Proof of the supernatural

[Magical Realist]

Agreed. This phenomenon is called pareidolia, and is extremely common. It happens most often when people hear loud random noises (like running water, or rushing wind, or the rumbling from a highway) and interpret it as intelligible speech. It happens even more often when people are straining to hear a pattern in noise, like a radio operator listening for a message.

What is far more common is people, and in this case 6 of them, actually hearing a voice when it speaks. Happens everyday all around the world. People are good at discerning voices, and they're good at telling what direction they come from and how close they are. Your claim that they were hearing some other noise and projecting vocal properties on it is not supported by the audio nor by the eyewitness accounts. As usual it is mere speculation based on the faith-held dogma that the paranormal can never occur. It is almost a religious fanaticism for you, this unflinching belief that the paranormal can't happen. Curiously enough, nothing in science actually forbids it. We already admit the probable existence of other dimensions. There's nothing in science that entails those dimensions can't be inhabited by other intelligences.

 

[spidergoat]

Actually 4 of them, not 6, according to the link from Bells. Although in ideal conditions, people can usually tell where a sound is coming from, they are often wrong in real life.

 

[Magical Realist]

Actually 4 of them, not 6, according to the link from Bells. Although in ideal conditions, people can usually tell where a sound is coming from, they are often wrong in real life.

"And it wasn’t just one person who heard the voice, but six of them: four police officers and two firefighters."===http://www.detroitnews.com/story/li.../mysterious-voice-utah-baby-rescued/70234940/

 

[Kittamaru]

You're making a moral judgment about me as a person based on something you claim I said but never did. You then say this statement I never said, that I would prefer a doctor who PRETENDS to know everything, makes sense from what you have seen from here. That's another moral judgment on me. What do you know about me that says I will make the impractical decision of not consulting a specialist, which you falsely accuse me of saying? More to the point, why are you attacking my character?

I fail to see how this is a "moral judgement" - I simply observing a pattern of behavior; that is, you consistently want to believe in the extraordinary instead of accepting things at face value.

I am bemused how you continue to try and deflect the question by claiming you are being attacked, so I'll make this simple:

Answer... the damn... question.

What did you mean by this statement:

You have a really shitty doctor.

 

[Kittamaru]

"And it wasn’t just one person who heard the voice, but six of them: four police officers and two firefighters."===http://www.detroitnews.com/story/li.../mysterious-voice-utah-baby-rescued/70234940/

Isn't it curious how different news agencies have different numbers? Almost like... almost like their story had changed as they talked to different people!

But *GASP* they are rescue workers! They wouldn't POSSIBLY be lying, and they can't POSSIBLY be wrong... could they? Is that... is that fathomable?

 

[Magical Realist]

I fail to see how this is a "moral judgement" - I simply observing a pattern of behavior; that is, you consistently want to believe in the extraordinary instead of accepting things at face value.

I am bemused how you continue to try and deflect the question by claiming you are being attacked, so I'll make this simple:

Answer... the damn... question.

What did you mean by this statement:

You're claiming I said something I never said, and infer, based on what you've seen, that this makes sense. That I am the sort of person that would choose an impractical course of action. That's a moral judgment on me, as if I am stupid or foolish.

My statement simply observed that the doctor Billvon was describing as "not knowing" and referring him to internet sites and other doctors must not be a very good doctor. I like doctors who can tell me what's wrong right away. Is that a crime? Does that say something bad about my character? No..

 

[Magical Realist]

Isn't it curious how different news agencies have different numbers? Almost like... almost like their story had changed as they talked to different people!

But *GASP* they are rescue workers! They wouldn't POSSIBLY be lying, and they can't POSSIBLY be wrong... could they? Is that... is that fathomable?

I just posted solid audio evidence that the voice was heard and was real. Do you have evidence they are lying about it. All 6 of them? Let's see it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Actually 4 of them, not 6, according to the link from Bells. Although in ideal conditions, people can usually tell where a sound is coming from, they are often wrong in real life.

Very rarely, and certainly never by 6 people at the same time.

 

[spidergoat]

Very rarely, and certainly never by 6 people at the same time.

OK, very rarely.

How often do dead people talk?

Never is less often than rarely.

 

[Kittamaru]

You're claiming I said something I never said

So you deny that you said:

You have a really shitty doctor.

Really?

and infer, based on what you've seen, that this makes sense. That I am the sort of person that would choose an impractical course of action. That's a moral judgment on me, as if I am stupid or foolish.

Indeed, it does make sense that you would leap to flights of fancy... you do it incessantly. If you don't like being called out on your actions, perhaps you should stop said actions. Calling a brick a brick or a horse a horse is not an insult - it is an observation.

My statement simply observed that the doctor Billvon was describing as "not knowing" and referring him to internet sites and other doctors must not be a very good doctor.

So you expect doctors to know everything, despite the vastness of modern medical knowledge? You expect a general practitioner to know everything about every possible condition and symptom... and when they don't, you call them a "shitty doctor"...

And yet, you don't mind claiming something is "paranormal" despite not having all the facts and evidence (since, you know, you weren't fucking there), and are willing to hand-wave away evidence that disputes your assertion.

Hypocrisy at it's finest folks!

I like doctors who can tell me what's wrong right away. Is that a crime?

No, but it is undeniably foolish and unreasonable.

Does that say something bad about my character? No..

Yes, yes it does.

 

[Kittamaru]

I just posted solid audio evidence that the voice was heard and was real. Do you have evidence they are lying about it. All 6 of them? Let's see it.

You posted "solid audio evidence" that there was "an audible sound of some sort that sounded like a person asking a question"... there is nothing in that evidence to suggest it is coming from A) the car of B) a spirit of the recently deceased... unless said spirit was carrying on a conversation later in the video (since, as Bells pointed out, that same voice is heard again later on)

As for evidence they are lying (or wrong - you seem bound and determined to forget that I am stating more than one possibility here)

Simple - they are human, and they err. In times of high stress and high adrenaline, mistakes become far more common. This is basic human biology/psychology... your apparent ignorance in this subject notwithstanding, it is a medically accepted FACT that people are more likely to make mistakes in high-stress situations.

Put bluntly - the possibility of someone (or several people) in a high-stress situation making a mistake about where a vague noise came from and what it was is FAR more probable than "a spirit from beyond come back to save a random little baby"

 

[billvon]

What is far more common is people, and in this case 6 of them, actually hearing a voice when it speaks. Happens everyday all around the world. People are good at discerning voices, and they're good at telling what direction they come from and how close they are. Your claim that they were hearing some other noise and projecting vocal properties on it is not supported by the audio nor by the eyewitness accounts.

I am not claiming any such thing. What I am claiming - and can back up with proof - is that people often hear what they claim are human voices when exposed to random noise. It is so common that it has several names. Pareidolia - picking out what you perceive to be faces or voices out of random data (visual or auditory.) Electronic voice phenomenon - hearing random or nonvocal patterns in electronic recordings and interpreting them as speech. Apophenia - our tendency to pick out illusory patterns in random or meaningless data. All extensively documented and well understood.

Further, it can also be proven that if three people experience pareidolia, and talk about their experience, they will quickly decide they heard the same thing - even if their initial impression was of something completely different. This is called memory conformity, and is also a well-understood phenomenon. This is why police so often separate people as quickly as possible after an incident, because even if the people are not intending to deceive, they will quickly "agree" on what they saw, even if it differs from their initial perception. There have been several rather famous screwups as a result of this effect.

Those are all facts - and THAT is what I am claiming.

So the question is - did those people experience something that thousands of others have experienced, an experience that is well documented and understood? Or did they hear a dead person talking, something that has never been documented? Everyone will choose an answer according to what they believe in - science or magic.

 

[billvon]

My statement simply observed that the doctor Billvon was describing as "not knowing" and referring him to internet sites and other doctors must not be a very good doctor.

If you say so. Ask your doctor if orthostatic hypotension can be caused by normal variation within the Circle of Willis. Most doctors, if they are honest, will tell you "maybe; I will talk to X/read up on i

I like doctors who can tell me what's wrong right away. Is that a crime? Does that say something bad about my character? No..

Well, having doctors tell you "get the hell out of my office" does say something about what kind of interpersonal relationships you tend to create.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you say so. Ask your doctor if orthostatic hypotension can be caused by normal variation within the Circle of Willis. Most doctors, if they are honest, will tell you "maybe; I will talk to X/read up on i


Well, having doctors tell you "get the hell out of my office" does say something about what kind of interpersonal relationships you tend to create.

Where did I say I prefer doctors that say "get the hell out of my office"? And why are you attacking my ability to form interpersonal relationships based on something I never said?

 

[billvon]

Where did I say I prefer doctors that say "get the hell out of my office"? And why are you attacking my ability to form interpersonal relationships based on something I never said?

Sorry, that was Garbonzo; lost track of the quote levels.

 

[Kittamaru]

Where did I say I prefer doctors that say "get the hell out of my office"? And why are you attacking my ability to form interpersonal relationships based on something I never said?

It's obvious that your pathological reliance on intellectual dishonesty has rendered you incapable of answering even the most basic of questions when you are caught weaving your webs of lies... how sad. Billvon is not attacking your ability to form interpersonal relationships - what he said is not an attack at all.

Again - calling a horse a horse is not an insult...

*note* Also of note - you yourself are the one that set up the false dichotomy that resulted in seeming like you would prefer doctors who tell you to "GTFO" rather than ones who admit they need to research something.

 

[paddoboy]

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that all these inferences are subsequently tested by experiment, we can still ask how many laypeople are in a position to know what predictive successes are. They don't have access to the data-sets and wouldn't be able to interpret them if they did.

In real life, what laypeople are exposed to are the conclusions that scientists (or politicians or the media) tell them that they need to accept on Science's authority.

Everyone of us needs to accept at one time or another, a result or argument on authority, in many different disciplines,
I see nothing wrong with that, and in essence this is the type of argument that many alternative hypothesis pushers, or anti relativists use to give an air of respectibility to their own views on that discipline, when like you and I, they too do not have access to the myriads of data that they are questioning.

Yep, certainly I have faith and trust in science but certainly not without question, and just as certainly based on my own observations of seeing how science does advance humanity continually in many different ways.

I find that faith in mainstream science generally, as far more applicable and far more deserving, and far more logical, than having faith in some of the claims made by our ego inflated friends on this forum in claiming they have a ToE for example, and then in the next breath when questioned about the claim, start to cry conspiracy about the mainstream sector, and the unreliability in their opinion of the scientific method and peer review.

What I'm saying is that from the point of view of the street, there's little difference in being told to believe something based on the authority of Science and being told to believe something based on the authority of the Church. Medieval villagers were rarely in any position to understand the arcane disputations of the theologians either.

Plenty of difference in actual fact. My faith in science is not a blind, unwavering, unevidenced based faith on some mythical scenario, as a religious faith is.
My trust in scientific authority is based on reputation and reliability, and the acceptance of the scientific method and peer review.
Even scientists themselves need to take on trust and faith certain aspects of their work.
That is totally different then the blind, unwavering faith that is the hallmark of religion.

You may feel that your faith is justified by medicine's past successes, but it's faith in authority nevertheless.

Like I said, I see nothing wrong in a "faith in authority" that has been accepted by mainstream science, and is relevant to the scientific discipline in question.
Let me quote a giant of the past.....

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck

 

[Magical Realist]

I am not claiming any such thing. What I am claiming - and can back up with proof - is that people often hear what they claim are human voices when exposed to random noise. It is so common that it has several names. Pareidolia - picking out what you perceive to be faces or voices out of random data (visual or auditory.) Electronic voice phenomenon - hearing random or nonvocal patterns in electronic recordings and interpreting them as speech. Apophenia - our tendency to pick out illusory patterns in random or meaningless data. All extensively documented and well understood.

Further, it can also be proven that if three people experience pareidolia, and talk about their experience, they will quickly decide they heard the same thing - even if their initial impression was of something completely different. This is called memory conformity, and is also a well-understood phenomenon. This is why police so often separate people as quickly as possible after an incident, because even if the people are not intending to deceive, they will quickly "agree" on what they saw, even if it differs from their initial perception. There have been several rather famous screwups as a result of this effect.

Those are all facts - and THAT is what I am claiming.

So the question is - did those people experience something that thousands of others have experienced, an experience that is well documented and understood? Or did they hear a dead person talking, something that has never been documented? Everyone will choose an answer according to what they believe in - science or magic.

It's one thing to say something is possible. That people sometimes pick out voices from random background noise. Being able to say that's what happened here requires evidence. And there is none. On the contrary, the voice can be heard on the audio recording, and 6 rescuers hear the same voice. That's what the evidence shows. It shows that the paranormal CAN exist, and cannot be ruled out de facto from every investigation like it is impossible.

 

[billvon]

It's one thing to say something is possible. That people sometimes pick out voices from random background noise. Being able to say that's what happened here requires evidence. And there is none.

Nor is there any evidence that what they heard was a dead person.

So we know that people quite often can - and do - hear voices from random noise, and that if they are in a group, they will tend to agree on what the voice said.

So we have two hypotheses - a frequently encountered, well understood phenomenon, or a dead person talking. Both are supported by what has been reported. Which is more likely?

On the contrary, the voice can be heard on the audio recording, and 6 rescuers hear the same voice. That's what the evidence shows.

And since pareidolia explains them hearing voices - and memory conformity explains why they all heard the same voice - then the evidence points towards those two well-understood phenomena.

 

[Kittamaru]

It's one thing to say something is possible. That people sometimes pick out voices from random background noise. Being able to say that's what happened here requires evidence. And there is none. On the contrary, the voice can be heard on the audio recording, and 6 rescuers hear the same voice. That's what the evidence shows.

Up until this point, you are exactly right - the EVIDENCE is clear - something was heard somewhere.

It shows that the paranormal CAN exist, and cannot be ruled out de facto from every investigation like it is impossible.

WRONG. The evidence does NOT provide a direction, distance, or cause for the voice. It does NOT show the paranormal can exist in any way shape or form.