religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[Polymath257]

Yes, so odd...


Weird how there were added details years later.

Extraordinary - a hole that disappeared, a lightning -man walks through a wall...


But no extraordinary evidence.

Sounds like mom and niece ate from funny mushrooms or something.

Or had a little nip before bed..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Asking in a mocking way, which thus deserves no answer from me. Your not a worthy debate appoinent.



.

I'm not sure you have any place to complain, given that you've flat out called people stupid.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Asking in a mocking way, which thus deserves no answer from me. Your not a worthy debate appoinent.



"Uh huh"



Boy, you guys explain away everything dontcha?

But, ok, this opens up a whole new set of questions.

Why would the lightning cause a male figure to come on there retina? And not say some other image, like a ball or star, like yea see when ya look at the sun?

Also, why would it cause a male figure in BOTH my mom and nieces eyes?

Also, the lightning bolt struck outside, not in the cottage.



Thats not true. If they SAW the lightning strike, it would not put in there retina a male figure, it would put in the retina the after image of the lightning shape itself. And that shape does not have a head, neck, arms, torso and legs. Furthermore, i just texted my mom for these additional details and she said only she saw the lightning out the window, but my niece did not see it.

But, also, she said the male figure appeared BEFORE the lightning strike anyway. So, that means you gotta come up with a new interpretation.



My mistake, not a hole, a black or burnt spot she said.



Huh? Your inserting meaning i never intended or said. No, i never changed the story at all. You are doing that.

Im saying they both saw the apparition at the same time, in the same location. They had there own seperate sight of it. That rules out halucination.

Yes, we "explain away everything" when a plausible explanation already exists for the occurrences you bring up. You're the one jumping to conclusions on these claims. I pointed that out before, remember?

Remember my story sleep paralysis story?

 

[ecco]

Your not a worthy debate appoinent.

My not is a what? Why are you talking about my not?

Boy, you guys explain away everything dontcha?

You think rational explanations are just "explaining away"? That explains a lot.

But, ok, this opens up a whole new set of questions.

Why would the lightning cause a male figure to come on there retina? And not say some other image, like a ball or star, like yea see when ya look at the sun?
Also, why would it cause a male figure in BOTH my mom and nieces eyes?

It could have been anything. People see shapes in clouds all the time. Two women alone in a cottage, startled by a lightning flash, saw something they feared.

Also, the lightning bolt struck outside, not in the cottage.

I never said anything different.


However, your story keeps changing...

My mom and niece both saw a ghostly figure appear to them at the same night. Two people seeing the same thing, the same night is a halucination? I dont think so.

What other interpretation is there for this other then a concious spirit being?

Ok, well heres the details. Mom and niece go to there country bungalo for the night. At some point after they got there, a lightning bolt struck. Then this being of light that looked like a male figure appeared in the room where they wer. Just a few feet from where they wer. He looked at them for a brief moment, then turned left and went through the wall. They both go outside to see him and he was gone.

But, also, she said the male figure appeared BEFORE the lightning strike anyway. So, that means you gotta come up with a new interpretation.

My mistake, not a hole, a black or burnt spot she said.

Furthermore, i just texted my mom for these additional details and she said only she saw the lightning out the window, but my niece did not see it.

Huh? Your inserting meaning i never intended or said. No, i never changed the story at all. You are doing that.

Read your own comments.

In even the most basic investigation, a story becomes more and more unreliable every time it changes.


But just off the top...

Two people in a cottage. Outside there is a flash of lightning. Only one person sees it.
I've been in a lot of lightning storms. When there is a flash of lightning everyone in the room sees it. Perhaps, where your mom's cottage was, lightning acts differently.

Two people have been startled by a lightning flash. They go from a lighted room to the blackness of outside and they see a burnt spot on the ground. Your mom and your niece must have really great pupils that can adjust so quickly as to see a burnt spot on the ground in the blackness of the night after coming from a lighted room and seeing a lightning flash.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, so odd...


Weird how there were added details years later.

Extraordinary - a hole that disappeared, a lightning -man walks through a wall...


But no extraordinary evidence.

Sounds like mom and niece ate from funny mushrooms or something.

No funny mushrooms, thats for sure in my mind. Plus, mushrooms wont cause two people to halucinate the same thing. So, that dont work.

Also what do you mean by added details? Wheres the added part?

Added does not have to mean made up. It can mean additional information provided due to additional questions asked.

 

[Jollybear]

Source: any textbook on quantum mechanics.

Did you read in this textbook that quantum mechanics shows chance exists?

Which only shows you don't understand the role of chance in QM. In fact, QM precisely calculates the probabilities and those probabilities are then verified by observation. It does NOT allow something large like a UFO to magically appear.

So now theres calculations and probabilities and verifications. Wheres chance in that?

No, I don't think the government is the arbiter of truth. But the evidence of 'millions' is not quite the situation. People also had direct experience of witches at one point. All this means is that people are *very* good at deluding themselves.

Your comparing apples to oranges. Citing witches will not work.

And millions IS the situation with claims of abductions and seeing flying saucers.

I'd suggest an after-image. These are common and can produce exactly the effect you had in multiple people.

No, it does not. If you look at the sun or a light or see lightning, then close your eyes, all youl see is the after SHAPE the sun, light or lightning was in when you saw it.

You wont see a male figure with a head, neck, torso, arms and legs and facial features.

OK. How well do they understand the mechanics of perception? Have they been trained to note specifics? What emotional state were they in?

There emotional state was normal. As fare as being train in perception, no one needs that, wer not dumbies here, we know what sight is and when we see things.

Sorry, but this is hardly at the level required to prove your case, or actually to make it worthwhile investigating further.

So by your standard no case should be investigated further.

Again, there are any number of visual effects that can do things like this, from after images, to outright hallucinations.

Already explained the after image. Plus she told me she saw the lightning but my niece did not. Plus they saw the male figure BEFORE the lightning anyway.

PLUS two people are not gonna hallucinate the SAME thing at the same time in the same location.

And people who are crazy will also have *crisp and clear* experiences that they are Napoleon. I would like to see *physical* evidence. Something that can be seen by those who don't believe.

Your comparing apples to oranges again. My mom and niece are not crazy. They are not saying they are Napoleon. My niece was around 7 or 8 years old at the time, is around 20ish now. My mom around 40ish then and now around 50ish or 60ish, dang i cant remember how old they are, lol. And this was a ONE time experience in there entire life period.

 

[Jollybear]

My not is a what? Why are you talking about my not?

Your question is incoherent.

You think rational explanations are just "explaining away"? That explains a lot.

Thats just the issue right there, NONE of your explanations are rational. Its amazing to the point of irretation to me that you insult the very word rational by claiming such.

It could have been anything. People see shapes in clouds all the time. Two women alone in a cottage, startled by a lightning flash, saw something they feared.

That does not explain or account for anything. Its not rational.

I never said anything different.

Uh-huh

However, your story keeps changing...

Read your own comments.​

In even the most basic investigation, a story becomes more and more unreliable every time it changes.

You dont seam to understand the basic difference between a genuine change and additional details given to a story. Why is this? Because YOU are NOT a rational person.

Also, i was honest enough to say my memory was mistaken about a hole, vs a burnt spot. But, the burnt spot was gone the next day she said.

As far as seeing the lightning before or after the male figure appeared, that was an additional detail i just found out YESTERDAY.

But just off the top...

Two people in a cottage. Outside there is a flash of lightning. Only one person sees it.
I've been in a lot of lightning storms. When there is a flash of lightning everyone in the room sees it. Perhaps, where your mom's cottage was, lightning acts differently.

See, as in saw the actual string of lightning. My mom only saw the string, not my niece. Why is that an incredable claim for you?

Two people have been startled by a lightning flash. They go from a lighted room to the blackness of outside and they see a burnt spot on the ground. Your mom and your niece must have really great pupils that can adjust so quickly as to see a burnt spot on the ground in the blackness of the night after coming from a lighted room and seeing a lightning flash.

Theres a thing called turning on the outside porch light in order to see at night. I cant believe i even gotta say that too you. The level of unrationality in you is startling to say the least.

 

[Polymath257]

Did you read in this textbook that quantum mechanics shows chance exists?

Yes, I have read many QM textbooks.

So now theres calculations and probabilities and verifications. Wheres chance in that?

probability=chance.

Unless your definitions are a *lot* different than standard.

Your comparing apples to oranges. Citing witches will not work.

And millions IS the situation with claims of abductions and seeing flying saucers.

And many people claimed to be abducted by witches at one point. Isn't it interesting that UFO observations have decreased since cell phones came on the market?

No, it does not. If you look at the sun or a light or see lightning, then close your eyes, all youl see is the after SHAPE the sun, light or lightning was in when you saw it.

And the shape of a lightning bolt is easily mistaken as a thin man moving.

You wont see a male figure with a head, neck, torso, arms and legs and facial features.

There emotional state was normal. As fare as being train in perception, no one needs that, wer not dumbies here, we know what sight is and when we see things.

So by your standard no case should be investigated further.

If there is physical evidence that cannot be otherwise explained, then it should be investigated further. Mere personal testimony is way too unreliable, as has been proven way too many times.

Already explained the after image. Plus she told me she saw the lightning but my niece did not. Plus they saw the male figure BEFORE the lightning anyway.

PLUS two people are not gonna hallucinate the SAME thing at the same time in the same location.

Which is why I am leaning to afterimages. But yes, that does happen. Also, stories grow with the telling.

Your comparing apples to oranges again. My mom and niece are not crazy. They are not saying they are Napoleon. My niece was around 7 or 8 years old at the time, is around 20ish now. My mom around 40ish then and now around 50ish or 60ish, dang i cant remember how old they are, lol. And this was a ONE time experience in there entire life period.

People see things and misinterpret them all the time. It looks to me that this story has grown over time, as stories do.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm not sure you have any place to complain, given that you've flat out called people stupid.

And some people in this world ARE stupid.

I dont mock though. I very well could if i wanted too, but i refrain.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, we "explain away everything" when a plausible explanation already exists for the occurrences you bring up. You're the one jumping to conclusions on these claims. I pointed that out before, remember?

Remember my story sleep paralysis story?

Its not plausable your explanation.

 

[ecco]

Your question is incoherent.

Really? My writing is incoherent? You made a comment about my "not"...

Your not ...

followed by...

a worthy debate appoinent.

So, I asked...

My not is a what? Why are you talking about my not?

If you meant to write "You are not a worthy..." or "You're not a worthy..." then I wouldn't have asked why you were talking about my not.

As it is, I graciously chalked up "appoinent" to a typo.

 

[ecco]

My mom and niece both saw a ghostly figure appear to them at the same night. Two people seeing the same thing, the same night is a halucination? I dont think so.

Ok, well heres the details. Mom and niece go to there country bungalo for the night. At some point after they got there, a lightning bolt struck. Then this being of light that looked like a male figure appeared in the room where they wer. Just a few feet from where they wer. He looked at them for a brief moment, then turned left and went through the wall. They both go outside to see him and he was gone.

My niece was around 7 or 8 years old at the time,

So now you are telling us that a 7 or 8 year old who has just been startled by a lightning flash is a reliable witness.

Aunty Amy: Oh, Nellie. Did you see that man walk through the wall?
Niece Nellie: Uh, OK Aunty Amy. Yeah, sure, I saw the same man walking through the wall as you did.

Your story gets more and more out of the realm of the supernatural every time you add more facts.

 

[ecco]

Thats just the issue right there, NONE of your explanations are rational. Its amazing to the point of irretation to me that you insult the very word rational by claiming such.

The obvious explanations which I and others have proffered are very rational. That's the problem with being deep into woo, you cannot see a rational explanation when it is right in front of your eyes. You prefer the supernatural woo version.

You dont seam to understand the basic difference between a genuine change and additional details given to a story. Why is this? Because YOU are NOT a rational person.

You first implied that the appearance of the ghostly man occurred separately to two women. Perhaps that was just your writing style.

Then, you said there were two people in a cottage. There was a lightning flash. If there are two people in a room in a cottage and there is a flash of lightning right outside, both would have seen it. You revised the story to say only one had seen it.

Now we learn that one of the two people was a seven year old.

You don't think that changes the narrative completely?

I hope you are never asked to serve on a jury. That wouldn't be fair to either side.

Also, i was honest enough to say my memory was mistaken about a hole, vs a burnt spot. But, the burnt spot was gone the next day she said.

A burnt spot that would have been near impossible to see in the dark following the given scenario.

As far as seeing the lightning before or after the male figure appeared, that was an additional detail i just found out YESTERDAY.

Perhaps in the future, you get all your information assembled before posting. That way we won't have to keep addressing new "facts".

Theres a thing called turning on the outside porch light in order to see at night. I cant believe i even gotta say that too you. The level of unrationality in you is startling to say the least.

Another new "fact". Did you omit that in your previous versions so that you could try to use that as a gotcha now? Or did you just make that up? In any event, the "burnt" spot must have been close to the house as porch lights are not designed to light up much beyond the porch. So, we went from a hole in the dark to a burnt spot visible after Aunty/Mom turned on the porch light.

Oh, what's that you say? It wasn't a porch light, it was a bank of ultra bright security lights that lighted up the ground for 100 feet in every direction. Oh, OK.

 

[ecco]

I dont mock though. I very well could if i wanted too, but i refrain.

Because YOU are NOT a rational person.

The level of unrationality in you is startling

You don't mock. You just insult.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, I have read many QM textbooks.

Good, because i havent. Ive only watched videos and read articles.

probability=chance.

To say something happens by chance is to say we are ignorent of the cause. To say something happens by probability is to say we have a certain level of knowledge, but not perfect knowledge of the process.

To say thus and thus is a fact is to say no chance, no probability, its perfect knowledge.

So, chance and probability is nothing more then we are ignorent and science continues to research to fill in those gaps in there ignorence.

Heres the hypocrisy of naturalists. They always accuse religious people of the "God of the gaps" whilst not realizing they do the very thing themselves, but they use chance or probability instead. They insert chance or probability into the gap. So it becomes "chance of the gaps".

And many people claimed to be abducted by witches at one point.

Apples to oranges again. Im not interested in witches. Plus, who cares if humans (witches) kidnapped other humans.

Isn't it interesting that UFO observations have decreased since cell phones came on the market?

Wait a minute, HAVE they decreased? I dont know that, how do you know that? Do you have a source that proves this?

Also as fare as im aware, ever since cell phones came on the scene, people HAVE gotten footage of some of these UFOs.

And the shape of a lightning bolt is easily mistaken as a thin man moving.

No, a lightning bolt is not EASILY mistaken as a thin man moving. Im sorry, but no its simply not. I have NEVER in my entire life have mistaken a lightning bolt as a thin man moving, ever. No its not easily mistaken.

Plus this lightning bolt was not moving in the cottage. Plus my niece did not even see the bolt. Only my mom did. But both saw the figure appear BEFORE the bolt struck anyway.

If there is physical evidence that cannot be otherwise explained, then it should be investigated further. Mere personal testimony is way too unreliable, as has been proven way too many times.

Personal testimony is not entirely unreliable. I could tell you my testimonies and i know there not unreliable.

Which is why I am leaning to afterimages. But yes, that does happen. Also, stories grow with the telling.

Afterimages does not account for the shape and features they saw in the male figure who appeared in the cottage. It also does not account for my niece not seeing the bolt. It also dont account for them seeing the figure BEFORE the bolt struck.

People see things and misinterpret them all the time. It looks to me that this story has grown over time, as stories do.

No, peopke dont see things as in ghosts figures and slying saucers all the time. Ive NEVER seen a ghost, ive never seen a flying saucer. Ive never seen these things not once, let alone "all the time" and then misinterpret them.

My mom saw this flying saucer only ONCE in her entire life. My mom and niece together only saw this ghostly figure appear to them also ONCE in there entire life.

 

[ecco]

Also as fare as im aware, ever since cell phones came on the scene, people HAVE gotten footage of some of these UFOs.

OK. Then you should be able to link some.

 

[ecco]

No, a lightning bolt is not EASILY mistaken as a thin man moving. Im sorry, but no its simply not.

or

 

[ecco]

And the story changes yet again. (my emphases in the following...)

Previously...

Ok, well heres the details. Mom and niece go to there country bungalo for the night. At some point after they got there, a lightning bolt struck. Then this being of light that looked like a male figure appeared in the room where they wer. Just a few feet from where they wer. He looked at them for a brief moment, then turned left and went through the wall. They both go outside to see him and he was gone.

Bolt Struck ...then... Figure Appeared



Now you write:

It also dont account for them seeing the figure BEFORE the bolt struck.

Figure Appeared ...then... Bolt Struck

Credibility Rating (0-10): 0

 

[Polymath257]

Good, because i havent. Ive only watched videos and read articles.

And my experience is that videos and articles for public consumption are very poor at conveying QM.

To say something happens by chance is to say we are ignorent of the cause. To say something happens by probability is to say we have a certain level of knowledge, but not perfect knowledge of the process.

That is already an assumption that there are no inherently probabilistic events and that everything has a cause. Both of those principles are directly rejected in QM.

To say thus and thus is a fact is to say no chance, no probability, its perfect knowledge.

So, chance and probability is nothing more then we are ignorent and science continues to research to fill in those gaps in there ignorence.

Actually, one aspect of QM is that there *are* probabilities that do not simply reflect ignorance, but are part of the nature of the events.

Heres the hypocrisy of naturalists. They always accuse religious people of the "God of the gaps" whilst not realizing they do the very thing themselves, but they use chance or probability instead. They insert chance or probability into the gap. So it becomes "chance of the gaps".

Apples to oranges again. Im not interested in witches. Plus, who cares if humans (witches) kidnapped other humans.

I'm pointing out that this was a delusion as well. The abduction delusion is more common than you would think.

Wait a minute, HAVE they decreased? I dont know that, how do you know that? Do you have a source that proves this?

Also as fare as im aware, ever since cell phones came on the scene, people HAVE gotten footage of some of these UFOs.

And there were tons of touched-up photos before cell phones. The frequency has decreased significantly.

No, a lightning bolt is not EASILY mistaken as a thin man moving. Im sorry, but no its simply not. I have NEVER in my entire life have mistaken a lightning bolt as a thin man moving, ever. No its not easily mistaken.

Plus this lightning bolt was not moving in the cottage. Plus my niece did not even see the bolt. Only my mom did. But both saw the figure appear BEFORE the bolt struck anyway.

The movement would be the result of the afteimage.

Personal testimony is not entirely unreliable. I could tell you my testimonies and i know there not unreliable.

And I would admit you had an experience. But I might doubt that you interpreted it correctly.

Afterimages does not account for the shape and features they saw in the male figure who appeared in the cottage. It also does not account for my niece not seeing the bolt. It also dont account for them seeing the figure BEFORE the bolt struck.

No, peopke dont see things as in ghosts figures and slying saucers all the time. Ive NEVER seen a ghost, ive never seen a flying saucer. Ive never seen these things not once, let alone "all the time" and then misinterpret them.

My mom saw this flying saucer only ONCE in her entire life. My mom and niece together only saw this ghostly figure appear to them also ONCE in there entire life.

Once again, this is a common thing in terms of how many people report such things. I bet if you talk with 100 people at least 10 will have some sort of experience along this line.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Its not plausable your explanation.

It definitely is, given that it's based in known reality. And it is certainly more plausible than your "explanation" which requires piling on assumptions and beliefs, and is not based in any known reality that most people are aware of.

But if you think it's not, perhaps you could explain further, instead of just saying "Nuh uh."