Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, this actually involves a local game store.
This store has an attic where the terrain is stored. We where helping him move it. 3 guys went up and we go down. I was the one in the rear, I felt something push my back as I leave. Like a hand. I was lucky to hold the rail and not fall.
Talked to the owner and it turns out he firmly believes it's haunted and refused to go up there by himself.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eye witnesses. They're evidence.

They are, however, considered the weakest form of evidence and not worth much without other evidence to support them. It's well known how bad people are at getting accurate information, whether it's because of bias, poor vision, etc. And when we're talking about something like the supernatural that would go directly against well-understood and well-proven science the burden of proof is high. It's absurd to suggest that the two sides are equal, that we need to treat the existence of the supernatural as a plausible theory. That's as far from the truth as you can get. The burden of proof is high, and the pro-supernatural side is nowhere near meeting it. The evidence is nothing but individual anecdotes, and the supernatural mysteriously disappears whenever anyone tries to collect any more compelling evidence.

So yes, it's possible that the supernatural exists. It's also possible that I'm an AI construct sent to this forum to waste your time and prevent you from stopping the robot revolution. I don't think either possibility should be considered anything but nonsense.

It does seem you come in to ruin other people's fun though.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It does seem you come in to ruin other people's fun though.

Sorry if the truth is not fun, but I'm under no obligation to pretend that nonsense is true. If you want to have fun with the idea of hauntings or general supernatural stuff there's a fiction section where you can write all the creative stories you want, without anyone objecting to their truth: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/9.page

Just because you think it's the truth doesn't mean it is.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because you think it's the truth doesn't mean it is.

I don't think you understand how the burden of proof works.

I don't think you understand how it is annoying to come into threads, assert people are liars and wrong and immediatly ruin their fun. But that seems to be your MO

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't think you understand how it is annoying to come into threads, assert people are liars and wrong and immediatly ruin their fun. But that seems to be your MO

Again, if you want fun there's a fiction section where you can write all of the fun ghost stories you want. Nobody is going to complain that they aren't true. But if you want to discuss the facts of hauntings and supernatural stuff in general then you're going to have to face the fact that the evidence for all of it is on the same level as the evidence for flat earth theory. And I don't care if you don't think that the truth is fun enough.

Except it is true, I really was pushed down stairs something when the room was empty.
Just because you refuse to believe people doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true.
And this wasn't about the Facts of hauntings, it was about ghost stories, you turned it into one.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Except it is true, I really was pushed down stairs something when the room was empty.

Or you stumbled and "I was pushed" was less embarrassing than "I tripped over my own feet". I think this is a much more likely explanation than a "haunting" that ignores basic laws of physics, much like "flat earthers are wrong" is much more plausible than the earth actually being flat in direct opposition to lots of evidence that it is round.

Just because you refuse to believe people doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true.

Again, you don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works. Claims without evidence are worthless, and that's all the pro-paranormal side has. Mysteriously whenever anyone tries to get more concrete and repeatable proof the ghosts/magic spells/whatever seem to vanish entirely, as if they were nothing but a work of fiction or an over-active imagination.

And this wasn't about the Facts of hauntings, it was about ghost stories, you turned it into one.

The topic of the thread is asking for real experiences, not a contest about who can write the best fiction (which, again, has a place in a different section). And you agree with me about this being about facts by claiming that your story is true account of an event that really happened.

Why even come in other than to ruin other people's parade? It seems like that is what you do.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why even come in other than to ruin other people's parade? It seems like that is what you do.

What parade? You seem to think this is a fun cozy campfire.

Nobody pushed you down the stairs. There is no proof.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why even come in other than to ruin other people's parade? It seems like that is what you do.

Because this is a discussion forum, not a hugbox, and sometimes when you make a claim about something you get skepticism as a response. If you don't want to have your parade ruined then take it to the fiction section where it belongs, the rest of us are under no obligation to pretend that ghost stories are real just because you find it fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eye witnesses. They're evidence.

They are, however, considered the weakest form of evidence and not worth much without other evidence to support them. It's well known how bad people are at getting accurate information, whether it's because of bias, poor vision, etc. And when we're talking about something like the supernatural that would go directly against well-understood and well-proven science the burden of proof is high. It's absurd to suggest that the two sides are equal, that we need to treat the existence of the supernatural as a plausible theory. That's as far from the truth as you can get. The burden of proof is high, and the pro-supernatural side is nowhere near meeting it. The evidence is nothing but individual anecdotes, and the supernatural mysteriously disappears whenever anyone tries to collect any more compelling evidence.

So yes, it's possible that the supernatural exists. It's also possible that I'm an AI construct sent to this forum to waste your time and prevent you from stopping the robot revolution. I don't think either possibility should be considered anything but nonsense.

But that’s not what I’m saying.

The exploration of why it’s not in fact Supernatural is just as fascinating as the outside chance it is Supernatural. To simply discount a report out of hand ‘because Science’ is, well, pretty childish.

Consider the following. There are professional ghost hunters out there. And they use certain types of equipment to ‘record spirit activity’. What exactly are those tools? What is it they are actually measuring, and can it be replicated outside of ‘haunted’ houses? Explore that. Offer information, not just a shrug of the shoulders.

As I mentioned a few times, I regularly and avidly read Fortean Times. It’s a cracking magazine, and usually has very interesting articles on the odd and unusual. Yet it’s not credulous. It’s not treating the supernatural as sacrosanct and self-evident. Instead it’s exploring how most stuff is debunked, often by the very people leading the investigation.

Sure, it’s tempting to think of everyone looking into Forteana and the Supernatural as some hippie weirdo, or that Centauri looking dude that claims everything is aliens. But it’s not. Many are investigating from the angle of proving its not supernatural. Actually doing science, not just saying ‘science’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically. Don’t mistake interest and investigation for credulity.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To simply discount a report out of hand ‘because Science’ is, well, pretty childish.

Alternatively, it's realistic. There's already an abundance of anecdotes about ghosts or whatever, adding one more isn't bringing anything new to the table. Dismissing it with "because science" is just a quick way of saying "not convincing, come back when you have better evidence". It would be childish (and badly wrong) to dismiss a story backed up with new and compelling evidence, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Consider the following. There are professional ghost hunters out there. And they use certain types of equipment to ‘record spirit activity’. What exactly are those tools? What is it they are actually measuring, and can it be replicated outside of ‘haunted’ houses? Explore that. Offer information, not just a shrug of the shoulders.

That's not how the burden of proof works. It's not our job to explore, it's the so-called professional's job to present a description of their tools as a part of making their claim. They won't, because the equipment is all nonsense, but that's what is required to make an argument worth listening to. If all they're saying is "LOOK A GHOST" and expecting people to explore and try to do their job for them, well, onto the trash pile with that nonsense. It's just more of the same old garbage and there's no reason to engage with it.

Don’t mistake interest and investigation for credulity.

But at some point they become the same thing. For example, flat earthers and young earth creationists and such have nothing to offer. Their position is clearly wrong, as demonstrated by giant piles of evidence, and they utterly fail to bring anything new to the discussion when making their claims. Continued investigation, in the absence of anything but repeating the same old nonsense claims, is credulity. It's treating nonsense as if it is legitimate enough to bother investigating, instead of tossing straight into the trash pile with the guy screaming about mind control in the chemtrails. If you're giving those arguments anything more than the most superficial of dismissals you're suffering from a severe lack of skepticism and understanding.

Same thing with ghosts and all the other assorted supernatural nonsense. The argument is so weak right now that it isn't even worth considering until its advocates bring something better, treating it as a legitimate field of inquiry is granting it respect that it has not earned.

I’d say Flat Earthers and Creationists are worse, because they either wilfully misinterpret evidence, or just claim any evidence against has been faked as part of some increasingly bizarre and far ranging conspiracy.

There are investigations into the supernatural. And they make for engaging reading.

Consider one which blurs the lines between creationism and common or garden supernatural reports. The 10 Plagues of Egypt.

Some claim they were expressly the will of god. Yet there are solid scientific explanations for them, and indeed how one can follow the other in a logical series of events.

Now just because Science can say how they occurred, to someone of faith, that doesn’t rule out god kicking them off. Or even adjusting his creation to ensure each followed the last, and never set things back as they were.

Crucially here, those just shrugging aren’t actually offering anything other than ‘but my science’. And frankly, I doubt anyone here has actually done the science themself.

So to go back to my own reports. I’ve provided the recollections of a very young me. And the recollection of a much older me. Now I cannot offer more than that. But nobody here has offered me anything other than ‘you’re wrong because I say so’.

That is not interesting. That is not engaging. Offer an actual explanation. I’m sure there is one. And I’m willing to accept that what I experienced wasn’t in fact supernatural. Could’ve been a bad angle. Could’ve been the result of an imagination already primed to have ‘an experience’.

Other stuff that is interesting? Before UFO abductions, it was Fairy Folk doing it. When you look at the reports from alleged abductees, they’re remarkably similar. So what is it that’s actually happening to those people? As already covered, there’s a fascinating paper out there suggesting we’re hard wired for faith, and belief in the supernatural as a survival trait.

That is an interesting response, no?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Other stuff that is interesting? Before UFO abductions, it was Fairy Folk doing it. When you look at the reports from alleged abductees, they’re remarkably similar. So what is it that’s actually happening to those people?

One explanation is one I’ve referenced before in this thread; Sleep Paralysis. I’ve experienced it twice and both times I had the same experience that “alien abductees” have. Previous to the alien explanation it was devils sitting on your chest. Could there be aliens or devils doing it? Sure, but I’ll require verifiable proof of that before accepting it as a cause and until then I’ll go with the researched and proven explanation of sleep paralysis.

Sleep Paralysis doesn't explain everything though.
How can sleep paralysis explain the caronado group abduction, or ones that are said to happen outside.
Not t only that, but if we are to give proof, it is immediatly dismissed.
My favorite line from a show is "for those that believe there is enough proof, for those that don't, there will never be enough.

I’ll be happy to attribute those events to alien abduction if you can provide physical evidence of the event occurring. Until then I will file it under “unexplained”.

As long as "unexplained" isn't prefaced with "ruling out the paranormal"

 Just Tony wrote:
As long as "unexplained" isn't prefaced with "ruling out the paranormal"

I won’t rule it out, I just do not jump to the fallacy of “I cannot explain something therefore ghosts/aliens/god/whatever must be the reason”.

 Just Tony wrote:
As long as "unexplained" isn't prefaced with "ruling out the paranormal"

We wont rule it out. But we also have absolutely no reason to consider it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No. I know such silly superstitions don't exist

Silly superstitions do exist...

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
As long as "unexplained" isn't prefaced with "ruling out the paranormal"

We wont rule it out. But we also have absolutely no reason to consider it.

Then you've ruled it out.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
As long as "unexplained" isn't prefaced with "ruling out the paranormal"

We wont rule it out. But we also have absolutely no reason to consider it.

Then you've ruled it out.

You never consider made up stuff until there is some sort of evidence that it may exist.

Ghost stories are not evidence.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't think you understand how it is annoying to come into threads, assert people are liars and wrong and immediatly ruin their fun. But that seems to be your MO

The way to avoid this is to do what I did. Put him on your ignore list and now he can no longer annoy you or ruin your fun. Long and short, don't engage the troll and life is much better.

Doubtless ruining his fun in the doing.

 Vulcan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't think you understand how it is annoying to come into threads, assert people are liars and wrong and immediatly ruin their fun. But that seems to be your MO

The way to avoid this is to do what I did. Put him on your ignore list and now he can no longer annoy you or ruin your fun. Long and short, don't engage the troll and life is much better.

Doubtless ruining his fun in the doing.

I think it says a lot about the credibility of the people claiming ghost stories that you are, apparently 100% seriously, dismissing skepticism as "trolling" and "ruining your fun". And instead of providing better evidence to prove the claim, or admitting that it is wrong, you think that the proper response is blocking the critic so you don't have to see the criticism.

All the same, there’s a time and a place. And when folks gather round the campfire, as it were, it’s neither the time nor the place.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/768321/Paranormal-OTHER-dimension-consciousness

Not sure if that link is going to work, but there are individuals in this thread asserting that their perception of a lack of evidence in paranormal or supernatural is truth or fact. What if those things exist and you are just incapable of perceiving them with your current senses? You are currently filling the shoes of those scientists that believed the sun rotated around the earth and before that the earth was flat.

Thought I’d have a crack at the argument. I had an experience where a buddy who died visited me. Could it have been my imagination? Could I have made a mistake and didn’t see him when I thought I did? My senses told me I saw him when it is not possible that I could have seen him. So there’s that.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
What if those things exist and you are just incapable of perceiving them with your current senses?

What if I'm actually the second coming of Jesus and about to pass judgement on the world. You'd better give me all of your money just to be safe.

You are currently filling the shoes of those scientists that believed the sun rotated around the earth and before that the earth was flat.

You're going to have to provide a hell of a lot more proof before that claim is plausible. Right now the people telling ghost stories are the equivalent of the flat earthers and geocentrists, lots of anecdotes and talk of "having fun" but nothing even resembling proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
All the same, there’s a time and a place. And when folks gather round the campfire, as it were, it’s neither the time nor the place.

Again, the fiction section exists if people want to "gather round the camp fire" write fun ghost stories without anyone disputing if they are true. If they want to claim that it's true and supernatural stuff is real then it's not going to be a hugbox and skepticism is a perfectly valid response.