Loch Ness Monster? Yeti? Ufos? Ghosts? Bermuda triangle?

Do you believe in any of them? Post why you think they exist/don't exist.

Feel free to debate!

Yep. Ufo's aren't real. They're made of metal. And all metals are naturally man made. :)

No, I don't.

UFO's somewhere or someplace probably do exist but I can bet you they aren't near us.

I think it's pointless to talk about this. Most people on this forum don't believe anything, without even trying to see if it's real, that's just as bad as people who believe everything without trying to seek proof.

Imho, you need to atleast do an effort to see those things with your eyes before saying they exist or not. Try to see a real UFO before saying they don't exist. Visit somewhere known to be haunted before saying ghosts don't exist. Visit the bermuda triangle before saying nothing is going on there, and so on.

Your opinion is worthless if you don't do any honest effort of research.

That's... stupid logic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that isn't logic at all.

I don't need to physically go to the Bermuda triangle to tell you there's nothing paranormal going on there, because guess what? There's no evidence for it. The media would be up in arms and defecating all over each other the minute there's concrete evidence of any paranormal activity.

UFOs do exist, in a strictly literal and subjective sense. Unidentified Flying Objects. More commonly known as weather balloons and satellites in low orbit. As for alien craft? Probably, considering the size of the universe, but certainly not in our neck of the woods.

Yep. Ufo's aren't real. They're made of metal. And all metals are naturally man made.

But what about Tyrannid hive fleets?

One minute, we're cozy thinking we're safe because we can't detect any metallic objects and BAM our solar system gets eaten.

And no, metals are not strictly man-made.

I don't believe in any of them :shame:

And no, metals are not strictly man-made.

I said naturally man-made, and by that, I mean; dug up, then created into useable metals by MAN

I believe in aliens, not UFO's

I think it's pointless to talk about this. Most people on this forum don't believe anything, without even trying to see if it's real, that's just as bad as people who believe everything without trying to seek proof.

 

 

 

Imho, you need to atleast do an effort to see those things with your eyes before saying they exist or not. Try to see a real UFO before saying they don't exist. Visit somewhere known to be haunted before saying ghosts don't exist. Visit the bermuda triangle before saying nothing is going on there, and so on.

 

 

 

Your opinion is worthless if you don't do any honest effort of research.

That is horribly stupid logic for a couple of reasons.

- As Zonorhc stated, the media would be up in arms immediately if we had concrete evidence about paranormal activity.

- You assume we take it baselessly and have never done any research ourself. I myself find the idea of UFO's, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts, ect. very fascinating. However there simply is just no evidence for any of the like. (I'm talking about UFO's in the non-literal sense of course. The kind aliens fly around with.

Again the burden of proof is on others who think this is true.

If I haven't seen it with my own eyes, I don't believe it. Pictures and videos can be faked easily, so unless I see something that's unarguably a ghost, UFO, etc. I'm a non-beleiver. Now watch, tonight the Loch Ness Monster is going to come crashing through my window on a UFO. :roll:

 

- As Zonorhc stated, the media would be up in arms immediately if we had concrete evidence about paranormal activity.

They could aswell try to cover up so that the population does not panic. See, you're making an assumption, but do you know how the medias would react? No, and neither does any of us do.

- You assume we take it baselessly and have never done any research ourself. I myself find the idea of UFO's, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts, ect. very fascinating. However there simply is just no evidence for any of the like. (I'm talking about UFO's in the non-literal sense of course. The kind aliens fly around with.

Again the burden of proof is on others who think this is true.

No, the burden is on you to do your own research, and developp an educated opinion. What your saying to me is I believe ____ until I am proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, but that's not how things work. The people saying it doesn't exist have as much as a responsability as the people who say it exists. If you cannot prove aliens do not visit our planet, you are as faulty as people who cannot prove aliens visit our planet. By example, if you can prove in a laboratory that what people consider as ghosts is actually a some sort of fog, then you have proven something. Often we hear people say it can be explained by ______, but if you don't test it and prove it is the same phenomenom, its worthless evidence. Saying everyone invents their ghosts is very presumptuous and unprofessional, and certainly isn't evidence.

Nadril, In fact, none of us can possibly know what is happening, that is why we must keep open-minded, and don't do judgements.

I do believe in UFO's and extraterrestrials. And I do believe that they visit us every once in a while. I don't see why nobody would think that they couldn't be near us?

No, the burden is on you to do your own research, and developp an educated opinion. What your saying to me is I believe ____ until I am proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, but that's not how things work. The people saying it doesn't exist have as much as a responsability as the people who say it exists. If you cannot prove aliens do not visit our planet, you are as faulty as people who cannot prove aliens visit our planet. By example, if you can prove in a laboratory that what people consider as ghosts is actually a some sort of fog, then you have proven something. Often we hear people say it can be explained by ______, but if you don't test it and prove it is the same phenomenom, its worthless evidence. Saying everyone invents their ghosts is very presumptuous and unprofessional, and certainly isn't evidence.

 

 

 

Nadril, In fact, none of us can possibly know what is happening, that is why we must keep open-minded, and don't do judgements.

Sorry but this isn't a court of law, and we aren't proving anyone guilty of innocent here.

The burden of proof is always on the person trying to make a claim. Do, tell me, how I could disprove the idea of ghosts completely? Yes I could disprove certain images but how do you disprove something which most likely is not there?

Put another way, lets look at it like this. If someone runs around saying that they saw this 3 horned unicorn running around would you expect the others to try and prove him wrong? We couldn't, there is nothing to go by. The burden of proof is on him. He can find it again, take a photo. There are many ways that he can (try) to prove something, we have nothing to go on.

They could aswell try to cover up so that the population does not panic. See, you're making an assumption, but do you know how the medias would react? No, and neither does any of us do.

Think about it. A huge story hits the media, its not going to get covered up. In this day and age when the internet is as large as it is it would only be a matter of time before it got exposed, especially if it was a hard rock proof of what happened.

By example, if you can prove in a laboratory that what people consider as ghosts is actually a some sort of fog, then you have proven something. Often we hear people say it can be explained by ______, but if you don't test it and prove it is the same phenomenom, its worthless evidence.

Tell me, how can you prove something so ambiguous in a laboratory? You can't test a blurry picture for samples, and more often then not these 'finds' of ghosts and/or alien spacecraft are nothing more than an object mistook for said paranormal item or is a camera trick. You don't need a laboratory to prove something such as that.

It also should be interesting for you to know that there is a 1 million $ challenge. Mercifull has posted it a lot in threads such as these. The gist of it is that if you can come up with concrete proof of paranormal activity than you can make 1 million dollars.

So far no one has been able to claim the prize.

They could aswell try to cover up so that the population does not panic. See, you're making an assumption, but do you know how the medias would react? No, and neither does any of us do.

The basic idea is that a liberal press will want to expose anything and everything that a conservative one wouldn't.

See, that's the fun part about having multiple media conglomerates operating at the same time is that they don't all share the same agendas, and what one refuses to report on is certainly not indicative of the others.

No, the burden is on you to do your own research, and developp an educated opinion. What your saying to me is I believe ____ until I am proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty. Sorry, but that's not how things work. The people saying it doesn't exist have as much as a responsability as the people who say it exists. If you cannot prove aliens do not visit our planet, you are as faulty as people who cannot prove aliens visit our planet. By example, if you can prove in a laboratory that what people consider as ghosts is actually a some sort of fog, then you have proven something. Often we hear people say it can be explained by ______, but if you don't test it and prove it is the same phenomenom, its worthless evidence. Saying everyone invents their ghosts is very presumptuous and unprofessional, and certainly isn't evidence.

That's... stupid.

There can be no other word for it.

You are asking him to prove a negative.

No, you silly. I am asking him to prove what these strange events are if they are not paranormal, and putting the theory in application to see if it is correct.

No, you silly. I am asking him to prove what these strange events are if they are not paranormal, and putting the theory in application to see if it is correct.

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity.

When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly.

I agree with Ichimaru, you guys need to keep an open mind.

Loch Ness Monster? Yeti? Ufos? Ghosts? Bermuda triangle?

IMO- Loch ness = Fake...already been PROVEN

Yeti = Possibly real but im more towards the Fake

Ghosts = Real to an extent

Bermuda Triangle- i believe there might be some problems there but nothing we couldn't ever get over.

[hide]

No, you silly. I am asking him to prove what these strange events are if they are not paranormal, and putting the theory in application to see if it is correct.

 

 

 

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity.

 

 

 

When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly.

:roll: Alright. Let me make it simple for you. Something happens. Let's say lights in the sky. Some people say it's aliens. Other people say it's just lights coming from emengency cars. Whoever is able to prove their point wins.

so, if neither person can prove it...then neither event happened (in your mind) unless you or the other person can prove it!! by Golly!

So keep an opened mind! because either events could have happened

[hide]

No, you silly. I am asking him to prove what these strange events are if they are not paranormal, and putting the theory in application to see if it is correct.

 

 

 

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity.

 

 

 

When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly.

[/hide]

 

 

 

:roll: Alright. Let me make it simple for you. Something happens. Let's say lights in the sky. Some people say it's aliens. Other people say it's just lights coming from emengency cars. Whoever is able to prove their point wins.

so, if neither person can prove it...then neither event happened (in your mind) unless you or the other person can prove it!! by Golly!

 

So keep an opened mind! because either events could have happened

No and no, and don't patronise me.

Clearly, if someone is able to prove their point with proof then they 'win'. But the fact is, you have to ask yourself, without conclusive proof either way, which is more rational and hence likely outcome? Emergency cars clearly, and doubly so since there is absolutely no conclusive proof of aliens visiting that doesn't have a rational explanation.

There's keeping an open mind and there's assuming the paranormal. I'd be open minded as to what the explanation was without proof or evidence, but when there hasn't been a single proven case of paranormal activity anywhere ever guess which side i'm going to lean towards? Yeah, the rational explanation.

Rationality is something that can be explained by logic. And logic is closely tied to how you view reality. Aliens and ghosts could very well be part of reality. As limited human beings, we cannot truly know what is reality, and what is part of reality, and what is part of dream. Aliens might know who we are, aliens might visit us, aliens might be part of our reality. And the possibility of ANYTHING being part of our reality cannot be excluded. Big foots might be part of our reality, and if they are, their existence has a logical, rational, explanation. Merely when you talk of something logical, you talk of something that could be explained by our little knowledge of what is reality. Saying that something doesn't exist because it's not "logical" is ridiculous. How can we even know what is logical if we don't know what is, or not, part of our reality. We know so little about things outside our planet, how dare we even state that we know what is real and what is not? In a nutshell, everything is possible.

the saying *your being to rational*

well for one..it all depends on what color the lights are, direction, time, and how bright...only then can you make a rational decision while keeping an open mind.

That's a reasonable assessment Ichimaru, except when you talk about the paranormal, things which are by definition beyond what is commonly accepted as science and actively defies logic and what we know.

But that wasn't the point, the point was that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the corollary.

[hide]

No, you silly. I am asking him to prove what these strange events are if they are not paranormal, and putting the theory in application to see if it is correct.

 

 

 

No, YOU silly. As Nad has already said, the burden of proof lies with you to come with an explanation for whatever. Nad is not someone who the burden of proof rests with, or me, or Zonorch or anybody else who isn't making the claim of paranormal activity.

 

 

 

When there is no concrete proof of something you should assume a position of skepticism leaning towards a potential rational explanation, to think otherwise and demand an absolute proof for this rational explanation and assume the paranormal without this absolute proof is as you put it so nicely, silly.

[/hide]

 

 

 

:roll: Alright. Let me make it simple for you. Something happens. Let's say lights in the sky. Some people say it's aliens. Other people say it's just lights coming from emengency cars. Whoever is able to prove their point wins.

My drink accidentally spills. Someone could say that it was a ghost, however I can say that I just held it wrong, tripped a bit and got off balance and lost grip of it.

Which one is more realistic? I admit that it isn't a very good example but I hope you get my point. We have to follow with logical examples first. If they don't match up is when we should look for other, less logical, theories.

Nadril, read my post about reality. Which I wrote as responce to assasin, pretty much he was saying the same thing as you.

And I agree, that's a bad example. If every case was that obvious we wouldn't be here discussing about it.

Nadril, read my post about reality. Which I wrote as responce to assasin, pretty much he was saying the same thing as you.

 

 

 

And I agree, that's a bad example. If every case was that obvious we wouldn't be here discussing about it.

Your reality post was mostly just rambling and doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

The message I am trying to get across is that I have not seen something that couldn't be rationally explained using logic.

Here's a challenge. Find me a photo of paranormal activity, or something about it, and lets see if any of us can or can not debunk it. Chances are it has a rational conclusion behind it.