Attempting 2 merge physics and the paranormal

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

Not so, and if you really believed that, you would not even be talking about it.

Please provide evidence to support that.I would be interesting in seeing it. So far I have not found anything.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Please provide evidence to support that.I would be interesting in seeing it. So far I have not found anything.

You did say it was all "tale tales" (lies) and "malarkey" (more lies). I don't doubt it is hard to find, but I think it finds you, not the other way round.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

You did say it was all "tale tales" (lies) and "malarkey" (more lies). I don't doubt it is hard to find, but I think it finds you, not the other way round.

Thanks for recycling a previous excuse.

No evidence, but the excuses are what it's all about.

[macqdor]

No you throw that word around a little too loosely. It's either tales or hoaxes. Your word choice not mine.

 

@stereologist

[stereologist]

Just now, macqdor said:

No you throw that word around a little too loosely. It's either tales or hoaxes. Your word choice not mine.

 

@stereologist

You mentioned the Humpty Doo hoax.  That was a clear hoax.

I've read about the joke of a hoax you are promoting for profit. It's boring, trite, and a pathetic effort at a hoax.

You can't seem to read at all. Not surprised at someone who is completely uneducated when it comes to science.

What sort of an idiot writes this: " I like how you by default claim absence of evidence means automatic hoax. Intellectual wise that's so ludicrous. "

Here is what I wrote " That is what poltergeist malarkey is about - nothing, but tall tales and hoaxes. " But it seems the wackos, nut jobs, and uneducated are unable to read.

I have specifically pointed out that you are promoting a hoax for profit.

[macqdor]

Humpty doo wasnt ever declared a hoax. You're so reaching lol 

I'd hate to see you on  jury lmao.

Hoaxibg requires evidence just like reports do.

 

Like I said you love throwing that word around. 

U lessen its value by using it inappropriately. 

 

[Habitat]

51 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for recycling a previous excuse.

No evidence, but the excuses are what it's all about.

I can't help you witness poltergeist activity, so stop complaining about not being shown what you say does not exist anyway. And I would say that you do suspect this stuff may be real. That intuition is correct.

[ChrLzs]

Hab, do you ever think about what you say?  Read it back to yourself to see if passes basic logic?

Here, let me help avoid future embarrassment.

11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I can't help you witness poltergeist activity

No.  You can't.  Apparently, no-one can, not even the most fervent believer.  Not only that, you/they can't even provide any historical evidence that goes anywhere close to meeting the standards of even a lousy civil legal case, let alone scientific scrutiny...

Now, in a similar vein, my own personal belief is that the Universe was created and is ruled by Semi-invisible Rainbow Unicorns.  Semi?  Well, they are faint, but they can detect whenever any optical device is about to point at them, and then vanish.

Just like.. hey wait -  EXACTLY like your poltergeists.

11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

so stop complaining about not being shown what you say does not exist anyway.

???  We aren't complaining about that - we are pointing out that there is nothing to explain, nothing you can give an example of, and thus the initial claim is stupid.

Just like my Unicorns...?  I'm guessing you would say my unicorns are a stupid fantasy, a bad analogy.  But do please explain the difference...

11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

And I would say that you do suspect this stuff may be real. That intuition is correct.

Don't give up your day job - your mind-reading and intuition is woeful and it is just painfully obvious that you wish to suggest your approach is superior and we are jealous..  the mantra of Tinfoil.

If it's so real, how do you explain the complete lack of evidence?  Especially now in the age of surveillance?

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

If it's so real, how do you explain the complete lack of evidence?  Especially now in the age of surveillance?

If you think it is explained by the phenomena being non-existent, you would be wrong, but it is such a tempting leap (it looks like just a tiny little hop, actually, doesn't it, especially with all the means of recording today) to make, the not 100% rigorously adherent to "no assumptions", will take it. You are not dealing here with the mundane, you are dealing with the uncanny, or more accurately, it is dealing with you. You are the observed, as much or more, than the observer ! And I am not even slightly embarrassed, I know what I am saying is the truth.

[macqdor]

Quote

If it's so real, how do you explain the complete lack of evidence?  Especially now in the age of surveillance?

Go to this post

@ChrLzs 

 

you don't pay attention to things being said do you?   Or take the time to conduct your own research .  FYI   There is a life outside this forum you know. That requires you doing your own research.

The main thing that makes the poltergeist so mysterious is its ability to evade/avoid detection.  That and its unpredictability.

Video of "geist" phenomena has been already been captured and documented. Albeit very rare. It does happen. But video data is not good evidence.       You skeptics can't have it both ways.   You scream video data and when one is provided you scream the words doctored footage.   Anything a poltergeist can do Ex. throwing objects, lifting of objects, etc. Can be easily duplicated with your cheapest video editing/sfx software.  Thats why video evidence sucks.   

 

The best evidence is the human eye.

Researchers, different professionals , etc have seen the activity LIVE and in person. But you dont respect the researchers data because you're cup runneth over w/cynicism and character assignation.  

 

Like I said read more

Exercise your curiosity vs. saying its ALL hoaxed.

 

The poltergeist is an intelligent entity. It has shown its ability on more than one occasion to manipulate cameras. Or perform "off camera."

 

Can we explain the Poltergeist by

A.R.G Owner

good place to start

 

instead of googling peoples name in an effort to character assassinate why dont u try reading men's works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Habitat]

What we have here, and I will give them that tiny bit of credit, is people like Stereologist and Chrslzs saying everything negative except outright "non-existent". The true scholar will say "I  just can't say".

[ChrLzs]

35 minutes ago, macqdor said:

@ChrLzs 

you don't pay attention to things being said do you?

OK, I'll listen really carefully and pick out the important bits:

Quote

The main thing that makes the poltergeist so mysterious is its ability to evade/avoid detection.

I'm sorry, but .... bwahahahahaahhahahahahahahaahhahhahhaah....  How to have an excuse that covers everything!

 

Yup, it can evade/avoid detection, by eye and camera.  And not leave any evidence.  Or affect the real world.  Or anything.

One question arises..  why does it choose to do that?

And Golly Gosh I'm glad I'm not one - how frustrating would that be: to exist and yet be completely and utterly impotent.

 

You know Keith, was i a cynical person, I might suggest that this ability to evade detection is very conveniently constructed so you can write books and try to spam them across the Internet.  But no, I wouldn't suggest that... What I would suggest is that given that ability, why did you need the past excuse about your incompetent security organisation failing to surveill your house.. why did you need the excuse that your hard drives got miraculously wiped, or that your alarm system didn't work - when all you had to do was make this NEW claim.

In fact I'm quite puzzled about the fact that you didn't make this claim earlier.  Would you explain that to me?

 

I mean, here we all were, thinking you and your friend had squirted / brushed that tar paint around and burnt the bibles and tipped over the plant pots etc.... and that the hard drive failures etc were the excuse for the fact that not one skerrick of these performances were captured.

But now it's clear to us all, that it was the poltergeists ability to evade detection that was the key.  Yep, I for one am now converted - a poltergeist who can evade detection, versus a pile of pranks that any human can do and magical data corruption.  I know which I believe.  I shall buy your book immediately...   And thanks for completely changing your story.  This new one is much better.

Edited March 25, 2019 by ChrLzs

[macqdor]

That's not an excuse. That's an observation.  You'd know that if you studied more.  Instead of being outright dismissive. Why dont u spend a year reading about the phenomena. 

What's written, witness testimony and research papers.   What are you afraid of? Loosing your world view?  

" A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one."

 

 

[ChrLzs]

16 minutes ago, macqdor said:

That's not an excuse. That's an observation.  You'd know that if you studied more.  Instead of being outright dismissive. Why dont {SIC} u spend a year reading about the phenomena.

Why don't "U" actually debate anything - you haven't addressed anything I said.  NOTHING.

Quote

What's written, witness testimony and research papers.

I'll tell you why I wouldn't spend a year doing it...  It's because the horror is I might turn into you - a gullible (or just greedy) misinformer trying to make a buck from NOTHING.  Because you have obviously spent years LOOKING for this garbage and believing everything you read without even checking.

To be VERY specific, why don't YOU, instead of reeling off unsupported anecdotes that are worth NOTHING, just post the very best example of poltergeist activity?  If I was doing research, that's where I would start....

Oh wait, by your moronic definition, that would be one where there was not any trace of them even being there, given their ability to evade detection....

This truly is bloody ridiculous.

Quote

What are you afraid of? Loosing your world view?  

" A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one."

Oh, I'm afraid of no-one ('cept the man with the can of Mortein..).  I just dislike misinformation.  I like it even less when people are trying to make a buck out of it, and sucker the gullible.

Edited March 25, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Habitat]

21 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh, I'm afraid of no-one ('cept the man with the can of Mortein..).  I just dislike misinformation.  I like it even less when people are trying to make a buck out of it, and sucker the gullible.

Ironically, whilst the general sentiment of what you say is supported, you contention that he is a fibber is not, at least not in general reference to poltergeists, I can't verify the particulars of his experience, but I don't have trouble believing it.

[Timothy]

2 hours ago, macqdor said:

That's not an excuse. That's an observation.  You'd know that if you studied more.  Instead of being outright dismissive. Why dont u spend a year reading about the phenomena. 

What's written, witness testimony and research papers.   What are you afraid of? Loosing your world view?  

" A wise man changes his mind sometimes, but a fool never. To change your mind is the best evidence you have one."

We’ve asked you for evidence so many times.

Thats not outright dismissive.

And you’ve helped solidify my belief that poltergeists do not exist. So I’ve been changing my mind.

The believers made me into the sceptic I am today, and I do prefer it that way!

[esoteric_toad]

Poltergeist, as described, are really just mini gods apparently.

They and their affects cannot be recorded on any device. They can detect all attempts at recording any evidence they exist. They torment people by convincing people around them that they are crazy/hoaxers. They only benefit some by giving them a subject to pass along, for profit, to those that accept their invisible all knowing powers without any direct evidence. 

Actually poltergeists, as described, sort of remind me of the old cartoon where the fellow finds the frog in a box (Michigan J. Frog). When alone with the person is alone with the frog it sings and dances (poltergeist activity). As soon as the guy takes the frog to show others the frog behaves as if it is just a frog. The difference here is that no one can see the frog (poltergeist).

It really does seem to me that to accept the existence of poltergeists it truly is like accepting a god completely on faith. "Believe these stories/anecdotes for they exists! Do not ask for evidence because the evidence you seek is impossible to gather, these are gods!!!".

We ask for evidence and are told to accept statements.

We present that statements are not evidence and are told that it is not possible to get evidence, beyond statements.

What other 'evidence' is presented is highly suspect, easily hoaxed (and proven so in some cases) and can be explained by anything but 'paranormal' causes.

Conclusion: Either believe in poltergeists with no real evidence or be labeled an close minded skeptic.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, esoteric_toad said:

Poltergeist, as described, are really just mini gods apparently.

They and their affects cannot be recorded on any device. They can detect all attempts at recording any evidence they exist. They torment people by convincing people around them that they are crazy/hoaxers. They only benefit some by giving them a subject to pass along, for profit, to those that accept their invisible all knowing powers without any direct evidence. 

Actually poltergeists, as described, sort of remind me of the old cartoon where the fellow finds the frog in a box (Michigan J. Frog). When alone with the person is alone with the frog it sings and dances (poltergeist activity). As soon as the guy takes the frog to show others the frog behaves as if it is just a frog. The difference here is that no one can see the frog (poltergeist).

It really does seem to me that to accept the existence of poltergeists it truly is like accepting a god completely on faith. "Believe these stories/anecdotes for they exists! Do not ask for evidence because the evidence you seek is impossible to gather, these are gods!!!".

We ask for evidence and are told to accept statements.

We present that statements are not evidence and are told that it is not possible to get evidence, beyond statements.

What other 'evidence' is presented is highly suspect, easily hoaxed (and proven so in some cases) and can be explained by anything but 'paranormal' causes.

Conclusion: Either believe in poltergeists with no real evidence or be labeled an close minded skeptic.

This is closer to the truth than many would credit. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 hours ago, esoteric_toad said:

Conclusion: Either believe in poltergeists with no real evidence or be labeled an close minded skeptic.

Yup. Pretty much the gist of it.

And it goes the same way for all paranormal events.

It's a sad state of affairs when asking for any sort of tangible evidence is scoffed at.

To paraphrase @macqdor,

"I have answers to your questions, but you were mean so I'm not gonna post it."

 

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, macqdor said:

Humpty doo wasnt ever declared a hoax. You're so reaching lol 

I'd hate to see you on  jury lmao.

Hoaxibg requires evidence just like reports do.

 

Like I said you love throwing that word around. 

U lessen its value by using it inappropriately. 

 

Humpty Doo was a funny hoax. Feel relaxed to know that you hoax is not funny. It's a boring hoax.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Habitat said:

I can't help you witness poltergeist activity, so stop complaining about not being shown what you say does not exist anyway. And I would say that you do suspect this stuff may be real. That intuition is correct.

I am certain that atoms exist and have never seen one. I am certain QM is correct. Evolution is a fact. General relativity is correct.

Poltergeist claims on the other hand never get past the tall tale stage. Where is t he evidence? Do I suspect it is real? I can't decide till the evidence is presented. I suspect it is fake since there is no evidence despite a plethora of cases and plenty of hoaxes.

 

[macqdor]

Quote

I just dislike misinformation.  I like it even less when people are trying to make a buck out of it, and sucker the gullible.

@ChrLzs

 

I sense an ounce of "hoax" paranoia.   Extreme ounce of skepticism. And no proof whatsoever of "someone trying to make a buck of it it."

Hmmmm hint of envy.  None of what u just said tethers with the title of the thread.  You're soooooooooooooooo off topic

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

If you think it is explained by the phenomena being non-existent, you would be wrong, but it is such a tempting leap (it looks like just a tiny little hop, actually, doesn't it, especially with all the means of recording today) to make, the not 100% rigorously adherent to "no assumptions", will take it. You are not dealing here with the mundane, you are dealing with the uncanny, or more accurately, it is dealing with you. You are the observed, as much or more, than the observer ! And I am not even slightly embarrassed, I know what I am saying is the truth.

I love that excuse. It is like the sheep-goat effect or the exhaustion effect in which tightening controls makes any psi effects vanish.

It's a great excuse to attempt to cover up for failure.

[macqdor]

Quote

Poltergeist claims on the other hand never get past the tall tale stage. Where is t he evidence? Do I suspect it is real? I can't decide till the evidence is presented. I suspect it is fake since there is no evidence despite a plethora of cases and plenty of hoaxes.

@Habitat is right do you deep down believe.     I since of hint of belief in you.     Where's the evidence?  The evidence is all around you.  I'll give you the same advice I gave ChrLzs - research, study, analyze, ask questions, get nosy and dissect the accounts, data already in existence. In short. Read more.  Google is your friend if you'd let.  

Heck become your independent researcher.  Visit homes where activity is being reported (yourself).   In short get in the trenches.

Anythings better than Monday quarterbacking.

 

And lastly. If "Geist" phenomena isn't real then why are you still responding to this post?

Which goes back to my agreement w/Habit.

 

 

 

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, macqdor said:

@ChrLzs 

you don't pay attention to things being said do you?   Or take the time to conduct your own research .  FYI   There is a life outside this forum you know. That requires you doing your own research.

The main thing that makes the poltergeist so mysterious is its ability to evade/avoid detection.  That and its unpredictability.

Video of "geist" phenomena has been already been captured and documented. Albeit very rare. It does happen. But video data is not good evidence.       You skeptics can't have it both ways.   You scream video data and when one is provided you scream the words doctored footage.   Anything a poltergeist can do Ex. throwing objects, lifting of objects, etc. Can be easily duplicated with your cheapest video editing/sfx software.  Thats why video evidence sucks.   

The best evidence is the human eye.

Researchers, different professionals , etc have seen the activity LIVE and in person. But you dont respect the researchers data because you're cup runneth over w/cynicism and character assignation.  

Like I said read more

Exercise your curiosity vs. saying its ALL hoaxed.

The poltergeist is an intelligent entity. It has shown its ability on more than one occasion to manipulate cameras. Or perform "off camera."

Can we explain the Poltergeist by

A.R.G Owner

good place to start

stead of googling peoples name in an effort to character assassinate why dont u try reading men's works

There are ways in which video evidence can be collected that validates the poltergeists phenomenon. But what hoaxer wants to do that? It ends up revealing the hoax.

That Washington state laughable hoax would be revealed quickly. Quick hide everything and make up juvenile excuses not to release a report claimed to exist.

As we all know the worst evidence is the human eye. It is easy to trick people.

I love this glittering generality "Researchers, different professionals , etc have seen the activity LIVE and in person. " You have two sets of clowns at your place. One was a guy who I showed actively lied about his credentials, and was involved in other hoaxes. The other was a crazed stalker posting lies on the internet to the point she was threatened with a law suit. Are these the sort of professionals you are referring to?

Not saying it is all hoaxed. Just asking for evidence, not tall stories.