Proof of the supernatural

Going to a haunted location and having nothing happen isn't evidence the place isn't haunted. It's only evidence nothing happened THAT night. Happens all the time in paranormal investigations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's what needs to happen. Investigation over like a period of a full month, allowing for slow nights and then active nights. We know that paranormal activity comes in waves and then subsides over time. But we don't know why. Longterm investigation would be a step in understanding these patterns better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your claim that there was no noise around the car has already been proven false, ironically enough by your own video.

tick tick mr

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

interesting double standard - yet you make entire claims based on "once off" instances

 

"We know" that, hm? please, provide a single peer reviewed source that explains the behavior of ghosts. after all, you must back your claims

 

Absolutely

river

 

There was no noise coming from the car as I said. And certainly no ambient noise that sounded like a woman crying for help. Once again, a claim based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

Trying to ban me again I see. Ignored for good.

 

So you ARE refusing to back your claims... fair enough. As it was your wish that the site rules be evenly applied, they shall be. You have been given multiple chances to comply with those rules and you have refused to do so.

 

Peer reviewed paper !!!

Really Kitt when very , very few scientist , if any , would never actually go out in the field to experience the supernatural for them selves

 

Nowadays few would, mostly because it's been done to death. You know, beating a dead horse and all that.

 

Probably for the same reason people no longer hunt witches as a profession...

 

Meaning ....what exactly ?

 

And that would be question begging.
The question is what happened, not what you believe happened. And it remains true that a natural explanation trumps one that requires the supernatural, at least for those that hold themselves as rational.

And the key word here is "claimed". I could claim many things that aren't true. I can claim many things I genuinely think are true but perhaps aren't.
A claim of something does not mean that it happened that way. It just means it is claimed it did.

 

If you can propose a natural explanation that fits the known facts then, no matter how unlikely, the event is explainable.
It is only unexplainable if every possible explanation has a logical flaw, or does not allow for a known fact.
So while it is hard to show that something is unexplainable, it is relatively easy to show that it is simply unexplained at the moment: by providing a natural explanation, no matter how implausible.

Bear in mind that an explanation does not have to be correct, it merely has to fit the known facts of the case. If it is subsequently shown not to explain the case then it is because new facts have emerged that the explanation can not cover. OR if you think it does not explain the case, then you'd need to show which facts it does not explain.

And bear in mind that in this instance it is not shown to be fact that the 4 rescue-workers did hear a voice. It is only fact that they all claim to have heard a voice. There is a distinction.

 

They make sounds that could be misheard, as do a number of other animals. It's funny you can be so skeptical about this and yet so credulous when it comes to something that has never been empirically confirmed ever.

 

Investigators who don't find anything are called scientists and skeptics and praised by the scientific community. Those same investigators that find something are called kooks, idiotic, and untrustworthy.

 

If thousands of people witnessed talking dolphins appearing at life-or-death events such as this, yes, I would believe that too. I put my trust in people when there are so many testimonies. That, to me, is rational. No one goes through their whole life not believing in anything unless it has been confirmed by the scientific method. Medicine can still work even when it hasn't been approved by the FDA.

 

"Super Skeptics" such as yourself never fail to amaze me. You can't accept a supernatural event so you come up with explanations that don't even make sense. Why? At least say it was unexplained, instead of saying, "their eyes were messed up by looking at the sun". Why can't you look at that explanation and realize how stupid that reasoning is? It's not rational.

Saying "there was no event" when there were over 30,000 eyewitnesses that say the same thing is beyond reason and logic. You call yourself an intellectual when you believe idiotic fallacies such as this? How do you explain the people who saw the event and weren't even looking at the sun until they saw the event?