Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 20 votes

Those Who've Seen the Hatman/Shadow People


  • Please log in to reply
1429 replies to this topic

#1216    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:19 AM

View Postmarkprice, on 10 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

82 pages and no Seven around to keep it going. That is a bit of a phenomena in itself. Heidi Hollis got the credit for starting the Hatman term, but I just read a story published in 1925 called Black Hat Sorcery; fiction based on ancient Tibet complete with the shadows moving out of the walls etc. From that I have to guess the phenomena of Hatman is thousands of years old, long before western invention.

That may be true. It could stem from influences and references found in pop culture too. Look at gangster movies, as well as secret agent caricatures. I think that there were ancient variations, but the well known version likely is a modern phenomenon.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#1217    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:49 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 11 June 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

That may be true. It could stem from influences and references found in pop culture too. Look at gangster movies, as well as secret agent caricatures. I think that there were ancient variations, but the well known version likely is a modern phenomenon.

The cloaked figure is mentioned in a 1500 year old middle eastern book that refers to an oral tradition dating back to before 1272 BC. That means approx. 3300 years back. The sightings near death have also been mentioned in ancient books. This about documented texts, otherwise, the phenomenon must be as old as the human race itself. The hat is of course a modern version. I don't think it is an archetype though.


#1218    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

The cloaked figure is mentioned in a 1500 year old middle eastern book that refers to an oral tradition dating back to before 1272 BC. That means approx. 3300 years back. The sightings near death have also been mentioned in ancient books. This about documented texts, otherwise, the phenomenon must be as old as the human race itself. The hat is of course a modern version. I don't think it is an archetype though.

I was referring to characters who look a bit like my avatar. They're modern variations on an ancient theme. That's assuming that they're the same entities as the cloaked ones. Maybe the shadow beings change with the times like what allegedly happens with angels/demons and fairies morphing into extraterrestrials.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#1219    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:13 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

I was referring to characters who look a bit like my avatar. They're modern variations on an ancient theme. That's assuming that they're the same entities as the cloaked ones. Maybe the shadow beings change with the times like what allegedly happens with angels/demons and fairies morphing into extraterrestrials.

Yes I got everything you said. I replied agreeing with you. :) I mentioned the archetype part against the Jungians. I'm not sure if the same entities change with time. Mark has this "evil is one" theory, but I don't agree with him about this particular concept.


#1220    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:26 AM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Yes I got everything you said. I replied agreeing with you. :) I mentioned the archetype part against the Jungians. I'm not sure if the same entities change with time. Mark has this "evil is one" theory, but I don't agree with him about this particular concept.

I'm on the Jungian fence on this one. It's likely that the old hag is in Jung's bag in that "she" comes from the very real common phenomenon of night terrors and sleep paralysis, and this might have evolved into an archetype since it's a shared experience. Like you, I don't think that all of these phenomena are evil branches of the same wicked tree. I think that they're part of a paranormal menagerie, something akin to normal zoology with all of the varied species found in that field.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#1221    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:40 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 11 June 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

I'm on the Jungian fence on this one. It's likely that the old hag is in Jung's bag in that "she" comes from the very real common phenomenon of night terrors and sleep paralysis, and this might have evolved into an archetype since it's a shared experience.

If there is a seperate conciousness interacting with yours and you skin that conciousness with the archetype in your mind, I don't have any problem calling the entire thing an archetype as long as I'm allowed to ascribe conciousness to it. But Jungians would disagree.

The archetypes and Jungians part is not referring to you Mark. Hope you are doing well and have got rid of your prescription. ;)

Edited by XingWi, 11 June 2013 - 04:42 AM.


#1222    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:46 AM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

The cloaked figure is mentioned in a 1500 year old middle eastern book that refers to an oral tradition dating back to before 1272 BC. That means approx. 3300 years back. The sightings near death have also been mentioned in ancient books. This about documented texts, otherwise, the phenomenon must be as old as the human race itself. The hat is of course a modern version. I don't think it is an archetype though.

The Bantu People date back approx. 4000 years(because of verbal tradition), and have many variations of these shadow figures.. Some even have hats or masks on. But the mordern Hatman seems to really take to these flamboyant cowboy looking hats or fedoras... No mention of that..

The shadow people were what was believed to be ghosts or "dark energies", not of good intention.. The Hatman.. When he showed his face, was considered to be good, no face was considered just another shadow person, just happened to have a hat too..

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1223    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:30 PM

View PostxFelix, on 11 June 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

The Bantu People date back approx. 4000 years(because of verbal tradition), and have many variations of these shadow figures.. Some even have hats or masks on.

What were these many variations? Can you describe them in deatil?

Edited by XingWi, 11 June 2013 - 12:35 PM.


#1224    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

What were these many variations? Can you describe them in deatil?

Well, there were thousands of them.. The only shared thing they all had was that they were shadow people.. The thing is, they weren't transparent or void or anything like that.. It was like seeing a solid black mass just taking up space in the shape of a body, some had capes, hats, weapons, abnormal limbs.. etc etc etc..

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#1225    paranormal kid64

paranormal kid64

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2013

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:32 AM

have u seen ghost be cause i have on many occasaion i have also seen shadow people the only thing i could think of in commen is stress or some how being linked with the paranormal because my friend  has alot of stress but never sees them or any thing paranormal i am very in trested in this subject
because at the house i used to live in i saw them frequently it was also a very old house other than that i have no idea
sorry for the rant


#1226    markprice

markprice

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,308 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:9000'

  • To deny meaning is an act of ignorance.

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:18 PM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

If there is a seperate conciousness interacting with yours and you skin that conciousness with the archetype in your mind, I don't have any problem calling the entire thing an archetype as long as I'm allowed to ascribe conciousness to it. But Jungians would disagree.

The archetypes and Jungians part is not referring to you Mark. Hope you are doing well and have got rid of your prescription. ;)

Jungian "archetypes" can have independent consciousness. He had conversations with what he would call an archetype.

(doctors conspired to keep me on Warfarin etc.(scary side effects)--actually lied about test results--but I'm 1000 miles away from them now and looking for better docs. Spending my summer on medical research instead of hiking in the mountains and just hope to make it through the year alive while reducing side effects.FYI: don't trust doctors of any kind; do your own research.)

"How can someone prove that a rainbow exists to a blind man?"

#1227    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:27 AM

View PostXingWi, on 11 June 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

If there is a seperate conciousness interacting with yours and you skin that conciousness with the archetype in your mind, I don't have any problem calling the entire thing an archetype as long as I'm allowed to ascribe conciousness to it. But Jungians would disagree.

The archetypes and Jungians part is not referring to you Mark. Hope you are doing well and have got rid of your prescription. ;)

I was referring to the origins of the archetype. It's a shared experience. That sharing might have led to a figure found in varied places and times. If it's a real entity, this fact takes it out of the realm of the symbolic, in my opinion.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#1228    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:34 PM

View Postmarkprice, on 12 June 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Jungian "archetypes" can have independent consciousness. He had conversations with what he would call an archetype.

Then he must have used the word "archetype" figuratively for his particular experience in that particular context (Do you have a citation?). A construct with a conciousness of its own is difficult to imagine especially when Jung theorized it as an abstract prototype in the collective unconcious on which something concrete can be thought to be based on or can share the characterisics of. Jungians could argue that it is possible for something concrete to become so popular that it would enter the collective unconcious as an archetype during evolution. But the problem is once it has entered their version of "collective unconcious" it has become abstract. If you encounter something that is based on that abstract prototype you are not encountering the prototype itself, and even if you encounter the original concrete thing/entity that has entered the collective unconcious as a prototype you are still not encountering the abstract protoype it has entered the collective concious as, so calling it an archetype would then be figurative.

His theories are full of contradictions anyway. Most of them seem to me like direct plagiarization of eastern religious philosophies attempted to be passed off as "science". Shadows, archetypes, collective unconcious, mandalas.. etc etc.

I don't believe in the collective unconcious BTW, it is a slippery slope down to pantheism. Even if it wasn't I wouldn't find it nescessary to believe in a theory that is just that, a theory.


View Postmarkprice, on 12 June 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

(doctors conspired to keep me on Warfarin etc.(scary side effects)--actually lied about test results--but I'm 1000 miles away from them now and looking for better docs. Spending my summer on medical research instead of hiking in the mountains and just hope to make it through the year alive while reducing side effects.FYI: don't trust doctors of any kind; do your own research.)

What the hell man! Why would they conspire?


#1229    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:38 PM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 13 June 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

I was referring to the origins of the archetype. It's a shared experience. That sharing might have led to a figure found in varied places and times. If it's a real entity, this fact takes it out of the realm of the symbolic, in my opinion.

Case 1: Lets say, in a lucid state of dreaming or in AP, you hear a growl. You decide to see this "thing" that is growling near you, but you don't have physical eyes in that realm to actually see the "thing" that is growling. So your mind opens up a list of personal symbols it had, and you subconciously choose from it something specific to give that growling sound a body of its own. If you have a pet dog that frequently growls then maybe you will see it in the form of your own dog. Similarly, another person might see it differently based on the symbols in his own mind. Since the symbols were personal and contextual they will have to vary with the person, and the variation will be great. I agree to this extent and these sorts of unreal experiences happen a lot. The growling sound itself could be the product of your own mind.

Case 2: You hear a growl in a lucid dream and when you focus on it you see a black dog. You come across another person's experience and compare it with yours and find it exactly similar, the same black dog. Then you read about thousands of experiences similar to your own. The question is why the black dog? You can answer this question by simply saying it is a shared archetype, alright good theory (the jungian collective unconcious is just a theory).  But what if there is a conciousness that resides in a realm that has access to your dreams and wants you to see it that way, like some sort of hypnotic suggestion but in the non-physical realm? What if the hat is just another such mental suggestion?

Jungians can claim that the "hat" is a modern archetype. But to me it is something more. I would call the "hat" a distraction. I believe that the hat is an attempt to shift the human conciousness in masses. (No offence to new-agers).


#1230    markprice

markprice

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,308 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:9000'

  • To deny meaning is an act of ignorance.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:03 AM

View PostXingWi, on 13 June 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Then he must have used the word "archetype" figuratively for his particular experience in that particular context (Do you have a citation?). A construct with a conciousness of its own is difficult to imagine especially when Jung theorized it as an abstract prototype in the collective unconcious on which something concrete can be thought to be based on or can share the characterisics of. Jungians could argue that it is possible for something concrete to become so popular that it would enter the collective unconcious as an archetype during evolution. But the problem is once it has entered their version of "collective unconcious" it has become abstract. If you encounter something that is based on that abstract prototype you are not encountering the prototype itself, and even if you encounter the original concrete thing/entity that has entered the collective unconcious as a prototype you are still not encountering the abstract protoype it has entered the collective concious as, so calling it an archetype would then be figurative.

His theories are full of contradictions anyway. Most of them seem to me like direct plagiarization of eastern religious philosophies attempted to be passed off as "science". Shadows, archetypes, collective unconcious, mandalas.. etc etc.

I don't believe in the collective unconcious BTW, it is a slippery slope down to pantheism. Even if it wasn't I wouldn't find it nescessary to believe in a theory that is just that, a theory.

You believe in collective consciousness though right? That's what happens at a concert for example; you can feel it live; something definitely happens collectively, well, the collective unconscious is the opposite of that: it's where dreams come from to become conscious.

Posted Image

That's Philemon. He was a teacher of Jung. The archetype would be what he represents, like an angel is an archetypal messenger of God, well, Jung had that guy among many others.

Quote

What the hell man! Why would they conspire?

Because I was trying an alternative approach and they wanted to scare me back to their method. It worked, and only much later did it turn out to be a lie, and that wasn't the first time one of those doctors lied...

"How can someone prove that a rainbow exists to a blind man?"




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users