why we need ghosts

[Magical Realist]

When my dad saw a puppet on TV, he used to try to figure out which one of the humans on the screen was the ventriloquist. Even as a kid, I tried to explain to him that there doesn't have to be a ventriloquist but he could never quite grasp the fact that ALL of the sound was coming from a microphone "somewhere" - i.e. the puppet's voice could be coming from somebody offstage or even on another continent.

Doesn't explain why the 4 rescue workers all heard the voice coming from inside the car.

 

[sideshowbob]

Doesn't explain why the 4 rescue workers all heard the voice coming from inside the car.

We were talking about the physical evidence. I'm just pointing out that the actual source of the recording is unknown.

 

[Magical Realist]

We were talking about the physical evidence. I'm just pointing out that the actual source of the recording is unknown.

Most cameras record what is actually present to them. That's how they work.

 

[sideshowbob]

Most cameras record what is actually present to them. That's how they work.

Yes, the sound is "actually present" but the camera has no way of knowing where it came from.

 

[Write4U]

Doesn't explain why the 4 rescue workers all heard the voice coming from inside the car.

They didn't. By your own admission they heard the voice on a recording. Did the recording have a date and time? If it was the people inside the car, where they already dead when the voice asked for help?

 

[Magical Realist]

They didn't. By your own admission they heard the voice on a recording. Did the recording have a date and time? If it was the people inside the car, where they already dead when the voice asked for help?

No..the 4 rescue workers heard the voice with their own ears when it happened. Inside the car the mother was dead and the baby was alive but unconscious. It's all on the videos.

 

[James R]

MR:

No..saying they are all wrong about what they experienced is more ludicrous than saying they are lying about it. You weren't there so you don't know.

You weren't there either, so you don't know.

Also, it's one thing to question somebody's interpretation of an experience. It's another to question the experience itself. Be careful you don't go mixing the two things up (Ha! Watch this piece of advice fly in one ear and out the other.)

The amount of events and their nature makes them being wrong about them highly unlikely.

No. People regularly turn out to be wrong about all kinds of things. And human perception is notoriously unreliable.

They're talking about what they all heard while they were rescuing that baby. Why do you call it just a "story"?

Because that's what it is. They get together, they come to a mutally-agreed interpretation of an experience. They tell a story. That's almost as far as we get from your cut-and-paste video.

Right..because you don't want to believe in ghosts. How objective of you!

You keep insisting that I don't want to believe in ghosts. Would your evidence be more convincing if I did want to believe in ghosts? Is that what you're saying? How objective of you!

It's on the video starting at 038..

Can't hear any voice there. There's some kind of unidentifiable noise.

Who cares?

I do, or I wouldn't have asked. You should too, to make sure you're hearing what you think you're hearing. But you don't. Why is that? (Don't tell me. I know why.)

It recorded the voice as they were rescuing the baby. This is undeniable.

How do you know?

Video evidence and eyewitness testimony are compelling evidence.

Juries and judges regularly find such evidence to be less than compelling, to give just one example. I wonder why.

You have to make light of it because you don't want to believe in ghosts.

No, you have it backwards. You're the one making light of it. You're content to wallow in the superficial, constantly. You don't care to investigation anything properly. You're uninterested in whether evidence is reliable or not. Basically, you just believe whatever suits your preconceptions, no questions asked. God forbid you should ever find out anything solid about one of these cut-and-paste anecdotes. Who knows where that might lead?

I get it. That's your go to defense mechanism. But its so transparent as to be laughable..

Projection, much?

I simply post what I find to be compelling evidence of the paranormal. If that bothers you then get rid of the ghost section.

It's all cool as long as you follow the posting guidelines. I do find I constantly have to cut you a little slack to save you from autobans, but that's okay. I understand that you have a problem.

 

[sweetpea]

Yes, the sound is "actually present" but the camera has no way of knowing where it came from.

Talking dog clips come to mind.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR:


You weren't there either, so you don't know.

They were there. That's why I go by what they say, not what you say.

Also, it's one thing to question somebody's interpretation of an experience. It's another to question the experience itself. Be careful you don't go mixing the two things up (Ha! Watch this piece of advice fly in one ear and out the other.)

It's not an interpretation. When you see a full body apparition walk into a wall there is no room for interpretation. It's just an experience of the paranormal.

No. People regularly turn out to be wrong about all kinds of things. And human perception is notoriously unreliable.

People far more often turn out to be right about all kinds of things. Human perception is overwhelmingly reliable.

Because that's what it is. They get together, they come to a mutally-agreed interpretation of an experience. They tell a story. That's almost as far as we get from your cut-and-paste video.

All four rescue workers heard the voice. It's on the body cam. There's no denying it. It really happened.

You keep insisting that I don't want to believe in ghosts. Would your evidence be more convincing if I did want to believe in ghosts? Is that what you're saying? How objective of you!

What you want should have nothing to do with evaluating the evidence. Ghosts either exist or they don't. Your preference on the matter shouldn't factor in at all.

Can't hear any voice there. There's some kind of unidentifiable noise.

Ofcourse you can't. Human perception is notoriously unreliable.

I do, or I wouldn't have asked. You should too, to make sure you're hearing what you think you're hearing. But you don't. Why is that? (Don't tell me. I know why.)

Then go ahead and research all that and get back with us. We'll be waiting with bated breath.

Juries and judges regularly find such evidence to be less than compelling, to give just one example. I wonder why.

Crimes are solved on eyewitness testimony every day.

No, you have it backwards. You're the one making light of it. You're content to wallow in the superficial, constantly. You don't care to investigation anything properly. You're uninterested in whether evidence is reliable or not. Basically, you just believe whatever suits your preconceptions, no questions asked. God forbid you should ever find out anything solid about one of these cut-and-paste anecdotes. Who knows where that might lead?

There's nothing superficial about evidence for the paranormal. It demonstrates the profound nature of our reality. And the evidence speaks for itself. There is nothing unreliable about it at all.

 

[sweetpea]

I do find I constantly have to cut you a little slack to save you from autobans, but that's okay. I understand that you have a problem.

MR has a protecting angel, he has become an untouchable.
BTW, MR are you possessed by some spirit or related to royalty? I notice you use the royal ''we'' alot. But, now I see it may be something to do with your problem.

 

[Michael 345]

There's nothing superficial about evidence for the paranormal. It demonstrates the profound nature of our reality.

Reality is not paranormal

It appears to be so in your corner of the Universe

Please replace our reality with my reality for accuracy

 

[Magical Realist]

I notice you use the royal ''we'' alot.

I like to include all the lurkers out there who are reading this thread.

 

[sweetpea]

I like to include all the lurkers out there who are reading this thread.

''All'', you can't speak for all lurkers, not every lurker is on your wavelength so to speak. What does it feel like to have a protecting angel?
Anyway, I will let you get on with the thread and keep your type of lurker happy.
Ps. Hello MR lurker buddies out there

 

[Write4U]

''All'', you can't speak for all lurkers, not every lurker is on your wavelength so to speak. What does it feel like to have a protecting angel?
Anyway, I will let you get on with the thread and keep your type of lurker happy.
Ps. Hello MR lurker buddies out there

Interesting concept, ghost voyeurism. Are we the observers of ghosts or are the ghosts observers of humans.
Hard to tell who is which......

 

[Magical Realist]

"I met my first ghost at the age of six."

https://thecollapsar.org/a-theory-of-ghosts-by-nina-li-coomes/

 

[DaveC426913]

"I met my first ghost at the age of six."

As a public service, I have isolated the TLDR version:

"A Theory of Ghosts.

Instead of a human soul left behind by a mortal body, I’ve begun to think that ghosts are more like temporal projections of emotion, or experience. Like a dusty slide passed in front of a projector, perhaps ghosts are more like holograms of something that once existed, sprung into action by one circumstance or another. The woman at the well, for example, is not so much something that was once a person, haunting a home. Instead, she is a manifestation of despair, an ultra-concentrated moment of sorrow that now exists in a strange in-between of time and space."

Alas, this is not a theory.

 

[James R]

They were there. That's why I go by what they say, not what you say.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. It ain't here.

It's not an interpretation. When you see a full body apparition walk into a wall there is no room for interpretation. It's just an experience of the paranormal.

There's no good evidence that anybody has ever actually seen any such thing.

People far more often turn out to be right about all kinds of things. Human perception is overwhelmingly reliable.

Some people are uneducateable.

All four rescue workers heard the voice. It's on the body cam. There's no denying it. It really happened.

All four workers told a tale about hearing a voice. There's some random-sounding noise on the body cam that may or may not be a voice. If it is a voice, who knows where it came from, or whose voice it is?

Nobody has investigated this event to any degree. Why is that? I think they're (you're) afraid that the woo will go away if they take a proper look.

What you want should have nothing to do with evaluating the evidence.

Exactly. Go figure.

Ghosts either exist or they don't.

Based on what you've brought to the table so far, they don't.

Then go ahead and research all that and get back with us. We'll be waiting with bated breath.

It's your claim. You research it and get back to us if you ever find anything useful.

Crimes are solved on eyewitness testimony every day.

And eyewitness testimony is shown to be unreliable every day.

There's nothing superficial about evidence for the paranormal.

You've only ever brought the superficial to the table. Are you saying you have more?

It demonstrates the profound nature of our reality.

Reality is already profound enough. We don't need your fairies.

And the evidence speaks for itself.

It never does.

There is nothing unreliable about it at all.

Blinkers.

 

[Michael 345]

"I met my first ghost at the age of six."

https://thecollapsar.org/a-theory-of-ghosts-by-nina-li-coomes/

And I am guessing many more since

Found a nail at 6

Now carries a hammer and sees nails in lots of places

Alas, this is not a theory.

So what is it?

 

[Magical Realist]

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. It ain't here.

Several people experiencing paranormal phenomena in an office trumps anything you can say about it because you weren't there. They have what they saw and heard. You have nothing.

There's no good evidence that anybody has ever actually seen any such thing.

There's no good evidence you know what you're talking about. I trust what they say they experienced over what you say they didn't experience. You also have an agenda to disprove the paranormal and so are biased. They have no agenda whatsoever.

All four workers told a tale about hearing a voice. There's some random-sounding noise on the body cam that may or may not be a voice. If it is a voice, who knows where it came from, or whose voice it is?

All four workers describe hearing someone calling for help from the car. You can hear the cry for help on the body cam. That trumps anything you can claim about it.

Nobody has investigated this event to any degree. Why is that? I think they're (you're) afraid that the woo will go away if they take a proper look.

No investigation is needed. The event happened with 4 witnesses and body cam audio. There's nothing to be investigated.

It's your claim. You research it and get back to us if you ever find anything useful.

They're your questions not mine. Answer them yourself. Google should help you there.

And eyewitness testimony is shown to be unreliable every day.

Eyewitness testimony solves thousands of crimes across the world everyday. It's totally reliable.

You've only ever brought the superficial to the table. Are you saying you have more?

You're lying. I have provided dozens of compelling and profound accounts in this forum over the years. You just have to mitigate them because you don't want to believe in ghosts. You're obviously biased.

Reality is already profound enough. We don't need your fairies.

Reality is more profound than anything you can imagine.

It never does.

It always does.

 

[James R]

MR:

Several people experiencing paranormal phenomena in an office trumps anything you can say about it because you weren't there. They have what they saw and heard. You have nothing.

I have what they say they saw and heard. That's all you have, too. Everything else is interpretation, on our parts.

I trust what they say they experienced over what you say they didn't experience.

So you think that the issue of whether somebody saw a ghost ought to be decided based on who gives you the best vibes in terms of trust? What if you tend to trust the people with the woo more than you trust skeptics? Does that make the ghosts more likely to be real?

You also have an agenda to disprove the paranormal and so are biased.

I have an agenda to ask sensible questions about extraordinary claims, and thereby to promote critical thinking.

They have no agenda whatsoever.

You don't know them, so how can you say that?

All four workers describe hearing someone calling for help from the car.

They thought it was a cry for help from the car, you mean.

You can hear the cry for help on the body cam.

No, I can't. I hear what sounds like some random noise. You hear a cry because that's what you expect to hear.

No investigation is needed. The event happened with 4 witnesses and body cam audio. There's nothing to be investigated.

Just a ghost, people. Nothing to see here. Move along!

They're your questions not mine. Answer them yourself. Google should help you there.

You're saying you don't know the answers. I see. No surprises there.

Eyewitness testimony solves thousands of crimes across the world everyday. It's totally reliable.

Totally reliable, eh? No eyewitness has ever been mistaken about anything. Okay, if you say so.

You're lying. I have provided dozens of compelling and profound accounts in this forum over the years. You just have to mitigate them because you don't want to believe in ghosts. You're obviously biased.

Every one of your "accounts" that I have ever glanced over has has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Reality is more profound than anything you can imagine.

Maybe so, but that's just a guess or a hope on your part. You don't speak from a position of knowledge.