Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Necromancer

One Of My P-SB7 Sessions

122 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bmk1245

This will be my last response to you (ever) and my last response in this thread for quite a while (so talk among yourselves...bye).

It will also be used an example of this 'repetition' I was discussing before...

All putting my PSB-7 in a metal box will prove, is that the 'other communication' relies on the RF signal to provide either a 'carrier frequency' or 'raw material' for their communication....not that they are 'the radio'.

If/when I get 'no replies' that really proves nothing when you are shielding a device from all electromagnetic energy in addition to only the 'radio waves'.

If you want to see this a a convenient excuse/reply or even a load of crap, I'm expecting no less from you.

All I'm wondering here, is who are you trying to convince here, yourself or me? because if it's the latter, you're not doing a very good job.

Maybe you are giving a stupid thread more time than it deserves? ever stop to think of that?

More bs excuses pulled from the bottom end... I see your frustration, but I'm frustrated more because nowadays young people can't solve simple problem, yet there are many who are hooked on bs stuff (and similar) you are peddling. Sorry, but I don't want to see Idiocracy in the future, and we are heading right to it with the help of your likes... Have a nice day.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Before I depart for a while, It was yourself who encouraged me to 'open up' and 'talk about my experiences' two pages ago, or else I probably would have kept it all to myself, like I asked if that's what you wanted me to do, remember?

....and no where did I say these were 'ghosts'...I actually...and with much emphasis...spent a whole post refuting that idea, remember?

This is going around in circles and frustrating me...*takes a break*

I was not saying " you " said they are ghosts. I also made a point, talked in a discussion. Something I often think about on these topics. Not sure why you got upset by that post.

And, you commented nothing on the paragraph above that sentence.( other then loving to be able to try it, so I guess you did in a way )

Not sure how it is going around in circles. I posted something new to talk about on the subject. As in, would it work in a non English speaking country....etc,etc,etc.

Either way, nothing meant in my reply to be insulting or anything like that. Second time I had to say that. Not the norm here.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

It's like telling someone to prove a radio station exists, but you'll only accept proof from a radio that doesn't work and they aren't allowed to fix said radio.

??

I believe he is asking for proof it is not the radio stations, and asking to eliminate that part of it.....Not so bad, now is it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I have a theory though (another one...lol) they are some kind of 'interdimensional beings' that live in a parallel universe...just slightly out of phase than this one and their technology allows them to see us, but we cannot see them...but even that's a pretty far fetched and wild idea...

Oh we've seen them plenty, and we don't always need the box to hear them, either. We've had some actual physical interactions with them.

All I can say, is like you, I don't know what they are, but I know they ain't me.

I can't say I'm as convinced of that as you are. I think they very well could be elements of our own psyche that wind up manifesting in different ways, perhaps as thoughtforms. If they are actually a part of us, that would certainly explain why they know so much about us...even things that no one else should be aware of.

I view them in a sort of Hermetic sense. As within, so without...which can also explain why different people have different experiences. I imagine that the more guilt, stress, grief, loss, trauma, anger, fear, etc., that one carries...the more "interesting" things might become.

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

I love how you demanded that the experimenter introduce a measure that would render the experiment completely worthless, and then call it a bs excuse when they say they won't do it.

It's like telling someone to prove a radio station exists, but you'll only accept proof from a radio that doesn't work and they aren't allowed to fix said radio.

Heh... No worries, I ordered that crap (buh bye 80 euros, not the first stupidest things of all I did). Will see, how that gadget will perform on Lith ground...
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

But he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't know enough about how these incorporeal beings, whatever they may be, are made of or how they communicate. So you may very well be eliminating their ability to communicate, and thus causing Type II error. However, I do know investigators who wrapped an entire room in tin foil so that they weren't getting radio or cellphone signals inside the room, but they were still getting stuff on the ghost box and there were still EMF spikes in the room, so maybe that would work.

Repeated intelligent answers should be sufficient, regardless of what method is being used. As I mentioned in another thread, I investigated a house a few weeks ago that was out in the boonies and there were very few radio stations that came in on my car radio. On the ghost box, we were getting nothing but white noise for 3 or 4 sessions, each 20 minutes long. Suddenly, the ghost box just said "Here," and then we started getting responses that were clear, made sense in context, and only occurred directly after a question.

I find it very unlikely that just the right radio stations would come through at just the right time so to string together a series of phonemes that form words and phrases that correctly identify objects immediately after someone asks a "ghost" to identify that exact object, and that it would do this several times in a short period. That's like winning the lotto while being struck by lightening on a sunny day. And then repeating the test several times?

Well, well, well... Ask "corporeal beings" what Ryklio Kavinukas is (with clear pronunciation of name and brand in Lithuanian), and how it is named in English (name and brand). Do it. Just do it. 10 times out of 10, and I will say "corporeal beings" are real. Are you up for challenge, or will you just run away, huh? Just do it.

PS And don't bring more bs excuses, please, I'm sick of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

and we don't always need the box to hear them, either...

I haven't even gone there yet, because I figured if people couldn't accept I was hearing these things through my box, how on earth would they ever begin to process that?

I'm still not sure if I'm actually imagining all of that though...

What I am starting to understand is that it's like I have been given this choice here...I must decide whether to speak to the 'living' or speak to the 'dead' because speaking to either and telling either 'side' about the other is a total waste of my time.

It's one of those things which must remain inside the 'closet' where ghost-box users must admit they use one at their own risk.

All I have to say though, if it is me, I have suddenly decided to start swearing at myself and telling myself off...which never happened before I got my ghost box...

Anyway, back inside the closet I go, while I decide which 'trolls' are more deserving of my time...

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

According to 'them' (and this is the basic gist of it and not their exact words).

'They' don't like me going on the internet...they always tell me that people on the internet are just as 'real' as they are. They say I have to go out into the real world and find 'real people' and make 'real friends'...maybe join a club for 'spirit box users'.

'They' really don't like humans that much (that's a bit of an understatement) and it was them who told me I needed to make the choice and either 'listen to them' or 'listen to people' because it was impossible to do both...and may I say, they don't really believe in people, either!

I just don't understand something though....and maybe it's only me....but this is a forum for 'unexplained mysteries', right? This section deals with Paranormal Investigation...now, seeing as you guys don't believe in the paranormal, is any method of 'investigating it' a load of rubbish because the whole 'paranormal thing' is a load of rubbish? Is there even such an animal as a 'paranormal investigator' because there's nothing to investigate?

If that's the case, why have this sub-section at all? Why have any sections on 'ghosts' or 'UFO's' or anything when they haven't been proven to exist and there's nothing out there capable of doing so? Why does this whole forum exist at all in that case?

Why somebody can't discuss a piece of 'paranormal investigation equipment' in a 'paranormal investigation section' of a 'ghost section' of an 'unexplained mysteries forum' and have it shot down totally in flames, without even so much as a 'look in...'.is totally beyond my scope of comprehension.

If I cannot discuss the results of my PSB-7 here because they are all just 'unsubstantiated claims', could somebody please be kind and direct me to a site/forum that actually has some bloody PSB-7 users on it? and who accommodate both sides of the argument, instead of leaving me feeling like I'm a lonely little minnow in a tank full of hungry sharks.

Thank you.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

According to 'them' (and this is the basic gist of it and not their exact words).

'They' don't like me going on the internet...they always tell me that people on the internet are just as 'real' as they are. They say I have to go out into the real world and find 'real people' and make 'real friends'...maybe join a club for 'spirit box users'.

'They' really don't like humans that much (that's a bit of an understatement) and it was them who told me I needed to make the choice and either 'listen to them' or 'listen to people' because it was impossible to do both...and may I say, they don't really believe in people, either!

I just don't understand something though....and maybe it's only me....but this is a forum for 'unexplained mysteries', right? This section deals with Paranormal Investigation...now, seeing as you guys don't believe in the paranormal, is any method of 'investigating it' a load of rubbish because the whole 'paranormal thing' is a load of rubbish? Is there even such an animal as a 'paranormal investigator' because there's nothing to investigate?

If that's the case, why have this sub-section at all? Why have any sections on 'ghosts' or 'UFO's' or anything when they haven't been proven to exist and there's nothing out there capable of doing so? Why does this whole forum exist at all in that case?

Why somebody can't discuss a piece of 'paranormal investigation equipment' in a 'paranormal investigation section' of a 'ghost section' of an 'unexplained mysteries forum' and have it shot down totally in flames, without even so much as a 'look in...'.is totally beyond my scope of comprehension.

If I cannot discuss the results of my PSB-7 here because they are all just 'unsubstantiated claims', could somebody please be kind and direct me to a site/forum that actually has some bloody PSB-7 users on it? and who accommodate both sides of the argument, instead of leaving me feeling like I'm a lonely little minnow in a tank full of hungry sharks.

Thank you.

Again, I am giving you some credit. I have seen you post something to the effect of you saying " I don't know if I really heard it ", etc.

I am not saying you are , or you are not. I just said how I feel about the ghost box.

As for " us " being here. This is an open forum. As for myself, I am interested in the " paranormal ". I used to believe in a lot of it. Bigfoot, ( most cryptos ), crop circles being alien made, ghosts, etc.

I lived in Sparks, Nevada most of my life, and I spent well over 20 summers ( and more ) " investigating " Virginia City. Places where " Ghost Adventures " went to, and other popular " investigators ". I was in those buildings well before, and much longer then any of them. There were no fancy cable TV shows like Ghost Hunters and such. But we looked, we called, we tried. Even after that I " believed ".

As a matter of fact, I have also looked in many places in Oregon, and now here in Arizona. I am staying at the Copper Queen Hotel soon, in room 315. ( google it )....Ghost adventures was there also.

So, just because I do not " believe " anymore, does not make me a troll, or a hater. I am still interested ( not even as much ), but for different reasons now.

Please keep posting, and try not to be so sensitive to posts. I know some can be, or seem to be rude to you, and others trying to share your experiences. A key thing is, if anyone posts a belief as fact, it most likely will be scrutinized. A lot of us have researched other areas, that most do not. ( EMF's, Radio waves, Sound travel, etc. ) There a few experts here on different things. A few camera, and photography experts, and even a very educated gentleman from NASA.

Anyway, try to have thick skin, and as for me, if I offend you, call me out and quote where I did. You can PM me if you want also. If you feel anything is real bad, or even a little, hit the report button on the bottom.

Trust me, you can find help and advice here, and people feeling the same. You just have to remember it is a open forum, and really, it is better that way. You need both sides if you really want to get to the bottom of things.

Not a cheering crowd just agreeing with you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Of course I need 'both sides', but it's just a tad unbalanced on here, don't you reckon, mate?

Of course, skeptics will be the very first to say "good luck with all your confirmation biases there"...but I have to eventually make that decision; "confirmation bias vs argumentum ad populum" and there seems to be more of the latter than the former on this site.

So, I'd just like a bit of a balance too here...is that too much to ask?

I have a pretty thick skin, but also for bloody once I'd like to be able to create a thread or make a post on here that wasn't immediately shot down by the same 5-6 posters, using the very same old pseudoskeptical arguments to do it, you know?

I am sick and tired of all the 'straw men' and 'pink unicorns' and yeah, .just give me your Occam's razor there so I can go slash my wrists with it...okay?

I just want either a decent, logical debate following all the rules for it OR I just want other PSB-7 users to post on here and talk about their experiences....but I'm not holding my breath waiting for either of those things to happen.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

I'd also like to put something 'out there' that's been irking me for quite a while and I don't have an answer to it, maybe you guys do...

I've see quite a few posters on this forum 'claiming' they are a "werewolf" or a "magi" or a "witch" etc and people seem to avoid them like the plague...I have never once seen anybody say 'prove it' and indeed, their posts don't get any answers at all!

I have seen Chester and Rose talk about their experiences with ITC communication, and apart from 1 or 2 posts saying; 'that's just BS'...nothing seems to happen to them either and they can have a sort of 'freedom of expression' which I seem to lack on here, because the minute I say anything about my box, it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

If you guys cannot agree on the methods I use and you know it's pointless even trying to change my mind, why do you all still follow me around the forums and keep bothering me? what will it take (what can I do) before you put me in the same box as "werewolf" or "witch" and just let me go about my business of doing what I do...like they do?

This is a hypothetical for you all, which would be easier for you to accept (even though the predictable answer is 'neither') is it easier for you to accept a 'spiritual medium' or a 'psychic investigator with a ghost box'?

Thanks.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Yeah, that's a shame...but I can totally see why...they aren't even given the chance!

It's pretty bad when you have a 'paranormal forum' that is basically occupied by those with no belief whatsoever in the paranormal...it sort of defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? but then again, Sakari is correct in saying 'it's a free internet'...but psychic investigators are just too scared to speak out now due to criticism and ridicule, so if there really is any 'evidence' out there, the critics have even killed it before it gets shown.

Yeah, Chester...no doubt you faced what I am facing when you first joined up, but I would like to know just how long these things will take before people decide to either accept or totally ignore all of my little 'eccentricities'? and probably the reason why I have lasted longer than most, is because I don't tolerate bs either!

However, it may soon get to the stage where I may as well just go and post a blog somewhere or write a book, because at least I can have some degree of regulation over that.

Until that day comes, I await the time when I am not 'new' anymore and the taste of my blood becomes old and stale to these guys..

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

Has nothing to do with being new. And it really has a lot to do with patience. And not being so defensive.

As I said, there is a report button right down there on the bottom. Use it.

As for more people " not believing ", quite a few reasons for that here. And, in the grand scheme of things, a public poll would most likely have more people " not believing ", and thus you see your results on a open forum.

This is all off topic......I would love for anything " paranormal " to have some evidence, and actually hold merit, and become fact. That would be awesome. I just can not go with " blind faith " as I used to. And, poor education on my part. ( TV, Crypto forums, etc )....Thank someone for a forum like this, as I learned quite a bit here.

As for your staying or leaving, that is your call. If you want a crowd cheering you on and agreeing with everything you say, you need to find a forum for that, that does not allow an open discussion. Plenty out there. If you have thick skin, and can handle debating, and backing up claims, stay here....All up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

I don't know yet, but I need time to think...to come up with some kind of 'legal disclaimer' that I need to start off every post with, before I can even begin to express any views, opinions or experiences...

Would it have made any difference if I started off by saying:

"The P-SB7 is designed for 'entertainment purposes only' under manufacturer's instruction".

"This is because you cannot 'hear things' that nobody has even proven exists yet"

"Everything I write is just a 'claim' based on 'circumstantial evidence' so please use extreme jurisprudence and caution when reading/reviewing it"

"If you decide to use a ghost-box, you do so at your own risk and detriment to your sanity"

"If you decide to use a ghost-box, you have to keep everything you know about it a secret from others"

Do you think that would have made a difference? I do not, but I'm still going to come up with a few-paragraph disclaimer which I'll put at the beginning of every post I make until people get sick of seeing it...

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer
As for your staying or leaving, that is your call. If you want a crowd cheering you on and agreeing with everything you say, you need to find a forum for that, that does not allow an open discussion. Plenty out there. If you have thick skin, and can handle debating, and backing up claims, stay here....All up to you.

Could you please send me a PM and link me to one of those 'closed forums'? I'd like to go there sometimes just to get a 'different perspective' than what I am seeing here. Thanks mate...

...and I realise it's off topic, but it isn't really because we're discussing the relevance of ITC communication on here overall and whether I may even be around to post in this thread in the near future.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer
If you have thick skin, and can handle debating, and backing up claims, stay here....All up to you.

I also don't know how the heck one is 'sposed to 'back up a claim' on here anyway.

I'm reminded of something I read a while ago...lemme see if I can find it again...

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):

This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard

of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going

to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear

exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be

especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from

noticing that he is continually changing his standard of

evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in

exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent

complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will

only show me some sound evidence.

Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of

incidents that seem to involve psi.

S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory

evidence.

0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced

results which favor the psi hypothesis.

S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and

Z.

0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing

positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.

S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels

to be truly interesting.

0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance

levels.

S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a

highly questionable technique.

O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in

psychology and sociology.

S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their

methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences

such as physics and chemistry.

Etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Edited by The Necromancer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

I won't give you any bs excuses. I will just say "no." I don't want to.

Yeah, what a surprise... Are you scared that you fantasy world will be shattered by failure of epic proportions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

I also don't know how the heck one is 'sposed to 'back up a claim' on here anyway.

I'm reminded of something I read a while ago...lemme see if I can find it again...

Heh... You probably heard of Carl Sagan. He wrote quite excellently:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

(link)

Sounds familiar?

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer
Thank you so much for that! I'll have to check that one out for sure.

On youtube, there's another PSB-7 user I have much time for.

His name is Mortis The Wizard (Shannon) and his replies are way clearer than Steve Huffs and not as prone to misrepresentation.

When Shannon first started out, I noticed he was only picking up about one word in every ten, so I contacted him, went through all his SB-7 sessions and told him what I heard and got him to re-listen to it.

After time, he was able to do this himself and now he's producing great quality spirit box sessions!

There's one in particular he produced lately that sends chills down my spine...and I also heard 100% of everything that Shannon heard in this session (inb4 bias).

I'm sorry I can't produce good quality videos, but I'm just working with a webcam and not an expensive video recorder.

Anyway, I'll show you one of Shannon's sessions instead now. Shannon believes these are voices of the deceased and has his own wild theories (which I don't really agree with), but the quality of his recordings is unsurpassed by any other Spirit Box user on Youtube imho:

Enjoy (but ignore the boring intro, unless you are interested in electromagnetism):

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Heh... You probably heard of Carl Sagan. He wrote quite excellently:

(link)

Sounds familiar?

I'll unignore you just this one last time, only to give others here this prime example of another pseudoskeptical argument called the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" or the "Santa-Claus" fallacy.

This user is well known for it and it's the reason why he now lives on my ignore list.

Argument # 4: The Invisible Pink Unicorn / Santa Claus gambit

Stated as: “Of course I can't prove that God, spirits, UFO’s, paranormal phenomena or metaphysical realities don't exist, but you can't prove to me that invisible pink unicorns and Santa Claus don't exist either, but that doesn't mean that they are real.”

This ridiculous comparison tactic is notoriously common among pseudoskeptics, yet so severely flawed and ludicrous that you have to wonder about the sanity of the person using it. It basically lumps all paranormal phenomena in the same category as anything a skeptic makes up out of thin air. It is more of a belittling tactic than a reasoned argument. Other similar variations of this are “you can’t prove to me that there wasn’t a dragon hiding in my garage either” and “ you can’t prove to me that little green gremlins aren’t stealing pennies from my pockets either,” etc.

The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized. However, not only is this false and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons. A simple examination reveals this.

1) First, the main problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what a skeptic deliberately makes up for the sake of argument! To put the two in the same category is both illogical and underhanded. Since the skeptic using this argument hasn’t really experienced invisible pink unicorns himself, everyone knows that he is deliberately making up something fictitious to put down something he doesn’t believe in while the paranormal experiencer or claimant is not. Regardless of whether what the claimant experienced was real or not, it is certainly NOT in the same category as what a skeptic makes up out of thin air. Comparing them would be like comparing my real life experience of visiting a foreign country to any fictitious story you can find such as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz. That simply makes no sense, even if misperception was involved on my part in my experience. Not only that, but it would be shady and underhanded as well.

For the skeptic to claim that both are the same because they are unprovable would be like claiming that red cars and red apples are the same thing because they’re both red. Though even skeptics know that this is not true, as mentioned, they prefer their beliefs and word games over common sense reality. Alas, if these pseudoskeptics really lived according to their beliefs, then they could not function in society. For example, if they got lost and had to ask for directions, they would not believe any directions given to them, not even from the most credible and well-meaning long-time residents of the area they are lost in. They know this too, and thus this is all a word game to them, not a way to live in reality. So let’s just hope for their sake that they don’t carry their silly little theories over to real life …

2) Second, likewise what someone sincerely believes is NOT the same as what someone knowingly makes up. Since the skeptic who uses this argument don’t believe in invisible pink unicorns himself, it is pointless as well as inconsiderate to compare that to what people genuinely believe and experience, such as God, spirits, or ESP. Of course, just because someone genuinely believes something doesn’t make it true, but to compare an honest person to a deliberate fraud is not a valid comparison.

3) Third, if there were millions of credible intelligent adults out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns, the Tooth Fairy entering homes through bay windows, or Santa Claus flying in the air delivering i5 laptop deals, then this comparison would have merit. But there aren’t, so this comparison is without merit.

4) Fourth, another significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.

5) Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can’t prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can’t prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn’t mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.

The bottom line is that while it is true that no one can disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the evidence to support God, spirits and psychic phenomena, although mostly anecdotal, is vastly greater, more significant, more relevant, and more sincere than the evidence to support invisible pink unicorns, Santa Claus, and other fictitious examples deliberately made up by skeptics.

I could point out argument fallacies all day long....but it bores me.

Edited by The Necromancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

I'll unignore you just this one last time, only to give others here this prime example of another pseudoskeptical argument called the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" or the "Santa-Claus" fallacy.

This user is well known for it and it's the reason why he now lives on my ignore list.

I could point out argument fallacies all day long....but it bores me.

Usually links are being provided. But OK...

Seems like a rant from some crook, who failed to put his hands on J. Randi's million.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Necromancer

Want some links huh? (you're that silly, unignoring you is fun).

Sure, mate...here we go...this is for everybody out there as well, especially all Paranormal Investigators who are sick and tired of this stuff and would like to understand how you let these guys get inside your head...

Read them!

You may learn how to actually hold a logical debate for once.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

Now, I'll go back to pretending you aren't even there...even though you are. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I could point out argument fallacies all day long....but it bores me.

And we could point out all the times that you, Marv, Rose and crew post stories with not a shred of supporting evidence, let alone any sign of a methodology..

How about right now, you pick what you reckon was the best so far? Good luck in your search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Want some links huh? (you're that silly, unignoring you is fun).

Sure, mate...here we go...this is for everybody out there as well, especially all Paranormal Investigators who are sick and tired of this stuff and would like to understand how you let these guys get inside your head...

Read them!

You may learn how to actually hold a logical debate for once.

http://www.debunking...om/Contents.htm

http://www.discord.o...ptic-tricks.txt

Now, I'll go back to pretending you aren't even there...even though you are. :P

Yeah... Just verbal manure without substance... And here is what happens when fantasy meets reality:

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.