A video barely constitutes evidence, much less proof
Tram law writes:
You see, while I am not a believer in the existence of the paranormal, I do believe that "whatever remains after sifting through all the evidence, however improbable, must be the truth". That is to say, at least for me, finding footage like this would go a ways to helping prove the existence of the Paranormal.
If you are paraphrasing Arthur Conan Doyle, which it certainly sounds like you are, you've left out a very important point. The actual quote is "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
There is nothing you cannot fake in a video, and with the right tools and know how, such a forgery would prove indistinguishable from a legitimate video. Therefore video evidence is about as reliable as a personal anecdote these days.
Take this brilliant video...
Not real. Pretty cool, but not real.
Video evidence is becoming less accepted even in court these days given the low expense of cameras and editing software. The main source of admissible video evidence in courtrooms today come from security cameras with timestamps and handling procedures.
The only real form of evidence you could present for... for whatever it is that you mean by "paranormal"... would be something tangible that could be studied - like the ectoplasm from Ghostbusters ("He slimed me"). And whatever astonishing results came from the study of said tangible evidence would need to be reproducible by entirely different teams of scientists. Scientific evidence must undergo rigorous scrutiny before it is accepted as legitimate, a daunting task that no video alone will ever live up to.
quote:
Is this an explanation, no. But is a more plausible theory than ghost.
Except that it breaks Occam's Razor because these questions must be asked:
Why would she use such a suit?
What is the motivation for killing the boyfriend? Where is the girl now? Where is the suit?
How would this woman get a hold of such a s suit since these things are generally restricted by the military and are very expensive, costing several million dollars I believe?
Does the woman have any contact with the proper military authorities that would give her the suit? And why would the military authorities authorize the use of this suit? Where would the paperwork be for the authorization and the operation of the suit?
Why target this couple? What have they done to deserve such attention?
And why would she have this suit since childhood? She stated that she was experiencing this kind of thing since childhood. Children are generally not knowledgeable about this kind of thing and presumably, assuming the woman is in her twenties to thirties, she was a child long before the suit actually existed and was just a suggestion in a science fiction book.
How would she even get the idea for using such a suit to terrorize her boyfriend in the first place?
How would the suit allow her to have a demonic visage caught on tape? These kinds of suits don't allow for that kind of thing, at least as far as I know.
And if it was somebody wearing the suit, because she was often shown in bed with her boyfriend, then that means there was a third person inside the house turning the TV and lights on and off. Not to mention moving the sheets. So that if such a suit was being used then that would mean that she had a partner working with her to terrorize the boyfriend.
Which of course means there must be a motivation for terrorizing the boyfriend.
And wouldn't the military be after he to get such an expensive piece of equipment back?
So while it might be more plausible, it doesn't really seem right because it raises a lot of questions to be asked.
So while it might be more plausible, it doesn't really seem right because it raises a lot of questions to be asked.
Questions are what keep science moving forward. If there were no questions, that would be a bad sign. The problem with the "paranormal" conclusion is that it doesn't ask questions that can be investigated.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
I answered the Question " If an unknown invisible force pulled you out of bed , down stairs...bla bla bla.
You are taking my answer to one question and applying it to your question about the movie, you see the problem of this?? I have not seen the movie and am not going to anytime soon less it comes on tv soon.
You wanted an alternate explanation to a question. The problems you have with that answer are due to you taking it out of context an applying it to another question you have?? If you don't like my answer, just say so. You don't need to try and apply it to another question in order to pick it apart, it was never meant to address the movie, just that one question.
"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
It can. But why should it be? And what is a working definition of supernatural?
I'm not saying necessarily that it should be. However, the question Tram Law wants an answer for is: ''At what point do you think you should put it into a paranormal folder''.
Some people, such as Jar it seems, say never, because he uses a twisted and self-serving (in my opinion) definition of supernatural/paranormal: Something that is natural but that we don't understand yet. I say it is self-serving because he then turns around and makes claims such as ''there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons'', when in fact such evidence can never exist no matter what we ever could observe, given his definition.
Personnally, I define supernatural as something that is ''outside of nature, and/or not subject to the laws of nature''. This definition does not exclude that the paranormal can interact inside nature, but they nonetheless would not seemed constrained by it.
Some people, such as Jar it seems, say never, because he uses a twisted and self-serving (in my opinion) definition of supernatural/paranormal: Something that is natural but that we don't understand yet. I say it is self-serving because he then turns around and makes claims such as ''there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons'', when in fact such evidence can never exist no matter what we ever could observe, given his definition.
Try to get my position right for once.
I say that it is impossible because a paranormal or supernatural folder would be superfluous, unneeded and would tell us nothing. The UNKNOWN folder covers all that.
If we get to the point where we actually understand the particular phenomena then it fits in the KNOWN folder, otherwise it is simply UNKNOWN.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Personnally, I define supernatural as something that is ''outside of nature, and/or not subject to the laws of nature''. This definition does not exclude that the paranormal can interact inside nature, but they nonetheless would not seemed constrained by it.
You do realize that every single time in history that people have pointed to a phenomenon that appeared mysterious and claimed that natural laws didn;t apply...that it actually turned out that their understanding of the real natural laws was simply wrong?
What you're doing, slevesque, is pointing at a phenomenon and saying "my understanding of nature is so accurate that I can firmly say that this particular phenomenon is an exception to nature's laws." You;re saying that the problem of your confusion lies not with your own ignorance, but with reality.
Others in history have made the same mistake. Lord Kelvin once famously said that such things as muscle movement and other biological topics were "infinitely beyond" human understanding...and yet we understand them pretty well now.
When you identify a mysterious phenomenon as "supernatural," you're committing a supreme act of hubris, stating that your knowledge is so perfect that reality is responsible for your confusion as opposed to your own ignorance.
I say that it is impossible because a paranormal or supernatural folder would be superfluous, unneeded and would tell us nothing. The UNKNOWN folder covers all that.
If we get to the point where we actually understand the particular phenomena then it fits in the KNOWN folder, otherwise it is simply UNKNOWN.
I'm sorry, but I did get your opinion right. If it has changed now, you simply changed the goalpost midway.
The very first thing you said coming into this thread was:
Even if it was absolutely original and accurate with absolute proof that it was not faked it would still not be evidence of the paranormal.
In fact, evidence of the paranormal is by definition, impossible.
What I said about your position in the message you responded to was:
I say it is self-serving because he then turns around and makes claims such as ''there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons'', ... when in fact such evidence can never exist no matter what we ever could observe, given his definition.
This is entirely consistent to the position of yours that I was referring to.
I understand your concepts of know and unknown folders, but you have to realize that this is a personal view on this. There is nothing wrong in that, but you can't start giving new definitions to words so as to have them fit with your mental constructions. I am entitled to have a 'supernatural folder' and use the word supernatural as it is defined in an english dictionary.
a super natural folder is only intellectual dishonesty.
slevesque writes:
I am entitled to have a 'supernatural folder' and use the word supernatural as it is defined in an english dictionary.
And you are entitled to have a pink pond slime folder, BUT the difference is that the pink pond slime folder could actually have some meaning and value.
Until you can present the supernatural to be examined in the same way we examine everything else all you are doing is mislabeling the Unknown.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
You do realize that every single time in history that people have pointed to a phenomenon that appeared mysterious and claimed that natural laws didn;t apply...that it actually turned out that their understanding of the real natural laws was simply wrong?
This is a very broad assertion, and I can point out the twist you are missing in all this.
I agree that history has shown us time and again that phenomenons that were thought to be supernatural ended up having a natural explanation. But there is also another common denominator between all of them: they were repeatable phenomenons. Lightning, disease, rain, floods, growing crops, etc. All repeatable. And this is of course to be expected if they are to turn out to be the result of constant, unchanging natural laws.
Because of this, there seems to ba a qualitative difference between that, and a supernatural interaction, because if a supernatural thing isn't constrained by natural laws, then it can just as well be a one time event, unrepeatable, untestable, and unscientifically searchable. In other words, even if you recreated the exact same conditions in which it took place, you won't reproduce the event. wWhich would be evidence that either you don't fully have the exact same conditions and that this difference in condition is crucial, or that the event was supernatural in nature.
Hypothetical examples of this would be turning water into wine, and a person dead for 3 days rising from the dead.
What you're doing, slevesque, is pointing at a phenomenon and saying "my understanding of nature is so accurate that I can firmly say that this particular phenomenon is an exception to nature's laws." You;re saying that the problem of your confusion lies not with your own ignorance, but with reality.
No, I'm simply pointing out that words have definition, and that if we start playing humpty-dumpty around here it's gonna get ugly.
Supernatual means:
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Others in history have made the same mistake. Lord Kelvin once famously said that such things as muscle movement and other biological topics were "infinitely beyond" human understanding...and yet we understand them pretty well now.
First, I have not yet made any specific claims about any specific phenomenon being supernatural in nature. The only question being asked right now is: At what point can it be considered reasonable to consider a phenomenon as supernatural in nature ?
Second, as I explained above, there seems to be a qualitative difference between what lord Kelvin said here and any event I would personnally consider having a supernatural cause.
When you identify a mysterious phenomenon as "supernatural," you're committing a supreme act of hubris, stating that your knowledge is so perfect that reality is responsible for your confusion as opposed to your own ignorance.
And that is why we're aren't even to the point of identifying anything as natural or supernatural yet, but simply trying to get people to use the right definitions with the words.
It is believed by some that this coming May biblical Armageddon will occur. Surely in the bewildering unlikely event that this occurs it would qualify as evidence in favour of the supernatural? Imagine the scenario.....
The second coming of Christ 'God the son' and ensuing Armageddon is in full swing. Christians are being exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead coming bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators. Those who have not repented their sins are cast into the fiery abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons.
jar writes:
If it is identified it is no longer paranormal or supernatural. But it is really even more difficult, there simply cannot be evidence of either the supernatural or paranormal; what is possible is that something can be Natural, or it goes into the Unknown folder.
Now by your reckoning these events and beings fail to be evidence of anything supernatural simply by virtue of being "identified".
So according to you even as unsaved non-believers such as myself are flung into the fiery abyss to be tortured by demons for all eternity we can congratulate ourselved on our rational rejection of all things supernatural because there remains absolutely no evidence of supernatural beings actually existing. All is natural in the world. Right up to and including the end of times occurring as biblically foretold. Hurrah for the supernatural skeptics say you even as you too are handed judgement of your eternal fate from Christ himself.
jar writes:
...there simply cannot be evidence of either the supernatural or paranormal...
Surely the above scenario would qualify as evidence of the supetnatural?
™ Version 4.2
(1)