data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25ae7/25ae7854405925daae31d5133fa4b15bbed2cc77" alt=":cooltongue:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25ae7/25ae7854405925daae31d5133fa4b15bbed2cc77" alt=":angry:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25ae7/25ae7854405925daae31d5133fa4b15bbed2cc77" alt=":lol:"
Posted 22 February 2007 - 02:39 AM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 02:42 AM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 02:54 AM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 04:29 AM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 04:38 AM
A scientist on a show about UFOs theorized that people want to believe in Aliens/UFOs and other unexplained phenomenon because it "adds enchantment to nature". Maybe the world seems a little more fun with ghosts, big foot and little green men...
Posted 22 February 2007 - 09:07 AM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 06:00 PM
Posted 22 February 2007 - 06:06 PM
(especially "Most Haunted").
Posted 22 February 2007 - 06:13 PM
A scientist on a show about UFOs theorized that people want to believe in Aliens/UFOs and other unexplained phenomenon because it "adds enchantment to nature". Maybe the world seems a little more fun with ghosts, big foot and little green men...
I think I remember seeing that program, Tarl. However I just refuse to believe that in such a vast universe, alot untapped, we are the hierarchy of existence...
Posted 22 February 2007 - 06:48 PM
(especially "Most Haunted").
Funny you should say that Matt
Posted 11 January 2008 - 04:44 AM
Those who have seen clothed figures, there is also a possibility of 'recordings'. It may be possible that someone's movements or actions are somehow 'recorded' in time, and 'played back' every now and again. Hence, clothed ghosts are merely repeated images from the past.
Yes, I find that concept easier to believe in, than ghosts. I have heard people who live in large houses occasionally hear a ball, or a banquet happening in their dining room, and some believe it is just a moment from the past replaying itself for a few seconds (almost like a long overdue echo).
Do you hear how sci-fi that sounds? A recording...![]()
Not to come off as cheeky to you but if you find plausibility in that explanation then you may as well believe in ghosts.
As a young child, I saw a friend of my grandfather's, who had lived down the street from us and had recently passed, staring in my bedroom window. It was just for a moment but I know I saw it but never said anything about it the next morning for fear of getting teased by my moronic, older brother. lol
When my son was a toddler I remember him pointing at my bedroom and smiling stating that a woman(we assumed it was his grandmother) was sitting on our bed waving at him. He doesn't remember now when I bring it up to him though...
Posted 11 January 2008 - 04:25 PM
Those who have seen clothed figures, there is also a possibility of 'recordings'. It may be possible that someone's movements or actions are somehow 'recorded' in time, and 'played back' every now and again. Hence, clothed ghosts are merely repeated images from the past.
Yes, I find that concept easier to believe in, than ghosts. I have heard people who live in large houses occasionally hear a ball, or a banquet happening in their dining room, and some believe it is just a moment from the past replaying itself for a few seconds (almost like a long overdue echo).
Do you hear how sci-fi that sounds? A recording...![]()
Not to come off as cheeky to you but if you find plausibility in that explanation then you may as well believe in ghosts.
As a young child, I saw a friend of my grandfather's, who had lived down the street from us and had recently passed, staring in my bedroom window. It was just for a moment but I know I saw it but never said anything about it the next morning for fear of getting teased by my moronic, older brother. lol
When my son was a toddler I remember him pointing at my bedroom and smiling stating that a woman(we assumed it was his grandmother) was sitting on our bed waving at him. He doesn't remember now when I bring it up to him though...
Well, I don't neccessarily believe it myself unless I experience something myself, but it does explain why ghosts often only appear for a moment, or have their back to those they're supposedly visiting.
And yes, it did sound a little cheeky. Most un-Number6 like!!!
Posted 11 January 2008 - 04:49 PM
Posted 11 January 2008 - 05:28 PM
Posted 12 January 2008 - 02:56 AM
Posted 12 January 2008 - 08:56 AM
Posted 13 January 2008 - 10:38 PM
Those who have seen clothed figures, there is also a possibility of 'recordings'. It may be possible that someone's movements or actions are somehow 'recorded' in time, and 'played back' every now and again. Hence, clothed ghosts are merely repeated images from the past.
Yes, I find that concept easier to believe in, than ghosts. I have heard people who live in large houses occasionally hear a ball, or a banquet happening in their dining room, and some believe it is just a moment from the past replaying itself for a few seconds (almost like a long overdue echo).
Do you hear how sci-fi that sounds? A recording...![]()
Not to come off as cheeky to you but if you find plausibility in that explanation then you may as well believe in ghosts.
As a young child, I saw a friend of my grandfather's, who had lived down the street from us and had recently passed, staring in my bedroom window. It was just for a moment but I know I saw it but never said anything about it the next morning for fear of getting teased by my moronic, older brother. lol
When my son was a toddler I remember him pointing at my bedroom and smiling stating that a woman(we assumed it was his grandmother) was sitting on our bed waving at him. He doesn't remember now when I bring it up to him though...
Well, I don't neccessarily believe it myself unless I experience something myself, but it does explain why ghosts often only appear for a moment, or have their back to those they're supposedly visiting.
And yes, it did sound a little cheeky. Most un-Number6 like!!!
LOL! No love lost I hope, my friend.![]()
Funny you should stir this topic up though, Dave.
My wife recently lost her aunt a few weeks ago. Now mind you, she was reported to be in her right mind and NEVER showed any range of senility at her ripe old age of 84...
...Yet, prior to her demise, it was said by family members that she was holding lengthy conversations with relatives who've been dead for years in her bedroom and arguing with family as to why they couldn't see them too right before her.
I have spoken to this woman too and she never came across as someone who was becoming unhinged. She was one of the most grounded women that I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. Days later, she slipped into a coma and died a few days after.
Not to let my imagination run wild but I'm sure there's a scientific explanation for that too...
Posted 14 January 2008 - 03:56 PM
Posted 14 January 2008 - 04:51 PM
Posted 14 January 2008 - 05:43 PM
Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:56 PM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 12:32 PM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 02:16 PM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 03:30 PM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 04:35 PM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:13 PM
Posted 16 January 2008 - 10:25 AM
Posted 16 January 2008 - 05:12 PM
Posted 16 January 2008 - 07:46 PM
Posted 16 January 2008 - 08:27 PM
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree here.
Everyone catching a science program once in a while, or reading about it, knows that 90 % of all matter in the universe is unknown. The term "the universe" alone is highly speculative because we don't know if there's one or multiple universes.
Modern science has a strong tendency to put the cart before the horse.
The logical and sane way for science is: you explore things, you do calculations, and based on those you get facts. Once you know certain facts, it eliminates or strengthens other possibilities, you can make new assumptions and draw new conclusions.
Saying, for instance, we are alone in the universe, or the most developed life form in the universe, is not worthy of serious science because 1) we don't know the universe, and 2) we haven't even a clear definition of what a universe is. It puts the conclusion before the facts of research, and is therefor highly speculative.
We can't exclude so-called supernatural things and ghosts because that would include the monstrous assumption that we know all existing forms of matter, down to all the profound laws of nature.
He has seen and experienced the thins he described. That's a fact. Numerous other people have seen and experienced the same. That's also a fact. Neither modern physics, nor chemistry, nor mathematics, nor biology can explain it. That's also fact. The logical consequence is that matter exists we know nothing about. And unless "superior" science gives us reasonable explanations, there's no good reason to talk down upon spiritual and esoteric fields.
That the body is falling apart when vital organs fail, that's fact. The assumption that there is no spirit or soul to live on is not - that's the nature of assumptions. It's not proven that there IS a spirit and soul, but people's experiences (near-death for instance) are hinting alot stronger towards their existance than their non-existance.
Love can't be proven, and yet it exists.