 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was looking at Bill Pragnell's excellent "Ghost Light," when something just
occurred to me: if we can see through ghosts (as they're most often
portrayed), how come we never see their internal organs?
I recall watching a nature show where baby dolphins off Virginia and porpoises
off Scotland were washing up dead with massive internal damage. The culprits
turned out to be adult dolphins. With their sonar, they could see the victims'
vital organs, and knew exactly where to hit. :-O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> how come we never see their internal organs?
Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most ghosts
don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>
> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most ghosts
> don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>
Got that partly right, its mental.. One more time - if it has "any"
effect on the physical world, it is by definition *part* of the physical
world, and therefor should be detectable and verifiable, and, despite
shows like "Ghost Hunters", where a bunch of morons babble about camera
glitches and spook themselves over every "pop" or "creek", no one has
ever "detected" or "verified" a ghost. And no, EM meters don't count.
Its like using a fracking light meter, then wandering through a forest
going "oooh", every time you walk through a patch of ground where the
canopy doesn't completely cover you. Everything from ore deposits, to
hidden wiring, and even just random atmospheric effects can "screw up" a
meter. That is why *sane* people use them in "clean rooms", with a
Faraday cage around them, when they want to "detect" leaks, not in
someone's house. You want me to believe ghosts are real, find me a clean
room lab, built in one of these "haunted" locations, where "ghosts"
wander through the lab and show IR images, and/or EM fields. lol
Seriously, the IR is just as bad, "Wow! There isn't a person over there,
so like.. its impossible that something else, including reflected heat
from some place else, could be doing it!"
Science it about removing random shit that **can** effect your
instruments *then* testing. Ghost hunting is about walking into some
place with equipment that is a) not designed to prevent such
interference, b) is imprecise as hell, and where c) you have done
**nothing** to limit what could interfere with your tests, then
concluding that everything you see, hear or record is "proof" of what
you went there to find in the first place. I.e., about as far from
"science" as you can get, without resorting to Tarot cards or Ouija boards.
But, the answer is still the same. You don't normally see people with
their guts hanging out, so when your brain conjures something to
interpret indistinct lights, with a vague shape, it matches it to a
"dressed" person, not one with bits of the insides hanging out.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I was looking at Bill Pragnell's excellent "Ghost Light," when something just
> occurred to me: if we can see through ghosts (as they're most often
> portrayed), how come we never see their internal organs?
Because that's the easiest way to implement the special effects? ;-)
Please note, my ghost isn't actually transparent... or at least, she was
to start with, but it looked too confusing. I actually wanted the
ghostbusters-style, but it was easier in the end just to make sure she
wasn't standing in front of anything...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>>
>> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
>> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most ghosts
>> don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>>
>
> Got that partly right, its mental.. One more time - if it has "any"
> effect on the physical world, it is by definition *part* of the physical
> world, and therefor should be detectable and verifiable, and, despite
> shows like "Ghost Hunters", where a bunch of morons babble about camera
> glitches and spook themselves over every "pop" or "creek", no one has
> ever "detected" or "verified" a ghost. And no, EM meters don't count.
From what I've seen the Ghost Hunters have yet to see anything
conclusive at all. I remember one on some haunted ship where they used
the thermal camera and found a warm spot that turned out to be a steam
pipe or something.. Usually they review the tape, and audio and find a
few ooh that's interesting things then quickly debunk the evidence as
either floating dust, etc .. or in the case of EVP's they've debunked it
as one of their team talking in the distance. Usually what they've found
have been pretty easy practical explanations for all of the creaks and
pops.
> But, the answer is still the same. You don't normally see people with
> their guts hanging out, so when your brain conjures something to
> interpret indistinct lights, with a vague shape, it matches it to a
> "dressed" person, not one with bits of the insides hanging out.
Right, the brain will form a recognizable pattern out of pure noise. An
interesting thing happened years ago, for some reason my ability to
recognize auditory patterns went into overdrive, it eventually brought
about some very powerful auditory hallucinations, but they were always
modulated by the ambient noise around me. It goes deeper than that...
but it was rather interesting how patterns emerged out of nothing and
definitely seemed supernatural at the time.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>>
>> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
>> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most ghosts
>> don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>>
>
> Got that partly right, its mental..
Well, I was trying to imply that the ghost of John is based on John's
mentality, and hence since John doesn't think about his guts, John's
ghost won't have guts.
Of course, your interpretation works too.
This is not intended to imply I believe in ghosts in the sense that
people who "believe in ghosts" believe in them.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>>>
>>> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
>>> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most
>>> ghosts don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>>>
>>
>> Got that partly right, its mental.. One more time - if it has "any"
>> effect on the physical world, it is by definition *part* of the
>> physical world, and therefor should be detectable and verifiable, and,
>> despite shows like "Ghost Hunters", where a bunch of morons babble
>> about camera glitches and spook themselves over every "pop" or
>> "creek", no one has ever "detected" or "verified" a ghost. And no, EM
>> meters don't count.
>
> From what I've seen the Ghost Hunters have yet to see anything
> conclusive at all. I remember one on some haunted ship where they used
> the thermal camera and found a warm spot that turned out to be a steam
> pipe or something.. Usually they review the tape, and audio and find a
> few ooh that's interesting things then quickly debunk the evidence as
> either floating dust, etc .. or in the case of EVP's they've debunked it
> as one of their team talking in the distance. Usually what they've found
> have been pretty easy practical explanations for all of the creaks and
> pops.
>
Yeah. Would be damn funny to watch these clowns run around getting
freaked, if, every time I turn them on, I have to remember that probably
60-70% of the US actually think these people are **evidence** that
ghosts are really real, or they wouldn't be "looking for them".
<-- bangs head on desk.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> how come we never see their internal organs?
>>>
>>> Ghosts are constructs of your mentality, not your physicality. Hence,
>>> since you don't normally think about your internal organs, most
>>> ghosts don't show them. Except Jon Osterman, sometimes.
>>>
>>
>> Got that partly right, its mental..
>
> Well, I was trying to imply that the ghost of John is based on John's
> mentality, and hence since John doesn't think about his guts, John's
> ghost won't have guts.
>
> Of course, your interpretation works too.
>
Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the minds
of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a person, so
since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost won't show
them." One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Umm. I also spend way to much time on places that sometimes get mobbed
by the kind of people that think that the discovery of the ghost of
bigfoot, riding a dinosaur, while parachuting from and alien space ship,
while waving a piece of toast with Baby Jesus on it, constitutes proof
of Radical Christian mythology and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
undermine faith by inventing DNA.
Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
argument on a creationist site as I write this. Its pure Poe: "Nothing
you can make up about what some people believe can **ever** be crazier
than what someone, someplace, already thinks is true."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> ...and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
> Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
> undermine faith by inventing DNA.
*Almost* a conspiracy theory, except the Hitler part; Hitler was a Christian in
good standing until (just before?) he blew his brains out. Except that the
apologists are in vehement denial about that, so the conspiracy theory (which
is imaginary to begin with) will probably fly anyway.
It wasn't Darwin, Dawkins, or Genghis Khan that undermined my faith. What
happened is that I figured "in case of disagreement between faith and reality,
reality wins." Wasn't until I decided to learn about my sister's new faith
(Seventh Day Adventist) that I realized that I went about it all wrong.
> Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
> 20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
> argument on a creationist site as I write this.
Not a creationist site, but some New Age left wingers considered DNA a myth.
Seems (1) they didn't like genetic determinism; (2) therefore DNA doesn't
exist. (Just Establishment propaganda intended to squelch people's aspirations
by telling them "You are this, you are that...") Unfortunately, I can't find
the magazine article. Creationists, New Agers, hard to tell 'em apart except
that the former have more political power, and tend to be more fatalistic on
behalf of us poor slobs who'll be Left Behind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
