| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/06/2008 10:15:23 AM · #76 |
Thanks for your well thought out response,  jmritz. Itâs interesting to think about how our similar upbringings and mindsets took us in such different directions regarding the paranormal. I dreaded Sundays for being forced to act out the lie of believing something that never sat right with me. It took me many years in my teens and into adulthood to get beyond the ingrained fear of burning in Hell, despite being a good person. My religious leaders were quite hypocritical, so that made it easier for me to finally get over it.
Originally posted by jmritz:
I've stubbornly stuck to my guns not believing in any of the afterlife, alien, Bigfoot, big bang and Ghost faiths. It all has to do with faith. |
I too, rebelled from Christianity, but the difference between our experiences is that the paranormal things that happened to me as a very small child sent me in the opposite direction as to how huge the Universe is and how useless a single religion is to explain it.
Everything we accept, but donât understand, is faith. I am scientific by nature and also question everything. First I ask âwhyâ and then âwhy not?â Scientists and skeptics are just as faithful as anyone. If they didnât âbelieveâ they would prove their point, they wouldnât have a reason to do what they do. I just so happen to believe that we will prove that the greatest mystery (life itself) is an energy form existing in many dimensions beyond our current perception. When scientists are able to provide the explanation for every thought and action we humans take, will that knowledge make us any less human? So, what if the life energy force is able to transcend the body, and that could be explained by science? I believe this will happen one day. Sadly, most skeptics seem more intent upon proving some less plausible explanation for extraordinary events.
For example, ball lighting has been used to explain glowing orbs of light in every manifestation, yet these instances cannot be reproduced in a lab. But, since itâs been given a scientific sounding name, anything that behaves in this manner is chalked up by skeptics to an atmospheric condition. They are willing to believe that something as volatile as lightning can move in a controlled and apparently intelligent fashion inside a personâs home without doing damage, but they are certain that this energy form has no intelligence. These are the people who admit that they donât even know how it is we have intelligence. That sounds like a leap of faith to me.
EVP is another phenomenon that skeptics seem happy to explain away without researching. Skeptics explain them as recording devices picking up stray radio signals, but donât seem to question why particular voices seem to be consistent to certain locations and have been heard to clearly answer questions asked by the person recording. Not to mention fact that the frequencies and cadences of the voices are not typical to radio transmission. If these are so easily explained, why has science not definitively proven what they are?
Well, thanks again for your answers. Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 10:31:58. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 10:27:16 AM · #77 |
[user]Louis[/user], looks like we were posting at the same time. As for evidence, exploring studies of the paranormal is a journey you must take on your own. You have to weed through a lot of garbage. I spend most of my time explaining to people that orbs in their photographs are raindrops and that reflection in the window matches up with the object in the foreground, etc. Many people who believe in the paranormal are as willing to see it everywhere as skeptics are to see it no where. Neither approach strikes me as scientific. There are as many paranormal believers ticked off at me for debunking their "ghost" photos as there are skeptics for the fact that I believe in spirits.
There is some compelling research in the field of EVP, which is the most tangible of current studies, IMHO. It is also something anyone can do with little equipment. You can control it yourself and then try to answer the questions you have about what the voices really are.
There is also an interesting video taken at Gettysburg, that has been studied and not proven to be fake. I'll see if I can track down a link. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 11:24:24 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by jmritz:
I've stubbornly stuck to my guns not believing in any of the afterlife, alien, Bigfoot, big bang and Ghost faiths. It all has to do with faith. |
I too, rebelled from Christianity, but the difference between our experiences is that the paranormal things that happened to me as a very small child sent me in the opposite direction as to how huge the Universe is and how useless a single religion is to explain it.
|
You are so right when you say rebelled. I don't think of it that way anymore but I do remember. I think one of the areas where we diverge is I had little teaching of the Fire and Brimstone Hell lessons to deal with. I seem to have learnt more about that subject later in life.
One of the fondest memories I have is of my Dad bringing Mom and us kids out to a rock that he sat on in a grove of pine trees and he would read from the Bible. Laying there on the grass, the sound of a slight breeze in the pines, the warm air and the wonderful smell. I could almost believe if there is a Heaven that's where it is.
Well I don't believe but I admire anyone that does. There are so many good people and animals in my life that have died I wish there was a Heaven for them, they deserve it.
John |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 01:04:59 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
As for evidence, exploring studies of the paranormal is a journey you must take on your own. |
But there is no reason for me to believe in supernatural claims at face value, so anyone wishing to make such claims must present evidence, not ask that it be sought out based solely on someone's unfounded proposition. (Note that I don't necessarily mean you personally.)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Many people who believe in the paranormal are as willing to see it everywhere as skeptics are to see it no where. Neither approach strikes me as scientific. |
The truly scientific approach is: there are observable phenomena that I would like to test, to determine their origin; once testing is complete, I'll theorize about what they may be. I am not bound to accept claims of the supernatural at face value until such testing and theorizing has survived rigourous scientific study.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
There is some compelling research in the field of EVP, which is the most tangible of current studies, IMHO. It is also something anyone can do with little equipment. You can control it yourself and then try to answer the questions you have about what the voices really are. |
Wiki. Pay attention to the section about auditory pareidolia. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 01:36:21 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Great story  Ivory. What an interesting group of people to witness such a thing. Nowadays they might have formed a paranormal investigative team:)
|
Ivory I have a brother that has pulled pranks all his life to help people along in their belief in the paranormal. He can take days setting the prank up. It happens when you least expect it. He tells me after the fact and he has the evidence to prove what he's done. He has others that sometimes help. I even helped once but I failed to pull the string just right so nothing happened.
It is possible that my brother is part of the reason I don't believe in the paranormal.
I would ask myself was my brother at that party or was there someone like him there. I guess it is better to believe that something otherworldly happened because the alternative just isn't good. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 02:05:14 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
LOL-- I know My post sounds like Im crazy-- |
You dont honestly think its just this post that makes you sound crazy?
Matt |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 03:11:54 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by jmritz:
I've stubbornly stuck to my guns not believing in any of the afterlife, alien, Bigfoot, big bang and Ghost faiths. It all has to do with faith. |
I too, rebelled from Christianity, but the difference between our experiences is that the paranormal things that happened to me as a very small child sent me in the opposite direction as to how huge the Universe is and how useless a single religion is to explain it.
|
You are so right when you say rebelled. I don't think of it that way anymore but I do remember. I think one of the areas where we diverge is I had little teaching of the Fire and Brimstone Hell lessons to deal with. I seem to have learnt more about that subject later in life.
John |
Why I mentioned Fire and Brimstone in relation to your earlier post is beyond me. Sorry if I offended, Roxanne. Sometimes I'm sure I'm going senile. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 03:36:12 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Why I mentioned Fire and Brimstone in relation to your earlier post is beyond me. Sorry if I offended, Roxanne. Sometimes I'm sure I'm going senile. |
What are you sorry about? You could never offend me, John. I thought you said what you did because I said: Originally posted by rox_rox:
It took me many years in my teens and into adulthood to get beyond the ingrained fear of burning in Hell, despite being a good person. My religious leaders were quite hypocritical, so that made it easier for me to finally get over it. |
It was definitely Fire and Brimstone, and I could never wrap my head around the idea of being threatened for not being what someone else thought I should be; especially when those people couldn't begin to live the values they were trying to force upon me. I think I had a great deal of insecurity and confusion, growing up, because I was taught that I could never be good enough unless I pretended to believe something I didn't. And if I did that I would still burn in Hell for lying! What a dilemma.
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 15:44:56. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 03:49:52 PM · #84 |
Hi Buzz,
Do you recall having any particular thoughts or emotions just before the incident happened? I'm not going to leap into the metaphysical/religious fray, but there is universal energy all around us. Things tend to happen for a reason, and what happened to you and a few others seems to have been linked in some way to strong emotions.
I live in an 1879 former one-room schoolhouse, and there are definitely spirits here who move things around...even moreso once I revealed the original floor and brought it back to life. Interestingly, they tend to stay downstairs. Probably cause the upstairs was put in only in 1993; it was a schoolhouse until 1964. I've had several other brushes with paranormal activity, but none as dramatic as yours or Ivory's...yet. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 03:57:31 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Why I mentioned Fire and Brimstone in relation to your earlier post is beyond me. Sorry if I offended, Roxanne. Sometimes I'm sure I'm going senile. |
What are you sorry about? You could never offend me, John. I thought you said what you did because I said: Originally posted by rox_rox:
It took me many years in my teens and into adulthood to get beyond the ingrained fear of burning in Hell, despite being a good person. My religious leaders were quite hypocritical, so that made it easier for me to finally get over it. |
It was definitely Fire and Brimstone, and I could never wrap my head around the idea of being threatened for not being what someone else thought I should be; especially when those people couldn't begin to live the values they were trying to force upon me. I think I had a great deal of insecurity and confusion, growing up, because I was taught that I could never be good enough unless I pretended to believe something I didn't. And if I did that I would still burn in Hell for lying! What a dilemma. |
That's where I read it! Now I have a reason to be sorry.
Excuse me. It seems I've gotten off the topic of the thread to some degree.
I find the topic of the paranormal fascinating. I like the show Ghost Hunters. My favorite show is Battlestar Galactica and I know that's not real. :)
|
|
|
|
07/06/2008 04:27:31 PM · #86 |
I have been involved in Paranormal research, as well as UFO reports and crop circle research for many years. Despite all I have seen and heard, I have never been labelled a believer or a skeptic, mainly because I deal with these events with an open mind.
Many can be explained away by perfectly normal things that happen at an unexpected time and therefore cause people to believe they have witnessed something they think is extra-ordinary, due to the circumstances. They convince themselves as to what they think they witnessed, regardless of what they know is true, I guess it is a case of mass hysteria.
However, there are those who declare the paranormal as whacky hype for spaced out hippies. They say show me evidence, then deny its validity. These same people claim science has all the answers and if there is no proof it doesn't exist. They will state that man has landed on the Moon?? Why? Because there is film footage, therefore it is real. They themselves have never been there to witness a Moon landing, yet a film is proof enough. Then, they state without any proof that UFO footage is hoaxed, not real cos there are no such things as UFOS, or for that fact, Ghosts. Regardless of film footage presented to them, they will never change their narrow, bigoted minds.
These same people state that science proves everything, yet the number of Scientists who will publicly say they are prepared to investigate UFOs, Crop Circles or the Paranormal is very small, why?? Because they would lose their funding and respect of their peers.
This same subject is pooh-poohed by the religious organisations, yet the very books they use in their preaching contain reports of UFOs, ghosts, Angels and spirits. All very confusing.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to batter down anyone who dares to disagree shows contempt and disrespect to the beliefs of others.
I will continue with my research, regardless of those who claim divine knowledge on all matters earthly and spiritually, and will still write reports for various magazines on these matters. I report what I see, what I have witnessed and what the variables are for each event. I don't proclaim any prior knowledge that excludes new research or new discoveries. Over the years I have learnt that what is written in stone today, will be washed away like grains of sand tomorrow.
That's my lot! :)
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 16:28:26. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 04:57:42 PM · #87 |
I believe in the Moon landing because the US Government has so consistently shown itself to be completely incapable of carrying off suxh a hoax, or maintaining a secret for forty years. I took my own pictures (of the TV broadcast) too ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 16:58:08. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 04:58:18 PM · #88 |
Steve that sounds like interesting work. Here's an old one and a favorite of mine.
 |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 05:24:58 PM · #89 |
Oh SteveJ, I like that 3rd paragraph about the believers in science/the moon landing. Our belief in "science" draws heavily on our "faith" that we are not being duped - I have always felt this and wondered why this aspect of our experience/knowledge of science has been so ignored.
For anyone interested in a more serious overview of these matters, Harper's June (2008) issue has an excellent article in the reviews section about mind and brain. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 05:32:25 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Our belief in "science" draws heavily on our "faith" that we are not being duped - I have always felt this and wondered why this aspect of our experience/knowledge of science has been so ignored. |
Because for something to become "accepted scientific fact" it must be independently reproduced and verified. When there is some scientific advance, the "recipe" is published, and you are free (as is anyone else) to confirm (or contradict) the results. If we were being "duped" then other scientists would be stampeding to expose the hoax, as indeed has happened in recent cases of falsified (or misinterpreted) data. Scientists, unlike religious fundamentalists, are more than willing to admit their mistakes when a better explanation is propounded.
Message edited by author 2008-07-06 17:33:27. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 05:45:26 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by tnun:
Our belief in "science" draws heavily on our "faith" that we are not being duped - I have always felt this and wondered why this aspect of our experience/knowledge of science has been so ignored. |
Because for something to become "accepted scientific fact" it must be independently reproduced and verified. When there is some scientific advance, the "recipe" is published, and you are free (as is anyone else) to confirm (or contradict) the results. If we were being "duped" then other scientists would be stampeding to expose the hoax, as indeed has happened in recent cases of falsified (or misinterpreted) data. Scientists, unlike religious fundamentalists, are more than willing to admit their mistakes when a better explanation is propounded. |
Agreed, unless the people funding their research are also the people making the claims...something about biting the hand that feeds you?? and would you as an independent researcher really take on a government? |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 05:59:49 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Agreed, unless the people funding their research are also the people making the claims...something about biting the hand that feeds you?? and would you as an independent researcher really take on a government? |
Well, that problem is more within the private sector (think big oil and big tobacco and their supposed environmental and health "research" claims) ... and the problem with ever-increasing "partnerships" between industry and public research institutions (c.f. Novartis and UC Berkeley), a move made necessary precisely because we (and our government) have chosen to continually underfund education. Prior to the Bush Administration's meddling in the science regarding the climate and contraception, government-funded science has mostly benefitted the public.
Besides, science is international, and your comments seem overly-tinged with a USA-centric perspective. If US scientists make some "discovery," you can bet that scientists from many countries with governmental interests divergent from our own will challenge that discovery with due diligence. As much as it might be to to humanity's long-term survival advantage, scientists from all countries cannot get together and conspire to "put over" anything on the whole world, at least not yet. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 06:02:23 PM · #93 |
For those who are interested, I had the following experience about 15 years ago:
I was working alone in my office (in an old New England farmhouse) one evening at about 8pm when I decided to go downstairs for something (I no longer remember what). I left my office, walked down the landing leading to the top of the stairs, and as I turned to go downstairs I saw a translucent figure that appeared to be an elderly woman dressed in a white high-collared blouse, a plain skirt that reached to the floor, and a bonnet (styled like something you would see in "A Little House on the Prairie") standing in the middle of a room located at the top of the stairs. She turned her head toward me as if to look at me, without moving her body. I did a double-take and when I looked a second time she was gone. It was a pretty unnerving experience, although I didn't feel like I was in any danger or that anything negative had just happened. Nevertheless, I decided that I wasn't too likely to get any more work accomplished that evening and went home for the night. We had been in the farmhouse for only a few weeks, when this event took place.
The next morning, when I arrived at the farmhouse, my two employees were having a conversation in the reception area of my office. I joined the conversation (I don't recall what they were discussing, but it was not anything paranormal in nature, just ordinary conversation about events in their lives). After about ten minutes of conversation I gradually turned the conversation to the farmhouse and we discussed how nice it was to work in a rural location rather than in our previous intown location. I then asked if either of them had noticed anything "unusual" since moving into the building (expecting them to come up with "unusual" things like the plumbing in the back bathroom shower didn't work, or the basement had a dirt floor, both of which were true, or some such thing).
One of the women responded, "Do you mean the ghost?"
The other woman immediately replied, "The elderly woman with the bonnet?"
As it turns out, they had not discussed the topic between them before this conversation, each being a bit self-conscious about "seeing a ghost". The second woman had seen her in an upstairs office across the hall from my office (not the room at the top of the stairs), where she was described as "kneeling in prayer". The first woman had seen her twice, in the first floor file room, where the translucent figure came up right behind her while she was filing. None of us had felt any threat from our experiences or from the translucent figure.
What interests me is the fact that both of them had independently seen the same figure and that one of the women described what I had seen (using "elderly woman" and "bonnet" as descriptors) without any prompting from me. Then, in response to my questions she added the details about the long skirt and high-collared blouse (the first woman corroborated the description after the fact too).
Before this experience I had never seen anything like this, nor have I since. I relate it here because some of you are interested in such experiences. I also note that, while my experience is not "scientific" evidence of anything, (1) it was replicated in the sense that we independently experienced the translucent figure four separate times, (2) the same description of the figure was related to me (without any suggestion on my part) by the woman who described her with words that matched what I saw the night before, and (3) none of us were drinking, using mind altering substances, have mental issues, or even witnessed the event on the same day or in the same rooms (so no condensation, drafts, or other similar answers are evident). We were the only three people occupying the farmhouse during those weeks, and we all saw the same thing.
I should also add that, while I respect science and the scientific method, IMHO science is not the sole arbiter of truth, nor is the scientific method the only way to come to a conclusion of fact. In another context, courts of law also seek to reach the truth and in that context the independent testimony of three witnesses would be prima facie "evidence" tending to support a given "fact". Affirmative evidence rebutting that testimony would also be probative, although none exists in this instance because we all saw the same thing.
In any case, the experience is an interesting one. I also no longer cast out of hand what other people say they have experienced or what they believe to be true. I also tend to think that those who catagorically reject such things, simply haven't had a sufficient experience to enable them to seriously consider the alternative.
It is also ironic to me that scientists use the "law of large numbers" to postulate that intelligent life may exist elsewhere in the universe (eg S.E.T.I.) but don't use the "law of large numbers" to postulate that enough people have died during the history of the planet that some of them may have a noncorporal existence in one form or another, or perhaps that the intelligent life being sought by scientists may exist in a noncorporeal state. (I am not arguing for either, but simply pointing out the irony that science does not give much credibility to those who would investigate this kind of reality, all the while eagerly pursuing the possibility of life somewhere else in the universe.)
And for those who wonder about such things, none of the three of us ever saw the translucent figure again, although we occupied those offices for about eight years. I should also add that we began remodeling portions of the farmhouse about a week after my sighting. I am told that "disturbing" the premises is thought by some to be a sufficient cause for that. I don't have an opinion one way or the other as to why we never experienced the figure again. I only know that our experiences occurred in a three-week period, give or take a few days. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 06:21:26 PM · #94 |
 GeneralE, you are entirely missing the point of my dig at "faith" in science, which was simply to exercise the imagination, and to point out how much of it depends on collaboration (which was your point), and also that the body of scientific knowledge is not possessed by individuals, e.g., I don't "know" that we have landed on the moon, although it is a reasonable assumption, merely, from all the hoopla that we did.
In any case, I, like the others with whom you take issue, am not concerned with arguing for or against the existence of paranormal phenomena, but merely in keeping the mind clear of blunt instruments. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 07:02:47 PM · #95 |
Lots of great points and stories, all.
GeneralE, I usually agree with most of what you say and have a great deal of respect for your intelligence and viewpoints.
When it comes to science and the paranormal I do think you might be giving our government too much credit in regards to this topic.
There are many scientists investigating the paranormal at the expense of their credibility. They are not greeted with open arms by the scientific community and usually have difficulty getting funding. I have read and heard numerous accounts of investigators being asked or demanded to submit their evidence to government labs for analysis, only to never see it again.
Any breakthroughs in paranormal research would be of great importance to our national security and very dangerous if it got into the hands of our enemies. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 07:45:56 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Lots of great points and stories, all.
GeneralE, I usually agree with most of what you say and have a great deal of respect for your intelligence and viewpoints.
When it comes to science and the paranormal I do think you might be giving our government too much credit in regards to this topic.
There are many scientists investigating the paranormal at the expense of their credibility. They are not greeted with open arms by the scientific community and usually have difficulty getting funding. |
I have no objection to it being investigated, as long as it is subject to the same rules and restrictions as other scientific investigations.
If you postulate "something" which exists in some form different from ordinary matter, and which is not subject to natural laws, you must explain how you plan to detect/measure/analyze it, if it can't be interacted-with. I require some rational explanation for how something can both interact with (some kinds of) matter and yet be non-detectable by ordinary instruments.
I'm not saying that someone may not someday build a ghost detector, but it better come with an explanation of its workings. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 08:41:24 PM · #97 |
| GeneralE, the thing is "ordinary matter" is not a simple matter. Modern physics is at the moment dealing with the problem of observing without the observation/instruments of observation influencing the what is observed. Quite exciting really. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 08:47:31 PM · #98 |
| Very exciting. I think all the latest advances are considered extensions of the "normal" and not "paranormal" though. |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 08:50:51 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
07/06/2008 09:04:40 PM · #100 |
Here's one I took the other day.
 |
|
