marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Hey, I didn't think the show was that bad. She seemed a little messianic in her quest to "help" them, whoever they were -- a question I'd rather she explored more. There's absolutely no evidence I'm aware of that the apparitions or whatever are actually the leftover joie de vivre of our dearly departed. None.
I'm a skeptic who has actually seen what I would consider to be a ghost. I won't go into it here but nothing in the event led me to believe it was somebody that had died and not crossed over.
And no comprehensive theory of haunting can be complete without at least a discussion of the Philip experiment:
What I find particularly intriguing about this experiment is it's relationship to the UFO phenomenon: UFOs in the 1800s appeared as airships manned by foreigners, not metallic spacecraft from zeta reticuli. ETs were elves in the middle ages. You don't hear much about MIB's anymore, they seem to have been an artifact of cold war thinking.
On another thread I also mentioned CARET and the drones as hoaxes. People point out that others, including reputable people, have come forward and reported experiences going back years. What I find fascinating is that none of these people came forward until after all the (what I consider to be obviously hoaxed) photos were posted to the ATS forums. Perhaps our memory of these high strangeness events is itself somehow malleable as well?
Something about this phenomena - both UFO and ghostly - adapts itself to our expectations of it, which makes it very difficult to study. And very intriguing. But because of it's apparent malleability it is very easy to be lead astray -- this is why any theory (rather than belief system) put forward must be verifiable and testable in some way. Otherwise there is no way to be sure of any understanding that you have.
As they say, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" -- the Buddha you meet won't be the real Buddha, just your symbolic idea of what Buddha is. If this stuff is important enough to matter, then it's important enough to test, verify, and "kill" our ideas of what we want it to be and replace them with what is.
I'm a skeptic who has actually seen what I would consider to be a ghost. I won't go into it here but nothing in the event led me to believe it was somebody that had died and not crossed over.
And no comprehensive theory of haunting can be complete without at least a discussion of the Philip experiment:
The Philip experiment - creating a ghost
What I find particularly intriguing about this experiment is it's relationship to the UFO phenomenon: UFOs in the 1800s appeared as airships manned by foreigners, not metallic spacecraft from zeta reticuli. ETs were elves in the middle ages. You don't hear much about MIB's anymore, they seem to have been an artifact of cold war thinking.
On another thread I also mentioned CARET and the drones as hoaxes. People point out that others, including reputable people, have come forward and reported experiences going back years. What I find fascinating is that none of these people came forward until after all the (what I consider to be obviously hoaxed) photos were posted to the ATS forums. Perhaps our memory of these high strangeness events is itself somehow malleable as well?
Something about this phenomena - both UFO and ghostly - adapts itself to our expectations of it, which makes it very difficult to study. And very intriguing. But because of it's apparent malleability it is very easy to be lead astray -- this is why any theory (rather than belief system) put forward must be verifiable and testable in some way. Otherwise there is no way to be sure of any understanding that you have.
As they say, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" -- the Buddha you meet won't be the real Buddha, just your symbolic idea of what Buddha is. If this stuff is important enough to matter, then it's important enough to test, verify, and "kill" our ideas of what we want it to be and replace them with what is.
). 
