|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted June 10, 2009 08:04 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:07, 10 Jun 2009.
|
My point is the reproducability of something people take for a fact. It could have easily been any other currently reproducable effect and accomplished the same thing. Let us take a totally non-hypothetical situation just so some people do not have a heart attack or something.
Take any almost unique element. Do an experiment with it, without knowing where to find any more of that element, that uses it up. Now repeat that experiment. Would be extreamly difficult at best, correct?
As for supernatural, yes it is a catch phrase, but if you prefer use unusual phenomena or jimbobfurlybob, or whatever. As long as we know what you are talking about, it is all good. Same goes with UFO. We are of course, in this instance, talking about transportation used by beings not native to earth. Call it whatever you like, as long as people understand what you are talking about.
We can argue semantics all day unsuccessfully. If you need a deffinition, please go to a dictionary.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 08:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My point is the reproducability of something people take for a fact. It could have easily been any other currently reproducable effect and accomplished the same thing. Let us take a totally non-hypothetical situation just so some people do not have a heart attack or something.
Take any almost unique element. Do an experiment with it, without knowing where to find any more of that element, that uses it up. Now repeat that experiment. Would be extreamly difficult at best, correct?
As for supernatural, yes it is a catch phrase, but if you prefer use unusual phenomena or jimbobfurlybob, or whatever. As long as we know what you are talking about, it is all good. Same goes with UFO. We are of course, in this instance, talking about transportation used by beings not native to earth. Call it whatever you like, as long as people understand what you are talking about.
We can argue semantics all day unsuccessfully. If you need a deffinition, please go to a dictionary.
Your example is still hypothetical.
Let's take this one: let's say you find an ancient stone tablet somewhere in some ancient long lost town. Inscribtion says: At the conjunction of planets a, b and c with the Sun and the Moon - happened then and there - something very supernatural has happened. Astronomers check and find that indeed such a constellation happend 4775 years ago and will happen again in 3186 years.
Your honor, court in session meets again in 3186 years.
About ASS - you do need something more than an UFO sighting to take them for alien transportation devices, right? After all - they could be Angels off course (or flying too slow).
However, I don't see anything that would point to alien transportation devices. Where are the aliens? Where is the non-terrestric materials? Where is the technology? Contact? Purpose? Signals? Observations in space (think about all the telescopes and sattelites in place)?
In fact the ABSENCE of all of those is a clear indication that there are no ASS. Currently.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 08:41 AM |
|
|
Then by your reasoning no example ever can be given, because it is all hypothetical in a text based discussion. Since we can not see anything actually happening, everything is hypothetical when an example is given. But that is another discussion altogether.
As for the UFO I disagree. When the design is obviously not of human origin, one can extrapolate that if not human and human being currently the only known lifeform able to make artifical material that alien origin is one logical conclusion. However, it is indeed possible that either A) somebody is trying a new design or B) some lifeform on earth besides human can make artifical material and somehow remained hidden on earth so you do maintain a point there.
I still think you are arguing semantics however.
All I can state for a fact is what I myself have observed, participated in, and know first hand by experience. Unfortunately, reproduction of the exact event is impossible, for currently I do not know what exact elements came together to make it possible in the first place. It is like showing an engine to somebody who has never even seen an engine for 60 seconds, taking that engine away, then asking them to build an exact replica. They might by some cosmic accident pull it off, but the probability factor would be greatly weighed against them.
I do not blame anybody who is skeptical, for in their shoes I would be also.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 09:12 AM |
|
|
My example serves to show that something unreproducable is UNDECIDED as long as it cannot be reproduced. There is nothing wrong with undecidedness - we know that principle from quantum mechanics as well, and it makes no sense to speculate on it.
For UFO's, what are you seeing differently? Where am I arguing semantics?
Give me ONE evidence for visits of alien space ships and aliens on earth.
I'll give you an example of what I don't like.
You come home after being on town at night - you are alone, your wife is on business trip elsewhere. You are sure you left the lunch dished unwashed, but to your surprise the kitchen is CLEAN.
That leaves you speechless. What happened?
The first explanation that comes to mind is of course that helper ghosts from outer space must have been at work while you were away. Now, before you check whether other explanations are possible, let's check how likely this explanation is.
The problem is, that while the explanation does explain the finding (however poorly), it fails to explain WHY helper ghosts from outer space would clean up your kitchen in your absence. It furthermore fails to explain why said helper ghosts decided to take action only now and for this occasion - it's a special case, so-to-speak, because there are no cases of helper ghosts from outer space acting in any way, cleaning up kitchens or otherwise.
Getting deeper into this shows one thing: the explanation created to explain a certain finding opens more questions than delivering answers.
That's why I don't like ASS theories: if there are some phenomena to be explained with ASS, the aliens must fulfill certain (improbable) conditions so that the evidence would present itself this way and not any other way.
For example, why would the aliens not make contact? Of course you may concoct answers, but how likely are those?
|
|
Drake355
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 09:25 AM |
|
|
I was talkin about living thing =( xP
Well the idea of objects are zombies sounds interesting! I'm going to check. When I was a child I thought zombies were under my bed but now I see who's the zombie! THANKS FOR ENLIGHTMENT!
____________
People tend to associate anyone who looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity. --Marilyn Manson
Music is the strongest form of magic. --Marilyn Manson
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:00 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:13, 10 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
"Supernatural" is a pretty silly word, actually. Every phenomenon is basically natural. Some can be explained, some not.
Semantics.
Quote:
So, what exactly is a "ghost" supposed to be? Something like a mirage, but not of space but of time? An "entity" made of "ektoplasm"? An immaterial, extra-dimensional "spirit" or "soul" that kindred (biologically living) spirits or souls can "feel" with their own extra-dimensionality while the brain concocts a fitting "image"?
Semantics.
As for your last post, I do agree. Unexplained circumstances should not be explained by ghosts or aliens right off the bat. However, when somebody witnesses something happening, like seeing a ghost or a possible (not the word 'possible' please) Alien craft I do not think it should automatically be explained as a hoax or delusion either.
As for semantics I could ask you to define 'is'. Or Extra-dimensionality. If you do not like a word, fine, use another. Arguing over which definition of a word to use is a pointless exorcise.
Edit : Now it would be different if the word was totally new to you, and you could not possibly understand the word. You are free to use whichever definition you choose.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:25 AM |
|
|
It seems you missed the point of the "semantics".
The point is that there doubtlessly ARE "things" that might be called "supernatural" (simply because they are CURRENTLY unexplainable like lightning a couple thousand years before) - but their EXPLANATIONS have as much merit as had the lightning explanations as wrath of the gods a couple thousand years before.
That's why I gave the different descriptions of the phenomenon "ghost": assume there is SOMETHING - a certain phenomenon -, but what it is exactly is unclear: in 1000 years it might just a completely natural phenomenon that is fully explained, and this speculation is at least as reasonable as some obscure theory about the souls of the deceased, ectoplasm or mirages of past or future times.
For UFOs as ASSes you still give no evidence. I quote you here:
Quote:
However, when somebody witnesses something happening, like seeing a ghost or a possible (not the word 'possible' please) Alien craft I do not think it should automatically be explained as a hoax or delusion either.
I disagree. When somebody witnesses SOMETHING, said somebody SHOULD NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS! Like seeing a ghost or a however possible alien craft. As I said, it could as well be an angel, god on holiday or a sensorical error - why call it one and not the other?
So what evidence makes you think there ARE ASSes?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:39 AM |
|
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 10:40 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:45, 10 Jun 2009.
|
Well lets go with 'ghost' first. Simply put because not only have I seen one, but had one walk through me. True it might have been an 'angel' or something, but again that is just semantics. Ghost is a catch all phrase for any non-physical entity that it is not possible to know WHAT it might be. Just as UFO is for any craft that it is not possible to know what it is ((Even human built airplanes can fall into this category in a lot of cases.))
As for Alien Space Craft (ASC) nowhere in this thread have I ever said I know for a fact that they exsist. While I have seen a craft with a circle of lights at the bottom, I was not close enough to varify that it was not a human made craft. When I say circle, I mean eight lights shaped in a pattern somewhat like stonehenge would look from above. While it was some distance away, the patern was clear and the craft was not far from the ground. (it was a good length away, but not a great height away).
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:00 AM |
|
|
Don't you see that
"Ghost" and
"Alien Space Ship"
as a description of something actually witnessed just don't explain anything - or as much as calling them "angels"?
WHAT are they? Why are they there? What motivates or drives them? Why aren't they appearing on TV? Are they trying to make contact? If so, why doesn't it work? If not, why not?
And so endlessly on.
IT DOESN'T HELP IN ANY WAY - or it helps as much as explaining a lightning as the wrath of the gods.
There is no difference in saying "a ghost went through me" or "an Alien Space Ship was hovering over me" than saying "God sent me an angel".
Instead of working with undefined names like "ghosts" it would be better to describe more accurately what exactly has been seen: a face? Two-dimensional, three-dimensional? A shape? Size? Sound? You get the drift.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:23 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:35, 10 Jun 2009.
|
No, I do not think all aliens have large heads snd small bodies and that they have been on Earth (yet).
No, I dont believe in ghosts.
I believe everythingh as a natural explaination and humans are just created to be "suporstious".
Edit : Mod edit - Please read the first post. This is not a debate about religions validity.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:24 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:26, 10 Jun 2009.
|
That is all well and good, but how many varieties could exsist? If I said "A winged humanoid with flowing white hair" some might imagine an angel when it could be a alien?
I have no problem describing exactly what I witnessed, but as for the WHOLE thread a single description would be too limiting. So seeking a 'definition' your first post is counterproductive. Instead, each individual can then post what they have witnessed if anything. General terms are acceptable when talking about broad subjects, with descriptions coming from the individuals along with what they believe it to be. Ie angel, ghost, alien, etc.
In my specific case here is exactly the description of what walked completely through me as if I was non-coporal (spelling?). A very solid looking entity that was approxamitely my height (at the time I was 5'3"). The entity had the appearance of a young female human, who happened to be soaking wet (or appeared to be wet). Dark straight hair, wearing a red sweater and blue skirt. The entity appeared to be solid, and was at first indistinguishable from any other human female. It was not until said entity passed completely through my body that I was aware it might have been unusual in any way.
In essence I am asking if somebody is not 100% possitive WHAT they encountered, then how in all of sanity are they supposed to 'classify' it?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is all well and good, but how many varieties could exsist? If I said "A winged humanoid with flowing white hair" some might imagine an angel when it could be a alien?
.
.
.
In essence I am asking if somebody is not 100% possitive WHAT they encountered, then how in all of sanity are they supposed to 'classify' it?
That's exactly the point - they shouldn't classify at all. If you encounter something and don't know what it was - you don't know what it was. The one thing you can do is describing everything you witnessed in detail without using words like "ghost", "angel", "god", "alien space craft" and so on.
Some things of what you describes make me wonder.
First question: WHERE did this happen.
Second: Did you address the entity?
Third: You seem to have been standing and waiting - for what?
I mean, if I see a soaking wet girl marching in my direction without seemingly noticing me I'd react on it. I would talk to her, "hey, what's going on?", or something, and when there was no reaction I wouldn't wait until that girl would bump into me, so I would make way.
I think that most people would react that way - why didn't you?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 11:44 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:49, 10 Jun 2009.
|
The entire thing happened when I was at a late night church gathering, an event they held to be a 'counter' for trick or treat (which at the time they were opposed to). Instead of 'trick or treating' the children got free food/games and there was a prayer meeting. Anyhow, back to the actual events as they transpired.
The prayer meeting part was about to start and they called people in. As normal I was one of the last to go inside. I noticed a individual standing on the bridge near the church. Now the bridge was over a very shallow creek, and not very far off the ground (this has bearing). So I decided to go alert this person that it was time to go inside, because I assumed they had not heard.
As I neared the individual went over the side of the bridge (keep in mind that falling off this bridge would no more then skin somebody's knee). I rushed to the edge (they were out of my sight), but there was nobody in the creek.
As I turned around to look to see where this person was, the girl I described earlier was standing right behind me. I was a bit in shock at the moment. (I had just seen her go over the side remember). Before I could recover she stepped forward THROUGH me. I jerked around (startled) and witnessed her again go over the side. At which time I fled like a scared little school girl into the safety of the church.
Edit : I guess I should mention that I felt her pass through me, and although neither me or my clothes had water on them afterwards I felt as if I was soaked. The feeling lasted several hours.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:02 PM |
|
|
Pretty interesting, actually.
Would you describe it so that the "person" did exactly the same thing twice? I mean, you see the girl, and she goes over the edge. You run to the approximate point you have seen her on the bridge. You look into the water - no one there. Startled you look around - and there she is again, right behind you, soaking wet and marches into the water again.
So did you see a "rerun" of what you first saw, only this time with you in her way?
How old would the girl have been, what do you guess, what's your impression?
Did you notice whether she had something in her hands or not?
Could you see the facial expression of the girl? Was there a feeling? Sadness? Earnesty? Whatever?
Did you hear or smell something (anything else than the gurgling of the flowing water)? Anything that struck you as being out of place?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:05 PM |
|
|
Lol I just thought of something. Imagine the following two discussion.
"Larry, Larry. You won't guess what I just saw!"
"What, what was it?"
"It was a .. something."
"What do you mean a something?"
"Well I wouldn't want to classify it, because I am not sure what it is.."
"Well describe it!"
"It was a see through person."
"A person?"
"Well I don't know if you'd call it a person. It was see through."
"So a ghost?"
"Maybe not.."
OR.
"Larry, Larry. You won't guess what I just saw!"
"What, what was it?"
"It was a ghost!"
"A ghost?! Wow!"
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:10 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:14, 10 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Pretty interesting, actually.
Would you describe it so that the "person" did exactly the same thing twice? I mean, you see the girl, and she goes over the edge. Quote:
You run to the approximate point you have seen her on the bridge. You look into the water - no one there. Startled you look around - and there she is again, right behind you, soaking wet and marches into the water again.
So did you see a "rerun" of what you first saw, only this time with you in her way?
At first I thought so, but I am positive she was not wet the first time I saw her.
Quote:
How old would the girl have been, what do you guess, what's your impression?
Older then me, I would have placed her about 15 years old.
Quote:
Did you notice whether she had something in her hands or not?
I did not notice.
Quote:
Could you see the facial expression of the girl? Was there a feeling? Sadness? Earnesty? Whatever?
Actually a pretty neutral expression.
Quote:
Did you hear or smell something (anything else than the gurgling of the flowing water)? Anything that struck you as being out of place?
No, not really. There was a hint of the smell of water, but I was near a creek.
Note : There has never been (to my knowledge) any deaths attributed to that creek and or bridge.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:34 PM |
|
|
On Ghosts & Psychics
There has been for centuries an ongoing battle within biology. On one side, there the Vitalists, who believe that there is a "spark of life," which exists independently of the body and plays an important role in bio-mechanics; on the other side, there's the Mechanists, who believe that life is just a sack of chemistry, an organic robot, so to speak.
Currently, Mechanists are winning in the popularity polls due to the Theory of Evolution, which appears, at first glance, to explain all the forms and properties of life. However, under intense scrutiny, Evolution falls apart like a sand castle. Mechanism's advantage is false; eventually it will be exposed and balance will be restored between the two schools.
In addition to the few die hard vitalist scientists, there are of course the vast majority of humans, who are religious and believe in some kind of soul. Unlike Vitalists, these people claim to already understand the nature of "life force". They claim that, for example, intelligence, personality, and memory are stored in the soul and not in the brain, as Mechanists believe.
I am a Vitalist. I am not religious. I believe that life force exists, but I also believe that it too follows scientific laws and we will someday understand it. However, life force does not appear to follow the same laws as electrons, and so it is possible to predict the future and be visible without mass (ghosts), and other "violations" of our current physical model.
On Aliens
There is far too much information available on UFO sightings and alien abductions for it to all be false data. There is a decent probability that it is a government conspiracy, and a decent probability that it is real. However, there is also a decent probability that the truth is something completely unlike either of those. For example, aliens could be a manifestation of raw life force, as discussed in the above lecture, misinterpreted by the human brain.
The best collection of knowledge which I have read on the subject is the book "the Threat" by David M. Jacobs. He uses primarily Hypnosis memory retrieval to distinguish real alien abduction stories from false ones. He is an excellent researcher but not very imaginative. If you read his book I recommend you ignore his conclusions in the final chapter, they are utterly worthless.
The most sane conclusion to draw from this wealth of data is that Aliens are not actually alien, in the sense that they share a common ancestor with us. This is made obvious by the fact that they look a lot like us. They are currently involved in a hybridization program, trying to create a perfect blend of their own genes and human genes. Jacobs believes that this is a terrifying thing, but it is actually quite reassuring to me. It means that the future of humanity will be very bright, as the humans of the future are going to be a more perfect race of beings, with superior intelligence and morality.
However, my beliefs Vitalism, Aliens, and Panspermia (by Sir Frederick Hoyle) are all competing for space in my mind. Is is probable that at least one of them is completely wrong, and I'm leaning towards disregarding my Alien theory, as it is the least believable of the three.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:40 PM |
|
|
The neutral expression seems weird while doing something that might be rather strange: going dry over the bridge into the water and just do it again.
Anyway. There are lots of possible explanations for something like that, but that would be speculations at best.
The real question to ask is - what RELEVANCE or MEANING or PURPOSE did it have?
I mean, while strange at first look - does it make any sense? Can it be something like a mirage of another time (contemporary clothing?)? However, that wouldn't fit in with the neutral expression except for some case of madness and mindless repetition of something.
If the act of going into the water had some dark meaning as in attempted suicide or abortion and so on, there shouldn't be a neutral expression involved...
Did you ever make anything of it? I mean in terms of MEANING or putting things into perspective?
Did the face seem familiar?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2009 12:46 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:47, 10 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Did you ever make anything of it? I mean in terms of MEANING or putting things into perspective?
Did the face seem familiar?
No. I tried to, but it just seemed to be so .. random. I even went back several times on the same date to see if it would happen again, but it never did. As for the expression, I agree, that is why I remember it so clearly to this day. Even though I only caught a glimpse before the entity passed through me. She might as well have been going for groceries or knitting. As for the clothes, they were not old (Like victorian era or anything). The fashion fit in for the time for teens.
Edit : No the face was not familiar to me.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
