Poltergeists!

In response to a discussion with Lindalou in Are thoughts transcendant?, I've decided to start a poltergeist thread.As Lindalou may or may not know, "I've seen it myself" is not scientific evidence.To wit: This is the alternatype's party line.Lindalou seems to find the Enfield case convincing. The SPR is here.Remarkably, none of their "Enfield evidence" is available.Well. Lindalou. What is it you find so convincing?

So that participants don't have to look for LindaLou's post, here is the link to Message 25.molbiogirl, please try to make your own arguments, with links for support; instead of cut and pastes from links with your comments of agreement or challenge.Members debate with each other, they don't debate with websites.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

First of all, I'd like to say that I would really love to have a poltergeist experience at least a few times in my life time. I occasionally hear people talk about the various experiences they'd had with ghosts and stuff. Why can't it happen to me? For once, I'd like to see my couch float or my bed shake.Regarding evidence, I'd like to point out that IFF we are dealing with spirits, or the departed souls of the deceased, then surely we can expect them to be intelligent. If this is the case, then I can't see any reason why these spirits can't hide from investigators.Here is an analogy. Say that I'm 6 and my sister is 7. When mom is not looking, I intentionally spill some of her milk on the table. She then calls mom and tell mom that I did it not her. Mom then procedes to do a scientific experiment by standing there and watching the both of us to see if I'm going to spill some milk again. Obviously, I don't want to get caught so I just act innocent. After 5 minutes of waiting, mom concludes that, since she didn't see me do anything and since the glass of milk that was spilled was may sister's, my sister lied about me spilling the milk.Now, let's look at the ghost thing. if these are intelligent beings, how do we know they're not making fools of the people they are haunting by only showing themselves to these people and noone else?Now, remember that I'm a skeptic. I'm not saying these things because I'm rationalizing the issue. I'm simply saying that the lack of evidence from investigators does not necessarily mean there was no haunting. Mom concluded that my sister lied even though I did spill her milk.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I find it ... interesting ... that in this day and age we haven't any video of poltergeist activity.I mean other than crap like this:HugeDomains.comOr this:HugeDomains.com

quote:

---

After 5 minutes of waiting, mom concludes that, since she didn't see me do anything and since the glass of milk that was spilled was may sister's, my sister lied about me spilling the milk.

---

Of course, real scientific experiments tend to be just a wee bit more sophisticated than Mom standing there and looking for five minutes.If ghosts are just as smart as people, then I'd say they could be pretty easily fooled.People, after all, are easily fooled.

OK before anyone makes any more assumptions . . .My position on the subject of poltergeists is this. I have enjoyed studying the subject for a number of years and am certain that the phenomena occur. Some cases may be partial or total frauds; some may have completely mundane explanations. However, there are accounts of poltergeist phenomena dating back hundreds of years if not longer, and many of them exhibit similar "core" phenomena. I think it would be illogical to dismiss ALL of it as hoaxing, wishful thinking, etc.So I am in no doubt that these things do happen. What I would like to know is HOW. I think this is something that deserves serious investigation.Brief info about the Enfield case has been provided here. Any skeptic will soon seize on the confession of Janet and her sister that they faked some of the phenomena. They say they guess about 2% of the incidents were faked by them. If you look into the reports of some of the incidents, though, it's difficult to see how they could be faked. I'll mention four here. This information comes from Guy Lyon Playfair's recently reprinted book, This House Is Haunted. For further information, you can have a look here The Enfield poltergeist: A 30-year silence is broken or watch this video, which summarises the case well and includes a tape of the "voice": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox9lseJP-BA-- The local police were called in to investigate shortly after the disturbances started. In view of the WPC, as well as the other seven people in the room, a chair began to wobble from side to side and then slid along the floor towards the kitchen. The WPC immediately examined the chair but could not figure out how it had moved; she estimated the distance to be 3 or 4 feet. She appears in the video link above. The children were not in the house at the time.-- A gas fire, weighing 20 kilograms, was wrenched from the wall of an empty room shortly after the investigators had left it. They'd deliberately removed other articles in the room that had been flung around, such as pictures on the wall and slippers.-- At one point, Janet was alone in her room and claimed that she was being levitated. In the room with her was a red cushion that had been placed there while asking the poltergeist to do something with it. Indeed there were no witnesses in the house to these events, but passers-by outside have their own stories to tell. They were talking to the SPR researchers not the media, and none of them stood to gain anything financially by making up stories.A local tradesman was walking past the house. This is his statement: "I saw this child, whom I know to be Janet, well inside the room, and in the first instance I saw her head bobbing up and down on her bed. Then articles came swiftly across the room towards the window. They were definitely not thrown at the window, as the articles were going round in a circle, hitting the window and then bouncing off, to continue at the same height, in a clockwise direction. If the articles had been thrown, they would have just hit the window and fallen down. The articles appeared to be books, dolls, and linen articles. There were five or six articles, and by their movement they acted as though they were attached to a piece of elastic. They appeared to be travelling with considerable force, and all were going round at the same time. The child then appeared on two occasions, floating horizontally across the room, and twice her arm banged forcibly against the window. I was frightened at the time that she would come right through the window. At the same time as the articles were going round the room, the curtains were blowing upwards, into the room. The whole episode was very violent, and I was very upset and disturbed by what I saw. Very soon after the episode, I was outside the house talking to someone about these strange events, when Janet came out. She looked very vacant, and certainly not like a child who had just been playing about."Playfair adds: "The tradesman struck us both as a totally honest witness. He was still very upset when Grosse went to see him to take a second statement in April 1978, and begged us not to reveal his name or to send journalists to see him. We spoke to him again in 1979, and he told us that he stuck to everything he had told us, but did not want to talk about it to anybody else. There is no doubt at all that his experience made a profound and lasting impression on him."The same tradesman also said that he had seen a large red object that looked like a cushion, on the edge of the roof. It was directly in his line of vision. One minute it had not been there, and the next it was.Another witness also saw the cushion on the roof and wondered what it was doing there. Then she looked at Janet's window. Here is her statement: "I was standing there looking at the house, when all of a sudden a couple of books came flying across and hit the window. It was so sudden. I heard the noise because it was so quiet, there was no traffic, and it made me jump. When I looked up, a candy-striped pillow hit the window as well. That came after the books, and I was -- I don't know if there's a bed underneath that window, but she was going up and down as though someone was just tossing her up and down bodily, in a horizontal position, like as if someone had got hold of her legs and back and was throwing her up and down. I definitely saw her come up about window height, but I thought if she was bouncing, she'd bounce from her feet, she wouldn't be able to get enough power to bounce off her back, to come up that high. My friend could see her as well, we both could see her."Playfair adds: "Later, Grosse and I went to see this friend, who lived round the corner. At first, she denied having been present, and when we said Mrs. Short had given us her address she became extremely agitated and refused to say anything except 'I'm afraid I really can't talk about it.' We had the impression that even several weeks after the event she was still thoroughly shaken and frightened by what she had seen."Gross and Playfair also made investigations of the bed and the window, and tried to repeat the phenomena that the witnesses described. They concluded that trickery would have been impossible without Janet visibly leaning at a dangerous length out of the window to put the cushion on the roof; and that however hard Playfair bounced on the bed, he could not get up into the air at all, let alone the 28 inches he estimated Janet needed to rise in order to be seen from the window.Finally, an interesting aspect of the case is that the poltergeist developed a "voice." This voice, which was deep and gravelly (I have heard tapes of it), would engage the investigators in conversations sometimes for hours, yet Janet never showed any strain from the sessions, such as a hoarse voice or sore throat. At one point the investigators filled her mouth with water and put tape over her mouth. The voice still spoke just as before. At the end of the session the tape was removed and Janet spit the water out.There are many other incidents but these should give a flavour of why I find this case intriguing. On reason why it is famous is because it was witnessed by so many people.Poltergeist activity also took place in the house I live in. My husband grew up here with his sister and father, and they have all told me their stories of what happened. I will be happy to relate some incidents here later, though for the sake of brevity I will focus on what my husband says happened. I have known him for 17 years and he is an honest, down-to-earth person, an atheist, who has little interest in the paranormal and discusses these events with very few people. From his point of view they were just odd things that happened and he doesn't want to make a fuss about them.The last point I'd like to make here is that I also have a book written by well-known paranormal investigators John and Anne Spencer, titled The Poltergeist Phenomenon: An Investigation into Psychic Disturbance. In the book they look at many cases from the past and present, from all over the world, and analyse what they have in common in order to try to understand the poltergeist better, what is actually is, and what may cause it. I think it's important to define here what is generally meant by "poltergeist," because it seems to be a separate phenomenon from a haunting, though the line between the two can be blurred. Poltergeist cases tend to be short-lived, lasting a few days to a few months, though a few cases have been known to carry on for years. They tend to center around one person, often an adolescent. "Core phenomena," as defined in this book, include a small start, often with noises, growing to a crescendo with the movement of objects. Often featured are the following: stone-throwing, rapping and scratching noises, and the spontaneous movement of objects. Other common features can be objects appearing or disappearing, spontaneous fires, electrical interferences (electronic equipment often seems to develop unexpected or unusual faults), the spontaneous appearance of water (e.g. in neat little puddles with no obvious source), and apparitions. There is also speculation that phenomena described as demonic possession could actually be an internalisation of the poltergeist, whatever in essence that may be.That's it for now I think, need to take a break As RAZD says, enjoy.

Is it even possible for a video of a poltergeist to not be labeled as crap?I watched a few of the ghost vidoes on that spookable site. Some were pretty good and even convincing.But to a hardcore skeptic or an atheist, they are dismissed a priori and labeled as crap.Of course you're not going to "have" any video if they're all thrown out beforehand.Its circular reasoning coupled with hand-waving.

quote:

---

But to a hardcore skeptic or an atheist, they are dismissed a priori and labeled as crap.

---

Actually, that is inaccurate.a hardcore skeptic would require a lot of evidence, repeatability, etc. to accept something, but can certainly be convinced if it is reasonable, in light of the evidence.What you are talking about isn't skepticism, it's cynicism.I have no idea what being an Atheist has to do with anything relating to poltergeists.

I guess hardcore skeptics are cynical then... Typically, atheists don't believe in the supernatural. If there is a claim of a video that shows the supernatural, then that claim is labeled as crap a priori because they believe the supernatural doesn't exist.To then go on to claim that there aren't any videos of the supernatural is circular reasoning.

quote:

---

I guess hardcore skeptics are cynical then...

---

They can be, and some are to a greater or lesser degree, but the terms are not synonymous.Even hardcore skeptics are able to be convinced by evidence.Cynics are not.

quote:

---

Typically, atheists don't believe in the supernatural. If there is a claim of a video that shows the supernatural, then that claim is labeled as crap a priori because they believe the supernatural doesn't exist.

---

Maybe, but I wouldn't really know, not frequently an observer of such discussions.

Link?Any video (like the spookable.com one I linked to) that I can explain with simple off camera shenanigans aren't "convincing" to me.btw.I have a BFA in video, so I'm well versed in camera trickery, too.Edited by molbiogirl, : typo

I bet. None of them are going to be convincing to you.They come pre-labeled as "crap".If it is possible that they could be faked then they are assumed to be faked.Why do you find it so "interesting" that you can't find any non-crap videos, then?

quote:

---

However, there are accounts of poltergeist phenomena dating back hundreds of years if not longer, and many of them exhibit similar "core" phenomena. I think it would be illogical to dismiss ALL of it as hoaxing, wishful thinking, etc.

---

Actually, that is a logical fallacy right there.A large number of reports of something doesn't make that something any more likely to be based in fact.It is evidence that supports claims, not the number of claims.Also, remember that we are very social animals and part of how we connect with each other is through our mythology and stories. Belief in things that are nonsensical, not based in evidence, and untrue are well-known to be passed generationally by means of another fallacy called communal reinforcement, whereby a belief is reinforced through repetition and cultural pressure to believe without question. Racism and religious beliefs are two obvious examples of this sort of thing.Look, I don't mean to be a killjoy, but I really don't see any evidence of any skeptical investigation whatsoever in the Enfield case.

quote:

---

They were talking to the SPR researchers not the media, and none of them stood to gain anything financially by making up stories.

---

Attention, delusion, wanting to be part of the "in group", and not wanting to be left out of the excitement are all powerful social reasons for people to fabricate or embellish stories. There is also the issue of confimation bias, simple error, and delusion to consider.That photo of the girl being "thrown" across the room? Looks very much like she was bouncing on her bed and decided to leap off, considering she is completely upright. There's no particular reason to believe she was thrown. The caption describes the sister as "terrified" but she doesn't look scared at all.That link is for the credulous.

quote:

---

I think it's important to define here what is generally meant by "poltergeist," because it seems to be a separate phenomenon from a haunting, though the line between the two can be blurred. Poltergeist cases tend to be short-lived, lasting a few days to a few months, though a few cases have been known to carry on for years. They tend to center around one person, often an adolescent. "Core phenomena," as defined in this book, include a small start, often with noises, growing to a crescendo with the movement of objects. Often featured are the following: stone-throwing, rapping and scratching noises, and the spontaneous movement of objects. Other common features can be objects appearing or disappearing, spontaneous fires, electrical interferences (electronic equipment often seems to develop unexpected or unusual faults), the spontaneous appearance of water (e.g. in neat little puddles with no obvious source), and apparitions. There is also speculation that phenomena described as demonic possession could actually be an internalisation of the poltergeist, whatever in essence that may be.

---

OK, so what empirical, rational, testable evidence is any of the above based upon?

Perhaps they are as smart as people, but they also supposedly have an advantage over us. They can remain completely invisible and watch us plan out ways to fool them.Be honest to yourself. Just imagine these spirits the way they are suppose to be: incorporeal beings that could sometimes manipulate physical things. If they wanted to fool even the top minds on the planet, I'm pretty sure they can. Oh, sure, these experiments mostly just involve investigators standing around trying to catch a glimpse of things floating around. Can't have a real experiment if the ghosts decided not to make things float around while the experimenters are watching.Like the analogy I pointed out. Even if I'm 6 years old, I'm an intelligent being that knows when mom is watching and thus not spill my sister's milk. Doesn't really help my sister's case, especially when mom already had her mind made up about who actually spilled the milk.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

...until shown otherwise. What are the alternatives? Doing the opposite? That is clearly crazy. A compromise? What would that look like? It might be true, or it might not? That's the position of the sceptic - who also adds a probability calculation into the equation: which is more likely, that the cushion is flying across the screen as the result of unseeable entities OR unseen entities (such as a person or device off camera).The most convincing footage I saw, that I believed at the time, was BBCs Ghostwatch (1992). The things that happened were so overt, and in the presence of many credible people, that the options were either that hundreds of people had been in on an elaborate fake OR it was poltergeist activity.Turns out it was the former. I was twelve at the time mind, but had there been someone who was very sceptical present and engaging in investigation rather than just being caught up in events, and had it not been revealed as a mockumentary - then I'd not just assume it to be fake.I'd still hold it as possible, but the number of people involved, the critical investigation, the overt activity (which if it had been faked, it would have been obvious it was faked under critical investigation) would convince me of the distinct possibility that some crazy stuff went down at that house that might be best explained with appeals to the paranormal.Those cunning poltergeists don't show themselves in this fashion unfortunately. They go into hiding and only throw massive objects around when there are no decent cameras around. They'll be coaxed into sliding tables around and opening and closing doors if there is a camcorder knocking around though.