Sponsor |  digits | Nov 9, 2007 7:54pm | i know what you're expressing LP; that if the people putting forth something as a genuine article then thechanes of it being explored (and thus examined to be) the genuine article is of higher probabiliy than the one's putting up frauds as genuine. :)
..and this is why i, too, value so much those videos a opposed to the frauds. determining the true natureof the authentic video is real and honest, then, as opposed to approaching a fraud from the authentic vantage to start with - it wastes time that otherwise could have been dedicated to the authentic; not to mention belief.
If I [as a metaphysician/healer/spiritual/indigo/hsp/etc...ad nauseum for example] received 100 videos all purporting authenticity and approach them all as such only to be told later thay were all cinematics....i would become disheartened and maybe even mad. [unbelievers see no big deal in this as they would not believe in the first place, but assuming paranormalactivity IS a given and IS POSSIBLE to be caught on tape...]
if enough people became jaded, disheartened and discovering all to be frauds, the genuines may never be discovered out of a sense of hopelessness.
and this is my excessively verbose explanation as to why i become incensed at fakes and frauds. even a deemed-to-be-real dust particle from an authentic videographer can be meaningful as it tells me that thevideograper is honest in the searching. itwouldmean i could trust what s/he sent me and i would be more inclined to believe her/him he next time and the NEXT time it *could* be something paranormal.
if a cinematographer otoh periodically sent out fakes as the real thing i would completely ignore the real article if it ever came out.
people who put forth frauds are disservicing an honest intent at truth. people who can explain everything with natural laws we already have knowledge of perform a similar disservice. ...it may be 2007 and we may be the most scientifically and technologically advanced as we've ever been on earth [that we know of] but if we think we're in the alpha-omega stage of our collective knowledge...that proves my point; just how stunted we really are. Paranormal isn't whack, It's just unexplainable for now by science. It wasn't witchcraft that apples fell; it was gravity and then someone discovered the what's, hows and why's later.
i'm gonna go logic on that for a little while as i sleep in my bed in my new room in my new house that i metaphysically manifested. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Kanookie | Nov 10, 2007 2:10am | | 20: What I am saying is that if the supernatural exists then it falls within everyday experience and can be verified, tested, and proven. That to take grainy unclear video, the chills one feels up the spine, third person stories, or any evidence at all which can't stand up under scrutiny is only fooling ourselves. For me it's a question of knowing these things are real so that if I ever feel the desire to fork out some of my hard earned money to a medium so I can talk to my dearly departed parents, I will know for certain that I am talking to them and not the medium's imagination. |
|
| 
|  niteraven | Nov 10, 2007 6:09am | I think the basic problem with proving these things are real is just verification. We have "evidence" but none of that "evidence" is verifiable or tangible. You can look at a picture till your eyes cross and its still just a picture.
Seeing a ghost or having some kind of personal interaction with them is just that, personal. What other kind of evidence would really be acceptable? Thats the rub. You can't capture one and dissect it. You can't put it under a microscope and see what its made of. You can't even figure out its mass and density. Its well beyond that.
If ghosts exist, and I believe they do, it seems to me as if in most cases they just want to be left alone. So you're "hunting" something that is elusive, highly intelligent, and gifted with "supernatural" abilities. We're simply way out of our league. If they don't want to be found out, they won't be found out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some freak who thinks that every photo of a so called ghost is true. All I'm REALLY saying is how would you EVER prove to a hard core skeptic, for instance, that they really exist? There simply is no acceptable empirical proof available. Photos don't do it. EVPs don't do it. Nothing that we have at this time can solidly prove the existence of ghosts. I guess its just a matter of faith. The fact that some people prey on that faith is the sickening part. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Kanookie | Nov 10, 2007 6:44am | | Well that personal experience requires no proof is a large part of the problem. Because the person who experienced it believes it to be true because it happened to them. But does that really lend any real credibility to what the person actually experienced? And again that you have faith in something and believe it to be true doesn't necessarily make it so. |
|
|
| | niteraven | Nov 10, 2007 6:57am | | The answer to the question is no. It doesn't. In regards to the statement, I agree one hundred percent. Thats why I'm saying there really is no way to PROVE it at this time. Its like philosophy, completely intangible. Trying to prove it is like chasing the wind. The wind is there. You can't see it, you can't smell it per se.. can't touch it.. you can only hear and feel it. The difference is it can be analyzed. It is not one particular anomaly that represents maybe one in a million souls. To believe in the soul is to believe in the spirit. To believe in the spirit is to believe in the ghost. Its all philosophical and just beyond the reach of "scientific" proof. |
|
|
Sponsor | | digits | Nov 10, 2007 7:28am | ftr. halloween night picture. i have an "orb" to the left of me in the second of two images spaced seconds apart. i'll upload it when i get my office settled in. here's a FACT to start with: my intents are honest. i did not manipulate the photo.
whether it is an "orb" or a dust particle i have not examined because it's still on my camera. but my honest intent is something to start with.
couple years ago my dog began barking and looking at the walls. some pictures later would reveal an "orb"...only *proof* it was that was that my dog continued staring and trying to play with it.
now...whether an "orb" is ghost [angel, spirit, ... or a collective ball of energy that cameras seem to capture...or whatever.... I do not know]- I call orbs anything not of this physicality. Tangible. As Niteraven puts forth well. |
|
|  |  3807889 | Nov 12, 2007 5:00am | 22: imagination is the keyword here. Most psychics use their imagination to give you what you want to hear. The real ones do it by interpreting thoughts, things they see or hear, and passing it on to you. Then you interpret it in the way you wish.
Some of us have experienced things which can't be physically proven, nor captured on film. Does it make it any less real? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Kanookie | Nov 12, 2007 7:04am | Interpretation is also a keyword. Especially when it comes to hot and cold readings which many psychics employ. If your really talking to my dead parents asking me generalities about my life in order to key into the specifics is really silly, because they would know these things already.
'Some of us have experienced things which can't be physically proven, nor captured on film. Does it make it any less real?'
While the experience seems real to the person is it objectively real is the question I'm asking. To which I say if you can't come up with evidence I would have to dismiss it. So let's not get taken in for a ride by events we have no real proof of rather search for reasons why we believe what we saw is true. |
|
| | | 3807889 | Nov 12, 2007 11:26pm | Kanookie... do you believe in God? If so, can you prove he really exists?
When you get a feeling about someone, and want to tell them a specific word, or thought, it's up to that person to interpret it in any way they wish. If someone were to say to me that they had a pony as a child, I would probably envision a pony. But what if I saw the pony before they mentioned it? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Kanookie | Nov 13, 2007 5:07am | No I can't prove God exists. But I can present a stronger argument for non existence.
I think your second paragraph is dead on: If you want to live in a world where you can make sense of anything in anyway you want ignoring what is, then certainly all things are open to personal interpretation. |
| |
| |
The Unexplained → Discussion