Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Photo

in some instances do you think skeptics come up with crazier answers than believers?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#31 Corey

Corey

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 01:46 PM

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.

Im sure there is some pretty good evidence in the ghost field, but I doubt that there's much that doesn't have its detractors. If there was evidence available, then the existence of ghosts would be a fact. It's not, and why? Lack of conclusive evidence.
What you might see as conclusive, I might see as having another explanation, or I might just think it's an interesting picture or video, but nothing worth getting fired up about.
You won't see ghosts mentioned in a science text book and the evidence given will be a piece of video or a few pictures.
I know what the standard is for science to agree that there is a large, bi-pedal, North American primate running around the country, and that's a carcass.
What would be the parallel in the ghost field?

#32 OMPRDave

OMPRDave

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upton, Massachusetts
  • Interests:Family, fishing, hunting, camping, history, photography, poetry/writing, and last but not least, paranormal investigation

Posted 24 November 2009 - 02:19 PM

I've always said, as far as Sasquatch/Big Foot/Skunk Apes, etc, that I wish I would see more researchers getting special permit to try and kill one of these things. having armed researchers would do two things:

1.) Offer the best evidence that the researchers could possibly ask for were they able to harvest one for study.
2.) Keep the fools dressing up in monkey suits out of the woods.

Unfortunately in that field it's either going to be the stumbled on body of a dead specimen or somebody will have to harvest one. Of course there would have to be strict guidelines to make sure that it's done properly. You can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry loose with a rifle.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

#33 Corey

Corey

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 02:51 PM

There are two camps in the Sasquatch field. The Kill and the No-Kill. I am firmly in the No-Kill camp. To me, I don't think it's worth it to kill one of these creatures to prove that it's real. What would be the benefit to the Sasquatch to be proven real?
There's the often-times mentioned laws to protect them and the habitat. That's a great idea, but how long do you think something like that would take to get passed?
One of the best known potential areas for possible Sasquatch habitation is the Pacific Northwest. Now, the PN relies pretty heavily on the timber business. Would a timber company simply allow the closure of an area that had been a source of raw materials because it may be a Sasquatch habitat?
Again, how long to pass laws protecting these creatures?
Say there's a fellow in Canada. He's out hunting one day and sees a Sasquatch wander by his tree-stand. He shoots, kills, and then drags it out of the woods.
A short time later, he's all over the news. He's getting paid to show his Sasquatch carcass, he's showing up on Larry King. I would be afraid that then you'd have way too many people trying to cash in like the hunter did. Yes, these things are hard to find, but how much more effort would people put in to harvesting one if they knew that they could sell it?
Would a protection law be put into place before the Great Sasquatch Hunt began?
There aren't a heck of alot of these things, if they do in fact exist. So to remove even one specimen, could cause a great deal of impact to the entire species.

#34 tommyhancock

tommyhancock

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 07:35 AM

hey,been gone for a while.busy writing some stuff.glad about the amount of response here...so here goes.

first a general thing to everybody: interesting find on the radio thing,thats just cool.i had a stereo that wouldnt turn on unless you push a button in and also the station changed with a dial like a volume knob on an electric guitar only huge haha. anyway every tuesday at exactly 206am it would turn on and the dial would turn to the local spanish station.is there any way something like this could be explained thats maybe similar to what opr and caverat were talking about?(note.this is a question and i will not be arguing it im just curious because the button had to be pressed in hard and the dial would be turned even though it wasnt loose.)not claiming ghost on this one,could be but who knows haha.also just for further info the button would be pushed in,it was atleast hard enough that a 5 year old kid struggled to do so.and the dial was turned to the station.

as far as bigfoot goes i have personally never been interested in it much, sure i'll watch an "in search of" video of sasquatch giant squids and nessie,but to me its mostly us searching for species like crazy,which isnt bad and some of the arguments and what not are kind of interesting but all and all theres lots of undiscovered species. i do think it would be easier to prove the existence of living things like this as opposed to ghosts although not as much more as one might think since any video or picture will immediately be viewed as either fact or fiction by the general public.

also where did this proof talk start up?i have experienced things that make me believe without a doubt in ghosts.a cereal box flying across the room is in no way on of those things.this isnt about proving something to skeptics.this is about relaying an experience and that experience being explained to you in ways that make no since. note:i will never EVER try to prove or disprove a ghost here on this site,ESPECIALLY not in this thread.if i post something here for skeptics i guarantee i am not trying to convert you.no friggin way.what i will want is a different view point.nothing more nothing less.if i disagree i may argue,if you disagree you may argue.dont try to get me to change my way of thinking in general and i wont do the same to you.anything that involves more solid things that i saw or experience that made me a wholehearted believer WILL NOT BE IN THE SKEPTICS SECTION because i cant prove it or disprove it,so why run my unfounded beliefs in your face?i will however,discuss things like this story,the cereal box,the snap crackle pops,because its the kind of thing where no one can know the answer,not even have a personal answer that is unprovable,theres literally no way to know this way or that.and if there is i want REAL suggestions from skeptics just as much as i want crazy stories from believers.but nothing like my super strong cat.i will toss that suggestion out the window.i am 200 pounds maybe a little more and i ran at about full force into my fridge with my shoulder(even though i saw the cat was nowhere near it since it didnt happen while my back was turned,i saw it fly across the room)if i couldnt get that resut,no way the cat can.

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."
i agree with you wholeheartedly.in the example i gave about the cereal flying off the fridge i never once claimed it was a ghost.so of course,no crazy claim on my part.on the other hand a person i told in person said that my kitten ran into the fridge and knocked it off.this is a person i know and knows how small the kitten is,i ran into the fridge hard and it took a few tries just to get the box to wobble and it was less full than it was on the night it flew a good 10-15 feet across the room without hitting the floor.they refused to believe that it was anything but the cat running into the fridge.thats an extraordinary claim in my cook,a kitty weighing a couple pounds can send a heavier box flying across the room than a 200 pund man can by sheer force?doubtful,more than a ghost.a ghost i cant prove or disprove,theres literally no way the cat could have done this.not only was their extraordinary claim not proven,it was disproven.this post has nothing to do with convincing people that ghosts exist,nothing.what it does have to do with is wild claims made the other way,yet this guy isnt crazy for saying a kitten is stronger than me and possibly stronger than spiderman,im crazier for saying this claim is just untrue regardless of what else could have caused this. also this was open to all kinds of stories and i was interested in what people were told by skeptics that were along these lines of crazy.not house settling and creaking.im talking about skeptics coming up with things that are atleast as unlikely as a spirit.and yes i find the kitten smashing into my fridge sending something flying across the room more crazy than a ghost claim(which i still have not made)

"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."
when in doubt test the hell out of it.if you cant come up with anything throw it in the mystery file,thats the 1st step that should be taken in proving/disproving anything.
and i know they would need good evidence to change their minds,but what about when that is not the goal,and instead im simply relaying an experience and asking for another explanation because im totally stumped?again,i cant prove or disprove ghosts and that will literally never be my goal.atleast not over the internet thats for sure,this is a discussion and comparison of beliefs.nothing more.opinions.and anything that makes any sense to me,and most that doesnt make sense is taken into account,but claims as the superkitten one i gave as a brief example,im willing to throw out the window.
"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."
-tom_bgh
couldnt have said it better so i stole the quote haha
"I would just be curious what constitutes a crazy explanation to supposed paranormal activity?"
super strength kitten. many other examples could be given determining on the story a LOT of wild claims are made both ways.
"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."
i agree with this statement more than you would think since i am a whole hearted believer.but more so than i am a believer,im a talker,hence the topic haha.i also believe in god but i will not sit here and try to prove him.not my place to do so. and they do keep us honest to an extent,when theyre not being ridiculous is that extent.an educated skeptic is rarely a problem,its the people who throw out random ideas just because"there is no way ghosts are real" that this topic was going after.clearly this type of skeptic is rare on this site.which is good because someone signing up to an internet forum just to bash people is dreadfully sad,i dont think 99.999% of the people on this site would be if the existence of ghosts wasnt atleast a possibilty in their mind.they almost certainly wouldnt keep coming back.

"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. "
i agree 100%.nothing negative to add,not anywhere near the kind of stuff im interested in when it comes to paranormal,but still insanely good point. at the same time,these kinds of dismisals happen in ghosts and ufo fields as well.just to make my claims more relatable to you.

"I know what the standard is for science to agree that there is a large, bi-pedal, North American primate running around the country, and that's a carcass.
What would be the parallel in the ghost field?"
youre absolutely right,again my claim isnt that ghosts are real,i have experiences that prove TO ME no one else,that ghosts are real,but i wont disclose those events here because 1.i dont care to prove it to anyone believer or not and 2.its not possible if i did one to.i cant prove what ive seen.imagine you've seen bigfoot right infront of you and all you got was a pic that half the world refused to believe.complete breakthrough but you'll be ridiculed as a hoaxer,atleast by some,for simply presenting the picture and the story.thats what trying to prove ghosts is like.
curious.do you find it strange that after all the searching for bigfoot that there is no body?live,dead,bones,nothing?not an attack just a question.i would think there would be something if this is a species that has lived as long as legend claims. and to answer your question:there is truly nothing equal to that on the ghost front.some will argue all these claims about repeatability and this and that.which dont get me wrong is true,but to me ghosts wouldnt seem to be so predictable,imo its something we dont understand nearly as much as we think,believers or skeptics.imo science isnt to the point that a ghost can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.or in that case disproven.

FATMAN:"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 agree with this insanely.you see things that you know you can no longer doubt,but at the same time you can not prove it either.frustrating no? that said if i were to search for someone else its all about logic.both the logic to not call ghost on everything you cant immediately explain AND to not call BS too fast when you find another explanation REALLY test it ya know?i was watching ghosthunters international(i know lame right?haha)and they shined a light in on a suit of armor. ooh cast a shadow human shaped thats what it is done.wtf? thats not investigation by any means especially since it cast a human shaped shadow(duh) in a different spot than the place where the shadow was popularly reported.also there was an instence where there were "orbs"(which im not big on) floating across a video taken by a security camera.then the one scrawny dude put on some reflector jacket,supposedly really popular,and runs across the camera.it literally looked NOTHING like the original image,they called it debunked. basically they proved that the camera works and picks up people,it beared no resemblance haha.

"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."
i disagree.i truthfully havent seen any proof outside of my own eyes.nothing that can fully prove a stranger anyways.thats the missing piece.and as i said,i dont think science is up to it yet.

"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."
boo ya.no point.thats why this isnt an attack on the average skeptic especially not the ones i have talked to on this site

"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?"
both and neither.all are invited since im asking for examples.but generally if the post is followed correctly any or all can pop up.basically the ones that would show up the most if followed to a T would not be people who believe to an extent or people who dont believe at all.it would be people who refuse to believe.no not even to that extent.it would be people who refuse to even consider.for the most part

"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."
i see what you say to an extent.i find only one flaw."a lot of it cant be explained" which is a total fact,but lack of explanation is not proof of ghost.it may spark believers but it isnt proof.i do agree that the "holy grail" of spirit evidence is not possible.i repeat i dont think science is up to it yet.remember when splitting an atom was entirely laughable?happened.when science was BAD_WORD good and ready to make it go down(no pun intended).if it is possible its crazily unlikely,definetly not something scientists can walk into at this point and prove or disprove.no way.

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."
:ghost: :wow: :clap:
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."
1st off.you and caverat so far are deadlocked on the site as far as where my respect on your point of views lies.that said.this supposed "holy grail" of evidence HAS happened but it still cant be taken as proof because it could be a hoax.on more than one occasion something like this has happened and cant be explained,but still it hasnt been taken all too seriously.intelligent back and forth evp has also happened and to an extent that they cant be explained but again,NOT proof or even strong evidence,what if its a hoax?what if its just coincidental? as much as i wish this werent the case,thats how it goes.

"Unfortunately the believers probably will get rather...how to put it nicely...antsy?"said dave.
"Antsy? Why is that? Fear of the field being taken over by scientists?"asked corey.
"No...more a fear of their own beliefs being shattered."
i can only speak for myself,not believers as a whole,i have seen things that i know can never be disproven in my eyes.not cause im stubborn or anything like that,if you prove there is no human ghosts i would then be very confused as to the kinds of things i saw,definitely not just power of suggestion,that said i would love to see "proof" either way.i dont think were there yet technologically to be able to prove or disprove something like that.

"I've always said, as far as Sasquatch/Big Foot/Skunk Apes, etc, that I wish I would see more researchers getting special permit to try and kill one of these things. having armed researchers would do two things:

1.) Offer the best evidence that the researchers could possibly ask for were they able to harvest one for study.
2.) Keep the fools dressing up in monkey suits out of the woods.

Unfortunately in that field it's either going to be the stumbled on body of a dead specimen or somebody will have to harvest one. Of course there would have to be strict guidelines to make sure that it's done properly. You can't let every Tom, Dick and Harry loose with a rifle."
agree with this 100% hoaxers need to get outta here.it makes serious researchers look ridiculous.this suggestion is brilliant :clap:

#35 Axman

Axman

    Chainsaws are better......

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingman, AZ
  • Interests:Ghost hunting of course! Motorcycles is a big interest of mine. I also am a guitar player (hence my username) but I haven't practiced much over the last year or two. I also enjoy spending time with my wife and family when possible.

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:50 AM

The main reason that proof is a correlated to your original post is because both skeptics and believers alike will take anything presented and use it to prove/disprove as they see fit. Same goes in the cryptozoology circles. I have allowed the discussion to continue along that path because I do feel it is relevant to your original post as all paranormal circles will have skeptics who react similarly.

Edited by Axman, 26 November 2009 - 10:51 AM.
typo error

Ah. Well... I attended Juilliard... I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT... NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEAD GUY... NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK? You think I'm qualified? --BeetlejuiceI'm the ghost with the most, babe.--BeetlejuiceWe've come for your daughter Chuck--Beetlejuice

#36 Corey

Corey

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:06 PM

Always feel free to kick me back into play if I wander off topic. I do that sometimes.

#37 Axman

Axman

    Chainsaws are better......

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingman, AZ
  • Interests:Ghost hunting of course! Motorcycles is a big interest of mine. I also am a guitar player (hence my username) but I haven't practiced much over the last year or two. I also enjoy spending time with my wife and family when possible.

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:56 PM

So far it's been a civil discussion. No need for any butt kicking yet! :ghost:

Edited by Axman, 26 November 2009 - 12:56 PM.

Ah. Well... I attended Juilliard... I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT... NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEAD GUY... NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK? You think I'm qualified? --BeetlejuiceI'm the ghost with the most, babe.--BeetlejuiceWe've come for your daughter Chuck--Beetlejuice

#38 tommyhancock

tommyhancock

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 27 November 2009 - 06:22 AM

oh no what im asking is more or less where the whole "me trying to prove to them" thing is coming in.if others want to prove or disprove im 100% fine with that,im pointing out that it is not my goal personally and that that should be understood before any posts are made saying otherwise.should have worded it more thoroughly

and corey youre not off topic in my mind,the question is if skeptics come up with crazier answers than believers period.not just ghost skeptics,so as far as im concerned its all fair game haha.if anything i would rather it branch out and let others discuss anything they would like,as long as it pertains to what this forum is about,and i'll just chime in with my thoughts when i feel strongly enough one way or the other.just cause bigfoot isnt a ghost,which is my area of interest,does not in any way disqualify its discussion,as axman said there are bigfoot believers and skeptics as well,so if anything you answered the original calling of this post to a T both with a skeptics point of view AND with a believers point of view as to what a skepic would say that you find crazy
so thank you :)

#39 fatman

fatman

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 09:46 AM

Corey, for what it is worth I believe the Patterson film is the real deal. I'll just leave it at that.
As for my ghostly experiences, I know what I saw. When it's something very personal (one-on-one, etc.) I don't think there's any use in trying to convince anyone, skeptic or not. If one feels very strongly about their experience, especially after consideration of all the possibilities one can think of, then a skeptics oppinion may not matter. Some can't articulate as well as others, me included.
The three images I saw can't be explained away by a skeptic, especially since they weren't there and don't know the exact particulars of the stituations. If one can't provide more than their story, then what's the use in trying to convince anyone. I know it does sound closed-minded, but I can't do any better than that with my reasoning.
Now don't get me wrong. I do think skeptics are valuable to the paranormal. It's just that they can't find an explanation for everything. Some things just can't be explained fully or at all.

#40 Corey

Corey

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 28 November 2009 - 01:15 PM

I'm 75% on the Patterson footage myself Fatman.

Thing is, some skeptics approach their skepticism with the same fervor that the believers do. Now I'm talking about those believers that will show you a picture and INSIST that it shows a ghost, no discussion will sway them. It a GHOST! And if you don't see what they see, then they get offended
Critics can be the same way. It's NOT A GHOST! It's not a ghost and that's final. They won't take into consideration any of the details surrounding the picture, or alot of the time, will barely look at it.

I like discussion, but I dont care at all for people who have their minds made up before they even look at any potential evidence. To me, if your going to give an opinion, at least be willing to weigh all the possibilities. Listen to those who know about these things, and make a decision from there.

The Patterson footage is a perfect example. Ive had discussions with people about it, and some have their opinion set in concrete that it's a guy in a suit. No amount of discussion will sway them. Now alot of the time, they've only seen the footage once or twice and based their opinion on that.
I try and explain some details to them, and they get that glazed over look in their eyes.
They've decided, it's a guy in a suit, plain and simple.
How do you even discuss this subject with someone like that?
They've made up their minds, and no manner of discussion will change it.
I had a friend of mine say to me one time "I can't believe you've put that much thought into this Bigfoot thing."
To him, just the fact that I've studied the Sasquatch phenomena makes me biased. I think he looks at it like being doubly nuts. First, I think that there might be a large primate running around North America, and secondly that I've actually put time into researching it.
He read the story, an incorrect one by the way, of how Roger Patterson confessed on his death bed to having hoaxed the Patterson footage.
I try and explain how actually it was Ray Wallace who confessed to hoaxing prints in California. Right away, my friend thinks I'm making excuses because I have some inherent NEED to believe in the Sasquatch, and will use any information available to back up my belief.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but he only knows the Readers Digest condensed version of the Sasquatch phenomena.
I'd imagine the same kind of thing goes on in the ghost field.

#41 tommyhancock

tommyhancock

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 29 November 2009 - 08:42 AM

FATMAN:As for my ghostly experiences, I know what I saw. When it's something very personal (one-on-one, etc.) I don't think there's any use in trying to convince anyone, skeptic or not. If one feels very strongly about their experience, especially after consideration of all the possibilities one can think of, then a skeptics oppinion may not matter. Some can't articulate as well as others, me included.

im with you entirely on the "i know what i saw front"i get that that wont be good enough for any skeptic to be considered proof,truth be told it shouldnt be good enough for a believer to consider it proof either.and though i know the topic of proof is a majorly important one in the whole skeptic/believer dilemma, i myself have never once tried to prove anything to anybody.i have my beliefs and what i know i have seen,but i do not have proof.so i fully understand people not changing their system on my experiences, or even thinking i made it up if they're that far against believing things like this exist.what i don't fully understand is some explanations that are given and totally believed to be fact by the person giving the explanation regardless of weither or not they made sense.NOTE:for this discussion i am only debating such things as when my loveseat moved seemingly on its own a fairly significant distance seemingly by itself and when a box of rice krispies was thrown across my kitchen seemingly by itself.i am not using any kind of experience in which i saw a dead person in front of me and there is no other explanation i can imagine but ghost.btw the loveseat moving was "explained" by someone who i know personally and who knows i live in a place with very mild winds, knows there was no storm or strong gusts on the day the loveseat moved,and knows i generally leave all windows and doors closed which was the case on this day as...the wind moving it.the cereal flying across the kitchen was "explained" by someone else who i know personally and who knows for a fact that i ran hard into the fridge a good 10-15 times trying to get it to fall and at best got it to topple and fall straght down(NOT the same thing that happened the day it flew independently), and knows how small my kitten is(tiny), as,"the cat probably just bumped into the fridge".thats what this topic is about,neither one of those examples, the moving couch or the flying cereal, is a crazy enough experience in my mind to say a ghost did it and i KNOW a ghost did it,which is why i never claimed it was a ghost,i claim thats a possibility.but i can tell you for sure the wind moving the couch and the kitten bashing the fridge and sending 1 lonely box flying while the others were unmoved is NOT a possibility,yet to the people who gave me these "explanations" i am being unreasonable and closed minded.i will take any skeptics point of view into perspective as long as its not insanely ridiculous.heck to be fair i put to the test both of their ideas.it was hard for me to slide the loveseat,not to lift and move it that was easy,but to slide it,which is what happened in front of my very eyes, the distance that it moved while i was alone and no one was there to touch it, was actually very hard and took me twice the time to do it than it happened seemingly on its own.im a big guy,and not to brag,im on the strong side haha.in order for this to have been wind moving it it would have had to happen for approx. 1.5 secs. been focused on nothing but the front of the loveseat(fyi no door/window/vent/etc. directly in front of it)and been strong enough to move a heavy piece of furniture. as i said with the cereal one,i ran my large body into the fridge hard,in order for this kitten to have pulled this feat off he would have had to have momentarily possessed 3 or more times my physical strength and force. but im the crazy one?were these ghosts?i dont know.were these the happenings of a phantom breeze(which in this case i would consider paranormal in itself)and a tiny kitten?no way. thats where my point lies as opposed to lying with me believing i have proof or even want to show proof.i dont.i personally dont care for proving anything,i know what i know,i feel what i feel.is that enough for me to change others minds?no.i wont try to change their religious views either. pretty much it boils down to this:i dont have proof,but you dont either,stop acting like your claim is more validated than mine just because all the things in your version are undeniably true.just because everything in the story is true,does not make the story fact.

with that said,without skeptics there would be no paranormal "field" whatsoever.it would just be you believe or you dont and thats that.without skeptics to wonder and to look into things no studies would happen.but a skeptic mindset does not always=an unbiased mindset,which generally is said to be the case by almost every skeptic i have spoken to.believer and skeptic have nothing to do with how biased or unbiased you are it has to do with your viewing of the same subject.nothing more,nothing less. i have met some very biased believers yes,also very unbiased ones,in that i lump myself.i have met biased skeptics as well,but the where a biased believer will admit that some of the pictures could be fake,a biased skeptic will generally not admit that some of them COULD be real.

COREY:my opinion on that video is so close to 50/50 its almost not worth commenting on.note that i am admittedly ignorant on the fine points of the bigfoot studies so dont take anything i say to be meant as fact because this is not the case.more the loose viewings of someone who couldnt find anything else on tv one day haha.
i lean towards thinking the video was a hoax only because a man did come forward and admit that he wore the suit for that day.and the way the thing looked back seemed a little human in my eyes.that said it could very well have been legit i am not educated enough in this area to make an official guess one way or the other.

and YES! this right here:
"Thing is, some skeptics approach their skepticism with the same fervor that the believers do. Now I'm talking about those believers that will show you a picture and INSIST that it shows a ghost, no discussion will sway them. It a GHOST! And if you don't see what they see, then they get offended
Critics can be the same way. It's NOT A GHOST! It's not a ghost and that's final. They won't take into consideration any of the details surrounding the picture, or alot of the time, will barely look at it."

that couple group of sentences up there is the VERY point i am making with this topic.it isnt so i can prove skeptics are crazy in general.most i have talked to have a good head on their shoulders,especially on this forum.my point is that i hear how crazy and fanatical believers can be,and i agree,but i rarely see the same finger pointed the other way that is simply what i am doing.if i say that a ghost threw my cereal across a room and nothing else could explain it,that would be closed minded ignorant and simply,dumb.thats why my conclusion on that very instance is that i have no conclusion.but if someone says there is no way it was a ghost because ghosts just arent real...how do you know?and to take it further and say a kitten did it? yet im crazy not them even though i havent drawn any conclusions,im crazy and not them because i believe that MAYBE it could have been a ghost.of course im insane not theirs,because forget that theres a super strong kitty or a second long mini hurricane in the middle of my living room,there isnt the possibility of a ghost,so it makes more sense right?pshh

"I like discussion, but I dont care at all for people who have their minds made up before they even look at any potential evidence. To me, if your going to give an opinion, at least be willing to weigh all the possibilities. Listen to those who know about these things, and make a decision from there."
i agree with this wholeheartedly,this isnt politics ya know?it isnt all right and wrong,its various views.i agree with this but would like to add to end, this.
dont be afraid to say "i dont know" or "i cant explain it" be you skeptic or believer.all paranormal topics are full of uncertainties,to think you have all the answers is ridiculous and takes credibility away from any small pieces of information you really have. note:i dont apply this to personal beliefs i BELIEVE in ghosts,i have seen things that i cant explain as anything else i think it was ghosts,does that make me right for sure?no.thats why i am a believer,not a knower(patent pending) maybe it was a demon or some other type of being all together that i saw?shapeshifter? no idea.but i BELIEVE it was ghosts.so if someone believes wholeheartedly that there are no ghosts,i dont hold it against them,as long as theyre willing to admit that they might be wrong as i am willing to admit.

what is it that keeps the other 25% on the otherside of the fence when it comes to this bigfoot video?that i would like to know because i havent met anyone who doesnt think one way or the other 100%

#42 fatman

fatman

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:15 PM

Corey, I've seen a lot about the existance of BF. The one that really put me in the believer column was a documentary that examined the Patterson footage in detail. It showed muscle bulges, hair patterns, etc. with the help of computer enlarging. I've seen explanations about the footage not showing that, but from what I saw it looked pretty convincing. So I'm one of "those". Still, discussion, examination, etc. needs to be open-minded to sort out the hoaxes, fakes, and realities of it all.
Tommy, to side along with what you said, as I drove away from my house to work this morning, I saw what looked like two misty legs crossing ithe street n front of my car. The sun was just starting to break, it was overcast, and I had my lights on. It was the headlights that illuminated the mist. It had not started to rain, even though it is forecasted for today here in Houston.
The legs I saw looked like legs from just above the knees on down and crossed each other like watching someone from the side walking. After they disappeard, I realized what it looked like. As I thought about it on down the road, all the variables came to mind: reflection, possible unsourced smoke or mist in the air, two midgets dressed up as transparent legs. But I tossed the thought of it being "ghostly". It was momentary, no other witnesses, and the conditions at the moment screwed it all tho hell in my mind. Still, it looked cool.
That's where I come from; it could have been, but I don't know and don't have any evidence. So I chalked up the experience to something weird and cool. That's all. I can't go around say "I saw ghost legs!" "I saw ghost legs!". I can relate what it looked like, but I know there was too many other possibilities. In others words, this believer was his own skeptic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users