Supernatural discussion thread

[Guest Reno]

I don't know why I found it so funny, but Wayne's spinning trousers of death might be a post of the year candidate.

 

I've been laughing at it for a good five minutes. I couldn't even read the rest of his post because of that.

[Guest Ruderz]

I've not seen a ghost because ghosts don't exist.

 

Slightly unreasonable, considering the amount of evidence supporting the fact that ghosts are indeed among us. There has been plenty of cases, one that I particularly remember was a graveyard with a tomb to some kind of tyrant official, who caused people to pass out in the graveyard and killed a priest who tried to cleanse the graveyard of the demented spirits.

 

There has been plenty of sightings of ghosts, for instance explain the sighting of the naked woman on the motorway which caused the couple who spotted her to call the police, who upon investigation, found a crashed car with a dead woman and her alive son, both trapped in the car. No naked woman was found and the son survived, reasonable explanation is that the naked woman was the dead mother signalling the couple for help and indicating where the crash was.

 

Ghosts freak me out. I won't lie, I fully believe in them. My girlfriend has had many experiences with ghosts, as has her immediate family. Not pleasant ones mind you. My girlfriend's house is haunted by a ghost, I'm sure (it's a very old, stone brick house covered in ivy. scary stuff :P) and I remember one time when we were in her room, watching a movie, I leaned in for a kiss (just a kiss mind you, you dirty minded buggers ;) ) and bam, the TV turns off and breaks down. Add to that, the air was undeniably cold afterwards, with a very uneasy feeling in it.

 

There' is no 'science' that you can say that can convince me otherwise. I've experienced it first hand. My girlfriend has. I recall hearing a little girl call my name when I was on the phone to my girlfriend, listening to her talk about college when suddenly I heard 'Martin' out of no where. It wasn't becky, no-one else was in, and I'm certain I heard it.

 

I also remember when Becky was in mine, she felt something grabbing at her while I was busying myself with the laptop. In short, between me and my girlfriend we've had plenty of first hand experiences with ghosts. It's a Supernatural entity in which I have a very large interest in, but also a reluctance to pursue due to, quite frankly, the fear of spirits.

 

Yeah, you could say I'm very superstitous and paranoid blah blah blah, but after the first hand stories I've heard I have no wish to meddle with spirits. They can do things that really do shake you to your bone.

 

Ghosts scare me :lol

[Guest John Hancock]

There' is no 'science' that you can say that can convince me otherwise.

 

And I'm the one being unreasonable :lol

[Guest Ruderz]

And I'm the one being unreasonable :lol

 

That's because any science is in fact, wrong. Scientist's can be wrong, yes? They view Supernatural entity's with skepticsm (sp) and therefore they try to prove it wrong. But, with the many cases I've read about and personal experiences I'm afraid any science trying to say that ghosts aren't real is incorrect.

 

I can see this going off topic onto the 'Science vs Religion' side of things somehow :lol

[Guest John Hancock]

Why would science be anti-supernatural? Science isn't this big bad thing with it's own agenda trying to cover up the truth of ghosts, and werewolves, and dragons, and the Earth being flat, it's just a system of making people back up their claims, which people who believe in ghosts have, historically have failed to do.

 

I'm not being rude, but don't take things you read as facts. I remember a while ago that you repeated a joke from the film Liar, Liar saying that you'd read the story and it had actually happened.

[Guest Ruderz]

Why would science be anti-supernatural? Science isn't this big bad thing with it's own agenda trying to cover up the truth of ghosts, and werewolves, and dragons, and the Earth being flat, it's just a system of making people back up their claims, which people who believe in ghosts have, historically have failed to do.

 

Typically, scientist's do not believe in anything superstitious or supernatural. They only believe things that they can see in-front of them. They don't believe people's claims, and how are people supposed to provide evidence of a sighting? Video evidence is usually hoaxed, true sightings aren't caught on camera as the sighter is usually unprepared for it, they don't know it's going to happen. So therefore, just how are they supposed to provide evidence? Unless they implant camera's in their eyes, and that doesn't seem likely anytime soon.

 

For example, you said earlier on in this thread along with DSR that you think ghosts are simply ways for the human mind to cope with grief, or mourning. Then, I refer back to the naked woman case in my first post. The couple had no grief, had no reason to mourn, had no knowledge of the crash, then how could their mind conjour up the image of a naked woman? Also, how could grass and bushes resemble a naked woman according to your theory of the human brain linking things with human faces and bodies?

 

I just feel that the scientist's 'explanations' for Supernatural entity's, aren't really explanations. It's only a 'Look, you can't prove it, therefore it isn't true.'

 

EDIT: Also, this isn't some random internet article I was reading, It was an actual documentary/investigation.

[Guest Inno]

One of my ex's - the crazy psycho-est one - fully believed in the paranormal and whatnot, even taking Most Haunted Live as gospel.

 

Me? I think there's something to some of it, perhaps the theory of places remembering events and things, like giant cassette tapes (remember those?) is the most accurate. I dunno. I'm open minded enough to look at the evidence for both sides.

[Guest John Hancock]

The couple had no grief, had no reason to mourn, had no knowledge of the crash, then how could their mind conjour up the image of a naked woman?

 

I dont know. I don't know why that happened, I don't even know if it did happen, BUT how do you go from, "I don't know" to, "Well, that's because, opposite to all known biology, there's a special part of the body somehow contained invisibly within people that's impossible to detect by any method and, when you die, that invisible matter somehow knows that you've died and leaves your body with a life of it's own. It then flies about, somehow wearing clothes that it's got from somewhere, breaking all known laws of transference of energy by survival without consumption, appearing in the corner of people's vision for a little bit, sneaking behind people and, in some situations, making Wayne's trousers spin around for no reason"?

 

Even if you're going to completely ignore science, that's a pretty giant leap in logic to make.

 

Also, how could grass and bushes resemble a naked woman according to your theory of the human brain linking things with human faces and bodies?

 

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

 

Also, this isn't some random internet article I was reading, It was an actual documentary/investigation.

 

Was Derek Akora in it?

 

EDIT: I sound like I'm having a go at people for believing in ghosts, but I'm really not. I'm saying it's impossible to be sure that they exist because, if they did, they're just too many thousands of unanswered questions as to how and why, and this, "F*ck science, I KNOW WHAT I SAW!" attitude isn't evidence of anything. I don't believe in them because, even if all the evidence against them was wrong, I'm a pretty firm believer in Occam's Razor, and I don't believe in anything that's inherently baseless.

Edited February 14, 2011 by John Hancock

[Guest Ruderz]

I dont know. I don't know why that happened, I don't even know if it did happen, BUT how do you go from, "I don't know" to, "Well, that's because, opposite to all known biology, there's a special part of the body somehow contained invisibly within people that's impossible to detect by any method and, when you die, that invisible matter somehow knows that you've died and leaves your body with a life of it's own. It then flies about, somehow wearing clothes that it's got from somewhere, breaking all known laws of transference of energy by survival without consumption, appearing in the corner of people's vision for a little bit, sneaking behind people and, in some situations, making Wayne's trousers spin around for no reason"?

 

Even if you're going to completely ignore science, that's a pretty giant leap in logic to make.

 

Logic? We're talking about Supernatural entity's, spirits and soul's, demon's and angel's, all that kind of malarky. Logic has no place in this kind of discussion in my opinion. A person's soul, when it dies, may feel unwilling to leave to 'the other side', therefore it sticks around. It's impossible to try and put logic to it, your argument doesn't stand. How can you put logic to something, that is impossible to test? It's not something that can be repeated several times and an average taken to get results, that's how scientist's think. In short, when talking about Supernatural, all talk of logic goes out the window as it's impossible to know how or why things happen.

 

 

 

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

 

I know this, but this is talking about mistaking things for faces and such. I'm talking, about an actual naked female body amongst the grass, skin colour relevant as well. Impossible for it to be confused with a body.

 

 

 

Was Derek Akora in it?

 

I'm unsure, it was quite some time ago, all I remember is that story in particular as it interested me. The boy was found alive with his dead mother. No naked woman found nearby. It is a clear indication of ghost activity, to save her son from death.

[Guest John Hancock]

So you're basically saying that you don't care about logic, science, likelihood, probability, facts or evidence? That's a bit of a debate ender then isn't it?

 

Again, I'm not trying to be as rude as I sound, but what was the point in quoting my post, when you don't care at all about what I have to say back? State your opinion by all means, but don't bring me into it.

Edited February 14, 2011 by John Hancock

[Guest Y2James]

About a year ago my Dad claimed that when he was in the bathroom he turned around and saw a white hooded figure open his bedroom door, walk into the room and switch the light on, only to then disapear.

 

I could by how scared my Dad seemed recounting the story that he was telling the truth and I've never known my Dad to be scared of anything. So, yeah, I believe.

[Guest Ruderz]

So you're basically saying that you don't care about logic, science, likelihood, probability, facts or evidence? That's a bit of a debate ender then isn't it?

 

Again, I'm not trying to be as rude as I sound, but what was the point in quoting my post, when you don't care at all about what I have to say back? State your opinion by all means, but don't bring me into it.

 

Debate can be had without logic, science, likelihood and probability and such. This thread isn't focused on logic, science and such. Quite simply, it's based around personal belief's in my opinion. Belief's can be debated, can they not?

 

Excuse me, but I did care for what you had to say. However, you tried to bring logic into a Supernatural discussion where logic doesn't exsist. I responded to your post, asking you how you could put logic into such things such as Supernatural Entity's, ghost sightings etc when it's impossible for people to prove they have seen a ghost.

 

It's like UFO's, people aren't constantly filiming incase they see one, but when they do it's the one time they're not filming, and they have no proof to back them up because they weren't filming. (just an example)

 

It's just the same with ghosts. Scientist's claim they have no evidence to support their sighting, but how are they supposed to gather evidence for something they were unaware would happen?

[Guest John Hancock]

Belief's can be debated, can they not?

 

No, not without anything to back them up. Otherwise it's me saying "I don't believe", you saying, "I believe", and then it's good night. You said yourself, you don't care about any evidence that isn't supernatural, but I don't believe in the supernatural, so what am I supposed to say? It's that same, "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" argument, there's no debate to be had because everything I say "doesn't count" because your belief comes from a category of evidence that I believe to be completely non-existant. Short of, "Once I met a wizard and he told me ghosts don't exist", what am I supposed to say other than, "There's no evidence for it and lots of evidence against", when you can just say back, "Ghosts defy evidence". That's all we can possibly say to each other. The crux of the matter will always be me not believing and you believing because I think your evidence is made up, and you think mine is irrelevant, and without evidence, there's no debate, just people taking it in turns to state their opinion, which is absolutely fine, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not a debate.

[Guest Ruderz]

No, not without anything to back them up. Otherwise it's me saying "I don't believe", you saying, "I believe", and then it's good night. You said yourself, you don't care about any evidence that isn't supernatural, but I don't believe in the supernatural, so what am I supposed to say? It's that same, "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" argument, there's no debate to be had because everything I say "doesn't count" because your belief comes from a category of evidence that I believe to be completely non-existant. Short of, "Once I met a wizard and he told me ghosts don't exist", what am I supposed to say other than, "There's no evidence for it and lots of evidence against", when you can just say back, "Ghosts defy evidence". That's all we can possibly say to each other. The crux of the matter will always be me not believing and you believing because I think your evidence is made up, and you think mine is irrelevant, and without evidence, there's no debate, just people taking it in turns to state their opinion, which is absolutely fine, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not a debate.

 

You make a good point. Personally, I feel that the numerous reports of sightings and Supernatural cases to be my evidence, but they become invalid if you think they are non-existant.

 

I suppose, we'll just have to agree to disagree then! :)

[Paul 584]

There are numerous Elvis siteings even now, doesnt mean hes alive. Its certainly not proof of anything other than people are mistaken.

 

Rudie, did you read that article I linked? The one that talks about the science behind why even multiple people at once can 'see' ghosts?

 

You also say that people just dont film in time, well what about all the cameras set up across the country. We are incredibly saturated with CCTV, ghost hotspots are constantly filmed by the ghost hunters, yet they cant provide any evidence! Doesnt that say it all? Not a single piece of footage, nor a photograph, that has stood up to professional scrutony.

[Guest Saz]

I'll end this whole Science hates ghosts myth.

 

Science is impartial and currently cannot find a way to prove that ghosts exists, however, there are several scientific hypothoses about reasons.

 

I think the key here is that Science in general refused to believe meteorites existed in the past because there wasn't enough factual evidence to prove they existed and we know that has changed.

 

Of course then you get pseudo scientists with their weebley wobbly machines that make unscientific claims it all begins to become a bit ridiculous.

 

I've never seen a ghost, but I find it all very interesting, I enjoy the whole ghost in a photo hype because some of them you can tell are faked, but then there are some that you just can't explain and you get that uneasy and excited feeling.

 

So I've never seen a ghost, not sure if they are real and science tells us so far, according to the evidence, that ghosts don't exist.

 

But life's all about change isn't it? :)

[The Icon 152]

I found a great app in the android market. It is a Ghost radar. Fake I assume but fun anyway. Random words are spoken at random intervals and you need to interpret them by going to what the word is and if you do right a blip appears on the radar to signify something nearby. Even if it is fake it is creepingly accurate. It said brush so I went to the storeroom. No sooner had I got there that it said gas. We use gas and the switch is in a closet beside that room. When I faced it a red blib appeared on the radar.

[Guest Ruderz]

There are numerous Elvis siteings even now, doesnt mean hes alive. Its certainly not proof of anything other than people are mistaken.

 

It could be either Elvis look-a-likes, or it could be Elvis's spirit or whatnot. Probably the first one, seeing as there is hundreds of Elvis wannabe's about :P

 

Rudie, did you read that article I linked? The one that talks about the science behind why even multiple people at once can 'see' ghosts?

 

I didn't sorry, it was rather late and I was tired. I will however give it a read as soon as I'm done posting this.

 

You also say that people just dont film in time, well what about all the cameras set up across the country. We are incredibly saturated with CCTV, ghost hotspots are constantly filmed by the ghost hunters, yet they cant provide any evidence! Doesnt that say it all? Not a single piece of footage, nor a photograph, that has stood up to professional scrutony.

 

Then, in that case, perhaps ghosts are unable to be picked up by camera's and CCTV? What if ghosts are only able to be seen by the naked human eye? What if ghosts only choose to show themselves to certain people, or certain things. Every ghost, I believe, is still here because they have some kind of unfinished business. Why should they bother to show themselves to CCTV and the like?

[Paul 584]

Thats interesting. The CCTV bit I mean. How would it be possible for something to be visible to the naked eye but not a camera? Its all the same thing, light. For it to be seen by us but not a camera it would suggest we arent seeing it, just picking information up some other way and our brain can only communicate it to us by makeing us think we are seeing it.

 

I dont know if thats possible, but I wouldnt be shocked. Our brains are easy to fool. But at the same time it would suggest, to me anyway, something other than a ghost as we understand the word.

[Guest Ruderz]

Thats interesting. The CCTV bit I mean. How would it be possible for something to be visible to the naked eye but not a camera? Its all the same thing, light. For it to be seen by us but not a camera it would suggest we arent seeing it, just picking information up some other way and our brain can only communicate it to us by makeing us think we are seeing it.

 

I dont know if thats possible, but I wouldnt be shocked. Our brains are easy to fool. But at the same time it would suggest, to me anyway, something other than a ghost as we understand the word.

 

A camera or CCTV is electrical equipment whereas the human eye is biological. I have a theory that ghosts interfere with electronical equipment, perhaps due to the fact that ghosts are made up of some unknown type of particle or atom that's very complex. You make a good point there, perhaps we aren't really 'seeing' the ghosts, but the information is perhaps being...say planted in our minds? That could answer a lot of questions, ghosts are spirits and impossible to see with CCTV and most people. However, what's stopping spirits from planting the information that they are there, into someone's mind? Wouldn't that particular person then 'see' the ghost as they believe it's there? Just a theory I came up with there.

 

I read the article, and it did account for shadowey figures and the such. However, it left things out such as being physically grabbed, slamming of doors, the cold air, voices etc. All of which I've experienced. It makes a good argument that does sound quite valid, but some things just aren't explainable.

 

For example, my girlfriend woke up one morning and went into the hallway as usual, seen her stepdad in the living room (in the dark so she just saw a figure sitting on the couch, assuming it was him) called in if he wanted some tea, and he answered he with yes. Later on when she went in to give him the tea, there was no one there, and she found out he was asleep in his bedroom.

 

Infrasound explains the shape. Doesn't explain the actual voice answering her.