Hello everyone!

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

True, but we have to place experience and knowledge about natural experiences here.

My example is : I lived in London most of my life, but was also very familiar with country life as my grandmother lived in rural countryside. I stayed there often and grew up to recognise animal tracks and one biggy, combine harvesters working at night.

My husband and I got woken up one night while camping in Dorset by a loud noise and when we went outside we instantly knew the lights resembling a ufo were the lights in the distance of a combine harvester. 

I am also fully aware of the noises wood can make when expanding or contracting during the changes in temperature. My grandmothers house was made with wooden doors, beams and cladding.

If someone does not know what nature can offer in terms of optical illusions and natural sounds and even just natural occurrences,  then they would not think about seeing them as the possibilities in the first place.

 

That is why people should be encouraged to ask, rather than vilified because they don't know something.

[Helen of Annoy]

42 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It is much more likely to be coincidences, memory errors, confirmation bias or overinterpretations, than to be real precognition. And let's not forget the human aspect: Dishonesty.
A much better example of real mysteries are military confirmed UFO's.

While it all is likely, I wouldn't say it's much more likely. 

Yes, it all has to be considered. But we also have to consider that some people were conditioned to reject anything that's not strictly material ('explained') and/or fear such phenomena for it may be 'dark'. 

It was almost funny discovery for me that a number of dogmatic, caustic materialists were actually raised to fear the devil and his works, paranormal phenomena of any kind included. 

I'm trying to say that objectivity means no bias. In other words, being very proud 'sceptic' that knows everything was explained is very obviously very biased. Not scientific. 

 

Regarding confirmed UFOs, I wouldn't say much better, but I would agree they're very good and very intriguing example. 

 

42 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I just want to be sure, before I accept something as true. I don't trust people's memories. I don't even fully trust my own.

Absolutely. 

Only for me personally, a memory (mine or someone else's) may be a good start into taking a better look at something.  

[zep73]

21 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I wouldn't say it's much more likely

Then 'more likely'. I can compromise and remove the 'much'. I'm not a hardcore opponent, just more inclined to the natural, because extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. A claim without evidence is like a lamp without a bulb. Not to much use.

[+Desertrat56]

39 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Then 'more likely'. I can compromise and remove the 'much'. I'm not a hardcore opponent, just more inclined to the natural, because extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. A claim without evidence is like a lamp without a bulb. Not to much use.

That's the thing though, isn't it, if it is a mystery there is no proof.  The title of this forum is The Unexplained.   What don't you get about that?

[Helen of Annoy]

37 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That's the thing though, isn't it, if it is a mystery there is no proof.  The title of this forum is The Unexplained.   What don't you get about that?

I'd just add that sometimes the proof is found, sometimes is does solve the mystery, sometimes make it even more... well, mysterious  

 

(By the way, the reason why extreme 'sceptics' are spending a lot of their time in the Unexplained is not a mystery - if you ask them, it's because they're called to mock and belittle everyone into thinking exactly the same as they do. The answer why would anyone feel like that was explained indeed, scientifically, though there are debates if psychiatry is actual science  ) 

 

[zep73]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

That's the thing though, isn't it, if it is a mystery there is no proof.

Most often there is (proof that it's natural), but some people need an objective perspective to realise it. That's where we skeptics can help.

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

The title of this forum is The Unexplained.   What don't you get about that?

People looking for answers are more likely to go to a forum, than to use a 'read only' option, like wikipedia.
Unexplained-mysteries is simply a more suitable forum name, because it implies feedback and debate, unlike "mysteries-explained" would have done.

26 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

it's because they're called to mock and belittle everyone into thinking exactly the same as they do

For some that might be close to the truth. The internet is a 'free of charge' dumping place for hate and frustrations. A place where you can 'let it all out', without consequence - mostly. But not for me (except when it comes to sports...). I always keep in mind that a real person is reading my stuff. A real sensitive person. Respect is important to me. But I know that's not the approach for all. Sadly.

Edited January 29, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Scholar4Truth]

Welcome to the forum

[Jetstream587]

Wow I didn't have a chance to log on all day and see all these replies. Sorry if I missed anyone but thank you to all. This has certainly been the biggest welcome I've ever gotten any forum!

[LightAngel]

On 1/29/2020 at 5:17 PM, Desertrat56 said:

 no real scientist would ever claim that if it hasn't been proven scientifically it can't be true. 

 

You hit the nail on the head here! 

 

 

 

[lightly]

One unexplained mystery ,to me, is the word  debunked.   Prior to being DeBunked..  is a claim Bunked? 

anyway....Welcome Jetstream.