Intense poltergeist activity caught on video

Quote:This is the Weird forum ........ No one's making you read my threads.

Then don't use a public forum. 

Oh, and ditto re: my responses

Quote:I'm not about to keep evidence for the paranormal to myself. 

I think that confirms my previous post. 


I shall continue to point out the potential for your evidence to be in error. I plan to be relentless, but you don't have to read my posts.

This is just an observatory question, but is the reason why some are so vehement against MR's postings about the paranormal, because it opens the door to believing in things that can't be proven in a traditional scientific way? (religious notions, philosophies, etc)

Quote:Then don't use a public forum.

I'm a member of this forum. I can post whatever I like within the posting guidelines.

(Apr 22, 2019 10:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: This is just an observatory question, but is the reason why some are so vehement against MR's postings about the paranormal, because it opens the door to believing in things that can't be proven in a traditional scientific way? (religious notions, philosophies, etc)

No, because he hasn't proven anything but claims he has or it is assumed the subject's been proven already. Much easier if he would just ask whether the evidence he presents is irrefutable. We merely question the claim. He has been advised many times that photographic images, especially in this very modern technological age, are subject to critical analysis and quite possibly the worst evidence for ghosts one can present. 

Wegs:  What makes you think his antagonists are more vehement than he is towards them?

(Apr 22, 2019 10:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: This is just an observatory question, but is the reason why some are so vehement against MR's postings about the paranormal, because it opens the door to believing in things that can't be proven in a traditional scientific way? (religious notions, philosophies, etc)

They want all evidence for the paranormal censored from this forum because it threatens their worldview that all is rational and scientific in this world. It's the typical ploy of the dogmatic. Like how the religious ban the presentation of heresies to their flock.

(Apr 22, 2019 10:29 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:

(Apr 22, 2019 10:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: This is just an observatory question, but is the reason why some are so vehement against MR's postings about the paranormal, because it opens the door to believing in things that can't be proven in a traditional scientific way? (religious notions, philosophies, etc)

No, because he hasn't proven anything but claims he has or it is assumed the subject's been proven already. Much easier if he would just ask whether the evidence he presents is irrefutable. We merely question the claim. He has been advised many times that photographic images, especially in this very modern technological age, are subject to critical analysis and quite possibly the worst evidence for ghosts one can present. 

Wegs:  What makes you think his antagonists are more vehement than he is towards them?

I think that MR presents what he believes is truth or at least, he believes in the videos as supportive ''evidence,'' and he doesn't resort to name calling and all that. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinions, whether against or supportive of, a particular position, but those ad homs. Those who post them just make me wonder, why are people so angry with MR?  Not you necessarily, but it's a general thing I've noticed with respect to MR's ''ideas,'' since posting on the science forums.

(Apr 22, 2019 04:49 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Ever heard of a pulley? Wait, you might not be up on the technology of Archimedes.

Would these pulleys be invisible too? Oh wait..they can be edited out too I guess. My bad.. lol!

No, they're just positioned out of view of the fixed camera. I've never claimed that anything was "edited out" of these videos. Take that up with Zin.

(Apr 22, 2019 06:12 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Apr 22, 2019 03:05 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: 15 years? How long does it take to find instructions on how to fake a poltergeist video? 15 minutes maybe. I can't believe you once put 15 years of study up against a guy who took photos of streetlights once the fog lifted, or someone like myself who after a few minutes saw an upside down photo of something you and others claimed was a UFO. Studying paranormal failed you in those instances. I think you may believe you've figured out the paranormal, so why still refer to it as such? 

You just don't believe anybody do you? Keeps you from having to actually think. That's the easy way out. But how does it feel to live in a world where everybody is lying all the time?

Believing people without scrutiny or examining things for yourself is the only avoiding thinking going on here. Defaulting to belief is the easy way.
Those who aren't gullible don't mind the silly lies, as they're easy to see through.

---

(Apr 22, 2019 10:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: This is just an observatory question, but is the reason why some are so vehement against MR's postings about the paranormal, because it opens the door to believing in things that can't be proven in a traditional scientific way? (religious notions, philosophies, etc)

Being a theist, my only problem is when people make claims of fact that they cannot support, whether they are posting about ghosts, physics, politics, etc.. If they are intellectually honest enough with themselves to acknowledge it's only belief, I wouldn't care one wit. MR's free to keep posting his unsupported claims, and no doubt he'll continue to whine about how everyone is ignoring the TRUTH he believes in.

Well, to be fair, he does state ''compelling evidence,'' not necessarily that he believes it's irrefutable.

So, you're a theist, Syne? Do you find that atheists expect you to support your position using evidence of some type?

(Apr 22, 2019 11:25 PM)Leigha Wrote: Well, to be fair, he does state ''compelling evidence,'' not necessarily that he believes it's irrefutable.

So, you're a theist, Syne? Do you find that atheists expect you to support your position using evidence of some type?

"Compelling evidence" should be universally so. He claims it is even though it obviously is not.

If I were to claim that god was a "fact", atheists most certainly would require support of that claim. But I am well-aware that there is no compelling evidence for god, by design. And that's why I'm always honest that it is a belief.

In post 17 I asked MR a simple question. I’ll revise it a little so that the answer is either yes or no.

Is it possible the placemats’ movements are due to human invention? Yes or no.