NEWS - Psychologist bids to create....
Posted 28 July 2003 - 07:21 AM
Hopefully George will get some nationwide funding,as he has done some really exciting work.
Posted 21 August 2003 - 04:53 AM
Was that the second part included there? I have read them before, but that seems like it could only be the first part. I may be able to find the link to part 2.
Posted 21 August 2003 - 06:20 AM
Posted 21 August 2003 - 10:52 AM
Thank you for posting that. Oh my!
Here is a quote from a NIDS member at the ranch whom has a doctorate in physics:
"It's a very messy affair. Nothing is clear cut. It isn't as simple as saying that E.T.s or flying saucers are doing it," the scientist said. "It's some kind of consciousness, but it's always something new and different, something non-repeatable. It's reactive to people and equipment, and we set up the ranch to be a proving ground for the scientific method, but science doesn't seem amenable to the solution of these kinds of problems."
Posted 21 August 2003 - 11:17 AM
Posted 23 August 2003 - 11:38 AM
Of course, weīll never see it. For some inscrutable reason those researching the paranormal are the only īscientistsī who will hide their evidence and hermitically seal their research locations from critical scrutiny by independent (and skeptical) observers.
On second thought, the reason maybe not that inscrutable. I am pretty sure they simply havenīt got anything to show. If they had, it would be Nobel Prize stuff - you bet they would be out there, showing it to everyone!
Posted 23 August 2003 - 12:00 PM
Now here is some solid and truly scientific research, published in excellent scientific journals, not tabloids! No doubt many here will dismiss Dr. Wiseman as a īdebunkerī. But his findings are there, and they arenīt good news for believers. If he finds that he can generate ghostly sensations simply by recreating certain natural characteristics of the Edinburgh vaults in a lab, he will have proven that you donīt need ghosts to explain such sensations. (Yes, I know: that doesnīt prove such sensations may not still be caused by ghosts. But it does get rather hard to stick to that theory when a far simpler explanation will do the job!).
Posted 23 August 2003 - 02:49 PM
Posted 24 August 2003 - 04:26 AM
So why is debunker a term of abuse on this site?? Iīd say, because believers donīt want facts, donīt want the truth, - they just want to believe.
Posted 24 August 2003 - 05:12 AM
I heard some of his EVPs by the way, on
Mainly lots of noise and then the faint voice of a child. A ghost? Or just some special effects? No doubt many will prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. I donīt)
Posted 24 August 2003 - 07:43 AM
Posted 24 August 2003 - 08:22 AM
Mainly lots of noise and then the faint voice of a child. A ghost? Or just some special effects?
As for Peter James, perhaps he could be faking his findings. That certainly isn't the case for the EVP's that I've obtained. I think there is a serious misconception that believers base their beliefs on so called bogus psychics etc. Many of us have experienced strange things ourselves. We've recorded and documented these happenings. It's very easy for a non-believer to dismiss a believer's so called paranormal experiences. I think the main issue is that I go into the field and see for myself. Most non-believer's simply overlook our findings. If these ghostly allegations raise question, then get into the mix and see what you find. It could change a thing or two about your beliefs.
All in all, I think it's beneficial to have a skeptic's point of view. It helps to keep us well-grounded. We should post our opinions and try to respect each other's beliefs...as we are all entitled to our own.
Posted 24 August 2003 - 09:49 AM
And then you get this:
Everybody around here is claiming that such evidence abounds, but I havenīt seen it. All Iīve seen are photoīs full of specks of dust or moist, with people for no conceivable reason jumping to the conclusion that these must be ghosts. Iīve heard EVPs with the kind of vague sounds that my house produces all the time, - and believe me, it isnīt haunted. If you want me not to dismiss your evidence, get me evidence thatīs not so easy to dismiss!
Really, I am eager to see evidence! Who wouldnīt be? But donīt expect me to turn my views of reality upside down on the strength of some nice camp-fire stories and a stack of bad photographs and worse sound recordings. If we lower our standards to accept that kind of īevidenceī it would mean that not only ghosts exist, but also unicorns, gnomes, fairies, the yeti, Bigfoot, aliens in a staggering number of varieties, the Loch Ness monster, God AND Allah AND Brahma, not to mention the rest of the 1,000+ Hindu pantheon, Santa Claus, etc.etc. It would mean the world is rife with the most sensational occurences - and yet there isnīt a shred of solid evidence: i.e., evidence that can stand truly critical scrutiny; evidence that cannot be explained by dozens of mundane reasons that are far more plausible than any of these phenomena; evidence that is not dependent on the presence of one particular person; evidence that can be replicated.
OK, OK, Iīll stop there. :-X Itīs just that I have a really hard time understanding why grown-up, 21st century Westerners, who all had a decent education, are not only prepared but even eager to give up all their reason and common sense to believe in fairy-tales again. > I know that believers often say that scientists are just scared of what isīout thereī. But really, in history it were always the scientists who came up with the truly amazing (and often scary) discoveries. Maybe the believers are the ones who are scared - scared to face an everyday world without the illusion of other dimensions.
Oh and SectralSpy, donīt worry. I wonīt be around for long. I know from experience (I actually have some believer friends) that you will keep thinking Iīm just a īdebunkerī who will learn his lesson as soon as he has his first īencounterī (Iīll let you know ;D), while I will stick to the above views until a detailed study demonstrating the existence of ghosts is published in a respectable scientific journal.
Posted 24 August 2003 - 10:08 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users