Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by birch, Feb 27, 2016.
No you can't. Not if you don't look at that evidence. You're not psychic...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes I can, for the reasons stated earlier.
I do not need to waste my time checking out your dodgy blurry photographs, and your voices in the night, to know that they are like all the rest.
If you had anything fair dinkum, on any of the issues you push, you would not be here.
But as yet you have not supplied any evidence that exclusively shows that your wild imaginings of ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and Aliens are real:
Let me say again, the best you or your compatriots have ever done, is show something that as yet remains unexplained.
If you had anything of substance that shows exclusively that one or more of your paranormal/supernatural nonsense did exist, you would not be here and you would not need to bore us with such repeatable details, and the same old grainy photographs, if they had been scientifically verified as real:
That of course has not happened as yet.
I'd go with sonar.
Sort of like an EMF detector eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Published on May 9, 2013
"While investigating on the fifth tier cell block of Mansfield Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio, the Tri-Field Natural EM Meter begins to spike extremely high. The movement you see is actually the camcorder movement as the meter was being held perfectly still with my elbow locked."
Here's another EMF spike with an orb:
Uploaded on Mar 30, 2010
"This Video shows a paranormal investigator sitting on the stairs and and my EMF Meter started spiking and then you'll see a spirit orb on the right hand side of the investigator."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Ghost" is a label that carries the baggage of pre-naturalism (as a monist philosophy) affiliations with it, as well as "paranomal" connotations -- PN often seeming just a contemporary synonym for or re-working of the those traditional assumptions. Is there a more recent, neutral classification that you could introduce (or even invent on the spot)?
Why on earth would anybody attribute an EMF spike to a "spirit orb"?
The general experience here is that the manifestation of the orb requires a burst of energy that is picked up on the EMF meter.
This is an excellent example of paredolia.
She said it was not there when she rode by. It is only seen in the film.
All we see is a shape that has bright and dark spots that look like a face.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And, like the above, the resemblance to a face disappeared under different viewing conditions:
1] Not seen from her nearer vantage point.
2] Not seen some time later from a different angle in the video.
The elongated shape below the face-like image may or may not be related (but our minds want to think so), though it is just as likely to be part of the background of trees.
Likely a tree stump.
But what on earth does that have to do with "spirits"?
Spirits are causing the burst in energy. That's the assumption.
Why would you make that assumption?
Because of all the other evidence that spirits have provided on investigations. Sounds, lights, emf energy, cold spots, moving figures, moving objects, voices, scents, and scratches and tugs on investigators.
None of that is evidence of "spirits". It's more like confirmation bias. What other possible hypotheses have been considered?
No it isn't. It's real and objective evidence for paranormal phenomena. How many investigations have you observed? What other hypothesis are you suggesting?
That statement in itself shows confirmation bias. You're assuming that paranormal phenomena exist and you're linking all of the evidence to that assumption.
The question is: What other hypotheses have your investigators suggested? The onus is on them to eliminate all other possibilities before jumping to "paranormal" conclusions.
Not at all. I'm basing my conclusion that it's paranormal based on the objective evidence it repeatedly and in hundreds of investigations exhibits. It's the same thing, not an unlikely confluence of noisy pipes, emf misreadings, bugs, delusions, hallucinations, and hoaxes.
They have eliminated the mundane possibilities. That's why they conclude paranormal. The onus is on them only to reach the most logical conclusion based in the evidence. And that's what they do.
You can not legitimately conclude "para"normal based on normal observations. What you're saying is essentially, "Some things can not be explained - so here's the explanation."
Then why hasn't science as a whole reached the same conclusions?
The correct approach is to admit when you can't explain something, not jump to the conclusion of "spirits".
LOL! Saying something isn't explained is not an explanation. Saying it is paranormal is an explanation and one based on compelling evidence.
For the one hundredth time, science mocks and ridicules this field relentlessly. Any scientist who researched it would get his funding revoked and his reputation trashed. That is the nature of a largely peer driven and grant funded field of study. Toe the line buddy or else.
Saying you can't explain it is a failure. You might as well not be doing research at all. But if the phenomenon exhibits the characteristics of the paranormal, then by all means we posit the paranormal. That's logic 101.
This is a tautology. You are attempting to use your conclusion as your premise.
"We conclude that these are paranormal incidents because - if paranormal incidents were real - they would look like this. Since they do look like this, they must be real."
You: "It is trivial to show that 4+4=10 (conclusion); this is backed up by the fact that 2+2=5 (premise)."
Logic: "OK, and where have you shown that 2+2=5 (premise not yet granted)?"
You: "It is trivial. Start with 4+4=10 (conclusion as premise)..."
So please stop using this term incorrectly.
Most forum members here - whether you respect them or not - are not so foolish that they can't see ineptly mangled attempts at logic.
Separate names with a comma.