"Most Haunted" - One Thing I Never Understood

[Pingfah]

This show has been exposed as fake.

You don't need to "expose" ghost shows as being fake, there's no such thing as ghosts so it being fake is a natural assumption

Well, depends on the "kind of fake" we're talking about. Manufactured/scripted fake as-in Most Haunted or is it the mis-reading evidence and misuing equipment kind of fake as is the case in Ghost Hunters?

It doesn't matter since they are both means to the same end, convincing people there are ghosts when there are none. It's a natural assumption that whatever method they are using to convince you that there may be ghosts, it's a steaming pile of horse maneure.

I would say not proven to exist. Not every story about ghosts is fictional (or true), but the thousands (if not millions) that do exist show a lot of consistency as far as what features ghosts are supposed to have. If we're to assume that every single one of those stories is either a deliberate lie or a misidentification of a natural phenomenon, I would expect there to be a lot more variation and a lot of inconsistencies in them. I prefer strong evidence myself, and I'm not convinced that it's been found yet (if it's there to find). But I keep an open mind, because I think it's stupid to assume we know everything.

We have no evidence to support the existence of life elswhere in the universe. The possibility is only valid because life exists here, and presently our means of searching for it are so primitive that we're unlikely to find any viable evidence for a long time. We're pretty much dependent on having some other sentient culture contact us to prove they exist, because we sure as hell can't search for them directly. Should we assume therefore that SETI is a waste of time and money? That its researchers are employed on a pipe dream for things that don't exist? Probably not, even with the slim chance of finding something meaningful.

There's a big difference in your examples though, there are many stories of people being abducted by aliens etc, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the number of people who claim they have seen a ghost, or "felt" a presence. In all these millions and millions of sightings nobody has managed to produce a single shred of real physical evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. There are literally millions of people who will claim that they have seen this or that object floating across a room, or this or that ghostly apparition, visible to the naked eye and audible to the human ear, but nobody has ever made a film of this happening that has not been shown to be a fake. Yet somehow every time a kid steps on a broom and it hits him in the face there are 50 people with video cameras capturing documented, scientifically verifiable evidence that it happened.

The enormous number of sightings coupled with the complete lack of anything that could be termed as hard evidence leads me to conclude that psychological factors are substantially more likely to be the cause of these "sightings". The human mind is a fragile and easily manipulable thing.

Of course, I keep an open mind in the sense that I am prepared to examine anything presented to me as evidence objectively, but I see no reason to give any credence whatsoever to the existing stories of ghost sightings.

 

[Jim Steele]

Do you realize that there are two different types of phenomenons surrounding spirits? There is one, poltergeists and there is another, ghosts.

Yes. They aren't exactly obscure concepts, and frankly the differences between one "type" of non-existent entity and another are moot.

There is a lot, and some of it actually is interesting theories on why there are ghosts. I definitely believe in supernatural phenomenons like this after speaking to a few people that have had...experiences with things they couldn't explain.

If that's enough to convince you then fair enough. It will take a lot more than a plethora of cookie-cutter anecdotal "evidence" to convince me, however.

Show me any "supernatural phenomena" and I'll show you a falling pebble in the howling wind.

The human mind does its best to contextualise and rationalise anything it can't explain. Ghost "sightings" are just a product of that as far as I'm concerned, and nobody has ever presented me with a convincing argument to think otherwise (and no, "I know lots of people who've seen ghosts" or "I knew my grandmother was dead before I got the phone call" etc don't fucking cut it).

 

[Unicron]

There's a big difference in your examples though, there are many stories of people being abducted by aliens etc, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the number of people who claim they have seen a ghost, or "felt" a presence. In all these millions and millions of sightings nobody has managed to produce a single shred of real physical evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny. There are literally millions of people who will claim that they have seen this or that object floating across a room, or this or that ghostly apparition, visible to the naked eye and audible to the human ear, but nobody has ever made a film of this happening that has not been shown to be a fake. Yet somehow every time a kid steps on a broom and it hits him in the face there are 50 people with video cameras capturing documented, scientifically verifiable evidence that it happened.

You're right, but many details of those stories are the same even though they come from people who live in separate parts of the world, and who may not be familiar at all with the stories of a given place being haunted. And in some cases, such reports go back centuries, thus making it far less likely that all of these people would have experienced a hallucination that conveniently stayed the same. It is true that the human mind is open to suggestibility, and that is something a researcher needs to train himself to ignore as much as possible.

I also keep open the possibility that if ghosts are real, and if they represent something more than simply collections of energy, then our technology may not have advanced to the point where it can capture them adequately. It's more advanced now than it was fifty years ago, and we can dispell some things that would have easily passed for a haunting then. As I said before, I consider it a mistake to assume that our technology would infallibly capture evidence of such entities.

I've seen one or two things that do make me wonder. I've seen some photographs that have been confirmed to have not been tampered with or to have defects, and which show something unusual. I saw a video awhile back of an alleged ghost car being pursued by a police officer who assumed it was a normal speeder. After a few moments, the suspect car makes a turn and seems to pass through a solid chain link fence without damaging it. This film was recorded by the police cruiser's dash cam, so I don't believe it was faked (and I don't know how they would have faked that effect).

 

[Trekker4747]

You don't need to "expose" ghost shows as being fake, there's no such thing as ghosts so it being fake is a natural assumption

Well, depends on the "kind of fake" we're talking about. Manufactured/scripted fake as-in Most Haunted or is it the mis-reading evidence and misuing equipment kind of fake as is the case in Ghost Hunters?

It doesn't matter since they are both means to the same end, convincing people there are ghosts when there are none. It's a natural assumption that whatever method they are using to convince you that there may be ghosts, it's a steaming pile of horse maneure.

I think the intent matters.

On one they're purposely falsifying results to support an agenda in the other they're presenting what they think is evidence (or lack of evidence) of their agenda.

I think the Ghost Hunters/TAPS win-out.

 

[Velocity]

It's sometimes difficult for someone to value an experience that happened to someone else. If I tell you that my father was frail and had to lean on the furniture when he walked, you can believe that because it requires no real leap of faith. You have probably seen elderly people lean on furniture or a walker. But if I tell you that I was sleeping in my parents' house after my father passed away and I felt the mattress being pushed down in small pressures along the length of the bed behind me and I heard his voice-you might not believe me because that is out of the realm of your experience. If you have never had an experience that challenged your world view, you would probably not believe a story like that.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I've seen one or two things that do make me wonder. I've seen some photographs that have been confirmed to have not been tampered with or to have defects, and which show something unusual. I saw a video awhile back of an alleged ghost car being pursued by a police officer who assumed it was a normal speeder. After a few moments, the suspect car makes a turn and seems to pass through a solid chain link fence without damaging it. This film was recorded by the police cruiser's dash cam, so I don't believe it was faked (and I don't know how they would have faked that effect).

Yes, but to so-called skeptics (in reality, a skeptic is someone who has no belief either way) are ardently against any proof short of a ghost kicking them in the nuts and laughing. Show them a video, and it was doctored. Show them an image, and it is a fake. A video - must be faked as well. Personal experiences are delusions or lies.

I'm a skeptic. I don't know if ghosts exist. But I don't claim to know they don't exist either, like so many of the others around here who are wise enough to know everything about how the universe works.

 

[broberfett]

I've seen one or two things that do make me wonder. I've seen some photographs that have been confirmed to have not been tampered with or to have defects, and which show something unusual. I saw a video awhile back of an alleged ghost car being pursued by a police officer who assumed it was a normal speeder. After a few moments, the suspect car makes a turn and seems to pass through a solid chain link fence without damaging it. This film was recorded by the police cruiser's dash cam, so I don't believe it was faked (and I don't know how they would have faked that effect).

Yes, but to so-called skeptics (in reality, a skeptic is someone who has no belief either way) are ardently against any proof short of a ghost kicking them in the nuts and laughing. Show them a video, and it was doctored. Show them an image, and it is a fake. A video - must be faked as well. Personal experiences are delusions or lies.

I'm a skeptic. I don't know if ghosts exist. But I don't claim to know they don't exist either, like so many of the others around here who are wise enough to know everything about how the universe works.

You can't prove any of those weird things without "A body". No picture or video will be acceptable. If it is too good then it is fake. If it is blurry then that is unacceptable. If you want to prove Bigfoot you need a body that can be dissected. If you want to prove UFOs then you need the saucer and the aliens and to prove a ghost you need to somehow hold the insubstantial thing so the skeptics can touch it. Also any phenomena that is not easily repeatable will be dismissed.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Do you realize that there are two different types of phenomenons surrounding spirits? There is one, poltergeists and there is another, ghosts.

Yes. They aren't exactly obscure concepts, and frankly the differences between one "type" of non-existent entity and another are moot.

There is a lot, and some of it actually is interesting theories on why there are ghosts. I definitely believe in supernatural phenomenons like this after speaking to a few people that have had...experiences with things they couldn't explain.

If that's enough to convince you then fair enough. It will take a lot more than a plethora of cookie-cutter anecdotal "evidence" to convince me, however.

Show me any "supernatural phenomena" and I'll show you a falling pebble in the howling wind.

The human mind does its best to contextualise and rationalise anything it can't explain. Ghost "sightings" are just a product of that as far as I'm concerned, and nobody has ever presented me with a convincing argument to think otherwise (and no, "I know lots of people who've seen ghosts" or "I knew my grandmother was dead before I got the phone call" etc don't fucking cut it).

Actually they aren't moot. Poltergeists are more...spiritual in nature and more malevolent. Some believe that they are emotional base. Ghosts on the other hand encompass a wide range of things including...well imprinted souls of the deceased.

There are many strange and wonderful things that cannot be explain by science. In fact, we discover new species and new animals that we hardly understand almost every year. We find fossils of beings that we can hardly comprehend. In fact, people years ago would laugh at you if you said some dinosaurs had feathers on them without any proof but scientists kept digging away and finally found evidence.

One of the most fascinating phenomenons takes place in Siberia. For many, many years we never know what exploded over there until early in the 90s. Almost 90 years after it took place.

For many, many years we 'believed' there were objects outside our solar system (the Keplar Belt objects) but we had no concrete evidence there was. Just theories and rumors until we kept digging.

The mysteries that we still have to undercover is astounding. One day we might find proof of ghosts or spiritual imprints. But until then, we can only collect and observe the circumstantial evidence we do have, like many other theories of the past.

 

[Jim Steele]

I never claimed that science knows everything, so what's your point?

Actually they aren't moot. Poltergeists are more...spiritual in nature and more malevolent. Some believe that they are emotional base. Ghosts on the other hand encompass a wide range of things including...well imprinted souls of the deceased.

See? This is the kind of nonsense that irritates me. There's a difference between:

"Something happened, but we can't explain it."

And the quote above, which is just people making shit up.

How you can have the audacity, the sheer effrontery to matter-of-factly harp on about "imprinted souls of the deceased (etc)" then go on to lecture me about scientific progress through the ages is utterly bewildering.

The mysteries that we still have to undercover is astounding.

How do you know they're astounding until they've been uncovered?

I'd like to uncover the mystery of how your grammar manages to flail wildly between perfectly competent and utterly abysmal.

One day we might find proof of ghosts or spiritual imprints. But until then, we can only collect and observe the circumstantial evidence we do have, like many other theories of the past.

One day the celestial teapot might be found by the Tooth Fairy as she farts her way across the cosmos. Until it actually happens, I'm going to go with the theory that it's all a load of tall tales and crap.

 

[Ethros]

This show has been exposed as fake.

 

[Unicron]

You can't prove any of those weird things without "A body". No picture or video will be acceptable. If it is too good then it is fake. If it is blurry then that is unacceptable. If you want to prove Bigfoot you need a body that can be dissected. If you want to prove UFOs then you need the saucer and the aliens and to prove a ghost you need to somehow hold the insubstantial thing so the skeptics can touch it. Also any phenomena that is not easily repeatable will be dismissed.

The first step is to have a consistent hypothesis. Setting aside any metaphysical questions about ghosts (whether they are actually spirits or such), there is a definite set of physical phenomena which are said to be associated with their presence. Ghosts are thought to generate unusual cold spots because it's necessary for them to materialize here. So I think it's good that we have this set we can test empirically, because it gives us somewhere to start.

But in order to prove something paranormal, you have to first rule out as many natural causes as possible. And that isn't easy to do, just as it would be difficult to rule out sounds made by other wildlife while looking for Bigfoot. As I said before, some hauntings have persisted for decades or even centuries; while not every story associated with those cases may be true, it may be fair to say that something is going on there. Many ghost legends are associated with specific groups or individuals, rather than being random unknown entities. I consider that a plus as well, since it gives a reason for a potential haunting rather than having ghosts just show up somewhere out of the blue.

* shrugs *

I dunno. I think one can create a consistent hypothesis for ghosts, with details on what to look for. After that, one should employ the scientific method and common sense. If one can rule out the likelihood of a natural cause, then maybe it could be caused by a ghost if it fits in with the local descriptions. But if you can disprove it by natural means, then it's not a ghost or anything else.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

I'm going to take it Jim Steele, you are an atheist.

As I said, in the Siberian explosion a hundred years ago, most people didn't exactly know what had happened there. The theories ranged from the absurd (a miniature black hole had suddenly opened) to some concrete theories (an object entered space and broke apart above Siberia, we just don't know). It was until almost 90 years later that science had not only the equipment but understanding to know what exactly happened over Siberia that day.

And then you got the Mary Celeste, to this day we still do not know what ever happened to their crew or what caused them to flee. We can only GUESS but we have no clue. Same with the lost colony at Roanoke. Something happened to both of these but we can't explain what exactly happened.

I know for a fact that we have not even uncovered much about what we know about space or even our own planet. We find new species of animals almost every year, we find occasionally, species that have died off that have survived.

 

[Jim Steele]

I'm going to take it Jim Steele, you are an atheist.

I am. It's no secret.

As I said, in the Siberian explosion a hundred years ago, most people didn't exactly know what had happened there. The theories ranged from the absurd (a miniature black hole had suddenly opened) to some concrete theories (an object entered space and broke apart above Siberia, we just don't know). It was until almost 90 years later that science had not only the equipment but understanding to know what exactly happened over Siberia that day.

Yes, you said that before. I understand the point you are making.

But consider this: They *knew* that *something* had happened in Siberia. They just didn't know why or how.

The same cannot be said of any ghost "sighting" (ha!) I've ever read about (and believe me - I'm always reading up about this stuff, it gets very quiet where I work).

Perhaps you would care to link me to such a case - where the unexplainable is plainly observable, yet defies all logical/rational explanation. Go on. I'll give you £5.

And then you got the Mary Celeste, to this day we still do not know what ever happened to their crew or what caused them to flee. We can only GUESS but we have no clue.

Perhaps it was crewed by a bunch of gullible fuckwits who heard pebbles falling in the night and dove off the ship to escape a poltergeist, drowning themselves in the process. Whatever happened, it wasn't necessarily paranormal. That's just a very stupid leap to make.

You can list all the "unexplained events" you like. None of them are *unexplainable*. There's a difference.

Sorry, no dice.

Same with the lost colony at Roanoke. Something happened to both of these but we can't explain what exactly happened.

Probably because they both happened a long time ago and the evidence has been washed away by the slippery tides of time. Just because we *don't know* or even *can't know* what happened, doesn't make the supernatural bullshit assumption any more valid.

I know for a fact that we have not even uncovered much about what we know about space or even our own planet.

Again (for the third time) I'm not denying this.

We find new species of animals almost every year, we find occasionally, species that have died off that have survived.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fairy stories, old wives tales and Unexplained Mysteries: Gullible Edition.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Perhaps you would care to link me to such a case - where the unexplainable is plainly observable, yet defies all logical/rational explanation. Go on. I'll give you £5.

http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

I'll email you an address to send the money.

 

[broberfett]

You can't prove any of those weird things without "A body". No picture or video will be acceptable. If it is too good then it is fake. If it is blurry then that is unacceptable. If you want to prove Bigfoot you need a body that can be dissected. If you want to prove UFOs then you need the saucer and the aliens and to prove a ghost you need to somehow hold the insubstantial thing so the skeptics can touch it. Also any phenomena that is not easily repeatable will be dismissed.

The first step is to have a consistent hypothesis. Setting aside any metaphysical questions about ghosts (whether they are actually spirits or such), there is a definite set of physical phenomena which are said to be associated with their presence. Ghosts are thought to generate unusual cold spots because it's necessary for them to materialize here. So I think it's good that we have this set we can test empirically, because it gives us somewhere to start.

But in order to prove something paranormal, you have to first rule out as many natural causes as possible. And that isn't easy to do, just as it would be difficult to rule out sounds made by other wildlife while looking for Bigfoot. As I said before, some hauntings have persisted for decades or even centuries; while not every story associated with those cases may be true, it may be fair to say that something is going on there. Many ghost legends are associated with specific groups or individuals, rather than being random unknown entities. I consider that a plus as well, since it gives a reason for a potential haunting rather than having ghosts just show up somewhere out of the blue.

* shrugs *

I dunno. I think one can create a consistent hypothesis for ghosts, with details on what to look for. After that, one should employ the scientific method and common sense. If one can rule out the likelihood of a natural cause, then maybe it could be caused by a ghost if it fits in with the local descriptions. But if you can disprove it by natural means, then it's not a ghost or anything else.

I lived in a house that I considered haunted, but besides having other people experience things in the house, it isn't an easy thing to prove. There isn't some reliable time when events would happen like at midnight or 3 AM. You can't record a feeling of dread even if it was almost palpable. I don't think the Ghosthunters method on tv will really find shit. EMF detectors don't seem to be a reliable indicator. I don't think the low EMF levels people encounter in a home or business will generate the feelings or sensations that they say. I think a far more powerful level of EMF is required to cause hallucinations.

I had cold spots in that house, but didn't have the gear to examine it. The air isn't just cold. It isn't some draft. The air is charged. Your hair would stand up on your arms, but only where they were in contact with that spot. Also the spot would be more like a column of cold, charged air. I also witnessed free floating self luminescent orbs with my own eyes on two occasions. When you see an orb on a picture it is usually dust or precipitation. Anyway, I wish I could check the house out with some sort of volt meter or other instruments, even an EMF, but it was demolished. There may be an EMF component, but I think it is generating real effects, not just paranoia.

 

[Jim Steele]

Perhaps you would care to link me to such a case - where the unexplainable is plainly observable, yet defies all logical/rational explanation. Go on. I'll give you £5.

http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

I'll email you an address to send the money.

No £5 for you. That's perfectly consistent with sod's law.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

As I said, in the Siberian explosion a hundred years ago, most people didn't exactly know what had happened there. The theories ranged from the absurd (a miniature black hole had suddenly opened) to some concrete theories (an object entered space and broke apart above Siberia, we just don't know). It was until almost 90 years later that science had not only the equipment but understanding to know what exactly happened over Siberia that day.

Yes, you said that before. I understand the point you are making.[

But consider this: They *knew* that *something* had happened in Siberia. They just didn't know why or how.

The same cannot be said of any ghost "sighting" (ha!) I've ever read about (and believe me - I'm always reading up about this stuff, it gets very quiet where I work).

Perhaps you would care to link me to such a case - where the unexplainable is plainly observable, yet defies all logical/rational explanation. Go on. I'll give you £5.

What would be plainly observable to you? I've read many cases and talked to many people about this (I find the topic very interesting and the amount of theories are also interesting as well).

Perhaps it was crewed by a bunch of gullible fuckwits who heard pebbles falling in the night and dove off the ship to escape a poltergeist, drowning themselves in the process. Whatever happened, it wasn't necessarily paranormal. That's just a very stupid leap to make.

But it was still an unexplainable event that they still have no concrete evidence nor rational thoughts on what actually occurred.

You can list all the "unexplained events" you like. None of them are *unexplainable*. There's a difference.

Then EXPLAIN what happened to the Mary Celeste. PROVE what happened to the crew and why there was still cargo in the hold. Why did the crew abandon the ship?

Probably because they both happened a long time ago and the evidence has been washed away by the slippery tides of time. Just because we *don't know* or even *can't know* what happened, doesn't make the supernatural bullshit assumption any more valid.

There is a theory that the Roanoke Colonists were captured by Native Americans. I will have to dig it up and see what I can find but there were -- interesting Natives around the area a few years later.

 

[Jim Steele]

What would be plainly observable to you?

But it was still an unexplainable event that they still have no concrete evidence nor rational thoughts on what actually occurred.

...which doesn't lend any credibility whatsoever to a supernatural explanation. This is what you don't seem to be getting and we're going in circles.

Then EXPLAIN what happened to the Mary Celeste. PROVE what happened to the crew and why there was still cargo in the hold. Why did the crew abandon the ship?

You're just not understanding me at all, are you? Of course I can't PROVE any of the various theories about it - no more than YOU can PROVE any of these "ghost sightings" were genuine.

I have no idea what happened to them, but AGAIN, that doesn't mean there was anything supernatural involved.

It's *unexplained*, probably eternally so. But not *unexplainable* - ie, an explanation can be offered which doesn't invoke other-worldly nonsense.

A bit of googling grabbed me this:

So What happened?

Many theories have been put forward about the Mary Celeste. Some are based on the supernatural, some on the fringes of cold logic. For example, many feel that a giant squid had eaten the entire crew of the ship. Others believe that the ship was cursed, and they draw attentions to the fact that the ship's first master fell ill and died within a few days of completing her maiden voyage. Others claim that pirates murdered the crew, despite the fact that the last documented pirate attack was in 1832.

The strongest theory appears to be that some of the barrels were broached in the hold. This caused a build up of fumes which was set off by flames in the galley, blowing the hatch covers off. Fearing another, larger explosion, Captain Briggs marshalled everyone into the boat, which he tied to the ship with the trailing halyard. They met rough weather, and the halyard separated. The boat either sank during the storm, or the passengers died of thirst and exposure afterward, while adrift. Some have claimed that there was no evidence of an explosion, based on the lack of soot or burn marks. However, alcohol is clean burning, leaving no soot. It also burns fast enough that the fumes in the hold could have flashed without leaving burn marks on the wood.

Whatever the real explanation, the Mary Celeste remains one of the most puzzling sea mysteries of all time.

http://www.readyed.com.au/Sites/celeste.htm

Emphasis mine. The bolded explanation is far more likely and credible than "oh, the ship was cursed". Without a time machine there's no way we can prove anything as you well know, but that, again, doesn't lend any credibility *what* *so* *ever* to any "supernatural" theories.

That's the last time I'm going to indulge any of your demands for "proof" btw, until you start coming up with something compelling to back up your side of this retarded argument.

I'm getting tired of this.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

You're just not understanding me at all, are you? Of course I can't PROVE any of the various theories about it - no more than YOU can PROVE any of these "ghost sightings" were genuine.

I have no idea what happened to them, but AGAIN, that doesn't mean there was anything supernatural involved.

It's *unexplained*, probably eternally so. But not *unexplainable* - ie, an explanation can be offered which doesn't invoke other-worldly nonsense.

A bit of googling grabbed me this:

So What happened?

Many theories have been put forward about the Mary Celeste. Some are based on the supernatural, some on the fringes of cold logic. For example, many feel that a giant squid had eaten the entire crew of the ship. Others believe that the ship was cursed, and they draw attentions to the fact that the ship's first master fell ill and died within a few days of completing her maiden voyage. Others claim that pirates murdered the crew, despite the fact that the last documented pirate attack was in 1832.

The strongest theory appears to be that some of the barrels were broached in the hold. This caused a build up of fumes which was set off by flames in the galley, blowing the hatch covers off. Fearing another, larger explosion, Captain Briggs marshalled everyone into the boat, which he tied to the ship with the trailing halyard. They met rough weather, and the halyard separated. The boat either sank during the storm, or the passengers died of thirst and exposure afterward, while adrift. Some have claimed that there was no evidence of an explosion, based on the lack of soot or burn marks. However, alcohol is clean burning, leaving no soot. It also burns fast enough that the fumes in the hold could have flashed without leaving burn marks on the wood.

Whatever the real explanation, the Mary Celeste remains one of the most puzzling sea mysteries of all time.

http://www.readyed.com.au/Sites/celeste.htm

Emphasis mine. The bolded explanation is far more likely and credible than "oh, the ship was cursed". Without a time machine there's no way we can prove anything as you well know, but that, again, doesn't lend any credibility *what* *so* *ever* to any "supernatural" theories.

That's the last time I'm going to indulge any of your demands for "proof" btw, until you start coming up with something compelling to back up your side of this retarded argument.

I'm getting tired of this.

I still like my theory, that I came up with in primary school after learning about it... Someone died, they all went for a big piss up, scared themselves shitless, and abandoned ship because they were pissed.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

You know, I'm naturally a skeptic, and don't have a real stance on the existence of God, UFO's, ghosts, ect.

But every once in a great while something happens that makes me wonder. For example, last night I was talking with a good friend of mine who happens to be 100% rational and not crazy. She was telling me about a near death experience she had as a child where she nearly drowned. By her account, she felt water filling her lungs, and saw her mother reaching for her. But then, everything went black and she felt a sudden calmness and peace. Then there were voices. She claims the voices were talking about her, and they seemed to be people she was familiar with, but she didn't know what they were saying. Someone offered her a choice to either stay, or go back to her mother.

I suppose she could have imagined the whole thing or misinterpreted whatever the brain does when one dies. However, she is now utterly convinced that there is a God, and that he loves her and is waiting for her in the end.

Now, I still don't 100% believe her story. But she was pretty darn convincing.