.jessabell88 wrote: »Fifth, primed? haha I come from a family and majority circle of friends who dont believe in any of that. I grew on the otherside of a skeptic, a total non believer. However, My experience on the road that night made a bit more open. Then throughout the years things have happened and now i believe there is something to it. I am more than willing to believe my mind plays tricks when im on my own but the things i have experienced with others cannot be so easily dismissed. I dont go around thinking i see or hear a ghost every time i go to bed or go around with my day.
Then I retract that statement and apologise if I offended you.jessabell88 wrote: »Sixth, Yeah, its also a joke that the burden of proof in rape cases lies on the victim but there you have it. So you are saying to me that if i call nasa and say i just spotted a meteor with my amature telescope and tell them where that they would tell me" right, well i dont see it so i think you are wrong, but mind you, i havent bothered to actually look into it either. tell you what mr, why dont you write down all the coordinates and send them to me in the post. we eagerly await you findings". No. I think they would check it up. especially if more than one had spotted the same thing. Sure,its a silly analogy but it does hold true. How on earth does science expect ordinary joe soaps to solve such scientific mysteries if they are indeed scientific? Are you really saying that it expects us to have a comprehensive understanding of physics as we know it today and possibly research more into it and then knock on their door and say "hey, i have what you were waiting for"? I dont think so. So if thats what they expect should happen according to you, is it any wonder that it cant explain half the experiences people have other than they are mad? I dont really buy its up to me and other joe soaps to prove their existance. That is the entire profession of science. to prove or disprove. They havent disproved and they wont either until they put a bit backbone into it and (actually) research it.
Wait.... what?!its also a joke that the burden of proof in rape cases lies on the victim
Here is exactly the reason that your assertion is ridiculous.
Every person, for every crime is innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty. If you disagree, then you are simply wrong.
If you go to NASA, saying there is a new asteroid and give them coords to search, then that will probably be fine. Why? Because it has been done numerous times before and been successful. Or at the very least the asteroid was actually where they looked.
If, however, you went to them with a claim that has never been shown to be real, you'd get told to sod off and stop wasting their time. But if you went with a claim that you had collected a nice amount of evidence for, well, that would be interesting.
Do you have any evidence for your claims?jessabell88 wrote: »Just a point here, if this forum does not allow for opinion then I am confused by your argument. You jut keep saying why I am wrong but have offered no explanation to what i saw on the road (because that is the most prominant) except to bang on about how I am a mistaken and /or delusional person who does not realise how silly my mind is. You ahve actually done what I was complaining about. So, with all due respect, I dont really care what you think.I honetly dont mean to be rude but I know what I saw, I believe it to be paranormal given the fact that science has no explanation that i could find for it. There i no point in debating that I saw hat I saw. You can debate what it was, sure. But you must have evidance that it was something other thn paranormal or delusion by your own standards. I witnessed it happen, you didnt. You are telling me that what i saw wasnt real, so tell me what it actually was then? bare in mind delusion is not really a great option given the other witness. I have seen it head on for a period of about five minutes while with someone else. Just because someone has been raped, and eventually tells someone who doesnt believe them does not mean that it didnt happen. Just because his DNA is gone , does not mean it didnt happen.
I never said you were wrong.jessabell88 wrote: »Actually, This thread is really to speculate rather than bicker. You and I clearly have pretty polarizing views, and while I respect yours because I can understand where you are coming from, I dont think you have any respect for mine given the fact that you repeatedly called me ignorant and delusional. Nothing productive will come from discussing this with you any further. You are entitled to think what you want about what i saw but given that you werent there, I really dont care if you think I am wrong. Feel free to provide answers and theories among the others about what it could be but I won't be responding to you again. Seeya.
Never called you delusional, didn't really call you ignorant either. I merely said that you had applied a label to an event where you had no reasonable way of knowing if you were correct.
You also don't need to respect my views, you do need to respect my right to have views but not the views themselves. And, of course, vice versa.
============================
Kind of in-line with your sixth point.
There seems to be this theme that the scientific community is some group of faceless geniuses who sit atop a pillar of knowledge and decree that X is true and Y is false and that everyone has to agree or be wrong.
Anyone can be part of the scientific community. But you do need to abide by a few rules.
You need repeatable verifiable evidence for a claim to be believed.
For a claim to be adopted, a paper needs to be published and peer reviewed. All this means is that a scientific magazine prints your ideas and what you did to show they were true. Then, people with interest will attempt to replicate your results and see if said results do indeed lead to your conclusion. If so, congratulations, you just got peer reviewed! If not, the idea is faulty and it's back to the drawing board.
You only go to the media after you get peer reviewed. Our friends at Steron seem to forget this.
If you break these rules then you lose credibility in the scientific community. All that means is that people will know you are full of it.
My sister, outside of her lab coat is a completely normal person. She has a family and friends and a social life. She is great fun to be around. And she is part of the scientific community.
People need to realise that these are just normal people, who are experts in a very tiny, minuscule section of human knowledge.
I'm always reminded of this description of a PhD.0 -
standman, I have no issue if people dont believe it was paranormal. That is why i posted on this thread. What I would have liked was to hear of any known natural phemonena which could account for it. I mean, actual specific known phenomena. Its the sweeping cloak statements that get me. I thought maybe people could put forward specific explanations etc. oh well lol. Thanks for the imput anyway. :-)0
-
If we estimate that there are over 100 billion dead people, then spirits should be everywhere.
If you believe in spirits, by default you believe in an after life.0 -
Micky Dolenz wrote: »If we estimate that there are over 100 billion dead people, then spirits should be everywhere
Yup
And if they can open and close doors, effect electricity, drain batteries, levitate things, stack things throw things, wouldn't the world be a little crazy, but its not, its actually very quiet. Although there are some paranormal teams out there that catch something every time :rolleyes:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yup
And if they can open and close doors, effect electricity, drain batteries, levitate things, stack things throw things, wouldn't the world be a little crazy, but its not, its actually very quiet. Although there are some paranormal teams out there that catch something every time :rolleyes:
Indeed, but what do they catch?
I was watching a You Tube video showing the shape of sound...cant upload it at moment, but its mad watching the shapes of sound..theres so much about this planet that we dont know.0 -
Advertisement
-
Micky Dolenz wrote: »If we estimate that there are over 100 billion dead people, then spirits should be everywhere.
Literally, since the Earth is moving at about 3000km a second through the universe. It has travelled trillions of km since humans first evolved (which raises another interesting point, when did humans "evolve" life after death). So are spirits effected by gravity? If not we have been despositing ghosts throughout the galaxy for thousands of years. If they are effected then how do they float?
Its almost as if someone just made all this up without thinking it through ...0
![[Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ec88939d138952fce94db89a5749c975.svg)
Advertisement