I toss em, there bad pictures. Its called an optical flare, and its so common as to be ridiculous to really think its special.


That is just it, this stuff DOESN'T happen to skeptics . . . .

Ill let you figure that one out on your own so as to not insult you.

You would be hard pressed to insult me. Life is full of surprises, maybe one day in the future you will be presented with a curve ball, but I'm sure you will logically explain it, instead of just revelling in the moment. Isn't it great that all our minds don't think alike?

I hope we'll never know.

I like the mystery.

As usually, Jeanni has made a clever observation about the nature of Reality:
“Humanity has AGREED upon certain things to be universal throughout the world…” (or something to that extend)! I.E. we agreed upon definitions...
Without such an Agreement co-existence and/or co-operation wouldn’t be possible – it constitutes the basis of our civilization.
Another words, * * *THE ESSENCE OF THINGS IS DETERMINED BY THEIR DEFINITIONS * * *
*****************************************************************************
Yet, there is still much to be defined in this Reality (I don’t even wanna touch other realities… -- according to some scientists, ours (from Neanderthal to present) is the 5th civilization on this planet! And every time the development starts anew… -- though may nt be identical.

Reasonable life, usually, begins at school where we learn the basics of previously defined matters. Afterwards, some of us may proceed to more specialized studies – thus providing further clarification and (sometimes) even redefinition of the commonly accepted theories, thus driving forward the progress . . .

Nevertheless, in spite of how far we progress, there seems to be more of the unknown than we can possibly imagine – in fact, the more we discover, the more there is to be discovered. . . (to argue otherwise would be as foolish as implying that everything’s already discovered!)

Therefore, until we grasped at least the nature of the Universe – not to mention the essence of Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Fields, or Black Holes, or Antimatter, or … -- we cannot claim to know everything there is to know about anything, since our interpretation would be based only on the current level of our development…
(TO CLAIM OTHERWISE WOULD BE AS FOOLISH AS BILLY who chooses to argue with everybody -- ***EXCEPT OF Abra who, he knows, will rub his nose… * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *) # # # # #

Consequently, the Paranormal might very well be real -- just as real as the Quantum Fields... -- and ghosts might exist! Who knows?

I really don't get this animosity. Opinions are like assholes you would think once you get to be an adult you could handle someone with a different opinion.

Yes it can, and does happen to skeptics. But eventually the skeptics are no longer skeptics.

How can you presume to speak for every skeptic who has become a believer?

Or will you do as the Born again Christians do and claim that the person was not a "true Skeptic" if he changed his views?

That is just it, this stuff DOESN'T happen to skeptics . . . .

Ill let you figure that one out on your own so as to not insult you.


Yes it can, and does happen to skeptics. But eventually the skeptics are no longer skeptics.

How can you presume to speak for every skeptic who has become a believer?

Or will you do as the Born again Christians do and claim that the person was not a "true Skeptic" if he changed his views?




I think it would be require a person with a very narrow point of view to think that just because you think a certain way, something can't happen to you. Occurences are just that-random. Quite significant, life altering experiences happen to people regardless of whether they believe in something or not. Life isn't regimented to seek out experiences that fall in line with someone's belief system.

A skeptic is just someone who requires a certain degree of evidence before setting forth a belief.

If you could provide testable evidence, then I would be happy to accept it once I have had a chance to validate the evidence and rigorously test it.

But if you could do that you could also win a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/site/

-----------

In response to it not happening to skeptics, I meant that tongue in cheek. I also stated that I didnt want to offend you, but since you asked . . .

This doesn't happen to skeptics becuase when we examine the facts it becomes clear there is either no real evidence, or that we where tricked, which being human happens often and easily, especially when your credulous, which by the very definition of skeptic requires that a skeptic is not . . .

What about your own personal experience? Do you disregard that as an hallucination if it is not testable?

If you continued to have personal experiences such as telepathy, or seeing ghosts or such, would you decide that you were insane and start taking medication?

I don't really trust that place that claims to offer a million dollars for testable 'proof.' I'm sure they have such strict guidelines and rules that no one can satisfy them.

Your sure, without really finding out?

Sounds familiar.

I'm sure that I could take a lie detector test and pass it as being truthful to everything that happened. You can't recreate the book falling, lights on and off, etc. It was all random. I was not in charge of the experience and claim to have no psychic ability to will anything to happen. Something like that may never happen to me for the rest of my life.

For example-that would be like you asking me to recreate a car accident I was just in as if I had the ability to make it happen again. I don't understand how one goes through life thinking everything has to be validated in order to be real. I hope you don't have these views when it comes to falling in love with someone. Would that have to be vigorously tested too?

I don't think I have ever heard anyone compare uncovering alleged paranormal events with falling in love before. That is a new one for me.

I am sorry. I hold firm to the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you know anything about eyewitness testimony then you would understand that your belief that you saw something is not what is at issue, its the credibility of your conclusions of what you actually saw, eye witness testimony is the weakest sort of evidence.

Well since I don't claim to have any magical powers, it would be a waste of my time.

I wonder where the extraordinary evidence for the guilt of Osama Bin Laden being responsible for the World Trade Center attack is then?

Here is a question. Can someone's hallucination be claimed as paranormal?
Are we clear on what hallucination really is, and what if there are more than one person hallucinates the same thing? Has that ever happened?

And what is "paranormal" anyway? Things, that we cannot explain with our current knowledge? Can there be things, that we cannot explain or have we found all the answers already?

As far as I know, science today still trying to figure out what the other 60% of our brain is used, beside the 40% confirmed for various brain activities and motor functions.


Here is a quote for you:

Every generation thinks they are smarter than the previous and wiser than the following - George Orwell

I'm sure that I could take a lie detector test and pass it as being truthful to everything that happened. You can't recreate the book falling, lights on and off, etc. It was all random. I was not in charge of the experience and claim to have no psychic ability to will anything to happen. Something like that may never happen to me for the rest of my life.

For example-that would be like you asking me to recreate a car accident I was just in as if I had the ability to make it happen again. I don't understand how one goes through life thinking everything has to be validated in order to be real. I hope you don't have these views when it comes to falling in love with someone. Would that have to be vigorously tested too?

"I don't think I have ever heard anyone compare uncovering alleged paranormal events with falling in love before. That is a new one for me.

I am sorry. I hold firm to the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you know anything about eyewitness testimony then you would understand that your belief that you saw something is not what is at issue, its the credibility of your conclusions of what you actually saw, eye witness testimony is the weakest sort of evidence."



Things happen in your life when you least expect it. For me to have evidence I would have to have a video camera on following me around or having it in the home. Let's get realistic. People don't live that way. It is human nature for you to doubt something you haven't experienced. Many fear the unknown. There is no explanation for what happened. The fact is, it did happen. Friends who thought I was crazy, found out soon enough when they came to visit my home. I doubt that everyone was hallucinating. They were adamant like you are. They changed their minds very quickly when they saw for themselves.

There is no hallucination here. If a bible was on a bookcase and now it is on the floor it can't be hallucination. I picked it up and put it back on the shelf. When I can see something clearly I believe what I see. If eyewitness testimony wasn't credible, how would we ever trust what was before our eyes? How would you get through life if you couldn't trust your sight and what was before it?

It's very elitist to think that we know everything there is to know based on evidence. I'm sure when you have more life experience under your belt, your thinking will have changed 10 years from now. Some things can't be explained. I don't choose to live my life denying unexplained events because I didn't have scientific evidence. I would find that boring and a waste of time that could be better spent living life. To each his own.

An excellent point, dear pkd1220:
* * * what Billy lacks is the wisdom of experience. So far, all he has to rely upon are the text books of the 3rd year college student -- because all of those books only teach the theories of what's already been discovered and tested (i.e. building the background for further research...). And those books also define his nature -- everything has a logical/scientific explanation... (otherwise, he had wsted money for nothing)! Yet, none of those texts would ever admite its incompleteness -- otherwise they wouldn't sell.

*** Even Eistein himself has admitted the evidence of the "Creator" (or somthing divine) -- referring to his dwelling deeper and deeper into the essence of physics...

Though, I doubt you will convince Billy -- you're gonna have to wait at least "10 years until he has more life experience under his belt"! ! ! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is not your opinion I am agaist, but the condescending manner with wich you choose to state your opinion! ! !

YOU SEEM TO BE VERY SMART ARGUING WITH THE LEY-MEN OR -WOMENS!
*** ****************************************************************
** I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE NONEXISTANCE OF GHOSTS TO ABRACADABRA **
********************************************************************

BILLY, YOU TEND TO DISQUALIFY YOURSELF BY RIDICULING THE OPPOSING VIEW INSTEAD OF REBUTTLING OR IGNORING IT ALTOGETHER! ! !
(as if there aren't enough of really Scientific threads where you can push your pooint of view... and argue with the real scientists)

Finally, you can start your own thread, like, "THE HOLY TRUTH"!!!

(unfortunately, you won't since you lack the creativity * * * * *)