Attempt to Prove Ghostly Entities Exist

[-SpectraL]

"Show me a ghost, and let me shake it's hand, and I'll be glad to show you my belief, Sir!"

^^ And so goes the universal trade-mark philosophy of the "if I don't understand it, it doesn't exist!" people. My take on this is, these kind of people have to touch, taste, smell, hear, and be able to reach right out and take hold of things, in a solid-matter/physical sense, something they are familiar and comfortable with, something that can be related to. Well, I'm here to relate. You don't need to believe me.

An attempt to explain quantum physics to an aboriginal island dweller, or discussing the finer points of infrared and radar with a caveman, would meet with the same hissing skepticism. It is understandable. Even though quantum physics are part of the very foundation of what we call our reality, and even though radar and infrared are remarkable but invisible tools that guide us through that unknown called reality, a skeptic who is truly "grounded to the already known" first jumps immediately to skepticism before even considering understanding. It is basic human nature, and obviously not an uncommon flaw in the ongoing quest of enlightened humanity in general to discover the unknown.

Attempting to prove that both visible and invisible beings beyond our current knowledge do in fact exist would be just as easy a task as attempting to get a native cannibal to believe in X-rays or radiation, or an animal that can't be seen on the head of a pin.

In this thread, I will do my utmost to present evidence that both visible and invisible beings/creatures outside of our current understanding do in fact exist, based on my huge store of experience on this subject, eye-witness accounts, material evidence, indicative anomalies, text as debate and video-graphic evidence.

But first, does anyone want to GTFO before we get into the focused subject of SOTD? Just wondering if I'm going to get a pack of clueless, close-minded, attention-whores here jumping in on this, who obviuosly need to jump into another forum right away, or if I can proceed to make my case. I really don't mind if you argue, and make sensible rebuttal, but I'm just wondering first if there are going to be any senseless parrots coming into this thread with the ho-hum, run-of-the-mill "That's bullshit!!!", with little or no backed reason why that can be so. If we're going to get that broken record stuff happening, I'm out right here. Otherwise, I think I can convince you that "ghosts" are indeed real.


Let me start with this question. Why are there so many reports, down through the years even, of persons insisting they have met face to face with demonic or angelic beings. They haven't said they thought they saw one, they say they met up with, and experienced the direct effects of, an encounter. Just this single fact alone should warn us that there is something to this we do not yet fully understand.

My first question: Is each and every reported physical encounter with an unknown being of paranormal nature a hoax? And if each and every reported case is in fact a hoax (otherwise, if even one case is true fact, it isn't a hoax), how can the entirety of the millions of such purported "hoaxes" be so uniformly similar in nature and details.

[Slave of the Beast]

Let me start with this question. Why are there so many reports, down through the years even, of persons insisting they have met face to face with demonic or angelic beings. They haven't said they thought they saw one, they say they met up with, and experienced the direct effects of, an encounter. Just this single fact alone should warn us that there is something to this we do not yet fully understand.

My first question: Is each and every reported physical encounter with an unknown being of paranormal nature a hoax? And if each and every reported case is in fact a hoax (otherwise, if even one case is true fact, it isn't a hoax), how can the entirety of the millions of such purported "hoaxes" be so uniformly similar in nature and details.

This aboriginal island dweller is wondering how this helps you in your quest to "Attempt to Prove Ghostly Entities Exist"? I mean, if we're going to take a trip down Ad populum Avenue, we could start arguing all kinds of "but lots of people said so" points and consider them all to be equally valid.

A few hundred years ago lots of people either believed in, or 'experienced', the likes of witches, goblins, imps and fairies. Now it's UFO's, the men in black and the Loch Ness Monster. Does this means imps and fairies are now nearly extinct? Is this a result of global warming destroying their natural habitat and the Chinese regarding the drinking of tea made from their little scalps as a cure for male baldness?

Or maybe people these days are just open to different kinds of suggestion.

[kenwih]

http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html

/thread

[-SpectraL]

This aboriginal island dweller is wondering how this helps you in your quest to "Attempt to Prove Ghostly Entities Exist"? I mean, if we're going to take a trip down Ad populum Avenue, we could start arguing all kinds of "but lots of people said so" points and consider them all to be equally valid.

A few hundred years ago lots of people either believed in, or 'experienced', the likes of witches, goblins, imps and fairies. Now it's UFO's, the men in black and the Loch Ness Monster. Does this means imps and fairies are now nearly extinct? Is this a result of global warming destroying their natural habitat and the Chinese regarding the drinking of tea made from their little scalps as a cure for male baldness?

Or maybe people these days are just open to different kinds of suggestion.

Ya. Like an aboriginal cannibal is going to run right out and study the Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency of the situation, when explained the concept of micro-organisms which live on his eye-lashes. He's just a-gonna smile at you, while he nods vigorously the whole explanation, then signal to his wife to bash you in the back of the head. And after, they'll drop you in the pot, and have a wonderful supper with all the fixins. Later, they'll have desert (baby foxes, or what have you), and they'll discuss the more ridiculous points of your ramblings. That night, they'll go to bed full and satisfied that all is indeed right again in the world, and make cannibal love to celebrate that normality.

My question was: If each and every reported case of encounter was a hoax, which they would all have to be, for the existence of unknown entities to be verified a hoax, how did they all manage to pull off the hoax so completely and uniformly throughout time and place?

[kenwih]

My question was: If each and every reported case of encounter was a hoax, which they would all have to be, for the existence of unknown entities to be verified a hoax,...

i don't understand. could you elaborate on why every encounter must be verified as a hoax?

are you saying that every unexplained phenomenon must be proven to be trickery by some person or accepted as true?

[Slave of the Beast]

i don't understand. could you elaborate on why every encounter must be verified as a hoax?

With Spectral the burden of proof does not lay with the claimant. The nonsensical path down which that leads has been elaborated to him on many occasions, yet he has thus far proven impervious to all forms of reason and logic.

Good luck, all the same.

[-SpectraL]

With Spectral the burden of proof does not lay with the claimant. The nonsensical path down which that leads has been elaborated to him on many occasions, yet he has thus far proven impervious to all forms of reason and logic.

Good luck, all the same.

I guess the question was unanswerable for you. I'm sorry to hear that. You might try meditation.

Next.

[Slave of the Beast]

Here we go again...

My question was: If each and every reported case of encounter was a hoax, which they would all have to be, for the existence of unknown entities to be verified a hoax, how did they all manage to pull off the hoax so completely and uniformly throughout time and place?

What, exactly do you mean by "completely and uniformly throughout time and place". Do Nibiru anal probe exams all take place at five past midnight, always leaving the same pattern around the outside of the spincter?

Sorry, that was childish, allow me to rephrase; what features are universal to "all" alien encounters. Preferably something specific and that would obviously be far outside the realm of "normal" experience.

[-SpectraL]

i don't understand. could you elaborate on why every encounter must be verified as a hoax?

are you saying that every unexplained phenomenon must be proven to be trickery by some person or accepted as true?

Let me give you an illustration:

One million people are holding a cloth bag, and every single one of them insists they have a priceless diamond in it. You scoff, and say you want to see the diamond, or there really is no diamond.

In order to prove there is no diamond in one of the bags, you would actually have to empty every single bag to verify that, otherwise one or more of them could actually have the diamond, and you could be completely wrong.

Then you have to consider why each and every one of these million people would claim they have a priceless diamond in the first place. Every single one of them, without exception, would have to be pulling for dishonest gain, or else at least one of them is telling the truth.

And if even one of them is telling the truth, which the odds would tend to agree with, it confirm that the diamond actually exists, and that one or more of those people do indeed have it.

Just the comfort and sense of staying within the expected and known variables we already know, does nothing to change the fact that all else must be eliminated before actual truth can be established. Relying on the known to identify the unknown is a very poor way of establishing truth, and it always has been.

The question remains:

How could every single reported case, without exception, of paranormal encounter with unknown beings, be a hoax? I ask you, is this even possible?

[AngryFemme]

If each and every reported case of encounter was a hoax, which they would all have to be, for the existence of unknown entities to be verified a hoax, how did they all manage to pull off the hoax so completely and uniformly throughout time and place?

Hoax is too broad a term. I have some young nieces who really and truly believe that they FELT the toothfairy reach under their pillow, snag their tooth, and leave them money. One of them even said she could smell the tooth fairy's HAIR! (raspberries is what she retorted, without missing a beat, when I asked what it smelled like).

I couldn't accuse them of pulling off a hoax. They not only truly believe in it, but they had actual experiences to recant that went along with it. These little girls aren't habitual fibbers, so I had to listen in earnest while they described what they actually saw, heard and felt.

Knowing the tooth fairy doesn't really exist, we can only surmise that it is the suggestions that we've branded in their heads of magical toothfaries is what caused them to have that raspberry-hair-smelling experience. They expected to feel something go underneath their pillow, and they did.

Suggestion gone wild. That's what I believe a lot of good, honest people inadvertently succumb to, and they carry out their claims feeling as indignant as ever, yet probably very frustrated that others cannot see what is so blindingly obvious (through heavy suggestion) to them.

During the Demonstrate Your Abilities thread, you planted quite a bit of suggestion in my head, Spectral. Seriously - I got spooked a few times by just hearing my balcony door creak, or the wind blowing that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhh sound through a crack. Suggestion planted fear. Fear planted excitement. Excitement planted - well, nothing, because I never was visited by a demon. But my point is, these people throughout the years who have all somehow mysteriously made a claim that they felt was an actual ghost, demon or ghoul - they can't all be liars, tricksters and conmen - maybe just a little drunk on outside suggestion, and a little high on "wanting to believe".

I bet it pisses people like you off when the tricksters, liars and conmen go through such elaborate measures such as rigging videotapes, using robotics to make things move or otherwise add theatrics to their account to get people to go: YIKES! :eek:

I mean, that's got to just burn you up. Here you are, trying to make the world aware of the hellish netherworld you are so easily in tune with - and here comes some schmuck who is going to do nothing but take away from credibility.

Question for SpectraL:
Were you ever skeptical of the paranormal, or always wide open to it? This is a legitimate question, I promise.

[-SpectraL]

Here we go again...



What, exactly do you mean by "completely and uniformly throughout time and place". Do Nibiru anal probe exams all take place at five past midnight, always leaving the same pattern around the outside of the spincter?

Sorry, that was childish, allow me to rephrase; what features are universal to "all" alien encounters. Preferably something specific and that would obviously be far outside the realm of "normal" experience.

What I mean is, the insistence and reports of unknown spiritual beings has transcended time memorial, generation to generation, culture to culture, civilization to civilization, no matter what the technological advancement or education of that group. There are not too many things in our lives that are that consistent throughout the time and space of our own existence. Just that feature alone is enough to give a hint that it needs further study.

Nice "Danny Kaye", by the way.

[-SpectraL]

Hoax is too broad a term. I have some young nieces who really and truly believe that they FELT the toothfairy reach under their pillow, snag their tooth, and leave them money. One of them even said she could smell the tooth fairy's HAIR! (raspberries is what she retorted, without missing a beat, when I asked what it smelled like).

I couldn't accuse them of pulling off a hoax. They not only truly believe in it, but they had actual experiences to recant that went along with it. These little girls aren't habitual fibbers, so I had to listen in earnest while they described what they actually saw, heard and felt.

Knowing the tooth fairy doesn't really exist, we can only surmise that it is the suggestions that we've branded in their heads of magical toothfaries is what caused them to have that raspberry-hair-smelling experience. They expected to feel something go underneath their pillow, and they did.

Suggestion gone wild. That's what I believe a lot of good, honest people inadvertently succumb to, and they carry out their claims feeling as indignant as ever, yet probably very frustrated that others cannot see what is so blindingly obvious (through heavy suggestion) to them.

During the Demonstrate Your Abilities thread, you planted quite a bit of suggestion in my head, Spectral. Seriously - I got spooked a few times by just hearing my balcony door creak, or the wind blowing that eeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhh sound through a crack. Suggestion planted fear. Fear planted excitement. Excitement planted - well, nothing, because I never was visited by a demon. But my point is, these people throughout the years who have all somehow mysteriously made a claim that they felt was an actual ghost, demon or ghoul - they can't all be liars, tricksters and conmen - maybe just a little drunk on outside suggestion, and a little high on "wanting to believe".

I bet it pisses people like you off when the tricksters, liars and conmen go through such elaborate measures such as rigging videotapes, using robotics to make things move or otherwise add theatrics to their account to get people to go: YIKES! :eek:

I mean, that's got to just burn you up. Here you are, trying to make the world aware of the hellish netherworld you are so easily in tune with - and here comes some schmuck who is going to do nothing but take away from credibility.

Question for SpectraL:
Were you ever skeptical of the paranormal, or always wide open to it? This is a legitimate question, I promise.

That's a great, and cute, story about what the girls think. And it's certainly a valid point; there are those that honestly believe they have met up with the supernatural. But even in that context, we would have to believe that every single reported paranormal encounter, without fail, is the product of either imagination or fraud. To think of, well, down through the ages even, billions of people all being deluded or frauds is hard for me to swallow. The odds themselves would be no less than astronomical.

I have been open to the existence of the paranormal since I first experienced and witnessed first-hand the power these mostly invisible entities have on physical objects and the mind, which was when I was about 12, and later many times as an adult.

As an added note, we would also have to dismiss every single piece of recorded media as fake or misinterpreted, millions and millions of them, in order to assume there is no real media evidence to support these creatures exist. Have a gander at the following, and then tell me that every single one of them, without exception, is misinterpreted or faked:

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/4PlJAknpC2G9L27R9

[AngryFemme]

To think of, well, down through the ages even, billions of people all being deluded or frauds is hard for me to swallow. The odds themselves would be no less than astronomical.


Billions?! C'mon.

[-SpectraL]

Billions?! C'mon.

Yes, billions. If we take the population of this century, which is about 6,605,476,637, and take 0.05 % of these people (representing the part of the population reporting paranormal encounter) we get 3,302,738 people a century reporting paranormal encounters. If we take that group and multiply it by the number of centuries the reports have been coming in, approximately 600 generations, we get two billion people reporting paranormal encounters, and 0.05% is a conservative estimate.

Maybe I've got my math wrong. Can somebody double-check me?

[AngryFemme]

Let's keep in mind that several of those generations were a few explanations short of some actualities. For example, did you ever hear the old wives tales about being able to cure a wart by cutting it off, burying it in the backyard underneath a shade tree on a full moon?

Or how about the notion that people with epilepsy were possessed by the devil? Or that a woman's period was a curse set upon her by that evil, wicked Eve?

I think to be fair, we'll have to factor out a good portion of the early decades in that century.

[-SpectraL]

Let's keep in mind that several of those generations were a few explanations short of some actualities. For example, did you ever hear the old wives tales about being able to cure a wart by cutting it off, burying it in the backyard underneath a shade tree on a full moon?

Or how about the notion that people with epilepsy were possessed by the devil? Or that a woman's period was a curse set upon her by that evil, wicked Eve?

I think to be fair, we'll have to factor out a good portion of the early decades in that century.

Yet again, even in this generation we have worry beads, idol worship, chants, cults, possessions, racism and a host of other notions, so I can't see why that early generation is any different than ours, or any other.

In that early generation of wart-burying and witch-floating, there were still a huge number of people who seemed apparently honest, when they insisted they had met up with a spiritual creature of one sort or another (even though there is really only one kind, who conjure and control all the others).

To think that almost two billion people are completely deluded, or else a complete fraud, is a little much to assume. Do we have anything else that two billion people assume for fact, that is not based in a belief in a supernatural entity?

[Iehovah]

Yet again, even in this generation we have worry beads, idol worship, chants, cults, possessions, racism and a host of other notions, so I can't see why that early generation is any different than ours, or any other.

In that early generation of wart-burying and witch-floating, there were still a huge number of people who seemed apparently honest, when they insisted they had met up with a spiritual creature of one sort or another (even though there is really only one kind, who conjure and control all the others).

To think that almost two billion people are completely deluded, or else a complete fraud, is a little much to assume. Do we have anything else that two billion people assume for fact, that is not based in a belief in a supernatural entity?

I'd like to point out a few things.

1> You completely ignored the question of whether every case must be proven a hoax, and instead posed a rhetorical question after an elaborate rephrasing of an analogy. Analogies are fun, but they are ridiculously overused, and if I were going to be an asshole, I'd counter it with a far more appropriate analogy - religion. Given how many people claim to have had experiences with some god or another, according to your reasoning, I'd be a fool not to believe in each and every one of them.

2> This was brought up in another thread, but I'll reiterate it here for your benefit. I find it interesting that you dive into complex explanations about your beliefs, yet counter any arguments against them with oversimplification.

A fine example: You claim that only a couple possibilities exist - that they're telling the truth, that they're lying or that they're deluded. The possibilities, particularly in the realm of the supernatural and paranormal go much further than that. Possible explanations as pointed out:

Indoctrination, patriotism, suggestion, manipulation, propaganda, social paradigm, brainwashing, peer pressure, rumor, hallucination, ignorance. This is the short list of ways you can quickly or slowly introduce ideas into people to the point where they believe them without question. As Angryfemme pointed out, you've very effectively displayed the powers of suggestion. Personally, it has little effect on me, but I'm no more immune than anyone else. I think that many people can cite cases of times when they've deliberately or accidentally given themselves what might colloquially be referred to as "the willies". That's an immediate and easily show affect of what I'm talking about.

What it boils down to is provability. You made an analogy involving cavepeople or some sort of aboriginals, I guess to put the analogy in some sort of context where what you're talking about would be perceived as some kind of magic, simply because the target would be so ignorant that they couldn't even grasp your explanation. That doesn't work, because with practical application and a listener that is capable of understanding what you are saying, you CAN prove the idea that you're trying to demonstrate.

The problem for you is that you refuse to start from the grass roots of teaching (assuming of course that you believe what you are saying and that you aren't some form of elaborate troll). You act as though you are some highly enlightened being, and that despite our "ignorance" we should simply accept your demands for belief after inundating us with countless suggestions as to why we are wrong and why you are right. Without ever applying your abilities to any form of practical context that could possibly be understood. That's a typical trait of charlatans and religious leaders with a messianic complex.

I get the feeling that this is going to fall on the usual blind eyes, and that's okay. I'd like to point out that while I may be a skeptic, I'm open to belief, and when someone actually makes a serious effort to do so, there's a chance that I can be convinced. Feel free to try, but if you're not receptive to what others have to say, you're going to find yourself equally ineffectual at convincing others.

[kenwih]

Let me give you an illustration:

One million people are holding a cloth bag, and every single one of them insists they have a priceless diamond in it. You scoff, and say you want to see the diamond, or there really is no diamond.

In order to prove there is no diamond in one of the bags, you would actually have to empty every single bag to verify that, otherwise one or more of them could actually have the diamond, and you could be completely wrong.

Then you have to consider why each and every one of these million people would claim they have a priceless diamond in the first place. Every single one of them, without exception, would have to be pulling for dishonest gain, or else at least one of them is telling the truth.

And if even one of them is telling the truth, which the odds would tend to agree with, it confirm that the diamond actually exists, and that one or more of those people do indeed have it.

Just the comfort and sense of staying within the expected and known variables we already know, does nothing to change the fact that all else must be eliminated before actual truth can be established. Relying on the known to identify the unknown is a very poor way of establishing truth, and it always has been.

The question remains:

How could every single reported case, without exception, of paranormal encounter with unknown beings, be a hoax? I ask you, is this even possible?


let me see if i understand you.

a million(or two billion?) people make the same claim. we need to verify or invalidate each claim individually to verify or invalidate the claim in general to the best of our ability. if we do verify the claim in one instance, this then verifies the claim in general.

since every single case can't be a hoax, then one of the claims must be true, therefore the claims in general are true.

is that what you are suggesting?

[-SpectraL]

let me see if i understand you.

a million(or two billion?) people make the same claim. we need to verify or invalidate each claim individually to verify or invalidate the claim in general to the best of our ability. if we do verify the claim in one instance, this then verifies the claim in general.

since every single case can't be a hoax, then one of the claims must be true, therefore the claims in general are true.

is that what you are suggesting?

The point is not whether we need to verify each case. The point is that the odds of each and every case, without fail, being either a delusion or a fraud would be astronomical, considering they would all need to concertedly work together in one way or another to pull off the caper.

If every single person down through the ages who claimed they had seen a ghost had either been deluded by one means or another, or was lying about it, that would mean we wouldn't have a single person telling the truth about it, out of the two billion cases reported. That seems kind of far-fetched to dismiss two billion cases in their entirety as complete fabrication. I could see a great portion of them being goose-chases, but every single one without fail?! Let's use reason folks! Let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water just yet!

Even a dumb man once said, "He whoth hath understanding can come to grasp any concept, and any thing of reality!" But this wooden man has forgotten there are those without understanding, such as the caveman I mentioned previously, who cannot grasp the truth of it, because he has no desire for understanding. But he would like to invite you over for supper; that... can be counted upon.

[AngryFemme]

Even if we submit to the "two billion people just can't be wrong" scenario, will this still stand:

In this thread, I will do my utmost to present evidence that both visible and invisible beings/creatures outside of our current understanding do in fact exist, based on my huge store of experience on this subject, eye-witness accounts, material evidence, indicative anomalies, text as debate and video-graphic evidence.

??

Although I still don't see how you can't fathom 2 billion people being mistaken about something that can be so easily misinterpreted. Think of it like this: There have been billions of Muslims who think billions of Christians are wrong. There have been billions of Christians who think billions of Muslims are wrong. Pepper in the other top 10 religions into the mix, and you have billions of people believing in their hearts that billions of other people are wrong. Everyone can't be right. Could billions of people, in unison, be mistaken?

I believe they can.

But this wooden man has forgotten there are those without understanding, such as the caveman I mentioned previously, who cannot grasp the truth of it, because he has no desire for understanding.

If a desire for understanding is all it takes to be enlightened to the paranormal - then I'm about due for some enlightenment. However -

If the ability to swallow what is told to me without question, without investigation, without personal experience or a great deal of presented evidence - then it will continue to elude me.

And I'm okay with that.

[kenwih]

The point is not whether we need to verify each case. The point is that the odds of each and every case, without fail, being either a delusion or a fraud would be astronomical, considering they would all need to concertedly work together in one way or another to pull off the caper.

If every single person down through the ages who claimed they had seen a ghost had either been deluded by one means or another, or was lying about it, that would mean we wouldn't have a single person telling the truth about it, out of the two billion cases reported. That seems kind of far-fetched to dismiss two billion cases in their entirety as complete fabrication. I could see a great portion of them being goose-chases, but every single one without fail?! Let's use reason folks! Let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water just yet!

Even a dumb man once said, "He whoth hath understanding can come to grasp any concept, and any thing of reality!" But this wooden man has forgotten there are those without understanding, such as the caveman I mentioned previously, who cannot grasp the truth of it, because he has no desire for understanding. But he would like to invite you over for supper; that... can be counted upon.

so you are saying that because there are so many paranormal claims, some of the claims must be true?

[-SpectraL]

so you are saying that because there are so many paranormal claims, some of the claims must be true?

I'm not saying they must be true. I'm saying that the odds of every one of them being completely false is incredibly high. In order to justify that incredible supposition, of course, we would have to thoroughly investigate each claim, ruling them out one by one. That would be an impossibility, therefore we have to keep an open mind, even if our more basic knee-jerk reaction is to call bull-shit. And the sheer number of these claims is good reason to keep an open mind.

[kenwih]

I'm not saying they must be true. I'm saying that the odds of every one of them being completely false is incredibly high. In order to justify that incredible supposition, of course, we would have to thoroughly investigate each claim, ruling them out one by one. That would be an impossibility, therefore we have to keep an open mind, even if our more basic knee-jerk reaction is to call bull-shit. And the sheer number of these claims is good reason to keep an open mind.

so some of the claims may be true, and we should investigate as many as we can?

[Bukujutsu]

Here are are some digital pictures I took a few years ago of some "entities." They're not very good, but it might add something to this thread.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/bukujutsu/ghost.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/bukujutsu/g_0005.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/bukujutsu/ghost2_0001.jpg

[-SpectraL]

Even if we submit to the "two billion people just can't be wrong" scenario, will this still stand:



??

Although I still don't see how you can't fathom 2 billion people being mistaken about something that can be so easily misinterpreted. Think of it like this: There have been billions of Muslims who think billions of Christians are wrong. There have been billions of Christians who think billions of Muslims are wrong. Pepper in the other top 10 religions into the mix, and you have billions of people believing in their hearts that billions of other people are wrong. Everyone can't be right. Could billions of people, in unison, be mistaken?

I believe they can.

That's right. Two billion people could be wrong; I never said they couldn't be.

What I said was that when two billion people believe something, we don't just dismiss it as easily as if only one person stated their belief. Most people today don't have a problem with sinking into ignorance when even when faced with billions of testimonies, that is my point. We can't say which one is wrong and which one is right until we have verified every case, until then, any one of them could be right. But the question is: Why do 2 billion Muslims all think that Christians are wrong? Why do two billion people think ghosts are real?



If a desire for understanding is all it takes to be enlightened to the paranormal - then I'm about due for some enlightenment. However -

If the ability to swallow what is told to me without question, without investigation, without personal experience or a great deal of presented evidence - then it will continue to elude me.



And I'm okay with that.
I'm getting to the evidence part. Right now I just wanted to discuss. But my question remains unanswered still though. Can every single reported case of paranormal encounter, without exception, be either delusion or fraud? I'll give you a hint... it's a yes, no or I don't know answer.

[AngryFemme]

Most people today don't have a problem with sinking into ignorance when even when faced with billions of testimonies, that is my point. We can't say which one is wrong and which one is right until we have verified every case, until then, any one of them could be right.

Clearly, 2 billion cases of testimonies cannot be verified. And it is just as fair to say that until we've verified every case, they could all be wrong. It gets extremely circular from thereon out, so let's put that dead horse aside and stop kicking the poor creature.

But the question is: Why do 2 billion Muslims all think that Christians are wrong? Why do two billion people think ghosts are real?

Deep seated beliefs based on suggestion, culture and a "I want to believe" mentality on both counts.

I'm getting to the evidence part.

k, I'll be more patient :D

But my question remains unanswered still though. Can every single reported case of paranormal encounter, without exception, be either delusion or fraud? I'll give you a hint... it's a yes, no or I don't know answer.

Answering "Yes" would imply that every single case has been thoroughly examined. They haven't all been examined.

Answering "No" would imply that every single case has been thoroughly examined. They haven't all been examined.

Answering "I don't know" would imply that ... we just don't know, because every single case hasn't been examined.


I C what u Did ThAR! *takes the bait*

[-SpectraL]

Clearly, 2 billion cases of testimonies cannot be verified. And it is just as fair to say that until we've verified every case, they could all be wrong. It gets extremely circular from thereon out, so let's put that dead horse aside and stop kicking the poor creature.



Deep seated beliefs based on suggestion, culture and a "I want to believe" mentality on both counts.



k, I'll be more patient :D



Answering "Yes" would imply that every single case has been thoroughly examined. They haven't all been examined.

Answering "No" would imply that every single case has been thoroughly examined. They haven't all been examined.

Answering "I don't know" would imply that ... we just don't know, because every single case hasn't been examined.


I C what u Did ThAR! *takes the bait*

Therefore, do we not find it strange that many persons are quite satisfied, and feel well within their God-given rights, to deny every single claim in stating for a fact that personable spirits do not exist? Would that not be putting the horse before the cart? Well, of course it would. This is because we are only imperfect flesh and blood, slow to understanding, and quick to ridicule.


So I guess we've established that we really don't know one way or the other if spooks actually exist or not, due to the inability to verify every claim. Would that be a fair statement?


... "kicking the poor creature"... heheh :) classic

[AngryFemme]

Therefore, do we not find it strange that many persons are quite satisfied, and feel well within their God-given rights, to deny every single claim in stating for a fact that personable spirits do not exist? Would that not be putting the horse before the cart? Well, of course it would. This is because we are only imperfect flesh and blood, slow to understanding, and quick to ridicule.

I fear that you associate any form of disbelief as ridicule. And that's a shame, -SpectraL. A bloody shame. I can see how a complex might form from constantly being jeered at in an arena like this, but really and truly - being skeptical isn't something you acclimate yourself towards - it's just a reasoning method your mind mandates, and although some are quicker to swallow stories than others, for the most part (and I speak only for myself here), there is a real need to want to be able to sympathize with those who have a higher threshold for believing in what seems, on the surface, to be unbelievable.


So I guess we've established that we really don't know one way or the other if spooks actually exist or not, due to the inability to verify every claim. Would that be a fair statement?

Yes, and no. I lean heavy on the no, because I could easily say: Purple People-Eaters might exist, and until I've had the opportunity to verify every single person's account of Purple People-Eaters from the beginning of time until now, then it's safe to just assume they exist just in the off chance that ONE of them may have conclusive evidence of them existing.

Since the occasion to actually even think about spooks is rare, the testimonies are scattered, the actual threat to my existence is slim to none (or so I think) - then it just seems like it would be a waste of energy to take every single claim with less than a grain of salt. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am fully prepared to change my entire position if events unfolded that gave me a viable reason to believe.

[-SpectraL]

I fear that you associate any form of disbelief as ridicule. And that's a shame, -SpectraL. A bloody shame. I can see how a complex might form from constantly being jeered at in an arena like this, but really and truly - being skeptical isn't something you acclimate yourself towards - it's just a reasoning method your mind mandates, and although some are quicker to swallow stories than others, for the most part (and I speak only for myself here), there is a real need to want to be able to sympathize with those who have a higher threshold for believing in what seems, on the surface, to be unbelievable.

Let's see now - I pose the question of whether it is sensible for other people to scoff at the supernatural, after my having explained exactly why I think that's not sensible, and you are now happily discussing my reactions to the subject of my question, rather than what I asked. Of course, you can say anything you want and always could, but why are you suddenly being circular on this, I ask myself. If I didn't know better, I'd say you just pulled a Fred Astaire on me.




Yes, and no. I lean heavy on the no, because I could easily say: Purple People-Eaters might exist, and until I've had the opportunity to verify every single person's account of Purple People-Eaters from the beginning of time until now, then it's safe to just assume they exist just in the off chance that ONE of them may have conclusive evidence of them existing.

The only flaw in this logic that I can see is that, as I explained before, 2 billion people are not claiming PPEs exist, they are claiming paranormal entities exist, and that is what we are talking about here. If two billion people were claiming Purple People Eaters exist, I would not be so knee-jerk as to dismiss the possibility.

[AngryFemme]

My apologies if that came off as being circular. I was merely trying to defend the "ignorant" skeptic attitude that you seem to be so put out with. You seem incredulous that people can't readily believe in the paranormal. I was just responding to your incredulity, no dancing about. To hell with Ginger Rogers and her boy Fred! I have two left feet.

[kenwih]

I'm not saying they must be true. I'm saying that the odds of every one of them being completely false is incredibly high. In order to justify that incredible supposition, of course, we would have to thoroughly investigate each claim, ruling them out one by one. That would be an impossibility, therefore we have to keep an open mind, even if our more basic knee-jerk reaction is to call bull-shit. And the sheer number of these claims is good reason to keep an open mind.

so some of the claims may be true, and we should investigate as many as we can.

is this what you are saying?

[Iehovah]

Therefore, do we not find it strange that many persons are quite satisfied, and feel well within their God-given rights, to deny every single claim in stating for a fact that personable spirits do not exist? Would that not be putting the horse before the cart? Well, of course it would. This is because we are only imperfect flesh and blood, slow to understanding, and quick to ridicule.


So I guess we've established that we really don't know one way or the other if spooks actually exist or not, due to the inability to verify every claim. Would that be a fair statement?

The answer to your question is yes, that's a fair statement. However, I'll point out that you seem to have a serious problem with assuming that skepticism and open-mindedness are mutually exclusive. They are not. Skepticism doesn't mean denying everything out of hand.

[-SpectraL]

My apologies if that came off as being circular. I was merely trying to defend the "ignorant" skeptic attitude that you seem to be so put out with. You seem incredulous that people can't readily believe in the paranormal. I was just responding to your incredulity, no dancing about. To hell with Ginger Rogers and her boy Fred! I have two left feet.

Yes. I meant to say Ginger. (Good weed does that, I'm sorry to say). Let me rephrase. That was indeed one hell-of-a Ginger Rogers you pulled there, when I asked you how every single reported case of paranormal encounter could be a fraud, and you started talking about my always flaming the parrots instead.

I seem incredulous because it's really incredible - that so many people could be so totally sure about a subject which stands not completely investigated. I always marvel at the blind, blissful and unhindered ignorance every time I encounter it; no matter how many times I see it, I feel the need to explain yet again why that is, in no uncertain terms, obviously.



You want to see something really scary? No, no. I mean, do you want to see something really scary!?

[AngryFemme]

You want to see something really scary? No, no. I mean, do you want to see something really scary!?

Yes. No, no - I mean ... hell YES.

Terrify me, if you can.

[truckfixr]

...You want to see something really scary? No, no. I mean, do you want to see something really scary!?


Wasn't that line stolen from the character played by Dan Ackroyd, in "Twilight Zone-The movie"?

And the answer to your question, Spec, is yes. It is entirely possible that 2 billion people could be wrong about what they experienced (or believe that they have experienced). As has been stated, their assertions need not be the end product of hoax or fraud. The majority are most likely due to suggestion and being raised to believe that such paranormal beings exist.

[whocares123]

Yes, billions. If we take the population of this century, which is about 6,605,476,637, and take 0.05 % of these people (representing the part of the population reporting paranormal encounter) we get 3,302,738 people a century reporting paranormal encounters. If we take that group and multiply it by the number of centuries the reports have been coming in, approximately 600 generations, we get two billion people reporting paranormal encounters, and 0.05% is a conservative estimate.

Maybe I've got my math wrong. Can somebody double-check me?

First off, this has to be the biggest ass-pulled statistic I've seen in a while. I don't even know how you got any of those numbers, beyond the earth's current population of roughly 6 billion.

There have not always been 6 billion people living on the earth. The population has grown over time. Imagine that.

Please see this page for a simple explanation, with some numbers that I assume are rough estimates, as how do you get an accurate world census in 8000 BC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population

So your 2 billion number is probably a lot less for that reason, but also because of the vague nature of the claim that 0.05% of the population have experienced ghosts. What does it mean to have a paranormal experience? I'm sure there are a lot more people who have, say, left a room and closed the door, walked away, and then came back to find the door open. There are many explanations for why the door is open (the wind blew it open, it was never shut properly, the person is mistaken and didn't close it, the latch is broken, a ghost did it, etc) and all of those have to be considered. The odds that a ghost is responsible in a specific case, if i may use your unsupported math, is just about as likely that all 2 billion paranormal claims are either hoaxes or incidents of people being mistaken.

Now on the other hand, there are probably far far less people who have say, seen a ghostly apparation in person, and even far far less that have seen one multiple times. We know all this from what we hear from people. I'm sure everyone here either has their own stories, or has friends who have told stories about doors being opened, but how many, besides you -SpectraL, can say they've witnessed a ghost firsthand? Not many, I'd bet, and sure as hell not 1 in 200.

[-SpectraL]

so some of the claims may be true, and we should investigate as many as we can.

is this what you are saying?

That is exactly what I'm saying. We need to keep a completely open mind until we have examined enough cases close enough to make, at least, a personal educated opinion.

When persons open their yaps pretending to be the huge professional about the supernatural, but have not yet even bothered to investigate anything about the subject, that'll pull my chain every time.

Quoted by: Iehovah (http://www.totse.com/community/member.php?u=158711)

The answer to your question is yes, that's a fair statement. However, I'll point out that you seem to have a serious problem with assuming that skepticism and open-mindedness are mutually exclusive. They are not. Skepticism doesn't mean denying everything out of hand.

"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924

You are a skeptic of the second kind. Need I say more? I don't think so. Trying doing the actual work first, then it's time to scoff.

Have you tracked down an incredibly active house, and then slept in it for three nights to verify the claim? Have you tracked down a purportedly demon-possessed individual, and drawn them into a heated discussion using a manipulative manner, plying for interesting observations? Have you read and studied almost every scrap of material on the subject, including almost the entire relevant scope of ancient manuscripts? Until you do, you don't qualify for the position of skeptic, but are simply a skeptic of another kind. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Quoted by: AngryFemme (http://www.totse.com/community/member.php?u=160296)

Yes. No, no - I mean ... hell YES.

Terrify me, if you can.

Ok. I will. But these semi-professional scoffers have slowed me down somewhat, and I have to blast off to work in 5 minutes, but I will be back tonight to scare you.

Quoted by truckfixr (http://www.totse.com/community/member.php?u=203929):


Wasn't that line stolen from the character played by Dan Ackroyd, in "Twilight Zone-The movie"?

And the answer to your question, Spec, is yes. It is entirely possible that 2 billion people could be wrong about what they experienced (or believe that they have experienced). As has been stated, their assertions need not be the end product of hoax or fraud. The majority are most likely due to suggestion and being raised to believe that such paranormal beings exist.

You just gave away your age.

It wasn't stolen. I worded it in just such a way that anybody who saw that movie would know where it came from, like you did. I figured the rest of the people wouldn't recognize it anyways, and could go get some life experience instead.

"The majority are most likely due to..."

'nuff said?

But actually, the falsity of the paranormal is not even likely, since on the one hand, we have millions of reports from different people, along with a whole truck-load of semi-circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, we have a bunch of second-rate skeptics "good word" that it's all just poppy-cock. Hmmm... let me see now... which one should I believe.... hmmmm.... a tough, tough decision.

_______

I will reply to Whocares deceivingly empty ramblings when I get home.

[whocares123]

I will reply to Whocares deceivingly empty ramblings when I get home.

I'm sorry, I believe you specifically requested for someone to check your "math." So that's what I did.

[truckfixr]

..."The majority are most likely due to..."

'nuff said?

The majority are most likely due to suggestion, as opposed to being hoaxes. This in no way lends creedence to any claims of the supernatural.


But actually, the falsity of the paranormal is not even likely, since on the one hand, we have millions of reports from different people, along with a whole truck-load of semi-circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, we have a bunch of second-rate skeptics "good word" that it's all just poppy-cock. Hmmm... let me see now... which one should I believe.... hmmmm.... a tough, tough decision.

Reports, regardless of the number, are not evidence. Semi-circumstantial evidence is just as it says...semi- circumstantial.

With the millions of reports that you speak of, there should be mountains of verifiable evidence proving the supernatural entities . The lack of such evidence, although not definite proof of non-existance of such entities, strongly suggests that the reports are due to causes not supernatural in origin. It's ludicrous to believe that with the sheer numbers of sightings reported, if in fact the reports were valid, that none would have been verified.

[kenwih]

That is exactly what I'm saying. We need to keep a completely open mind until we have examined enough cases close enough to make, at least, a personal educated opinion.

When persons open their yaps pretending to be the huge professional about the supernatural, but have not yet even bothered to investigate anything about the subject, that'll pull my chain every time....

ok. so what evidence can we examine with open minds concerning the supernatural?

[Iehovah]

"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924

While I appreciate your ability to pull random quotes out of the air that you think prove your point, the fact is that both you and this Miguel fellow are wrong. A quick trip to dictionary.com will show you:

skeptic:
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

Not one of the definitions provided supports your claim. In fact, the quote in question (taken entirely out of context) would lead me to suspect that Miguel, much like yourself, is an arrogant tool who thinks the world must define itself according to their personal beliefs.

You are a skeptic of the second kind. Need I say more? I don't think so. Trying doing the actual work first, then it's time to scoff.

I presume by "second kind", you're assuming that I dismiss all paranormal reports out of hand. I do not. While I accept the possibility that they are true, I do NOT accept them as fact. That is skepticism, per definition of the word. I know that doesn't fit your little "I'm better than you, cuz I seek the truths" world-view.

That's ultimately what you're talking about - a truthseeker, not a skeptic. Two different types of people, though not always mutually exclusive.

Have you tracked down an incredibly active house, and then slept in it for three nights to verify the claim? Have you tracked down a purportedly demon-possessed individual, and drawn them into a heated discussion using a manipulative manner, plying for interesting observations? Have you read and studied almost every scrap of material on the subject, including almost the entire relevant scope of ancient manuscripts?

You know, I would actually LOVE to do something like that. Unfortunately, I live in Alaska, and apparently Alaska has (as far as I've found) only one reported local instance of the paranormal. One that wouldn't be considered incredibly active. A hotel downtown called "The Alaska Hotel" which apparently has some ghostly activity near in the vicinity of some rooms where somebody died. While I might be willing to consider blowing a hundred bucks to spend the night in a place where I've got a reported reasonably good chance of encountering something paranomal, I'm sure as hell not gonna do it for some bumps and creaks. I've got better, more productive ways to spend my life and/or money.

... like posting on Totse, yeah, I know.

As for the rest, particularly reading every relevant scrap of material, I don't believe you've really done that. I would hope you're not ridiculous enough to pretend to.

Until you do, you don't qualify for the position of skeptic, but are simply a skeptic of another kind. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

See point above. You're wrong.

[AngryFemme]

I will be back tonight to scare you.

I have those nervous schoolgirl jitters and the hardcore heebie-jeebies already. This is gonna rock.

[-SpectraL]

Once, I was about 200 km into the heavy forest of the Gatineau mountains in Quebec. A light-weight canoe that I could carry, my supply bag, my tent, and three weeks to explore mostly unexplored territory all by myself, and lakes that no-one had even set foot on before. The days are full of exiting sights, and the nights are quiet, and I am so deep into the woods that there is not a living soul for at least a 100 km in any direction. Remote places like these can be extremely lonely places even in the daylight, but after midnight, when you're all alone, the atmosphere is filled with the unknown, and there is always the sense of the possibility of some kind of outsider getting in. Maybe it was that ever present sense of vulnerability that brought the creature to me.

I saw "it" for the first time when I heard a noise outside the tent, like a low mewling sound. I thought it was an animal or something, so I ignored it at first, and kept falling back to sleep. But all of a sudden I was startled awake by a hard thud on the side of the tent. That really threw a scare into me, and I didn't know what the hell it could be - possibly a branch fell on the tent, or an animal ran into the side, but the bang on the tent was solid, like a hand hitting it, and it freaked the shit out of me. I grabbed my hunting knife from my bag and tentatively stuck my head out the flap in the front and looked around the side of the tent. Nothing. But the forest was very still, too still, and it was almost pitch black outside, except for the small battery-powered light coming from inside the tent, and a bit of moonlight washing over the trees' leaves. I froze at the mouth of the tent, on my knees, looking around toward the side and back of the tent, listening intently for any movement, but the mewling has stopped and it seemed I was alone. I was just about to go back in the tent when a branch broke on the other side of the tent, the side I wasn't looking toward. Just as I moved to look in that direction, a small animal shot out in front and across of me and bolted into the bush so fast I couldn't even see what it was; it could have been a rabbit or a fox. That also scared the shit out of me, and I actually sprung back inside the tent. When I peered out again about a minute later, the area was completely quiet, and there was no sign of whatever it was that ran by.

I stuck my head out again and looked over in the direction that the small animal had come from, on the left side of the tent, and that was when I first saw it.

It was standing between two trees and partly behind one of them, a black shape, jet black against the night behind it, in the basic form of a human but larger, at least 8-10 feet tall. My whole body became paralyzed as I stared at it, and as I stared at it in complete shock and horror, it started to move. It walked but floated at the same time, a black mass with head, body and legs, and it kind of glided/walked in behind my tent, in behind some other trees that were there, so that I couldn't see it anymore. As soon as it moved out of sight, the paralysis released, and I quickly withdrew into the tent.

I started thinking, could this be a person? No! Too big to be a person, and I knew there was very little chance somebody could be that far out in the bush, walking around at 3am. Now I'm scared shitless, so I huddle up in the centre of the tent with my knife and listen carefully for a very long time. No sound at all for hours, which is unusual. Usually there are sounds of the animals rustling in the woods, and dead-wood falling, or just the hollow sound of the wind running through the trees, but that night I saw the creature beside the tent and between the trees there was nothing - almost complete silence - which was very unnatural for that area. Thoughts ran through my head, about what my father told me, about Indian burial grounds in that area, and deserted Indian reserves. After awhile, I heard nothing more, so I laid down and went back to sleep, with my knife tucked against my chest.

The next morning, I woke about 7am and stuck my head outside the tent to have a look. Fog covered the ground, and it was chilly, and my breath plumed out in front of me. No sign of any creature. I packed my stuff up and tied it into the canoe, then hoisted it over my head and began to make my way north to Round Lake, cutting across the island I was camped on that night, headed for the north shore of the island. As I made my way toward the shore through the brush, and as I got close the the water, I heard the same mewling sound I heard the night before, and it was damned close behind me, although with the canoe over my head and holding it there I couldn't get a look at it right away. But I was so shocked by the sound I practically threw the whole load down to one side, and looked back. About 100 yards back through the bush, I could see a large black figure walking/drifting between the trees - in the shape of a human but very tall and wide, making progress toward me at an angle right to left. It was completely black from head to toe, no features at all except for its shape, and it floated just above the grass as its legs moved one in front of the other. It appeared to be looking right at me as it walked/floated.

I grabbed the canoe with both hands and dragged it like a madman to the edge of the lake and jumped in, pushing off a rock to glide farther out. As I scrambled to get the oar out of my pack, I kept my eyes peeled on the shoreline, and sure enough it floated/drifted/walked right down to the shoreline where I had hastily launched the canoe, and stood there looking out on the lake at me. I thought it might be able to come out on the water, so I paddled with all my might farther away from the island, looking back behind my shoulder to see it still standing there on the shoreline staring at me.

When I was a good three-quarters of a mile away from the shore, and out in the middle of the lake, I stopped paddling and started shaking uncontrollably, looking over fearfully at the island which had now become a small mound on the horizon. A sure feeling came over me then - that I had narrowly escaped a horrible creature which lives there on that island.

Now, whenever I am portaging that country, I always steer very clear of that area, and I still have nightmares to this day due to that encounter.

[AngryFemme]

I never, ever EVER go on overnight float trips without taking a camera with me... for this very reason!

That was a killer story, -SpectraL. Didn't really rattle me while sitting in the comfort of my lighted and climate-controlled home reading it - but I'll think about your monster next time I'm camping outdoors. Might even print it off and read it while I'm there. After I've smoked one. When it's dark. And no one's around. And the only way outta the campsite besides running through the dense, dark woods is by canoe.

Oh the chills, thrills and excitement. Frightening one's self is a blast!

[-SpectraL]

I never, ever EVER go on overnight float trips without taking a camera with me... for this very reason!




In the late 70's, people didn't have handy mini-cameras stuck in their shirt pockets. They were bulky things, that mostly needed setup before shooting, and most families were so low-wage that not everybody could even afford a camera, like me.

Even if I had a camera that night, I probably wouldn't have even thought to use it anyways.

[AngryFemme]

In the late '70's, I would have bought your story hook, line and sinker. Those were my most impressionable years.

[whocares123]

Once, I was about 200 km into the heavy forest of the Gatineau mountains in Quebec. A light-weight canoe that I could carry, my supply bag, my tent, and three weeks to explore mostly unexplored territory all by myself, and lakes that no-one had even set foot on before. The days are full of exiting sights, and the nights are quiet, and I am so deep into the woods that there is not a living soul for at least a 100 km in any direction. Remote places like these can be extremely lonely places even in the daylight, but after midnight, when you're all alone, the atmosphere is filled with the unknown, and there is always the sense of the possibility of some kind of outsider getting in. Maybe it was that ever present sense of vulnerability that brought the creature to me.

I saw "it" for the first time when I heard a noise outside the tent, like a low mewling sound. I thought it was an animal or something, so I ignored it at first, and kept falling back to sleep. But all of a sudden I was startled awake by a hard thud on the side of the tent. That really threw a scare into me, and I didn't know what the hell it could be - possibly a branch fell on the tent, or an animal ran into the side, but the bang on the tent was solid, like a hand hitting it, and it freaked the shit out of me. I grabbed my hunting knife from my bag and tentatively stuck my head out the flap in the front and looked around the side of the tent. Nothing. But the forest was very still, too still, and it was almost pitch black outside, except for the small battery-powered light coming from inside the tent, and a bit of moonlight washing over the trees' leaves. I froze at the mouth of the tent, on my knees, looking around toward the side and back of the tent, listening intently for any movement, but the mewling has stopped and it seemed I was alone. I was just about to go back in the tent when a branch broke on the other side of the tent, the side I wasn't looking toward. Just as I moved to look in that direction, a small animal shot out in front and across of me and bolted into the bush so fast I couldn't even see what it was; it could have been a rabbit or a fox. That also scared the shit out of me, and I actually sprung back inside the tent. When I peered out again about a minute later, the area was completely quiet, and there was no sign of whatever it was that ran by.

I stuck my head out again and looked over in the direction that the small animal had come from, on the left side of the tent, and that was when I first saw it.

It was standing between two trees and partly behind one of them, a black shape, jet black against the night behind it, in the basic form of a human but larger, at least 8-10 feet tall. My whole body became paralyzed as I stared at it, and as I stared at it in complete shock and horror, it started to move. It walked but floated at the same time, a black mass with head, body and legs, and it kind of glided/walked in behind my tent, in behind some other trees that were there, so that I couldn't see it anymore. As soon as it moved out of sight, the paralysis released, and I quickly withdrew into the tent.

I started thinking, could this be a person? No! Too big to be a person, and I knew there was very little chance somebody could be that far out in the bush, walking around at 3am. Now I'm scared shitless, so I huddle up in the centre of the tent with my knife and listen carefully for a very long time. No sound at all for hours, which is unusual. Usually there are sounds of the animals rustling in the woods, and dead-wood falling, or just the hollow sound of the wind running through the trees, but that night I saw the creature beside the tent and between the trees there was nothing - almost complete silence - which was very unnatural for that area. Thoughts ran through my head, about what my father told me, about Indian burial grounds in that area, and deserted Indian reserves. After awhile, I heard nothing more, so I laid down and went back to sleep, with my knife tucked against my chest.

The next morning, I woke about 7am and stuck my head outside the tent to have a look. Fog covered the ground, and it was chilly, and my breath plumed out in front of me. No sign of any creature. I packed my stuff up and tied it into the canoe, then hoisted it over my head and began to make my way north to Round Lake, cutting across the island I was camped on that night, headed for the north shore of the island. As I made my way toward the shore through the brush, and as I got close the the water, I heard the same mewling sound I heard the night before, and it was damned close behind me, although with the canoe over my head and holding it there I couldn't get a look at it right away. But I was so shocked by the sound I practically threw the whole load down to one side, and looked back. About 100 yards back through the bush, I could see a large black figure walking/drifting between the trees - in the shape of a human but very tall and wide, making progress toward me at an angle right to left. It was completely black from head to toe, no features at all except for its shape, and it floated just above the grass as its legs moved one in front of the other. It appeared to be looking right at me as it walked/floated.

I grabbed the canoe with both hands and dragged it like a madman to the edge of the lake and jumped in, pushing off a rock to glide farther out. As I scrambled to get the oar out of my pack, I kept my eyes peeled on the shoreline, and sure enough it floated/drifted/walked right down to the shoreline where I had hastily launched the canoe, and stood there looking out on the lake at me. I thought it might be able to come out on the water, so I paddled with all my might farther away from the island, looking back behind my shoulder to see it still standing there on the shoreline staring at me.

When I was a good three-quarters of a mile away from the shore, and out in the middle of the lake, I stopped paddling and started shaking uncontrollably, looking over fearfully at the island which had now become a small mound on the horizon. A sure feeling came over me then - that I had narrowly escaped a horrible creature which lives there on that island.

Now, whenever I am portaging that country, I always steer very clear of that area, and I still have nightmares to this day due to that encounter.

That's a real lovely story. If you expanded upon it a little, made it a little longer you know, I'm sure the people over at Eat Your Words would enjoy it.

Interesting that this is the first time you've ever mentioned such a story on here. I mean, an experience like that seems like it would call for a whole thread and big discussion itself. There'd probably be people on totse living in Quebec that would want to investigate and try to find that spot. The fact that you can remember the experience so well, and are able to include so many details even though it happened nearly 30 years ago is quite remarkable. My memory is good, but not that good. If that had happened to me, my story would've sounded something like: "Almost 30 years ago, I was camping and canoeing in a very remote area of Quebec, when I found a small island in a lake and spent a night there. I heard some noises in the middle of the night, thinking it was some kind of animal at first, until whatever was out there started making strange, unfamiliar sounds. When I looked out of my tent, I saw a human shaped black figure, about 8 feet tall. When I woke up in the morning, I saw it again as I was leaving. Needless to say, I got the hell out of there in a hurry and haven't gone back since."

Not a good writing style at all, but it conveys the idea, you know.

Originally posted by -SpectraL:
I will reply to Whocares deceivingly empty ramblings when I get home.

You haven't yet. Now who's the deceiver?

[-SpectraL]

In the late '70's, I would have bought your story hook, line and sinker. Those were my most impressionable years.

Sorry to hear I'm a liar. Maybe I'll add fabrication to the story, to make it more believable, but I was kind of hoping the truth would suffice.

[whocares123]

In the late 70's, people didn't have handy mini-cameras stuck in their shirt pockets. They were bulky things, that mostly needed setup before shooting, and most families were so low-wage that not everybody could even afford a camera, like me.

Even if I had a camera that night, I probably wouldn't have even thought to use it anyways.

Late 70's huh? How old were you when this happened? 15? 16? Kinda young to be out so far, completely alone.

[-SpectraL]

That's a real lovely story. If you expanded upon it a little, made it a little longer you know, I'm sure the people over at Eat Your Words would enjoy it.

Interesting that this is the first time you've ever mentioned such a story on here. I mean, an experience like that seems like it would call for a whole thread and big discussion itself. There'd probably be people on totse living in Quebec that would want to investigate and try to find that spot. The fact that you can remember the experience so well, and are able to include so many details even though it happened nearly 30 years ago is quite remarkable. My memory is good, but not that good. If that had happened to me, my story would've sounded something like: "Almost 30 years ago, I was camping and canoeing in a very remote area of Quebec, when I found a small island in a lake and spent a night there. I heard some noises in the middle of the night, thinking it was some kind of animal at first, until whatever was out there started making strange, unfamiliar sounds. When I looked out of my tent, I saw a human shaped black figure, about 8 feet tall. When I woke up in the morning, I saw it again as I was leaving. Needless to say, I got the hell out of there in a hurry and haven't gone back since."

Not a good writing style at all, but it conveys the idea, you know.



You haven't yet. Now who's the deceiver?

I can remember quite clearly back as far as I was three years old. For example, I described for my Mom forty years later how I remembered in detail how my drunk father, in our kitchen, which had only 4 wooden chairs and a large square table right in the centre of it, threw a beer bottle at her head while they and me were sitting down at that table, and the fact that he threw the bottle and it stuck in the wall just right of her head, bottom first, and how I jumped down off my chair, and grabbed and pulled his leg to make him stop, and he did. She told me that I was absolutely right.

Therefore, remembering something twenty five years ago is even easier, especially since I've spent over 15 years covering, then mapping out in my head those hundreds of lakes out there, all by myself, exploring territory that no-one has even set foot on before.


Remote places like this can be very scary places, especially when you are alone, and each impression is imprinted in your mind, due to the thrill of the exploration and environment. It is not hard at all to call up the more, shall we say, challenging moments.

[kenwih]

ok. so what evidence can we examine with open minds concerning the supernatural?

are anecdotes acceptable as evidence?

[-SpectraL]

are anecdotes acceptable as evidence?


I know you! heh

If I may be so bold, please let me answer your question with a question: What evidence would be acceptable? Video, sound, text discussion, testimony? Let me know and I've got an arsenal of all kinds.

[-SpectraL]

Wasn't that line stolen from the character played by Dan Ackroyd, in "Twilight Zone-The movie"?

And the answer to your question, Spec, is yes. It is entirely possible that 2 billion people could be wrong about what they experienced (or believe that they have experienced). As has been stated, their assertions need not be the end product of hoax or fraud. The majority are most likely due to suggestion and being raised to believe that such paranormal beings exist.

It's not even really a matter of how many, as in two billion people must be lying or deluded. Two billion frauds out out how many? Are we saying that there are two billion frauds out of two billion cases, or just two billion frauds? Two billion frauds I can believe. The problem for me lies in believing that every single one of these two billion reports is not indicative of an encounter with the paranormal. That would be two billion out of two billion, and not even a single one true. I find that very hard to believe.

[AngryFemme]

Sorry to hear I'm a liar. Maybe I'll add fabrication to the story, to make it more believable, but I was kind of hoping the truth would suffice.

I wasn't calling you a liar and probably could have worded that a little differently. Lemme start over:

I would be a lot more horrified back then than I am right now, at present.

Better?

[-SpectraL]

That's a real lovely story. If you expanded upon it a little, made it a little longer you know, I'm sure the people over at Eat Your Words would enjoy it.

It's not a lovely story at all. It's a true story of pure horror. The length is fine; maybe you have a short attention span, or are simply impatient. Since the content deals with SOTD more than EYW, I think I'll leave it here.

Man, that's three strikes for you!]

... John! How much are we payin' this guy again!?



Interesting that this is the first time you've ever mentioned such a story on here. I mean, an experience like that seems like it would call for a whole thread and big discussion itself. There'd probably be people on totse living in Quebec that would want to investigate and try to find that spot.

Thing is, this territory is absolute wilderness, except for a few abandoned hunting cabins, and there are hundreds of lakes and rivers here that aren't even on the maps. This one is known as Round Lake, named by the Indians there (although there is another lake by the same name near Gatineau Park) who have reservations in this area (they even have wolves for pets). If I had to get you to the island I'd have to bring you there, or draw a detailed map for you from memory. Here's the lake and surrounding area:

http://www.box.net/shared/9nrtre6drl

[kenwih]

I know you! heh

If I may be so bold, please let me answer your question with a question: What evidence would be acceptable? Video, sound, text discussion, testimony? Let me know and I've got an arsenal of all kinds.

any kind of evidence that can be tested is acceptable.

[-SpectraL]

any kind of evidence that can be tested is acceptable.


Sorry. Any kind of test would immediately be conducted under the wrong understanding, using the wrong approach, using the wrong setting, and any interpretation of the resulting data/experience would be personal interpretation at best - practically useless.

Personally, I think video-graphic footage, especially using special gear like infra-red, taken at the sites of known hot sites, is the best available evidence we have so far. Of course, we would still have the unavoidable and long procession of parrots, putting each and every piece of footage down no matter how valid or genuine or revealing it is.

There is no evidence that would convince the majority of the truth of the paranormal, except personal experience; that is all a closed mind can absorb, and even then these people will still lie to themselves and wish it all away with doubts.

[-SpectraL]

I wasn't calling you a liar and probably could have worded that a little differently. Lemme start over:

I would be a lot more horrified back then than I am right now, at present.

Better?

Much. But come now. I'm sure you'll agree there was definitely certain amount of shrouded cynicism there, regardless of the wording, which was why I perked right up to the challenge, as always. heh

I understand what you meant though, about the young being more open to the concepts of evil.

I can only tell you I always tell the truth when it comes to these subjects of the damned, and I have had many, many hair-raising encounters with the bizarre, enough action to melt all your doubts right into puddles in the bottoms of your shoes, and leave you doubting the very fabric of our reality.

[kenwih]

Sorry. Any kind of test would immediately be conducted under the wrong understanding, using the wrong approach, using the wrong setting, and any interpretation of the resulting data/experience would be personal interpretation at best - practically useless.



are you saying that paranormal claims can not be tested at all, or can only be tested by certain people?

[AngryFemme]

There is no evidence that would convince the majority of the truth of the paranormal, except personal experience; that is all a closed mind can absorb, and even then these people will still lie to themselves and wish it all away with doubts.

If it can be wished away and denied so easily even after personal experience - then the spooks aren't really all that spooky now, are they? They're helpless against pragmatics!

[-SpectraL]

are you saying that paranormal claims can not be tested at all, or can only be tested by certain people?

Just as any position of trust can be used and abused for personal gain and personal attention, and just as any position of trust can be handled by incompetent persons, so it is the same with trusting an investigation and it's findings to just anyone.

[-SpectraL]

If it can be wished away and denied so easily even after personal experience - then the spooks aren't really all that spooky now, are they? They're helpless against pragmatics!

Oh they quite believe it at the time, with all their heart. It's the afterwards, back in the land of the flesh, that they have trouble with.

[kenwih]

Just as any position of trust can be used and abused for personal gain and personal attention, and just as any position of trust can be handled by incompetent persons, so it is the same with trusting an investigation and it's findings to just anyone.

so can supernatual claims be backed up by evidence or not?

[whocares123]

First off, this has to be the biggest ass-pulled statistic I've seen in a while. I don't even know how you got any of those numbers, beyond the earth's current population of roughly 6 billion.

There have not always been 6 billion people living on the earth. The population has grown over time. Imagine that.

Please see this page for a simple explanation, with some numbers that I assume are rough estimates, as how do you get an accurate world census in 8000 BC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population

So your 2 billion number is probably a lot less for that reason, but also because of the vague nature of the claim that 0.05% of the population have experienced ghosts. What does it mean to have a paranormal experience? I'm sure there are a lot more people who have, say, left a room and closed the door, walked away, and then came back to find the door open. There are many explanations for why the door is open (the wind blew it open, it was never shut properly, the person is mistaken and didn't close it, the latch is broken, a ghost did it, etc) and all of those have to be considered. The odds that a ghost is responsible in a specific case, if i may use your unsupported math, is just about as likely that all 2 billion paranormal claims are either hoaxes or incidents of people being mistaken.

Now on the other hand, there are probably far far less people who have say, seen a ghostly apparation in person, and even far far less that have seen one multiple times. We know all this from what we hear from people. I'm sure everyone here either has their own stories, or has friends who have told stories about doors being opened, but how many, besides you -SpectraL, can say they've witnessed a ghost firsthand? Not many, I'd bet, and sure as hell not 1 in 200.

Hey, -SpectraL. You forgot to answer my post (quoted above) again. I noticed you used that 2 billion number, in response to truckfxr, and well, I'm pretty sure that's misleading for the above reasons.

[-SpectraL]

so can supernatual claims be backed up by evidence or not?

Sure they can. But that doesn't do any good at all to prove them to others.

[whocares123]

Hey, -SpectraL. You forgot to answer my post (quoted above) again. I noticed you used that 2 billion number, in response to truckfxr, and well, I'm pretty sure that's misleading for the above reasons.

You must've missed it again.

[whocares123]

Once, I was about 200 km into the heavy forest of the Gatineau mountains in Quebec. A light-weight canoe that I could carry, my supply bag, my tent, and three weeks to explore mostly unexplored territory all by myself, and lakes that no-one had even set foot on before. The days are full of exiting sights, and the nights are quiet, and I am so deep into the woods that there is not a living soul for at least a 100 km in any direction.

That's interesting. Because according to the map you provided, ( http://www.box.net/shared/9nrtre6drl ) there's a small town only about 40 km from where the lake you were at is (Ferme Neuve), and then a better sized city of about 14,000 people, about 60 km away (Mont-Laurier). And they were both there in the late 70's when you were about 15 years old, canoeing and camping alone in the wilderness of Quebec.

[-SpectraL]

That's interesting. Because according to the map you provided, ( http://www.box.net/shared/9nrtre6drl ) there's a small town only about 40 km from where the lake you were at is (Ferme Neuve), and then a better sized city of about 14,000 people, about 60 km away (Mont-Laurier). And they were both there in the late 70's when you were about 15 years old, canoeing and camping alone in the wilderness of Quebec.


What are you, 12?

By the way, you looked it up wrong. Get some practice on Google Maps or something.

[kenwih]

Sure they can. But that doesn't do any good at all to prove them to others.

you claim supernatural claims can be backed up by evidence. what evidence can you provide?

[-SpectraL]

you claim supernatural claims can be backed up by evidence. what evidence can you provide?

I could produce lots of evidence, but what would be the point? I strongly suspect such an educational offering would only encourage the more displaced and yet unpunted members of the board here.

[whocares123]

What are you, 12?

By the way, you looked it up wrong. Get some practice on Google Maps or something.

What? Care to point out what's wrong with how I looked it up? Right after you answer all the other things you still haven't answered from me. I mean, I have no problem having a discussion with you, but when you repeatedly ignore replies in a thread you started, even after saying you'd reply to them, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Oh, and to add to what I said earlier, which apparently was "wrong," that Reservoir Baskatong, which is in your map in an area labeled "no man's land" appears to be a relatively popular spot for fishermen and campers.

http://www.reservoirbaskatong.qc.ca/english/default-a.htm

http://www.pointedavid.ca/e_map.html

http://www.outaouais-travelguide.com/Vallee-de-la-Gatineau/Baskatong-Reservoir/

http://www.baieausable.qc.ca/english.htm

There's plenty of more websites advertising lodges and areas for fishing and camping. I guess the lake also has a beach for summer use. Not bad.

[kenwih]

I could produce lots of evidence, but what would be the point? I strongly suspect such an educational offering would only encourage the more displaced and yet unpunted members of the board here.

so are you saying you are incapable of producing evidence for the paranormal?

[Iehovah]

I could produce lots of evidence, but what would be the point? I strongly suspect such an educational offering would only encourage the more displaced and yet unpunted members of the board here.

So wait, you started this entire thread with the intent of "Attempting to prove that ghostly entitites exist", yet see no point in providing any evidence? How exactly DO you intend to achieve that then, Speckles? By talking us into a state of hypnosis, where we'll hopefully be more susceptible to your ongoing suggestions?

[-SpectraL]

What? Care to point out what's wrong with how I looked it up? Right after you answer all the other things you still haven't answered from me. I mean, I have no problem having a discussion with you, but when you repeatedly ignore replies in a thread you started, even after saying you'd reply to them, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Oh, and to add to what I said earlier, which apparently was "wrong," that Reservoir Baskatong, which is in your map in an area labeled "no man's land" appears to be a relatively popular spot for fishermen and campers.

http://www.reservoirbaskatong.qc.ca/english/default-a.htm

http://www.pointedavid.ca/e_map.html

http://www.outaouais-travelguide.com/Vallee-de-la-Gatineau/Baskatong-Reservoir/

http://www.baieausable.qc.ca/english.htm

There's plenty of more websites advertising lodges and areas for fishing and camping. I guess the lake also has a beach for summer use. Not bad.

If you had even a basic knowledge what I provided already, you would have seen that I indicated an island well north of the reservoir, at Round Lake, which is not even on most maps. As well, you would be surprised how few campers and fisherman there is that far north of the reservoir. You could travel for 50 miles in that area and not meet a single person. The area is completely bush, and no roads go in. Do you have some kind of point here in your weak attempts at ridicule? If not, please fuck off and be annoying somewhere else.

[-SpectraL]

So wait, you started this entire thread with the intent of "Attempting to prove that ghostly entitites exist", yet see no point in providing any evidence? How exactly DO you intend to achieve that then, Speckles? By talking us into a state of hypnosis, where we'll hopefully be more susceptible to your ongoing suggestions?

No. I was first attempting to establish what you, and your clan, would call worthy evidence. You little guys apparently know all about what constitutes actual evidence, and what doesn't, so I simply wanted your expert opinion on the form of media to be presented before I proceed. No sense me presenting something that would earn an automatic dismissal. I have a huge arsenal of evidence of every kind imaginable. Any ideas on which/what stuff would begin to satisfy? Let's hear your input on what would constitute a worthy submission? ie: ........

[-SpectraL]

so are you saying you are incapable of producing evidence for the paranormal?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, let's all first agree on, out of all possible evidence that could be extrapolated from, whether false or true, what would be looking to see here? Go ahead.

[Iehovah]

No. I was first attempting to establish what you, and your clan, would call worthy evidence. You little guys apparently know all about what constitutes actual evidence, and what doesn't, so I simply wanted your expert opinion on the form of media to be presented before I proceed. No sense me presenting something that would earn an automatic dismissal. I have a huge arsenal of evidence of every kind imaginable. Any ideas on which/what stuff would begin to satisfy? Let's hear your input on what would constitute a worthy submission? ie: ........

The ability to produce, and continuously produce different clear and concise fresh evidence in a short frame of time originating from a single source, preferrably yourself. Clear and concise accounts only - no vague references to areas most people have never been or are conveniently "unmapped". Real data that doesn't constantly use "supernatural interference" as an excuse for why it sucks or why the allegedly "evil spheres" look more like water drops. No random, completely unstantiable accounts.

I could add more, but that's a baseline for evidence.

Also, as someone with shithouse dial-up, you're going to need to do it with something other than video.

[-SpectraL]

The ability to produce, and continuously produce different clear and concise fresh evidence in a short frame of time originating from a single source, preferrably yourself. Clear and concise accounts only - no vague references to areas most people have never been or are conveniently "unmapped". Real data that doesn't constantly use "supernatural interference" as an excuse for why it sucks or why the allegedly "evil spheres" look more like water drops. No random, completely unstantiable accounts.

I could add more, but that's a baseline for evidence.

Also, as someone with shithouse dial-up, you're going to need to do it with something other than video.

Ok, let's begin then. I captured the following photo while "getting out in a hurry" of a very old library in the run-down section of Montreal that I got permission to stay the night in. Usually, I will stay no matter what the energy I encounter, but this particular manifestation was just too abusive:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/1133980/picture-hosting/demon.jpg (http://server4.pictiger.com/img/1133980/picture-hosting/demon.jpg)

Do you think this photo captures something coming down the stairs toward the front door I am exiting?

[whocares123]

If you had even a basic knowledge what I provided already, you would have seen that I indicated an island well north of the reservoir, at Round Lake, which is not even on most maps. As well, you would be surprised how few campers and fisherman there is that far north of the reservoir. You could travel for 50 miles in that area and not meet a single person. The area is completely bush, and no roads go in. Do you have some kind of point here in your weak attempts at ridicule? If not, please fuck off and be annoying somewhere else.

I know where the location of your lake was, north of the Reservoir Baskatong. I also know where you indicated was "no man's land" with a large circle, encompasing an area that included Reservoir Baskatong.

I also looked in the areas around where your lake is located, and found the village mentioned above about 40 km away, and the small town about 60 km away. If you honestly think my calculations are wrong, then please, provide a latitude-longitude location of that spot for me to put into Google earth. But I compared the map you posted and the map I was looking at on Yahoo Maps, and found them to be identical.

You have consistently refused to respond to anything I say (hey you still didn't reply to my post challenging/asking for clarification on your number of 2 billion. yeah, I know you never will). Either make up better bullshit, or be willing to back up what you say as true. Because if it is true, then you shouldn't have any problem explaining. Though I don't see how you, or anyone else could claim to know the number of people who have had paranormal experiences. That is completely impossible to varify, and rather irrelevent to your own personal mission directed towards proving ghostly entities exist.

Now go on, ignore me or give me some bullshit reply again. I don't care. Those posting here won't ignore it.

[Iehovah]

Ok, let's begin then. I captured the following photo while "getting out in a hurry" of a very old library in the run-down section of Montreal that I got permission to stay the night in. Usually, I will stay no matter what the energy I encounter, but this particular manifestation was just too abusive:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/1133980/picture-hosting/demon.jpg (http://server4.pictiger.com/img/1133980/picture-hosting/demon.jpg)

Do you think this photo captures something coming down the stairs toward the front door I am exiting?

Spectral, Spectral, Spectral. What did I just say about blurred photos with bullshit excuses for sucking?

To answer your question, I'm not sure what part of it you're referring to. I see a spherical blurry part that could easily be camera glare, and then something in the upper right corner of the stairs that looks like a bad shot of part of a chandelier.

Anyway, it doesn't look remotely demonic or ghostly. In fact, it doesn't look like anything except a poorly taken photo.

[Iehovah]

In addition to what I just wrote, I'm going to remind you of something else that was expected - clear and concise location information. None of this "very old library in a run-down section of Montreal" bullshit. Names and places.

This photo you provided is a very good example of why I expect it - it doesn't look anything like a picture out of a library, it looks like a picture out of somebody's house. For all I know, you're providing someone else's material and passing it off as your own, or even hoaxing shit up at home. Verifiable public info, please.

And I don't want to hear a single word about the "confidentiality" excuse a certain type of supernatural con-artist likes to use. If the site isn't public access and has to be kept secret, it's not provable.

[AngryFemme]

In all fairness, the house/library could be validated - but the picture being his, and his only, could not. There are a few items that have to be taken at face value. The rest should be meticulously scrutinized.

[Iehovah]

In all fairness, the house/library could be validated - but the picture being his, and his only, could not. There are a few items that have to be taken at face value. The rest should be meticulously scrutinized.

Actually, pictures, particularly new ones - can be validated as his. Due to such wonderful facilities as photoshop, I suppose you can never be 100% certain about anything, but it's a simple matter of him getting cooperation from someone else. You know, have them take a picture with his account name written on a piece of paper or his forearm or something at the location he's investigating. This isn't exactly the kind of work that's safe to do alone anyway.

Also, when one is investigating a place, it seems to me to be common sense to get some other pictures - you know stuff to compare photographic evidence against if some "otherworldly entity" really shows up.

[AngryFemme]

You know, have them take a picture with his account name written on a piece of paper or his forearm or something at the location he's investigating. This isn't exactly the kind of work that's safe to do alone anyway.

Good point! Maybe -SpectraL will go all out and provide something like that one of these days. I'd love to see something presented that actually made my jaw drop.

[whocares123]

Not to add too much to the huge list of things still gone unanswered, but why would a demon need to use stairs to come down anyway?

I mean, if that's true, then how is the demon going to get past that velvet robe at the bottom there? He'll have to move it!

[-SpectraL]

Not to add too much to the huge list of things still gone unanswered, but why would a demon need to use stairs to come down anyway?

I mean, if that's true, then how is the demon going to get past that velvet robe at the bottom there? He'll have to move it!

It's because they have the ability to move through solid matter, through a quick recomposition of their structure, but if they are currently in a semi-solid they stay that way until the need arises to change it.

There was no need to change it's structure when it came down the stairs, because the stairs were clear for passage in it's current state of flux within our plane of existence.

They can't affect our plane when they are in the corridor between our true environment and their true environment (as in passing through the rope), they can only observe while in that state, so they prefer to stay within a bodily structure that can exist in our plane - only existing in a form that this plane can support can they manipulate elements associated with this plane.

When it got to the rope blocking the bottom of the stairs, it was only then that it recomposed it's state back into the corridor (converting itself to another form of energy not of this plane of existence), in order to pass through, then dropped back into our plane when it had fully passed through the rope. Or, it could have decided to stay within a form of pure energy (energy supported by our plane), and broke the rope instead, by forcefully directing some of that stored energy at it.

Does this answer your question?

[-SpectraL]

Spectral, Spectral, Spectral. What did I just say about blurred photos with bullshit excuses for sucking?

To answer your question, I'm not sure what part of it you're referring to. I see a spherical blurry part that could easily be camera glare, and then something in the upper right corner of the stairs that looks like a bad shot of part of a chandelier.

Anyway, it doesn't look remotely demonic or ghostly. In fact, it doesn't look like anything except a poorly taken photo.

I think any normal person can plainly see a figure in the photo. Just because you've decided to be contrary, and declare you see nothing in the photo, does not mean a thing toward establishing the validity of the photo.

In other words, what you see and what you think about it hardly matters at all, mostly due to what all the normal people do see in the photo.

You see, you're only one person, with one opinion, and one agenda. On the other hand, we have a pile of these other people who disagree with you. This is because they're normal, and they're honest about what they see. They all see a fairly defined figure in the photo, but you, as just a single viewer, someone who obviously has a strange agenda/neurosis, doesn't see that. Many here and elsewhere plainly see a figure in the photo... you, with your reckless determination and single opinion see nothing. Therefore, should we go on what you have to say, or should we give more credence to the majority who do actually see a figure in the photo? Of course, we know the answer to that already, don't we?

So, in conclusion I'll go ahead with the majority on this one, not on your single opinion which you have conjured up from your unfathomably simple mind, and we'll let you keep your basically solitary and contrary opinions within your own weird, out-numbered and subnormal group.

Do you understand this remarkable concept? Hmmm?

[AngryFemme]

Color me abnormal.

My honest, first reaction to the photo: Trails of smoke. Pretty stairs and detailed crown moulding. A flashbulb malfunction. Really shitty lighting, and a contrasting bright light (sky dome? bright chandelier?) in the far background further distorting things.

I mean, if I smoke a really big spliff, and stare at it for about 20 minutes while my head's changing and I'm listening to some vintage Black Sabbath - I probably could conjure up a shadowy, demon-like figure floating down those stairs.

If you're saying that we have to be looking for a ghost in order to be able to see a ghost - doesn't that seem a little contrived?

Haven't you ever sat with a friend, stared at clouds and compared what you saw - only to find that your friend associated completely different shapes and images than you? Strange, isn't it - considering you were viewing the same slice of sky.

No sense getting rattled when someone perceives a different slice of sky than you, -SpectraL.

[-SpectraL]

No sense getting rattled when someone perceives a different slice of sky than you, -SpectraL.

Just gets me when people "knee-jerk" into parrot-mode. Like that one did with the immediate "Oh! It's a perfectly normal picture!", when we can certainly see it's not a normal picture, in spite of the fact that I don't blame anyone (or you) for thinking there is some weird lighting going on there at least. These misplaced idiots don't even take two seconds to examine the content, just slip right into the old broken-record routine, as expected.

At least you apparently studied the photo awhile before making comment on it, which I respect a whole lot more than some dime-a-dozen, retort machine set to automatic.

[whocares123]

Does this answer your question?

It's a fair enough explanation. I see you know how to answer questions. Now how about you answer all those other ones above, piling up on your desk?

[Iehovah]

I think any normal person can plainly see a figure in the photo. Just because you've decided to be contrary, and declare you see nothing in the photo, does not mean a thing toward establishing the validity of the photo.

You'll have to show me exactly how all these imaginary people are, Speckles. You directed this picture to me, for my interpretation. I don't see any crowd of people saying "Omg, Speckles! You're so right! There's a human in that picture!" I look at that picture and I see what appears to be a blur and a glowing chandelier. I thought perhaps the fact that your photo was titled "demon" meant that the chandelier was in actuality some glowing demon's head, but that's the closest I see of anything in the picture. Feel free to get some transluscent sheet paper and trace over where it's supposed to be.

In other words, what you see and what you think about it hardly matters at all, mostly due to what all the normal people do see in the photo.

So in other words, you decided before you even posted that picture for me that my opinion was irrelevant unless it agreed with you. Congratulations, Spectral, way to be a goddamned coward.

You see, you're only one person, with one opinion, and one agenda.

I have no agenda. At this point in the discussion I am nothing more than an observer, waiting for you to present evidence of your claims. You're trying to pretend I'm some hardcore disbliever pretending to be open-minded, and that's simply not the case. Pretending you know what I believe just because it doesn't agree with you is simply more cowardice on your part.

On the other hand, we have a pile of these other people who disagree with you. This is because they're normal, and they're honest about what they see. They all see a fairly defined figure in the photo, but you, as just a single viewer, someone who obviously has a strange agenda/neurosis, doesn't see that. Many here and elsewhere plainly see a figure in the photo... you, with your reckless determination and single opinion see nothing. Therefore, should we go on what you have to say, or should we give more credence to the majority who do actually see a figure in the photo? Of course, we know the answer to that already, don't we?

Again, point to all these invisible people who disagree with me. I'm really interested Speckles. Who are they? Someone on another non-Totse forum like say Renfro.com or Conspiracy.org who see demons whereever they go?

No really, Speckles, I do see what you're doing here. You're stooping to the ultimate in cowardice, doing what millions before you have done to people who believe in the paranormal - singling them out and mocking them, trying to force them to step into line by making them afraid of being seen as different or abnormal. I'm beyond that high school shit, and if you're the adult you claim to be, you should be too. Fucking man up, step up and prove your shit instead of opting for the bitch's way out.

So, in conclusion I'll go ahead with the majority on this one, not on your single opinion which you have conjured up from your unfathomably simple mind, and we'll let you keep your basically solitary and contrary opinions within your own weird, out-numbered and subnormal group.

If I were as simple-minded as you say, I'd have been screaming in terror due to your vivid suggestions in the Magic Gogdemon Experiment. Fortunately, I'm smarter than that, and I find it sad that you expect me to simply fall in line after some pathetic attacks on my ego. You don't know me, and you don't know shit about me. You are not a psychiatrist, and you don't have any of the qualifications necessary to try and make the analysis you tried to make from me not seeing what you saw in your precious little inkblot test.

Do you understand this remarkable concept? Hmmm?

Do you understand that your cowardly little attack on me just failed and failed badly? Hmmm?

[Iehovah]

Just gets me when people "knee-jerk" into parrot-mode. Like that one did with the immediate "Oh! It's a perfectly normal picture!", when we can certainly see it's not a normal picture, in spite of the fact that I don't blame anyone (or you) for thinking there is some weird lighting going on there at least.

In point of fact, Spectral, she didn't see the figure that you claimed was in that picture. If you had any intention of maintaining your credibility, that means you should be accusing her of the same things you accused me of.

So what makes me different? It's obvious.

I set down standards for the evidence you were to use, and you refused to hold to those standards after agreeing to them. I called you on it, and true to form, you lashed out against me, trying to blow me off as a diehard anti-paranormal fanatic. It's not happening, Spectral, I'm not what you want me to be. You can't just dismiss me.

I love mysteries, and I love the paranormal for the mysteries it has to offer. The Hoaxer-mentality you've been displaying, however, makes me believe you have nothing to offer in this department.

These misplaced idiots don't even take two seconds to examine the content, just slip right into the old broken-record routine, as expected.

I spent 10 minutes looking for any discrepancy and told you what I found. You refused to respond to what I found, dismissing it completely, and I'm guessing you don't have the ability to show us where this "figure" we're supposed to be seeing is. Come on, Speckles, even the "9/11 Deathskull", "9/11 Holycross" and "9/11 Satanface" people can do better than that. Magic something up, Spectral. Make us believe.

At least you apparently studied the photo awhile before making comment on it, which I respect a whole lot more than some dime-a-dozen, retort machine set to automatic.

Stop acting like a Hoaxer, and you'll find my responses to be more appropriate to what you're claiming