68 replies to this topic

[Brian Topp]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

Your assumption that a debunker is a man of science has been very much brought into question in  recent years.  During our series of "Beyond" we tried to implement an episode where we faced off University scientists, physicists, hard matter physicists, engineers, natural scientists and mathematicians who have problems with the unethical practices of "debunkers" who are paid to debunk and gather information sometimes for corporate purposes whilst replicating experiments incorrectly in order to debunk properly conducted University work.  That plus of course the popular debunkers who are well paid to debunk on "balanced" paranormal programing.  Of the 20 odd people we approached not one debunker was willing to come forward and be put under the very scrutiny they so eagerly apply to others.

My joke about debunkers may seem harsh or appear to be bad taste.  I apologize for it if it offends your role here.  However, the opinion has been formed over years of field experience.   Wikipedia quotes aren't going to change those experiences neither do they validate the debunker in any way.  In fact the Websters quote "If debunkers are not careful, their communications may backfire - increasing an audience's long term belief in myths."  Tells you that the writer is himself biased against anything outside of the accepted and agreed "flawed paradigm" that science is built upon.   Debunkers all too often are self imposed "guardians of thought" and more often "thought police".  In some academic circles they are considered to be corrupt and biased in favor of the highest bidders.

I speaking from this forum not collage "debunkers".

Most skeptics/Debunkers want the holy grail of proof or evidence but it's a lot of digging through a lot of crap to find it. If you read many threads you see a theme and it's not just the debunkers.

Normally you get the people who create threads who believe what they have captured something on camera/sound/video and want an answer. Which splits into three groups,

Group one is people who made his mind up before any one can explain what about what they captured or did wrong with the camera. They want to believe they have caught something special not them taking a picture with Lens flare or not using flash or messing with the settings or taking pictures/video of dust, which can be easily explained and replicated. You reconize group one as people who would post a massive story on the events on how they captured the shot/video/sound. They are easily offended and willing to insult people to back up their claim.

Group two is people who is simular to group one but they know it's fake but do it to get attention or do it for a laugh. Their story is normally far fetched, massive plot holes and messes up the whole paranormal community which cause more people to be skeptical on any one who posts their stories.

Group three is a smaller group, they want an answer, either it's paranormal or just a simple explaination on what they captured then they are happy with that.

Most people who post evidence here can be explained, most cases it's user error on the camera, or some one trying to trick some one or some one wants attention or wants to feel special by gaining a "power". People who have waking dreams suffer from Sleep paralysis where they have dreams of demons, ghosts, aliens etc. People who seen popular culture movies like twilight and want to write a fictional story about themselves or friends being vampires or werewolves. It goes on.

[Rafterman]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

These moments of discovery can be so exciting.  It's very hard to stand back and say "it's probably not anything".  You asked and most of our impartial responses are "nothing special".  My advice is keep on searching and you'll find the real thing.  Then all you have to contend with are the a-hole debunkers.  Did I call a debunker and a-hole?  That's a compliment... at least an a-hole has a useful function.

So you'd prefer that someone continues to embarrass themselves by shopping around a photo of their own shadow as evidence of the paranormal?

[PhantomGlider]

Brian Topp, on 21 June 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

I speaking from this forum not collage "debunkers".

Most skeptics/Debunkers want the holy grail of proof or evidence but it's a lot of digging through a lot of crap to find it. If you read many threads you see a theme and it's not just the debunkers.

Normally you get the people who create threads who believe what they have captured something on camera/sound/video and want an answer. Which splits into three groups,

Group one is people who made his mind up before any one can explain what about what they captured or did wrong with the camera. They want to believe they have caught something special not them taking a picture with Lens flare or not using flash or messing with the settings or taking pictures/video of dust, which can be easily explained and replicated. You reconize group one as people who would post a massive story on the events on how they captured the shot/video/sound. They are easily offended and willing to insult people to back up their claim.

Group two is people who is simular to group one but they know it's fake but do it to get attention or do it for a laugh. Their story is normally far fetched, massive plot holes and messes up the whole paranormal community which cause more people to be skeptical on any one who posts their stories.

Group three is a smaller group, they want an answer, either it's paranormal or just a simple explaination on what they captured then they are happy with that.

Most people who post evidence here can be explained, most cases it's user error on the camera, or some one trying to trick some one or some one wants attention or wants to feel special by gaining a "power". People who have waking dreams suffer from Sleep paralysis where they have dreams of demons, ghosts, aliens etc. People who seen popular culture movies like twilight and want to write a fictional story about themselves or friends being vampires or werewolves. It goes on.

I understand and agree with much of your opinion.  I don't agree in the slightest about the Sleep paralysis explanation of the sleep phenomena for the very reason that I don't like the "debunkers" approach either here or in academia... they tend to fit their answer to the the mystery without taking into account all of the elements of the phenomena.  

I have always throughout my research and the researchers I have hired to gather information for my programming sought a completely unbiased approach.  The photo in question is undoubtedly a shadow cast from a light source.  I feel the photographer's let down and seek to point out the reality without discouraging him from continuing the search.

I am reminded of a skeptics magazine that pre sold it's statistic assumption of debunking astrology to the science community and then after conducting it's research found that there was in fact statistical evidence to prove that there was something to astrology.  Went to their membership and said sorry the findings didn't work so we are re-doing the tests to make sure it disproves astrology and the first publication will be late.  They lost half of their membership because they proved themselves to be totally biased.  It didn't make any difference.  They stayed in existence but obviously there is nothing factual to any of their findings because they have proved themselves to be immoral.

The thing I like about "fact or faked" what ever faults people may find with the series is that they are seeking  answers in a balanced way.  They are not using the biased "debunking" method and calling it scientific but rather a truly investigative process.

I remember on my series taking a Professor of Physics down to look at the local hydro company in Regina and comment on the experiments being made by them into Tesla's work  (they were/are building a Tesla powered street lighting system to save money and power).  He was blown away and started going on at length about how prejudiced  he had been about Tesla and his work until he had seen it in action.  Then he started an outpouring about what we don't know about electricity, string theory and disconnected islands of scientific knowledge that existed but couldn't fit within the flawed paradigms upon which both science and mathematics are based.  He underlined that physics had shown that the earth was round to the ancient Greeks but that they couldn't fit it into the paradigm and therefore put it aside for a few thousand years until it could fit.

Whenever we found that natural explanations were more likely than supernatural... as with the Bermuda Triangle we explained the natural geological processes.  We were not however prepared to accept stretches in logic in any direction.

You , I am sure will not likely change your views very easily and neither will I.  Our processes are very different and maybe even equally biased.  It would be futile for me to try to change your view point but I am merely stated my particular parallax view and my absolute commitment to that view.  As you are yours.  So having stated my position and feeling I've made my case as clearly as I can I am happy to agree to disagree.  I am able to observe and acknowledge my own prejudices as well as those of others.

[PhantomGlider]

Rafterman, on 21 June 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

So you'd prefer that someone continues to embarrass themselves by shopping around a photo of their own shadow as evidence of the paranormal?

I think if you re read my post you'll see that I am not saying that at all.

[Brian Topp]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

I understand and agree with much of your opinion.  I don't agree in the slightest about the Sleep paralysis explanation of the sleep phenomena for the very reason that I don't like the "debunkers" approach either here or in academia... they tend to fit their answer to the the mystery without taking into account all of the elements of the phenomena.  

I have always throughout my research and the researchers I have hired to gather information for my programming sought a completely unbiased approach.  The photo in question is undoubtedly a shadow cast from a light source.  I feel the photographer's let down and seek to point out the reality without discouraging him from continuing the search.

I am reminded of a skeptics magazine that pre sold it's statistic assumption of debunking astrology to the science community and then after conducting it's research found that there was in fact statistical evidence to prove that there was something to astrology.  Went to their membership and said sorry the findings didn't work so we are re-doing the tests to make sure it disproves astrology and the first publication will be late.  They lost half of their membership because they proved themselves to be totally biased.  It didn't make any difference.  They stayed in existence but obviously there is nothing factual to any of their findings because they have proved themselves to be immoral.

The thing I like about "fact or faked" what ever faults people may find with the series is that they are seeking  answers in a balanced way.  They are not using the biased "debunking" method and calling it scientific but rather a truly investigative process.

I remember on my series taking a Professor of Physics down to look at the local hydro company in Regina and comment on the experiments being made by them into Tesla's work  (they were/are building a Tesla powered street lighting system to save money and power).  He was blown away and started going on at length about how prejudiced  he had been about Tesla and his work until he had seen it in action.  Then he started an outpouring about what we don't know about electricity, string theory and disconnected islands of scientific knowledge that existed but couldn't fit within the flawed paradigms upon which both science and mathematics are based.  He underlined that physics had shown that the earth was round to the ancient Greeks but that they couldn't fit it into the paradigm and therefore put it aside for a few thousand years until it could fit.

Whenever we found that natural explanations were more likely than supernatural... as with the Bermuda Triangle we explained the natural geological processes.  We were not however prepared to accept stretches in logic in any direction.

You , I am sure will not likely change your views very easily and neither will I.  Our processes are very different and maybe even equally biased.  It would be futile for me to try to change your view point but I am merely stated my particular parallax view and my absolute commitment to that view.  As you are yours.  So having stated my position and feeling I've made my case as clearly as I can I am happy to agree to disagree.  I am able to observe and acknowledge my own prejudices as well as those of others.

Fact or faked is not good example. I seen a few segments where they couldn't repeat the technique they saw by only using a few methods. If they attempt to repeat the process that failed or even alter their thoery would be more educational but since their own theory or technique fail to match the event then they claim it fact even though there could be other methods that could be used to help to replicate the event. Any way Fact or Faked is more towards entertainment, not education, just like ghost hunters.

Edited by Brian Topp, 21 June 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[Vzy4kat63]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree. You've taken a snapshot and didn't realize that you caught your own shadow in the process. I've done it a number of times.

[Sakari]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

These moments of discovery can be so exciting.  It's very hard to stand back and say "it's probably not anything".  You asked and most of our impartial responses are "nothing special".  My advice is keep on searching and you'll find the real thing.  Then all you have to contend with are the a-hole debunkers.  Did I call a debunker and a-hole?  That's a compliment... at least an a-hole has a useful function.

Childish, imature, and a true sign of ignorance.

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

I think if you re read my post you'll see that I am not saying that at all.

I think because of your childish post quoted above, not many bothered reading any other replies from you.

Pretty sad that was all you could contribute to the topic, especially after reading everyone else's replies.Normally I would say welcome to UM to a newbie, but in this case, nope.  

Edited by Sakari, 21 June 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[Paranormalcy]

That does appear to be the OP's shadow, which is neither good nor bad, it just is. An interesting picture, nonetheless, with curious lighting and effects.

[PhantomGlider]

Sakari, on 21 June 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Childish, imature, and a true sign of ignorance.







I think because of your childish post quoted above, not many bothered reading any other replies from you.

Pretty sad that was all you could contribute to the topic, especially after reading everyone else's replies.Normally I would say welcome to UM to a newbie, but in this case, nope.  

That wasn't by any means all I contributed on the topic.  "Everyone else's replies"?   It was all you chose to react to.  I think the exchange of views between Brian Topp and myself was actually fairly positive and interesting.

However, an exchange of any depth with anyone who may decide not to read posts that they comment on?... now that could be a complete and pointless waste of time.  If you were to take time to read the exchange you will see that I have absolutely no problem with people who seek the truth.  My only problem is with the biased nature of the debunker's process, their fear of the subject, their need to censor or limit free thought and their inquisition-like approach to paranormal subjects.  To comment on posts that one does not read is consistent with that kind of inquisition mentality.  In any case I'm not going to overly engage in more of this debate as I feel that I've explained myself on the issue quite clearly.

[Sakari]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

That wasn't by any means all I contributed on the topic.  "Everyone else's replies"?   It was all you chose to react to.  I think the exchange of views between Brian Topp and myself was actually fairly positive and interesting.

Yes it was, because it stuck out big time, and left me with no desire to read anymore of your replies after that.........No offense, just my opinion and how I saw it.I am sure some time in the future we will have a discussion on another topic, but that first impression will all ways be there for me.



You never get a second chance to make a first impression

Edited by Sakari, 21 June 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[kitone1]

PhantomGlider, on 21 June 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

That wasn't by any means all I contributed on the topic.  "Everyone else's replies"?   It was all you chose to react to.  I think the exchange of views between Brian Topp and myself was actually fairly positive and interesting.

However, an exchange of any depth with anyone who may decide not to read posts that they comment on?... now that could be a complete and pointless waste of time.  If you were to take time to read the exchange you will see that I have absolutely no problem with people who seek the truth.  My only problem is with the biased nature of the debunker's process, their fear of the subject, their need to censor or limit free thought and their inquisition-like approach to paranormal subjects.  To comment on posts that one does not read is consistent with that kind of inquisition mentality.  In any case I'm not going to overly engage in more of this debate as I feel that I've explained myself on the issue quite clearly.

Welcome to UM PhantomGlider, so nice to see a venerable, qualified and educated opinion for a change.

[sam12six]

From the photo, I see either the ghost of a 47 year old Lithuanian man who smokes around a pack of cigarettes per day and walks with a slight limp or the picture taker's shadow.

[PhantomGlider]

kitone1, on 22 June 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

Welcome to UM PhantomGlider, so nice to see a venerable, qualified and educated opinion for a change.

Thank you very much Kitone 1,  for your kind welcome.  Much appreciated.

[ColoradoParanormal]

Waya6966, on 19 June 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Yes,I am very 'in-tune'as they say with those abilities.I can speak with/see as well as sense the dead.I go by my gut instinct about everything

Ok, I'm late getting to this topic because, well to be honest, I've grown weary of the same story over and over just with different users. This forum has degraded quite a lot lately and it's due to the fact of what I call the "Blind Faith" belief system  and the overwhelming protection of it while scientific, rational and educated members whom actually are experts in this field are attacked, belittled and moderated to the extreme.

Now, Waya, you're playing with us correct? You're simply flaming us or playing a prank? Allow me to offer you a little advice. When seeking advice, making a claim and/or asking for scientific review of your "evidence,"  don't make claims of "being able to speak to the "Dead," being psychic etc" as those claims hold no scientific precedent and are a research subject in and of itself. Therefor, using a scientifically unproven and implausible subject to try and validate another scientifically implausible and unproven subject is, unethical and well, ludicrous at best.

As far as your picture, the answer is simple and obvious. You were shooting in low light, by your own admission, no flash was used, therefor you snapped a picture with motion blur due to a low ISO and Slow Shutter Speed. Case solved!

[Chrlzs]

For reasons eloquently expressed by Sakari, I shall not respond in detail to the .. er .. 'stuff'.. posted by Phantomglider, except to say this:

I'm happy to be called a debunker.  Because - I don't like BUNK.  If you want to twist the word and apply some other definition to it, then have at it, but keep your insults and generalisations to yourself.  I'd rather be an 'a-****' and RIGHT, than be an encourager of those who would (deliberately or not) mislead or misinform.


Phantomglider, you portray yourself as an experienced researcher..  So, what is your favorite 'case', and can you show an example of your analysis of that?  If not, why not?  Earlier I gave an (admittedly very brief) analysis of the OP image - do you dispute any of it?



BTW - there are two types of people in the world:
1. Those who like to divide things up into two.
2. Those who don't.

Me, I'm in category 2...