I awoke from a nightmare and beside me on the pillow was the face of a gargoyle/reptile head which was contorting its face. I was able to move and starting punching it and of course it disappeared. About a month later it appeared again - just the face projecting from a mirror. This time I just lay in bed and watched it for about 5 seconds. No I wasn't drinking or on drugs. Now this just might be my dream state being pulled into my conscious state, but I must say it alarmed me and I thought I was maybe going crazy. I have not had any more instances. I did bump into an acquaintance at a party who said he had experienced seeing something like a gargoyle, but he refused to elaborate. Comments?
Alien Encounter
- Thread starter Visited
- Start date
IceJewel said:
That's the problem with any attempted link, 'something like'. Often things in dreams are rationalised into items were are familiar with on waking. You saw a contorted face, and called it a 'gargoyle'. You use this word, and your friend matches _his_ interpretation of what gargoyle means to him to _his_ experience, but they are only linked by a word, not by some external reality.
It sounds like you have experienced night terrors and sleep paralysis, which is quite common, I've had it, and described it here, and so have many others. It can be quite scary, and can often me misinterpreted as someing more than it is, a purely natural, if unpleasant phenomenon.
btw, I wake up looking at a gargoyle every morning. I have a stone one on my bedside table. I'm not a goth or anything, I just live in a Victorian house and it suits the decor. Mine looks kinda cheeky
Actually in both instances I was able to move and did not experience sleep paralysis, nor was I frightened or alarmed. In fact my instincts were to fight it and so I did. The second time I decided to observe it. I am well aware of the symptoms of night terrors/paralysis. My friend mentionned his encounter with a Gargoyle and that's when I said I had an encounter. I had been looking up the meaning of Gargoyles (trying to decipher what the incidence was all about) months before this conversation. And I find it curious that we would experience this within roughly the same time period. So this is not an instance of Monkey hear, Monkey repeat. Regretably my friend would not discuss it further. As this sort of thing has not happened before or since the 2 incidences I ponder that it might have been an inter-dimentional being.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
A few decades ago when students were so poor that they had to share rooms, not just flats I woke in the early hours of the morning to see, apparently, my room mate sitting at the end of his bed. [This was parallel to mine, about three feet away.] Visibility was good as it was a moonlit night. I sat up in bed to ask him what he was doing awake at that time, but as I raised myself on my elbow I could see he was actually sleeping peacfully, stretched out in a normal position. I turned back to the look at the figure at the end of his bed and it was still clearly visible. He had his back towards me, but there was sufficient of his profile visible for me to recognise him as the father of a friend. I was now sitting upright in bed switching my gaze between my sleeping room-mate and the apparition. I could clearly see what the apparation was wearing and, from the time of my second glance at him, had observed that he was partly transparent. After a total elapsed time of around forty five seconds [which I calculated later by repeating the actions i had taken and timing them]the apparition faded.
I am quite convinced that what I saw is exactly what many people claim as a ghost. I have equally no doubt that it was entirely a product of my brain. Why am I so convinced? Two days earlier I had been reading a popular book on sleep in which it was mentioned that sometimes on waking, with the brain mid-way between two states, very realistic hallucinations can appear. At the time I thought, 'that's really neat. I'd like to see one of those.' Two days later I did.
I would be amazed if your 'gargoyle' was not exactly the same phemomena.
I am quite convinced that what I saw is exactly what many people claim as a ghost. I have equally no doubt that it was entirely a product of my brain. Why am I so convinced? Two days earlier I had been reading a popular book on sleep in which it was mentioned that sometimes on waking, with the brain mid-way between two states, very realistic hallucinations can appear. At the time I thought, 'that's really neat. I'd like to see one of those.' Two days later I did.
I would be amazed if your 'gargoyle' was not exactly the same phemomena.
IceJewel said:
Ah, but you do experience it, even if it is not for long, and you don't consciously take note of it.
We often dream about things, faces, whatever, but we don't often dream about punching things in the face. This was a fear reaction, partly because of the scary face and partly, because as you were coming out of sleep, your subconscious perceives a threat, as your limbs are immobile.
You then start punching in your dream state, and wake punching. The real punching starts someway after you think you really are, that part is still a dream.
Of course, because it's a dream, the source of your fright is no longer there on waking.
Sleep paralysis often drives dreams completely. The feeling of being chased, or that sluggishness while running, or the ability to fly, are all caused by it.
Anyway, upshot is, you had a nightmare, and so did your friend. End of story.
What I've mentioned time and time again fits the reasoning and removes the mental resolution that most apply. I usually point to parallels, my reason for doing so is that one minor alteration between universe, the smallest of paradoxes could place people out of sync with their multiworlds selves through a giant butterfly effect that pans out in the universe.
I can't suggest what causes such paradoxes, perhaps difficulty in waking one morning is great enough to cause universal deviations (Namely you awake 5 minutes later, get dressed later, miss your bus to work and alter the whole pattern of your day.)
The same could be suggested for owning a cat, or perhaps having a cat that got runover by someone driving to work 5 minutes later (see above paragraph) As for seeing people... well it's suggested that two universe (if they should exist in reality) would deviate from one another enough so they do not encroach, however if the universes haven't moved that far apart from one another it would be possible for someone that is still following a multiworlds destiny to come across one of these instances of a multiversal split, for instance seeing the ghost of someone who commited suicide (who ultimately might not have succeeded in that goal on another universe).
I know I have mentioned it time and time again, usually to be greeted with the hostility of skepticism, however physics doesn't rule it out in fact it suggests its a possibility.
The real question though is if such occurances are natural, or if they have been overseen by "Observers" that have set such paradoxes in action to see how the universes pan out. (By Observers I don't mean Aliens, but very Human Parapsychologists and even Physicists.)
I can't suggest what causes such paradoxes, perhaps difficulty in waking one morning is great enough to cause universal deviations (Namely you awake 5 minutes later, get dressed later, miss your bus to work and alter the whole pattern of your day.)
The same could be suggested for owning a cat, or perhaps having a cat that got runover by someone driving to work 5 minutes later (see above paragraph) As for seeing people... well it's suggested that two universe (if they should exist in reality) would deviate from one another enough so they do not encroach, however if the universes haven't moved that far apart from one another it would be possible for someone that is still following a multiworlds destiny to come across one of these instances of a multiversal split, for instance seeing the ghost of someone who commited suicide (who ultimately might not have succeeded in that goal on another universe).
I know I have mentioned it time and time again, usually to be greeted with the hostility of skepticism, however physics doesn't rule it out in fact it suggests its a possibility.
The real question though is if such occurances are natural, or if they have been overseen by "Observers" that have set such paradoxes in action to see how the universes pan out. (By Observers I don't mean Aliens, but very Human Parapsychologists and even Physicists.)
Ophiolite said:
'hallucination', 'dream', both are false experiences caused by part of the brain overlaying it's activity on the waking mind, so I'm not disagreeing with you, just using a different term.
Have you seen any experiments involving sleep deprivation, btw? Interesting stuff, and outlines the delicate balance between conscious and subconscious experiences.
During periods of sleep deprivation, it became apparent that parts of the brain take 'cat naps' and go into dream sleep while the subject is still conscious. The dreams this part of the brain has are sometimes experienced by the subject, overlayed on the reality they percieve, so the dream is given as much credibility.
That said, a 'dream' becomes a 'hallucination' in this example.
Of course, this is a very subtle effect, and people who hallucinate a lot, see ghosts, aliens, all of that, are most likely suffering from this phenomena. It's no surprise then that the majority of people have these experiences when they should be sleeping.
I've deleted FieryIce's post because it didn't really place conjector on the overall topic but was designed to attack a particular individual by supposedly exposing the thread viewer to information about what they have stated on their website.
I know I have allowed this in the past in regards to Craterchains site, however I will be stopping this in the future.
I suggest it's up to the thread reader to make their own decisions about who a poster is, or what their motives are. If they want to learn more about such things as motives rather than listening to the output of other people which usually have one-sided views to offer, they should in fact perhaps look at the individuals profile if they have included their website details etc.
This way on information that is Publicly Available is viewed at the discression of the readers investigative prowess as apposed to being forcefed biase.
I know I have allowed this in the past in regards to Craterchains site, however I will be stopping this in the future.
I suggest it's up to the thread reader to make their own decisions about who a poster is, or what their motives are. If they want to learn more about such things as motives rather than listening to the output of other people which usually have one-sided views to offer, they should in fact perhaps look at the individuals profile if they have included their website details etc.
This way on information that is Publicly Available is viewed at the discression of the readers investigative prowess as apposed to being forcefed biase.
I've got to say, I disagree with that. I thought FieryIce's post was definately "character assasination" (or, more accurately, an "assasination attempt"), but doesn't your new rule restrict one from making arguements based on previous literature of the opposing poster?
For instance: if I argue against POSTER A's contention that HYPOTHESIS 1 is supported by EVIDENCE 1A, then aren't I restricted from citing QUOTE 2A (a statement made on POSTER A's website) and QUOTE 2B (a comment made in a post of another thread). It would also exclude citing QUOTE 2C (a comment made on BadAstronomy msg brd).
Moreover, I would suggest that we are morally responsible to warn the casual reader/new member about scam artists like Chris Beachum, who are attempting to peddle their wares through threads with "new ufo pic" attached to them. The new rule would make this impossible, since it is a high-velocity, low-drag bullet of words that is needed to assisinate the very character flaw that we can all agree to find distasteful: the spammer.
For instance: if I argue against POSTER A's contention that HYPOTHESIS 1 is supported by EVIDENCE 1A, then aren't I restricted from citing QUOTE 2A (a statement made on POSTER A's website) and QUOTE 2B (a comment made in a post of another thread). It would also exclude citing QUOTE 2C (a comment made on BadAstronomy msg brd).
Moreover, I would suggest that we are morally responsible to warn the casual reader/new member about scam artists like Chris Beachum, who are attempting to peddle their wares through threads with "new ufo pic" attached to them. The new rule would make this impossible, since it is a high-velocity, low-drag bullet of words that is needed to assisinate the very character flaw that we can all agree to find distasteful: the spammer.
Last edited:
I know what you mean Skinwalker, however I'm hoping that other moderators now and in the future will be able to see the difference between citing references from a persons site and just quoting references or material about someone in an attempt to laiden the reader with biase.
It is a pity that the clout system isn't functional on this forum, however I might look at doing something else to cover that.
It is a pity that the clout system isn't functional on this forum, however I might look at doing something else to cover that.
oh. my. lord.
you people dont know what the thread-starter experienced...you go on and on and on about scientific method, and blah blah blah.........
you have no idea what that person experienced. you are automatons of our technocratic society. you automatically disbelieve ANYTHING that doesnt jump out and bite you.
sounds a bit UN-scientific if you ask me.
of course, i may just be an ass too.
you people dont know what the thread-starter experienced...you go on and on and on about scientific method, and blah blah blah.........
you have no idea what that person experienced. you are automatons of our technocratic society. you automatically disbelieve ANYTHING that doesnt jump out and bite you.
sounds a bit UN-scientific if you ask me.
of course, i may just be an ass too.
Hey Visisted, I believe in you.
Your guides came to you to remind you that you have a define dignified purpose all of the infinte possiblities of the universe.
If you allow the possiblities in your mind and except your life you will see it slowly opens, like my mind currently is.
There is no such thing as not real, non-exsistant or fake, whatever you percieve, it is all real electricity that exists in your mind and with your soul in the body of the universe.
Your guides came to you to remind you that you have a define dignified purpose all of the infinte possiblities of the universe.
If you allow the possiblities in your mind and except your life you will see it slowly opens, like my mind currently is.
There is no such thing as not real, non-exsistant or fake, whatever you percieve, it is all real electricity that exists in your mind and with your soul in the body of the universe.
The Devil Inside said:oh. my. lord.
you people dont know what the thread-starter experienced...you go on and on and on about scientific method, and blah blah blah.........
you have no idea what that person experienced. you are automatons of our technocratic society. you automatically disbelieve ANYTHING that doesnt jump out and bite you.
sounds a bit UN-scientific if you ask me.
of course, i may just be an ass too.
lol.. I am learning to take these debunkers with a grain of salt. Don't tell them about any religious experiences you have had. They will FORCE you to concede you're freaking nuts, or had a dream.
"Which is more plausable"? They will ask over and over again... or as you say, blah blah blah. lol.. Here, read below and learn their way's.
Debunker's must do the following!
#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.
#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.
#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.
#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.
#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.
#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)
#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.
#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.
#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.
#10.) Visit www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.
You violated the Copy/Paste rules of sciforums. A simple link to the above un-original material would have sufficed: http://members.cox.net/borobbie2/
Even though you are the original author it appears. And in #8, you've missused the possessive conjunction "you're." It should be "your."
Besides, this is sciforums. To get banned here, you've got to be way more annoying than ProudMuslim. On a scale of 1 - 10, you're a 6.02214199 x 10<sup>-23</sup> compared to him.
Even though you are the original author it appears. And in #8, you've missused the possessive conjunction "you're." It should be "your."
Besides, this is sciforums. To get banned here, you've got to be way more annoying than ProudMuslim. On a scale of 1 - 10, you're a 6.02214199 x 10<sup>-23</sup> compared to him.
Last edited: