Jump to content

Any paranormal activity in your home?

Recommended Posts

Well, yes, you can fault his books, he got stuff wrong and made up other stuff...

 

 

 

But I do agree that ancient man regarding extra terrestrials as "gods" sounds more plausible than any of the many different religious texts.

 

Exactly :hihi::hihi: I wouldnt want to place my oath with Erich von Däniken, but he has a point. Even though he embezzled all that money for his research.

Edited by meggymoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually like to see a one of these paranormal nights setup by non-vigil types. We went on one once for just for a bit of light hearted fun really, but the thing that spoilt it was the vigil character who was 100% that there were ghosts everywhere that he could see and no-one else could. He just made himself look an idiot really.

 

Whether people believe or not, a scientific investigation type event (like ghost hunters on tv) where the staff aren't trying to scare you or push you into believing one way or the other would attract a few punters through the door.

 

Maybes I'm just talking rubbish though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone CAN recreate the genuine working of a Ouija Board. It's called ideomotor effect, as explained in the patent application for the Ouija Board.

 

I don't think that's going to win you the cash ;). The fact that the prize remains unclaimed, despite the number of people in the world that claim special powers and believe in the supernatural - it ends the debate for me. It's not just a cash prize - it's a chance to turn everything we think we know on it's head.

 

The supernatural is an entertaining subject, but in my view it doesn't make the the list of possible explanations for anything. I don't think that's any more closed-minded than not believing in Father Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the fact that I don't believe in Unicorns mean that they don't exist? The same with Santa.

 

Why not?maybe they did exist,but became extinct.Maybe a randy Rhinoceros romped with a Zebra and well you know the rest.

 

They have only just found the remains of a 42ft long snake,with a two foot wide head.If until they have proved it, would you have believed it previously?

Edited by Total Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if ghosts sit around campfires and tell Pac-Man stories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if ghosts sit around campfires and tell Pac-Man stories

 

Or tell of tales about that man on the telly and his show called 'The Jeremy Kyle Show'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...The supernatural is an entertaining subject, but in my view it doesn't make the the list of possible explanations for anything. I don't think that's any more closed-minded than not believing in Father Christmas.

A request for those who believe in the existence of ghosts, goblins and fairies at the bottom of the garden to offer up sound, replicable, verifiable evidence in support of their claims, evidence which might get a passing grade on the Randi test, in fact, or, at the very least, stand up to prolonged scrutiny from those who know their orbs from their dust clouds, is the very opposite of closed-mindedness. Provide me with convincing evidence, and I'll happily acknowledge that I've been wrong all this time.

 

But, to quote

:

Throughout history,

Every mystery ever solved

Has turned out to be

Not Magic.

I'd bet a small body part on that not changing any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A request for those who believe in the existence of ghosts, goblins and fairies at the bottom of the garden to offer up sound, replicable, verifiable evidence in support of their claims, evidence which might get a passing grade on the Randi test, in fact, or, at the very least, stand up to prolonged scrutiny from those who know their orbs from their dust clouds, is the very opposite of closed-mindedness. Provide me with convincing evidence, and I'll happily acknowledge that I've been wrong all this time.

 

But, to quote

:

 

I'd bet a small body part on that not changing any time soon.

 

Not to poke the fire as such.. but just say for example, proof was found.. WHY would the foundation admit defeat and wouldn't they be discredited themselves?

 

I see your point.. we need proof - of course we do.

We also need to prove that the big bang CAN be recreated in a tunnel underground, and when it's proven, religion will happily come out of the woodwork to 'dispel it' as nonsense.

 

Rinse repeat for all of time :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to poke the fire as such.. but just say for example, proof was found.. WHY would the foundation admit defeat and wouldn't they be discredited themselves? ...

To continue the theme:

You're so sure of your position

But you're just closed-minded

I think you'll find

Your faith in science and tests

Is just as blind

As the faith of any fundamentalist”

 

“Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit

Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bull****.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed

Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

If you show me

That, say, homeopathy works,

Then I will change my mind

I'll spin on a ******* dime

I'll be embarrassed as hell,

But I will run through the streets yelling

It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!

Water has memory!

And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite

It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

 

You show me that it works and how it works

And when I've recovered from the shock

I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my [redacted]".

A scientist adjusts his or her position to take into account appropriately convincing evidence. It's the cornerstone of the job. If such evidence was presented, I wouldn't doubt that Randi et al would acknowledge that they'd got it wrong. I don't think they're holding their collective breath though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To continue the theme:

 

A scientist adjusts his or her position to take into account appropriately convincing evidence. It's the cornerstone of the job. If such evidence was presented, I wouldn't doubt that Randi et al would acknowledge that they'd got it wrong. I don't think they're holding their collective breath though.

 

Oh I totally agree with you about scientists but by looking on the Randi forum especially in the 'Challenge Applications' section.. it rather does seem as though they are unwilling to test a LOT of people for rather obscure reasons.

 

I don't think they would like to lose their credibility and admit they were wrong.. it makes them look foolish, and it denounces the whole reasoning behind the foundation in one fell swoop should someone demonstrate 'something' they cant prove false does it not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I totally agree with you about scientists but by looking on the Randi forum especially in the 'Challenge Applications' section.. it rather does seem as though they are unwilling to test a LOT of people for rather obscure reasons.

 

I don't think they would like to lose their credibility and admit they were wrong.. it makes them look foolish, and it denounces the whole reasoning behind the foundation in one fell swoop should someone demonstrate 'something' they cant prove false does it not.

It's not the job of the Foundation to 'prove false' anyone's claim; it's the job of the applicant to provide suitably convincing supporting evidence under appropriate conditions.

 

Should such astonishing evidence be presented, I reckon that loss of credibility and looking a bit foolish would be secondary to the excitement they'd feel at having a new frontier of scientific investigation open up to them. Of course, that someone passes the Randi test doesn't necessarily imply that whatever they've demonstrated is supernaturally-derived; it might be that the phenomenon represents something new, exciting but very firmly terrestrial, that we've yet to encounter. A few hundred years before modern advances in neurology and psychiatry we were exorcising demons from schizophrenics. Who knows what medical science will offer up during the next few hundred years?

 

ETA: And, of course, one test passed, however intriguing, isn't going to rock science to its foundations or have folk instantly renouncing their positions. Rinse, repeat, repeat and repeat might be a start.

Edited by Hecate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not the job of the Foundation to 'prove false' anyone's claim; it's the job of the applicant to provide suitably convincing supporting evidence under appropriate conditions.

 

Should such astonishing evidence be presented, I reckon that loss of credibility and looking a bit foolish would be secondary to the excitement they'd feel at having a new frontier of scientific investigation open up to them. Of course, that someone passes the Randi test doesn't necessarily imply that whatever they've demonstrated is supernaturally-derived; it might be that the phenomenon represents something new, exciting but very firmly terrestrial, that we've yet to encounter. A few hundred years before modern advances in neurology and psychiatry we were exorcising demons from schizophrenics. Who knows what medical science will offer up during the next few hundred years?

 

ETA: And, of course, one test passed, however intriguing, isn't going to rock science to its foundations or have folk instantly renouncing their positions. Rinse, repeat, repeat and repeat might be a start.

 

hiya a good few years ago i started a new job and one of my new workmates was one i had known nearly all my life and when he told me that he was a spiritualist at first i didn't believe him until he told me some of the things that had happend to him, one in fact was when him and his wife was on the oard it came through that his sister was pregnant so he went to his sister and brother in laws home to find why she hadn't said and she asked how he had found out and when he told her she started crying and said she had b een to the doctors that very morning, and later he was given a date a week before the one the doctor gave and this one was spot on, there were quite a few more he told us.

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.