No, not just that. If entities are energies; some are negative, positive or benign. Some can have ill effects, some positive and some indifferent or neutral.
Why do ghosts wear human clothes?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
No, not just that. If entities are energies; some are negative, positive or benign. Some can have ill effects, some positive and some indifferent or neutral.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
True..
Doesn't matter. All I have to do is claim I did and MR should believe me.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You have an agenda to lie for. Why would I believe you?
Last edited:
Unfortunately, people dont even need to deal with non-persons to realize the effects of energies (invisible but real). People can have very negative or toxic energies and intentions and they most definitely can affect you. One can liken this to paranormal as its not cut and dry nor are emotions but very real. Thoughts create energy, intent creates energy, one's values create energy. Now you can see how this could affect others around you for good or ill and also possibly who it is intentionally directed at also in some scenarios. Some energies are parasitic and can be predatorial on people bringing them down affecting mood, emotions and even thinking. This is why either being alone or with people that do not have ill intentions or feelings toward you are so important for health so one is not undermined or oppressed. Its not just the physical that affects ones health. Indeed, the mental, emotional and spiritual aspects can even affect physical health for better or worse.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
Do you find this surprising, in a country that is so deeply religious, and that has developed quite a large industry for pushing woo of various sorts onto the general public?
About half of all Americans think that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor. Probably more Americans believe in witches and demons than believe in ghosts.
Americans are seriously misguided in lots of ways. Quite a lot of them apparently think that Donald Trump would make a good President.*
If you have the appropriate equipment, you can check that an electron will pass through a barrier in a particular way, and it will do so reliably every time you do the experiment. But for some reason, we can't even get a clear picture of a ghost that hasn't been faked.
It sounds much better if you say "I'm a hardened skeptic. I never believed in any woo, so it was a completely surprise and shock when I saw a ghost. But now I want to go public and tell the world all about ghosts. Hey mum, look! I'm on TV! (My horoscope predicted this would happen.)"
Again, it seems I have to emphasise the point that person anecdotes are not the same as evidence - a point you seem to have trouble grasping.
Without details of the specific circumstances, it is hard to say what could be misconceived. That is likely to vary on a case-by-case basis.
Apart from that, most things taken as signs of ghosts are minor. Somebody feels cold, so it must be the ghost. Somebody heard a creaking noise, so it must be the ghost. Somebody felt scared in the dark, so it must be the ghost.
---
* Obviously, this is a gross generalisation. There are many intelligent, thoughful and educated Americans who think a Trump presidency would be a disaster and who don't believe in any woo. Obviously I do not include you, if you are part of this group.
The changes appeared on camera almost immediately after they occurred, and stayed there until the end of the video. Yet you didn't notice them.
Most ghost sightings, as far as I am aware, do not involve full body apparitions walking right in front of a person with no distraction etc. If they did, there would be clear photographs of these full-body apparitions, and other evidence besides. Why don't these full body apparitions ever appear on national TV? Why don't they ever appear in the middle of a rock concert attended by thousands of witnesses? Why seldom, if ever, in brightly-lit places? Why don't they ever stick around long enough to allow somebody to pull out their iphone and interview them on camera?
I have made no claim that all ghost sightings are hallucinations. You seem fixated on the false dichotomy of "Either it is a ghost, or it is a hallucination, and nothing else is possible." Why are you so quick to rule out all alternate explanations? There are many of them.
Normal people, under the right conditions, regularly see all kinds of things that aren't really there.
No. The paranormal is not normal. It is supposed to be beyond normal. Supernatural. And there's no good evidence it ever happens. Not really.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/
Do you find this surprising, in a country that is so deeply religious, and that has developed quite a large industry for pushing woo of various sorts onto the general public?
About half of all Americans think that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor. Probably more Americans believe in witches and demons than believe in ghosts.
Americans are seriously misguided in lots of ways. Quite a lot of them apparently think that Donald Trump would make a good President.*
There's evidence for the electron stuff. There's no good evidence for ghosts.
If you have the appropriate equipment, you can check that an electron will pass through a barrier in a particular way, and it will do so reliably every time you do the experiment. But for some reason, we can't even get a clear picture of a ghost that hasn't been faked.
At least now you know that human perception isn't as reliable and finely-tuned as you believed it to be.
Nobody is going to say "Well, I admit that I'm a gullible fool, and I have always been scared of ghosts since I first heard about them. So when I saw one, it just confirmed my fears and my beliefs."
It sounds much better if you say "I'm a hardened skeptic. I never believed in any woo, so it was a completely surprise and shock when I saw a ghost. But now I want to go public and tell the world all about ghosts. Hey mum, look! I'm on TV! (My horoscope predicted this would happen.)"
Do you think it would be possible to remember an event from your childhood that never actually happened?
Why not? If a person had an experience and it was a hallucination, then it's explained. Isn't it?
You're trying to create a false dichotomy again - this time between "normal" people and people who have a "problem". It's far more likely that everybody, at least some of the time, has their mind play tricks on them.
What kind of brain does it take to believe in something for which there is no convincing evidence?
There's lots of evidence for giant squid. Video footage. Actual specimens that have been caught or found in the stomachs of whales. And so on.
Again, it seems I have to emphasise the point that person anecdotes are not the same as evidence - a point you seem to have trouble grasping.
I've never personally been on a ghost hunt, if that's what you mean. I have been involved in certain paranormal investigations. And I've read a lot of material about such investigations, and seen documentaries and probably some of the same woo videos and pseudo-documentaries that you spend your time absorbing uncritically.
Serious studies of this kind, in my experience, either return null results, or else return results on the edges of detectability. Perhaps that noise on the recording is a voice, or perhaps it's just the static. Perhaps that temperature change was a ghostly effect, or perhaps there's something about the air circulation in this building in the middle of the night...
I think that if somebody reports an apparition right in front of them, they are most likely either (a) lying (for the publicity, for monetary gain, or some other reason), or (b) delusional, or (c) the victim of a clever hoax, or (d) misinterpreting some kind of unusual by natural effect as an apparition.
Without details of the specific circumstances, it is hard to say what could be misconceived. That is likely to vary on a case-by-case basis.
You are very naive as to the possibility and ingenuity of fakers. If you truly believe that fakery of ghosts is impossible, then I don't think I can help you change your mind; you're living in a delusion all of your own. Suffice it to say: pranks are seldom ruled out.
Apart from that, most things taken as signs of ghosts are minor. Somebody feels cold, so it must be the ghost. Somebody heard a creaking noise, so it must be the ghost. Somebody felt scared in the dark, so it must be the ghost.
---
* Obviously, this is a gross generalisation. There are many intelligent, thoughful and educated Americans who think a Trump presidency would be a disaster and who don't believe in any woo. Obviously I do not include you, if you are part of this group.
birch:
When you say "People can have very negative energies", all you're really saying is that some people do not come across to you as nice people. Or that you don't like them. Or that they act in ways that you don't approve of. The fact is, they are just people. They are the way they are because of choices they make about how they choose to behave. There's no need to invoke magical "energies" to explain the behaviour of people.
Energy is a word used in science. It has a specific meaning in science. But the way you're using it is nothing like the way it is used in science. So, it would be good if you could explain what this "energy" of yours is, exactly.
How can a thought create this energy? How can we detect this energy? What instruments would be use? Is it only detectable by a human being's "gut feelings"? If so, in that case how do you know it's not just a feeling you have but it is real, external thing?
If your mood or emotions change, isn't that an internal thing that happens to you? Why do you think that your emotions or mood can be manipulated by invisible "energies" from outside? If you think that, aren't you just making excuses for your own feelings?
I understand that the actions of other people, or events that occur to you in the world, can and do affect how you feel. But why do you need invisible and undetectable "energies" to explain that? I don't understand.
Are you, in fact, saying that spirits can affect your physical health? As in ghostly spirits or entitites with magical "energy"? Or what?
You speak as if people carry an invisible aura of magical energy with them wherever they go. You're using the word "energy" in a way that is not scientific.
When you say "People can have very negative energies", all you're really saying is that some people do not come across to you as nice people. Or that you don't like them. Or that they act in ways that you don't approve of. The fact is, they are just people. They are the way they are because of choices they make about how they choose to behave. There's no need to invoke magical "energies" to explain the behaviour of people.
Yes, emotions are real. Emotions happen in your brain due to real brain activity. Your brain responds to outside stimuli, which includes the way that other people around you behave. If you feel bad around somebody, you're reacting your perception of them (which may be right or mistaken). There's no magical energy emanating from them that magically affects you.
What is this "energy" you keep referring to?
Energy is a word used in science. It has a specific meaning in science. But the way you're using it is nothing like the way it is used in science. So, it would be good if you could explain what this "energy" of yours is, exactly.
How can a thought create this energy? How can we detect this energy? What instruments would be use? Is it only detectable by a human being's "gut feelings"? If so, in that case how do you know it's not just a feeling you have but it is real, external thing?
These energies themselves have agency? That is, the energies themselves "want" things (such as they want to attack people in a "predatory" way)?
If your mood or emotions change, isn't that an internal thing that happens to you? Why do you think that your emotions or mood can be manipulated by invisible "energies" from outside? If you think that, aren't you just making excuses for your own feelings?
I understand that the actions of other people, or events that occur to you in the world, can and do affect how you feel. But why do you need invisible and undetectable "energies" to explain that? I don't understand.
I agree with you on everything here except for the "spiritual" part. What makes you think that "spiritual" things can affect one's health? What do you actually mean by "spiritual"? Is that different from "mental" and "emotional"?
Are you, in fact, saying that spirits can affect your physical health? As in ghostly spirits or entitites with magical "energy"? Or what?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
They were performed off camera. You know this and I know this. It was trickery with the added distraction of the card trick.
There's plenty of photos of ghosts. I can refer you to several websites full of them. But we all know you'll just say their fake. Because you just happen to know ghosts don't exist.
So what's the alternative explanation of seeing a transparent person walking in front of you. Go ahead. I'm all ears.
No they don't. And you have no evidence of that. That's just a lie to avoid believing in ghosts.
Ball lightning isn't normal. Rogue waves aren't normal. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Have you forgotten already? I believe what people say they've seen with their own eyes until I have some reason to doubt them. That's just normal sane living.
The poll wasn't about belief. It was about experience. Totally different ball game.
Bullshit there isn't. Eyewitness accounts, photos, and audio evidence. You have only to look into it yourself. But you're not are you?
I can post 28 photos of ghosts right now for you. But I've posted this before. So we know it won't effect your beliefs one bit.
Hundreds of thousands of miles of successfully driving by relying on perception of what is 100 yards in front of me. I'd say that's pretty damn reliable.
You're paranoid. Do you really think everyone who has a paranormal experience is lying?
Actually it sounds much better to say you saw nothing at all. To admit you saw a ghost is to subject yourself to ridicule and accusations of lying. Much as you are doing right here.
Nope. And certainly not what a biographer tells me never happened.
Not at all. Many ghost sightings involve multiple eyewitnesses and sounds and physical evidence. No hallucination could produce such effects.
Normal people don't hallucinate people walking before them.
What kind of brain does it take to deny evidence that is presented to you?
I've never met one. You were saying I've never met a ghost either. Does that mean they both don't exist?
You've never heard of anecdotal evidence? You should explore that. Did you know anecdotal evidence is enough to send a criminal to the gas chamber?
Then you know there is plenty evidence for the paranormal. And no..just because an investigation is televised doesn't mean it's faked. If any of these paranormal investigation shows had been proven to be faked, the news of that would be everywhere.
No..actual recordings of footsteps in empty buildings, loud bangs, voices, figures on infrared video, orbs, and moving objects are all caught in these investigations.
Ofcourse you do. Anything but what you deny exists.
Without specific details, its hard to say anything was misconceived.
Sounds like an ad hom to me. Fakery would be very hard to accomplish, particularly for an investigative crew that had sole access to an entire building.
Not so. People see flashing lights, hear voices and screams, hear heavy footsteps and bangs on the wall, report moving objects and doors closing, and see moving full body apparitions. There are also detected fields of emf energy in buildings with no power, and the just charged up batteries of equipment are routinely drained. Many times people report scratches and stings and tugs on their clothing. No..this is all real I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Thank you for the extremely dry and rational take. Thats an extremely intelligent way of dealing with vulnerability in regard to others.
I could argue your point on some aspects but im not going to as psychologically the non-validation or putting aside (separating the wheat from the chaff) of others garbage (ill will) is healthy by just cutting to the meaningless barebones - when you are dealing with ill will.
This is not in relation to this topic and not your intention but i needed to look at it another way.
Magical Realist:
And yet, these changes were obvious, weren't they?
So the fact remains that you didn't notice what was obvious and right in front of you. And yet you claim to have impecable perception of the world.
Show me some convincing evidence that shows they exist and I'll accept that they exist.
I don't know that a purple dragon called Claude doesn't exist, either, and the same thing applies to him.
(a) The person is lying about seeing the transparent person.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.
What do you see?
It's just a bunch of rocks, right?
How did it come to be that scientists started to "believe in" rogue waves? There's a simple answer: accumulation of evidence to the point where it became impossible to deny. And this despite the fact that rogue waves are relatively rare.
I think if they have a paranormal experience there are five possibilities:
(a) The person is lying about the experience.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.
(e) The experience is real.
I think one should carefully consider (a) to (d) before concluding (e). You, on the other hand, don't want to investigate. You just believe them and leave your brain switched off.
https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm
To save you some reading, scroll done the article until you see the heading "False childhood memories". Or (better), read the entire article.
As to the hallucination claim, you are wrong. Even mass hallucinations have been known to occur on rare occasions.
Anecdotal evidence is not enough to send a criminal to the gas chamber. If it is, where you live, then I'd be very worried.
So your excuse that you didn't notice very obvious changes in the people's clothing and in the colours of the backdrop and the table cloth is that you were distracted and not paying close enough attention to things.
And yet, these changes were obvious, weren't they?
So the fact remains that you didn't notice what was obvious and right in front of you. And yet you claim to have impecable perception of the world.
I know there are lots of photos of what are claimed by believers to be ghosts. Some of them have been exposed or revealed as fakes. Some of them remain unexplained, but that doesn't rule out fakery. Some of them just don't show what they are said to show. They are mistakes of perception - you know, the ones you say never occur.
I don't know that ghosts don't exist. I'm open minded to the possibility.
Show me some convincing evidence that shows they exist and I'll accept that they exist.
I don't know that a purple dragon called Claude doesn't exist, either, and the same thing applies to him.
I've already told you:
(a) The person is lying about seeing the transparent person.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.
Look at this:
What do you see?
It's just a bunch of rocks, right?
Interestingly, both of those things had their existence doubted for a very long time. I'm not sure what the current status of ball lightning is, but rogue waves are certainly accepted by the scientific community.
How did it come to be that scientists started to "believe in" rogue waves? There's a simple answer: accumulation of evidence to the point where it became impossible to deny. And this despite the fact that rogue waves are relatively rare.
There are lots of good reasons to doubt people who claim to have seen a ghost. You just choose to ignore them all.
A certain percentage of Americans claim they have been kidnapped by aliens. I guess you believe them too. Which means you accept the whole hokey UFO nonsense. (Don't bother. I already know you believe that woo as well.)
Already done. Couldn't find anything convincing.
I could post 28 articles debunking specific claims of ghosts. What would that do to your beliefs? Nothing. Right?
People don't tend to see ghosts as they go about their regular daily lives. They tend to see them in unfamiliar environments. Except the delusional ones.
I am? About what?
No.
I think if they have a paranormal experience there are five possibilities:
(a) The person is lying about the experience.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.
(e) The experience is real.
I think one should carefully consider (a) to (d) before concluding (e). You, on the other hand, don't want to investigate. You just believe them and leave your brain switched off.
Then let me introduce you to something undreamt of in your philosophy:Magical Realist said:
https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm
To save you some reading, scroll done the article until you see the heading "False childhood memories". Or (better), read the entire article.
Most ghost sightings, as far as I am aware, do not involve multiple witnesses or physical evidence. Most just involve one person telling a story.
As to the hallucination claim, you are wrong. Even mass hallucinations have been known to occur on rare occasions.
Normal ghost sightings don't involve ghosts in old clothes walking in front of people in broad daylight, or the ghost sitting down with the sighter and chatting over coffee at an outdoor cafe. Why is that? You couldn't give an answer last time I asked.
One that has learned how to think critically? There is a difference between denial and questioning, by the way, and it's a good illustration of the difference between you and me. You'll believe in ghosts no matter what I say, but I'm actually open to being convinced that ghosts exist. You're in denial that ghost sightings are ever faked or that they are ever lies. I simply question the plausibility of claimed sightings of ghosts, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented.
You're too focussed on your own experience. We need to look at all the evidence for and against things. One or two or even 50 personal anecdotes just aren't good enough for something as extraordinary as ghosts. And just because you believe you have experienced something doesn't mean you have. You could be (a) delusional; (b) mistaken; (c) the victim of a clever hoax, etc.
I've heard of anecdotal evidence. Have you explored the fact that anecdotal evidence is generally considered to be a very weak form of evidence by educated people?
Anecdotal evidence is not enough to send a criminal to the gas chamber. If it is, where you live, then I'd be very worried.
That news is everywhere, and some such "investigations" have indeed been exposed as frauds. You live in a bubble, Magical Realist. Read some skeptical literature for a change.
Lots of things other than ghosts can cause sounds that sounds like footsteps or bangs or voices. Ghost "orbs" are usually photos of floating dust particles illuminated by a camera flash.
If the "investigators" are out to make a buck, they have an incentive to get the results they set out to get, by whatever means. And if, on the hand, they are honest, then they may well be primed to see what they expect to see. True believers are much more likely to see ghosts than skeptics. Why is that?
I believe the reports are real. The ghosts? Nah.[/quote]
Last edited:
birch:
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Are you saying I should accept your belief in "bad energies" because you're "vulnerable"? Or that I shouldn't challenge your beliefs because that makes you unhappy and you'd rather have a comforting fantasy? Or that I'm being nasty to you because I didn't just agree with you that some people have negative energies? Or that you prefer not to hear another point of view than your own? In which case, why are you on a discussion forum? Why not start a blog?
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Are you saying I should accept your belief in "bad energies" because you're "vulnerable"? Or that I shouldn't challenge your beliefs because that makes you unhappy and you'd rather have a comforting fantasy? Or that I'm being nasty to you because I didn't just agree with you that some people have negative energies? Or that you prefer not to hear another point of view than your own? In which case, why are you on a discussion forum? Why not start a blog?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I don't need an excuse for being tricked by off camera changes performed while distracted by a card trick. It doesn't prove one thing about perception when not being tricked and you know it.
Most perception doesn't occur with people changing things when you're not looking at them and when you are focused on a card trick. Perception is very reliable. I rely on it all the time. I bet you do too.
Right..mistakes of perception caught on camera. lol! That's quite a claim there.
No you're not. All you do is check skeptic websites that make their money trying to debunk everything. And then you claim photos of ghosts are all faked. That's not openminded about anything.
Watch the 3 videos I posted in this thread. Very compelling evidence.
LOL! You don't know things you just made up in your head don't exist? I feel sorry for you.
Sorry..that doesn't explain all the auditory and visual and physical phenomena recorded in investigations.
Look at this:
What do you see?
It's just a bunch of rocks, right?
LOL! Nobody would mistake that for an actual person. We're talking real people in period clothing walking in front of you. No such hallucinations or misperceptions there.
There is more evidence for ghosts than there is for ball lightning or rogue waves. Strange that this is all ignored in the name of science eh?
Only if you're so paranoid as to believe people who see such things are all lying or delusional. Or hey maybe they saw a face in a rock? lol!
Plenty of accounts of that too. It's not something you are likely to make up or hallucinate.
Debunk the 3 videos I posted in this thread then. Warning: you probably won't be able to go to a skeptic website to find the standard debunk for them. Whatever will you do?
People tend to see ghosts in haunted locations. That's a fact.
No..too many experiences of this to handwave away as delusions or lies or mistakes of perception. Too many investigations proving beyond doubt the reality of paranormal phenomena.
Sounds like another pissy insult to me. How exemplary of the sci forums administrator!
How about unquoting the last half of your post so I can actually respond to it?
Last edited:
People expect to see ghosts if you tell them a specific place is "haunted". No surprise that they sometimes convince themselves that they do.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Why don't you find out what birch mean't before pretentiously taking offense and getting snarky? Would that be too much to ask?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
People don't see people before them just because they expect to. I expect lots of things and they don't suddenly appear before me. Why would that be?
Magical Realist:
For example, you see a face in those rocks I showed you. For example, about 1 in 5 people can be led to "remember" something that never happened to them. For example, you thought there was nothing amiss about the card trick video, when in fact all kinds of dodgy stuff was going on there.
How many examples will you need before you will consider that perception might be fallible?
Do you think that most photos of ghosts are "the real thing"? I'm sure you do. Is that openminded?
But, of course, this kind of thing would be impossible when it comes to ghosts - or so you'd have us believe. Because ghosts are special and you think they're cool, whereas you're not that interested in rocks or houses that look like Hitler.
Ghosts aren't part of the scientific literature because there's no good evidence that they exist. The same can be said for all supernatural things.
In fact, is there anything that would convince you that ghosts aren't real?
Are you going to back off on what you said now? Did you insult yourself?
How am I supposed to find out what birch means without asking questions? Perhaps you have a suggestion.
As far as getting snarky, I'm not snarky at birch, but I'm getting a bit snarky at you right about now. There is nothing in my posts to birch that indicate that I took offence at anything she said.
You keep missing the point. You claim that people are good observers whose memories and perceptions can always be trusted. And yet, I've just shown you three separate examples of how perception can fail. And you don't seem interested in that. Why?
Not all the time. Not under all conditions.
For example, you see a face in those rocks I showed you. For example, about 1 in 5 people can be led to "remember" something that never happened to them. For example, you thought there was nothing amiss about the card trick video, when in fact all kinds of dodgy stuff was going on there.
How many examples will you need before you will consider that perception might be fallible?
How do you know that's all I do? It might be convenient for you to imagine that I have never watched any of the woo you watch, but I have. I've even watched some of the nonsense you've posted here from time to time.
No. I've made no such claim, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views in future.
Do you think that most photos of ghosts are "the real thing"? I'm sure you do. Is that openminded?
Which ones? Telly Salavas's ghost anecdote?
Let's just say that I'd be extremely surprised if Claude the purple dragon turned out to exist outside my head. But if you have some evidence that he does, I'm open to examining it.
No. Other things explain that. Like I said earlier, a lot of the audio recording stuff is barely at the detectable level, and is often a case of interpreting random static with a liberal dose of wishful thinking.
You missed the point again. You see a face in that rock, even though there's no face there. It's just rock. So, there's an example of something right in front of you that you perceive even though it isn't real. It's your mind playing a trick on you.
But, of course, this kind of thing would be impossible when it comes to ghosts - or so you'd have us believe. Because ghosts are special and you think they're cool, whereas you're not that interested in rocks or houses that look like Hitler.
None of it is ignored. There's no conspiracy of scientists actively working to suppress knowledge of ghosts. Indeed, there are plenty of people spruiking the "reality" of ghosts all over the internet, and nobody is shutting you down. Nor do I think they should.
Ghosts aren't part of the scientific literature because there's no good evidence that they exist. The same can be said for all supernatural things.
Following where the evidence leads is what a careful thinker does. Blindly believing is something a crank does.
Wrong again. It is very much something you are likely to make up or hallucinate.
Link me to the posts where the three videos are. How long are they? I don't want to waste hours on this crap, especially since I know that no matter what I say it wouldn't change your mind.
In fact, is there anything that would convince you that ghosts aren't real?
Yes. In other words, people are primed to see ghosts in certain places. They expect to see ghosts. So they see ghosts.
Post a link to information on the most persuasive "investigation" you are aware of that proves beyond doubt the reality of any paranormal phenomenon. Let's see you put your money where your mouth it. Give it your best shot.
I'm just going on what you told me. You keep saying you are willing to believe anybody's story about just about anything, unless you have definite proof that it isn't true. You've said that over and over again in this thread.
Are you going to back off on what you said now? Did you insult yourself?
I was editing it to correct a problem while you posted your knee-jerk reply. But you have access to the cut-and-paste functionality of your computer the same as I do. Why not use it?
What do you think I'm trying to do by saying "I'm not sure what you're saying", and then following up with a whole lot of questions to birch?
How am I supposed to find out what birch means without asking questions? Perhaps you have a suggestion.
As far as getting snarky, I'm not snarky at birch, but I'm getting a bit snarky at you right about now. There is nothing in my posts to birch that indicate that I took offence at anything she said.
No, none of that was comforting as in dealing with other peoples bad energies or vibes that can be intentional. I was not being sarcastic but genuinely thanking you as i needed to view things in a more detached and rational manner. It has nothing to do with the topic but it helped me to look at it or not in a different way.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Perception is not "failing" when you are intentionally tricked by people not to see something. Your video proves nothing about perception and everything about being tricked.
I don't know about you, but I saw a rock shaped like a face. How did my perception fail? Isn't that exactly what it is? And I don't believe people remember things that haven't happened. Maybe if they are tricked into it by being convinced it happened. But not on their own.
Because that's what you post most the time. Articles by Benjamin Radford or Joe Nickel debunking something I've posted about.
I have no compelling reason to doubt they're real photos. Do you?
Right. And the two right above it.
Hey, you were the one saying you don't know Claude doesn't exist, not me.
If you're referring to EVPs, you should know that many are of high quality fidelity and capture the voice quite clearly. Other voices and screams and whispers are caught as well. Ofcourse you will say if the voice recording is clear, it is probably faked. Hence the futility of posting any of them for you here.
I misperceived nothing. I saw a rock shaped like face. And that's exactly what it is. It certainly doesn't explain why people would hallucinate something like a ghost.
I think lots of things are cool. Tornadoes. Alligators. Black holes. Quantum entanglement. If you were convinced ghosts were real, wouldn't you think them cool? I'm sure you would. Why is that an argument for them not being real?
There are no scientific explorations of the paranormal because they would be mocked and ridiculed out of being funded. No peer reviewed journal would dare publish the results of an investigation that presented objective evidence for ghosts. Scientists stick to what is good for their careers. And this area is taboo. It's a sure career killer.
Blind skepticism can be as bad as blind faith. The narrow and deliberate doubting of all evidence to support the preconclusion that such things don't exist.
The alien abduction phenomenon is complicated by often occurring when people are in bed. In this sense it can often display the charateristics of a paralysis nightmare. But there are several cases of these abductions occuring when people were out on the road or in the woods. Most involve missing time. The Travis Walton case is quite famous:
http://www.travis-walton.com/ordinary.html
Each case must be decided on its own. Yes, there are cases that convince me that the ghost wasn't real. Car lights passing over a window. Air conditioner rattling. But that's only for that case. I've seen too many confirmations of the paranormal to ever take a single case as evidence that ghosts don't exist. And why would I? That's not even logical.
You don't see what you expect to see. You expect what is normally seen.
Those three videos for starters. See also the video after this post. Do you want convincing investigations? I could post them, but then A. you said you don't like to watch videos. And B. you think all televised investigations are fake. So what's the point?
No..unless I have a compelling reason to doubt. As in, do these people have mental illness? Do they have an agenda they are pushing? Stuff like that. I don't dismiss it simply because it COULD be faked.
It's a lot of work. I'm not sure it's worth arguing with someone whose already made up their mind on this issue.
Birch has already responded to you. In no sense was she/he insulting you. Why you would assume that is beyond me. Perhaps you're getting flustered by this topic. Why is it so personal for you that all this must be fake? What is at stake here for you? Are you afraid it is all religiously connected? That it all proves something like an afterlife? Personally the prospect of being trapped in some limbo ghost zone doesn't exactly thrill me. I'd rather believe we just cease to exist.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
This compelling case speaks for itself!
- Status