The paronormle

Post Reply New Topic

In this modern era the educated claim to be the new prophets of the future and science is the ultimate truth that cannot be challenged. But the science of Homo Sapiens has two major flaws;
- Firstly all that we know about the universe is interpreted using the physical paradigm that the data we interpret makes use of our primitive animal based senses (mainly auditory and visual). Even scientists know that this is limited.
- Secondly with the internet and mass media there is an oversupply of data and people are saturated with information so they are too lazy to check the bona fides of the information they receive through television or newspaper..

So nobody should be surprised that evidence of paranormal is largely ignored because the average person does not really want to think too hard, much easier to rely on a taxpayer or industry sponsored researcher to give us the answers we need - in the case of the paranormal will surely be debunked. Infact even before the information has had a chance to be examined or read it will be debunked...you only have to mention the word "UFO" and it will be flushed down the sewer.

One of the standard claims of UFO debunkers is there is no evidence of UFOs because it can't be proved with science.
A member of the Squaking Parrot's Appreciation Association also called the Skeptics society will rely on the same debunk tactics from the 1950's - tricks of the light, plane, moon, planet venus, meteor shower, etc etc....

Science is not just repeatable experiments or observable events that can be reliably be observed over a period of cycles (lunar cycle etc) science is also the examination of events that can neither be predicted nor controlled where one can be ready to take measurements i.e. volcano or earthquake can be recorded using a seismograph even though the event will not take place at the same location again.

Then there are airplane crashes, murders, accidents where one collects forensic data and evaluate the evidence. We collect witness statements which become legal evidence depending on the reliability of the witness, duration of observation and how close the witness was to the event of interest.

So why is it when military generals, scientists, doctors, engineers, airforce pilots, politicians and even in some cases world leaders claim to be unreliable witnesses when they either a) have a photo of UFO b) claim to have witnesses a UFO or c) claim to have had an alien abduction experience?? Why is their testimony no longer valid?

Why are mass observations of UFOs seen by up to hundreds even thousands of people discounted as hallucinations caused by the weather? Why are many thousands of alien abduction experiences recalled under hypnosis all recount exactly the same events, same procedures and even same alien beings. I have seen cases where witnesses drew exactly the same exploratory instruments that was inserted inside them from hypnposis recall.

Finally and perhaps most bizarrely there are cases where an entire school of children ranging in age from preschool to high-school have witnesses alien visitation on the school premises. I have yet to figure out how a 5yr old child can confabulate a story of a spaceship with alien beings when they have grown up in a remote African village without television.

So why are people too lazy to look into these things? because we are misinformed, through this misinformation there is no allowance made to investigate the events any further by the authorities. Any court of law in any country would deem these events worthy of at least governments recognizing the need to acknowledge they are at least happening. There is no need for outright admission of alien visitation but at least acknowledgement would be good.

I witnessed lights in the sky in my house on the coast flying over the sea every night between the age of 7 to 11. All those years I was too frightened to tell anybody, all I knew was the lights I was watching were intelligently controlled and could cover distances on the horizon over the sea like a mouse arrow on the computer screen. I don't know what they were but I know 100% they were real.

Science is ofttimes rapt up in the theoretical and believes it to be infallible truth. Sometimes, it is flawed, indeed. Science supports the idea that intelligent life exists on other planets placing UFOs within the realm of possibilities. We might not ever see them, though.

Nowadays, "paranormal" implies whatever those who believe in paranormal events want it to mean. That's the trouble with faith-based belief - any word can mean whatever you believe it means, thus leading to a lack of corrective action or refinement of beliefs.

Science, on the other hand, is both self-correcting and clearly defined; in fact science is self-correcting because it is clearly defined.

I've watched a few episodes of that show, and each episode was a disappointment. The show's entire premise is based on presumptive thinking, open-ended questions, innuendo, and a lack of discipline in their investigative methods. What's more, they "evidence" they collect is too easily faked.

The movie "Ghostbusters" made more sense, and it was obvious fiction!

Science is not always clearly defined and I will give you an example, Fnord. The planet Mars. Engineers have their heart set on terra forming it or it one day being warm enough to have an atmosphere somewhat like earth's with liquid water. That way when earth is no longer inhabitable, we humans can go colonize the bright rusty sphere.
It sounds all good until you realize Mars has no magnetic field and it is theorized it can't have one because it's center is too cold and dead to produce one. The solar winds will strip away any atmosphere we try to create. We would be exposed to deadly radiation because of this.
Still, on the science shows I watch, the scientists make life on Mars sound relatively easy. We need some warmth, oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane. More or less. They never address the lack of magnetic field issue. Would we ever be able to inhabit the planet without a magnetic field? Truly inhabit it, not just live in inflated bubbles?
This is an example of a scientific muddlement.

Sounds like the scientists who were funded for the Biospere project...they failed to account for CO2 accumulation in the sphere.

but i'm still here

Interesting: how does it violate a law of physics?

I don't believe in the supernatural, so that would be quite something for me to have witnessed! I have always assumed that whatever the explanation was, it was natural.

I asked if there was some simple explanation I have missed. Do you have one? I mean, taking it for granted, just for the sake of argument, that I am not lying, and that my friend and I didn't both imagine the thing that we both saw. Consider it as a hypothetical exercise in debunking, since that seems to interest you.

Imagine, for example, that you saw three moving lights in the sky, as I have described - I could give a little more detail, including the approximate orientation of the path of the moving lights with respect to the constellation of Cassiopeia, but I don't think the extra information would be useful - and ask yourself how you would explain it.

I have no explanation, and my reluctance even to mention the matter to anyone in 22 years is because of the likelihood of encountering "sceptical" (i.e. blindly dogmatic, patronising, and dismissive) reactions.

Not that I'm accusing you of being blindly dogmatic, patronising, and dismissive ... I'm just saying, that's all.

In other words (correct me if I'm mistaken) you are using the word 'paranormal' as a synonym for 'supernatural'. No-one can fault you on that, because that is also how my dictionary (Chambers, 1998) defines it. If 'paranormal' means 'supernatural', then I also do not believe in the 'paranormal' (and for much the same reasons as Hume in, Of Miracles, if I remember it right - but my memory may be playing tricks there). But here is another definition, which is closer to what I understand the term to mean (and I think can be defended as also being close to what others also mean by it in practice):

Physical Phenomena in Psychical Research

(I just read this!)

That's a bit rich.

I take it, then, that you are above such tactics, and that you will therefore not be stating or insinuating that I am a liar just because I have reported some observations which you (and I) cannot explain. (Assuming you have no explanation, that is.)

Interesting. I still haven't got round to reading Kim Stanley Robinson's science fiction novel Red Mars (the first of a trilogy). Do you happen to know if, and how, he deals with this problem?

Ah, some of those books look interesting. I don't like Randi though.

It was the bit about the camera that made me laugh really.

I learned about cold reading from studying tarot reading. I don't do it though, I don't pretend to be psychic. The way I approach tarot reading is through the concept of synchronicity (which I do believe in), I treat the cards as a set of symbols derived (or divined) from the moment of questioning, that I then look into for the personal meanings, with the readee. It makes a lot more sense, it's more interesting and interactive and efficient, and it's not about me trying to impress someone with deception and what I can secretly infer about them with cold reading. It's warm reading.

I haven't read that book but I'll keep a look out for it. I hope he doesn't ignore the problem like everyone else seems to.

My pitch usually began with a disclaimer; "I'm sorry, but I'm not really good at this. I'll do the best I can, but you'll have to help me out now and then..."

It hooked them in every time!

You read tarot cards, Fnord?

When I read, I would just start pulling cards and blabbing while people were amazed that I knew what I knew about them. It was eerie for me and them.

That was pretty much it - they'd lay out the cards, and I'd begin the spiel ... and collect money for doing it. It was the specifics that kept them coming back...
Lesson #5 from "Learn To Be A Psychic":


Everybody has about half of these in common; the trick is to determine what would be the most likely thing to focus on for that particular person.

Also, There are seven things people most want to talk about: Love, Health, Money, Career, Travel, Education, & Ambition (from Lesson #3). Keep your talk centered on these subjects, and you'll be raking in the money!

Not that I'm encouraging you or anyone else to go into a business that plays on the fear and ignorance of their clients (there are enough churches for that). Instead, I'm trying to show that there is nothing more to being "psychic" that any con-artist doesn't already know and employ.

I believe in aliens (yes they definitely exist) and UFO's. I have seen aliens and UFO's. The doctors think its just part of psychosis. I don't really believe in ghosts though.