Proving to people in Paranormal forum that they can be tricked

TaxiManMartin

I posted this in After Hours (actually it looks like i posted it by accident in Paranormal ... duh ) so i could get some people together for an experiment.

But mysteriously it was closed without warning.

I guess anyone interested can still PM me but i dont see why it would be closed. I guess they are not interested in an experiment like this.


After reading and answering some threads in the paranormal forum it looks like some people just want to believe in the supernatural. They cant help it. They dont really have any proof, but are willing to say any experience they cant explain is supernatural. They arent even open to the idea that they could be mistaken at all.

I suggested in one thread that some of us go and set up the next "Ghost hunt" to give them some false positives. Basically what i am proposing is to get there before them and set up some experiences for them.

Let them find their "proof" and let them come back here and talk about it for a few days. Then we post what they actually experienced and how we set it up. And see if they believe that they are capable of being tricked into seeing ghosts after that.

I have had a few people contact me about it already. And have someone on the inside who can give us advance warning of a "hunt". They will also help lead the "hunters" into our little experiment. Its someone who doesnt really believe, but they go on the "hunts" for the craic.

We have some very good ideas. Ive written to James Randi too but he hasnt answered yet

I think this would be an interesting experiment to see just how objective people who claim to experience the supernatural really are.

Anyone else who wants in let me know via PM or otherwise.


Is anyone in Skeptics interested? I think it would be a really worthwhile experiment to do. And it might show some people that their need to believe is effecting their judgment in a bad way.

It doesnt really matter if they know we plan to do this experiment. Just the very nature of their need to believe in the supernatural will override any suspicion they have that they are being experimented upon. They wont actually know when we have set this up anyway, until after they reveal their results, and then we reveal our results.

I might bring this up at an Irish skeptics meeting too. Havent been to one in ages.

MrMojoRisin

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

After reading and answering some threads in the paranormal forum it looks like some people just want to believe in the supernatural. They cant help it. They dont really have any proof, but are willing to say any experience they cant explain is supernatural. They arent even open to the idea that they could be mistaken at all.

Do u own the copyright to personal beliefs?

Let them find their "proof" and let them come back here and talk about it for a few days. Then we post what they actually experienced and how we set it up. And see if they believe that they are capable of being tricked into seeing ghosts after that.

I have had a few people contact me about it already. And have someone on the inside who can give us advance warning of a "hunt". They will also help lead the "hunters" into our little experiment. Its someone who doesnt really believe, but they go on the "hunts" for the craic.

Is anyone in Skeptics interested? I think it would be a really worthwhile experiment to do. And it might show some people that their need to believe is effecting their judgment in a bad way.

It doesnt really matter if they know we plan to do this experiment. Just the very nature of their need to believe in the supernatural will override any suspicion they have that they are being experimented upon. They wont actually know when we have set this up anyway, until after they reveal their results, and then we reveal our results.

All i can say is that u seem like a very mean spirited,callous, manipulative,distrustful person based on what youre trying to do here and that youll have trouble finding naive volunteers wanting to be used by you

TaxiManMartin

Ive got a couple of people to help already.
Need a couple more just for the ideas.
Its just an experiment. Nothing more.
Its about the difference between reality and beliefs.

So you guys dont like psychics because you believe that they trick people . So being "true skeptics" you are going to try trick people ?

WOW

Well to be honest the most shocking thing about this is the fact that your willing to get off your backsides. I suppose i have to commend you for that .

Also post your findings i bet you will have no proof that the place is "not haunted" either way

Actually i might call myself Randy James and pay somebody who can prove to me that a place is "not haunted" :P

DANNY22XX

Gonna be hard to get any proof that you require due to the fact you told everyone what you are gonna do,,,lol if you hadnt said anything im sure you would have got a better response.

Keep us posted on your progress;)

karynp

o/p, grow up please!
everyone to their own an all that.
am sure theres some game out there in the shops you can amuse yourself with...
disrespecting people is not on mate,your just looking to take the piss outv them and honestly its very childish.
and whoever you have on the "inside" outa be ashamed of themselves.

really the experiment is to show you can trick people

Groundbreaking :rolleyes:

also 20 years too late , you give skeptics a bad name

iamhunted

Im only making an observation, this kinda proves the point that a lot of people have the notion that 'paranormalists' will believe anything fed to them, without using any kind of logical thought.

What has been proposed is the kind of thing paranormal research groups spend their time doing anyway - investigating 'hauntings' presented to them and trying to figure out what the actual causes are.

If 'skeptics' (though really, we all are in this field, the 'skeptics' sometimes don't understand what the word means in the real world) spent a bit of time looking into how paranormal research is done, and what those interested in the subject *actually* think - rather than propose the obvious and cling to over exaggerated stereotypes - then they might have a better footing to fool the 'hunters'.

stevenmu

I posted this in the other thread (which was originally posted in after hours but was moved over)

I'd also add that several of the members here who organise investigations have built up a good reputation with the owners which is vital in allowing these investigations to proceed.

If people do the above and try to disrupt investigations, they could damage this reputation, and seriously jepordise the ability of forum members to organise investigations.

Please do not spoil everybody's fun just to prove some petty point so you can bask in your own smugness.

I would also add to that and say that every investigation which has been organised through the forum has been open to skeptics as well. There's no reason why a skeptic can't simply and openly go along to an investigation and take a full part in it and come to their own conclusions.

I would like to think that any true skeptic bases their views on science. True science involves objective observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism. Oh, and let's not forget honesty. I very much doubt that the cause of true science has ever been significantly advanced by one scientist sneaking into another's lab and contaminating their equipment.

Overblood

This is very like James Randi's Proect Alpha. For anyone who knows what this project achieved, you would be foolish not to agree with me in saying that Randi and his helpers were absolute geniuses. The experiment showed that even scientists, the masters of measuring, can be duped into believing paranormal hokey-pokey.

If Taximanmartin's experiment is to go ahead, himself and whoever joins him will be in a way playing the role of Project Alpha's Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards (i'll be James Randi ok? ) and the PIG crew would be the scientists.

If Taximanmartin's experiment is successful, ie set up events which are reported by the PIG crew as supernatural phenomena, then it would only show us what we already know: the majority of those who believe/want to believe in the paranormal are easily convinced. (It may even be good enough to convince any tag-along sceptics...)

Anyway I still think Taximanmartin should have kept quiet about it. I can think of other ways to rally support. The fact that he's shouting from the hilltops leads me to believe that he's only trying to frighten ye! Somebody on the inside? Yeah sure... it's possible though.


For an indepth article on Project Alpha (written by himself), check this out: http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm

Overblood

stevenmu wrote: »

I would also add to that and say that every investigation which has been organised through the forum has been open to skeptics as well. There's no reason why a skeptic can't simply and openly go along to an investigation and take a full part in it and come to their own conclusions.

That's not what he wants to do. He doesn't want to investigate any paranormal stuff. I'm guessing he wants to do his own Project Alpha. See the above post about Project Alpha.

stevenmu wrote: »

I would like to think that any true skeptic bases their views on science. True science involves objective observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism.

What Taximanmartin is proposing is actually an experiment, which would involve observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism... and more.

Also, the honesty part would come in to play once the hoax is revealed to all.

stevenmu wrote: »

I very much doubt that the cause of true science has ever been significantly advanced by one scientist sneaking into another's lab and contaminating their equipment.

I wouldn't call a group of boardsies wandering around a field "true science". Anyways, here's an article about how ethical Project Alpha was.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/15/science/magician-s-effort-to-debunk-scientists-raises-ethical-issues.html?sec=health&&scp=1&sq=marcello+truzzi+alpha+project&st=nyt

Overblood

I'll shut up about Project Alpha now.

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

I wouldn't call a group of boardsies wandering around a field "true science".

I wouldnt call somebody who sits at home and questions the paranormal a skeptic.

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't call somebody who sits at home and questions the paranormal a skeptic.

Why not? I would.

skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik] Noun
1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sceptic

A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism

So did anyone read up on Project Alpha? Whatcha think?

I know what a skeptic is im just saying that you are not one .

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

I know what a skeptic is im just saying that you are not one .

Why not?

getz

isent it strange that people who dont believe in the paranormal, are still quite happy to go to church and pray?

Overblood

I don't pray or go to church, I don't believe in god.

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Why not?

Well being skeptical is as you said is 1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs .

Meaning you neither believe or disbelieve. Meaning that you are open to any possability .

Clearly this is not you .

Overblood

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

im not saying that you are not a skeptic. But i am yet to see any proof that you are

mister gullible

getz wrote: »

isent it strange that people who dont believe in the paranormal, are still quite happy to go to church and pray?

People who go to church and pray obviously do believe in the paranormal!!!

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

A skeptic surely is someone who though they have have deep, deep doubts about something, are still open to the idea they could be proven wrong. A cynic on the other hand clearly believes he or she cant be wrong about their assumption. You seem pretty sure the paranormal is all complete rubbish and you dont seem to be open to the fact it *mightn't* be rubbish, which in my mind puts you as more of a cynic than a skeptic (well this is the impression I get and only my opinion so my apologies if Im wrong).

The majority of those interested in the paranormal are skeptics and quite a few go looking for the answers to these questions rather than just slate the whole idea from an armchair over the internet. This is a problem I have with the title of this forum as many who post as skeptics, clearly arent.

those who completely believe everything (which there arent many) are clearly as unmovable as their opposites (ie the more cynical) but aren't representative of those who do have an interest.

Overblood

iamhunted wrote: »

A skeptic surely is someone who though they have have deep, deep doubts about something, are still open to the idea they could be proven wrong.

Yes I am open to the idea that I can be proven wrong. But in the history of science there has never been a shred of evidence in favour of paranormal phenomena that is actually worth a sh!t.

I'm sure they thought fire was paranormal back in the stone age, possibly even a spirit of some sort. That is what is happening today. People attach amazing stories to UFOs. What does the U stand for again?....

Eventually one must come to a conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that all paranormal and psi phenomena must be non-paranormal. BUT, If some great evidence is presented here tomorrow, then of course I'll accept it. I'd have to be stupid not to give that scenario a modicum of possibility.

iamhunted wrote: »

You seem pretty sure the paranormal is all complete rubbish and you dont seem to be open to the fact it *mightn't* be rubbish, which in my mind puts you as more of a cynic than a skeptic

I wouldn't use the word "complete rubbish". There is the slightest slightest slightest chance that all of this is true. Leprechauns, werewolves, god, ghosts, banshee etc etc. I'm not denying that possibility. But the chances are so slim and the evidence so paltry that you might as well dismiss it as nothing but nice stories and fairytales.

iamhunted wrote: »

The majority of those interested in the paranormal are skeptics and quite a few go looking for the answers to these questions rather than just slate the whole idea from an armchair over the internet.

The PIG are not true sceptics, at least one of them has a "soft spot" for the paranormal. Yes, they go looking for answers but the investigation is biased since they would like this stuff to be true. Fact.

Plus, I'm not sitting on an armchair. Also, I can "slate" the paranormal all I want. I have been on this planet 23 years and I've yet to see anything paranormal. I've read countless anecdotes and seen countless crappy photos. Is that evidence or proof? Not at all. Not even close.

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't, please explain why you don't.

Overblood

By the way, I just checked out the www.irishparanormal.org website.

According to you, iamhunted, the only sceptics are those who go and "investigate" the paranormal themselves ie. walk around spooky houses. So the Irish Paranormal Group, supposedly a national big time operation due to the title, are sceptics. According to you.

Here's a bit from their "How to tell if you're Haunted" section:

First off don't be scared, I know that sounds funny. You have a human spirit that is living there with you or just passing through, they are harmless, a bit unnerving and scary at times, but that is not what they are trying to be.

Hold on a sec.... So they are assuming that spirits exist, before the feckin' investigation? Great. How the hell do you call that being sceptical?

Yelling may upset or anger the spirit and then they will not stop what you have asked them to. Speak to them just like you are talking to a friend and explain what your problem is and ask if they could stop.

Are you sure these people who get up off their armchair and investigate the paranormal are really skeptics? In my opinion, they are definitely not. Let's read on...

We can assist you in getting unbiased evidence and evaluating your situation. We can also educate you on living with ghosts.

Fail to IrishParanormal. And fail to iamhunted too.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

Yes I am open to the idea that I can be proven wrong. ........... I have come to the conclusion that all paranormal and psi phenomena must be non-paranormal. BUT, If some great evidence is presented here tomorrow, then of course I'll accept it. I'd have to be stupid not to give that scenario a modicum of possibility........ But the chances are so slim and the evidence so paltry that you might as well dismiss it as nothing but nice stories and fairytales........I have been on this planet 23 years and I've yet to see anything paranormal. I've read countless anecdotes and seen countless crappy photos. Is that evidence or proof? Not at all. Not even close.

Read through that again and see if you can see how many times youve contradicted yourself. The 'BUT if ...' especially as I think you;ve nailed your cynic hat to the wall there as a cynic will ONLY believe something when its shown to them and not consider their opinion was incorrect before hand.

Considering Ive been on the planet 40 years and I have witnessed some things that could quite easily be classed as paranormal I cant agree that because youve been around 23 years and havent, that that means the paranormal is "nothing but nice stories and fairytales".

The main difference is Ive been out looking for these things, you obviously havent.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

And fail to iamhunted too.

Oh aye - you've really told us off and proved how silly we are. :rolleyes:

Ive loving the great enlightenment you've given me.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

By the way, I just checked out the www.irishparanormal.org website.

According to you, iamhunted, the only sceptics are those who go and "investigate" the paranormal themselves ie. walk around spooky houses. So the Irish Paranormal Group, supposedly a national big time operation due to the title, are sceptics. According to you.

Here's a bit from their "How to tell if you're Haunted" section:



Hold on a sec.... So they are assuming that spirits exist, before the feckin' investigation? Great. How the hell do you call that being sceptical?



Are you sure these people who get up off their armchair and investigate the paranormal are really skeptics? In my opinion, they are definitely not. Let's read on...



Fail to IrishParanormal. And fail to iamhunted too.

the more i read this, the more funnier it is. Just what exactly is your point here? That all paranormal research groups all have to have exactly the same opinions? ah, thats a classic. Please, dont try and slag off a bunch of stuff you have no idea of, as you really dont seem to get the whole concept of 'research'.

Overblood

iamhunted wrote: »

Read through that again and see if you can see how many times youve contradicted yourself. The 'BUT if ...' especially as

I didn't contradict myself at all. I said I don't believe in spooky fairies, but at the same time I acknowledge the possibility of being wrong.

iamhunted wrote: »

I think you;ve nailed your cynic hat to the wall there as a cynic will ONLY believe something when its shown to them and not consider their opinion was incorrect before hand.

I can't make any sense out of that sentence. So as a true skeptic I'm supposed to believe in something before I see evidence?

iamhunted wrote: »

the more i read this, the more funnier it is. Just what exactly is your point here? That all paranormal research groups all have to have exactly the same opinions? ah, thats a classic. Please, dont try and slag off a bunch of stuff you have no idea of, as you really dont seem to get the whole concept of 'research'.

Haha! What those guys do may be "research", but it is not scientific, and they are not sceptics. Their research is totally biased since they already accept the existence of ghosts, poultergheists and spooky sprits as fact.

By the way I agree with genhiz's post here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60399195&postcount=34

Riamfada

Overblood, I think you dont really know what paranormal investigators do. Have you been on a paranormal investigation? You say you have seen nothing paranormal but have you gone looking for it.

For the record I didnt believe in ghosts or God before my first investigation. Now I believe in both. Perhaps you should give it a shot.

Back on topic however if the OP really wishes to trick people by faking an event it really proves nothing except the fact that people can be tricked. It all seems like alot of hot air on the OP's part and a bit sad. Kind of like going to Arnotts in December and telling all the kinds that Santa isnt real because they cant prove his existence scientifically and then pulling his beard off while smugly waiting for the children to thank him for enlightening their lives. Grow up OP and get a hobby. Perhaps something that dosnt involve you ruining other peoples fun? I recommend stamps

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

The PIG are not true sceptics, at least one of them has a "soft spot" for the paranormal. Yes, they go looking for answers but the investigation is biased since they would like this stuff to be true. Fact.

Haha! What those guys do may be "research", but it is not scientific, and they are not sceptics. Their research is totally biased since they already accept the existence of ghosts, poultergheists and spooky sprits as fact.

Being a true skeptic I suppose you have evidence to back up these facts ?