What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Given I have no interest or belief in EVP or knowledge thereof this may be nonsense, but I could make a case. The voice is created as you say: the act of hearing the voice is as I understand it based upon the resonating of the eardrum. Now electrical devices can therefore be "stimulated" to produce sound that can not be heard by the human ear, if the microphone is sensitive to those frequencies. So the voice could simply be a EMF signal in the capacity range for the device's sensitivity: no voice would be heard for human observers if it fell outside the tolerance range of the eardrum, but it could still register on the equipment.

How can insubstantial whatsits create radio emissions?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Given I have no interest or belief in EVP or knowledge thereof this may be nonsense, but I could make a case. The voice is created as you say: the act of hearing the voice is as I understand it based upon the resonating of the eardrum. Now electrical devices can therefore be "stimulated" to produce sound that can not be heard by the human ear, if the microphone is sensitive to those frequencies. So the voice could simply be a EMF signal in the capacity range for the device's sensitivity: no voice would be heard for human observers if it fell outside the tolerance range of the eardrum, but it could still register on the equipment.

cj x

By what means a non-physical entity "stimulate" a physical electronic device?

That is if I've understood your case correctly, and there's every chance I have not.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Given I have no interest or belief in EVP or knowledge thereof this may be nonsense, but I could make a case. The voice is created as you say: the act of hearing the voice is as I understand it based upon the resonating of the eardrum. Now electrical devices can therefore be "stimulated" to produce sound that can not be heard by the human ear, if the microphone is sensitive to those frequencies. So the voice could simply be a EMF signal in the capacity range for the device's sensitivity: no voice would be heard for human observers if it fell outside the tolerance range of the eardrum, but it could still register on the equipment.

cj x

That we can create devices to detect the most subtle of physical effects is not in dispute.
You haven't answered the question as to how a non phycial entity can effect a physical device.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by cj.23

... electrical devices can therefore be "stimulated" to produce sound that can not be heard by the human ear, if the microphone is sensitive to those frequencies. So the voice could simply be a EMF signal in the capacity range for the device's sensitivity: no voice would be heard for human observers if it fell outside the tolerance range of the eardrum, but it could still register on the equipment.

Well, if you're not even going to "try" and give a rational answer...hell I can make up crap too...

So... just how would "ghosts" go about producing an EMF signal?


If you want the hole to stop getting deeper, then quit digging.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

You haven't answered the question as to how a non phycial entity can effect a physical device.

I get the impression that the eventually answer will be...magic, since it is obvious that "ghosts" do not conform to the same scientific "restraints" as the rest of us must.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Resume

Is poltergeist phenomena well-established? Wow, who knew.

Is it reproducible at all? If so, let's see.

Yep, by normal criteria poltergeist phenomena is well established. You can look at cases from China, India, South America, North America, Europe and Africa, and the basic phenomena seems pretty much the same irrespective over 2000+ years. And as I just pointed out (after Karl Popper) Evolution, the First World War, Transient Ischaemic Attacks, the murders of Jack the Ripper, the WOW! signal, what you thought about on waking this morning, none are exactly reproducible are they? So are they non-facts?

Poltergeist phenomena are theoretically reproducible, yep. In the vacuum of the lack of a meaningful theory that is hard. Plenty of other areas of science are in exactly the same state. Dark Matter f'rinstance. We have empirical evidence, a handful of hypotheses, and that's about it.

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Well, if you're not even going to "try" and give a rational answer...hell I can make up crap too...

So... just how would "ghosts" go about producing an EMF signal?


If you want the hole to stop getting deeper, then quit digging.

How do you know a ghost is not an EMF signal? You are making a simple error here: you are starting with the facts "voices appear on tapes in EVP" and then assuming some entity that is not needed to explain them, then rubbishing your extraneous entity. A radio signal could easily be picked up and played upon the device without being heard by human observers - it is you who appears to be postulating paranormal entities, not me. Either you have completely misread what I have just written, or you need to learn to distinguish between effects and causes.

cj x

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Yep, by normal criteria poltergeist phenomena is well established. You can look at cases from China, India, South America, North America, Europe and Africa, and the basic phenomena seems pretty much the same irrespective over 2000+ years.

Like werewolves, dragons and angels, then?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

That we can create devices to detect the most subtle of physical effects is not in dispute.
You haven't answered the question as to how a non phycial entity can effect a physical device.

I never postulated a non-physical entity though? I said EMF could be picked up - I was thinking of radio transmissions. Did I mention spooks anywhere? I answered RAF's question in purely naturalistic terms, in terms of the physics of the acoustic devices as I understand them. Why does everyone immediately add extra entities? If said voices could communicate something that was not down to rogue radio waves, or interact meaningfully with an listener, then I might start looking for additional causes.

cj x

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by cj.23

... by normal criteria poltergeist phenomena is well established.

What the hell does that mean?


By scientific criteria, there is just no credible evidence for the existance of ghosts/afterlife/poltergeist.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Like werewolves, dragons and angels, then?

Those entities are surprisingly varied in practice. I think you would be hard pushed to find werewolves in some parts of the world, despite the wide range of the species. I am also not aware of physicists from the Max Planck Institute taking instrumental readings at at least one, and probably three or more cases of Angels or Demons. They probably tried on the werewolves but got eaten I expect.

cj x

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Yep, by normal criteria poltergeist phenomena is well established. You can look at cases from China, India, South America, North America, Europe and Africa, and the basic phenomena seems pretty much the same irrespective over 2000+ years.

So what you are saying is that if you collect similar stories from different cultures and times, you find that.... The stories are similar?

Quote:

And as I just pointed out (after Karl Popper) Evolution

Popper was wrong, and admitted it.

Quote:

the First World War, Transient Ischaemic Attacks, the murders of Jack the Ripper, the WOW! signal, what you thought about on waking this morning, none are exactly reproducible are they? So are they non-facts?

All of them are supported by evidence; all of them are perfectly plausible physical events.

You have zero evidence and zero plausibility.

Quote:

Poltergeist phenomena are theoretically reproducible, yep.

But have not even been shown to happen.

Quote:

In the vacuum of the lack of a meaningful theory that is hard. Plenty of other areas of science are in exactly the same state. Dark Matter f'rinstance. We have empirical evidence, a handful of hypotheses, and that's about it.

And you have no evidence and no hypotheses. Hardly similar, is it?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I never postulated a non-physical entity though?

No...I did...

why is that a problem for you?

Quote:

I answered RAF's question in purely naturalistic terms, in terms of the physics of the acoustic devices as I understand them.

You dodged the question by "kicking it down the road". Your "answer" was an excuse for lack of evidence, and we all recognize it as such.

Quote:

Why does everyone immediately add extra entities? If said voices could communicate something that was not down to rogue radio waves, or interact meaningfully with an listener, then I might start looking for additional causes.

So instead of saying, maybe there are no ghosts, you look for any and all "explanations" to save a sorry argument...

Yeah...we all got that...

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

How can insubstantial whatsits create radio emissions?

I do sometimes think I should just slam my head on the desk, but I realise that forum communication loses a lot of nuance, so fair question. Radio emissions are caused by radio transmitters. My suspicion is the voices picked up by EVP are those. I never suggested insubstantial beasties were involved in any way did I?. The only dead involved are deceased voices from the Radio schedules, like Kurt Cobain playing on Radio 2.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by cj.23

How do you know a ghost is not an EMF signal?

Because that would be an EMF signal, not a ghost.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I do sometimes think I should just slam my head on the desk, but I realise that forum communication loses a lot of nuance, so fair question. Radio emissions are caused by radio transmitters. My suspicion is the voices picked up by EVP are those.

So what you are saying is ghosts are impossible and don't exist?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

So what you are saying is ghosts are impossible and don't exist?

Looks like he is attempting to re-define what a "ghost", is.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

No...I did...

why is that a problem for you?

Because you don't need to. Why do you need to invoke ghosties to solve your original question? I give a naturalistic answer and you reply with stuff about ghosts being crap. What has this got to do with the price of herring?

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

You "dodged" the question by "kicking it down the road". Your "answer" was an excuse for lack of evidence, and we all recognize it as such.

Really? OK this forum has a quote option. Just quote me and deconstruct how I framed the explanation thus. I don't know what your term "kick it down the road" means, and as to what we "all recognize", hey I'll let people make their own minds up. I answer questions as best I can and try and communicate clearly, but crying "tactics" on me is unlikely to wash with anyone who is familiar with my tedious straightforwardness and willingness to directly engage. If I have somehow evaded something, ask me straight out. I'm not shy!

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

So instead of saying, "maybe there are no ghosts", you "look" for any and all "explanations" to "save" a sorry argument...

I don't think I have ever said there are "ghosts" have I? I am unsure how to proceed till you tell me what you think a "ghost" is. Then I can make a case for or against it.

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

So what you are saying is ghosts are impossible and don't exist?

Far from it. I want to know what you mean by "ghost". My definition is that which explains the "ghost experience". People avoided studying sleep paralysis because it was put down to ghosts or demons, until the experiences were properly scientifically scrutinised.

cj x

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I don't know what your term "kick it down the road" means...

It's a delaying strategy...your "explanation" doesn't explain anything.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Why do you need to invoke ghosties to solve your original question?

Please re-read the topic of this thread.


You are either advocating the existance of ghosts, or you are not.


These "games" about what you think should be open to discussion can be taken to another thread...

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Far from it. I want to know what you mean by "ghost". My definition is that which explains the "ghost experience".

A "ghost experience" explicitly assumes a ghost, even if it doesn't define it.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

It's a delaying strategy...your "explanation" doesn't explain anything.

I think if you read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote, you will find it answers your question? Stop worrying about arguing with me for a second, and just read what I wrote?

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Please re-read the topic of this thread.


You are either advocating the existance of ghosts, or you are not.


These "games" about what you think should be open to discussion can be taken to another thread...

I'm advocating the following.

1. Poltergeist phenomena have been reported across different cultures and centuries with a strong degree of internal consistency (evidence: Gauld & Cornell 1979 survey of 500 cases)

2, Poltergeist phenomena are not currently adequately explained by any known hypothesis. (evidence: no one has a solution that explains all the facts)

3. The solution may well be mundane (tricky children, hallucination, etc) or involve as yet not understood physics or science. My contention is the phenomena are naturalistic, and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. (evidence:one can study them and develop hypotheses, and find consistencies in the reports. Roll's Can We Explain the Poltergeist? gives one example)

4. Individual cases and the collective dataset resist explanation by any given hypothesis we currently have (evidence: the dataset in Chapter 8 of Gaul & Cornell)

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

A "ghost experience" explicitly assumes a ghost, even if it doesn't define it.

Yes. And the ghost might be, for example, hypangogia, misperception, sleep paralysis etc. The failure of the category "ghost" tells us nothing about the underlying causes of the experience only that people use it to explain almost any odd experience. That is why I encourage close scrutiny of the data set and each individual case.

cj x

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I never postulated a non-physical entity though? I said EMF could be picked up - I was thinking of radio transmissions. Did I mention spooks anywhere? I answered RAF's question in purely naturalistic terms, in terms of the physics of the acoustic devices as I understand them. Why does everyone immediately add extra entities? If said voices could communicate something that was not down to rogue radio waves, or interact meaningfully with an listener, then I might start looking for additional causes.

cj x

Yes, that's all reasonable enough... except that this thread is all about the claims of people who have claimed to have experiences with non physical beings.
As the vast majority of claims of Poltergeists, ghosts and EVPs are claimed to have originated from non physical entities (which is apparently why science can't detect them), that is the claim which is being questioned.

We don't take someone else's claim and ignore it, preferring instead to address a claim that they haven't made and pretend the two are the same.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I've been asking essentially the same question for many years in regard to EVP. How in the hell can insubstantial "ghosts" produce voices, when they have no "mechanism" to do so?

Voices are produced by passing air through our vocal chords...how can "something" without vocal chords make any noise at all?


Any "takers" on that last question?

Here is what RAF asked. I pointed out no "ghosts" were necessary to explain EVP and offered a mundane explanation. I regarded it as a simple and rather trivial point, but it somehow turned in to a major issue for some reason. I simply troed to answer RAF's question honestly.

cj x

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I'm advocating the following.

1. Poltergeist phenomena have been reported across different cultures and centuries with a strong degree of internal consistency (evidence: Gauld & Cornell 1979 survey of 500 cases)

Things that can't be immediately explained have been labelled as "Poltergeists" in the same way that ambiguous floating debris in the famous Scottish Loch have been labelled as the Lochness Monster.
None of those 500 "cases" have presented anything more than some stories that people told about some stuff.

Originally Posted by cj.23

2, Poltergeist phenomena are not currently adequately explained by any known hypothesis. (evidence: no one has a solution that explains all the facts)

In the same way that a single solution for every unidentified flying object reported can't be reached. Many different mechanisms can explain many disparate claims.

Originally Posted by cj.23

3. The solution may well be mundane (tricky children, hallucination, etc) or involve as yet not understood physics or science. My contention is the phenomena are naturalistic, and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. (evidence:one can study them and develop hypotheses, and find consistencies in the reports. Roll's Can We Explain the Poltergeist? gives one example)

The only consistency in the reports is that they consistently fail to provide any objective evidence to support them.

Originally Posted by cj.23

4. Individual cases and the collective dataset resist explanation by any given hypothesis we currently have (evidence: the dataset in Chapter 8 of Gaul & Cornell)

The data set is a bunch of stories.
They resist any hypothesis we currently have except the null hypothesis.

Instead of trying to circumvent this inconvenience, perhaps you could point to someone who is actually trying to address this and falsify it.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Far from it. I want to know what you mean by "ghost". My definition is that which explains the "ghost experience".

It is rather counter-productive to use a different definition from everybody else. Your definition has the advantage that it is precise, but the disadvantage that anything can be a ghost: a white sheet, a cold draught from a a badly isolated window, or a commonplace EM transmission. The normal use of the word implies something that is not something mundane, even if the precise definition is hazy.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Yes. And the ghost might be, for example, hypangogia, misperception, sleep paralysis etc. The failure of the category "ghost" tells us nothing about the underlying causes of the experience only that people use it to explain almost any odd experience. That is why I encourage close scrutiny of the data set and each individual case.

So every bump, thump, wispy vision, or sensation of a chill is a ghost until otherwise identified as some particular thing. Well that pretty much makes the term ghost not only close to useless, but quite different than its commonly accepted meaning. But sure, whatever dishonest discussion tactic you'd like to use is fine as long as you've admitted that you're being dishonest.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Resume

I would certainly hope so.

I once watched a bourbon glass make it's way nearly off a desk where I worked. Of course the condensation from the ice and the impetus cause by my typing might have had something to do with it. No, it had everything to do with it.

A credulous observer on the other hand . . .

.
I've watched glasses slide along a counter top just because of the liquid layer between the glass and the counter. That counter has a very slight tilt.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by cj.23

One wonders if they do, or the noises are in the head. Then again if they can chuck teacups around perhaps their insubstantiality is overrated? Voices groand and whistles feature in 28% of Gauld & Cornell's "better testimony" sample btw, in 27% of European + US cases, but only 8% of those from other cultures.

cj x

.
Any noises not from a real source would be imaginary.
I've mentioned the "passing through walls" attribute as an impediment to moving anything real.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Define physical here? Radio waves count as physical? They manifest physical effects? What about your consciousness? That manifests physical effects? I'm not sure that these phenomena are not physical anyway. They seem pretty much physical and following some kind of natural laws, even if I can't understand them at the moment. Roll's book has an interesting chart on this actually -- I might post a link to the diagram when I have a moment to scan it...

cj x

.
A "radio wave" energetic enough to move anything would require megawatts of power.
Many radar systems are considered dangerous because they will fry anyone passing through the transmitted wave.
We are immersed in a constantly changing field of radio waves. From the Sun.
From radio/tv stations. From our car-locking remotes....
Sound can move things... TBBT episode with the non-Newtonian fluid on the speaker cone..

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Other well established phenomena do not meet your criteria; eg. transient ischaemic attacks? Or for example the First World War? Or for example Evolution, to use Popper's famous example? Not all phenomena are reproducible at will. The "WOW!" signal is a classic example.

cj x

.
Had a TIA. They real.
Did it to myself.
I would feel my pulse in the morning with pressure on the left carotid artery in my neck. One day almost immediately after doing that my right arm quit working as I was getting in the morning paper.
The doctor diagnosed a TIA and prescribed blood pressure lowering medication. As my b.p. is always below normal anyway, and using it interfered with getting dental surgery, I stopped using it a long time ago.
I measure my pulse with a blood pressure meter now.
91 47 72 this morning.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Far from it. I want to know what you mean by "ghost". My definition is that which explains the "ghost experience".

I've just put a load of ghosts in the washing machine, whilst waiting for them to wash, I'm going to watch some ghosts on telly doing some ghostly things, before turning on my ghost to cook some ghosts. I can only hope it's not my ghosts playing tricks on my ghost, because I can hear some ghosts outside.

Doesn't your definition make a mockery of language?

[Resume]

I'm going to rename this subforum General Skepticism, Paranormal, and Rredifinition if this keeps up.

[cj.23]

Drat! I posted this in wrong thread. OK here is some strong evidence for poltergeists --

And so as a true Arch-Wooid I must now don my robe of Unbearable Fluffiness, wave my wand of Aura Adjusting and putting on my Helmet of Unassailable Woo Ignorance offer what is claimed to be the best evidence for poltergeists in recent years: Dr Barrie Colvin's painstaking research in to unusual acoustic characteristics of poltergeist raps (sustained attack etc). If true this prove it is possible ravenous polterwotsits prepare to devour good sceptics, and are even now hiding under the bed, or so the mainstream media would have us believe? I'm pretty excited by the research; and I proffer it as evidence, for people who like doing such things to try and debunk. Google is your friend folks

(And yes, there is a typically black CJ joke lurking within this challenge. )


cj x

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I get the impression that the eventually answer will be...magic, since it is obvious that "ghosts" do not conform to the same scientific "restraints" as the rest of us must.

Exactly. The whole notion of something that interacts with the matter of floors but not with the matter of walls is a clue that we're not talking about anything even logically consistent.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Resume

I'm going to rename this subforum General Skepticism, Paranormal, and Rredifinition if this keeps up.

Andyman409, has it occurred to you that you're in the wrong place? You keep asking for the best evidence on various supernatural topics. The vast majority of people here to not believe these things (ghosts, life after death, etc) exist, so don't have a "best" piece of evidence to offer. If you're really interested in the subjects, why not go to forums where people who do believe this junk hang out and ask them what the best evidence is? I'm sure we'd all be happy to discuss the results with you.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by cj.23

And so as a true Arch-Wooid I must now don my robe of Unbearable Fluffiness, wave my wand of Aura Adjusting and putting on my Helmet of Unassailable Woo Ignorance offer what is claimed to be the best evidence for poltergeists in recent years: Dr Barrie Colvin's painstaking research in to unusual acoustic characteristics of poltergeist raps (sustained attack etc). If true this prove it is possible ravenous polterwotsits prepare to devour good sceptics, and are even now hiding under the bed, or so the mainstream media would have us believe? I'm pretty excited by the research; and I proffer it as evidence, for people who like doing such things to try and debunk. Google is your friend folks

So as you can see from the above comment, Andyman409, the best evidence for poltergeists, even coming from someone who claims to have done in depth research into the matter, is a bunch of babbling nonsense.