Australia's most terrifying haunting -- Guyra

[macqdor]

The 'supernatural attacks' on a 12-year-old girl that were so severe police were forced to surround a country home: Australia's most terrifying haunting has baffled investigators since 1921

• A ghost terrorized a local community in Northern NSW in the 1920s 
• A 12-year-old girl was haunted by her half-sister's ghost 
• The walls of her house apparently shook and stones were thrown 
•  Investigators say the 'Guyra ghost' is one of Australia's most baffling 
• 'Supernatural attacks' have never been explained even after a police probe

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3296252/The-supernatural-attacks-12-year-old-girl-severe-police-forced-surround-country-home-Australia-s-terrifying-haunting-baffled-investigators-1921.html

 

Quote

The ‘supernatural attacks’ even saw the NSW State Government send a team of detectives from Sydney to cordon off the property and put the house under constant surveillance for months.

But the thumping perplexed even the officers. To those standing outside, the thumping seemed to come from within the house, but to those on the inside of the home, it appeared to take place outside. 

Quote

no one was ever caught even though there was triple the amount of police surrounding the house,’ said Mr Healy.  The controversy over the origin of the noise at the house is common in poltergeist stories, according to Mr Cropper and Mr Healy. 

Quote

Investigators later revealed that Minnie admitted to being the culprit but many questioned whether the child caved to pressure and if she was even capable of orchestrating such an event 

Quote

In desperation to escape the chaos, Minnie’s parents moved Minnie to her grandmother’s house in Glenn Innes, 60km north of Guyra. 

Despite having a few days of peace, the weirdness followed and thumps were strong enough to dislodge ornaments in the house.

 

 

 

 

[freetoroam]

1921? 

Quote

One of the children, Minnie Bowen, later confessed to throwing some stones and it is thought that practical jokers were behind it,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guyra_Ghost_Mystery

I must say this story would make a good entertaining film. Oh wait, its been done. 

[papageorge1]

Australia's most terrifying haunting

And here I was thinking it was the Humpty Doo case. I like the name 'Humpty Doo' way better.

But there are by now enough cases that if one thinks there is nothing paranormal ever going on then one more case is not going to change that. But for those already believing that such paranormal phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt each case is a learning experience of what is out there. The more we hear and consider, the more we learn about this fascinating stuff.

[macqdor]

@freetoroam

Quote

I must say this story would make a good entertaining film. Oh wait, its been done. 

movie, film done when and where?

feature length?  In-depth documentary?

[SecretSanta]

3 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@freetoroam

movie, film done when and where?

feature length?  In-depth documentary?

Click the link. 

[macqdor]

@papageorge1

 

The familiar themes associated with "geist" activity shine through once again.   One another continent. In another home.  Affecting another individual.

 the situation is similar. The environment is similar as are the people responding.

 

[ChrLzs]

15 minutes ago, macqdor said:

The familiar themes associated with "geist" activity shine through once again.   One another continent. In another home.  Affecting another individual.

 the situation is similar. The environment is similar as are the people responding.

After your lazy posting asking about the movie when you'd been given the link, and given your history of spamming this forum and never answering the hard questions, this is pretty rich.  And if you don't like the folks here, may I make an obvious suggestion?

 

As for the topic, it involves nothing that is unexplainable, a LOT of anecdotal stuff that oddly seemed to come out well after the actual events, not a shred of actual collected evidence, and is widely regarded as a hoax (partially admitted) with some copycat followup.  Stones on a roof are paranormal?  Give us a break.  This place is for genuine mysteries.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/89661342

http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2200-the-guyra-ghost.html

[macqdor]

@ChrLzs

Your attacks don't effect me.  You do YOU and I'll do me.

your contribution (if it can be called that) is noted LOL

 

good day sir or maam'

 

 

 

 

 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Australia's most terrifying haunting

And here I was thinking it was the Humpty Doo case. I like the name 'Humpty Doo' way better.

The Humpty Doo case is a fizzer. The thread on that just showed the residents are refusing investigation, indicating they have something to hide. 

Its not a haunting, its a entertainment ghost house, like in any side show alley. The only difference is that Humpty Doo is a permanent structure, not a travelling side show. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

But there are by now enough cases that if one thinks there is nothing paranormal ever going on then one more case is not going to change that.

There is no convincing evidence at all. Not in this case or any other. People see what they wish to see. Critical evaluation takes the wind out of these claims as they continue to fail to fulfil said claims. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

But for those already believing that such paranormal phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt each case is a learning experience of what is out there. The more we hear and consider, the more we learn about this fascinating stuff.

Learning you reckon? 

@freetoroam has already noted the best suspect for the source of the stone throwing, and inadvertently the failed attacks on Minnie Bowen and the reasons why. Anyone mention the mad rapist who lived in the Guyra area, who was present at the time? And what happened to him, both before, during and after? 

Don't kid yourself. It's not learning. It's self validation of preconceptions. Preaching to the choir, nothing more. 

[macqdor]

Quote

Preaching to the choir,

@psyche101

And that bothers you.   

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, macqdor said:

@psyche101

And that bothers you.   

Its not investigation, its not proof. So it bothers anyone with any integrity if a situation is being exaggerated. Its an assault on reason and logic. That deserves challenge. 

[papageorge1]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The Humpty Doo case is a fizzer. The thread on that just showed the residents are refusing investigation, indicating they have something to hide. 

Its not a haunting, its a entertainment ghost house, like in any side show alley. The only difference is that Humpty Doo is a permanent structure, not a travelling side show. 

There is no convincing evidence at all. Not in this case or any other. People see what they wish to see. Critical evaluation takes the wind out of these claims as they continue to fail to fulfil said claims. 

Learning you reckon? 

@freetoroam has already noted the best suspect for the source of the stone throwing, and inadvertently the failed attacks on Minnie Bowen and the reasons why. Anyone mention the mad rapist who lived in the Guyra area, who was present at the time? And what happened to him, both before, during and after? 

Don't kid yourself. It's not learning. It's self validation of preconceptions. Preaching to the choir, nothing more. 

Here we go again, Psyche! I believe you are only interested in presenting an unbalanced view of each case scraping together the collection of facts you include only from other non-believing sources. Whether you accept it or not I believe I am interested in a more balanced view of all the people and information surrounding the cases. And I believe so-called  paranormal things are occurring beyond reasonable doubt. I just think that  is the most reasonable position.

 

[freetoroam]

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe I am interested in a more balanced view of all the people and information surrounding the cases. 

Balanced, lol.

These are the balance scales you are using

Edited February 4, 2019 by freetoroam

[psyche101]

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Here we go again, Psyche! I believe you are only interested in presenting an unbalanced view of each case scraping together the collection of facts you include only from other non-believing sources.

Did you just read what you wrote before posting it? 

Non believing sources says it all right there. It's not a reasonable conclusion you refer to, nor investigation, not evaluation but a belief. And a credulous approach at that. 

Its also why you never can finish a debate or support your beliefs. 

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Whether you accept it or not I believe I am interested in a more balanced view of all the people and information surrounding the cases. And I believe so-called  paranormal things are occurring beyond reasonable doubt. I just think that  is the most reasonable position.

No your not, that's plainly obvious. Your interested in self validating predetermined conclusions. 

As I have mentioned before your belief is not balanced but proportional. The more credulous a claim is, the more you support it. 

There is nothing to support your position as reasoned and plenty to regard it as credulous. 

I don't know any poster who has displayed any critical thinking skills who finds your approach as reasonable or balanced. Only those with a credulous approach find your approach similar enough to their own to approve of it. 

Instead of hand waving, how about examining the points freetoroam and I have raised already to show a genuine approach as opposed to just supporting unrealistic and exaggerated claims? 

[macqdor]

Quote

Instead of hand waving, how about examining the points freetoroam and I have raised already to show a genuine approach as opposed to just supporting unrealistic and exaggerated claims? 

My goal and @papageorge1 and myself are not here to convince you into believing what I post. I know 200% I'm not.     77 views here and 667 views from the other post compared to # of replies mean more people view than comment.   My post are not meant for you and those who think like you.  My posts are for those who view and dont comment.  

You guys/gals belong to an unexplained-mysteries community  responding to a Ghost Forum i.e. specifically poltergeist .  You hold zero belief in the subject matter.

I find that funny.

whats even more funny is you respond to my posts specifically.  I find that hilarious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChrLzs]

First up, you addressed NOTHING ontopic from my post.  As usual, complete avoidance of reasoned debate from you.  Then, you say this:

Quote

77 views here and 667 views from the other post 

So, statistics are important, and you choose to look at views as a guide?  That's pretty funny.      You do realise that each time everyone (yes, even *you*) come back and look again, there's another view.  You can easily take that number up into the thousands if ya want.

If I was looking for a statistical guide, I'd go for something like ..oh, say, the number of likes your posts get...  At this point you are batting zero on this thread.  Me, I'd take note of that and think "Is it perhaps not everyone else that is the problem?"

And there's another guide... I see your total likes-to-posts ratio is about 0.26.  Look around at others here - even Papa is higher than that......

[macqdor]

I'm comfortable with those numbers.  And stand by first statement which. More view than comment. Me? I never grade posts.  I read countless and grade 0.

 

 

 

[Habitat]

I know a chap who came from Guyra, obviously this was before his time, but he might have some insight !

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Did you just read what you wrote before posting it? 

Non believing sources says it all right there. It's not a reasonable conclusion you refer to, nor investigation, not evaluation but a belief. And a credulous approach at that. 

Its also why you never can finish a debate or support your beliefs. 

No your not, that's plainly obvious. Your interested in self validating predetermined conclusions. 

As I have mentioned before your belief is not balanced but proportional. The more credulous a claim is, the more you support it. 

There is nothing to support your position as reasoned and plenty to regard it as credulous. 

I don't know any poster who has displayed any critical thinking skills who finds your approach as reasonable or balanced. Only those with a credulous approach find your approach similar enough to their own to approve of it. 

Instead of hand waving, how about examining the points freetoroam and I have raised already to show a genuine approach as opposed to just supporting unrealistic and exaggerated claims? 

I am going to echo @macqdor somewhat here.

if I make my task convincing pseudo-skeptics of anything, then they can guarantee my failure. 

My key interest is determining what I believe after all things are considered. I find this stuff fascinating so I enjoy discussing it and sharing my thoughts with others. And I sincerely believe I am unusually well thought out on these subjects so I should share.

[Timothy]

26 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am going to echo @macqdor somewhat here.

if I make my task convincing pseudo-skeptics of anything, then they can guarantee my failure. 

My key interest is determining what I believe after all things are considered. I find this stuff fascinating so I enjoy discussing it and sharing my thoughts with others. And I sincerely believe I am unusually well thought out on these subjects so I should share.

Make your task providing evidence, then you will not have to convince.

For me, with @macqdor, he has always failed to do so. Due to this my opinion is that he is basically a fraud pushing his books, and that he was responsible (possibly along with others) for the happenings at his previous residence. (A big one was the fire department report which was never provided). 

[papageorge1]

7 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Make your task providing evidence, then you will not have to convince.

For me, with @macqdor, he has always failed to do so. Due to this my opinion is that he is basically a fraud pushing his books, and that he was responsible (possibly along with others) for the happenings at his previous residence. (A big one was the fire department report which was never provided). 

It’s impossible to provide specific human based evidence that is unchallengeable. I am interested in the overall evaluation of reasonableness with all things considered.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, macqdor said:

My goal and @papageorge1 and myself are not here to convince you into believing what I post.

That's good! 

Otherwise you would be failing big time! 

Quote

I know 200% I'm not.     77 views here and 667 views from the other post compared to # of replies mean more people view than comment.   

And what's to say 667 posters didn't look at what you posted and thought 'what a pile of crap' it seems to me that's a more likely explanation for the post count vs view count. 

Quote

My post are not meant for you and those who think like you.  My posts are for those who view and dont comment.  

Then what you need is a blog, not a discussion forum. 

Quote

You guys/gals belong to an unexplained-mysteries community  responding to a Ghost Forum i.e. specifically poltergeist .  You hold zero belief in the subject matter.

A 'discussion forum' Do you understand what 'discussion' is? 

Its unexplained mysteries  not campfire ghost tales. The childish nonsense you post would be better suited to the creative writing section. 

Quote

I find that funny.

whats even more funny is you respond to my posts specifically.  I find that hilarious.

I'm embarrassed for you. You fail at supporting anything you post, hand wave away critical evaluation, are credulous in your approach and don't seem to understand the point of a discussion forum. That you find critical evaluation funny just furthers the ridiculous nature of your posting. The aspects freetoroam and I raised are important factors and show the real horror associated with the original events which are drowned out by silly campfire tales. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by psyche101

[macqdor]

Quote

There are more things in heaven and earth.......than are dreamt of in your philosophy ~ Shakespeare / Hamlet Ac1 Scene 5

@papageorge1

The career skeptics here redefines the term "can't see the forest for the trees."    There too in love with their world view to understand the poltergeist phenomena as a whole.    Each case presented makes up one aspect of the phenomenon known as Poltergeist.   How many books have they (Mr. Skeptic) read on the subject?  Answer: Zero.   How papers written?  Answer: Zero    How many conclaves, conferences or symposiums have they attended?  Answer:  Zero.      

Most poltergeist (the one's that reach a newspaper) all have similar themes attached to them.  They've exemplified similar characteristics.  I'm talking about cases the world over.     People like myself, papageorge1, and others read these accounts and we see similarities that can't be ignored.  Similarities that go back centuries     Having seen it with my own eyes.   My own ears.   I've ascertained and rationalized with my own common sense - I know the poltergeist is real.   Not only is the Poltergeist real. Its intelligent.  It's Extremely intelligent.      More intelligent than you and me put together.  Put all the members of this community in one room and you still wouldn't have the level of intelligence of the average poltergeist.   

Some of you are so S.O.S that you can't even figure the simple THING out.   The Poltergeist has no interests in becoming main stream.  It doesn't want to be believed by the masses.   One of my favorites quotes is from the movie "Wedding Crashers"  which is kind of spooky (if you know the true origin of the word poltergeist).  "Draw attention to yourself, but on your own terms"    That's the Poltergeist in a nutshell.    It controls the narrative. It controls what (info) i.e. evidence gets out.

Some of you who think this stuff is all a hoax or is pure BS have a poor perception of the female sex.     You're no better than the researchers that arrive on scene perpetrating their own world view.  As if women, teenage girls, have nothing better to do than create a hoax (large enough to get their towns attention.)    As if Tina and I waited till we were 45 yrs old to fabricate a story (like the story we came forth with) two years after it really started happening.   As if our friends, our family, our parents, our jobs, our co-workers, our managers and boss's and the CEO of where we work are comfortable with us burning Bibles, setting fires, writing and drawing introverted crosses on walls.    Like the people in our lives would still hold us in high esteem upon learning we faked it all.  And for what?  Faked it all for what?

Most of these cases don't have happy endings.    Go to Forbes magazines website and google search the name of any poltergeist survivor.  I doubt you'll any of them listed as being one of the richest people in the world.    Then google their name on GOOGLE.   See how most of their lives ended.       

Your cynicism, and ability to use straw man tactics is duly noted.

 

Cynicism - an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.

Straw Man - A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

Career Skeptic - One who adopts cynicism and straw man tactics as a means of dialogue.     

 

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by macqdor

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am going to echo @macqdor somewhat here.

I hope that's not supposed to be a surprise. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

if I make my task convincing pseudo-skeptics of anything, then they can guarantee my failure. 

Exactly, you cannot support your claims or position. As far as I know, you have lost every debate you have attempted. It's easier to preach to the chior and enjoy that self validation. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

My key interest is determining what I believe after all things are considered.

So at what point are the factors raised by freetoroam and I going to be considered? From what I can tell of your posting pesky little facts like that which offer explanation are ignored for urban legends. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I find this stuff fascinating so I enjoy discussing it and sharing my thoughts with others. And I sincerely believe I am unusually well thought out on these subjects so I should share.

I do feel the way you run from any rational explanations with your hands over your ears yelling 'it's paranormal' honestly raises genuine doubt that any of your claims and support of such subjects are being 'well thought out'. If that was the case you would be discussing the aspects raised by freetoroam and I rather than waffling on about your personal approach to credulous claims. 

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, macqdor said:

drawing introverted crosses on walls. 

What are you describing there ?