109 replies to this topic

[vitruvian12]

Sakari, on 15 June 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

Don't worry, I am not

You said " Many top Universities and Colleges ".....

I said if you can share some " top Universities and Colleges "    ( Plural, if not " many " )

Now, Arizona is a good University, but I am looking for what you were saying.....

" Serious investigation of Paranormal activity is now being pursued "

I do not see Arizona's Curriculum aimed towards " Paranormal Activity "....

And I am going by this definition, more or less....

Definition:

The term 'Paranormal' is defined as a phenomenon or an experience that is beyond or unexplained by conventional theories of science.

Paranormal Activity includes Clairvoyance, Extra Sensory Perception, Reincarnation, Ghosts, Levitation, Prophesy, Telekinesis, Remote Viewing, and Precognition and so on.



And, we are discussing Ghost Hunting / Poltergeists......No University is doing that.

In addition to that, the Arizona quote only implied the hope of future courses being offered, nothing about any being presently offered

[Chrlzs]

Hmm..  Not very impressed with the following 'quote', Ecto...

Ecto76, on 15 June 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

The paranormal psychology research department at University of Arizona is called the Center for Consciousness Studies.

I think it is pretty clear that you intended this to look as though it came from the University.. after all, you even give the domain at the bottom, as if it was quoted from that...

But in fact, the words "paranormal psychology research department' do NOT come from Arizona U, do they?  They were added by someone else.

If you go to the AU website, the word 'paranormal' doesn't appear anywhere.  Here's the link, go check it for yourselves:
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
Some of the topics might be considered bordering on the edge of known science, but pretty much any research that is on the bounds of knowledge is by nature at the 'edge' of normalcy.  Presenting that Centre as a specifically paranormal one is downright misleading.  If I was to contact the director of that centre and ask him if he was happy with that title (I am tempted to do so, as this has been repeated elsewhere), I suspect I know what his reply will be.  There is perhaps a REASON they *didn't* include the word 'paranormal' in their centre's name, or indeed anywhere on their website.

Ecto, you have simply parroted some other poster on an unrelated (but paranormal-biased) website who has mis-characterised Arizona University's research centre.  That's not the way to promote this stuff.

Edited by Chrlzs, 15 June 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[Ecto76]

Chrlzs, on 15 June 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Hmm..  Not very impressed with the following 'quote', Ecto...

I think it is pretty clear that you intended this to look as though it came from the University.. after all, you even give the domain at the bottom, as if it was quoted from that...

But in fact, the words "paranormal psychology research department' do NOT come from Arizona U, do they?  They were added by someone else.

If you go to the AU website, the word 'paranormal' doesn't appear anywhere.  Here's the link, go check it for yourselves:
http://consciousness.arizona.edu/
Some of the topics might be considered bordering on the edge of known science, but pretty much any research that is on the bounds of knowledge is by nature at the 'edge' of normalcy.  Presenting that Centre as a specifically paranormal one is downright misleading.  If I was to contact the director of that centre and ask him if he was happy with that title (I am tempted to do so, as this has been repeated elsewhere), I suspect I know what his reply will be.  There is perhaps a REASON they *didn't* include the word 'paranormal' in their centre's name, or indeed anywhere on their website.

Ecto, you have simply parroted some other poster on an unrelated (but paranormal-biased) website who has mis-characterised Arizona University's research centre.  That's not the way to promote this stuff.

I don't appreciate this accusation, nice try! Totally uncalled for on your part. Your stretching to argue anything I rebut when it comes to skepticism. All I did was do a web search for the information that was asked of me. I did not intentionally mislead, manipulate any type in anyway shape or form. The school of medicine isn't good enough for you people??? Most of you are making my point more and more valid. No matter what we say or do isn't going to make a difference here.

Edited by Ecto76, 15 June 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[HerNibs]

Ecto76, on 15 June 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

I don't appreciate this accusation, nice try! Totally uncalled for on your part. Your stretching to argue anything I rebut when it comes to skepticism. All I did was do a web search for the information that was asked of me. I did not intentionally mislead, manipulate any type in anyway shape or form. The school of medicine isn't good enough for you people??? Most of you are making my point more and more valid. No matter what we say or do isn't going to make a difference here.

You may not have intentionally mislead but you didn't research what you were quoting.  

Nibs

[Ecto76]

HerNibs, on 15 June 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

You may not have intentionally mislead but you didn't research what you were quoting.  

Nibs

Yes I did... so stop accusing me of things thank you. Not very nice.

I think this is a very good place to look into! This is a very good university who is conducting many studies of the paranormal such as near death experiences, after life etc;

http://www.medicine....ops/we_are-page

[HerNibs]

Ecto76, on 15 June 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

Yes I did... so stop accusing me of things thank you. Not very nice.

I think this is a very good place to look into! This is a very good university who is conducting many studies of the paranormal such as near death experiences, after life etc;

http://www.medicine....ops/we_are-page

Uh huh.  This is a research group that operates on the campus that receives little or no funding from the university or state.  Not much more than a club.  Again, just interesting.

Now - what evidence have they come up with?

No one said that there weren't studies on the paranormal.  We said there is no evidence.

Nibs

[Sakari]

Ecto,

You were the one whom said " EMF's can cause harm to people " something to that effect, and that " many major Universities and colleges study paranormal activity ".....

You can blame me for ask you to show me where you learned this information......I new it was bogus information you were passing on, opinions / beliefes stated as facts to help " teach " people...

Friend or not, I can't just let stuff like that fly...I have read all the replies, and still do not know what you are upset about.....The link you provided for Arizona was bogus from Arizona's site....So what, you linked a bad site, you did not clarify it, or, as I have said, are learning things from the wrong places, and the wrong people.

If you do not post anymore that is fine, I just do not see why you can not see this is all....Actually I know why.

[rashore]

Would the VERITAS program from LACH out of UofA count as paranormal? It's supposed to test the hypnosis of consciousness after death. http://lach.web.ariz...esearch_program

[vitruvian12]

Ecto76, on 15 June 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

I don't appreciate this accusation, nice try! Totally uncalled for on your part. Your stretching to argue anything I rebut when it comes to skepticism. All I did was do a web search for the information that was asked of me. I did not intentionally mislead, manipulate any type in anyway shape or form. The school of medicine isn't good enough for you people??? Most of you are making my point more and more valid. No matter what we say or do isn't going to make a difference here.

Why dont you want to see that the example you provided at Arizona University has nothing to do with the paranormal?  All you have to do is read the mission statement.  Nothing paranormal is mentioned.  Now youre playing a martyr and claiming nothing you do will satisfy anyone.  If you provided an example that supported your initial statement then you might be entitled to cry foul.  As it is, you either posted the example knowing it wasnt accurate or it is a good example of poor research skills.  If thats your idea of doing research then I think it calls into question your other conclusions.
You are the one turning this into an imaginary personal attack on you.  If you provide faulty or misleading information and its called to your attention whats the big deal in just admitting its not what you thought it was?

[Sakari]

rashore, on 15 June 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Would the VERITAS program from LACH out of UofA count as paranormal? It's supposed to test the hypnosis of consciousness after death. http://lach.web.ariz...esearch_program

In January of 2008, the VERITAS Research Program, as it existed prior to 2008, was closed................


http://www.arizona.e...:11&sitesearch=




Looks like it was a few different things, closed, re-opened named something else, closed, than moved to who knows where......


Either way, it is like finding a needle in a haystack, and I was just debating the " Many major Universities and Colleges are studying paranormal activity " that was used to back up the credibility of hunting for ghosts.


I am not sure why anyone needs to " defend " what their hobby is myself, I think " noodling " is one of the dumbest things I have seen, but hey, they enjoy it.

I just can not read topics that have false information stated, this is how rumors start.

I think Ecto's belief and love for his hobby is so strong, he is falling for a lot of stories heard from others, and blind faith takes over.I know he is passionite about what he does, but sometimes we all need to take a few steps back and really " research " what is told to us....Whether it is in person, at a conference from a speaker, or on the internet....Just being told something does not mean it is true.

We also need to step up and admit when we are wrong, and learn from it.Nothing wrong with being wrong, I have been numerous times here, I learned from that, and admitted it......As I said before, no one is 100% right 100% of the time.

I think it is sad when people can not have a discussion without taking it personal, and I also think that is a defensive stand from people who will not admit being wrong......A martyr.

Anyway, no one should be upset, and I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Edited by Sakari, 15 June 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[_Only]

rashore, on 15 June 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Would the VERITAS program from LACH out of UofA count as paranormal? It's supposed to test the hypnosis of consciousness after death. http://lach.web.ariz...esearch_program

Looking at a few of their publications, I'd say that would count as a hit.

edit: Actually, all of their publications. I thought medium was being used in another way, but every publication has the word in it, and I think they are referring to "psychics". o_O It makes it seem as if all their research is talking to mediums. Weird.

Edited by _Only, 16 June 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[JesseCuster]

Ecto76, on 14 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I can easily turn around and say............ prove to me that ghosts do not exist? Based on what facts and scientific findings?

Have you ever heard of the concept of burden of proof?

The idea is that it is the responsibility of those making the positive claim to provide the facts and scientific findings to back their claim, not those who don't believe them to prove they are wrong.

If I say there is life on Mars, it's up to me to provide backup for that claim if I wish to be believed and taken seriously.  I can't just say "well, prove me wrong with science that there is no life on Mars!" to someone who doubts me because that is shifting the burden of proof to someone whose responsibility it isn't to prove here isn't life on Mars.

Similarly, with ghosts, it's not the responsibility of people who don't believe in ghosts to provide some sort of proof they don't exist, which is impossible anyway.  It's the responsibility of those who claim that ghosts exist to do the legwork if they wish to convince anyone else.

Defending an idea with "you can't prove me wrong 100% !!!" is just intellectual laziness.

[scowl]

Another problem is similar to the problem in UFO investigations: too many people jump to conclusions when they see something unexpected or unusual.

What is a "ghost"? From evidence I've seen which I have some faith hasn't been hoaxed, it's one of two things: a transparent area of light that moves or some noise that with some imagination sounds like someone saying a few syllables. Concluding that these must be caused by supernatural beings is lots of fun but it's also a huge jump in logic.

[Sheetz]

One post really rings true.  For sake of argument and as a hypothetical one at that.  Let's just pose this.....  Joe Blow was out in the desert one DAY with his $7000 HD camcorder with all the bells and whistles...real pro stuff.  Heck, lets make him a documentary videographer who was there to shoot some filler for a nature program on a rattle snake that lives there (just to give him a reason to be there for this hypothetical LOL)   He hears a noise above his head and swings his camera to the skies and captures in HD/3D/Omnimax quality a real honest to goodness space ship.  I mean, its the clearest most well defined DAYTIME shot EVER known to man of a UFO.

What happens? Whether he sells it to the media, or research shows or scientists or whatever.  There are those who are going to deem it faked, tampered with, CGI, etc....it gets anylized, scrutinized, run through countless video filters to debunk and ultimately IF IT WERE 100% REAL, STILL a huge contingency of people, if not most would say "no way, its a fake".  "It's too good to be real"  It's too clear to be actual".  How do you prove the proof is real even if all attempts to disprove it fall short???  He's a professional videographer and has abilities to post produce effects...and so on and so forth...Same hypothetical for ghosts or apparitions, monsters or whatever.

No matter what is captured, heard, videotaped or whatever, there will always be a huge amount of doubt and those who will say "no way, its fake"  We are only human, and the unknown is just that.  We ask and want proof, yet even if "proof" is captured, there is ABSOLTELY no way to say its really real proof. What if it can't be debunked - still it will get shot down by many. Why?? There forever will always be variables that are present that give reasonable doubt.  And if there is ANY doubt, well then...we know the rest.  Witnesses can confirm, but then there are questions about the witnesses.  Equipment is not perfect.  Lenses do strange things....then add in real hoaxing, tampering, etc, and no matter what, one person can say, "no, its not real."  OK, my two worthless sense....just chiming in on the fact that even if the "proof" was (in our hypothetical here) authentic, what PROOF do we have of the proof being real proof? - NONE  ugh, that hurts my head. LMAO.....kind of like asking how deep is a hole, or how long is a piece of string?  

[vitruvian12]

Sheetz, on 05 July 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

One post really rings true.  For sake of argument and as a hypothetical one at that.  Let's just pose this.....  Joe Blow was out in the desert one DAY with his $7000 HD camcorder with all the bells and whistles...real pro stuff.  Heck, lets make him a documentary videographer who was there to shoot some filler for a nature program on a rattle snake that lives there (just to give him a reason to be there for this hypothetical LOL)   He hears a noise above his head and swings his camera to the skies and captures in HD/3D/Omnimax quality a real honest to goodness space ship.  I mean, its the clearest most well defined DAYTIME shot EVER known to man of a UFO.

What happens? Whether he sells it to the media, or research shows or scientists or whatever.  There are those who are going to deem it faked, tampered with, CGI, etc....it gets anylized, scrutinized, run through countless video filters to debunk and ultimately IF IT WERE 100% REAL, STILL a huge contingency of people, if not most would say "no way, its a fake".  "It's too good to be real"  It's too clear to be actual".  How do you prove the proof is real even if all attempts to disprove it fall short???  He's a professional videographer and has abilities to post produce effects...and so on and so forth...Same hypothetical for ghosts or apparitions, monsters or whatever.

No matter what is captured, heard, videotaped or whatever, there will always be a huge amount of doubt and those who will say "no way, its fake"  We are only human, and the unknown is just that.  We ask and want proof, yet even if "proof" is captured, there is ABSOLTELY no way to say its really real proof. What if it can't be debunked - still it will get shot down by many. Why?? There forever will always be variables that are present that give reasonable doubt.  And if there is ANY doubt, well then...we know the rest.  Witnesses can confirm, but then there are questions about the witnesses.  Equipment is not perfect.  Lenses do strange things....then add in real hoaxing, tampering, etc, and no matter what, one person can say, "no, its not real."  OK, my two worthless sense....just chiming in on the fact that even if the "proof" was (in our hypothetical here) authentic, what PROOF do we have of the proof being real proof? - NONE  ugh, that hurts my head. LMAO.....kind of like asking how deep is a hole, or how long is a piece of string?  

Your post is sort of implying that video or photo is the only way of providing evidence.  Since its true that medium can be easily fake these days isnt it resonable not to rely on it as a sole form of proof?  Its not that any video or photo will never be considered as hard proof, its just that it should be backed up with other forms of evidence.