Proving to people in Paranormal forum that they can be tricked

Riamfada

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

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.

And the paranormal investigations demonstrated that something was a "ghost" (the disconnected spirit of a dead person) how exactly?

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

From the website

"Many people are not bothered at all by spirits in their homes because they can accept them for what they are and they realize that there is nothing to fear."

Accept them for what they are? What exactly are they?

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

I would be very interesting in learning ow the IPIC have determined that people having "a human spirit that is living there with you"

That must have taken some really hard serious sceptical scientific research on their part :rolleyes:

Spirits often respond very well to this if you are calm, firm and respectful.

A human spirit has the free will to decide when and where it will go.

And so on and so on

If there is the definition of a "sceptic" you guys are using no wonder you don't think Overblood is a sceptic.

The IPIC and "sceptics" like them go out to find "ghosts" and "spirits". That is what they are interested in, the only question for them is "Was that a spirt". They have already accepted that all the human explanations for these unexplained phenomena are real and accurate and now they just going through the motions of determining if you have a ghost, not if a ghost is actually a real thing that accurately explains a natural phenomena.

"STEP 5: Once more we collect all the data and try to determine if "you" indeed have something that points to paranormal activity"

That is so far removed from real science, real openmindedness and real scepticism it is riduculous. It is the very definition of close mindedness

Zombrex

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 iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

Overblood

Grimes wrote: »

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.

What caused you to believe? Care to share?:)

Grimes wrote: »

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.

Yes people can be tricked. They can be tricked by saboteurs like Taximanmartin. More importantly though, people can be tricked by their own senses, without the need of a saboteur. Grimes, is it possible that you were fooled into believing in ghosts and god by your own senses interpreting data incorrectly, or dare I say a SABOTEUR?

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Fact#1: Yes I do have evidence to back up these facts. Which boards users here are actually on the PIG team?

Fact#2: Regarding the IrishParanormal group, come on, their site is a joke. They obviously believe in ghosts and spooky spirits. Check out the paragraphs I quoted from the site. There is no way they can conduct a truly un-biased investigation if they actually believe in ghosts. They discuss spirits on their website as if it was a totally normal occurrence, as if they were a pest control company talking about wasps. It's ridiculous.

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

At least one of them does. Give me a list of all the PIG members here on boards.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

Your the person bringing up ghosts here. That is one theory, but being true skeptics we are open to all possabilities to "un-explained phenomena"

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Fact#1: Yes I do have evidence to back up these facts. Which boards users here are actually on the PIG team?

At least one of them does. Give me a list of all the PIG members here on boards.

You do have evidence yet you dont know who the members of PIG are brilliant


You keep mentioning this one member that does believe in ghosts. You are again stating a fact when you have never seen him investigate.

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

You do have evidence yet you dont know who the members of PIG are brilliant

My apologies I'm getting my teams mixed up. I know all the PIG members. Who are the Irish Paranormal people here on boards?

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

Or I could do a huge character review of each member here for all the public to see. I know EVARYTHING.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Your the person bringing up ghosts here.

No, a 5 second search on your web browser will show you that I'm not

Deleted User wrote: »

That is one theory

Ghosts did it is not a "theory" in any meaningful sense of that word. It is an uneducated guess that requires the introduction of a phenomena that no one has demonstrated even exists and that contradicts the vast majority of biology and physics.

Deleted User wrote: »

, but being true skeptics we are open to all possabilities to "un-explained phenomena"

Yes. And as soon as someone demonstrates that a ghost did something I'm perfectly happy to accept that is what happened.

But you may notice that no one has done that. And there have been far more convincing explanations put forward for why humans would invent a concept like a ghost.

So really, am I supposed to disregard everything else until I settle on an explanation that is appealing to followers of the paranormal.

That again is the very definition of close mindedness, refusing to look at evidence that doesn't fit with what you want to be true.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

My apologies I'm getting my teams mixed up. I know all the PIG members, who are the Irish Paranormal people here on boards?

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

Or I could do a huge character review of each member here for all the public to see.

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

But you may notice that no one has done that. And there have been far more convincing explanations put forward for why humans would invent a concept like a ghost.
.

Eplanations but no proof

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

If that member believes in ghosts you are saying that can be detomental to an investigation ?

So then not believing in ghosts would also be not detrimental to an investigation .Meaning you dont believe in ghosts so that really makes you one sided to this the whole subject .

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

round and round and round in circles. Im sorry - I cant take anything you say seriously considering you have never made any effort to back up your claims with any research of your own. You make cynical claims and expect me to just believe you.

Personally, I'd rather go looking and find out my own info and make up my own mind, not listen to a blinkered argument online from someone who has never even bothered doing the same..

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

the 'why not go and educate yourself a bit on what paranormal research is *actually* about' might be better advice.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

Other then your rout that you are not going to believe it untill proof is presented to you. :rolleyes:

iamhunted

its a waste of time arguing with cynics. I think they just like to hear themselves type.

iamhunted

iamhunted wrote: »

its a waste of time arguing with cynics. I think they just like to hear themselves type.

I was bored

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Eplanations but no proof

Well no one can prove anything in a scientific sense. What they should be trying to do though is to form a coherent and testable model (known in science as a theory) explaining the phenomena.

No one doing "paranormal research" has produced anything close to that for ghosts. That of course doesn't stop groups like the IPIC proclaim that ghosts are real and in fact what properties they seeming know they have.

Which is a bit odd. But when you point that out you are shot down for being close minded and cynical. Go figure :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

Other then your rout that you are not going to believe it untill proof is presented to you.

Yes, how close minded of me, not accepting an explanation as accurate until someone can actually show that it is :rolleyes:

Believer - That was a ghost
Sceptic - Er, how do you know that? The idea of a ghost contradicts some very well established biology, it would be a big deal if they actually existed and would make a lot of or other science wrong, science that has demonstrated itself accurate in tests. Can you demonstrate that they do exist?
Believer - Of course not, and I'm totally insulted that you ask that
Sceptic - What? But then how can you say it was a ghost. How can you even say what a ghost is in the first place?
Believer - OMG! You are so close minded! You shut yourself of to possibilities. How can you say I can't know that was a ghost
Sceptic - What? But you just said you cannot demonstrate that it was a ghost.
Believer - Demonstrations and tests and science are for close minded cynics like you. I know what I saw. I know it was a ghost. That is all I need and it is only close minded cynics like you who say I should have to "demonstrate" this
Sceptic - But you should, that is the point. Otherwise you could just be make up an explanation
Believer - I can't deal with you cynics you are so close minded you shut yourselves off to all possibility. I am open minded which is why I say it was a ghost and not anything else!

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

round and round and round in circles. Im sorry - I cant take anything you say seriously considering you have never made any effort to back up your claims with any research of your own.

Research of my own?

Yes just wait a minute there iamhunted while I go away and reinvent the scientific method :rolleyes:

iamhunted wrote: »

You make cynical claims and expect me to just believe you.

No, I make sceptical claims which annoy the hell out of you because you know that for all the paranormal research that you claim goes on no one has ever been able to demonstrate that any of the paranormal explanations for unexplained events are actually accurate or real.

To me that is a very good reason to be sceptical of paranormal claims. There are thousands of paranormal claims and none of them has ever been able to actually explain to scientific standards a phenomena.

But because I suspect you really want paranormal claims to be true you find this level of standards to be highly annoying. So you side step the failure of paranormal claims to actually explain anything and choose instead to attack those who point this out as being close minded and cynical.

iamhunted wrote: »

Personally, I'd rather go looking and find out my own info and make up my own mind

You shouldn't have to go away and find out on your own. That is nonsense.

If it is possible to demonstrate that this stuff is real then it should be possible to put it in a science paper and have the whole world look at it. If anyone can demonstrate that paranormal explanations accurately model phenomena I should be able to see that from my comfy armchair.

Of course no one has done that. Big shock! :eek:

So when you say go off and make up your own mind I suspect what you actually mean go along to something like the IPIC and get hood winked in the moment into believe explanations that have no scientific bases to explain anything.

It is like the people who say that astrology only works if you believe it will work. Well d'uh!

Overblood

I think the only thing to do now is to go through with Taximanmartin's plan! This discussion is going nowhere. I'm obviously way too "cynical". The definition of the words skeptic and open mindedness have been buggered to bits by the paranormal community here. Are any of you investigators educated in a scientific discipline? As in third level education?

And Grimes, an archeologist should surely come across thousands of ghosts when he/she digs up old plots around the world. Excavations should be riddled with free spirits. Any reports of that happening? Have you ever seen ghosts wandering around excavations? Or do they only appear in spooky castles. Hmm...

Riamfada

Overblood wrote: »

I think the only thing to do now is to go through with Taximanmartin's plan! This discussion is going nowhere. I'm obviously way too "cynical". The definition of the words skeptic and open mindedness have been buggered to bits by the paranormal community here. Are any of you investigators educated in a scientific discipline? As in third level education?

And Grimes, an archeologist should surely come across thousands of ghosts when he/she digs up old plots around the world. Excavations should be riddled with free spirits. Any reports of that happening? Have you ever seen ghosts wandering around excavations? Or do they only appear in spooky castles. Hmm...

There are many theories about the nature of energy after death. The fact that you think ghosts appear in graveyards or on excavations most likely in white sheets shaking chains just is a testament to your ignorance to the entire "field" which admittidly is a pseudoscience at best but in order to be skeptical i think you should at least try to read up on the paranormal a bit.You also seem to be in the dark about what actually goes on during an investigation.

And for the record yes, a number of investigators are highly educated in scientific disciplines I even know of the odd Phd in psychology.

The problem I have with taximartin's plan is that it sets out to actively decieve people however as im one of the only people here who has been on an investigation id love you to try and when, as most often happens with paranormal groups that are not on the telly, the "experience" is attributed to natural phenomenon like creaking pipes or arteficial EM fields, I look forward to boiling my egg

...... on your face

iamhunted

i just wish the 'skeptics' (well, you know who I mean) could come up with some new posts. the arguments put forward on this thread are also in numerous others, most - if not all - of which have already been answered. can anyone say 'boring'?

iamhunted

i suppose I have to reply.

Wicknight wrote: »

Research of my own?

Yes just wait a minute there iamhunted while I go away and reinvent the scientific method :rolleyes:

Why reinvent the scientific method when you can try and help develop one to suit paranormal research? Or do you believe that these things magically appear without anyone trying to develop them?

No, I make sceptical claims which annoy the hell out of you because you know that for all the paranormal research that you claim goes on no one has ever been able to demonstrate that any of the paranormal explanations for unexplained events are actually accurate or real.

You sure you arent psychic? Cus I cant figure out how you claim to know what I think ...... the only thing that annoys me is you being cynical and calling it skeptical. actually, that doesnt even annoy me, but anyway.

To me that is a very good reason to be sceptical of paranormal claims. There are thousands of paranormal claims and none of them has ever been able to actually explain to scientific standards a phenomena.

How do you claim this if you havent gone out researching this stuff nor bothered trying to work out how to make paranomral research suit a scientific method? are you sure just what 'scientific method' means? Like, i mean forget google, but what it *actually* means and the need to create methods for research?

But because I suspect you really want paranormal claims to be true you find this level of standards to be highly annoying. So you side step the failure of paranormal claims to actually explain anything and choose instead to attack those who point this out as being close minded and cynical.

Enough with the pretending to being psychic. For one you suspect wrong ... chalk that up to not knowing what you;re talking about. Secondly, you seem to suggest you have the proof that all paranormal claims are fake - otherwise how are you so sure? From all youe time spent researching this stuff? What ... you cant mean No?

You shouldn't have to go away and find out on your own. That is nonsense.

Damn right you should - how else can you know if whatever you end up with was faked or not unless you caught the audio/video/whatever yourself?

If it is possible to demonstrate that this stuff is real then it should be possible to put it in a science paper and have the whole world look at it. If anyone can demonstrate that paranormal explanations accurately model phenomena I should be able to see that from my comfy armchair.

Of course no one has done that. Big shock! :eek:

Who says these things are possible to demonstrate? Does that mean they cant happen just because you cant command it at will? or sorry, i forgot. its just another assumption made in error by your fine self.

So when you say go off and make up your own mind I suspect what you actually mean go along to something like the IPIC and get hood winked in the moment into believe explanations that have no scientific bases to explain anything.

It is like the people who say that astrology only works if you believe it will work. Well d'uh!

By all means make up your own mind, and you wont find me telling you how stupid/flakey/blah blah blah you are for having your own thoughts on it.

Of course its fine for 'skeptics' (usual disclaimer) to tell the rest of us how gullible we are :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

There are many theories about the nature of energy after death. The fact that you think ghosts appear in graveyards or on excavations most likely in white sheets shaking chains just is a testament to your ignorance to the entire "field" which admittidly is a pseudoscience at best but in order to be skeptical i think you should at least try to read up on the paranormal a bit.You also seem to be in the dark about what actually goes on during an investigation.

Overbloods point about ghosts and graveyards is that ghosts only seem to appear in situations where the human perception is being greatly decreased by the environment. So in a dark house at night with all the lights off (I never understood why paranormal investigators turn off the lights and then start shinning infra red lights everywhere? The ghosts hat visiable spectrum but don't mind other bursts of electromagnetic energy? How odd)

If ghosts are actually some form of organised field energy left behind by the mind of a dead person (when you say it out loud it stresses how totally at odds the entire idea is to biology and physics) then it doesn't really make much sense that we aren't find ghosts everywhere There are graveyards, new and ancient, everywhere. There should be dead spirit everywhere. Why are they not interacting with us all the time?

But of course they aren't. We, some what strangely, only find ghosts in places or at times when humans have perception trouble due to the environment.

That in itself should be telling people something. At what point to paranormal investigators start to look at themselves and the situations they put themselves into to explain why they appear to perceive strange phenomena?

Of course saying it was the effect of the environment on our minds and bodies is not nearly as sex as saying it was a ghost.

Overblood

Grimes wrote: »

There are many theories about the nature of energy after death.

There are no theories about the nature of energy after death.

Ahhh i love science, like a believer science has an answer for everything. Like a believer it cant prove everything .

iamhunted

discussions like this could go on forever. 'paranormal isnt real', 'maybe it is', 'no its not', 'you're a cynic'. 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD', etc etc etc

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

Overbloods point about ghosts and graveyards is that ghosts only seem to appear in situations where the human perception is being greatly decreased by the environment. So in a dark house at night with all the lights off (I never understood why paranormal investigators turn off the lights and then start shinning infra red lights everywhere? The ghosts hat visiable spectrum but don't mind other bursts of electromagnetic energy? How odd)

If ghosts are actually some form of organised field energy left behind by the mind of a dead person (when you say it out loud it stresses how totally at odds the entire idea is to biology and physics) then it doesn't really make much sense that we aren't find ghosts everywhere There are graveyards, new and ancient, everywhere. There should be dead spirit everywhere. Why are they not interacting with us all the time?

But of course they aren't. We, some what strangely, only find ghosts in places or at times when humans have perception trouble due to the environment.

That in itself should be telling people something. At what point to paranormal investigators start to look at themselves and the situations they put themselves into to explain why they appear to perceive strange phenomena?

Of course saying it was the effect of the environment on our minds and bodies is not nearly as sex as saying it was a ghost.

no offense, but that is the most over simplified and strange description of the paranormal Ive ever read. It's kinda telling. I think when you talk of the paranormal and when myself, dre, grimes etc talk of it - we're actualyl on about two different things. Yours is some strange fairytale version - almost like The Sun or something - of what the paranormal is about. Just an observation - no offense meant.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

Why reinvent the scientific method when you can try and help develop one to suit paranormal research?

We already have a scientific method iamhunted. Changing it to "suit" paranormal research would be doing a great disservice.

All paranormal investigators have to do is use the same scientific method as everyone else. But of course they don't because if they did they wouldn't be able to make claims like the IPIC do about ghosts and spirits and hauntings. And where is the fun in that!

It is very unexciting to say that something cannot be explained or that it was caused by the effect of the environment on the observer.

iamhunted wrote: »

Cus I cant figure out how you claim to know what I think

I unfortunately read your posts

iamhunted wrote: »

...... the only thing that annoys me is you being cynical and calling it skeptical.

You either don't know what cynical actually means or you choose to use that word as an insult. Neither Overblood nor myself are being cynical.

Demonstrate to scientific standards that a paranormal explanation, ANY PARANORMAL EXPLANATION, is accurately explaining a phenomena and we will gladly accept that.

We would only by cynical if after you had done that we still refused to accept the results and dismiss the explanation as nonsense.

So maybe we are very cynical but you lack the ability to even determine because so far no one has demonstrated a paranromal explanation is accurate using science.

So in the interests of science lets test if me and Overblood are cynical. You demonstrate a paranormal explanation using scientific standards and we will see if me or Overblood accept it or not or continue to reject it out of out right cynicism of you.

iamhunted wrote: »

How do you claim this if you havent gone out researching this stuff

Who says I haven't?

iamhunted wrote: »

nor bothered trying to work out how to make paranomral research suit a scientific method?

Why would I do that when plenty of other people have already done that?

The issue has never been that people don't know how to scientifically research unexplained phenomena. It is that people don't bother applying it.

iamhunted wrote: »

are you sure just what 'scientific method' means? Like, i mean forget google, but what it *actually* means and the need to create methods for research?

Well yes, there you go. How many paranormal research groups do you know who are developing scientific methods of research. Based on the IPIC website they certain are.

As to why I'm not devoting my life to this pursuit? I don't really care that much, I already have a job I'm interested in thank you very much.

Your assertion that unless I devote my life to paranormal research I cannot be sceptical of the claimed results of paranormal research groups is frankly ridiculous. It is like claiming that unless I run for the Dial I shouldn't vote.

iamhunted wrote: »

Secondly, you seem to suggest you have the proof that all paranormal claims are fake - otherwise how are you so sure?

Given that that sentence doesn't make sense (how can a claim/explanation be "fake") I doubt I would have suggested something so dumb.

What I do think is that paranormal claims/explanations are unsupported by any testable evidence and fail scientific standards. And apparently you agree with me because you are berating me to quit my job and go out there and figure out a way to support paranormal claims with testable evidence.

iamhunted wrote: »

From all youe time spent researching this stuff? What ... you cant mean No?

Any time you want to present a scientific study that has demonstrated the accuracy of a paranormal explanation go ahead ... until then I'm left with the conclusion that you are just attacking me because you have nothing to back up what you are saying.

iamhunted wrote: »

Damn right you should - how else can you know if whatever you end up with was faked or not unless you caught the audio/video/whatever yourself?

Fakes are a completely separate issue. I've never said that I think anyone is faking anything.

iamhunted wrote: »

Who says these things are possible to demonstrate?

If you cannot demonstrate an explanation is accurate why keep using it as an explanation? I mean other than because it is fun and exciting to do so.

iamhunted wrote: »

Does that mean they cant happen just because you cant command it at will?

See there you go again. Does that mean what can't happen? No one has a testable model of what is happening in the first place, it is impossible to determine if any of these explanations are accurate or not. That is the whole point.

iamhunted wrote: »

By all means make up your own mind, and you wont find me telling you how stupid/flakey/blah blah blah you are for having your own thoughts on it.

You say it is stupid and flakey and then you agree with most of what I'm saying. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

discussions like this could go on forever. 'paranormal isnt real',

If you think that is what the argument is you really really aren't listening. Nor do you understand the first thing about the scientific method or what actual scepticism is