The "not so" supernatural

[sbeaulieu]

It's been a while since I've been on here, but I've been trying to catch up on all the basics. In reading the pinned information, a question came to mind...

Those who embrace religion mostly believe in “supernatural” phenomenon – ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. I, to some degree, prescribe to believing in them. Not because they are supernatural or mystical, but possibly natural. There are a few things I’ve seen (thus my only experience) which lead me to believe this. Rejecting that they are real might seem premature, given ways of tracking/observing them by scientific methods. This would indicate something slightly beyond our understanding, and where the scientific jury is still out. Am I reaching?

This is not to say I believe in ghosts as manifestastions of the afterlife. It may be that these energy sources are misconstrued as something they are not, requiring scientific delvings to ascertain what they really are.

Of all the reading I've done here, I have not come across this subject matter. If there's a link within the forum that has already discussed this, I'd be happy to read up on it.

Thanks!

~ Shane

[espritfaux]

To put it simply, just because you can imagine something to exist(or that you can see it as possible) is not a reason to affirm that it does. Even if it were possible for those things to exist, to state that it does is quite a leap, especially without any demonstratable evidence. There are many possibilities out there, and many are more likely than ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. You shouldn't except things by default, possibility is not equal to truth. I hope that helps.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey guys.

I saw this. I will be addressing it later. No time now.

This is important stuff.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

It's been a while since I've been on here, but I've been trying to catch up on all the basics. In reading the pinned information, a question came to mind...

Those who embrace religion mostly believe in “supernatural” phenomenon – ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. I, to some degree, prescribe to believing in them. Not because they are supernatural or mystical, but possibly natural. There are a few things I’ve seen (thus my only experience) which lead me to believe this. Rejecting that they are real might seem premature, given ways of tracking/observing them by scientific methods. This would indicate something slightly beyond our understanding, and where the scientific jury is still out. Am I reaching?

This is not to say I believe in ghosts as manifestastions of the afterlife. It may be that these energy sources are misconstrued as something they are not, requiring scientific delvings to ascertain what they really are.

Of all the reading I've done here, I have not come across this subject matter. If there's a link within the forum that has already discussed this, I'd be happy to read up on it.

Thanks!

~ Shane

There are more things that we can imagine than exist. There are more things that exist than we can imagine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sbeaulieu]

To put it simply, just because you can imagine something to exist(or that you can see it as possible) is not a reason to affirm that it does. Even if it were possible for those things to exist, to state that it does is quite a leap, especially without any demonstratable evidence. There are many possibilities out there, and many are more likely than ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. You shouldn't except things by default, possibility is not equal to truth. I hope that helps.

When I pursue a subject, it's not because of blind faith, I assure you. I have never personally experienced this type of phenomenon. However, that should not discount its validity. That's the reason I posed the question here and not on a paranormal site.

I'm looking at this matter from a fact-based position. With equipment like electromagnetic frequency field testers, thermal imaging cameras (items which capture what human senses cannot by normal means) and video recorders, we are likely to stumble onto more questions of this nature.

As posed earlier, I'm wondering if the topic was covered here?

As for demonstrable evidence, there's really only one thing I've seen, which I will link. In it, there's a brick flying. Some of you might have seen this. Chances are the digital recording could have been doctored. There are two or three scientists/physicists that study the footage to see if it's been tampered with. All agree that it has not been. In the countless years I've watched these shows, this is the one thing I've seen that picqued my curiosity -

. If it has been hoaxed, so be it. I'm more curious than anything. And isn't curiosity what drives us to find the truth of it?

~ Shane

Edited July 3, 2008 by sbeaulieu

[Dragonfly]

How do you know that you see a brick flying? The image is extremely fuzzy, the "brick" could be anything (for example a folded piece of paper) and it would be easy to use a thin thread that would be completely invisible to the low-resolution camera.

[sbeaulieu]

How do you know that you see a brick flying? The image is extremely fuzzy, the "brick" could be anything (for example a folded piece of paper) and it would be easy to use a thin thread that would be completely invisible to the low-resolution camera.

I saw the entire show in which the footage was reviewed by specialists in video and physics. I'm just going by what they stated (they are the experts). The "string" theory was looked at. The determination, scientifically, was that no string was present. The physicist also stated that the path of the brick could not have been possible via string.

Is there a possbility that the brick was paper, sure. But that has neither been proved or disproved. Of note, there's a wooden pole and other objects behind the brick that are moved as well.

~ Shane

[Brant Gaede]

This discussion would be a lot more interesting if it had been a pig.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

I saw the entire show in which the footage was reviewed by specialists in video and physics. I'm just going by what they stated (they are the experts). The "string" theory was looked at. The determination, scientifically, was that no string was present. The physicist also stated that the path of the brick could not have been possible via string.

I wouldn't put too much trust in those "experts". So-called experts have declared that Uri Geller has genuine paranormal powers, that crop circles can't have been made by humans and that people are abducted by ufonauts. David Copperfield can fly much more convincingly than this "brick". It's impossible to conclude from these images that no string has been used. Some threads are so thin that they're practically invisible even in real life, let alone in such a video with extremely low resolution, and there is no way to conclude that this is a real brick. Further you can create practically any path by using one or more strings.

Is there a possbility that the brick was paper, sure. But that has neither been proved or disproved.

Ah, but the point is that you don't have to prove that the brick was a paper model and that a string has been used. The mere fact that it is possible is sufficient. What is more likely: that a brick can start to fly on its own without any physical cause, violating the laws of physics that have been confirmed zillions of times without any exception, or that it is a hoax? If you claim to have found an exception to extremely well established physical laws, you make a very extraordinary claim. This can only be taken seriously if you present very extraordinary evidence, which this vague video certainly isn't, the phenomenon would at least have to be demonstrated under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.

The basic point is that it's up to the person making an extraordinary claim to prove his claim with extraordinary evidence. To reject the claim it isn't even necessary to give a possible alternative explanation: a good magician can show us things that seem to defy the laws of physics and seem impossible to us, but we don't have to show how the trick works to conclude that it's mere trickery.

[Mike11]

It is well known in certain circles that these "bricks" are weapons tests conducted by the Cybermen advance guard.

As for the topic, I agree to a point. There may be aspects of reality scientists are ideologically not comfortable talking about and just because a thing may be a "ghost" it does not need to be "supernatural".

[sbeaulieu]

Dragonfly - I don't necessarily trust them. Where I have no expertise, I would gladly turn to those who do. Paid actors? Perhaps.

Consider this - If it were a real brick, the string's strength would require that it be of a circumference that being nearly invisible would be impossible to achieve. Lighting and resolution were enhanced to look for just such a thing in the footage presented. If the brick wasn't a brick, such a line certainly could be used. The poor lighting and resolution is suspicious though in most of these paranormal settings. Makes me wonder what the difference is in having the lights on or off - likely to put the viewers on edge.

that a brick can start to fly on its own without any physical cause

The whole reason the thread was initiated. If energy is matter (seen or unseen), could it not move objects? Air is invisible, and look what it's capable of.

I agree with you. It's the burden of proof which falls to those making the claim. This particular case is the only one that had me wondering. That's why I brought it up here, to be looked at objectively

[Brant Gaede]

In my whole life I've never been able to look at something "objectively."

In or around the 1920s, someone asked an eminent European scientist, probably a German: "If you saw it with your own eyes, would you believe it then?" "Certainly not!," he replied. "First I would test it with many instruments!"

--Brant

Edited July 3, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Those who embrace religion mostly believe in “supernatural” phenomenon – ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. I, to some degree, prescribe to believing in them. Not because they are supernatural or mystical, but possibly natural. There are a few things I’ve seen (thus my only experience) which lead me to believe this. Rejecting that they are real might seem premature, given ways of tracking/observing them by scientific methods. This would indicate something slightly beyond our understanding, and where the scientific jury is still out. Am I reaching?

~ Shane

The late Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out that we cannot distinguish very advanced technology from magic. If a time traveler boiled water in a microwave oven in front of the locals (say in New England circa 1690) he would be accused of witchcraft. A moving hologram would be consider magical by anyone not familiar (to some degree) with the technology.

Example: The initial response of the Aztec people to Spanish technology - firearms, steel weapons, steel suits of armor, war horses etc. was was total amazement and discombulation. The Spaniards were initially believed to be god like folk predicted by Aztec prophecies. Which is why the Aztecs did not wipe the Spaniards out on the beach when they landed.

Once motion holography is perfected, "ghosts" and "spirits" will be commonplace

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Those who embrace religion mostly believe in "supernatural" phenomenon – ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. I, to some degree, prescribe to believing in them. Not because they are supernatural or mystical, but possibly natural. There are a few things I've seen (thus my only experience) which lead me to believe this. Rejecting that they are real might seem premature, given ways of tracking/observing them by scientific methods. This would indicate something slightly beyond our understanding, and where the scientific jury is still out. Am I reaching?

~ Shane

The late Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out that we cannot distinguish very advanced technology from magic. If a time traveler boiled water in a microwave oven in front of the locals (say in New England circa 1690) he would be accused of witchcraft. A moving hologram would be consider magical by anyone not familiar (to some degree) with the technology.

Example: The initial response of the Aztec people to Spanish technology - firearms, steel weapons, steel suits of armor, war horses etc. was was total amazement and discombulation. The Spaniards were initially believed to be god like folk predicted by Aztec prophecies. Which is why the Aztecs did not wipe the Spaniards out on the beach when they landed.

Once motion holography is perfected, "ghosts" and "spirits" will be commonplace

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nice posr, Bob, but the Aztecs were not present when Cortes hit the beaches. If they had had another emperor--or what ever it was they called him--it is unlikely Cortes and his expedition would have survived. His appeasement led to their destruction.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

Those who embrace religion mostly believe in “supernatural” phenomenon – ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. I, to some degree, prescribe to believing in them. Not because they are supernatural or mystical, but possibly natural. There are a few things I’ve seen (thus my only experience) which lead me to believe this. Rejecting that they are real might seem premature, given ways of tracking/observing them by scientific methods. This would indicate something slightly beyond our understanding, and where the scientific jury is still out. Am I reaching?

~ Shane

The late Arthur C. Clarke once pointed out that we cannot distinguish very advanced technology from magic. If a time traveler boiled water in a microwave oven in front of the locals (say in New England circa 1690) he would be accused of witchcraft. A moving hologram would be consider magical by anyone not familiar (to some degree) with the technology.

Example: The initial response of the Aztec people to Spanish technology - firearms, steel weapons, steel suits of armor, war horses etc. was was total amazement and discombulation. The Spaniards were initially believed to be god like folk predicted by Aztec prophecies. Which is why the Aztecs did not wipe the Spaniards out on the beach when they landed.

Once motion holography is perfected, "ghosts" and "spirits" will be commonplace

Ba'al Chatzaf

I, unlike our early settlers, don't believe in "magic". I totally understand that what people do not grasp based on personal experience, they may assign or categorize as magic (or the unknown). I have a friend who in the early days of our acquaintance announced he was Wiccan. He claimed he could cast a fireball. I laughed inside a little. I simply said "show me." He couldn't. He hasn't made that claim since. I do, however, believe in technology since it's manmade. I know the distinction.

Not really sure what the point of the Aztecs was driving at.

As for motion holography, it still won't eliminate the age-old question of "ghosts" and "spirits".

~ Shane

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

Go away. Get out. Don't come back. Please.

--Brant

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

Go away. Get out. Don't come back. Please.

--Brant

Yeah, that's what she said.

Fuckin' rapsit, nihilist, list-destroying, philosophy destroying, morality destroying mother-fucker. Go away you God-damn bastard!

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Go away. Get out. Don't come back. Please.

--Brant

Yeah, that's what she said.

Fuckin' rapsit, nihilist, list-destroying, philosophy destroying, morality destroying mother-fucker. Go away you God-damn bastard!

--Brant

Brant; Tell us what you really think.

[John Tate]

I can't believe nobody is considering that this video of the flying brick was simply doctored. I bet there weren't any video editing professionals on that "science show." The video is already of terrible quality and it wouldn't be hard to add a square of light that stands out in the video.

Regarding the "paranormal," lots of things are beyond our current level of understanding. There is a reason I don't see physicists trying to unify flying bricks into our existing models and focus on unifying quantum physics instead.

With scientific standards, this flying brick is nonsense until it can be reproduced under lab conditions for peer review. When that happens, let us know.

[Robert_Bumbalough]

The "string" theory was looked at. The determination, scientifically, was that no string was present. The physicist also stated that the path of the brick could not have been possible via string.

~ Shane

I think this may be close to a stolen concept fallacy because by ruling out the string the alleged physicist is endorsing the known impossibility of a brick flying. This then is an explicit denial of one possible thing (string) for the purpose of establishing something impossible (flying brick).

[galtgulch]

To put it simply, just because you can imagine something to exist(or that you can see it as possible) is not a reason to affirm that it does. Even if it were possible for those things to exist, to state that it does is quite a leap, especially without any demonstratable evidence. There are many possibilities out there, and many are more likely than ghosts, apparitions, poltergeists, etc. You shouldn't except things by default, possibility is not equal to truth. I hope that helps.

When I pursue a subject, it's not because of blind faith, I assure you. I have never personally experienced this type of phenomenon. However, that should not discount its validity. That's the reason I posed the question here and not on a paranormal site.

I'm looking at this matter from a fact-based position. With equipment like electromagnetic frequency field testers, thermal imaging cameras (items which capture what human senses cannot by normal means) and video recorders, we are likely to stumble onto more questions of this nature.

As posed earlier, I'm wondering if the topic was covered here?

As for demonstrable evidence, there's really only one thing I've seen, which I will link. In it, there's a brick flying. Some of you might have seen this. Chances are the digital recording could have been doctored. There are two or three scientists/physicists that study the footage to see if it's been tampered with. All agree that it has not been. In the countless years I've watched these shows, this is the one thing I've seen that picqued my curiosity -

. If it has been hoaxed, so be it. I'm more curious than anything. And isn't curiosity what drives us to find the truth of it?

~ Shane

Maybe this will help:

http://www.wimp.com/basejumpers

Edited February 27, 2009 by galtgulch