9 replies to this topic

[UM-Bot]

Nearly every Friday night, a team of self-described ghost hunters hits the cemetery and spookiest spots in Tracy to look for signs of life after death. They call themselves Project Mayhem, and so far, they've haven't had a face-to-face meeting with anything that even resembles a quivering, howling ectoplasm or ghost — unless you consider the strange, soft whisperings of unseen people as evidence of contact with another world.

View: Full Article | Source: Lodi-News Sentinel

[leeslaughtr]

I am more than a believer the paranormal and have seen ghost on many occassion but ghost hunting is not a joke and alot of people don't know those spirits can follow you home and cause havoc. Yea there are skeptics but playing skeptic with ghost hunting and EVP will learn you..trust me. I hate everything has to be scientific in order for people to believe but it is what it is just research in what your doing.

[cabezon]

the story isnt very true because the information is very unexplained

[I want to believe]

Project Mayhem, reminds me of the movie Fight Club, had the same name in it.  

"Sir! First rule of Project Mayhem is that you don't ask questions!"

[Hammys Teddy]

Quote

I am more than a believer the paranormal and have seen ghost on many occassion but ghost hunting is not a joke and alot of people don't know those spirits can follow you home and cause havoc. Yea there are skeptics but playing skeptic with ghost hunting and EVP will learn you..trust me. I hate everything has to be scientific in order for people to believe but it is what it is just research in what your doing.

The article says they havent had a face to face meeting with anything that even remotely resembles a ghost and IMHO they aint ever likely to either since such things don't exist.

As for EVP, we live in a time where the airwaves are jammed packed with all kinds of audio signals from radio stations to mobiles phones to two way radios, Cb's and a host of other things. How do you eliminate all these things from what you've recorded.

I have heard a load of so called EVP recordings which are supposedly voices from beyond, but how was this determined? by the place it was recorded i.e a graveyard??

Most EVP's are nothing more than noises which are translated by the imagination of whomever carried out the recording.
I'll believe theres more to it when i hear one of these voices interact with the person doing the recording, mind you I wont hold my breath.

Theres an excellent article on EVP's on The Skeptic Express

Teddy.

Edited by Hammys Teddy, 02 August 2006 - 11:06 PM.

[ShaunZero]

It's ok to be scientific with this type of thing. But when they say "Your own experiences are not scientific evidence" it gets annoying. I mean, no sh** it's not evidence for anyone else, but it sure as hell proves it to myself and don't give me that crap about "Halucinations, the human perception is flawed, etc...". That just shows me your trying your hardest to explain it away even though there's no way you can explain it because you do not know the experience itself.

[Hammys Teddy]

Quote

It's ok to be scientific with this type of thing. But when they say "Your own experiences are not scientific evidence" it gets annoying. I mean, no sh** it's not evidence for anyone else, but it sure as hell proves it to myself and don't give me that crap about "Halucinations, the human perception is flawed, etc...".

Why not? Does the truth bother you?? Would you rather bury your head in the sand and just believe you had some sort f 'paranormal' experience when there could wuite simply be some other explanation?

Quote

That just shows me your trying your hardest to explain it away even though there's no way you can explain it because you do not know the experience itself.

And this just shows me, you have no interest in finding out the truth of an experience incase it contradicts what you want to believe.
The simple fact that I have not shared or had the same experience you refer to does NOT make the experience any more real.

See Im entitled to an opinion.

Teddy.

[ShaunZero]

Quote

Why not? Does the truth bother you?? Would you rather bury your head in the sand and just believe you had some sort f 'paranormal' experience when there could wuite simply be some other explanation?

The truth does not bother me at all. I just don't see those explainations good enough to explain away most experiences. That's just the easy way out. Just because someone has a bad memory, or mistakes a simple object for something else, doesn't mean that when they CLEARLY see a dead person walk right passed them, it was just in their head or an illusion.

I'd rather believe what I know is true. If you know you wasn't halucinating, would you rather be closed minded and agree with a skeptic just because you don't want to look like a kook, or open up to the possabilty of what you saw being real? Sad... really sad...
Let's say you really did experience any new phenomonem, how would you prove it's existance if you assume it was an halucination?

I'm a very skeptical person, wich is why I'm skeptical when people make the assumption RIGHT AWAY that it was all in the experiencers head.

Quote

And this just shows me, you have no interest in finding out the truth of an experience incase it contradicts what you want to believe.
The simple fact that I have not shared or had the same experience you refer to does NOT make the experience any more real.

Completely wrong. I do want to find out the truth. But why look into it possibly being an halucination when you know it wasn't? If someone could prove to me that it was an halucination somehow, I'd definitley believe it. But skeptics jump the gun TOO soon and assume it was an halucination right off the bat. THAT is what I'm talking about. How can you see that as being ok? I'm open to it being an halucination, but don't assume it was right off the bat without being able to prove it to me.

If you did not have the same experience as me, it DOES make it harder for you to understand it.

Quote

And this just shows me, you have no interest in finding out the truth of an experience incase it contradicts what you want to believe.

How so? What do I believe? I don't believe in psychics, I havn't been to one yet, havn't seen any evidence I can test for myself yet. I don't beleive in aliens. I do believe in ghosts though, for many different reasons.

Edited by ZeroShadow, 05 August 2006 - 04:05 AM.

[positron]

Quote

The truth does not bother me at all. I just don't see those explainations good enough to explain away most experiences. That's just the easy way out.

I'd rather believe what I know is true. If you know you wasn't halucinating, would you rather be closed minded and agree with a skeptic just because you don't want to look like a kook, or open up to the possabilty of what you saw being real? Sad... really sad...
Let's say you really did experience any new phenomonem, how would you prove it's existance if you assume it was an halucination?

I'm a very skeptical person, wich is why I'm skeptical when people make the assumption RIGHT AWAY that it was all in the experiencers head.
Completely wrong. I do want to find out the truth. But why look into it possibly being an halucination when you know it wasn't? If someone could prove to me that it was an halucination somehow, I'd definitley believe it. But skeptics jump the gun TOO soon and assume it was an halucination right off the bat. THAT is what I'm talking about. How can you see that as being ok? I'm open to it being an halucination, but don't assume it was right off the bat without being able to prove it to me.

If you did not have the same experience as me, it DOES make it harder for you to understand it.
How so? What do I believe? I don't believe in psychics, I havn't been to one yet, havn't seen any evidence I can test for myself yet. I don't beleive in aliens. I do believe in ghosts though, for many different reasons.

Quote

The truth does not bother me at all. I just don't see those explainations good enough to explain away most experiences. That's just the easy way out.

I'd rather believe what I know is true. If you know you wasn't halucinating, would you rather be closed minded and agree with a skeptic just because you don't want to look like a kook, or open up to the possabilty of what you saw being real? Sad... really sad...
Let's say you really did experience any new phenomonem, how would you prove it's existance if you assume it was an halucination?

I'm a very skeptical person, wich is why I'm skeptical when people make the assumption RIGHT AWAY that it was all in the experiencers head.
Completely wrong. I do want to find out the truth. But why look into it possibly being an halucination when you know it wasn't? If someone could prove to me that it was an halucination somehow, I'd definitley believe it. But skeptics jump the gun TOO soon and assume it was an halucination right off the bat. THAT is what I'm talking about. How can you see that as being ok? I'm open to it being an halucination, but don't assume it was right off the bat without being able to prove it to me.

If you did not have the same experience as me, it DOES make it harder for you to understand it.
How so? What do I believe? I don't believe in psychics, I havn't been to one yet, havn't seen any evidence I can test for myself yet. I don't beleive in aliens. I do believe in ghosts though, for many different reasons.

[ShaunZero]

^^^^ What was the point of that?