41 replies to this topic

[OMPRDave]

Yeah, the radio is toasted. One of the transmissions I clearly heard the other morning was from a flight from Dulles to Logan. Occasionally it also gets small aircraft traffic that's originating from Hopedale Public airport a town over, too. Makes you wonder what is is being broadcast out there that we normally wouldn't have a clue of?

[Corey]

Well, its been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I cant see the benefit of claiming a paranormal experience just because something cant be explained. Just because you cant explain it, doesn't mean someone else cant too.
Yeah, sometimes skeptics do come up with some outlandish explanations, but most of the time they aren't any more out there than a paranormal explanation. What you might hear as footsteps, they might hear as the house settling.
I always use the axiom, when in doubt, throw it out.
People who dont believe will require some very good evidence to change their minds. Sometimes they may be asking for too much, but think of what your trying to prove to them. That some remnant of a long dead person is still hanging around and is making themselves known. That's a rather large pill for some people to swallow.
Instead of taking the skeptics to task, learn from what they say. Skepticism can make you a better investigator.

[fatman]

Corey, I agree with you, but there will always be that head-butting. It's just two different camps.
I consider myself a student of logic (well, I don't really go to school for it, it's an online degree), but my experiences still have me scratching my head, or is that lice. Anyway, I treat everything with a skeptical manner. I want to hear alternate explanations. Still, I am a believer. After chasing something that disappears before you, it did make an impression on my logic.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I saw what I saw. If a person doesn't believe me or can't come up with an explanation I agree with, then we'll have to agree to disagree. It goes both ways; the skeptic wants the proof and the believer wants to provide it so the skeptic can believe. But that's not always possible. The proof of the three apparitions I saw can't be provided, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen, however it happened. Now for knocks, groans, mist, and general noises; I completely understand your point and agree totally. But if the skeptic is most likely not on the scene to experience, don't judge what you cannot counter. Just quesiton and leave it at that. No need to tell the person that it probably wasn't what they thought it was if you yourself weren't there. When my wife tells me the story of her awakening to see her grandmother at the foot of her bed, I wasn't there, but I think it was most likely a dream vision continued from her sleeping state. But that's her experience to cherish whether I agree with her or not.
I guess we all just need to keep going over the evidence. Personally, I think there's more than enough evidence out there to prove it; it's just a matter of skeptics believing or just considering, but that's their rightful decision.

[tom_bgh]

But see, the difference between saying "those noises that sound like footsteps sound like a house settling to me" is a lot different than the OP's topic headline. It's not outlandish or crazy for things like that at all - and I've actually told people where I've investigated, "No, that is NOT a ghost upstairs, that's just the house creaking." So it's not unusual for both sides to be able to agree on stuff like that.

[CaveRat2]

Which is where the quality of the evidence comes in to play. If the quality is good it can support additional analyse, sometimes using specialized equipment that can tell precisely what it is. If the quality is poor we have the ambiguity that leaves both sides arguing with noo way to resolve the issue.

[Corey]

I would just be curious what constitutes a crazy explanation to supposed paranormal activity?
As a Sasquatch researcher, I've heard some potential explanations that seemed to be kind of a stretch. A set of footprints is found way out, and I mean WAY OUT in the boonies. The tracks are cast and brought back. Almost immediately, the skeptics will chime in that someone must have planted them. So someone was that into hoaxing that they trekked for hours into the wild, just to plant fake prints in the hopes that someone, with the ability to cast them, would find them?
Seems like a stretch right? Thing is, they will say "Well whats more believable, that they were hoaxed, or that a large unknown North American primate is responsible." See, I can understand that.
I'd imagine the same type of things happen in the ghost hunting field. I've always said that the skeptics keep us honest. I approach things from the point of view of an extreme skeptic, even though I don't consider myself one.
How would someone who thinks the existence of the Sasquatch is absolutely ridiculous feel about this evidence, or that evidence?
Essentially, in my field, it's going to take a body. That will be the only thing that will convince the skeptics.
Unfortunately, in the ghost field, you folks don't have that option. It's video, pics, or audio. And most of that can be really inconclusive. So to then throw in psychic ability? Seems like a pointless exercise, when again, trying to prove something with an unproven method will never be accepted by the skeptics.

[CaveRat2]

I agree with what you say, but the comments about planting the footprint are not absurd at all. Consider it may be way out n the wilderness, but what if the hoaxers WERE the "Investigators" who planted the footprint 20 minutes earlier? Not nearly so hard to explain how they just happened to find it under those conditons. Yes, just like ghosts and UFO fields, Bigfoot researchers have their hoaxers too!

[Axman]

CaveRat, on Nov 22 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

I agree with what you say, but the comments about planting the footprint are not absurd at all. Consider it may be way out n the wilderness, but what if the hoaxers WERE the "Investigators" who planted the footprint 20 minutes earlier? Not nearly so hard to explain how they just happened to find it under those conditons. Yes, just like ghosts and UFO fields, Bigfoot researchers have their hoaxers too!

And we all can recall the famous "Nessie" photo which was proven to be a hoax because of the size of the ripples in the water in proportion to the "monster".

Edited by Axman, 22 November 2009 - 12:30 PM.

[fatman]

Corey, your last paragraph really says it. If someone is a full-blown skeiptic and will not consider the evidence provided regardless of the technology used to obtain it, then what is the point.
That prods me to ask: are we talking skeptics who don't believe at all, or are we talking skeptics that believe to whatever degree but still question the evidence? I'm a believer who questions all evidence undless it's just slap-in-the-face obvious.
Corey, I do believe in the possible existance of Big Foot. I also believe it will only take a body to prove to the skeptics of its existance, though I don't want that body obtained by being shot. I do think that even the best film footage would be discredited by th BF skeptics, so a body would be the only way, whether it be an actual body or bones.

[Corey]

fatman, on Nov 22 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Corey, your last paragraph really says it. If someone is a full-blown skeiptic and will not consider the evidence provided regardless of the technology used to obtain it, then what is the point.
That prods me to ask: are we talking skeptics who don't believe at all, or are we talking skeptics that believe to whatever degree but still question the evidence? I'm a believer who questions all evidence undless it's just slap-in-the-face obvious.
Corey, I do believe in the possible existance of Big Foot. I also believe it will only take a body to prove to the skeptics of its existance, though I don't want that body obtained by being shot. I do think that even the best film footage would be discredited by th BF skeptics, so a body would be the only way, whether it be an actual body or bones.

Well, naturally, it would be harder to convince a hardcore skeptic than it would be to convince someone who at least entertains the idea that these creatures, or ghosts for that matter, might actually exist.
You must always question all evidence. I do however apply a different set of standards to each piece of evidence. I base my investigation on the possible benefit received. If I get a simple story of a road-crossing sighting but can't get details, I will visit the area, but without any info, there's not much left to do. We get sightings passed along from person to person. We get "Hey this guy told me a story once. Wanna hear it?" No names, no definite location. We can only investigate what we have, and sometimes the details are quite scarce. Of course we get some very detailed reports, don't get me wrong.
A body will absolutely decide this once and for all. But, I wonder if a really well shot, detailed, up close video of a Sasquatch might not do something to swerve some of the skeptics?
Of course I'm basically talking about the Holy Grail of video here.
I'd imagine a parallel in the ghost field would be a good quality video of a full body apparition?

[OMPRDave]

It would be a benchmark, that is for sure. Another example would be intelligent, two way communication which would smash the one-way dialog many EVP examples provide. Finding a way to measure and then mimic the forces in play that produce poltergeist activity. Any of these examples would probably be enough to squelch the skeptics and may be enough to get serious scientific eyes cast on it. Unfortunately the believers probably will get rather...how to put it nicely...antsy?

[Corey]

Antsy? Why is that? Fear of the field being taken over by scientists?

[OMPRDave]

No...more a fear of their own beliefs being shattered.

[fatman]

Whereas the Big Foot evidence is always argued back and forth as conclusive or not(I wish it were), I do believe the ghost evidence is already there. You can say what you want about ghostly images caught on film, evps, etc., but a lot of it can't be explained. Even though I do think it's a good indicator as to the existance, it may not be possible to get that "holy grail" of spirit evidence.
Big Foot would be a flesh and bone creature, so if one applies a type of animal psychology or whatever, it may still be only a matter of time in finding this evidience if it does exist. But no one knows the hows and whys of spirits and the spirit world (it's all guess-work, in my oppinion), whether it be a different dimension or what. It may not allow for the type of interaction for which we hope.

[Corey]

CaveRat, on Nov 22 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

I agree with what you say, but the comments about planting the footprint are not absurd at all. Consider it may be way out n the wilderness, but what if the hoaxers WERE the "Investigators" who planted the footprint 20 minutes earlier? Not nearly so hard to explain how they just happened to find it under those conditons. Yes, just like ghosts and UFO fields, Bigfoot researchers have their hoaxers too!

Oh absolutely we do. A few names come to mind. Hoaxing is a VERY big thing in the Sasquatch community. Now I dont mean that we have an inordinant amount of people who hoax, but that even a whiff of potential hoaxing can really effect someones reputation.
I've seen people have to work very hard to restore their cred with the community, all because they were loosely associated with someone who was accused of hoaxing.
Let's say that there is a case of a trackfind. I would have a ton of questions, and if some weren't answered to my satisfaction, then I would be dubious.
Where we have to be careful is when we OVER question someone. People just might not remember all the details of a certain event, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If we question an event down to it's molecular level, it just won't stand up. I doubt anything would.
I know I got married in 2001. I don't recall what we had for dinner, but I know I'm married. It's questions like that, and me not remembering the answer, that can be held up as a sticking point in a report.
It basically comes down to your own opinion. What I might think is a valid report with a couple of small sticking points, you might think is an absolute hoax. Each person has ther own standard.
I've seen reports dismissed because the reportee can't remember what color his sleeping bag was.
I've seen reports dismissed because some small details may have changed from one telling to another.
I've seen reports dismissed because the reportee was a terrible speller.
Now those are the kind of things where I feel the skeptics go way too far.

Edited by Corey, 24 November 2009 - 01:38 PM.