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 -

Australia's most terrifying haunting -- Guyra


macqdor

Recommended Posts

Just now, macqdor said:

@HabitatPardon me

inverted cross (phone spell check)

drawn several times in my house. Summer 2014.

Could this be someone close to you that died prior to these happenings ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

It’s impossible to provide specific human based evidence that is unchallengeable.

It shouldn't be if the claims are genuine. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am interested in the overall evaluation of reasonableness with all things considered.

And yet as we can see here with this cap fire story, the Humpty Doo fizzer and your support of Sai Baba that you really do not consider all things. You promote your personal belief and nothing else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Habitat

Quote

Could this be someone close to you that died prior to these happenings ?

Not close to me.  Someone [people] native Americans died in and around Puget Sound. Around Bothell 1700 and 1800's.  Major small pox outbreak

hence the reason for the Upside Down Man symbols being drawn in conjunction with the upside down cross.

Google history of Bothell. History of Puget Sound, Seattle, Snohomish Tribes, Willow People and you'll see.  Combine those accounts with the horrible incident that took place inside the house 5 years before we arrived( a brutal rape).   That and more is what made our house what it is.  House from HELL.   

Edited by macqdor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

What are you describing there ?

I think they mean INVERTED crosses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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.

You miss the point, yes obviously all evidence is challengeable.

The difference is that good evidence is observable, quantifiable and repeatable. 

We might not understand something. But if it’s a real thing, we can observe it and gather data from it and start to make reasonable conclusions. Then others can replicate the same for themselves, or draw better and new conclusions from the original or new data.

@macqdor‘s personal experiences, and all of his other poltergeist threads all have one thing in common: Extraordinary claims with no extraordinary evidence.

Have you considered $$ as being a motivating factor in your evaluations?

Edited by Timothy
Typo. Addition.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The difference is that good evidence is observable, quantifiable and repeatable. 

normal occurrence - YES

paranormal occurrence - NO  hence the term paranormal

you can't quantify a bible burning. you can't quantify / observe a flower pot flying across the room

If embarrassment is your  lot in life you can try LOL.  You look silly trying .    This 20th century approach to investigating paranormal phenomena is laughable.

Quote

We might not understand something. But if it’s a real thing, we can observe it and gather data from it and start to make reasonable conclusions. Then others can replicate the same for themselves, or draw better and new conclusions from the original or new data.

Its about as a real as dark matter, dark energy.   Measure that. Put that in a test tube and maybe, just maybe you investigate the claims made here and elsewhere.

Until then? Unlearn what you've learned about scientific evaluation.

 

Quote

Extraordinary claims with no extraordinary evidence.

Once again. Relative term.   My claims are not extraordinary.  My claims exists within the confines of other reported poltergeist cases.

To use the word extraordinary in the negative sense (as justification of something not being real ) is to admit to having mental cowardice.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Timothy said:

You miss the point, yes obviously all evidence is challengeable.

The difference is that good evidence is observable, quantifiable and repeatable. 

We might not understand something. But if it’s a real thing, we can observe it and gather data from it and start to make reasonable conclusions. Then others can replicate the same for themselves, or draw better and new conclusions from the original or new data.

You are trying there to treat two different realms of reality the same way and that I think is an error. You have to study evidence of a phenomena alleged to be 'non-physical and spontaneous' differently that claims of  physical-only phenomena. For example the claim of 'spontaneous' and your demand for 'repeatable' may not be appropriate.

3 hours ago, Timothy said:

 

@macqdor‘s personal experiences, and all of his other poltergeist threads all have one thing in common: Extraordinary claims with no extraordinary evidence.

Have you considered $$ as being a motivating factor in your evaluations?

As far as the @macqdor case,  I honestly believe he is almost certainly not here and into all this to commit fraud. I have spoken to him on this forum and in private messages and have been observant for all clues and the previous sentence states my position. The strongest independent evidence for his case comes from the UK paranormal team from a long standing and respected organization that camped out at his house and came away certain of paranormal activity. In fact the only interesting question became 'what?' and not 'if something?' is happening.

 

Bottom line: I think the cumulative weight of the evidence for so-called poltergeist phenomena is overwhelming and well beyond the understanding of current science that deals primarily in studying physical-only phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@papageorge1, for me it’s pretty much the same as when Bigfoot etc. believers start saying that the creatures are inter dimensional.

No evidence, must be outside the realm of current science. 

I’ll eat my hat and shoes too happily if I’m wrong. But it’s a bit of a cop out.

If what people are saying is true, we should have clear evidence of it already. That’s my main issue.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Timothy

@papageorge1

 

Quote

No evidence, must be outside the realm of current science. 

I dont know what science teacher told you that science can explain everything and that nothings real until science can explain it. Shame, shame, shame on that science teacher.

There are multiple things that science can't answer.    Thats typically where theories flourish.    Some theories get confirmed or revised(after new data comes in)  Others get debunked(after new data comes in)

Timothy you gotta abandon this notion that nothings real unless science confirms it.

There are multiple theories that science cling to (yet proven)  but cling to none-the-less to keep the dialogue going.  Must you always be a wet blanket on thought experiments?

 

Live a little. Expand from your 2D thinking.  

Your idea of it all being BS or a big to do about nothing is duly noted. Consider that point stipulated.

Now what else you got?

What else could the poltergeist be?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@papageorge1, for me it’s pretty much the same as when Bigfoot etc. believers start saying that the creatures are inter dimensional.

No evidence, must be outside the realm of current science. 

I’ll eat my hat and shoes too happily if I’m wrong. But it’s a bit of a cop out.

If what people are saying is true, we should have clear evidence of it already. That’s my main issue.

I felt the investigator’s at @macqdor were professional and CLEAR. And that is one case in thousands/millions .......

To me the cumulative weight of it all allows for a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion.

I don’t know what CLEAR evidence you would require to accept the existence of poltergeist phenomena but that isn’t my concern here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Timothy

Quote

you’re misunderstanding me. I’ll clarify when I can

I hope you take these words into consideration when formatting your response.

The events I've reported and others have reported throughout time exists outside of the confines of science.    The methodology science use to confirm the existence of phenomena cannot work on poltergeist.  It wont work.    You and others use the phrase "extraordinary claims" a lot.   "Requires extraordinary evidence " blah blah blah blah etc.    That slogan doesn't apply  to Poltergeist.  I can almost hear the "geist" laughing when you mention that j/k.  

Poltergeist live by the element of surprise.  You can't predict an activity.  There are thousands of objects in my home.  Thousands of objects in your home.  Its impossible to know which object is going to catch fire.  Which object ( candle, lamp, ash tray, car keys, plate, vase, etc) is about to launch.   Create an artificial home (laboratory) similar to the house Tina and I lived in and trust me the "geist" won't appear.   The neophyte aka thrill seeker will suggest add cameras. Add cameras on top of cameras.   NEWSFLASH:   Cameras do nothing.        I'm not pulling that out my a$$ or making an excuse. I know that from experience.    I tried cameras. I put cameras next to cameras.    The spirit unplugged them.  The spirit drained the battery.  The camera malfunctioned.  The camera broke and worse.  The camera went missing.  I'm not saying you specifically but people who say "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" need to understand you're never going to see a Bible catch fire. Not with your own eyes.  You're NEVER  going to see an object asport, apport, or teleport.   STUDY THE DEFINITION OF THOSE WORDS AND YOU SEE THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.   You're never going to see a apparition (female, male) etc.    You're never going to witness in person or from video the events I've reported and the events others (who've experienced Poltergeist) have reported.  The quicker you accept that the better off you will be.

Steve Mera, Nick Kyle,and Don Philips having spent 2 1/2 weeks in my house vs. (5 HOURS from Ghost Adventures)   when the activity was basically a Level One.  Reached a simple conclusion based on the events THEY witnessed.

Steve was smart enough to admit....................................................

Quote

The client responded to a number of SEP email communications in regards witnessed and recorded paranormal disturbances. Though SEP do collate pre-investigation documentation, we cannot confirm pre-investigation incidents to be credible. However due to evidence obtained during active investigation stage 1 and 2, we have no reason to doubt the client at this time. Pre-investigation disturbances noted below have been considered authentic.

................................................summation. We believe the events reported to be real. To be authentic based on the "phenomena they witnessed."

Steve, Don and Nick didn't come to see a Bible catch fire.  They didn't come to see large objects being thrown.   They know those events are reserved primary for the house occupant and the house occupant only.    Beholden to world views, cynicism, outdated methodologies and career skepticism have no business being mentioned in the same sentence as the word Poltergeist.

The "geist" does donuts(literally) around those words.  Its so 20th century thinking.

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/02/2019 at 12:35 PM, Timothy said:

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). 

For the sake of full disclosure (something we will never see from macqdor..) one of his books is very often advertised on the UM home page (you probably won't see it if you are not logged in - thankfully members are spared seeing most of the ads).  Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with UM using ads for revenue.  I do object when people pretend they don't have other motives and then do *not* genuinely engage in discussion...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

For the sake of full disclosure (something we will never see from macqdor..) one of his books is very often advertised on the UM home page (you probably won't see it if you are not logged in - thankfully members are spared seeing most of the ads).  Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with UM using ads for revenue.  I do object when people pretend they don't have other motives and then do *not* genuinely engage in discussion...

Typical asinine comment.  But thanks for talking about me verse's addressing the subject matter on this post.

 

your membership into the macqdor fan club has been recognized

@ChrLzs

Thank you for your classic use of the argumentum ad hominem,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited by macqdor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/02/2019 at 7:44 AM, macqdor said:

What else could the poltergeist be?

A way to make a buck.

Added:

BTW, as i see now he's used his own name and did not declare THAT either, macqdor IS the Keith Linder mentioned in his last UNCITED clipping.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A way to make a buck.

I'm afraid you need to dream a little bit bigger darling.....................................

 

I'm an IT professional.  I have all the BUCKS I need. More than I do with.

dont judge me by your failings.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, macqdor said:

Typical asinine comment.  But thanks for talking about me verse's addressing the subject matter on this post.

 

your membership into the macqdor fan club has been recognized

@ChrLzs

Thank you for your classic use of the argumentum ad hominem,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Pot, meet kettle.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually its pot, pot, pot, kettle, kettle, pot, macqdor, papageorge1, etc.

This thread is about the Australian Poltergeist tale.  You guys deflect, pivot, straw man, ad hominem, at every turn.  You do this cause your intellectual contribution about geist phenomena is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, macqdor said:

Actually its pot, pot, pot, kettle, kettle, pot, macqdor, papageorge1, etc.

This thread is about the Australian Poltergeist tale.  You guys deflect, pivot, straw man, ad hominem, at every turn.  You do this cause your intellectual contribution about geist phenomena is weak.

actually not really.. the big problem is you claim i happens etc.. but.. there is no verifiable proof to it.. all you can point to is a persons testimony.. vids are no good since pretty much all of them are fake.. and can be proven to be..   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

actually not really.. the big problem is you claim i happens etc.. but.. there is no verifiable proof to it.. all you can point to is a persons testimony.. vids are no good since pretty much all of them are fake.. and can be proven to be.. 

I've not made any claim.       Have not posted on video(of mine) on this thread.      Stick to the topic at hand or go elsewhere.  Its that simple.  The topic is Australia's most terrifying haunting -- Guyra    either you believe it or you dont.  Either have an intelligent response or you don't.   As of right now it seems you don't.  Duly noted.  Move on!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, macqdor said:

I've not made any claim.       Have not posted on video(of mine) on this thread.      Stick to the topic at hand or go elsewhere.  Its that simple.  The topic is Australia's most terrifying haunting -- Guyra    either you believe it or you dont.  Either have an intelligent response or you don't.   As of right now it seems you don't.  Duly noted.  Move on!

 

 

 

Your very defensive there mac.. whats up.. not many people believing it? either you have a intelligent argument or you don't. As of right now it seems you don't.. Duly Noted.. Move on!

as a ghost story.. it is not what you call very frightening .. so.. and in all honesty.. its not that famous over here :D 

oh as for making claims.. try reading back on your posts mate.. your citing Ghost Adventures? seriously? a technically reality TV show.. a show that time and time again has been shown they fake a lot of things.. never do proper research.. or add a bit of spice to the show for ratings.. 

tell you what mate.. come back when you can actually argue a point.. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 11:41 AM, macqdor said:

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.     

 

 

hmmm these statements reflect you as well.. 

lets take a look at the full meaning of Cynicism.. 

Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in the human species or people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless and therefore deserving of ridicule or admonishment. Cynicism is often confused with skepticism,[citation needed] perhaps due to either inexperience or the belief that man is innately good. Thus, contemporary usage incorporates both a form of jaded prudence (when misapplied) and realistic criticism or skepticism. The term originally derives from the ancient Greek philosophers, the Cynics, who rejected all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, instead advocating the pursuit of virtue in accordance with a simple and idealistic way of life.

most believers in woo are cynical towards mainstream beliefs.. how many times have they said.. I do not care what the science says .. I have seen it with my own eyes.. or it is trying to hide something..

straw man
  1. 1.
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2. 2.
    a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
    "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

 damn Mac.. read your replies to what has been posted.. here.. and on your other threads..

and you mate.. are a career skeptic.. your skeptical of science.. skeptical of facts.. and skeptical of reason.. each time someone posts up something showing you that you are wrong.. you pull the straw man card.. (even in this thread) and you are skeptical of what has been said.. 

pot-calling-the-kettle-black-meaning-bla

 
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your Poltergeist IQ amusing. 

Or lack thereof I should say. Argue about Poltergeist phenomena? Seriously? Not even worth the effort.

See you at the Poltergeist post....   

 

Try to offer something substantive as to what could be behind this age age old phenomena .  Taking place the world over.

Dont forget to eat your vitamins and get your eight hrs sleep.

 

Giest happens 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we have some civility in here please. Instead of posting snarky comments and trying to score points over one another why not just discuss the topic in hand, or if the topic is of no interest to you then simply step away from the thread. - Thank You.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.