Proof of the supernatural

[Kittamaru]

There was no "third party" telling the rescue workers what they heard. They all heard the same voice coming from the car. It was sufficiently clear enough to provoke them into andrenaline-pumped action to lift the car up. That's not some after the fact embellishment by a third party.

There were several rescue workers (four if I recall) who supposedly heard this, yes?
Is it unreasonable to assume that at least one of them said something along the lines of "Did you hear that?" when this supposedly happened?
If even ONE of them thought they heard something, and said something like that, it would easily manipulate the others into thinking they heard it.

That was the whole POINT of the plethora of evidence I just presented you - the human mind is fickle, and the senses easily duped. Thus, eye-witness testimony is, quite frankly, worthless.

We have seen NOTHING to discredit any of the far more plausible mundane theories, and all of your cooked up explanations of why this has to be paranormal have more holes than swiss cheese.

At this point, it seems like the case is pretty open and shut - they thought they heard a voice, they were mistaken. End of story.

 

[Magical Realist]

There is zero confirmed reliable evidence of the paranormal. Show me the respectable peer reviewed scientific journal that published it. Until then ANY naturalistic explanation is more plausible than the supernatural, however unlikely it might appear.

We don't wait for an obviously biased scientific elite to tell us whether the paranormal happens or not. We go by the evidence. As in this case where 6 witnesses heard a voice coming from an overturned car. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to confirm that. It happened and it's strong evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Which is why all the skeptics are trying so hard to debunk it. They know it is evidence. But lord knows there's NEVER evidence for the paranormal, according to them.

 

[Kittamaru]

The Pear Studies WERE replications of the Stanford Research Institute's studies in remote viewing. They were also confirmed by other studies:

http://www.greaterreality.com/notime.htm

Studies of precognition using brain scans
Source: Dr. G.M. Bierman

Dr. Bierman is a university lecturer, computer laboratory, University of Cambridge. fellow and director of studies at St John's College, Cambridge. Director of studies at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. Click the blue link to see more details.
Dr. Bierman studied precognition by having subjects involved in brain scan experiments. The subjects had their brains scanned while they were shown randomly mixed images, some emotionally stimulating (either violent or erotic), and others neutral. The result was that their brains were reacting to the pictures before they were being shown.

The results of the studies follow.

Results:
fMRI is a type of brain scan used to highlight activity of the brain cells that give rise to perceptions and emotions. It is often used to measure emotional reactions to specific stimuli. Where Bierman’s research differs from the conventional studies is that he is interested in emotional response before the participant is subjected to the stimulus.
Ten participants had their brains scanned while they were shown randomly mixed images, some emotionally stimulating (either violent or erotic), and others neutral. The fMRI scans were then analysed for a reaction of some kind. Bierman found that areas of the brain that responded to emotional stimuli reacted about 4 seconds before the image was presented – and that this reaction was greater when the image was emotionally stimulating. This phenomenon has appeared often in existing, published research​

While this is genuinely interesting, you have to remember - correlation does not imply causation. If this was being done as a double-blind test, and if a "control" group was used using entirely neutral pictures, then we would have a study. As it is, we have a bunch of worthless data.​

 

[Kittamaru]

We don't wait for an obviously biased scientific elite to tell us whether the paranormal happens or not. We go by the evidence. As in this case where 6 witnesses heard a voice coming from an overturned car. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to confirm that. It happened and it's strong evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Which is why all the skeptics are trying so hard to debunk it. They know it is evidence. But lord knows there's NEVER evidence for the paranormal, according to them.

Indeed, we go by the evidence... and so far, there is ZERO evidence for the existence of anything paranormal.

You will, of course, provide proof that the "scientific elite" are "obviously biased" against the existence of paranormal activity, right?

 

[Magical Realist]

There were several rescue workers (four if I recall) who supposedly heard this, yes?
Is it unreasonable to assume that at least one of them said something along the lines of "Did you hear that?" when this supposedly happened?
If even ONE of them thought they heard something, and said something like that, it would easily manipulate the others into thinking they heard it.

That was the whole POINT of the plethora of evidence I just presented you - the human mind is fickle, and the senses easily duped. Thus, eye-witness testimony is, quite frankly, worthless.

We have seen NOTHING to discredit any of the far more plausible mundane theories, and all of your cooked up explanations of why this has to be paranormal have more holes than swiss cheese.

At this point, it seems like the case is pretty open and shut - they thought they heard a voice, they were mistaken. End of story.

Still no evidence that they were mistaken. Here's a rundown of what happened. Apparently there were 6 eyewitnesses. 4 policemen and 2 firefighters:

"Yes, the headlines were sensational: “Crash Miracle: Utah Officers Hear Voice” and “ ‘Mysterious voice’ leads police to baby in submerged car.”

But before you get all cynical, consider this: These were cops and firefighters, rugged tough guys, well versed in crime and the dark side, rather than anything resembling winged celestial beings.

And it wasn’t just one person who heard the voice, but six of them: four police officers and two firefighters.

As Spanish Fork Police Officer Tyler Beddoes told the Desert News in Salt Lake City: “It wasn’t just something that was just in our heads. To me it was plain as day cause I remember hearing a voice. I think it was Dewitt who said, ‘We’re trying. We’re trying our best to get in there.’ How do you explain that? I don’t know.”

That plea of help led officers to rescue a Utah toddler in an overturned submerged vehicle in the Spanish Fork River near the Utah, Colorado, border last weekend. Trapped inside — upside down in her car seat for 14 hours — was an 18-month-old baby named Lily. Her mother, Lynn Jennifer Groesbeck, 25, did not survive.

Police say that Groesbeck was returning from a visit with her parents on the night of March 6 when she hit a cement barrier on a bridge and drove off the roadway. The car was not visible from the road and wasn’t discovered until a fisherman spotted it around noon on Saturday.

The first responders said the voice catapulted them into action, rolling the overturned submerged vehicle in the frigid, neck-high water, so cold several had to be treated for hypothermia.

In interviews with ABC News, local TV stations and other media outlets, the six rescuers said the voice fueled their adrenaline.

“It was a positive boost for every one of us, because I think it pushed us to go harder a little longer,” Beddoes said. “We know there was some other help there, getting us where we needed to be.”

Officer Bryan Dewitt concurred: “We were down on the car and a distinct voice says, ‘Help me, help me.’ ”

Officer Jared Warner said: “We’ve gotten together and just talkin’ about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, ‘Help.’ “We’re not exactly sure where that voice came from.”

None of the rescue team said they thought the voice came from Groesbeck. “I don’t believe she survived the impact of the car crash,” Lt. Matt Johnson said. “There was massive trauma.”

Two firefighters, Paul Tomadakis and Lee Mecham, said they also heard the voice before realizing there was a toddler in the car. They were able to cut the baby out of her car seat and the officers and firefighters formed an assembly line up the hill to pass the baby up to safety. Doctors from nearby Primary Children’s Hospital were crediting the rescue team for saving Lily’s life."===http://www.detroitnews.com/story/li.../mysterious-voice-utah-baby-rescued/70234940/

 

[Kittamaru]

Still no evidence that they were mistaken. Here's a rundown of what happened. Apparently there were 6 eyewitnesses. 4 policemen and 2 firefighters:

"Yes, the headlines were sensational: “Crash Miracle: Utah Officers Hear Voice” and “ ‘Mysterious voice’ leads police to baby in submerged car.”

But before you get all cynical, consider this: These were cops and firefighters, rugged tough guys, well versed in crime and the dark side, rather than anything resembling winged celestial beings.

And it wasn’t just one person who heard the voice, but six of them: four police officers and two firefighters.

As Spanish Fork Police Officer Tyler Beddoes told the Desert News in Salt Lake City: “It wasn’t just something that was just in our heads. To me it was plain as day cause I remember hearing a voice. I think it was Dewitt who said, ‘We’re trying. We’re trying our best to get in there.’ How do you explain that? I don’t know.”

That plea of help led officers to rescue a Utah toddler in an overturned submerged vehicle in the Spanish Fork River near the Utah, Colorado, border last weekend. Trapped inside — upside down in her car seat for 14 hours — was an 18-month-old baby named Lily. Her mother, Lynn Jennifer Groesbeck, 25, did not survive.

Police say that Groesbeck was returning from a visit with her parents on the night of March 6 when she hit a cement barrier on a bridge and drove off the roadway. The car was not visible from the road and wasn’t discovered until a fisherman spotted it around noon on Saturday.

The first responders said the voice catapulted them into action, rolling the overturned submerged vehicle in the frigid, neck-high water, so cold several had to be treated for hypothermia.

In interviews with ABC News, local TV stations and other media outlets, the six rescuers said the voice fueled their adrenaline.

“It was a positive boost for every one of us, because I think it pushed us to go harder a little longer,” Beddoes said. “We know there was some other help there, getting us where we needed to be.”

Officer Bryan Dewitt concurred: “We were down on the car and a distinct voice says, ‘Help me, help me.’ ”

Officer Jared Warner said: “We’ve gotten together and just talkin’ about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, ‘Help.’ “We’re not exactly sure where that voice came from.”

None of the rescue team said they thought the voice came from Groesbeck. “I don’t believe she survived the impact of the car crash,” Lt. Matt Johnson said. “There was massive trauma.”

Two firefighters, Paul Tomadakis and Lee Mecham, said they also heard the voice before realizing there was a toddler in the car. They were able to cut the baby out of her car seat and the officers and firefighters formed an assembly line up the hill to pass the baby up to safety. Doctors from nearby Primary Children’s Hospital were crediting the rescue team for saving Lily’s life."===

Interesting... first it was four
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732

That’s when Beddoes and his partners arrived. The witness told them that he could see an arm through the window, and the four men plunged into the freezing rapids to see if they could find any survivors.
Then, suddenly, they started hearing the distinct sound of a woman’s voice, calling to them to help.
“We replied back ‘hang in there, we’re trying what we can.’ ”
The voice motivated them to push harder because they believed there may be someone inside who was still alive. With their adrenaline pumping they pulled the heavy, water-filled car onto its side and discovered the driver was dead.
The officers had no explanation for the mysterious voice that appeared to come from inside the car. Beddoes said he said he wouldn’t believe it really happened had not the other officers heard it, as well.
“I don’t know what I thought I heard,” he said. “I’m not a typically religious guy. It’s hard to explain — it was definitely something. Where and why it came from, I’m not sure.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2986597/Toddler-improving-14-hours-upside-car-river.html

The four officers who rescued an 18-month-old toddler from the wreck of a submerged car on Sunday said they launched into their heroics when they heard desperate pleas for help coming from a woman inside.

Now it is six...?

And, as you can see above, they make a point of saying that they "don't know what it was they heard".

If this were testimony in a court case, this would be enough to have the evidence thrown out, both because of the changing story, and because they dont' know what it was.

So, once again, we are back to square one - there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that this was something paranormal.

 

[Magical Realist]

Indeed, we go by the evidence... and so far, there is ZERO evidence for the existence of anything paranormal.

You will, of course, provide proof that the "scientific elite" are "obviously biased" against the existence of paranormal activity, right?

"Richard Wiseman is clear about one thing: Paranormal phenomena don't exist."===http://www.richardwiseman.com/Paranormality.shtml

In other words, we are going to research the possibility of paranormal phenomena, but we assume it doesn't exist. Hence all evidence for the paranormal will either be attributed to mundane causes, or just filed under the category "unexplained", since we "know" paranormal phenomena don't exist.

 

[Kittamaru]

"Richard Wiseman is clear about one thing: Paranormal phenomena don't exist."

I presume you are using the quote from his book "Paranormality: The Science of the Supernatural"

In other words, we are going to research the possibility of paranormal phenomena, but we assume it doesn't exist. Hence all evidence for the paranormal will either be attributed to mundane causes, or just filed under the category "unexplained", since we "know" paranormal phenomena don't exist.

Are these YOUR words, or HIS words? Did he say this, or are you adding it to try and obfuscate what he is really saying?

Here's why I ask: When a good scientist is investigating the unknown, they do not assume it to be true, nor do they assume it to be untrue. They must remain neutral - otherwise, bias will corrupt the results.

This is part of why all these "paranormal investigators" that are actively trying to prove paranormal activity to be true are so quickly discredited - they are so quick to assume something is paranormal that they wrongly rule out mundane and simple explanations - when they are shown to be wrong, they stomp their feet and throw a hissy instead of admitting their own bias.

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting... first it was four
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2986597/Toddler-improving-14-hours-upside-car-river.html



Now it is six...?

And, as you can see above, they make a point of saying that they "don't know what it was they heard".

If this were testimony in a court case, this would be enough to have the evidence thrown out, both because of the changing story, and because they dont' know what it was.

So, once again, we are back to square one - there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that this was something paranormal.

They know they heard a voice coming from the car. But they admit they don't know who spoke.

"Officer Jared Warner said: “We’ve gotten together and just talkin’ about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, ‘Help.’ “We’re not exactly sure where that voice came from.”

 

[Magical Realist]

I presume you are using the quote from his book "Paranormality: The Science of the Supernatural"



Are these YOUR words, or HIS words? Did he say this, or are you adding it to try and obfuscate what he is really saying?

Here's why I ask: When a good scientist is investigating the unknown, they do not assume it to be true, nor do they assume it to be untrue. They must remain neutral - otherwise, bias will corrupt the results.

This is part of why all these "paranormal investigators" that are actively trying to prove paranormal activity to be true are so quickly discredited - they are so quick to assume something is paranormal that they wrongly rule out mundane and simple explanations - when they are shown to be wrong, they stomp their feet and throw a hissy instead of admitting their own bias.

No..it avails paranormal investigators to rule out the mundane BEFORE they conclude paranormality. You see this over and over again in investigations. Car lights from a window? Voices from the street? Electrical wiring causing high EMF readings? This is standard scientific procedure. They are NOT jumping to the conclusion that it is necessarily paranormal.

 

[Kittamaru]

They know they heard a voice coming from the car. But they admit they don't know who spoke.

"Officer Jared Warner said: “We’ve gotten together and just talkin’ about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, ‘Help.’ “We’re not exactly sure where that voice came from.”

And now we're back to four...
we are also back to simple Pareidolia.

No..it avails paranormal investigators to rule out the mundane BEFORE they conclude paranormal. You see this over and over again in investigations. Car lights from a window? Voices from the street? Electrical wiring causing high EMF readings. This is standard scientific procedure. They are NOT jumping to the conclusion that it is necessarily paranormal.

And yet they take samples of ambiguous stimulii and pull information that isn't there from it, guiding each other into "hearing voices" in EVP's and such.

That is cognitive bias, pure and simple!

 

[Magical Realist]

I presume you are using the quote from his book "Paranormality: The Science of the Supernatural"



Are these YOUR words, or HIS words? Did he say this, or are you adding it to try and obfuscate what he is really saying?

It's in quotes with a url. What do you think?

 

[Magical Realist]

And now we're back to four...
we are also back to simple Pareidolia.



And yet they take samples of ambiguous stimulii and pull information that isn't there from it, guiding each other into "hearing voices" in EVP's and such.

That is cognitive bias, pure and simple!

Nope..they all agree it was a voice coming from the car. Not a noise that sounded like it was coming from the car. Try again?

The 4 is referring to the police officers. There were 2 fireman that admit they heard it too. I already produced evidence for that.

 

[Kittamaru]

It's in quotes with a url. What do you think?

Nice try...

You edited the post AFTER I made my post to add the URL...

And you wonder why I and others consider you dishonest.

Nope..they all agree it was a voice coming from the car. Not a noise that sounded like it was coming from the car. Try again?

Again, I have shown you a MULTITUDE of evidence that proves why they can easily be mistaken - your response is to say "nope, not possible, try again"

That is trolling, pure and simple.

EDIT - it is also worth noting... I don't see that quote in the link you provided... please provide a proper citation...

 

[Magical Realist]

You edited the post AFTER I made my post to add the URL...

And you wonder why I and others consider you dishonest.

LOL! It takes me 3 minutes to go back to copy and paste a url from a quotation. You're claiming I'm lying somehow is simply untrue. I often copy your posts before you are through editing. Does that mean YOU are lying too?

EDIT - it is also worth noting... I don't see that quote in the link you provided... please provide a proper citation...

As for where that statement is located, it's at the top of the first paragraph. Do I really have to hold your hand and do this?

 

[Kittamaru]

It takes me 3 minutes to go back to copy and paste a url from a quotation. You're claiming I'm lying somehow is simply untrue. I often copy your posts before you are through editing. Does that mean YOU are lying too?

An interesting, but pointless, distraction - your edit didn't come until I called you out on it. A coincidence perhaps, but one that smells bad all the same... especially considering your link isn't even to the quote you used.

Care to provide an ACTUAL citation? Do you know how to do that, even?

 

[spidergoat]

...an obviously biased scientific elite...

...and that is how we know nothing you say should be taken seriously.

 

[Magical Realist]

An interesting, but pointless, distraction - your edit didn't come until I called you out on it. A coincidence perhaps, but one that smells bad all the same... especially considering your link isn't even to the quote you used.

Care to provide an ACTUAL citation? Do you know how to do that, even?

It's lying accusations like that that get's you ignored.

 

[Kittamaru]

As for where they statement is location, it at the top of the first paragraph. Do I really have to hold your hand and do this?

Uh... what first paragraph?

It's lying accusations like that that get's you ignored.

No, it's intellectual dishonesty like you are displaying here that earns you infraction points... one would THINK you would have learned this by now.

 

[spidergoat]

No..it avails paranormal investigators to rule out the mundane BEFORE they conclude paranormality.

You mean an obviously biased pseudoscience elite?