Proof of the supernatural

[Magical Realist]

Actually... yeah, given what we've seen here, that doesn't surprise me much.

What are you saying here? You ask me a question, and then say given what we see here, WHAT doesn't surprise you? I didn't even answer your question.

 

[Bells]

"The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."===http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Yes and as he points out, the manner in which individuals do this is different. Which makes sense. At no time is McComas saying that they do not use the scientific method or a scientific method as you initially tried to claim.

It seems as though you have been duped by the quote mining form of "research" you do.

That audio sample is too indistinct to me to make out. I prefer the original body cam audio. Note there was no crowd of bystanders this voice could come from. It was out on a deserted farm road. Just rescuers and firemen. None of THEM would shout "Why won't someone help?" when they were all gathered around the car trying to help.

Wasn't deserted.

There was a house right near the bridge where the car crashed into the water and at least one resident heard the accident, and when they went out to look, could not see it in the dark. Which makes sense, dark river, under a bridge and the dark underside of a car would have made it very difficult to see. If you watch the second video on this link, you can see the house right next to the bridge as they pull the car out of the river and put it on a truck to take away.. Starts from about 1 minute into the video. Then the reporter discusses how one nearby resident had heard the accident.

The body-cam video you linked.. At 1:59, there is a very distant voice that appears to say "why won't somebody help..." And the police officer calls out "we're helping".. Then at around 2:08, I heard her voice again, but she said just one word and it was again distant and indistinct, as though she was standing far away, talking to someone.. Then at around 5:05 onwards, I hear the same voice, only not as muffled calling down to the rescuers - it is just before they remove the baby from her seat and then her voice is heard much clearer and much louder as it appears as though the woman who belongs to the voice has come down the hill to help carry the baby up said hill to the ambulance.

I listened to the video you linked and then the portion that Kitta linked and it wasn't the disembodied voice, but appeared to be coming from behind the officer, a voice talking and then later on, calling down to the officers as the baby was rescued.

Another thing to note, the voice heard on that body-cam is not saying what those police officers claimed they heard.

Also, there were bystanders on the bridge as this rescue attempt was taking place and if you listen to the 911 call that the fisherman made, he said that there was "a car in the river and a person inside" the car (it's in the video attached to that story). So the rescuers were going there with the specific intent of rescuing a person trapped in an overturned car. But here is what was interesting:

"There were some individuals on top of the bridge, but all three stated [the voice] came from the vehicle," Johnson said. "It prompted us to lift the car between the three officers and firemen. They physically lifted the car from the side, and they located the infant in the car seat at that time."​

The video you linked from the police body-cam clearly shows that it was a desperate attempt to get into that car from the moment he got there. There was no lull in their trying to get into the car and that is probably because the 911 call had said that there was a person inside the car. At all. And the body-cam footage also shows that when they weren't able to open the door, they decide to lift the car up onto its side.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes and as he points out, the manner in which individuals do this is different. Which makes sense. At no time is McComas saying that they do not use the scientific method or a scientific method as you initially tried to claim.

It seems as though you have been duped by the quote mining form of "research" you do.


Wasn't deserted.

There was a house right near the bridge where the car crashed into the water and at least one resident heard the accident, and when they went out to look, could not see it in the dark. Which makes sense, dark river, under a bridge and the dark underside of a car would have made it very difficult to see. If you watch the second video on this link, you can see the house right next to the bridge as they pull the car out of the river and put it on a truck to take away.. Starts from about 1 minute into the video. Then the reporter discusses how one nearby resident had heard the accident.

The body-cam video you linked.. At 1:59, there is a very distant voice that appears to say "why won't somebody help..." And the police officer calls out "we're helping".. Then at around 2:08, I heard her voice again, but she said just one word and it was again distant and indistinct, as though she was standing far away, talking to someone.. Then at around 5:05 onwards, I hear the same voice, only not as muffled calling down to the rescuers - it is just before they remove the baby from her seat and then her voice is heard much clearer and much louder as it appears as though the woman who belongs to the voice has come down the hill to help carry the baby up said hill to the ambulance.

I listened to the video you linked and then the portion that Kitta linked and it wasn't the disembodied voice, but appeared to be coming from behind the officer, a voice talking and then later on, calling down to the officers as the baby was rescued.

Another thing to note, the voice heard on that body-cam is not saying what those police officers claimed they heard.

Also, there were bystanders on the bridge as this rescue attempt was taking place and if you listen to the 911 call that the fisherman made, he said that there was "a car in the river and a person inside" the car (it's in the video attached to that story). So the rescuers were going there with the specific intent of rescuing a person trapped in an overturned car. But here is what was interesting:

"There were some individuals on top of the bridge, but all three stated [the voice] came from the vehicle," Johnson said. "It prompted us to lift the car between the three officers and firemen. They physically lifted the car from the side, and they located the infant in the car seat at that time."​

The video you linked from the police body-cam clearly shows that it was a desperate attempt to get into that car from the moment he got there. There was no lull in their trying to get into the car and that is probably because the 911 call had said that there was a person inside the car. At all. And the body-cam footage also shows that when they weren't able to open the door, they decide to lift the car up onto its side.

Nope..we've already been over this. The voice, as witnessed by six rescue workers, was coming FROM the car. And it said something no bystander would say. "Why won't anyone help?" When that was said they were all helping. So it doesn't make sense that it was a bystander. I haven't listened for the voices of the bystanders you claim to hear. But even if there are some, what does this have to do with the first voice heard from the car? Nothing whatsoever. This audio seals the deal folks. The voice was obviously real, not a lie, or a hallucination, or a talking dolphin as the skeptics were all claiming. And it was real to the 6 rescuers all around the car. Not one claims it came from the bridge. It's clinching proof of paranormal intervention. Deal with it.

EDIT: I did listen to the whole thing and heard no woman's voice that sounded like that first voice. So I don't know what you're talking about.

The video you linked from the police body-cam clearly shows that it was a desperate attempt to get into that car from the moment he got there. There was no lull in their trying to get into the car and that is probably because the 911 call had said that there was a person inside the car. At all. And the body-cam footage also shows that when they weren't able to open the door, they decide to lift the car up onto its side.

The rescuers themselves say the voice prompted them to get into the car sooner. So you are wrong again.

"There were some individuals on top of the bridge, but all three stated [the voice] came from the vehicle," Johnson said. "It prompted us to lift the car between the three officers and firemen. They physically lifted the car from the side, and they located the infant in the car seat at that time."

"For two nights I’ve laid awake trying to figure out exactly what it could be,” Beddoes added. “All I know is it was there, we all heard it. It was extra motivation.”===http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-girl-trapped-for-14-hours-in-frigid-waters/

“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."===http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732

 

[spidergoat]

Nope..we've already been over this. The voice, as witnessed by six rescue workers, was coming FROM the car. And it said something no bystander would say. "Why won't anyone help?" When that was said they were all helping. So it doesn't make sense that it was a bystander. I haven't listened for the voices of the bystanders you claim to hear. But even if there are some, what does this have to do with the first voice heard from the car? Nothing whatsoever. This audio seals the deal folks. The voice was obviously real, not a lie, or a hallucination, or a talking dolphin as the skeptics were all claiming. And it was real to the 6 rescuers all around the car. Not one claims it came from the bridge. It's clinching proof of paranormal intervention. Deal with it.

I never said the voice wasn't real. But how can you dismiss that it came from a bystander? You have no logical reason to do so. It makes more sense that someone was confused in an emergency situation then that EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS WRONG.

 

[Magical Realist]

I never said the voice wasn't real. But how can you dismiss that it came from a bystander? You have no logical reason to do so. It makes more sense that someone was confused in an emergency situation then that EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS WRONG.

That's right. You claimed it was a talking dolphin.

Let's see now. Who should we believe? A bunch of online armchair skeptics who have an agenda of denying the paranormal exists and so are making up every excuse they can to deny it happened? Or the 6 rescuers who have no agenda at all and were actually there and who all say they heard the voice coming from the car. It's a no-brainer..lol!

 

[spidergoat]

I said it could have been a dolphin making perfectly ordinary dolphin sounds that could be misheard as human speech. I said it to make a point about how unlikely your alternative explanation is. As unlikely as a dolphin from South America would be living in a pond, it's still a million times more likely than voices from some paranormal source or a dead person.

I don't deny a voice could have been heard, I just deny your kooky theories. Were they alone? No, there were bystanders. Do voices come from living humans? All the time. Are humans generally experts at telling where a particular sound is coming from? No, they are very bad at it.

 

[Magical Realist]

I said it could have been a dolphin making perfectly ordinary dolphin sounds that could be misheard as human speech. I said it to make a point about how unlikely your alternative explanation is. As unlikely as a dolphin from South America would be living in a pond, it's still a million times more likely than voices from some paranormal source or a dead person.

Obviously not since we now have definitive proof of paranormal voices coming from half-submerged cars.

 

[spidergoat]

Obviously not since we now have definitive proof of paranormal voices coming from half-submerged cars.

You wouldn't know proof if it poked you in the eye.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are humans generally experts at telling where a particular sound is coming from? No, they are very bad at it.

Evolution has blessed us with the power of directional biaural hearing. We can tell which direction voices come from. We can tell if they're near or far away. I can stand by a car with someone inside and distinguish their voice from someone else yelling behind me a hundred yards away. 6 rescue workers can too. Probably better than I can. They're trained to listen for survivors.

 

[Bells]

Nope..we've already been over this. The voice, as witnessed by six rescue workers, was coming FROM the car.

The video you provided does not prove that.

And it said something no bystander would say. "Why won't anyone help?"

I have said it at accident scenes when things weren't moving fast enough. Perhaps the bystander felt that not enough was being done fast enough and there were bystanders on the bridge. I would probably question why none of the bystanders were helping. There were only a few of them in the water trying desperately to get into the car and if there were other people standing around, damn right I'd have asked why no one was helping. Anyone would have.

When that was said they were all helping. So it doesn't make sense that it was a bystander.

If you watch the video you posted to the end, there were many people standing on the embankment watching and doing nothing to help. You can even hear some of them calling down and talking throughout the video. There were only a few people in the water trying to lift that car up.

The police officers themselves admitted that there were bystanders watching. The video, at the end, shows them on the embankment watching.

I haven't listened for the voices of the bystanders you claim to hear.

You can hear them throughout the video.

You aren't listening for them because you are only interested in one thing. The video does not support your claims at all.

But even if there are some, what does this have to do with the first voice heard from the car? Nothing whatsoever.

The video does not have that voice coming from the car.

This audio seals the deal folks.

I fail to see how. Especially when you consider that you can hear the same voice later on in the video, talking and calling down from a closer vicinity.

The voice was obviously real, not a lie, or a hallucination, or a talking dolphin as the skeptics were all claiming.

There was a voice. But it wasn't from the car. And that same voice was heard later on in the video, talking and calling down and then really loudly as they pulled the baby out from the car because she was coming down the embankment.

And it was real to the 6 rescuers all around the car. Not one claims it came from the bridge. It's clinching proof of paranormal intervention. Deal with it.

At present, the only thing we are dealing with is your religious obsession about the afterlife. That "voice" was not from the car. Why? Because it was too far away and too distant to be from the car that they were standing right next to. Secondly, that same voice can be heard talking and calling down to the rescuers later on in the video. It could have been from the bridge, or on the embankment from a bystander or another rescuer who may have felt that more people should have been down there helping. Considering the amount of people milling about as this was happening, the person who made the observation of why won't someone help, was not wrong.

EDIT: I did listen to the whole thing and heard no woman's voice that sounded like that first voice. So I don't know what you're talking about.

I clearly heard her and I gave the times of when her voice could be heard. So I don't know what you are talking about.

The rescuers themselves say the voice prompted them to get into the car sooner. So you are wrong again.

The video you provided showed that they were desperate to get into that car right from the start and at no time did they pause or appear to slow down or stop and then act faster after hearing "the voice". On the contrary, after they flipped the car over and it was clear that the person in the front seat was dead (you could clearly see that from the video), they then stood around and tried to spot a sign of life and it took them several seconds before they realised there was a baby inside and then they scrambled again to try to open the door and cut her out of her harness.

"For two nights I’ve laid awake trying to figure out exactly what it could be,” Beddoes added. “All I know is it was there, we all heard it. It was extra motivation.”===http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-girl-trapped-for-14-hours-in-frigid-waters/

Hue.. The Blaze. I never realised you read far right wing religious anti-gay websites for your information, MR. That's kind of sad.

The officer in one of the videos I linked in my previous post also discusses how they all got together and all agreed to what they heard. If you watch your video, no one else responded to "the voice". If 4 people heard it, I'd have thought all 4 would have responded. Only the guy with the body-cam claimed it was from the car and then magically after talking to the other 3, all come out and say they heard a voice say "help me" when the voice on the video doesn't even say what they claim they heard from the car.. Gee, that's not suspicious at all [insert giant eye roll here].

“We replied back ‘hang in there, we’re trying what we can."

That's weird. Because that is not what the police officer on the video actually says. Could you please explain the discrepancy?

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."===http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732

This was not evident on the body-cam video you linked. They were pushing hard to get inside the car that the 911 call had said someone was inside right from the start.

 

[Kittamaru]

No..it isn't dust. The figures on the stairs appear there (they don't float from somewhere else) and remain stationary for around 5 seconds. The middle girl turns her head at one point. Then they disappear (they don't float somewhere else). All the dust particles are floating OVER these figures. So no. It's definitely not "dust."

The supposed "figures" and the dust look exactly the same to me... but then, i'm not deliberately looking for something supernatural where there isn't.

What are you saying here? You ask me a question, and then say given what we see here, WHAT doesn't surprise you? I didn't even answer your question.

What I'm saying is that I'm not surprised that, instead of accepting common convention and standards, you would rather do things a less practical way... expecting a single doctor to be an expert in everything is exactly that - impractical.

That's right. You claimed it was a talking dolphin.

Let's see now. Who should we believe? A bunch of online armchair skeptics who have an agenda of denying the paranormal exists and so are making up every excuse they can to deny it happened? Or the 6 rescuers who have no agenda at all and were actually there and who all say they heard the voice coming from the car. It's a no-brainer..lol!

Do you have any evidence/proof that the rescuers don't have an agenda (or are otherwise not mistaken in their recounting)? A polygraph test would be nice.

Evolution has blessed us with the power of directional biaural hearing. We can tell which direction voices come from. We can tell if they're near or far away. I can stand by a car with someone inside and distinguish their voice from someone else yelling behind me a hundred yards away. 6 rescue workers can too. Probably better than I can. They're trained to listen for survivors.

And yet, quite commonly, people are unable to distinguish the relative direction of sounds they hear, especially in high-stress situations; factor in the massive amount of background noise (between the panting, splashing, an general ruckus of a recovery going on) and it is no surprise they mistakenly thought the voice came from the car.

 

[Magical Realist]

The video you provided does not prove that.


I have said it at accident scenes when things weren't moving fast enough. Perhaps the bystander felt that not enough was being done fast enough and there were bystanders on the bridge. I would probably question why none of the bystanders were helping. There were only a few of them in the water trying desperately to get into the car and if there were other people standing around, damn right I'd have asked why no one was helping. Anyone would have.


If you watch the video you posted to the end, there were many people standing on the embankment watching and doing nothing to help. You can even hear some of them calling down and talking throughout the video. There were only a few people in the water trying to lift that car up.

The police officers themselves admitted that there were bystanders watching. The video, at the end, shows them on the embankment watching.


You can hear them throughout the video.

You aren't listening for them because you are only interested in one thing. The video does not support your claims at all.


The video does not have that voice coming from the car.


I fail to see how. Especially when you consider that you can hear the same voice later on in the video, talking and calling down from a closer vicinity.


There was a voice. But it wasn't from the car. And that same voice was heard later on in the video, talking and calling down and then really loudly as they pulled the baby out from the car because she was coming down the embankment.


At present, the only thing we are dealing with is your religious obsession about the afterlife. That "voice" was not from the car. Why? Because it was too far away and too distant to be from the car that they were standing right next to. Secondly, that same voice can be heard talking and calling down to the rescuers later on in the video. It could have been from the bridge, or on the embankment from a bystander or another rescuer who may have felt that more people should have been down there helping. Considering the amount of people milling about as this was happening, the person who made the observation of why won't someone help, was not wrong.


I clearly heard her and I gave the times of when her voice could be heard. So I don't know what you are talking about.


The video you provided showed that they were desperate to get into that car right from the start and at no time did they pause or appear to slow down or stop and then act faster after hearing "the voice". On the contrary, after they flipped the car over and it was clear that the person in the front seat was dead (you could clearly see that from the video), they then stood around and tried to spot a sign of life and it took them several seconds before they realised there was a baby inside and then they scrambled again to try to open the door and cut her out of her harness.


Hue.. The Blaze. I never realised you read far right wing religious anti-gay websites for your information, MR. That's kind of sad.

The officer in one of the videos I linked in my previous post also discusses how they all got together and all agreed to what they heard. If you watch your video, no one else responded to "the voice". If 4 people heard it, I'd have thought all 4 would have responded. Only the guy with the body-cam claimed it was from the car and then magically after talking to the other 3, all come out and say they heard a voice say "help me" when the voice on the video doesn't even say what they claim they heard from the car.. Gee, that's not suspicious at all [insert giant eye roll here].


That's weird. Because that is not what the police officer on the video actually says. Could you please explain the discrepancy?


This was not evident on the body-cam video you linked. They were pushing hard to get inside the car that the 911 call had said someone was inside right from the start.

Nope..6 rescue workers all claim the voice they heard came from the car. 6 people don't make the same mistake at the same time. And a bystander doesn't whine about people not helping when clearly watching rescuers gathering round the vehicle to help. Maybe you would though. lol!

Once again, we have solid proof the voice was heard, and was heard coming from the car. The 6 rescuers say as much. They also confirm the voice prompted them to lift the car. That's how they responded to it. The others didn't need to say anything because the one officer already responded.

Amazing proof of the supernatural! Isn't it also amazing to what desperate lengths people will go thru to deny it? Every excuse they can make up. I wonder what happens to them if the supernatural exists. Do their heads explode? They act like it. lol!

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution has blessed us with the power of directional biaural hearing. We can tell which direction voices come from. We can tell if they're near or far away. I can stand by a car with someone inside and distinguish their voice from someone else yelling behind me a hundred yards away. 6 rescue workers can too. Probably better than I can. They're trained to listen for survivors.

But we aren't cats, and we are often fooled by reflections. And they car was near a river apparently, which makes all kinds of noise. A heightened emotional state combined with random water noise is a far more likely explanation. And as first responders, they are keyed up to expect a person in need of help. You cannot rule this out.

 

[Magical Realist]

What I'm saying is that I'm not surprised that, instead of accepting common convention and standards, you would rather do things a less practical way... expecting a single doctor to be an expert in everything is exactly that - impractical.

Where did I say I'd do things the less practical way? Where did I say I'd rather have a doctor who pretended to know everything ? I didn't answer your question. Can you read minds?

 

[Magical Realist]

But we aren't cats, and we are often fooled by reflections. And they car was near a river apparently, which makes all kinds of noise. A heightened emotional state combined with random water noise is a far more likely explanation. And as first responders, they are keyed up to expect a person in need of help. You cannot rule this out.

No..that voice recorded on the body cam isn't "talking water." It's a real voice coming from the car.

 

[Bells]

Nope..6 rescue workers all claim the voice they heard came from the car. And a bystander doesn't whine about people not helping when clearly watching rescuers gathering round the vehicle to help. Maybe you would though. lol!

Once again, we have solid proof the voice was heard, and was heard coming from the car. The 6 rescuers say as much. They also confirm the voice prompted them to lift the car. That's how they responded to it. The others didn't need to say anything because the one officer already responded.

Amazing proof of the supernatural! Isn't it also amazing to what desperate lengths people will go thru to deny it? Every excuse they can make up. I wonder what happens to them if the supernatural exists. Do their head's explode? They act like it. lol!

Sadly for you, the video you linked does not show any of what you are claiming. At all.

Also interestingly, the family of the woman have said nothing about "the voice", nor have they identified it as the mother's voice.

It's a real voice coming from the car.

Wasn't on the video you linked.

 

[Kittamaru]

No..that voice recorded on the body cam isn't "talking water." It's a real voice coming from the car.

All it is, in truth, is an audible frequency akin to human vocalizations of an upper register the origin of which is entirely unknown - that is the ONLY fact about the voice we can draw from the video

 

[Kittamaru]

Where did I say I'd do things the less practical way? Where did I say I'd rather have a doctor who pretended to know everything ? I didn't answer your question. Can you read minds?

You claimed a doctor sending someone to a specialist was an idiot...

 

[Kittamaru]

You have a really shitty doctor.

my mistake - you claimed them to be a shitty doctor

 

[Magical Realist]

my mistake - you claimed them to be a shitty doctor

Where did I say I'd rather have a doctor who pretended to know everything? You're saying that's what I answered. I never answered your question. And what have you seen of me here that says I would choose an impractical course of action?