What is the best evidence for Poltergeists? - Page 18

Daylightstar · 29th October 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

There's about a second in there of some light fixtures swaying. Whether that's supposed to be a recording of an event or a reproduction I don't know; my German is far too rusty.

There is some at the beginning, fixtures with broken light bulbs, swaying a bit, as if the poltergeists had just broken them.

The slight swaying is somewhat suggestive but no comment is made about that in this YouTube video.
Immediately after the swaying broken light fixtures the narrator says:

Quote:

What we didn't find is an answer to the question regarding the causes.

There's no footage what-so-ever of actual poltergeist activity in this YouTube video.

E.T.A.
For clarity, it concerns the video posted as such:

Originally Posted by cj.23

Yep. The issue is not that footage can not be got - but it is rarely convincing. Here is Rosenheim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LjrnsH144

Vortigern99 · 29th October 2012, 08:45 AM

I recently watched a 4-part youtube video on the 1977 Enfield, UK "case" called "Interview with a Poltergeist". In the comments section of each video, unsubstantiated accounts by the participants were held as factual evidence, photographs of a little girl jumping off her bed were accepted uncritically as proof of supernatural levitation, and audio recordings/film of the girl ventriloquizing a spooky demon voice taken as real.

These appear to be the standards of evidence required by those who already believe. Eyewitness accounts and, at best, ambiguous recordings "prove" to the credulous that invincible spirit forces are at work in the world. Welcome to the Upper Paleolithic.

Vortigern99 · 29th October 2012, 08:55 AM

Funny thing is, in a roundabout way I was almost invited here because I had an interesting story ....

1. That's not "funny" even in the sense of being ironic.

2. How can someone be "almost invited"? One is either invited or one is not. There is no gradation scale of invitation.

3. If one has an "interesting story" one tells it, and lets the audience decide whether it's interesting. One does not declare one's own story interesting, decline to tell it, and then vanish in a huff.

Mojo · 29th October 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

If one has an "interesting story" one tells it, and lets the audience decide whether it's interesting. One does not declare one's own story interesting, decline to tell it, and then vanish in a huff.

"I've got evidence but I'm not showing it to you" is not an unusual approach. See, for example, the threads in which people have claimed to know a totally authentic psychic, but then refused to name them.

Lusikka · 9th November 2012, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Lusikka, lots of people with varying levels of interest and time read these threads. Not everyone has the background to knowlegeably sift through the information out there. Why not post up what you think is the most convincing evidence for poltergeists?
I'd be interesting in seeing your short list of observed phenomena.

I am sorry for this delay, but cj.23 already gave some statistical information. I think the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists are the most convincing evidence I know.

Now I can give some details, examples of the occurrences in the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists. It was interesting to re-read my sources. There was much more stuff in these cases, the following phenomena are examples only. In English and German Wikipedia the information is very scarce.

In Rosenheim 1967/68, office of the lawyer Sigmund Adam:
- speaking clock was called more than six times per minute
- fluorescent tubes were turned 90 degrees in their sockets
- breakers went off without perceptible cause
- light bulbs were shattered, even with the filament remaining intact
- desk drawers were opened without being touched
- a 175 kg (358 lb) filing cabinet moved twice about one foot from the wall
- pictures hanging on the walls fell down

In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts:
- boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves
- the glass objects most often crashed to pieces
- a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet
- small scale experimentation was done (target objects)
- at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected
- only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage

Yesterday I got the following articles about Rosenheim:
Resch, A. (1968) Der fall Rosenheim: Teil I-III. Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 17,
241-249, 289-310, 339-346.
Resch, A.(1969) Der fall Rosenheim: Teil IV-V.Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 18,
1-15, 49-60.

It will take a few days to read them, perhaps I will have more details to inform after that.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 9th November 2012, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts:
- boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves
- the glass objects most often crashed to pieces
- a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet
- small scale experimentation was done (target objects)
- at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected
- only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage

I'd need a lot more information than there is here in order to make any kind of real assessment, but none of this strikes me as unusal at all. Warehouse most likely means industrial estate. Industrial estate means lorries. Lorries mean vibrations. Vibrations can move things off shelves. Glass will often smash when dropped on the floor. Fragments of things which have smashed can move large distances.

Resume · 9th November 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts:
- boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves
- the glass objects most often crashed to pieces
- a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet
- small scale experimentation was done (target objects)
- at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected
- only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage

I've worked in a distribution center for more than 25 years and I've seen any number of things fall and break seemingly inexplicably, live, after the fact, and on security cameras.

It's amazing how mundane the effect of gravity or momentum is when closely examined.

blabla · 9th November 2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

I think the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists are the most convincing evidence I know.

Quote:

Rosenheim 1967/68

Quote:

Miami 1966/67,

1967 and 1968, really?
That is the best you got?
These poltergeists are not very active are they?

Resume · 9th November 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by blabla

1967 and 1968, really?
That is the best you got?
These poltergeists are not very active are they?

They were children of the 60s these geists . . . and now they're crotchety but silent.

Amazing how full-bodied apparitions have disappeared as well.

Lusikka · 9th November 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by blabla

1967 and 1968, really?
That is the best you got?
These poltergeists are not very active are they?

Yes, you are rihgt, unfortunately.

Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled.

GeeMack · 9th November 2012, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled.

And for those of us who have been asking for objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist, our expectations have been fulfilled as well.

Resume · 9th November 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Yes, you are rihgt, unfortunately.

Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled.

Well, if your expectations were that objectively uncorroborated anecdotes weren't uncritically accepted, or that naturalistic explanations could be offered (if further data is available) I understand your fulfillment.

Me too.

Lusikka · 9th November 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

And for those of us who have been asking for objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist, our expectations have been fulfilled as well.

Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.

Sledge · 9th November 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.

And all you have to do to prove the mean skeptics wrong is produce some unambiguous, objective evidence. Got any?

GeeMack · 9th November 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.

No. Your special pleading stinks just as badly as it did when cj.23 's tried it. Here's what I know with some certainty: Nobody has ever provided any objective evidence for the existence of poltergeists, therefore it's reasonable to reject the claim that they do exist.

Pixel42 · 9th November 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.

Lots of people thought that (to give just one example) rocks falling from the sky were implausible, impossible and ridiculous, but that didn't stop objective evidence being gathered for meteorites.

The only thing that makes it impossible to get objective evidence for a phenomenon that supposedly has a physical effect is that phenomenon's non-existence.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 9th November 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.

If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them.

You say that the responses are what you thought they would be, implying that you're dissatisfied with those responses. I can't speak for anybody else, but if you could tell me what is unsatisfying about the response I gave, I'd appreciate it. It still seems like a plausible explanation to me. What information do you have about this specific case that makes you think that it's not?

Lusikka · 9th November 2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them.

You say that the responses are what you thought they would be, implying that you're dissatisfied with those responses. I can't speak for anybody else, but if you could tell me what is unsatisfying about the response I gave, I'd appreciate it. It still seems like a plausible explanation to me. What information do you have about this specific case that makes you think that it's not?

What an interesting and funny avatar you have, congratulations.

There is a problem here: skeptics inevitably say all evidence is worth nothing notwithstanding how well the evidence is founded and how much there is evidence.

Your question is quite reasonable and I try to give a reasonable answer. Your post was:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I'd need a lot more information than there is here in order to make any kind of real assessment, but none of this strikes me as unusual at all. Warehouse most likely means industrial estate. Industrial estate means lorries. Lorries mean vibrations. Vibrations can move things off shelves. Glass will often smash when dropped on the floor. Fragments of things which have smashed can move large distances.

I agree, you would need a lot more information to make a real assessment. There is a lot of information in the book "Poltergeists" by William Roll. The problem is that you are not really curious and interested to get that information. You don't read the book, because you want to use your limited spare time reading and writing on this forum and reading skeptical literature. You think it is much more useful and fun than read woo literature.

Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success. The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight.

blabla · 9th November 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success. The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight.

I am lost. Help me out please.
In what way does this cool story imply poltergeist activity?

Sledge · 9th November 2012, 01:58 PM

Lusikka, let me make this clear for you: there's no such thing as poltergeists. If you think I'm wrong, provide the evidence. Don't complain that the skeptics won't go and make your case for you.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 9th November 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

What an interesting and funny avatar you have, congratulations.

Thank you. I made it using the record ability of an emulator. It's the old BBC Micro game Imogen.

Quote:

I agree, you would need a lot more information to make a real assessment. There is a lot of information in the book "Poltergeists" by William Roll. The problem is that you are not really curious and interested to get that information. You don't read the book, because you want to use your limited spare time reading and writing on this forum and reading skeptical literature. You think it is much more useful and fun than read woo literature.

Please don't tell me what I think. It's rude. And, besides, can you not see an irony in berating someone for being closed-minded while telling them what they think, feel, and find useful and fun? You've certainly made your mind up about me, based on 2 posts.

Quote:

Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success.

Pushing and striking shelves will create a different effect than causing them to vibrate will.

Quote:

The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan.

I don't know what information you're trying to convey in either of these sentences.

Quote:

The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight.

Sometimes when you drop it, glass doesn't break. I still see nothing mysterious.

Lusikka · 9th November 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Please don't tell me what I think. It's rude. And, besides, can you not see an irony in berating someone for being closed-minded while telling them what they think, feel, and find useful and fun?

You are right. Except that I nowhere said you are close-minded and I really don't think so. In my opinion it is not close-mindedness to have your stance against parapsychology.

In any case I am quite sure you have not read the book written by Roll. Perhaps you let me know why you have not read it?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You've certainly made your mind up about me, based on 2 posts.

Not at all. It is not my habit to do so. It saves me from many troubles.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Pushing and striking shelves will create a different effect than causing them to vibrate will.

Yes, but by pushing and striking strongly you can get even stronger results. Making the shelves even vibrate in resonance.

Originally Posted by Lusikka

The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I don't know what information you're trying to convey in either of these sentences.

You must try more, with your thinking ability turned on. I don't think my English was too bad there.

Resume · 9th November 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them.

I think this needs to be reiterated; to those claiming poltergeists manifest themselves physically, there's no getting around this issue.

You must provide objective evidence or your claim will be rejected. Not anecdotes, not logical (allegedly) supporting arguments, but evidence of said physical manifestation.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 9th November 2012, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

You are right. Except that I nowhere said you are close-minded and I really don't think so. In my opinion it is not close-mindedness to have your stance against parapsychology.

Substitute "closed-minded" for whatever you like, and my point still stands.

Quote:

In any case I am quite sure you have not read the book written by Roll. Perhaps you let me know why you have not read it?

I had not heard of it, Roll, or the "warehouse of the Tropication Arts" until 2 1/2, 2 1/2 and 11 1/2 hours ago, respectively.

I do, however, had the book on order from Amazon for 2 1/2 hours now. I should have read the entry on this case within the week, assuming delivery is timely.

Quote:

Not at all. It is not my habit to do so. It saves me from many troubles.

Whether you think it's your habit or not, telling me what I'm interested in, and how I will behave based on 2 posts is exactly what you did. You dismissed my contributions to this thread based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and instead decided to tell me what kind of a person you believed me to be, simply because of the fact that I offered some basic, preliminary explanations for the evidence you had supplied.

Not a great way to debate, is it?

Quote:

Yes, but by pushing and striking strongly you can get even stronger results.

But not the same results.

Quote:

You must try more, with your thinking ability turned on. I don't think my English was too bad there.

Your English was fine. The content, however, is questionable.

"The fragments were also studied carefully, because the 'throwing' direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot." So? What were the results of this study? How were they studied? What relevance has direction to the supernatural? That sentence contains no actual information. It doesn't address any of the points I've made, and nor does it add to my understanding of the case. I'm sure you wanted it to either address something I'd said or add to my understanding of the case - but how? What information were you trying to convey to me?

"Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan." Who is Julio? Innocent of what? How did a fan establish his innocence? Why do I care?

Again - what's the information you're trying to impart?

Soapy Sam · 10th November 2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Andyman409

Why cant a Poltergeist researcher be a skeptic?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Because they'll quickly come to the conclusion that it's a load of rubbish and find something better to do. Thus, the people who are most likely to be conducting such research are the people least able to do so.

Here I would add a qualifier. There are two very distinct reasons sceptics may be interested in paranormal research. I think this is what Baron hinted at early in the thread.

1. The phenomena themselves. Here I concur with PixyMisa. The phenomena are anecdotal and often the result of wildly unreliable observation. When studied objectively, they tend to rapidly fade away against background noise.
2. The psychology of the people who accept the reality of the phenomena and the psychology of those who do not. Why are sceptics and believers so different? (We, as sceptics may think of our view as "correct", but there are meta-questions to whether factual correctness is necessarily "best" in every case.)
This is a fascinating subject, with potential applications in all manner of areas. (I hate to say it, but marketing is an obvious one. If some people are inherently gullible, you can sell them different things, by different methods, from the things you can sell sceptics).

As for the question of the OP itself, my response is the hardline sceptic one. The phenomena do not exist and therefore are inexplicable. Most inexplicable things are imaginary. But imagination is a product of brains- and those are fascinating.

pakeha · 10th November 2012, 01:42 AM

^
Thanks for expressing so well what I think.

I've been catching up on the thread and see that little has changed.

No evidence has been shown as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong.
The reliance of poltergeist investigation on anecdotes and beliefs doesn't seem to have changed, either.

I'd expand the poltergeist subset to include stigmata and weeping statues and other religious phenomena involving physical manifestations of otherworldly sources.
I think it would help see the mindset of the believers in the paranormal.

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Substitute "closed-minded" for whatever you like, and my point still stands.

All words have their specific meaning, let us take it into account. In my opinion "closed-minded" means a person who does not change his/her wrong opinion although he/she gets new objective information compelling to that change.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I had not heard of it, Roll, or the "warehouse of the Tropication Arts" until 2 1/2, 2 1/2 and 11 1/2 hours ago, respectively.

I do, however, had the book on order from Amazon for 2 1/2 hours now. I should have read the entry on this case within the week, assuming delivery is timely.

Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio".

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Whether you think it's your habit or not, telling me what I'm interested in, and how I will behave based on 2 posts is exactly what you did. You dismissed my contributions to this thread based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and instead decided to tell me what kind of a person you believed me to be, simply because of the fact that I offered some basic, preliminary explanations for the evidence you had supplied.

I have some objective, true information about you: you have sent here 2 400 posts, you are versed in skeptical thinking and you don't know much about parapsychology. I have discussed innumerable times with skeptics and they have told me why they are not interested about parapsychology. It is rather safe to guess that you cannot be very far from the mainstream of skepticism.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"The fragments were also studied carefully, because the 'throwing' direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot." So? What were the results of this study? How were they studied? What relevance has direction to the supernatural? That sentence contains no actual information. It doesn't address any of the points I've made, and nor does it add to my understanding of the case. I'm sure you wanted it to either address something I'd said or add to my understanding of the case - but how? What information were you trying to convey to me?

"Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan." Who is Julio? Innocent of what? How did a fan establish his innocence? Why do I care?

Again - what's the information you're trying to impart?

Well, let us take it more clearly:

1. If you have not seen a snowball or a lump of snow or something alike be thrown to the ground in an oblique angle so you can experiment with it. The snowball disintegrates and the fan-shaped trace shows you clearly the throwing direction. I wrote "throwing" because throwing was never observed in those 216 incidents.

2. Julio was suspected for throwing the objects and he was under strict surveillance. In that case the fan of the fragments was against him. So it is impossible that he would have thrown the object.

zooterkin · 10th November 2012, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio".

Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results.

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results.

Right, skeptics are born to win!

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results.

In science it is always operated with facts, not with opinions of the big masses of general population.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 10th November 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

All words have their specific meaning, let us take it into account. In my opinion "closed-minded" means a person who does not change his/her wrong opinion although he/she gets new objective information compelling to that change.

Which, judging by your posts, accurately describes your attitude towards me.

Quote:

Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio".

You have the burden of proof. You are supposed to be offering up what you consider to be the best evidence for poltergeists. If your argument relies on specific information, then it is up to you to provide it.

Quote:

I have some objective, true information about you: you have sent here 2 400 posts, you are versed in skeptical thinking and you don't know much about parapsychology.

That's information that's both objective and true, is it? Reads to me more like a couple of assumptions you've made.

Quote:

I have discussed innumerable times with skeptics and they have told me why they are not interested about parapsychology.

So you're judging me by the behavior of others, merely because I post on this forum?

Quote:

It is rather safe to guess that you cannot be very far from the mainstream of skepticism.

Except that you're actually wrong. And, even though you now know that this is incorrect, you're still maintaining that it's true. Sorry, but the term "closed-minded" fits perfectly, as far as I can see.

Quote:

Well, let us take it more clearly:

1. If you have not seen a snowball or a lump of snow or something alike be thrown to the ground in an oblique angle so you can experiment with it. The snowball disintegrates and the fan-shaped trace shows you clearly the throwing direction. I wrote "throwing" because throwing was never observed in those 216 incidents.

Yes, you've said all of this. This still doesn't impart any actual information to me. Which of my statements is this relevant to, and how does it relate to it?

Quote:

2. Julio was suspected for throwing the objects and he was under strict surveillance. In that case the fan of the fragments was against him. So it is impossible that he would have thrown the object.

Okay, that actually contains some information, although not much. But you haven't answered the most important question - so what?

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You have the burden of proof. You are supposed to be offering up what you consider to be the best evidence for poltergeists. If your argument relies on specific information, then it is up to you to provide it.

Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me. I only give some information in case it would interest somebody. And it is always fun to discuss with people.

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Except that you're actually wrong. And, even though you now know that this is incorrect, you're still maintaining that it's true. Sorry, but the term "closed-minded" fits perfectly, as far as I can see.

Yes, possibly I have been wrong. It would be interesting to see your answers to the following questions:
- why have you been rather active here on this forum
- how do you differ from the mainstream of skepticism
- how much do you know about parapsychology

Squeegee Beckenheim · 10th November 2012, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me.

Absolutely. And you don't have to provide the evidence for why you think a case is convincing when asked to provide the most convincing evidence you think there is for poltergeists. But if you don't provide the evidence that you think is convincing, then you can't then blame others for failing to be convinced by it.

It's entirely up to you how strongly you want to make your case. If people aren't convinced by what you've said because you've chosen to leave out vital information, then that lack of conviction is down to you.

GeeMack · 10th November 2012, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Right, skeptics are born to win!

Science was developed as the best way we know so far for obtaining an objective explanation about the universe we live in. People who believe poltergeists exist have reached their conclusion by relying on faith rather than science. No objective evidence has been provided to support the claim that poltergeists exist.

Skeptics weren't born to win. But if by "win" you mean hold the position that is objectively correct according to everything we know so far, skeptics are indeed winning. If you'd like to change that situation, all you have to do is bring some objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist.

GeeMack · 10th November 2012, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

In science it is always operated with facts, not with opinions of the big masses of general population.

Claims that poltergeists exist, on the other hand, are apparently supported by numbers of Google hits...

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio".

Sledge · 10th November 2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me.

Yes we can. You want us to believe poltergeists exist. Fine. We've told you what it will take. Put up or shut up.

Daylightstar · 10th November 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me. I only give some information in case it would interest somebody. And it is always fun to discuss with people.

Next time you go on a job interview, tell the interviewer that he/she cannot oblige you to convince him/her that they should hire you.

Lusikka · 10th November 2012, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Yes we can. You want us to believe poltergeists exist. Fine. We've told you what it will take. Put up or shut up.

You have misunderstood what I want. I am not so foolish after many, many years that I would want you to believe anything. To take such a task is hopeless. Believe or not believe – your choice. But it is fun to discuss and it is sort of a lesson to meet you all here.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 10th November 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Lusikka

But it is fun to discuss and it is sort of a lesson to meet you all here.

If you believe it is fun to discuss it, then why have you not answered the questions I've put to you about the case? Your last 3 posts have had nothing to do with the case you've wanted to discuss.

29th October 2012, 02:46 AM	#681
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by PixyMisa There's about a second in there of some light fixtures swaying. Whether that's supposed to be a recording of an event or a reproduction I don't know; my German is far too rusty. There is some at the beginning, fixtures with broken light bulbs, swaying a bit, as if the poltergeists had just broken them. The slight swaying is somewhat suggestive but no comment is made about that in this YouTube video. Immediately after the swaying broken light fixtures the narrator says: Quote: What we didn't find is an answer to the question regarding the causes. There's no footage what-so-ever of actual poltergeist activity in this YouTube video. E.T.A. For clarity, it concerns the video posted as such: Originally Posted by cj.23 Yep. The issue is not that footage can not be got - but it is rarely convincing. Here is Rosenheim http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LjrnsH144
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium Last edited by Daylightstar; 29th October 2012 at 03:17 AM. Reason: E.T.A. added.

29th October 2012, 08:45 AM	#682
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,020	I recently watched a 4-part youtube video on the 1977 Enfield, UK "case" called "Interview with a Poltergeist". In the comments section of each video, unsubstantiated accounts by the participants were held as factual evidence, photographs of a little girl jumping off her bed were accepted uncritically as proof of supernatural levitation, and audio recordings/film of the girl ventriloquizing a spooky demon voice taken as real. These appear to be the standards of evidence required by those who already believe. Eyewitness accounts and, at best, ambiguous recordings "prove" to the credulous that invincible spirit forces are at work in the world. Welcome to the Upper Paleolithic.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

29th October 2012, 08:55 AM	#683
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,020	Funny thing is, in a roundabout way I was almost invited here because I had an interesting story .... 1. That's not "funny" even in the sense of being ironic. 2. How can someone be "almost invited"? One is either invited or one is not. There is no gradation scale of invitation. 3. If one has an "interesting story" one tells it, and lets the audience decide whether it's interesting. One does not declare one's own story interesting, decline to tell it, and then vanish in a huff.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

29th October 2012, 09:52 AM	#684
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,090	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 If one has an "interesting story" one tells it, and lets the audience decide whether it's interesting. One does not declare one's own story interesting, decline to tell it, and then vanish in a huff. "I've got evidence but I'm not showing it to you" is not an unusual approach. See, for example, the threads in which people have claimed to know a totally authentic psychic, but then refused to name them.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

9th November 2012, 04:13 AM	#685
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by pakeha Lusikka, lots of people with varying levels of interest and time read these threads. Not everyone has the background to knowlegeably sift through the information out there. Why not post up what you think is the most convincing evidence for poltergeists? I'd be interesting in seeing your short list of observed phenomena. I am sorry for this delay, but cj.23 already gave some statistical information. I think the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists are the most convincing evidence I know. Now I can give some details, examples of the occurrences in the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists. It was interesting to re-read my sources. There was much more stuff in these cases, the following phenomena are examples only. In English and German Wikipedia the information is very scarce. In Rosenheim 1967/68, office of the lawyer Sigmund Adam: - speaking clock was called more than six times per minute - fluorescent tubes were turned 90 degrees in their sockets - breakers went off without perceptible cause - light bulbs were shattered, even with the filament remaining intact - desk drawers were opened without being touched - a 175 kg (358 lb) filing cabinet moved twice about one foot from the wall - pictures hanging on the walls fell down In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts: - boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves - the glass objects most often crashed to pieces - a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet - small scale experimentation was done (target objects) - at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected - only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage Yesterday I got the following articles about Rosenheim: Resch, A. (1968) Der fall Rosenheim: Teil I-III. Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 17, 241-249, 289-310, 339-346. Resch, A.(1969) Der fall Rosenheim: Teil IV-V.Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, 18, 1-15, 49-60. It will take a few days to read them, perhaps I will have more details to inform after that.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

9th November 2012, 04:55 AM	#686
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts: - boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves - the glass objects most often crashed to pieces - a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet - small scale experimentation was done (target objects) - at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected - only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage I'd need a lot more information than there is here in order to make any kind of real assessment, but none of this strikes me as unusal at all. Warehouse most likely means industrial estate. Industrial estate means lorries. Lorries mean vibrations. Vibrations can move things off shelves. Glass will often smash when dropped on the floor. Fragments of things which have smashed can move large distances.

9th November 2012, 05:30 AM	#687
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by Lusikka In Miami 1966/67, warehouse of the Tropication Arts: - boxes and glass objects fell down from shelves - the glass objects most often crashed to pieces - a part of the objects moved rather long distances, even 36 feet - small scale experimentation was done (target objects) - at least 216 movements were recorded, no tricks detected - only a few movements were actually seen, never in the starting stage I've worked in a distribution center for more than 25 years and I've seen any number of things fall and break seemingly inexplicably, live, after the fact, and on security cameras. It's amazing how mundane the effect of gravity or momentum is when closely examined.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Last edited by Resume; 9th November 2012 at 06:28 AM. Reason: sentence structure

9th November 2012, 08:35 AM	#688
blabla Student Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 26	Originally Posted by Lusikka I think the Rosenheim and Miami poltergeists are the most convincing evidence I know. Quote: Rosenheim 1967/68 Quote: Miami 1966/67, 1967 and 1968, really? That is the best you got? These poltergeists are not very active are they?
blabla Student Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 26

9th November 2012, 08:37 AM	#689
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by blabla 1967 and 1968, really? That is the best you got? These poltergeists are not very active are they? They were children of the 60s these geists . . . and now they're crotchety but silent. Amazing how full-bodied apparitions have disappeared as well.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024

9th November 2012, 09:26 AM	#690
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by blabla 1967 and 1968, really? That is the best you got? These poltergeists are not very active are they? Yes, you are rihgt, unfortunately. Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

9th November 2012, 09:41 AM	#691
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,183	Originally Posted by Lusikka Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled. And for those of us who have been asking for objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist, our expectations have been fulfilled as well.

9th November 2012, 10:26 AM	#692
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by Lusikka Yes, you are rihgt, unfortunately. Thank you all of you for the comments, my expectations became fulfilled. Well, if your expectations were that objectively uncorroborated anecdotes weren't uncritically accepted, or that naturalistic explanations could be offered (if further data is available) I understand your fulfillment. Me too.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024

9th November 2012, 10:28 AM	#693
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by GeeMack And for those of us who have been asking for objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist, our expectations have been fulfilled as well. Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

9th November 2012, 10:33 AM	#694
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Lusikka Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them. And all you have to do to prove the mean skeptics wrong is produce some unambiguous, objective evidence. Got any?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

9th November 2012, 10:35 AM	#695
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,183	Originally Posted by Lusikka Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them. No. Your special pleading stinks just as badly as it did when cj.23 's tried it. Here's what I know with some certainty: Nobody has ever provided any objective evidence for the existence of poltergeists, therefore it's reasonable to reject the claim that they do exist.

9th November 2012, 11:03 AM	#696
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,239	Originally Posted by Lusikka But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them. Lots of people thought that (to give just one example) rocks falling from the sky were implausible, impossible and ridiculous, but that didn't stop objective evidence being gathered for meteorites. The only thing that makes it impossible to get objective evidence for a phenomenon that supposedly has a physical effect is that phenomenon's non-existence.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

9th November 2012, 11:05 AM	#697
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka Yes, I understand that. But you certainly know that because poltergeists are implausible, impossible, ridiculous and so on so it is also impossible to get objective evidence of them. If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them. You say that the responses are what you thought they would be, implying that you're dissatisfied with those responses. I can't speak for anybody else, but if you could tell me what is unsatisfying about the response I gave, I'd appreciate it. It still seems like a plausible explanation to me. What information do you have about this specific case that makes you think that it's not?

9th November 2012, 01:31 PM	#698
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them. You say that the responses are what you thought they would be, implying that you're dissatisfied with those responses. I can't speak for anybody else, but if you could tell me what is unsatisfying about the response I gave, I'd appreciate it. It still seems like a plausible explanation to me. What information do you have about this specific case that makes you think that it's not? What an interesting and funny avatar you have, congratulations. There is a problem here: skeptics inevitably say all evidence is worth nothing notwithstanding how well the evidence is founded and how much there is evidence. Your question is quite reasonable and I try to give a reasonable answer. Your post was: Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I'd need a lot more information than there is here in order to make any kind of real assessment, but none of this strikes me as unusual at all. Warehouse most likely means industrial estate. Industrial estate means lorries. Lorries mean vibrations. Vibrations can move things off shelves. Glass will often smash when dropped on the floor. Fragments of things which have smashed can move large distances. I agree, you would need a lot more information to make a real assessment. There is a lot of information in the book "Poltergeists" by William Roll. The problem is that you are not really curious and interested to get that information. You don't read the book, because you want to use your limited spare time reading and writing on this forum and reading skeptical literature. You think it is much more useful and fun than read woo literature. Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success. The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

9th November 2012, 01:53 PM	#699
blabla Student Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 26	Originally Posted by Lusikka Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success. The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight. I am lost. Help me out please. In what way does this cool story imply poltergeist activity?
blabla Student Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 26

9th November 2012, 01:58 PM	#700
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Lusikka, let me make this clear for you: there's no such thing as poltergeists. If you think I'm wrong, provide the evidence. Don't complain that the skeptics won't go and make your case for you.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

9th November 2012, 02:43 PM	#701
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka What an interesting and funny avatar you have, congratulations. Thank you. I made it using the record ability of an emulator. It's the old BBC Micro game Imogen. Quote: I agree, you would need a lot more information to make a real assessment. There is a lot of information in the book "Poltergeists" by William Roll. The problem is that you are not really curious and interested to get that information. You don't read the book, because you want to use your limited spare time reading and writing on this forum and reading skeptical literature. You think it is much more useful and fun than read woo literature. Please don't tell me what I think. It's rude. And, besides, can you not see an irony in berating someone for being closed-minded while telling them what they think, feel, and find useful and fun? You've certainly made your mind up about me, based on 2 posts. Quote: Your speculations are OK, but Roll reports how they were testing the vibration hypothesis by pushing and striking the shelves, without success. Pushing and striking shelves will create a different effect than causing them to vibrate will. Quote: The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. I don't know what information you're trying to convey in either of these sentences. Quote: The glass objects could also be whole even after a long flight. Sometimes when you drop it, glass doesn't break. I still see nothing mysterious.

9th November 2012, 03:29 PM	#702
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Please don't tell me what I think. It's rude. And, besides, can you not see an irony in berating someone for being closed-minded while telling them what they think, feel, and find useful and fun? You are right. Except that I nowhere said you are close-minded and I really don't think so. In my opinion it is not close-mindedness to have your stance against parapsychology. In any case I am quite sure you have not read the book written by Roll. Perhaps you let me know why you have not read it? Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim You've certainly made your mind up about me, based on 2 posts. Not at all. It is not my habit to do so. It saves me from many troubles. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Pushing and striking shelves will create a different effect than causing them to vibrate will. Yes, but by pushing and striking strongly you can get even stronger results. Making the shelves even vibrate in resonance. Originally Posted by Lusikka The fragments were also studied carefully, because the "throwing" direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot. Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I don't know what information you're trying to convey in either of these sentences. You must try more, with your thinking ability turned on. I don't think my English was too bad there.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

9th November 2012, 03:54 PM	#703
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim If poltergeists exist, then there should be no problem getting objective evidence of them. I think this needs to be reiterated; to those claiming poltergeists manifest themselves physically, there's no getting around this issue. You must provide objective evidence or your claim will be rejected. Not anecdotes, not logical (allegedly) supporting arguments, but evidence of said physical manifestation.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,024

9th November 2012, 04:07 PM	#704
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka You are right. Except that I nowhere said you are close-minded and I really don't think so. In my opinion it is not close-mindedness to have your stance against parapsychology. Substitute "closed-minded" for whatever you like, and my point still stands. Quote: In any case I am quite sure you have not read the book written by Roll. Perhaps you let me know why you have not read it? I had not heard of it, Roll, or the "warehouse of the Tropication Arts" until 2 1/2, 2 1/2 and 11 1/2 hours ago, respectively. I do, however, had the book on order from Amazon for 2 1/2 hours now. I should have read the entry on this case within the week, assuming delivery is timely. Quote: Not at all. It is not my habit to do so. It saves me from many troubles. Whether you think it's your habit or not, telling me what I'm interested in, and how I will behave based on 2 posts is exactly what you did. You dismissed my contributions to this thread based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and instead decided to tell me what kind of a person you believed me to be, simply because of the fact that I offered some basic, preliminary explanations for the evidence you had supplied. Not a great way to debate, is it? Quote: Yes, but by pushing and striking strongly you can get even stronger results. But not the same results. Quote: You must try more, with your thinking ability turned on. I don't think my English was too bad there. Your English was fine. The content, however, is questionable. "The fragments were also studied carefully, because the 'throwing' direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot." So? What were the results of this study? How were they studied? What relevance has direction to the supernatural? That sentence contains no actual information. It doesn't address any of the points I've made, and nor does it add to my understanding of the case. I'm sure you wanted it to either address something I'd said or add to my understanding of the case - but how? What information were you trying to convey to me? "Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan." Who is Julio? Innocent of what? How did a fan establish his innocence? Why do I care? Again - what's the information you're trying to impart?

10th November 2012, 01:03 AM	#705
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Andyman409 Why cant a Poltergeist researcher be a skeptic? Originally Posted by PixyMisa Because they'll quickly come to the conclusion that it's a load of rubbish and find something better to do. Thus, the people who are most likely to be conducting such research are the people least able to do so. Here I would add a qualifier. There are two very distinct reasons sceptics may be interested in paranormal research. I think this is what Baron hinted at early in the thread. 1. The phenomena themselves. Here I concur with PixyMisa. The phenomena are anecdotal and often the result of wildly unreliable observation. When studied objectively, they tend to rapidly fade away against background noise. 2. The psychology of the people who accept the reality of the phenomena and the psychology of those who do not. Why are sceptics and believers so different? (We, as sceptics may think of our view as "correct", but there are meta-questions to whether factual correctness is necessarily "best" in every case.) This is a fascinating subject, with potential applications in all manner of areas. (I hate to say it, but marketing is an obvious one. If some people are inherently gullible, you can sell them different things, by different methods, from the things you can sell sceptics). As for the question of the OP itself, my response is the hardline sceptic one. The phenomena do not exist and therefore are inexplicable. Most inexplicable things are imaginary. But imagination is a product of brains- and those are fascinating.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Last edited by Soapy Sam; 10th November 2012 at 01:05 AM.

10th November 2012, 01:42 AM	#706
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,996	^ Thanks for expressing so well what I think. I've been catching up on the thread and see that little has changed. No evidence has been shown as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong. The reliance of poltergeist investigation on anecdotes and beliefs doesn't seem to have changed, either. I'd expand the poltergeist subset to include stigmata and weeping statues and other religious phenomena involving physical manifestations of otherworldly sources. I think it would help see the mindset of the believers in the paranormal.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,996	Last edited by pakeha; 10th November 2012 at 03:01 AM. Reason: ETA clarifying my hideous grammar.

10th November 2012, 01:44 AM	#707
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Substitute "closed-minded" for whatever you like, and my point still stands. All words have their specific meaning, let us take it into account. In my opinion "closed-minded" means a person who does not change his/her wrong opinion although he/she gets new objective information compelling to that change. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I had not heard of it, Roll, or the "warehouse of the Tropication Arts" until 2 1/2, 2 1/2 and 11 1/2 hours ago, respectively. I do, however, had the book on order from Amazon for 2 1/2 hours now. I should have read the entry on this case within the week, assuming delivery is timely. Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio". Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Whether you think it's your habit or not, telling me what I'm interested in, and how I will behave based on 2 posts is exactly what you did. You dismissed my contributions to this thread based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and instead decided to tell me what kind of a person you believed me to be, simply because of the fact that I offered some basic, preliminary explanations for the evidence you had supplied. I have some objective, true information about you: you have sent here 2 400 posts, you are versed in skeptical thinking and you don't know much about parapsychology. I have discussed innumerable times with skeptics and they have told me why they are not interested about parapsychology. It is rather safe to guess that you cannot be very far from the mainstream of skepticism. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim "The fragments were also studied carefully, because the 'throwing' direction could be determined on basis of the fragment fan spreading from the strike spot." So? What were the results of this study? How were they studied? What relevance has direction to the supernatural? That sentence contains no actual information. It doesn't address any of the points I've made, and nor does it add to my understanding of the case. I'm sure you wanted it to either address something I'd said or add to my understanding of the case - but how? What information were you trying to convey to me? "Julio was once established to be innocent because of the direction of the fan." Who is Julio? Innocent of what? How did a fan establish his innocence? Why do I care? Again - what's the information you're trying to impart? Well, let us take it more clearly: 1. If you have not seen a snowball or a lump of snow or something alike be thrown to the ground in an oblique angle so you can experiment with it. The snowball disintegrates and the fan-shaped trace shows you clearly the throwing direction. I wrote "throwing" because throwing was never observed in those 216 incidents. 2. Julio was suspected for throwing the objects and he was under strict surveillance. In that case the fan of the fragments was against him. So it is impossible that he would have thrown the object.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

10th November 2012, 02:03 AM	#708
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,586	Originally Posted by Lusikka Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio". Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

10th November 2012, 02:15 AM	#709
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by zooterkin Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results. Right, skeptics are born to win!
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

10th November 2012, 02:45 AM	#710
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by zooterkin Oh, well, if that's the way you want to do it, a search for "poltergeists debunked' gave 2,700,000 results. In science it is always operated with facts, not with opinions of the big masses of general population.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

10th November 2012, 02:48 AM	#711
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka All words have their specific meaning, let us take it into account. In my opinion "closed-minded" means a person who does not change his/her wrong opinion although he/she gets new objective information compelling to that change. Which, judging by your posts, accurately describes your attitude towards me. Quote: Fine, I appreciate that. But you have the Google and Wikipedia in different languages to let you know instantly. Google produced 13 500 hits when I typed "Miami poltergeist Julio". You have the burden of proof. You are supposed to be offering up what you consider to be the best evidence for poltergeists. If your argument relies on specific information, then it is up to you to provide it. Quote: I have some objective, true information about you: you have sent here 2 400 posts, you are versed in skeptical thinking and you don't know much about parapsychology. That's information that's both objective and true, is it? Reads to me more like a couple of assumptions you've made. Quote: I have discussed innumerable times with skeptics and they have told me why they are not interested about parapsychology. So you're judging me by the behavior of others, merely because I post on this forum? Quote: It is rather safe to guess that you cannot be very far from the mainstream of skepticism. Except that you're actually wrong. And, even though you now know that this is incorrect, you're still maintaining that it's true. Sorry, but the term "closed-minded" fits perfectly, as far as I can see. Quote: Well, let us take it more clearly: 1. If you have not seen a snowball or a lump of snow or something alike be thrown to the ground in an oblique angle so you can experiment with it. The snowball disintegrates and the fan-shaped trace shows you clearly the throwing direction. I wrote "throwing" because throwing was never observed in those 216 incidents. Yes, you've said all of this. This still doesn't impart any actual information to me. Which of my statements is this relevant to, and how does it relate to it? Quote: 2. Julio was suspected for throwing the objects and he was under strict surveillance. In that case the fan of the fragments was against him. So it is impossible that he would have thrown the object. Okay, that actually contains some information, although not much. But you haven't answered the most important question - so what?

10th November 2012, 03:05 AM	#712
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim You have the burden of proof. You are supposed to be offering up what you consider to be the best evidence for poltergeists. If your argument relies on specific information, then it is up to you to provide it. Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me. I only give some information in case it would interest somebody. And it is always fun to discuss with people.
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

10th November 2012, 03:21 AM	#713
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Except that you're actually wrong. And, even though you now know that this is incorrect, you're still maintaining that it's true. Sorry, but the term "closed-minded" fits perfectly, as far as I can see. Yes, possibly I have been wrong. It would be interesting to see your answers to the following questions: - why have you been rather active here on this forum - how do you differ from the mainstream of skepticism - how much do you know about parapsychology
Lusikka Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 251	__________________ There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -- Herbert Spencer

10th November 2012, 04:14 AM	#714
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,258	Originally Posted by Lusikka Thank you, but you or anybody else here cannot impose any obligations on me. Absolutely. And you don't have to provide the evidence for why you think a case is convincing when asked to provide the most convincing evidence you think there is for poltergeists. But if you don't provide the evidence that you think is convincing, then you can't then blame others for failing to be convinced by it. It's entirely up to you how strongly you want to make your case. If people aren't convinced by what you've said because you've chosen to leave out vital information, then that lack of conviction is down to you.

10th November 2012, 05:52 AM	#715
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,183	Originally Posted by Lusikka Right, skeptics are born to win! Science was developed as the best way we know so far for obtaining an objective explanation about the universe we live in. People who believe poltergeists exist have reached their conclusion by relying on faith rather than science. No objective evidence has been provided to support the claim that poltergeists exist. Skeptics weren't born to win. But if by "win" you mean hold the position that is objectively correct according to everything we know so far, skeptics are indeed winning. If you'd like to change that situation, all you have to do is bring some objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist.