Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CakeOrDeath

Has any "Evidence" Baffled Real Scientists?

109 posts in this topic

This forum is such an excellent resource. I've been reading for years and my personal beliefs have actually shifted thanks to contributors.

People like Sakari, Mulder etc. have really helped me think more critically about things around me. My question then is this, are there any cases or

evidence that have truly baffled those in the scientific community? I've seen some really interesting topics on various incidents in the UFO forums,

but nothing of that nature in the paranormal area.

This seems odd to me, because there are so many reports of supernatural activity and so many believers, you would think there would be a plethora of

evidence to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of these cases have baffled scientists it was not more than for 5 minutes. After that they either had a reasonable explanation or the evidence how the fraud was committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of these cases have baffled scientists it was not more than for 5 minutes. After that they either had a reasonable explanation or the evidence how the fraud was committed.

So no interesting, unexplained "one off" cases left "unsolved" or "not debunked." I guess I just don't understand the multitude of beleivers and shows based on this belief.

While I personally don't put much stock in the "credible UFO cases" they do atleast have some interesting documentation and witnesses who beleive they saw "something."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no interesting, unexplained "one off" cases left "unsolved" or "not debunked." I guess I just don't understand the multitude of beleivers and shows based on this belief.

While I personally don't put much stock in the "credible UFO cases" they do atleast have some interesting documentation and witnesses who beleive they saw "something."

There are many cases where a relevant scientist never was consulted, like in a case of a unknown species a mathematician was the "authority" instead of a biologist and sometimes when there is no interest (either by the relevant scientists or the guardians of the "mystery") to analyze it. And UFOs is about the saddest example, so far most cases have either been explained or debunked.

The funniest example is this picture:

hubcap.jpg

Despite that the author has admitted that this is a hub cap he threw himself into the air more than 40 years ago it still ghosts around "Ufologists" circles as unexplained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many cases where a relevant scientist never was consulted, like in a case of a unknown species a mathematician was the "authority" instead of a biologist and sometimes when there is no interest (either by the relevant scientists or the guardians of the "mystery") to analyze it. And UFOs is about the saddest example, so far most cases have either been explained or debunked.

The funniest example is this picture:

hubcap.jpg

Despite that the author has admitted that this is a hub cap he threw himself into the air more than 40 years ago it still ghosts around "Ufologists" circles as unexplained.

I get where you are coming from with the UFO thing. (Love that photo btw haha...hubcap so obvious) But there are atleast some interesting radar returns "unexplained" lights etc. with some of the UFO cases. Again, not saying "real" just saying, more thought provoking. (Which is why I enjoy this site.)

It just seems the paranormal area would produce more evidence than UFOs because of it's earthly origins, and the number of people actively looking for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its difficult for someone to report sighting a ufo.

There have been countless reports from many people sighting a ufo, some of these reports are made by pilots.

Civilian and airforce pilots have claimed to see ufos. However, proving beyond any doubt they have seen a ufo is as difficult as proving beyond any doubt the sighting of a ghost/spirit etc.

I guess it doesnt help people who claim to have seen a ufo, when recently a man reported seeing one. He rang the police, who explained to him it was the moon :yes::yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any "Evidence" Baffled Real Scientists?

As with most of the paranormal claims, I find that EXTREMLY hard to believe.

Edited by DBunker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where you are coming from with the UFO thing. (Love that photo btw haha...hubcap so obvious) But there are atleast some interesting radar returns "unexplained" lights etc. with some of the UFO cases. Again, not saying "real" just saying, more thought provoking. (Which is why I enjoy this site.)

It just seems the paranormal area would produce more evidence than UFOs because of it's earthly origins, and the number of people actively looking for them.

The only UFO I have ever seen, and spend half a night hunting with my girlfriend instead of doing the proper thing you do at night with the girlfriend was this thing:

217254950_662b6441ed_s.jpg

when we had it hunted down it looked like this

l20c8f2.jpg

and resulted to be this :

20100816_Globo+de+Betanzos.jpg

A unmanned hot air balloon the good people of Betanzos/Spain launch every year in honor of their patron Saint.

I am cured, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to the definition of "baffled".

There are those who claim that when a scientist cannot come up with a solid explanation, they are "baffled".

Scientists, however, are fully aware that there are situations in which one simply does not have enough information to come to a decision. This can occur in any subject, be it UFO or where your cat goes when it leaves in the evenings. A scientists, then, would rather acknowledge that they have no explanation, rather than attempt to fabricate one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a ghost one time and before that I had my doubts. Now I am totally convinced of life after death. How would you prove it thought. I really don't know because like in my case the ghost only appeared to me once and I think she moved on. It happened so unexpectedly and I was so awe struck by her presence she was gone before I even thought about getting a camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a ghost one time and before that I had my doubts. Now I am totally convinced of life after death. How would you prove it thought. I really don't know because like in my case the ghost only appeared to me once and I think she moved on. It happened so unexpectedly and I was so awe struck by her presence she was gone before I even thought about getting a camera.

Interesting post for several reasons, firstly, "I had my doubts" suggests open-mindedness. Who can truly say they "know" that whatever these phenomena are, they must reveal themselves regardless of any belief by the viewer. We all know that weird science about the observer affecting what is observed in particle physics, it is a leap too far to assume that ghosts or whatever are unfazed by the constituency of the viewers, IMO. Secondly the observation about the camera, if you are truly transfixed, as you would be by something altogether other, you don't avert your eyes from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the paranormal is that evidence is almost always an absence of any logical explanation, which means there's always the chance that a "ghost" may be able to be explained at some future point when there is better equipment or a more detailed analysis is done. Likewise, most paranormal experiences are seen or heard by only one person who is not investigating at the time and has no equipment or anything else to make a comparison to what they may have heard, seen or felt, making it difficult to corroborate what happened.

Having said that, I've had several experiences, of which I have no doubt were paranormal. I am convinced that although the first could have had some natural explanation, the follow up to it then made that experience, if it wasn't paranormal, extremely coincidental. The second paranormal experience I have tape of. Is either of these evidence? As an investigator, I say no, simply because I have no witnesses. The first makes a good story and the second could be explained away because no one was there to say I might be mistaken - or not.

In general, what makes a paranormal happening believable are a couple of things. First, multiple witnesses, such as what happened after Flt. 401. Even better is when the witnesses, as in this case, were high ranking people who probably didn't believe in what they saw. Secondly, the kind of sighting that can be verified by later information that wasn't known when the sighting was made could be considered proof, such as Harry Martindale's run in with the Roman soldiers. Or even better, physical, uncontestable evidence from someone who didn't know they were seeing a ghost along with an after-the-fact corroboration of the supposed sighting, such as what happened with Deke Slayton's red airplane. And thirdly, it comes down to the integrity of the person who had the experience and then to whether that person was actually experiencing something or just seeing something he expected to see, which is why paranormal experiences that happen when a person isn't expecting them could be considered more reliable.

Bottom line is, ghost hunting is as frustrating and fun as looking for supernovas. You know they're out there, but it takes a lot of work to find one and then the supernova is the only one you can really prove.

Edited by rodentraiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post Rodentraiser. I really believe this stuff is, as I said above, "altogether other" and not playing by our rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can give a case that scientists cannot fully give an explanation to and that's only because it happened no less than about half an hour walk from my own front door.

Link to the article reported is as follows http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/4713743.Proof_of_a_ghost_at_Netley_Abbey_/

As it says in there "Ghost experts say they are baffled by the appearance of the hooded-character and are investigating."

I have yet to hear of anything after this as to whether they have come to any form of conclusion yet or if they are still investigating but it's certainly made people think about it a lot longer than 5 minutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a ghost one time and before that I had my doubts. Now I am totally convinced of life after death. How would you prove it thought. I really don't know because like in my case the ghost only appeared to me once and I think she moved on. It happened so unexpectedly and I was so awe struck by her presence she was gone before I even thought about getting a camera.

Have you any idea who she was??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there hasn't been enough "evidence" to baffle them, most evidence I can think of simply shows something happened, something that could've been done by a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ghost believer considers as evidence and what a scientist considers as evidence are very different.

An anecdote, a video, a photograph - may be regarded as proof or evidence by many people, yet scientific evidence must be empirical and reproducable in order to support or counter any given theory.

I would imagine that the vast majority of evidence touted by believers would be dismissed by a scientist as being too vague and isolated to draw any conclusions from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can give a case that scientists cannot fully give an explanation to and that's only because it happened no less than about half an hour walk from my own front door.

Link to the article reported is as follows http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/4713743.Proof_of_a_ghost_at_Netley_Abbey_/

As it says in there "Ghost experts say they are baffled by the appearance of the hooded-character and are investigating."

Underlined what struck me. Since when "ghost experts" have been "scientists"? In this forum there's been talk about how can you be an expert of ghosts for several reasons. For example no solid proof or method of them.

Anyways in my opinion that example in my quote is not valid for the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are plenty of things scientists don't understand yet, but that does not necessarily make them baffled or the event paranormal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be wrong here, but it seems that very little paranormal stuff can be recreated in a lab environment, especially since it seems to come & go, and there seems to be a lot of it, though it's impossible to separate the valid claims from the invalid. Paranormal investigation is sort of the kiss of death in the scientific community; if you want to be taken seriously as a scientist do NOT study the paranormal. That said, I think Rupert Sheldrake has presented some credible evidence in his books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ghost believer considers as evidence and what a scientist considers as evidence are very different.

An anecdote, a video, a photograph - may be regarded as proof or evidence by many people, yet scientific evidence must be empirical and reproducable in order to support or counter any given theory.

I would imagine that the vast majority of evidence touted by believers would be dismissed by a scientist as being too vague and isolated to draw any conclusions from.

Great answer :yes: :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is such an excellent resource. I've been reading for years and my personal beliefs have actually shifted thanks to contributors.

People like Sakari, Mulder etc. have really helped me think more critically about things around me. My question then is this, are there any cases or

evidence that have truly baffled those in the scientific community? I've seen some really interesting topics on various incidents in the UFO forums,

but nothing of that nature in the paranormal area.

This seems odd to me, because there are so many reports of supernatural activity and so many believers, you would think there would be a plethora of

evidence to look at.

NDEs baffle doctors a bit. It's obviouse that they occure, just what is happening is still not understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the paranormal is that evidence is almost always an absence of any logical explanation, which means there's always the chance that a "ghost" may be able to be explained at some future point when there is better equipment or a more detailed analysis is done. Likewise, most paranormal experiences are seen or heard by only one person who is not investigating at the time and has no equipment or anything else to make a comparison to what they may have heard, seen or felt, making it difficult to corroborate what happened.

Having said that, I've had several experiences, of which I have no doubt were paranormal. I am convinced that although the first could have had some natural explanation, the follow up to it then made that experience, if it wasn't paranormal, extremely coincidental. The second paranormal experience I have tape of. Is either of these evidence? As an investigator, I say no, simply because I have no witnesses. The first makes a good story and the second could be explained away because no one was there to say I might be mistaken - or not.

In general, what makes a paranormal happening believable are a couple of things. First, multiple witnesses, such as what happened after Flt. 401. Even better is when the witnesses, as in this case, were high ranking people who probably didn't believe in what they saw. Secondly, the kind of sighting that can be verified by later information that wasn't known when the sighting was made could be considered proof, such as Harry Martindale's run in with the Roman soldiers. Or even better, physical, uncontestable evidence from someone who didn't know they were seeing a ghost along with an after-the-fact corroboration of the supposed sighting, such as what happened with Deke Slayton's red airplane. And thirdly, it comes down to the integrity of the person who had the experience and then to whether that person was actually experiencing something or just seeing something he expected to see, which is why paranormal experiences that happen when a person isn't expecting them could be considered more reliable.

Bottom line is, ghost hunting is as frustrating and fun as looking for supernovas. You know they're out there, but it takes a lot of work to find one and then the supernova is the only one you can really prove.

Thanks for the lengthy (in a positive way heh) repsonse. You mentioned a couple of cases, can you link me to anything regarding flt 401? I will have to google Harry Martindale and Deke Slayton. I do agree with alot of people here saying it's hard for scientists since they use the scientific method to test and validate "evidence." I was just wondering if there were any famous cases that might have had enough evidence to "baffle" resonably minded scientists.

Thanks to everyone who posted. I find NDEs interesting, but no paranormal, wild and interesting, but part of brain function or malfunction as it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the lengthy (in a positive way heh) repsonse. You mentioned a couple of cases, can you link me to anything regarding flt 401? I will have to google Harry Martindale and Deke Slayton. I do agree with alot of people here saying it's hard for scientists since they use the scientific method to test and validate "evidence." I was just wondering if there were any famous cases that might have had enough evidence to "baffle" resonably minded scientists.

Thanks to everyone who posted. I find NDEs interesting, but no paranormal, wild and interesting, but part of brain function or malfunction as it may be.

Cant be brain function when your body temp is lowered, your blood is drained from your body, heart stopped, and all electrical activity in the brain is stopped, yet you still know about conversations when you were "dead".

As of yet there is no evidence that its a brain function... That's what's baffling about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NDEs baffle doctors a bit. It's obviouse that they occure, just what is happening is still not understood.

That may be true as far as science being able to bring back an almost dead person. Been there done that. When the brain dies or losses oxygen to an extent the mind goes through millions if not billions of shut downs. What happens during that process is known as the brian being told to shut down. What one see`s is a guess after death.

For a patient to die in a hospital room and being able to look down and see there body is a last dream effect as when the come back so to speak they know they were in a hospital room. Logic states that. However the vast majority myself included on death do not sence anything but a dark silience like sleep.

NDE in hospitals can most assuradly be attributed to a drug given and the mind going into an unconcious state hence mean a dream like experience. NDE`s and what the mind does when it shuts down is not really anything to go on as it is subjective.

Science can explain what a mind does when one dies. NDE`s are a side effect when science brings you back.

Can I ask why would god have you die then have man bring you back.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.