Jump to content

Any paranormal activity in your home?

Recommended Posts

Of course I'll ignore a question on a subject in which I'm particularly interested just because my response to that question is 'no, there isn't any paranormal activity in my home, and here's why'. God forbid that a question posed on a discussion forum should stimulate a lively discussion.

 

I enjoy lively discussions as much as anyone, probably more than most.

However a 'lively discussion' is a lot different to to ridiculing and summarily dismissing someone's beliefs or opinions with inane and sarcastic remarks about Easter Bunnies etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I enjoy lively discussions as much as anyone, probably more than most.

However a 'lively discussion' is a lot different to to ridiculing and summarily dismissing someone's beliefs or opinions with inane and sarcastic remarks about Easter Bunnies etc.

If you've read these nine pages and taken only that away from the discussion then you have a talent for skimming and selective interpretation.

 

Given that you enjoy a lively discussion, perhaps you'd like to contribute your views on the issues raised in this thread rather than having a pop at the contributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you've read these nine pages and taken only that away from the discussion then you have a talent for skimming and selective interpretation.

 

Given that you enjoy a lively discussion, perhaps you'd like to contribute your views on the issues raised in this thread rather than having a pop at the contributors.

 

It is you who is skimming now. My original comment was on the number of posters who compile dismissive posts without giving any reason. To refer to these people as 'contributors' is stretching things a little. As for having a 'pop' at them, well that is part and parcel of lively discussion and exactly what you have just done innit?

As for my views on the issues. as in all subjects I try to maintain an open mind and be objective on such things as the 'paranormal'. However, I did have a very strange experience in the Philippines. My friend owned a bar with four rooms attached -2 G/F, 2 1st/F I have stayed in all four of the rooms many times (I am a regular visitor to Manila). Whenever I stayed in one particular room (G/F) I would hear strange banging that sounded like it was coming from the room upstairs even when it was empty. There was often what sounded like a low babble of voices murmuring away, there was a walk-in wardrobe in which the light would switch itself on and off at will and the bed used to vibrate, but not severely. I was in the bar one day when I overheard a guy who was staying in the room saying he had experienced pretty much the same things. My friend the owner ended up committing suicide, not due to any paranormal shenanigans. I went to his funeral on Christmas Eve and the next day,a young catholic priest came to the bar and went around blessing the premises. After that day I stayed in the room several more times and all was quiet and 'normal'.

I am not saying that I had a paranormal experience, merely presenting the facts as they occurred.

:wow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
It is you who is skimming now. My original comment was on the number of posters who compile dismissive posts without giving any reason. To refer to these people as 'contributors' is stretching things a little.

I didn't skim your posts, nor the other posts to which I've responded previously. A post which expresses a view on the topic in hand, even if that view is dismissive of others' views, is a contribution. I'd be more likely to exclude you from my list of valid contributors to this thread, given that, until now, you've failed to address the topic under discussion.

As for having a 'pop' at them, well that is part and parcel of lively discussion...

Excellent. Perhaps you'll apply that to those who you previously suggested should refrain from participating in the lively discussion because their views are dismissive rather than supportive of paranormal explanations for unexplained phenomena.

...and exactly what you have just done innit?...

I suggested that you contribute something to the discussion that's on-topic. That's hardly having a pop at you. Now that you have, perhaps we can remain on-topic; these threads tend to be closed and/or removed at the least provocation, so let's try not to provide a legitimate reason.

...I am not saying that I had a paranormal experience, merely presenting the facts as they occurred.

:wow:

As Holmes, exposer of the not-at-all-ghostly Hound of the Baskervilles, said: 'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that the several very firmly terrestrial possible explanations which exist for your experiences negate the need to reach into the paranormal.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If god created the earth in 7 days? Where do dinosaurs fit in???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If god created the earth in 7 days? Where do dinosaurs fit in???

 

thats why i always thought R.E and history never made sense at school :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not long until it's 10 pages

 

OK I strategically edited the quote, but here we are, 10 pages in. Just shows it's a topic that generates lots of discussion eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I'll ignore a question on a subject in which I'm particularly interested just because my response to that question is 'no, there isn't any paranormal activity in my home, and here's why'. God forbid that a question posed on a discussion forum should stimulate a lively discussion.

 

Yup, I had that exact same thought when I read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. How silly of him to express views which counter those of others! I bet deep down he really does believe that homoeopathy works, that 'Dr' Gillian McKeith offers sound nutritional advice, and that MMR vaccination inevitably leads to autism.

 

Me too! But when I see a post that I am interested in replying to, I tend to reply. Funny that.

 

Trying to prove someone wrong or ridicule (not aiming this at you btw) is not an interest (except for maybe some!)

 

Absolutely! People holding all sorts of different opinions and expressing them on a discussion forum? Perish the thought! Oh, wait a minute...

 

I'm not against people holding differing opinions or expressing them, but when it comes to ridiculing people for their beliefs, then it's no longer a discussion forum is it?

 

You can't prove a negative. If you make a claim that something exists then you offer up evidence in support of that claim, particularly if you want that claim to have relevance to, and be accepted in, spheres beyond your band of true believers. For example, you believe that homoeopathy can cure cancer because the homoeopathic solutions contain tiny little pixies which dart around the bloodstream casting spells on the nasty cancer cells? Excellent! Show us the evidence so that those with interest in and knowledge of that field can examine it.

 

I can't prove that the fairies at the bottom of my friend's garden don't exist. I can, repeatedly and over several decades, fail to find convincing evidence in support of the claim that those fairies do exist. In the absence of a body of appropriately convincing evidence it's reasonable that someone might come to the conclusion that those fairies are a creation of someone's feverish imagination.

 

What I mean is for example, Roofsinsheff has offered up something that makes them believe there is possibly something that has affected their child, or that their relative is looking over them, yet you advise them that a) most Mediums are a fraud and their info is based on guess work and b) nearly say that their child has an over active imagination.

 

You can't prove to me that something doesn't exist. You're so ready to rubbish other people's experiences and yet because you weren't involved, it 'doesn't exist'. Many people have millions of pounds, just because I don't, I don't claim it doesn't exist!

 

Have you ever met a Medium? I've met a few Mediums and will say that most are in it for fame and fortune (pah!). However, I currently know 2 Mediums (as friends) - I've been to a building with one of them and he a) didn't know where we were going, or b) how to get there. At the building, he told me lots of interesting things - all of which were verified by the building owner.

 

I've also been to an Abbey with the other Medium (a private Abbey) and she insisted there was something to do with WW2 there. This woman is not interested in learning about history etc, so you would not find her in the library. She stated that weaponry was hidden under straw in the field. This was later confirmed to be true by the Abbey owners...the only people who knew about this were a) the Military and b) the Abbey owners.

 

I agree, it could be the imagination, but it's strange how people have different things.

 

Here's one for you to debunk:

 

My friend's sister has a son. The parents believe he has an imaginary friend, as he talks to 'her' and insists they set a place at the table for 'her'. The son has named this imaginary friend - let's say Sarah - off his own back.

 

There's a toy in someone else's (a relatives) house and the son says it's Sarah's toy and insists they take it home with them. They take the toy home. The son now says that Sarah is happier she's got her toy back.

 

Come Christmas Day, the table is being set for Christmas Dinner, but there's no place for Sarah. The son sits upstairs with the toy, in a bad mood because Sarah is upset.

 

The Parents say they will set a place for Sarah and do so, putting the toy on the seat where she can sit.

 

A family photograph is taken.

 

Upon reviewing the photo, the outline of a little girl can be seen in the seat, and the son had been calling this imaginary friend 'Sarah' and she was a cousin who had died at an early age well before the son was born. The son could describe how Sarah looked, down to the finest detail. He had never seen any photographs of her.

 

As for evidence of paranormal activity (I think some people are getting confused with exactly what paranormal activity is) - (it's the unexplained, not necessarily ghosts / spirits) - I've seen a few videos where Infra red lights have been moved, a coin has been thrown at someone and strange coloured orbs (NOT dust) can be seen to float around the screen.

 

As yet, I'm still waiting for explanations for them from the 'professional debunkers'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Trying to prove someone wrong or ridicule (not aiming this at you btw) is not an interest (except for maybe some!)

I don't believe the primary motivation of any genuine contributor to a discussion is a desire to 'prove someone wrong' or to ridicule them rather than an interest in the subject. However, if someone does aim to convince another to re-examine their position in the light of new information, then surely that aim is a legitimate.

 

I think for the most part it's all so much banging your head bloody, particularly as many of those whose views are established and maintained on the basis not of evidence and information but on a desire to believe, are open only to having their beliefs confirmed not challenged. Given that, surely only the most masochistic, or troll-like, would participate in a discussion in which they have minimal genuine interest.

I'm not against people holding differing opinions or expressing them, but when it comes to ridiculing people for their beliefs, then it's no longer a discussion forum is it?

Challenging a belief, however dearly-held, isn't a form of ridicule. However, if, for example, I looked first to ghosts as the source of unexplained knockings and light flickerings, while firmly rejecting mechanical, electrical, psychological and physiological explanations, then I would expect a bit of ribbing. If that ribbing is someone's only contribution to a discussion, then I'd agree that while not necessarily malicious, it's not particularly helpful either.

What I mean is for example, Roofsinsheff has offered up something that makes them believe there is possibly something that has affected their child, or that their relative is looking over them, yet you advise them that a) most Mediums are a fraud and their info is based on guess work and b) nearly say that their child has an over active imagination.

Why should I not say that? There is no evidence at all to suggest that those who claim to be mediums are anything other than outright frauds or are deluded. And saying that children have over-active imaginations is exactly what I said. If a child reports that he's seen a furry purple talking monster under the bed and another reports that he's seen a ghost, would you put the former down to imagination yet regard the latter as potentially having some basis in fact?

You can't prove to me that something doesn't exist. You're so ready to rubbish other people's experiences and yet because you weren't involved, it 'doesn't exist'. Many people have millions of pounds, just because I don't, I don't claim it doesn't exist!

Given that my perception is just as unreliable as anyone else's, it isn't because I wasn't present when someone experienced something they couldn't explain that I suggest that the experience might have its basis in something other than the supernatural; I make that suggestion because, in the absence of suitably convincing evidence to the contrary, non-supernatural explanations are most likely.

Have you ever met a Medium? I've met a few Mediums and will say that most are in it for fame and fortune (pah!). However, I currently know 2 Mediums (as friends) - I've been to a building with one of them and he a) didn't know where we were going, or b) how to get there. At the building, he told me lots of interesting things - all of which were verified by the building owner.

 

I've also been to an Abbey with the other Medium (a private Abbey) and she insisted there was something to do with WW2 there. This woman is not interested in learning about history etc, so you would not find her in the library. She stated that weaponry was hidden under straw in the field. This was later confirmed to be true by the Abbey owners...the only people who knew about this were a) the Military and b) the Abbey owners.

I don't find second-hand anecdotes related by trusting friends of mediums convincing, I'm afraid. I am open to being convinced by them, though, if, as I've described previously, they'd like to demonstrate their abilities under suitably controlled conditions.

Here's one for you to debunk:

 

My friend's sister has a son. The parents believe he has an imaginary friend, as he talks to 'her' and insists they set a place at the table for 'her'. The son has named this imaginary friend - let's say Sarah - off his own back.

 

There's a toy in someone else's (a relatives) house and the son says it's Sarah's toy and insists they take it home with them. They take the toy home. The son now says that Sarah is happier she's got her toy back.

 

Come Christmas Day, the table is being set for Christmas Dinner, but there's no place for Sarah. The son sits upstairs with the toy, in a bad mood because Sarah is upset.

 

The Parents say they will set a place for Sarah and do so, putting the toy on the seat where she can sit.

 

A family photograph is taken.

 

Upon reviewing the photo, the outline of a little girl can be seen in the seat, and the son had been calling this imaginary friend 'Sarah' and she was a cousin who had died at an early age well before the son was born. The son could describe how Sarah looked, down to the finest detail. He had never seen any photographs of her.

- The photograph shows a random blemish that, because we're primed to actively seek out familiar shapes in patterns of random noise, is perceived according to what you would expect to see at a dinner table: a seated figure. That figure is then interpreted in light of the story of Sarah the phantom child.

- The child has seen photographs and/or heard descriptions of the dead cousin.

- The child's description of his imaginary friend is that of a generic child, and those who want to believe that the imaginary friend is in fact the ghost of a dead cousin have interpreted, embellished and misremembered over many tellings of the tale such that it supports their belief.

As for evidence of paranormal activity (I think some people are getting confused with exactly what paranormal activity is) - (it's the unexplained, not necessarily ghosts / spirits) - I've seen a few videos where Infra red lights have been moved, a coin has been thrown at someone and strange coloured orbs (NOT dust) can be seen to float around the screen.

 

As yet, I'm still waiting for explanations for them from the 'professional debunkers'!

Videos of thrown coins and coloured orbs? If you're still waiting for likely non-supernatural explanations for those phenomena then I don't think you're looking hard enough.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe the primary motivation of any genuine contributor to a discussion is a desire to 'prove someone wrong' or to ridicule them rather than an interest in the subject. However, if someone does aim to convince another to re-examine their position in the light of new information, then surely that aim is a legitimate.

 

Obviously you've not seen some of the other topics on paranormal activity!

 

I think for the most part it's all so much banging your head bloody, particularly as many of those whose views are established and maintained on the basis not of evidence and information but on a desire to believe, are open only to having their beliefs confirmed not challenged. Given that, surely only the most masochistic, or troll-like, would participate in a discussion in which they have minimal genuine interest.

 

On the same note though, those who stand firmly in the disbelief corner are chained to the wall and wouldn't move. Many people are open minded to the fact that there may be something else out there

 

Challenging a belief, however dearly-held, isn't a form of ridicule. However, if, for example, I looked first to ghosts as the source of unexplained knockings and light flickerings, while firmly rejecting mechanical, electrical, psychological and physiological explanations, then I would expect a bit of ribbing. If that ribbing is someone's only contribution to a discussion, then I'd agree that while not necessarily malicious, it's not particularly helpful either.

 

Agreed and some people do look to some things for immediate proof of 'ghosts' rather than looking for possible reasons first, e.g. the cooling of a building, expansion and contraction of materials, possible chafing of wires etc. It would be more helpful for people to suggest possible explanations rather than state 'the only spirits are those you drink' (that's not aimed at you)

 

Why should I not say that? There is no evidence at all to suggest that those who claim to be mediums are anything other than outright frauds or are deluded. And saying that children have over-active imaginations is exactly what I said. If a child reports that he's seen a furry purple talking monster under the bed and another reports that he's seen a ghost, would you put the former down to imagination yet regard the latter as potentially having some basis in fact?

 

You can't prove that these people can't see others. I see you've offered no explanation for my information about some Mediums? Children do have over-active imaginations, BUT, who is to say they cannot see other things? You're so eager to put things down as their imagination, but you cannot ultimately prove that they haven't seen something

 

Given that my perception is just as unreliable as anyone else's, it isn't because I wasn't present when someone experienced something they couldn't explain that I suggest that the experience might have its basis in something other than the supernatural; I make that suggestion because, in the absence of suitably convincing evidence to the contrary, non-supernatural explanations are most likely.

 

I don't find second-hand anecdotes related by trusting friends of mediums convincing, I'm afraid. I am open to being convinced by them, though, if, as I've described previously, they'd like to demonstrate their abilities under suitably controlled conditions.

 

Fair enough, you believe I'm a liar and what I've said is false. Opinion noted

 

- The photograph shows a random blemish that, because we're primed to actively seek out familiar shapes in patterns of random noise, is perceived according to what you would expect to see at a dinner table: a seated figure. That figure is then interpreted in light of the story of Sarah the phantom child.

 

A random blemish is a smudge, something that could be caused by reflection of the light - it's not a case of 'seeking out familiar shapes' - the photo has been analysed by an expert at a well known University and agreed there's something unexplained in it. I'm interested to read your comments, considering you've not seen the image (part of the problem is that people will argue against something they haven't witnessed) - why not just say these are my thoughts and I'd prefer to look at the photo before making a full judgment?

- The child has seen photographs and/or heard descriptions of the dead cousin.

 

Please re-read previous post. I stated this was not the case

 

- The child's description of his imaginary friend is that of a generic child, and those who want to believe that the imaginary friend is in fact the ghost of a dead cousin have interpreted, embellished and misremembered over many tellings of the tale such that it supports their belief.

 

A genric child? So where you're from, are all children the same? Hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, clothes? Again, without knowing the people, hearing the story or seeing related things, you basically state they are lying? To what gain?

 

Videos of thrown coins and coloured orbs? If you're still waiting for likely non-supernatural explanations for those phenomena then I don't think you're looking hard enough.

 

You're developing a habit here - you've not seen the video, so how can you dismiss something that you've not seen? Can you provide me with a non supernatural explanation for a coin being thrown from one side of a room, at a person at the other side of the room - who was sat in front of a camera. (There was no-one else in the room).

Secondly - possible explanations for the coloured orb? You've not see it, but what explanations would you like to provide?

 

You didn't comment on the video of the infra red light being moved? - No explanation you can provide?

 

 

No offence, but this is primarily what annoys some people - others dismissing things without seeing them. You've generally said that ghosts / spirits don't exist, which is fine that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

However, I've seen and am in possession of video evidence of somethings that are unexplained that you believe you can explain without seeing.

 

Just a point, I'm not a believer or non-believer. I'm sat on the fence until (if there is something out there) I see it. I just don't like some people who may believe they are suffering from hauntings, or want to hear people's stories be ridiculed on the internet.

 

I don't hear strange noises or see lights flicker and think they are 'ghosts', nor do I have people talking to me in my head (apart from the one that keeps me sane -ish) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Could you make sure that the appropriate quote tags are included in your replies, please? Failing to do so means that I have to open your post in a separate tab and then copy and paste your responses and manually insert the quote tags into my post before I can reply.

Obviously you've not seen some of the other topics on paranormal activity!

I have, and as such if you don't agree with the points I made in my previous post I think we will have to agree to differ about what makes for a genuine contribution to a discussion and what motivates participation.

On the same note though, those who stand firmly in the disbelief corner are chained to the wall and wouldn't move.

If you read my previous posts in this thread, and my posts in threads on similar themes, you'll see that I'm open to being persuaded by appropriately convincing evidence. The standard I require for that evidence might be distinct from yours, of course.

Agreed and some people do look to some things for immediate proof of 'ghosts' rather than looking for possible reasons first, e.g. the cooling of a building, expansion and contraction of materials, possible chafing of wires etc. It would be more helpful for people to suggest possible explanations rather than state 'the only spirits are those you drink' (that's not aimed at you)

While I agree with the sentiment I wouldn't wish its expression to be my only contribution to a thread of this nature.

Many people are open minded to the fact that there may be something else out there

Good for them. An open mind is an excellent resource, as long as you ensure that you don't end up depositing your brain on the floor.

You can't prove that these people can't see others.

No, but I can suggest explanations for a child reporting talking purple monsters under the bed which are significantly more likely to account for the monsters' presence than simply stating that the monsters do, in fact, exist.

I see you've offered no explanation for my information about some Mediums?

If you click on the link I provided in my previous post you'll see that I went into quite some detail in that thread about mediums. I don't want to type all that out again.

Children do have over-active imaginations, BUT, who is to say they cannot see other things? You're so eager to put things down as their imagination, but you cannot ultimately prove that they haven't seen something

I refer you to the point I made a paragraph or two ago.

Fair enough, you believe I'm a liar and what I've said is false. Opinion noted

I said I don't find second-hand anecdotes convincing. I don't know if you or your medium friends are lying about your experiences; one or all of you might be. Alternatively, one or all of you might be entirely in earnest about your experiences, but your perception and interpretation of those experiences might not reflect what actually happened, or represent the only, or most likely, interpretation of those experiences.

A random blemish is a smudge, something that could be caused by reflection of the light - it's not a case of 'seeking out familiar shapes' -

Of course it's a case of seeking out a familiar shape, unless the 'outline' is as clear and unambiguous an any other image on any other photograph.

the photo has been analysed by an expert at a well known University and agreed there's something unexplained in it.

'Something unexplained' does not equal something supernatural that supports the story of Sarah the phantom child. Which expert, at which university, by the way?

I'm interested to read your comments, considering you've not seen the image (part of the problem is that people will argue against something they haven't witnessed) - why not just say these are my thoughts and I'd prefer to look at the photo before making a full judgment?

I haven't made a full judgement, and wouldn't do so based on partial information. I provided a few likely suggestions based on the information provided and on the most frequent explanations provided when someone claims that they might have captured a ghost on film.

Please re-read previous post. I stated this was not the case

Yes, you did, but I doubt that you've been present each time when the child could have overheard a discussion or seen a photograph, and I similarly doubt that the parents of the child can remember every occasion when they've discussed the dead cousin in the presence of the child, or every occasion when the child might have overheard the discussion.

A genric child? So where you're from, are all children the same? Hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, clothes? Again, without knowing the people, hearing the story or seeing related things, you basically state they are lying? To what gain?

No, I'm saying that 1) a description of, for example, a blonde blue-eyed child isn't necessarily a description of a particular child; 2) that what's now being remembered and repeatedly retold as the detailed description provided by the child might not accurately reflect the information actually provided by the child at the time. That doesn't necessarily mean that the parents are lying about the child's description; it means that it's the nature of memories to be either not laid down in the first place with a great degree of accuracy, or to be modified over time according to our own beliefs, motivation, experiences, other memories and perceptions, and simply by the passage of time.

You're developing a habit here - you've not seen the video, so how can you dismiss something that you've not seen? Can you provide me with a non supernatural explanation for a coin being thrown from one side of a room, at a person at the other side of the room - who was sat in front of a camera. (There was no-one else in the room).

It's possible to apply general principles to specific instances of situations seen countless times before.

 

Do you really need someone to provide you with a non-supernatural explanation for the source of a thrown coin observed in a video? Mine would be that the coin was thrown by someone, or by a mechanical device, hidden in the room or situated off camera, or that the coin was inserted in post-production. Those are the most likely explanations based on the information you presented.

Secondly - possible explanations for the coloured orb? You've not see it, but what explanations would you like to provide?

I'd direct you to Google for a search on the interaction between camera optics, lighting and particulate matter.

You didn't comment on the video of the infra red light being moved? - No explanation you can provide?

You didn't provided sufficient information. Was it a spot of infra-red light? Was it in a darkened room? Could you see in the video the source of that light? Could you be sure from the video that the light wasn't being manipulated?

No offence, but this is primarily what annoys some people - others dismissing things without seeing them. You've generally said that ghosts / spirits don't exist, which is fine that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

 

However, I've seen and am in possession of video evidence of somethings that are unexplained that you believe you can explain without seeing.

Again, I refer you to the point I made in a previous paragraph re. the application of general principles, as well as to the points I've made in this and other threads about the inherent unreliability of perception.

 

I don't claim to offer definitive explanations for whatever has been recorded in your videos. I can provide possible explanations without reaching into the realm of the supernatural, or even too far into the distinctly improbable.

Just a point, I'm not a believer or non-believer. I'm sat on the fence until (if there is something out there) I see it. I just don't like some people who may believe they are suffering from hauntings, or want to hear people's stories be ridiculed on the internet.

I think I covered that in the first couple of paragraphs of my previous post.

I don't hear strange noises or see lights flicker and think they are 'ghosts', nor do I have people talking to me in my head (apart from the one that keeps me sane -ish) :D

I'm pleased to hear it :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you make sure that the appropriate quote tags are included in your replies, please? Failing to do so means that I have to open your post in a separate tab and then copy and paste your responses and manually insert the quote tags into my post before I can reply.

 

Apologies for that, was posting from my tablet.

 

 

I have, and as such if you don't agree with the points I made in my previous post I think we will have to agree to differ about what makes for a genuine contribution to a discussion and what motivates participation.

 

Ok

 

If you read my previous posts in this thread, and my posts in threads on similar themes, you'll see that I'm open to being persuaded by appropriately convincing evidence. The standard I require for that evidence might be distinct from yours, of course.

 

I've only had time to be involved in this thread at present, especially as I see you post regularly :D

 

No, but I can suggest explanations for a child reporting talking purple monsters under the bed which are significantly more likely to account for the monsters' presence than simply stating that the monsters do, in fact, exist.

 

I'd agreed that if a child had mentioned a purple monster, that it may be either a) barney from the tv or b) their imagination, but as that's not really been part of the discussion, i'll cut that here.

 

If you click on the link I provided in my previous post you'll see that I went into quite some detail in that thread about mediums. I don't want to type all that out again.

 

I'm sure if you wish to do a private reading with one of the Mediums I know that he will do it (for a fee for his fuel, as he lives in Bradford)

 

I said I don't find second-hand anecdotes convincing. I don't know if you or your medium friends are lying about your experiences; one or all of you might be. Alternatively, one or all of you might be entirely in earnest about your experiences, but your perception and interpretation of those experiences might not reflect what actually happened, or represent the only, or most likely, interpretation of those experiences.

 

Any experiences I may encounter are written down immediately to avoid misinterpretation and misremembering. I (nor any of the Mediums I know) have anything to gain by a) lying or b) embellishing the truth.

 

Of course it's a case of seeking out a familiar shape, unless the 'outline' is as clear and unambiguous an any other image on any other photograph.

 

The outline is clear.

 

'Something unexplained' does not equal something supernatural that supports the story of Sarah the phantom child. Which expert, at which university, by the way?

 

I never said it did. What I said was that you can see the outline. I never said it was Sarah. I've never stated there was a photo of a ghost. Paranormal is exactly 'something unexplained'. Do you know any academics? If so, let me know their names and I'll pm you yes or no. They have requested to remain anonymous due to the nature of their work.

 

I haven't made a full judgement, and wouldn't do so based on partial information. I provided a few likely suggestions based on the information provided and on the most frequent explanations provided when someone claims that they might have captured a ghost on film.

 

Good to hear it.

 

Yes, you did, but I doubt that you've been present each time when the child could have overheard a discussion or seen a photograph, and I similarly doubt that the parents of the child can remember every occasion when they've discussed the dead cousin in the presence of the child, or every occasion when the child might have overheard the discussion.

 

Correct, I haven't as they're not my family. However, I tend not to disbelieve everything people tell me, especially friends.

 

Do you really need someone to provide you with a non-supernatural explanation for the source of a thrown coin observed in a video? Mine would be that the coin was thrown by someone, or by a mechanical device, hidden in the room or situated off camera, or that the coin was inserted in post-production. Those are the most likely explanations based on the information you presented.

 

I don't need anything. I know that there was one person in the room with one camera and no mechanical device. This is what I mean, I've got this paranormal evidence (of the unexplained) and it's reduced to a) there was someone there, b) a mechanical device was made to do it (Really? Who has time to make such things) or c) it's been edited to show a coin. (I'm good on a computer, but not that good). But not only that, what would I have to gain from doing any of these? I'm not selling the footage, I'm not earning anything from it. Doing any of the above would call my integrity into doubt. What would your next explanations be? If it helps you, the coin was from 1912 and no-one in the building that night had any such coin and there were none on site.

 

I'd direct you to Google for a search on the interaction between camera optics, lighting and particulate matter.

 

I don't do this half heartedly - It's been thoroughly researched. You were proposing possible explanations and I was wanting to know what yours were (considering you've not seen it).

 

 

You didn't provided sufficient information. Was it a spot of infra-red light? Was it in a darkened room? Could you see in the video the source of that light? Could you be sure from the video that the light wasn't being manipulated?

 

Dark room (pitch black), camera with infra red light on another stand at the far end (filming the only entrance / exit). You see everyone leave the room. The door is locked. Shortly after people leave, the light stand is 'kicked', moved, then the camera (which is in a box) is turned off. N.B. When I remove the camera from a box, (which needs to be done to turn on/off), the noise of the camera being removed is caught on the video. There was no such noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.