50 replies to this topic

[rashore]

tendo, on 27 January 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

This is a matter of opinion, though. I think paying respect to the dead should be done merely for respect of the living, so the relatives do not need to see the memories of their loved ones disrespected. My goal is, one could argue, to pay a great respect to the dead by spending a few hours there in pursuit of getting the site left alone indefinitely if I can get the information publicized well enough.

Not to be mean but good luck with that. I've been commenting for years on a couple of mis-informed ghost stories, yet nothing is ever considered enough to get the story dismissed. Even in the stories of Katy's Church itself it has been pointed out time and again that the information is false and there is no story... Yet people keep retelling it or claiming their own experiences.

Sometimes it seems like it's harder to prove a haunt false than it is to prove it's true.

[tendo]

rashore, on 27 January 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Not to be mean but good luck with that. I've been commenting for years on a couple of mis-informed ghost stories, yet nothing is ever considered enough to get the story dismissed. Even in the stories of Katy's Church itself it has been pointed out time and again that the information is false and there is no story... Yet people keep retelling it or claiming their own experiences.

Sometimes it seems like it's harder to prove a haunt false than it is to prove it's true.

You're right; people want the excitement of a haunt. And those who've experienced things because of the power of suggestion will claim vehemently that what they saw was real.

[Chrlzs]

tendo, on 27 January 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Yes, it looks at the wave function of sounds of various materials being 'rapped' or 'tapped' upon. Rapping is defined as a single strike to a surface by another object. It shows that with every case observed, the sound wave function starts at its highest amplitude, and gradually becomes lower. They then observed rapping sounds reported at several sites in which poltergeists were reported, as rapping is a common 'symptom' of these areas. They then recorded the rapping which is done here. Again, the sound is a single strike to a surface by another object, the only difference in the case of the poltergeist sites is that the objects being struck are a mystery. In all of these sounds, the rapping sounds' amplitudes started low, worked their way up to highest amplitude, and then lowered again. This goes against the findings of every other preliminary wave recording. The only other wave they'd found which followed this pattern, as far as noise goes, is caused by seismic activity. The study does not draw any final conclusions on this. It may be seismic activity at the poltergeist sites, but why so quietly, why only in those homes and not in others, and why so frequently, with no seeming correlation to fault lines? It was done quite well, in my opinion, and described perfectly well so it may be replicated by anyone with access to a reported poltergeist site.

Thanks tendo - you've raised yourself well above the average paranormal supporter by doing that!  I salute you..   I have had a preliminary look at that pdf, and I have a very big problem with the words in bold - which is pretty much what the entire thing revolves around.  I agree that it *looks* like they know what they are doing , but I think there are some major issues and some huge 'leaps of faith' in that report.  I also note that the references are pretty well completely devoid of any real acoustics-analysis content from credible sources and the author claims no degree/doctorate or similar in acoustics.. Plus the report has not been peer reviewed by (or published in) any credible acoustics-related journal - instead it appears only in the 'Society of Psychical Research' - not exactly a high impact journal...  The problem is, the entire report is based on a premise of acoustic waveform analysis and yet it has been published at one of a multitude of similar self-publishing societies in a field that has no relevant expertise.. and one that is known to publish pretty much anything sent to them, and could just possibly be seen as having a bias..


I'd also make the following casual observation - that report is INCREDIBLY wordy, given what should be relatively simple content..  That's not a good sign - sometimes people do that deliberately to make it seem comprehensive and also make it less easy to critique.  However, until I have time to go thru it properly, I'll have to leave it at that.  Right now I am engaged on other things relating to imaging analysis, but once I get that one finished I will try to find some time to look at this report in more detail.

Sorry to be a naysayer, but I don't think you have found the holy grail..  But I will be back to go into it a bit more deeply.

Again, I applaud you for your considered approach though, so keep it up!

[Sakari]

tendo, on 27 January 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I have to disagree. People cannot choose what they believe. The brain would even disregard solid proof if the belief was strong enough and would upset the balance of the person's psyche. Other than that, I know what distinction you're trying to make. I am of the 'Mulder' school of thought. I want to believe, and have found some evidence which says to me that there's a chance of these things existing, and I've experienced some things which I might consider proof, but they're completely anecdotal, and too easily explained away by other means, demoting them back down to evidence. She is of the 'Scully' school of thought. She will not believe until she is given pure scientific proof.

I want to believe in Bigfoot, and other Cryptids. I would love for them to be found real. I do not believe at all, I know they do not exist. I would be happy if I were found wrong one day.

Same with Ghosts, Aliens visiting Earth, etc.

Same goes for Religion, I want to " believe " in something pretty bad. Thing is, I can not just blindly believe in things.

So, yes, people can choose what they want to believe. Even if they do not want to.

[Chrlzs]

BTW.. this is worth reading regarding the principle aspect of Colvin's report- try the 'blind' test for yourselves..

[tendo]

Chrlzs, on 28 January 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Thanks tendo - you've raised yourself well above the average paranormal supporter by doing that!  I salute you..   I have had a preliminary look at that pdf, and I have a very big problem with the words in bold - which is pretty much what the entire thing revolves around.  I agree that it *looks* like they know what they are doing , but I think there are some major issues and some huge 'leaps of faith' in that report.  I also note that the references are pretty well completely devoid of any real acoustics-analysis content from credible sources and the author claims no degree/doctorate or similar in acoustics.. Plus the report has not been peer reviewed by (or published in) any credible acoustics-related journal - instead it appears only in the 'Society of Psychical Research' - not exactly a high impact journal...  The problem is, the entire report is based on a premise of acoustic waveform analysis and yet it has been published at one of a multitude of similar self-publishing societies in a field that has no relevant expertise.. and one that is known to publish pretty much anything sent to them, and could just possibly be seen as having a bias..


I'd also make the following casual observation - that report is INCREDIBLY wordy, given what should be relatively simple content..  That's not a good sign - sometimes people do that deliberately to make it seem comprehensive and also make it less easy to critique.  However, until I have time to go thru it properly, I'll have to leave it at that.  Right now I am engaged on other things relating to imaging analysis, but once I get that one finished I will try to find some time to look at this report in more detail.

Sorry to be a naysayer, but I don't think you have found the holy grail..  But I will be back to go into it a bit more deeply.

Again, I applaud you for your considered approach though, so keep it up!

Thanks for the support! I'm glad you actually took a look at what I said. I know it isn't the best, but it's a start! I am a psych major and have had to take two classes on how to critique journal articles, and even write them (and it sucks) so I know a bit about what I'm looking for, and it did seem too wordy, as well as lacking any real expertise (as you've said), but it DID make clear how it did what it did so that further studies may be done. That I enjoyed.
Also, thanks for that other article, I'll read it asap!

[tendo]

Chrlzs, on 28 January 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

BTW.. this is worth reading regarding the principle aspect of Colvin's report- try the 'blind' test for yourselves..

I passed! Well, that is, I knew 3/4! That's a great counter-experiment, as well! I liked it a lot, it was quite well done. He caught that the tester didn't mention any filtering or why there was or was not any mentioned.

[orangepeaceful79]

tendo, on 27 January 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

I am not smothering her, I asked her, she said convincing evidence. I am not trying to prove it exists, nor am I truly convinced that it is ghosts. As I've said several times over in this thread, it is the CHANCE that it might be possible.
I am also not cherry picking evidence. I am looking at it all. I admitted to her that 99% of what is out there, if not more, is total bs done for attention, money, fame, or just for the lulz. I am a very unbiased person. I also don't need to 'get on with my life.' My focus on the paranormal, if you can even call it that, is nothing more than an interest. I pay much more time and put in much more effort into practical, rational things in life, such as school, work, academic pursuits, leisure activities, etc. Your comment was so full of presumed thoughts that were pulled seemingly from nowhere, and in the future you should try to really make sure you're hitting the mark on your assumptions.

Yeah I probably was being a bit of a presumptive ass there.  It happens sometimes.  I apologize.  

I am curious however as to why you are so concerned that you "enlighten" your girlfriend's perspective.   What difference does it make to you whether she believes or not?  It just made me wonder why you have a stake in it, unless it was because you believe yourself.  I'd like to understand.

[tendo]

orangepeaceful79, on 28 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Yeah I probably was being a bit of a presumptive ass there.  It happens sometimes.  I apologize.  

I am curious however as to why you are so concerned that you "enlighten" your girlfriend's perspective.   What difference does it make to you whether she believes or not?  It just made me wonder why you have a stake in it, unless it was because you believe yourself.  I'd like to understand.

Oh, it just came up in conversation. It's come up maybe two or three times for the 1+ year we've been together. It's not a huge concern, but when we discuss things (we are both scientifically minded psych majors) we like to find evidence/support for our claims. We've both successfully changed the other's mind on several different topics ranging in subject since we've known each other simply by finding studies or several examples regarding the topic. It's fun, engaging, and we both enjoy the debate and search for knowledge. I apologize for snapping at you, I'd been having a less than great day, haha, normally I wouldn't have even been concerned with such presumptions because I KNOW most believers in this stuff are crazy and need validation. That's not to say you're one of those, that is to say that it's understandable that you'd assume I was one.

Edited by tendo, 28 January 2013 - 12:04 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

tendo, on 28 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Oh, it just came up in conversation. It's come up maybe two or three times for the 1+ year we've been together. It's not a huge concern, but when we discuss things (we are both scientifically minded psych majors) we like to find evidence/support for our claims. We've both successfully changed the other's mind on several different topics ranging in subject since we've known each other simply by finding studies or several examples regarding the topic. It's fun, engaging, and we both enjoy the debate and search for knowledge. I apologize for snapping at you, I'd been having a less than great day, haha, normally I wouldn't have even been concerned with such presumptions because I KNOW most believers in this stuff are crazy and need validation. That's not to say you're one of those, that is to say that it's understandable that you'd assume I was one.

No worries.  I think things are sorted out now. I'd still encourage you to encourage her to join up.  I am definitely on the skeptical side of most of what is here on the site and it is still my favorite place on the internet.  So much to read and do.  Cool people too.  Have a good one.

[stevemagegod]

Sweetpumper, on 24 January 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

You won't find evidence on the internet.

So much Sarcasm here lol.

OT: [media] [media]

This is a very interesting video and well thought out experiment. In fact you could even try it out yourself if she still doesn't believe in it. But i personally wouldn't recommend it because you don't know what your contacting. Whether it be a Ghost/Alien/Demon etc., or even your unconscious mind producing these effects.

[tendo]

I've actually heard of that before. It's too bad that all the footage is done in such a way that it could easily be the members or mechanisms making the tables move like that. Also, that they're all laughing about it, none of them show any concern makes it seem unrealistic. The first group looked like a bad infomercial. Regardless of all of this, if you actually do it, it depends on your initial stance as to how you interpret the findings. If you're a skeptic, you will think it is the expectation and is just the ideomotor response, if you believe in spirits, you may think some entity latched on to that information in their minds or read it or heard it and was just opportunistic in appearing.

[Frank Merton]

It's well after midnight here in Vietnam; I think I will refrain from posting about ghosts until more propitious time.

[tendo]

Frank Merton, on 29 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

It's well after midnight here in Vietnam; I think I will refrain from posting about ghosts until more propitious time.

That is not a bad idea at all!

[HuntressoftheNorth]

Hello everyone. None of you know me as I just discovered this site today. Fell in love with it. Tenbo, while I can't offer you valid evidence outside my own experiances, I can give you a theory your girlfriend may accept more readily. I am 17 and have lived in the middle east and different parts of asia for about five years.
A lot of the time I spent there with my family was a cultural study. Something to be said about areas like where we weree (Zarqa Jordan if you want to be exact), is that the people there are very attached to their ways of life. Their hoomes might havve modern conveniances, but the traditions their ancestors have given them are still the same as they were hundreds of years ago. You might thi k Im straying off topic, Im not. In a summarized version of whats in my head, have you ever heard the story of how satan became Satan? In a rounded version of what I know, before god created mankind, he had created angels and a race called Jinn. Jinn had the same free will humans have. Which means the inclination towards good or evil. These beings exist on earth, though on a different "plain" I guess you would call it. They can see us, and while we can't see them it is possible to interact with them. You probably think Im full of it, but its true in my humble opinion. A common misconception is that Jinns are demons, but they aren't. The easiest and most common way to explain it is "smokeless fire formed into thinking living beings". Oddly enough, the accounts and stories for lack of better words even explain things like "haunted" houses. Because by divine rule Jinns are not allowed to live where people do. Though less religious ones (or more malicious) tend to ignore this. So the law abiding ones tend to take up residence in unoccupied houses or even old caves and forests. Another thing is that they are not "spirits" or ghosts, but living breathing beings that work and love andhave children and die like people do. Again you probably think I am full of it, but maybee your GF would be more open to the idead of a paralel yet intertwineing world rather than a spirit world. I hope this helps and if you or anyone else has a question Ill be happy to answer them as well as i can. Also please forgive any misspellings/spacings. Im typing this on my phone.