Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Thoughts on Paranormal?
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
Buddhist Thoughts on Paranormal?
0
Comments
Not trying to be funny,just wanting to be sure that this is what you are asking.
There is a Peta realm which is where you will find hungry ghosts.:eek:
With metta
Whether you believe in ghosts, spirits, whatever you want to call them or not believe, they're real. I have dated a woman who was a genuine medium. Ghosts were attracted to her like a light beacon. Creepy stuff went down all the time around her. Even when I was there and a bit skeptical, it comes to a point of asking yourself, are you being skeptical or are you being oblivious? I have all sorts of ghost stories that happened being around her.
My great grandmother lives in a haunted house. I have witnessed it myself the very first time I went to visit. It is some no nonsense crazy stuff going on in that house, and I didn't even know it was haunted till I experienced it myself. It is so haunted that you could probably easily document the paranormal there with the right equipment.
Since then I have had more experiences. And I have all types of stories. I feel as if once you're exposed to spirits you naturally gain a relationship with that spirit world where they become aware that you're aware.
Interesting stuff!
I don't know what to think about such claims, sometimes the evidence seems overwhelming.
But there are many possible explanations for these things, not all of them paranormal. Check out some of the skeptical blogs and forums and see if any of those explanations there might explain what you have experienced.
The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional the evidence needs to be, that is a good rule of thumb.
namaste
I am very much with you on that one:)
namase
I definitely agree. And I think the Buddha would too. Specially with the bolded part.
I'd even say that there's a faint sense of arrogance tied in with the idea that one is bold enough to think they know why something happened. Not unlike a scientist with a brilliant theory, BEFORE he has proved it to the world.
just remember, it's never healthy to be too skeptical. When you begin to rationalize everything, thats generally when bad things want to happen.
"oh, what was that noise? probably just the wind..." and then BAM a werewolf ghost vampire jumps out of the toilet and steals your baby.
Yes and other paranormal phenomenas.
I am a skeptical and practical person, but I am by no means oblivious. There is a big difference between the two. And that is one thing I notice about many skeptics. They tend to be very scientific and want hard evidence, but the truth of the matter is, science is always progressing and it cannot yet explain everything. Relying on science to explain everything is like relying on your Government to tell you all of the truth.
I always try to debunk my paranormal experiences, and have debunked a few, but I have also had genuine encounters that I can without a doubt categorize as paranormal, supernatural, spirit related, whatever you want to call it.
On one occasion, a friend of mine referred me to a woman who was being haunted by a spirit. This spirit was bothering her in a way that you could categorize as sexual molestation, or very personal harassment. It was an incubus type spirit.
The claims she made at first seemed crazy. It was hard to take in all that she said was happening. But I went in there with an open mind, and actually came out with very good evidence.
I recorded this in her room, with an Olympus Digital Voice Recorder VN-3100PC. It was drained of fresh batteries during the recording, so from that I learned that I had to use rechargeable batteries when recording entities like this.
http://hotfile.com/dl/79249364/4881c6a/Ghost_Voice.wav.html
She was not afraid by hearing this entity I recorded. I have my theory of what I am hearing from the audio, but I let most people make their own theories about whats on the tape. I am knowledgeable in the occult arts, and such I offered my services to her if she wanted me to get rid of the spirit. I knew of two effective ways to do so.
But in the end she chose to try and make a positive partnership with this spirit. This is just one of my many experiences with the paranormal, but with this one in particular I have evidence that is a good souvenir from that personal experience. Especially for the skeptics.
Hence the idea of ghosts, gods and other sentient beings who like to show themselves through meaningless door-opening and bush-burning.
I usually ask why people are so sure, that it was a ghost who made the odd stuff happen when they are absolutely sure it wasn't a leprechaun or some other equally elusive being of myths and they are never able to answer me..
About realms and hungry ghosts and the like, I really lean towards a modern interpretation - I see many "hungry ghosts" wandering this very planet, and they can be said to be in another realm completely. If you do bad things and create bad karma, you end up in a bad situation - a literal hell realm.
I know some will see this as "over-rationalizing", but it isn't. When you rationalize you deny because something doesn't suit your world-view. My world-view is not one which needs rationalization of things I don't understand - I simply say "I do not understand this". I've heard a lot of fantastic stories, and I honestly don't know what has went on - but I do know that the odds are very much against any supernatural explanation.
Therefore there's no reason to hold on to the myth of ghosts (who, by the way, don't seem to do anything but make noises, cast shadows or open things which can be opened)..
I agree with you. I think the predominant skeptical starting point is "No it cannot be true!" On top of this there is the propensity to ridicule before investigation etc etc.
We must be minful of the distinction between science not being able to explain everything ever and currently.
They are two radically different world views. i guess that is the crux between naturalist views and supernaturalist views.
The skeptic would say that what you have done there is made a move from the unexplained to the supernatural and that you are not entitled to do that, rationally.
Im still unsure on my take on that. Some paranormal evidence seems overwhelming. I think when confronted with that I should be extra villigent with seeking the simplest (in the widest sense) explanation.
As to your example...
Playing the devil's advocate here, what is more rational, that there are people with all manner of psycological issues, delusions, fantasies, illnesses which manifest in such claims as this woman has had...
Or that she really is being "haunted"?
That is an undoubtedly freaky, weird, spooky and low quality recording. I have listened to it twice now. I am assuming the womens voice is the victim not the entity.
The sound of the "entity" is bonkers. It sounds like metal strips rattling togther. Geesh, I have no idea.
I have heard these EVP's before, some of them even have coherent voices in them. Like ghost videos and some past life regression claims etc, I cannot explain them but I can imagine possible explanations that don't involve the paranormal, mainly to do with hoaxes and delusion.
Stumped I am:)
I would love to hear your theories (In PM if you would rather).
I would love to hear your potential "ways" (In PM if you would rather).
I'm not sure what that means.
Thanks for your fascinating post!
namaste
When you're presented with an idea, you can either accept the idea and become a believer, or you can chose not to accept it.
The latter can take two forms, rejection or non-acceptance. Rejection means the idea is dismissed as false, non-acceptance means the idea is not accepted as true. People who say "I don't know" are, I suggest, really taking the non-acceptance stance, as someone who truly didn't know would hedge their bets by paying lip service to the idea in case it were true.
In most cases of agnosticism, the practical result is indistinguishable from rejection, you wouldn't know an agnostic from an atheist until you asked, but you could certainly tell a true believer.
Unless the benefits of believing are obvious, I think the best stance to take with any proposed belief is one of open-minded non-acceptance. That way you aren't creating mental formations in opposition to evidence (faith), but you're still willing to accept the idea should convincing evidence arise.
To the OP, does having a belief in the paranormal aid you in dissolving the origins of suffering? Does not believing in the paranormal hinder you in the same goal?
Word.
That was sure a long post you made. I'll just give you a very simple offer though. If you ever want to learn about UFOs and the best evidence about them, I probably know the most about their history than anyone on this entire forum. I can write a thick history book of data on what I know about UFOs. From the age of 10 I have been studying UFOlogy.
In 5th grade I read a book full of accounts, more than 400 pages long maybe three times. I hated school, but for some reason exploring and investigating the paranormal came naturally to me. Since then I have learned many things about UFOlogy and spirit phenomena through my own first hand investigations that is undeniable.
If I had to prove the visitation of extraterrestrials in a court of law, I am sure I could do this. There is enough substantial evidence to do so. It comes down to asking, what type of evidence are you looking for? Or you know if you choose to not want to know, that is perfectly fine. But me on the other hand, I like to know and learn. Even if it involves throwing out 98 percent of all of it for the few bits that is substantial.
You yourself are claiming that believers cling to the term of ghosts. But what about truth seekers, investigators like myself? I do not cling to the word ghost. Instead I prefer to use the word spirit. I believe that is a more unbiased word. Spirit can be used for a spirit of the forest, a spirit of a dead person, a spirit of a demon, just for examples, but the list goes on.
The real myth here, is that you believe ghosts can only make noises, cast shadows, open things that can't be opened, and that they're a myth. But you see that is your opinion due to you not actually searching for the truth.
I have seen a spirit manifest, I have actually been physically hurt by a spirit.
These things are possible, they're real not imaginary. They're physical actions. But again, this is what I have experienced on my journey of seeking the truth. You can type from your keyboard that something is a myth very easily, but have you explored it and investigated it the way I have?
Why is the thought that she is being haunted not rational? I make that conclusion based on what I have found investigating her case, and it's the most rational conclusion even at an unbiased approach. If I were to start trying to rationalize her stories, my recording device being drained from batteries in under two minutes, and the result of what I recorded then I would start to sound like an oblivious skeptic who is in *denial. Then it would be me who was actually being held back by psychological disorders.
Because what one thinks is rational, is only based on what you already know. If you always base things on what you already know you stop the learning process. That is the thing when investigating. You have to keep an open mind and put the entire puzzle together with the pieces you're given, be ready to try to debunk, but at the same time realize that not everything has a rational explanation that is based on modern science. Especially in the case of the paranormal.
Also, my mentor of many years is a psychology professor of a well known University. I have learned from him how to analyze if people are lying, and many things about the nature of human psychology. He is the most intelligent man I've ever met. And yet, him being a man of science and psychology, he is not limited by that. He has more legitimate stories of the paranormal than I do, many coming from his clients, and some even from himself. It's not about what is rational, because rational tends to be based on what one already knows. It's about looking at the entire picture in the wisest and most intelligent way you can.
And sure I'll pm you with what you asked for.
Agnosticism is simple and very valid among the titles of Theist and Atheist. I would call it the most balanced of all self proclaimed religious titles. In my opinion, it means; "there could be, but since I don't know I reserve my full judgment". That is what it means regarding having faith in deities, but being agnostic is not an act of faith. And such it still leaves one able to explore and investigate the truth with an unbiased mind. I am Agnostic and I am also a truth seeker in many paranormal type affairs.
Even though when it comes to dieties, I say "there could be, but since I never met them I will not judge". When it comes to spirits I do know a bit. I know from experience like a savvy hunter who has hunted many nights in a dark forest.
Even though it is dark, the experienced hunter knows what is a bear and what is not a bear. It doesn't mean I am a believer. It means I am an unbiased truth seeker who has investigated towards the truth for a good while. There is always more to learn, but you never learn till you start taking it in and analyzing.
My brother now, he's really into UFOlogy, and because I find it interesting I've no problem watching documentaries, YouTube videos, lectures from UFOlogists he finds (Alex Collier is the only name I can remember off hand). It's all very interesting to think about; and the whole Chariots of the Gods and "ancient astronaut" theory would certainly win over Biblical accounts any day of the week. Actually read that entire book, I think; many good points that would be reasonable conclusions if it were true, but of course always with a grain of salt.
It's good that you try to maintain a balanced approach. It's never right to "believe" it all. Because much of it is bullshit I know this very well. But there is enough of it that isn't BS to perhaps ignite the flame of investigation even more so, in those that want to know. If you ever want to know the good places to look, just let me know.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if any of it were true, and probably would be glad if it were proven and known as such in this world. We need as many ego-busters as we can get, and right now many still find a sense of being "special" in being the most intelligent and developed species that exists (in their estimation). We're probably far from it.
I used the word "ghost" because that was the word used in this discussion. To me it's potato, potáto. I know there's a profound difference if you're into that sort of thing.
From the outside it looks like the spirit of a dead person (as in human) is a ghost - and I thought that was what we were talking about.
I just never heard any story about alleged ghosts (from ordinary people or "medium" or "spirit-seers" - I know a few who make such claims), or seen in any TV show (they were popular here a couple of years ago) a ghost/spirit doing anything but create fog, make noises and other harmless stuff for which there quite possibly are another, less interesting explanation.
It's no secret, that persons who want to find the "truth" but who are already biased towards finding a specific truth, will find it. I believe that you have experienced what you say you have but I don't think it's ghosts or spirits which has made it happen. It's your own conviction and extraordinary, human brain.
Funnily enough, only people believing in ghosts experience ghosts.
You can say that the skeptic researching this will never see what you've seen because of the skepticism - thus making the same argument as I just did: the Rosenthal Effect.
The interesting this is, that if a skeptic researched chemistry or physics, he would find the same as the "real" scientist. The real scientist would never find any ghost - he would probably find a lot of other, much more possible explanations though.
I don't say there are no ghosts - I say there's no reason to believe that there is, because of all possible explanations (of which the cause and effect can be properly verified) to a certain instance , ghosts differ by being so elusive - you need a way to verify the causality, which again proves impossible. Shifts in temperature and moisture can have a lot of other, plausible explanations though. Suddenly locked doors can have a lot of other explanations (like: you locked it two minutes ago and forgot you locked it). Strange noises turn out to be mice in the attic. The list really goes on, and every time ghosts come out at the last resort.
I am unbiased towards my investigations. I go there with an open mind expecting to find nothing. And when I find something close to being paranormal, I first attempt to debunk it. You do not even know me, and have not even seen or know the full details of what I have seen, yet you claim that they're not paranormal. Do you already see how that brands you as close minded already? You are already choosing a biased side. You're claiming to know, what you surely do not know. You're not looking at both sides of the coin. And I assure you there is always truth on both sides.
I have met several skeptics that have had encounters with genuine spirits. Being a hard skeptic does not mean you're immune to the paranormal, but it could mean that you will choose to stay in denial or be oblivious to it. My grandmother who is very stubborn, and was a hard skeptic had a genuine paranormal encounter. She tried to convince my great grandmother there was nothing to be afraid of after my great grandmother told her to stay with her in her room to witness what she had been experiencing.
It was soon after that where she was physically attacked. As crazy as it sounds, yes a hard skeptic got physically attacked by a spirit. My uncle and my great grandmother were there as witnesses, despite my grandmother never wanting to talk about that, it was them who mentioned it to me. I also witnessed paranormal events at this house, and so did other visitors. Are these all coincidences that are explainable by what you call rational? No, most of them are not explainable by what is known to science. I know, because I tried to find an answer, and the more I looked, the more I realized.
But I don't expect you to believe. I just think you should show a little bit more respect for situations that you do not even know the slightest about, yet you're already branding them as not paranormal?
It is easy to type from a keyboard that something is not paranormal. But how can that be a wise statement if you were not even there? It is a statement based on your own rationalization, of your own limited experience.
You fail my point. I say that there's no reason to suspect ghosts or spirits, and that there are a lot of other, much more possible explanations which upon closer examination always seems to win out. I didn't say that ghosts/spirits are an impossible explanation.
I also have a tendency to think why on earth people are so happy to give ghosts the blame, when it could be any kind of unknown force. Why does it have to be ghost (or spirit) or nothing? I also see people rule out other fantastic creatures very quickly for no apparent reason at all..
Like the atheist who said: "You rule out any other gods as prehistoric superstition or modern heresy without the slightest doubt to their lack of existence - yet you fail to comprehend why I do not believe in your single god"..
or: "We are all atheists - I just believe in one less god"
My mind is not closed or protectively skeptic - I just don't buy in on the ghost stories when it could be anything..
Metta to all sentient beings
It could be anything to you because you have never encountered it. But when you put pieces of the puzzle together, you hear the accounts, then you actually encounter the entity yourself, then you realize the accounts were real. And it all leads up to the educated and wise conclusion that this is an unexplainable supernatural entity. This is a rare occasion when this happens, but it is a real possibility and a scenario which I have genuinely experienced.
If you cannot believe that this can ever happen you're the same as fundamentalist religious people. Because they have already set their own belief systems to be unshakable, the same as a protective skeptic who refuses to exit their comfort zone and say "it could be possible". Which is what I see you doing.
I never look to blame ghosts or spirits, I look to see the entire situation, and put together the puzzle the way a detective would. And through a few of the investigations I have done I have come to a conclusion that there is nothing supernatural there, and through a few others I have also come to the conclusion that there *is something supernatural there. That is unbiased research and investigation.
I do think the word spirit is a very good word to use when dealing with the supernatural. Because basically what that word means is a supernatural entity, not exactly a dead persons ghost. Because while you say it could be some other fantastic creature, often people can see the actual signs of a spirit, such as a manifestation of the spirit right in front of them, or can see items move by themselves, heavy human footsteps without humans present, doors slam, and open without wind etc. These are all signs of a spirit when you try to debunk it and see that you can't, that is what it points to.
It's the same as a hunter who knows their animals after being in the woods so long. Eventually they learn the different actions and behaviors of each animal. It is the same when you research the paranormal. You begin to see what can be explained by wind, by electrical mishaps, by animals, or by psychological disorders. You begin to see that there are more than often known conclusions, but not *always.
When you believe that there is always a known conclusion, then that is when you stop learning because you think you know it all already. That is when you're a fundamentalist, and you're no longer a truth seeker.
I wonder why you are sure that there's an entity, and not just outbursts of impersonal energies without meaning or mission.. Like a rock which makes you trip, fall and break your arm - it's not like stones are beings which place themselves for humans to trip over, yet still they do it all the time.
I think it's very human to interpret donk-donk sounds in a set pattern as walking, drumming, running, hammering etc. - deliberate actions by an entity with a purpose. It's not necessarily so.. It's like I said - humans do the most strange things to make all other objects in this world human - our dogs "cry", elephants "bury" their dead, the wind "whispers", darkness is "evil", bats are "secretive", mountains are "wise", lions are "lazy", plants have "souls" - and the dead are "alive"!
You hear a clonking sound, see a blurred vision and forgot you locked the door - and suddenly spirits roam.. It could also be an apple falling on the roof just as you have a reminiscence of an old memory (a "flash-back"), which makes you forget that you locked the door (or unlocked it) - the human mind, set for finding motives to better understand other humans or calculate a preys course of actions to better catch it suddenly confuses itself into thinking that there must've been a relation between the three incidents..
You find out that many people had the same experience, you look into it - and there you have your spirit. I once heard a police investigator say, that the cause of much trouble in solving a though puzzle was to make an early, wrong assumption..
Let me stress my point: Even though we experience odd stuff, which seems related, it's not necessarily so. It could be, but we don't get any the wiser investigating it - the missing pieces are way too many. Stephen King put it this way, through a character in "Cell" or "Desperation" (I don't remember which): "Assume makes and ass of you and me"..
If one were really trying to take an agnostic stance to everything (which I've already said I doubt is practically possible) you'd first need to abandon all mental formations of what you may encounter.
You'd need to throw out all you've been told about ghosts, spirits, poltergeists, orbs, cold spots etc, otherwise if or when you do encounter something abnormal these preconceived notions will plaster themselves all over the experience, clouding it, distorting it.
So that if you did turn a corner and encounter a floating blob, you're first instinct wouldn't be to label it ghost, or orb, you wouldn't label it with any name and so let it be what it is.
It comes down to how oblivious you want to be. If there is a wild wolf in front of you at night, will you say I think I saw a wolf last night, or maybe I was dreaming? Eventually you have to have the balls to realize what you saw, and after seeing the same thing more than once. It is even easier. I have encountered spirits in that fashion, where I can say, yes I did encounter a spirit and more than once. It's not an assumption, it's an intelligent conclusion.
If it was outbursts of impersonal energy it would be a risidual haunting. Meaning it would be imprints of personal energy that basically repeat patterns, and don't have the ability to interact. When you have a spirit that can interact with you. For example leaving voice evidence by recording, or giving you substantial signs when you ask for them. Or just interacting with you on a personal level, this is behavior of an intelligent entity. Seeing all that, and ignoring it, is denial and oblivious behavior.
You do have to start making unbiased conclusions based on what evidence you're finding to get closer towards the truth. To be a good investigator you do need to get the clues, the pieces of the puzzle, the witnesses and have the balls and the spine to be able to realize where the truth lies. If you can't do that you can't investigate.
When you're investigating and find a good amount of material to work with, you do have to make a call. And with the paranormal this requires you to try to debunk it first, it's that simple. Sometimes it can be debunked, sometimes it cannot. It's not about making an "early wrong assumption". Perhaps that's what it is to you because all paranormal assumptions to you are already wrong.
You have nothing to benefit arguing with me about this. It is like arguing to a lion hunter that lions do not exist. I have seen the lions many times and just as many times I have came back from a hunt (investigation) empty handed. To me you just look like a fundamentalist who is stuck in your own ways of the paranormal not being possible. To me both is possible. It is possible for someone to mistake a paranormal entity with something easily explainable. But is also possible that there is really a paranormal entity there.
That is my reality, because I have encountered it, several times. It is not assumption, it is a wise conclusion. If you cannot understand that, that is your own reality of stubbornness and fundamentalist ways that you have created for yourself and that have no meaning with me.
Apparently that is "fundamentalist" to you (not that I'm even sure what you mean with the word in this context).
Last night my apartment door suddenly opened. I accuse the wind, but it could be something else. I don't know if there was a "spirit", I don't know if the neighbor played a prank on me, I don't know if Santa was sending me a message - what I do know is that the wind was blowing, my girlfriend had just been out, the door needs an extra push to close properly, the wind can blow up doors.
I could have reasoned like this: ghosts make the wind blow, ghosts like to open doors, ghosts are out at night (it was the night), there was no one else, the dog was sniffing and dogs sense ghosts - it must've been a ghost. All the evidence is there..
But even though I cannot be absolutely sure it was the wind, I have no reason to suspect the other possibilities.
That's what I mean, when I say there's no reason to blame spirits - much more logical explanations are always at the ready.
And the ghost-hunter/paranormal investigator who gets all the really rare cases? Don't come tell me you don't hope for a ghost every time you go investigating, already blurring your mind right there.. A ghost is so much more interesting than plain old uncle physics - especially for the one who hunts it..
What I mean by a fundamentalist is someone who has a strong attachment to their set of beliefs always without any compromise. If you say there is no way a spirit is rational that is fundamentalist thinking. I am not saying it's always a spirit. I am saying it can go both ways. That it can be explained by something that is not paranormal, and that sometimes it cannot be explained and will fall into the category of the paranormal.
If that makes no sense to you that a spirit can be possible, then you have no reason to be arguing with me. Because I am a man who has without a doubt encountered spirits. I even posted some of my own personal gathered evidence on this thread. So sure it's rarely a spirit, but sometimes it is. It's that simple, there is nothing irrational with that sentence.
How do you come to conclude that this recording is of paranormal activity? It sounds like a very poor recording of some clanging metal and someone whooping to me. I would be very interested to hear the rationale of your conclusion. Feel free to pm this as you did with another poster if you dont wish to put it in the thread.
I will not pretend that I am not skeptical, however I am very keen and interested to hear and open to consider your response.
You ignore my points, which makes it difficult to discuss.
All boiled down: I'm fundamentalist skeptic for doubting, you're open minded ghost-hunter for being absolutely convinced...
Oh well, whaddaya get..
Edit: I just had a thought:
Since you see, hear and feel these spirits so vividly, how come you cannot gather irrevocable evidence for the existence of them? You could end this very discussion fairly quickly (and close the mouths of tens of thousands of doubters out there, and possibly gain both world-famousness and unimaginable wealth)..
It would require a quality which doesn't make a mockery of modern technology, of course - my cell phone five years ago made better recordings than the one you have presented..
Please don't take my tone as too poisonous, I'm both challenging you and being curious - I don't wanna be rude..
There is a lot I can say about that case. But when talking about it to hardcore skeptics its more of a bother of me to go into all the details, because most of you guys have your mind made up to begin with. When I heard what was recorded the quality actually sounded great to me. It sounded loud, and clear enough to hear what was going on.
I don't know if you're trying to hear a voice and English words from that recording. That could be why you think it's bad quality. There is definitely a voice. And it goes on for about 4 minutes, but this voice is not of me or my female client. As we were silent for the duration that this recording took place.
I am leaving out a few details, but I will share just a bit of my theory of what I am hearing. What is on audio is not the ghost of a human. It is a spirit trying to mimic a human, that is why the language is not clear, that is why there is clicking and metallic noises. And that is why it sucked up the energy of my recording device so quickly. Because it is not easy for this thing to speak in our tongue, it is trying its best. Its voice doesn't even sound completely female, it's like a mix of male and female.
This is just part of my theory that is built also keeping her testimony in mind, and physical proof that she showed me. This thing could physically interact with her, as she had marks on her. Later on, I found out myself that spirits could interact with you physically, as I myself was injured by one. While I was taking a shower pain started on both of my wrists and bruises began to form. Major ones that were green and purple for many days, way longer than normal bruises (I sparred with black belts many times and these bruises were worse). This happened to me after I had been tampering with ways on how to get rid of spirits.
I don't know if you guys are hearing the same quality recording that I am hearing I will have to download it sometime soon and compare to the original. It should be a copy of the original, and should be the same quality, but I will have to double check. Either way though, to me that was good quality. Not the best quality, but I don't have money for that.
I know a place that is irrefutably haunted, and I could document it with the right equipment ($$ I dont have), but just as you guys call that good recording of mine poor. You would probably do the same with any of my other evidence. Fundamentalist skeptics are just caught in their own chain of denial. Spirits can be documented, but they can't be controlled the way an animal can.
I would like to hear the details actually, since at present, your explinations seem almost arbitrary to me. Such as how the distinction between a ghost of a human and a non-human spirit would effect the rate that energy (I assume you mean the batteries) is used in the recording device? Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying you need to justify and cement your stance, I'm just interested to gain some sort of understanding/insight into how you come to such conclusions etc.
To comment on the recording quality, at my end, it sounds absolutelly terrible. Nothing bar a lot of hissing, crackling, clanking and whooping.
The way to prove something is to collect data, then send someone out to collect data - if everyone gets the same (or nearly) same results, then whatever needs proving can be considered proven.
It's a fairly basic scientific method of validating claims and theories.
As far as I understand the problem with spirits, ghosts etc. is that they always seem to be gone when the next researcher gets there with his equipment. Furthermore the only way to observe these spirits is through subjective sensing - cold/warm, moist/dry, pressure, visions, movement of furniture etc. All stuff which we humans are perfectly capable of sensing without anything going on - and that is scientifically proven.
Whenever the heat-camera, infrared-camera, hydrometer, movement-sensor or any other device which can "feel" the same stimuli as humans are set up - they get nothing. Never ever.. and if they do, the next time (or the next team) will get nothing or something else..
That is what I meant with ghosts being elusive - if they are there, they ('scuse me) damn well are there. They will have some form, and they will return and they will be observable though other means than feeble human senses..
I still wait for the field-team capable of finding anything conclusive - as of yet, ghosts are far down the list of possible explanations..
*note: "science" is not a wild-card invented and thrown by desperate skeptics, it's a system, a tool by and with which different people become capable of researching their own hypothesis and other peoples claims in a structured manner - eliminating subjectiveness.
Spirits have been caught on tape before, both regular camera, night vision and infared. This has been done several times. I am talking about Destination Truth, Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Ghost Labs ever heard of these shows? These are ghost hunters just like me that actually have a budget and a TV show to do what I do, but more efficiently. They have what you're looking for, but then comes the question will you claim all of their evidence as hoaxed? My evidence certainly wasn't hoaxed, but I'm not going to try to prove it real for disrespectful skeptics online that really don't give a damn.
If you cannot hear the voice in the recording that's a problem on your end. I downloaded it myself just to make sure it was a copy of the original. And the voice is heard very clear well throughout the 4 minute sound file. It sounds the way it sounds because it's not a human voice. And it also is not really speaking human language.
Its an interesting topic, and I am not speaking to you disrespectfully. I am simply curious.
What I would like was an official, accepted theory - and it just doesn't exist.. Namely because no one can prove anything scientifically..
Science is not opposed to the paranormal - science is opposed to the way of thinking which dominates the paranormal adherents, the so-called magical thinking..
But I see where this is going - I'm labeled a "stupid, no-see skeptic" for my both relevant and fair opposition. When we end up with you finally having to support your claims with more than tell-tale, you get angry and accuse me of being disrespectful..
You then refuse to show your proof, because I "wouldn't believe it anyway", forgetting that a real proof is undeniable (it wouldn't be a proof if not).
A pretty standard defense-maneuver..
I am for certain what I recorded is a spirit. But by spirit I mean, it could be a spirit of an entity. Any kind of entity. Could be a spirit of a demon, of a tree, of a human. But the main reason why I say it's most likely not a ghost/spirit of a human is because of its recorded behavior. The clicks, the clanging, the hissing, the massive drain on my batteries, the odd voice that is not really a clear female or male. I have done a lot of research in the occult. And this fits the description of non human spirits that are trying to imitate a human. It's not just my own made up theory.
I actually believe that human ghosts/spirits are very rare, from what I have encountered and what I have read. I think these are mostly other entities. The reason why I say that, is because I am sure they're there, for certain. But, if it was actually a family member or even an intelligent human being that is a stranger, I think they would do more to try to convince you. Something more personal, and more frequent, and less offensive frightening behavior.
I would for sure let it be known that I was a ghost if I was for example. But these other entities, they have more primal motives. Almost like animals that need food, or monkeys that like to tease and play. They like to eat energy from electric devices, and they also feed off our own emotions. It's common psychology like this, that makes me believe most of these spirits are not human, and more than anything they can try to imitate humans, but I don't believe most of them are.
These are just some of my theories based on my experience and my research though. I think for someone to be fair about making theories like the ones I've made they would have to do the work themselves like I have done. I have seen enough, to not feel foolish making the theories I make. There is more to the theories I made too that is based off experience, there really is. I can talk about this for a long time, but it is just too taboo for most people. Some people will be disrespectful about it, even if its true because it's so different from what they have known. So I rarely talk about everything I know and have seen unless I feel someone genuinely wants to know.
Ficus,
I understand that you want it all documented through science. Well that hasn't happened yet. I would do it if I had assistance and the funds. Maybe the scientific field just doesn't give real hunters like me a chance. And thus the scientists are oblivious to making contact. Not just anyone can make contact with spirits. They will ignore some people, but I believe I can document them on my own will. As I have done so before.
Just because they cannot be dissected on a table, and analyzed under a microscope, doesn't mean they can't be documented. Spirits are without out a doubt a real phenomenon. If you don't want to consider that, well that's your own deal. There is good proof from those shows that I have suggested. They offer the same type of proof I offer. So if their stuff isn't good for you, my stuff wouldn't be either.
Namaste.
While I do not subscribe to this "I created the universe" mentality absolutely, I think there is a lot of truth to it. Furthermore, I believe that the realm of the paranormal and the religious does not have any objective reality that is uncoditioned by our minds.
I am pretty sure that for me there are no ghosts-- they just don't make sense in the context of my mind. But I don't discard the observations of people whose worldviews are different. In the context of those worldviews, ghosts might very much make sense.
It's not about whether the evidence (so-called proof) is good or bad, it's about if the evidence can be said to be proof at all.. An undeniable fact.. Which it isn't, which is why we can't be sure..
@ Shadowleaver
Idealism has it's obvious logical flaws - the fact that a color blind doesn't separate red and green does not mean that light reflects in the same way across the colored surface in "his world". He's just unaware of the reality of the reflection..
Idealism has it's obvious logical flaws - the fact that a color blind doesn't separate red and green does not mean that light reflects in the same way across the colored surface in "his world". He's just unaware of the reality of the reflection..[/quote]
I catch your drift