I want proof that anything paranormal discussed on this board exists. Show me the carcass of a cryptid, or tell me where I can find a ghost that I can sit down and have a chat with. Tell me how I can shake the hand of an actual ET.

Forget pictures. With photo software I can create convincing ghostly images, or UFOs, or Nessie type lake monsters. I can synthesize "other worldly" sounds.

Scoop marks on someone's leg is not proof that he/she has been abducted. Regression through hypnosis? Sorry...confabulation.

I want empirical evidence. I want proof that can be handled, observed by anyone, prodded and poked with test equipment, and shows the phenomena it represents is real.

Give me a ghost in a bottle. Show me a live Big Foot in a cage. Let me scrape the poop from a real live Grey alien off of my shoe! (OK...maybe not that last one.)

I've heard this reply before: "If you don't believe in it, then nothing will convince you of it's existence." Sorry, that's not good enough. I don't subscribe to blind faith.

And if anyone wonders what the hell I'm doing at an unexplained mysteries forum, my answer is simple: curiosity. I'm curious to "know" if any of this really exists (plus the fact that I enjoy the nice company of the friendly people here ).

I have no problem with whatever anyone chooses to believe. But the repeated theories, conjectures, and tired anecdotes seem to go nowhere.

"Bring me the head of the chupacabras on a silver plater!"

If everyone required evidence before they believed, then nobody would go out trying to find evidence in the first place

I'm not much for faith myself either...however, I do think that not every single thing we see and hear about bigfoot, chupas, ghosts and so forth can simply be down to hoaxes....not everyone in the world is capable of doctoring a convincing photo, or fabricating a convincing story, coroberated by others from completely seperate witnesses.

At the end of the day, believing something exists without needing the evidence is what makes scientific advancement...while I don't agree that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense" (to be honest, if a serious investigation fails to turn up any results whatsoever, not even signs or sounds of a creature, then it's probably not out there...unfortunately, thanks to the attitude that evidence is needed before anyone will believe, I don't think very many serious investigations get done)....I do feel that, as human beings, we really do need to make an effort to explore and learn about the world around us.

If you need everything rubbed in your nose before you believe it, despite a vast array of photographic, audia, testimonial, film, and historical evidence...then we'd probably not have advanced at all since the beliefs of the dark ages

You think Newton woulda gotten very far if he'd decided gravity can't exist, because he couldn't see it?

I was having this same discussion with two different people. I think their are different ways to obtain evidence. For example, a cultural anthropolist obtains his evidence through objective means, or at least tries. There are certain rules that apply. An urban anthropoligist can not use the same means the evidence would be tainted. To apply the rules of science to the metaphysical make no sense to me. Perhaps we need to create a different set of rules for the metaphysical.

Please don't misunderstand my point.

Perhaps my "blind faith" comment was a little too strong. I'm not that closed minded. I realize "something" is undeniably going on with all these reports of strange phenomena. That's the reason I belong to forums like this one. But I'm frustrated with the fact that, even with all the statements made by credible witnesses, there's no tangible evidence to support anything they've reported (and if I'm wrong about this, I would appreciate anyone letting me know).

I want to know what is behind all this. I want to know the nuts n' bolts explanation, the cell by cell break down.

I have had a few strange encounters that I have no explanation for. But I also don't have anything to show you that what I experienced really did happen.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. However, if something can be shown to be a myth, or a misidentification of a natural phenomenon, then I can live with that.

OTOH, if a chupacabras jumps up and bites me on the ass, I'm going to damn well make sure I tackle the little freak and show it to the world.

Hey, I'm with you Source........

I have to have something tangible, to fully believe. I can only believe what my two eyes have seen, this far. And, it isn't the smoking gun that I would like.

I do, however, have a tendancy to look at say ABDUCTEES, and weigh what they say, and who they are as people, equally. Meaning, don't come to me and tell me that you have been abducted, without an understanding that the ones that weren't there, just have a hard time swallowing it, without something good to wash it down. I can believe, but you have to allow room for critisism. (You just have to expect it, I get it all the time)

Before I had my 'experiences', I never even thought of UFO's. Really, never. I was just mulling around life, not really thinking about anything outside of this world. But, now, I know what I know. (Which isn't a tremendous amount) But, it is what it is.

I don't think anyone blindly believes, before they have something happen to them, then it changes all the rules. So, for me, I look at people that don't even believe in basic UFO's (which could be quite mundane, I am not saying they are neccessarily ET's) and I understand why they don't believe, because I didn't either.

I have to say, anyone that just blindly believes, is a fool. That is my thought on the whole thing.

I believe that ghosts are possible, but I haven't seen any, so do I believe? Hell No... Takes a lot more than people telling me what they saw, for me to believe anything of the sort. (Even the mounds of pictures that show everything from orbs, to haze, to swirls of light, do nothing for me) But, I think it is very important that I point out, that I believe it is POSSIBLE.

So, that is about it......

I do want to say, that this board is about the best out there for Unexplained discussions, because you have a very intelligent crowd, that DOES NOT jump right on the bandwagon of either direction, without some sort of intellectual backing. I happen to like that very much.




Reese

SOURCE......
All I can say is? I tried.

I do have unusual photos of the Rose. However, I suspect you wouldn't "buy" it...
no matter how much you trusted me.

Source ,

I have a book called "A case for the higher purpose by Lauren Tratar.
This book is about the September 11th attacks and how they had a higher purpose.
I don't know if there is a thread hear about this, cause I never bothered to look. Lots of people have channeled information about Sept 11 before and after.
Anyway, before I digress to much the woman that wrote this book is not writing channeled information. She is choosing to support her information with 1100+ quotations. The quote are from scienetist and from people on the metaphysical side. Her goal is too stimulate the left brain and right brain.

I wish I had a scanner, but I will try to type a little something here. This is a page from here book. The entire book is set up like this because she is using so many quotes:
"In 1950, Dr. Stewart Wolf studied women who endured persistent nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. These patients swallowed small, balloon-tipped tubes that, once positioned in their stomachs, allowed researchers to record the contractions associated with waves of nausea and vomiting. Then the women were given a drug that they were told would cure the problem. In fact, they were given the opposite--syrup of ipecac--a substance that cause vomiting. Remarkably, the patient's nausea and vomiting ceased entirely and their stomach contractions, as measured through the balloons, returned to normal. Because they believed they received antinausea medicine, the women reversed the proven ction of a powerful drug."----Dr. Herber Benson, Timeles Healing: The Power and Biology of Belief - pg33

[P]hysicians could no longer dismiss the phenomenon [of placebos] as a relatively minor factor, because now it seemed to have an effect the majority of the time----Dr. Herber Benson, Timeles Healing: The Power and Biology of Belief - pg31

The findings revealed by the placebo effect were so blatant, they should have compelled science to question its basic assumptions----notably cause and effect. But that did not happen. Rather than questioning the basis of this seemingly immutable law, science looked for another way out. Enter statistics and "margins of error." Now the line of reasoning went: "Perhaps you'll get better."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -----Albert Einstein 1879-1955


It makes u wonder about the people that trust science so blindly.

The truth is out there

...seriously...it is One way or another...the internet might be a useful tool for finding stuff about...well...just about anything...but it's still only ever gonna have what other people have found and, more to the point, what mainstream society is willing to accept is true.

If you want evidence, then go out and find it (probably what she'd be doing if she lived in the US). One way or another, the actual truth of the matter is somewhere out there, and it's always just a matter of time before we come across it...

At least once every couple of years, we hear about some new species of animal being discovered...or about a species that was thought extinct suddenly being sighted...there's a great deal of the world's surface people just simply don't explore (and probably never will), but if you don't consider footprints, hair samples, dung samples, eye witness accounts, native american folk lore, sound recordings, photographs and videos (I'll agree, most of the photos and so on seem to be BS), as evidence...well, they pretty much ARE physical evidence that something is out there....I don't think it's a missing link, as I've said elsewhere, but I think it's some kind of greater ape we simple haven't studied yet.

There's a wealth of evidence out there....just nothing you can rub your nose in yet. Historically, we know there were 12 foot tall bipedal apes that migrated over to the americas, along with humans, when the continents were still joined...what's to stop their decendants still existing over there?

Anyway...I've gone on longer than I meant to...just wanted to say the truth is out there, only a matter of time before someone that doesn't need evidence waved around under their nose goes out and finds it

I think it's possible that there are just some things we are not meant to know. I know that sounds retarded but some things defy explanation, and I don't think any one theory can explain it all away. Take ghosts for instance. I've never seen one myself, but I know several people whol have, and for the most part I believe them. They had to have seen something. Environmental factors and psychological conditions aren't all to blame, because these apparitions are being seen in a variety of places, with the whole spectrum of weather, background noise, lighting, and frames of mind. I believe the vast majority of things can be explained down to ordinary, mundane natural processes, but there are a few that can't, and maybe they never will.

I am inclined to agree that each individual really needs to see a phenomenon for themselves before they can truly "believe it exists". I am a very open minded person, and I am interested in lots of different paranormal/cryptozoological phenomena, but I haven't seen anything remotely strange in my 36 years. That is a rather large disappointment to me, but I can hardly say that I have gone out of my way to find anything.

Still, several members of my family have witnessed numerous events in the past, and these accounts have been frequently recited ever since The problem here is that I cannot totally accept that what they saw or experienced was paranormal in origin. They might be certain, but that's because they witnessed the events first hand. Even then, it is amazing how people can be persuaded that they have seen something unusual, when in fact a more mundane explanation is far more likely.

The trouble here is that some people are far too willing to believe that they have seen something strange, without rationalising about it first. That may seem a bit too critical to some people, but it is almost certain that lots of people "see things" because they want to see them, rather than because they "have" seen them. Unfortunately, people like this can rarely be convinced that they may have misidentified natural phenomena from an unusual angle, or in poor light. That's why we need to be ultra critical about our own experiences, since only the very best evidence will be sufficiently convincing to others.

Chris Low.

If we had proof positive of things like ufo's aliens etc: alien:


Then boards like this one would not exist, there would be no need for them, as the questions would all have been answered.



The truth will never be handed to you on a silver platter, you have to do your own research, and come up with your own answers, it takes time and patience.

Well, I would sacrifice a board like this for the proof, if that were the case. If there was proof, I would think there would be a greater demand for boards like this, so that the masses could absorb the information. There is definate proof of UFO's, it just doesn't prove what controls them. (i.e. humans, ET's, or others') No one can prove that at the moment.

By meaning of proof, I would hope that it isn't one of personal journey and faith, but tangible PROOF.



Reese

What is 1+1, do not answer, until you can prove that you will be alive 24hrs after you read the question. I rest my case.

HUH?????


What kind of case was that??



Reese

OK, I have to ask... What does training have to do with it? Would the ghosts ask at the door for credentials, before they allow someone to experience them.. Is that the prerequisite now?



Reese

What is accepted as proof byone person, may not be accepted as proof by someone else.



We all have our own ideas of what constitutes PROOF.

Well, I think that is where this hits a dead end, fast. Proof, is something that can be used to decide between something that is fact or fiction, the probable or inprobable. It is not an opinion, or perception of what one feels is right. There is a huge difference between the two.

A theory or hypothesis, is not proof. (It is the BEST GUESS) What people mean when they say they want 'proof', is they want something that straight across the board can disspell whatever it is in question, beyond a doubt. Not something that is purely good for one person, but not others'. Proof of anything is something that we as a civilization work with. We require proof, in the logical sense, not the whimsical sense.




Reese

I think I'm a fool.

I tend to believe antyhing and everything unless it can be proven impossible. but I'm trying to work out whether i believe in antying and everything or the POSSIBILITY of anything and everything.

I was reading this hing on time travel. The majority of scientist hate the idea that this is possible so, despite einstiens theory of relativity and a few other theories (of which I cant remember the names...) allow for the possibility of it they insist that it isnt possible. "the theory must be incomplete" a few of them said. Much of the time, if things don't fit in with the norm adn can't 'logically' be explained then they can't POSSIBLY be true. It annoys me how it's changed to suit science..grrr

depending on the time and place, everything is possible...just in varying degrees

what would be the point of unexplained mysteries if all was explained?

So called "scientists" are very good at dismissing things that they cannot explain. The fact that they cannot explain them should be enough to convince them that further research is warranted. Unfortunately, the opposite generally happens when anything paranormal is mentioned. They simply close their minds and refuse to accept that anything of this nature is even possible.

That is bad science.

Chris Low.

The SOURCE,
I understand it is hard to believe all paranormal things, but I do not think that it is normal not to believe all people. Sorry for these words. I am saying that, because there are many myths and stories about haunted houses, monsters and so on. To my mind nothing comes out of nowhere even the most incredible things. For example I can find information about vampires in myths from Hindi culture, Greek culture, Slavic culture and as I rememmber even in Indian (Mayans...). They are not from nowhere! The same is with these wolf-man or how they are called. I can found them in Baltic, German and other cultures.
On the other hand sometimes I am as sceptical as you, so I am going to read the responses to your question. I also would like to be more confident about these things.
Thank you for starting this theme.

Hi Nancy, hope all is well with you.

I tend to agree with SaRuMaN on this ( that name's a bugger to type ).To believe merely for believings sake would be silly, and it would take away most of the mystery that generates so much of these discussions.To go the other way would likewise be foolish, a middle ground is the best place to sit as it leaves you more open to opinion and proof.I don't think that proof has different levels depending on who you are...proof is proof.So far there is very little proof for most phenomena, but there is suggestive evidence.
On another note, the Rose that Nancy mentioned.Apparently this is an extremely common occurance, especially in some of Engalnd's enormous rose gardens.In fact they say that there are so many cross hybrids around that some can revert back to original species at given times.We now create roses that are from two seperate hybrids...the result can be a red rose with the odd pink rose, or any other colour.

Source I can see now why you are so sceptical of what I have written, you think I am trying to show proof of these things. NO I dont believe in all this paranormal stuff, however rather than try to simply say it is wrong, I look at why people may come up with these ideas and try to find a logical explenation. If people see ghosts or space ships, than instead of trying to say no they didnt, to look at what it could have been that would create that. This may be optical illusions, or else visualisations similar to hypnosis. This can even manifest itself on film if taken using an slr camera since you are viewing straight through the lens. I rote something to explain the miracles of Jesus here if you care to read it
http://www.ebtx.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl...board=philoprin

and did you see the inside of a crab someone is trying to pass of as an alien skull,
http://mysteryskull.tripod.com/
people see what they want to see

"Until things that go bump in the night affect You personally, no amount of jibber jabber will convince you. Once that experience occurs, you will no longer doubt.
Not what you wanted to hear, but tis the honest truth. "

What absolute codswallop, personal experiences cannot be relied on as 'proof'.

Knowing about the suicide and your story about the yellow rose are simply anecdotes and as such must be disregarded as 'proof' as anecdotes are often unreliable and biased.

Life is all around us. There's the corporeal life as we know it, which is driven by instinct to procreate in order to insure the survival of the species. Then there's the unknown forms of life that may exist in parallel dimensions, different vibrational planes, or even an invisible ether which has yet to be explained.

A small percentage of UFOs may actually be interstellar craft with non terrestrial occupants. Some may even be time machines from our own future, or vehicles that are piloted by unknown beings that have always coexisted with us. A few may even be undiscovered "sky beasts."

The seas and oceans remain mostly unexplored. They are so vast and deep that many species of huge and monstrous creatures may swim in the dark depths without our knowledge of them.

There may be hominids that roam the forests and great mountain peaks, blood sucking "mini ghouls" that prey on domestic animals and pets, dinosaurs that have survived extinction, and even gigantic versions of otherwise ordinary animals.

Ghosts could be haunting houses or cemeteries or ships. Poltergeists may be tormenting people with their pranks. Angels and demons might be making unexpected appearances. Fairies and pixies may really exist, hidden away from the prying eyes of humans. Even the internet has become infested with trolls.

We are surrounded by life. So why can we never make a connection? Why are we only allowed fleeting glimpses and blurry photographs to hint these strange creatures and beings exist? There have been many dedicated researchers who spent their entire lives doing field work in hopes of uncovering definitive proof of the existence of aliens and/or cryptids. They continued to search until their dying day, but that proof never surfaced.

Through the advancement of technology we can scan wider areas with greater accuracy and test theories that once could only be imagined. Unfortunately, some of the data being gathered is indicating that a few of these mysteries may simply be myths and legends after all.

Any one of us here may have actually had an encounter with a true unknown. You saw it with your own eyes. You heard the sound it made. You saw it lumber, run, jump, climb, sit, or stand there. You saw it glide, swoop, dive, flap it's wings, or perch on a building. You saw it float in the air, walk through a wall, appear out of nowhere, or vanish in an instant. It was bright and shinny, or dark and frightening. It may have even communicated with you. You felt it's presence. You know it was there. There is no doubt in your mind that you saw what you saw, and heard what you heard.

But where's your proof?

Fruity, This thread is going to be locked now, and you are getting a warning. If you keep behaving in such a negative/childish manner, you will be banned from posting as well. You can bet on that!

Continuing an arguement after a particular thread has been locked isn't a good idea, Fruity. I advise you step back and calm down a bit, as nothing you post will see the light of day until you do.

Magikman

OK Fruity,

How about showing you have atleast one active brain cell. You can't possible expect that you can come here, and start throwing insults to everyone, and get any respect. I am going to call you fruity, because that is how you are acting, just a tad fruity. Please show some respect, or go away..............



Reese

Nancy,

"If I were NOT a lady, I would consider a response...... although, in reality....... your comments (Lady OR not) do NOT deserve a reply.

Insults make you appear "small" ......... Rude doesn't begin to describe you.

Insults, especially concerning personal experiences, are extremely distasteful."


First of all I said it was codswallop, that is my opinion and as this is a discussion board for the publication of opinions regarding the topics being discussed I have excercised the right to voice mine.

Druid.


Druid.. If u are going to quote someone use the quote boxes. Any more inflammatory remarks like the ones I just deleted and you'll have a warning, no need for it.

Personal experiences are proof only for the one that experience it. If you don't actually experience the event then, for you, there is no proof. If I said that I saw a ghost in my house and bizarre things happen to me that I believe are a direct result of the ghost, then I will believe in ghosts. If you don't experience a haunting then you will most likely not believe they exist. The only proof that you will find is personal experience.

what i would like to know is why skeptic's are not skeptical...most already believe that there are no such things as ufos/aliens/bigfoot/sea serpents/ghosts and all the other things that fall into the paranormal,,,i


[QUOTE]http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=70265

Definition
sceptic, US skeptic [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief:
People say it can cure colds, but I'm a bit of a sceptic.
to convince the sceptics

note the word DOUBTS..

Definition
doubt [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
(a feeling of) uncertainty about something, especially about how good or true it is:

note the word UNCERTAINTY

I COULD GO ON BUT I THINK YOU GET THE PICTURE

being a skeptic means you should be open to the fact that someone else could be right....

i mean i'm skeptical about GOD ,i mean i've never seen god,never seen any evidence that god is real ,just because millions believe in god does that mean god is real,,WHO KNOWS, but as i said i'm skeptical so maybe god is real

for this award i'd like to thank my manager oh right , i forgot this is not the oscars

Druid,

It's come to our attention that you are currently posting to the forum using two different nicknames, that is a no-no. Decide which one you wish to keep and inform us of your choice, the other nick will be suspended. Please IM a moderator of your choice or Saruman as to the name you wish to keep and do it quickly. Thank you for your cooperation.

Magikman

Awww, Nancy........ In a sane world that would surely never happen....