Haunting, explained scientifically

kylith

http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html

maccored

i know its cracked and completely tongue in cheek, but g'wan. I'd love to hear how that explains hauntings. ( unless infrasound and various other natural effects are new to you that is)

kylith

Have you checked the links in the article?
He was a real scientist http://davidszondy.com/future/war/infrasound.htm

Who did real research into infrasound http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the-sonic-weapon-of-vladimir-gavreau/

Which has real physical effects http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/infrasound/

Including effecting humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound (look under "Human reactions to infrasound)

And Vic Tandy was the man who noticed the 'grey blob' in a 'haunted' lab http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/theories-infra.html

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenominon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

strobe

kylith wrote: »

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenomenon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Major Lovechild

strobe wrote: »

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Like - maybe a ghost breaking wind or playing the tuba??? Deep!

edwinkane

strobe wrote: »

Maybe the ghosts are producing the infrasound. Didn't think of that, did ye smart guy?

Maybe they are. Do you think thats the more reasonable explanation?

maccored

methinks you completely and utterly missed my point by a very wide margin. I take it infrasound IS completely new to you then? just because certain aspects of anything can be repeated naturally, does not mean that is the only reasoning and explaination behind it. plus theres plenty of stuff infrasound doesnt explain.

kylith wrote: »

Have you checked the links in the article?
He was a real scientist http://davidszondy.com/future/war/infrasound.htm

Who did real research into infrasound http://journal.borderlands.com/1996/the-sonic-weapon-of-vladimir-gavreau/

Which has real physical effects http://journal.borderlands.com/1997/infrasound/

Including effecting humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound (look under "Human reactions to infrasound)

And Vic Tandy was the man who noticed the 'grey blob' in a 'haunted' lab http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/theories-infra.html

Is it not more plausible that a natural phenominon which can cause feelings of fear and dread, and vibrate objects is a more plausible explanation for so-called hauntings than dead people?

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

plus theres plenty of stuff infrasound doesnt explain.

Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean there must be a paranormal explanation.

maccored

of course (thats a tad bit obvious to be honest) - though i find unexplained things just as interesting. plus, it doesnt mean it *isn't* paranormal either (considering unexplained means just that). Infrasound is not "Haunting, explained scientifically"

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

of course (thats a tad bit obvious to be honest) - though i find unexplained things just as interesting. plus, it doesnt mean it *isn't* paranormal either (considering unexplained means just that). Infrasound is not "Haunting, explained scientifically"

Its a matetr of probabilities. I'm not sure what your definition of paranormal is, but considering that paranormal is usually bogus and can't be demonstrated, I wouldn't bet your house that it's paranormal.

maccored

what is meant to be paranormal?

Infrasound, emf and various normal everyday forms of radiation can cause people to believe they are having paranormal experiences. the point is though, that this itself doesnt mean ALL paranormal experiences are caused by infrasound etc - though people do research such things (myself included - you can help out at http://journalparanormalresearch.com if you want ).

I certainly havent said that the things that arent explained have to be paranormal, but being sceptical (rather than cynical) i have to leave that possibility open until research can prove otherwise, else we cant tell either way.

Personally I have no idea what horse you're on or where the hell you're going with it btw, considering you seem to be talking to me as though I think everything is paranormal or something.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

what is meant to be paranormal?

Infrasound, emf and various normal everyday forms of radiation can cause people to believe they are having paranormal experiences. the point is though, that this itself doesnt mean ALL paranormal experiences are caused by infrasound etc - though people do research such things (myself included - you can help out at http://journalparanormalresearch.com if you want ).

I certainly havent said that the things that arent explained have to be paranormal, but being sceptical (rather than cynical) i have to leave that possibility open until research can prove otherwise, else we cant tell either way.

Personally I have no idea what horse you're on or where the hell you're going with it btw, considering you seem to be talking to me as though I think everything is paranormal or something.

A cynic is what a sceptic calls a realist!

Sometimes the problem with keeping an open mind is that ones brain can fall out. For me, I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof. While there has been many years to produce proof, the fact that none is forthcoming suggests paranormal is likely to be bogus. If someone produced actual proof, then I'll accept that it is reality. But until then, I'll consider it as bogus, rather than keeping an open mind.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

. For me, I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof.

Have you looked for proof ?

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you looked for proof ?

I see you are still asking questions believing that to do so is adding to debate. Do you ever have a coherent argument to make, or do you only ever ask others questions?

maccored

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

For the record, I dont give a toss what you reckon is 'bogus' and I certainly have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

maccored

edwinkane wrote: »

A cynic is what a sceptic calls a realist!

a cynic is whats called a doubting thomas - someone who will only believe something when theres irrefutable proof - "I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof" - which is a category I think you fall into.

A sceptic at least keeps an open mind until theres proof either way

Standman

maccored wrote: »

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

For the record, I dont give a toss what you reckon is 'bogus' and I certainly have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

There are a lot of statements of "truth" surrounding the paranormal. It is up to person making that statement to supply me with evidence, not me to go arounding looking for it when they can't provide it.

maccored

I think you have it arseways there. If you have no belief nor interest in the paranormal, fine, but if you want proof of it, go out and find that for yourself. Its not 'up to person making that statement' to supply you with anything. thats what ****ing bugs me about the more cynical - they think people with paranormal experiences actually care if they are believed or not by self titled 'critical thinkers'.

Standman

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for a statement of truth. Common sense really.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

I think you have it arseways there. If you have no belief nor interest in the paranormal, fine, but if you want proof of it, go out and find that for yourself. Its not 'up to person making that statement' to supply you with anything. thats what ****ing bugs me about the more cynical - they think people with paranormal experiences actually care if they are believed or not by self titled 'critical thinkers'.

Actually, I think people with paranormal experiences are likely to be either deluded or charlatans, or more easily susceptible to suggestion that others.

As no proper proof has ever been produced to suggest that the paranormal exists in any real sense (and many have tried without success). The only intelligent position is to not accept a phenomenon exists without proper proof. That is the definition of a sceptic.

maccored

i think that clearly says it all.

Im not going to labour the point, but your first line defines you as a cynic, not a sceptic. Dont be trying to fool yourself on that one. Plus, it reads like condescending bull**** into the bargain.

maccored

Standman wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence for a statement of truth. Common sense really.

as far as I can see, its a bit like being an armchair politician.

kylith

maccored wrote: »

as far as I can see, its a bit like being an armchair politician.

In what way?

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

a cynic is whats called a doubting thomas - someone who will only believe something when theres irrefutable proof - "I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof" - which is a category I think you fall into.

A sceptic at least keeps an open mind until theres proof either way

But I am a realist! I know that there have been a few thousand years now to produce proof of paranormal activity. For me, thats pretty much long enough draw an inference from the absence of any credible proof. How many thousand years do you think it reasonable to keep an open mind, bearing in mind we live for something like 80 years on average?

A cynic is someone who won't believe it when proof is produced. I am a sceptic and I am wholly open to someone producing proof, but until that time I find it impossible to pretend to "believe" in somethign for which there is no proper proof.

Bruthal

maccored wrote: »

he asks a very valid question. Have you ever bothered going out there and looking for this proof, or do you expect people to run after you trying to convince you?

So, for a person to not believe in the paranormal, they must first go out and prove it does not exist to be able to say they dont believe in it?

robbie7730

robbie7730 wrote: »

So, for a person to not believe in the paranormal, they must first go out and prove it does not exist to be able to say they dont believe in it?

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

True.

Believing in something does not mean something is true.

The only way something is "true" is if it can be demonstrated to be "true".

Fuzzy Clam

Deleted User wrote: »

Not believing in something doest mean its not true.

It's the old "proving a negative" thing.

I can't prove that it didn't rain here today but I can prove if it did as I would have the evidence.

Ok, perhaps not the best analogy but i think it gets the point across.

Standman

For someone who has had a "paranormal experience", it is understandable that they might take it personally when people say they don't believe that ghosts etc exist. It would be more helpful if these people realised that without external evidence then their experience is essentially worthless to an outside viewer.

edwinkane

Standman wrote: »

For someone who has had a "paranormal experience", it is understandable that they might take it personally when people say they don't believe that ghosts etc exist. It would be more helpful if these people realised that without external evidence then their experience is essentially worthless to an outside viewer.

It also doesn't mean that their experience is not the result of another phenomenon, or even a delusion. For example, I've often woken from a dream and been convinced it was real, and at a later time could not remember whether the person I had dreamed about, for example, dying had actually died or not in reality.

The mind, and the brain, are very powerful, and just because we are convinced we "saw" something doesn't mean it necessarily existed in reality.

maccored

its quite simple in my mind. its a bit obtuse to believe that jsut because you havent experienced something then it doesnt exist. i have never been to australia, but I know its there.

If you have no belief in the paranormal, mainly if you have never had a paranormal experience - fine .. no-ones breaking your arm expecting you to believe anything paranormal. still though, dont try to be condesending arseholes to people who may well have had those experiences as most really dont give a flying toss what any of you think.

Bruthal

maccored wrote: »

its quite simple in my mind. its a bit obtuse to believe that jsut because you havent experienced something then it doesnt exist. i have never been to australia, but I know its there.

There is strong evidence that australia does exist though. Millions of people have in fact seen it and experienced it, and can bring non believers in it (if there were any) to see it themselves.

If you have no belief in the paranormal, mainly if you have never had a paranormal experience - fine .. no-ones breaking your arm expecting you to believe anything paranormal. still though, dont try to be condesending arseholes to people who may well have had those experiences as most really dont give a flying toss what any of you think.

If you dont give a flying toss, why the agressive post about it then? No one is breaking your arm to become a non believer. I would not even say im a non believer. But not a believer beyond doubt either, but would believe australia exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

maccored

If you dont give a flying toss, why the agressive post about it then? No one is breaking your arm to become a non believer. I would not even say im a non believer. But not a believer beyond doubt either, but would believe australia exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

agressive post? plain and simple post maybe, aggressive - no not really.

Im sure it irks many people to have to listen to a bunch of cynics who call themselves sceptics, trying to talk about the paranormal, when the same people have never experienced anything at all paranormal in the first place.

My point is, if you have such strong beliefs that the paranormal is all balls - then fair dues to you. You are wasting your time on me though and on most people who have had any kind of realistic paranormal experience. we really, genuinely dont care how rubbish you believe it all to be.

And lets be straight here - most of us already know the majority of mediums and psychics are fake - yous have done that one to death. in fact is there any other kind of thread in here?

"im a non believer. But not a believer beyond doubt either" - thats a proper sceptic if you ask me. Pity there arent more like you.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

My point is, if you have such strong beliefs that the paranormal is all balls - then fair dues to you. You are wasting your time on me though and on most people who have had any kind of realistic paranormal experience. we really, genuinely dont care how rubbish you believe it all to be.

.

what is curious is that in the last hundreds of years plenty of people have claimed to be psychic, or to have had paranormal experiences and so on. We do know some facts beyond "belief".

We know (i) that the paranormal and psychic worlds contain, and have contained, charlatans who have used trickery and (ii) no one has ever been able to demonstrate their paranormal or psychic powers in any way to demonstrate beyond doubt that they have paranormal or psychic powers.

Bearing in mind that some paranormal claims are made by charlatans, how do you distinguish between those who you think have real paranormal or psychic powers, and those who are tricksters?

maccored

jesus it'd be great if I could speak my mind without someone reporting me - I'd liek to point out that my 'condesending arseholes' quip is not aimed at anyone personally .. but in general describes how one side treats the other in these discussions.

kylith

maccored wrote: »

agressive post? plain and simple post maybe, aggressive - no not really.

Im sure it irks many people to have to listen to a bunch of cynics who call themselves sceptics, trying to talk about the paranormal, when the same people have never experienced anything at all paranormal in the first place.

My point is, if you have such strong beliefs that the paranormal is all balls - then fair dues to you. You are wasting your time on me though and on most people who have had any kind of realistic paranormal experience. we really, genuinely dont care how rubbish you believe it all to be.

And lets be straight here - most of us already know the majority of mediums and psychics are fake - yous have done that one to death. in fact is there any other kind of thread in here?

"im a non believer. But not a believer beyond doubt either" - thats a proper sceptic if you ask me. Pity there arent more like you.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I have personally experienced 4 events which I'm sure that 'believers' would class as ghostly activity. 1) woke up in the night to hear the sound of a flute playing; no-one in my family plays the flute 2) hearing someone downstairs strike keys on the piano when I was alone in the house 3) an electic keyboard started playing by itself 4) smelling the smell of death in my classroom in school at around the time my grandmother died.

I am, however, a rational person and years of thought on these events have led me to believe that 1) was a dream 2) and 4) were probably my imagination and 3) was most likely an electrical fault. All of these; dreams, electrical faults, and imagination, are 9 billion more times more likely than ghosts.

If more people, when faced with unexplained noises, remembered the brain's propensity to play tricks on us and thought about whether it were more likely that the noise was imagined/misheard or were a ghost the world would be a better place.

Standman

Maccored, I think it's quite apparent again that you are being the cynical one here. Nobody on this thread has stated that the paranormal is "all balls", that's just another cynical assumption you have made based on your own prejudices.

For a person who says time and time again that you don't give a toss what we think, you spend an awful lot of time in here labelling anyone who even suggests a natural explanation to something as a cynic. Why do you post so fervently in a forum with people whos' opinions you care so little about?

I suppose it's handy for you to constantly say you don't give a toss what our opinions are because it allows you to make sweeping statements about posters without even bothering to get involved in any kind of debate, because when taken to task you can just say "well I don't care what you think, you're a cynic". Maybe you could take your axe grinding elsewhere.

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

If you have no belief in the paranormal, mainly if you have never had a paranormal experience - fine .. no-ones breaking your arm expecting you to believe anything paranormal. still though, dont try to be condesending arseholes to people who may well have had those experiences as most really dont give a flying toss what any of you think.

Why is it that those who are believers seem to have multiple experiences of "paranormal" activity? Non believers never seem to have any, or at most, just 1 which cannot be explained rationally.
FFS, every time an explanation is offered to these guys, they always have a reason why it must be paranormal and they debunk all other possible causes.

Sometimes I hear "things" here. Banging in the attic, Clanking sounds outside. The letterbox rattles sometimes and there's nobody at the door and it can't be the wind 'cos there's a strong spring on the flap. ****, there's even Banshees at night!

But there's an obvious explanation for all this "activity". Ghosts! I live in a modern house that is built on the site of a Forge or Foundry in which someone died a long time ago.
Well thats the easy explanation.:D

The banging in the attic is just crows on the roof, the clanking was just something hitting off the tv aerial pole and it was the cat rattling the letterbox to let me know she wanted feeding. How ****ing boring is that

And as for the Banshees..........

Dave!

kylith wrote: »

I'll have to disagree with you there. I have personally experienced 4 events which I'm sure that 'believers' would class as ghostly activity. 1) woke up in the night to hear the sound of a flute playing; no-one in my family plays the flute 2) hearing someone downstairs strike keys on the piano when I was alone in the house 3) an electic keyboard started playing by itself 4) smelling the smell of death in my classroom in school at around the time my grandmother died.

I am, however, a rational person and years of thought on these events have led me to believe that 1) was a dream 2) and 4) were probably my imagination and 3) was most likely an electrical fault. All of these; dreams, electrical faults, and imagination, are 9 billion more times more likely than ghosts.

If more people, when faced with unexplained noises, remembered the brain's propensity to play tricks on us and thought about whether it were more likely that the noise was imagined/misheard or were a ghost the world would be a better place.

Indeed! I've had 'paranormal' experiences also. Not arsed going into detail, but...

Once I woke up during the night and saw the shape of an old woman towards the end of my bed. Nearly shít myself. A paranormal believer would probably throw the covers up and try to go asleep, and then tell all their true believer pals about it as evidence of the paranormal. I went to the bother of turning on the lights, and discovered that it was just an article of clothing hanging in a particular way, and being slightly illuminated by light from outside (the moon possibly).

Another time I saw what one could be forgiven for thinking was a bunch of spacecrafts having a dogfight miles up in space! Just looked like dots of light moving around each other randomly. As we turned the corner and looked up, they were gone. My paranormal-loving friend saw it too, and was clearly pleased to see that I had had a paranormal experience. I just said that I didn't know what it was, and left it at that. Saw the same thing the next day on my own, and walked further on, they disappeared again. Forgot about it, until I looked up about 5 minutes down the road, and there were a bunch of seagulls flying around in front of a billboard, being lit up by the lights Showing that (a) humans often confuse 'big but far away' with 'small but close', and (b) just because an explanation is not forthcoming or apparent does not mean it's not something mundane. Seagulls in front of a billboard would be the last thing that I'd consider.

Another recent example, I was cleaning up the sitting room a few weeks ago, and as I was leaving the room the TV came on, seemingly by itself. I wasn't near the remote at the time. Then I remembered that I had moved the remote about 2 minutes earlier, and I also remembered my mother complaining before that this new TV takes ages to come off standby when you press a button!

Of course, believers will say that those weren't paranormal experiences at all. That's because I investigated them.

edwinkane

maccored wrote: »

jesus it'd be great if I could speak my mind without someone reporting me - I'd liek to point out that my 'condesending arseholes' quip is not aimed at anyone personally .. but in general describes how one side treats the other in these discussions.

It's revealing that you think there are "sides", and that those who you think are not on your side you call (rather rude) names.

I don't see it as "sides" but as an attempt to find out the truth. It's interesting that you give here a link to the Leinster Paranormal website which has, as its slogan "common sense, not science". Science is, of course, common sense, and science is just a way we have to try to explain the world around us. No doubt there were many who, in a previous age, invoked "common sense" to "prove" that the earth was flat, and so on. And so it looked with the information available at that time.

I am someone who looks for evidence and proof, and am often astonished that there are those, perhaps like homoeopaths or the paranormalists, who seem to become angry at the prospect that some people need more than just an apparent willingness to believe in such things as homoeopathy or the paranormal.

Dave!

edwinkane wrote: »

its slogan "common sense, not science".

Wow, didn't see that... Unbelieveable! :eek: Can't believe they'd be so proud to advertise their contempt for the scientific method.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

Science is, of course, common sense, and science is just a way we have to try to explain the world around us. No doubt there were many who, in a previous age, invoked "common sense" to "prove" that the earth was flat, and so on. And so it looked with the information available at that time.

Poor galileo ,he was killed by Skeptics

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

a cynic is whats called a doubting thomas - someone who will only believe something when theres irrefutable proof - "I do not accept paranormal as real unless there is proof" - which is a category I think you fall into.

A sceptic at least keeps an open mind until theres proof either way

No that isn't what a skeptic is, as has been explained to you already many times. A skeptic is someone who is skeptical of claims, and thus requires evidence to support such claims to a particular standard.

A skeptic is far closer to what you, inaccurately, call a cynic.

I've no idea why you are still going on about this. It seems to just piss you off that some people think the reasoning behind paranormal explanations are flawed and unsupported.

edwinkane

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems to just piss you off that some people think the reasoning behind paranormal explanations are flawed and unsupported.

Facts are stubborn things, and the facts show that there is, as yet, no evidence which is credible. If anyone here thinks there is credible evidence, let them point us towards it.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

Facts are stubborn things, and the facts show that there is, as yet, no evidence which is credible. If anyone here thinks there is credible evidence, let them point us towards it.

Point us to your facts ?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Point us to your facts ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

your getting there but your not a skeptic yet !

RGDATA!

idea is interesting, somewhat plausible even, but the experiment referenced seems a bit hoakey on investigation (at least as described in the linked article)

they played an audience "four pieces of contempary music" and mixed in the inaudible freqencies at some points, then measured a 22% increase in uneasiness when they were playing the low frequencies.
it's not really clear exactly how this played out, but to jump to the conclusion that the 22% is meaningful and attributable to the frequencies, you have to assume that different pieces of music don't affect people different ways.

also the reference to the experiment is from 2003, the blog post is from 2010, you'd have thought if they were on to something they'd have tested it more rigorously since then.

maccored

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, didn't see that... Unbelieveable! :eek: Can't believe they'd be so proud to advertise their contempt for the scientific method.

Common sense is the foundation of science. Paranormal research is more about common sense than scientific method.

maccored

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Why is it that those who are believers seem to have multiple experiences of "paranormal" activity? Non believers never seem to have any, or at most, just 1 which cannot be explained rationally.
FFS, every time an explanation is offered to these guys, they always have a reason why it must be paranormal and they debunk all other possible causes.

Sometimes I hear "things" here. Banging in the attic, Clanking sounds outside. The letterbox rattles sometimes and there's nobody at the door and it can't be the wind 'cos there's a strong spring on the flap. ****, there's even Banshees at night!

But there's an obvious explanation for all this "activity". Ghosts! I live in a modern house that is built on the site of a Forge or Foundry in which someone died a long time ago.
Well thats the easy explanation.:D

The banging in the attic is just crows on the roof, the clanking was just something hitting off the tv aerial pole and it was the cat rattling the letterbox to let me know she wanted feeding. How ****ing boring is that

And as for the Banshees..........

Im sorry, but what is your point? Are you A) being stereotypical in your outlook on a 'believer' (whatever that is) or are you saying that 'FFS, every time an explanation is offered to [maccored] they always have a reason why it must be paranormal and they debunk all other possible causes.'

Because if its then you are so far off the mark. If you are going to berate someone, at least have an idea of what they do and do not believe in.

This in fact goes out to more than one poster, since I can only assume from the posts directed at me, that some think I actually completely believe in ghosts or something. try being sceptical the odd time. usually works a treat.

Dave!

maccored wrote: »

Common sense is the foundation of science. Paranormal research is more about common sense than scientific method.

err, no... Structured, methodical prediction and testing is the foundation of science.

Paranormal 'research' is more about giving yourself a little fright and perpetuating stories and myths that you took an interest in when you were a child.