• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Believe It Or Not. What Have You Changed Your Mind About?

"Better reasons" may include: insanity, stupidity and the tendency of our species to lie or at least fantasise, I am not convinced that you need them. I am also not saying that all those who claim to have experienced weird shit are accounted for within those groupings.
There is a fine line between:

"Believing that someone is sincere"
and
"Believing that sincerity means it's true"
 
There is a fine line between:

"Believing that someone is sincere"
and
"Believing that sincerity means it's true"

Indeed, but Gattino seemed to be arguing some closer to the latter.
 
I've gradually and sadly concluded, over two decades, that almost no Fortean phenomena are actually real, no ghosts (as independent non-corporeal entities), no lake monsters (for the most part, possible a big eel or two), no aliens, no yowies or bigfoot no 'ESP'. Most of this stuff rumbles on without ever producing any tangible evidence and has done for decades.

The big mystery is why so many folk need to believe in this stuff and how/why their senses are so completely taken in once they have a belief system based on the reality of 'insert Fortean thing here'.
I don't think people need to believe in this stuff- they simply do as a result of their experiences. But the "it's real/ it's not real" discussion is pointless isn't it? :)
 
For me, with some aspects of Fortean phenomina, the issue isn't "is it real?" it's "how weird is the human brain to conjure up such things, however it does it?"

A bit like the late, great Douglas Adams said, about isn't the garden wonderful enough without us having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it...
 
Indeed, but Gattino seemed to be arguing some closer to the latter.
Then the seeming is wrong. I'm made no such arguement.

My point, if there's any new way of rephrasing it, is that it makes no sense -and is applied nowhere else - to assume that something is NOT true simply on the basis of it being experienced by someone else rather than yourself. Nor on the basis that being untrue is merely possible.

The existence of stupidity or the potential for insanity does not in any way justify assuming one of those things apply in any given case. There has to be some specific reasons to apply those explanations to the individual witness in the individual case. The broad subject matter isn't a reason.
 
Last edited:
Then the seeming is wrong. I'm made no such arguement.

My point, if there's any new way of rephrasing it, is that it makes no sense -and is applied nowhere else - to assume that something is NOT true simply on the basis of it being experienced by someone else rather than yourself.

The existence of stupidity or the potential for insanity does not in any way justify assuming one of those things apply in any given case. There has to be some specific reasons to apply those explanations to the individual witness in the individual case. The broad subject matter isn't a reason.

I phrased that poorly, my apologies. I'm no longer certain what we're arguing about, people claim all sorts of things and much of the time they may be telling truth (at least as they see it) and may be otherwise reliable. This does not make their accounts "true" nor am I saying it makes them untrue, it's just that I have less reason to doubt (in every sense) someone who has just told me that they once saw a red car, than I do someone who has just told me that they have seen a bigfoot on the outskirts of Saffron Walden.

For what it's worth, they may very well have seen said bigfoot but, assuming someone wasn't hoaxing them, I don' think it would be a flesh ad blood creature.
 
Don't worry..im not arguing for the existence of a Saffron Walden bigfoot either. Something like "ghosts" on the other hand is far too widely and commonly reported to fall into that category I would suggest. It's common enough across time and space (its unlikely any givenperson knows someone who's seen a bigfoot...but its just as unlikely that any given person does NOT know someone who claims to have encountered a ghost, even though they may never have done so themselves) that its an ordinary part of human experience, whatever its nature may be. The same applies to "psi". It's there that the "I haven't so you can't have" line of thinking starts to seem irrational in itself.
 
My point, if there's any new way of rephrasing it, is that it makes no sense -and is applied nowhere else - to assume that something is NOT true simply on the basis of it being experienced by someone else rather than yourself. Nor on the basis that being untrue is merely possible.

Isn't this the basis of much science though? Experimenters achieve a result, but until that result is replicable and peer tested, it is not a 'result'?
 
Don't worry..im not arguing for the existence of a Saffron Walden bigfoot either. Something like "ghosts" on the other hand is far too widely and commonly reported to fall into that category I would suggest. It's common enough across time and space (its unlikely any givenperson knows someone who's seen a bigfoot...but its just as unlikely that any given person does NOT know someone who claims to have encountered a ghost, even though they may never have done so themselves) that its an ordinary part of human experience, whatever its nature may be. The same applies to "psi". It's there that the "I haven't so you can't have" line of thinking starts to seem irrational in itself.

I didn't think you were arguing for the SF BHM. As I've stated above, I loosely "believe" in "ghosts", as you say, so many people have had encounters and there are many patterns among those encounters that suggest somethings are happening, quite what those things are, I don't know, nor do I suppose we necessarily ever will. I've had experiences that some people might claim were a haunting, though I'm my case I think there may have been odd environmental effects and would not ascribe them to "the supernatural" as it were. Like you and indeed many on here I also know many people, some well, others less so, who have had more obviously odd experiences and have no reason not to take their accounts in good faith.
 
I wonder if age takes the gleam off it all? Maybe the optimism and lack of world experience as a child/teenager makes the pursuit of Fortean subects a young 'uns game. There are still discoveries to be made and you haven't been jaded by it all. That's not to say we old farts can't still enjoy it too. It's just that after 20 or 30 years of anecdotes, ALL CAPS POSTS, outlandish claims and mental cases the hope kind of goes out of it.

In my younger college/university days, my stand point was not to reject anything automatically but to weigh up the evidence and catalogue it for future reference. Seen a bigfoot? Well tell me all about it. He was riding a unicorn? Well carry on. That takes energy and enthusiasm. Two things which are in short supply as you get older. I still have the same stand point for new subjects but other tried and tested subjects are more weather beaten.

I was a firm UFO believer but the years have made me extremely doubtful especially when I fully understand the vastness of space.
I was a 100% ghost believer (based on family experiences) but after years of physical investigation, research into spiritualism and experimentation I no longer think that the spirits of the dead can return. I think we can physically affect our environment through psychic energy (and by that I mean energy from your psyche, not that you're psychic) which could explain polt activity.

But I have to also say that part of what we do is not expecting (or even wanting) answers? Isn't the thrill of the chase what keeps us going? For bad situations it's the not knowing that kills you. For mysteries, it's the not knowing that drives you.
 
Last edited:
I sound like im arguing more than i am.

I think for me i have a particular fascination..that the need to disbelieve gets nowhere near the attention that the purported need to believe gets. In fact it goes completely unnoticed.

I've recounted here many times my experience of posting online a perfectly genuine photo id taken..not fortean, but merely "too good to be true" comical in nature. And how it quickly descended into strangers analysing the image and confidently declaring, with the language of technical expertise in some cases, how id clearly faked it..and congratulating themselves on not being fooled, or crowing about me being caught out but nice effort. Once one person announces the fake nature of the image, others cheerfully accepted it with all the gloating relief of having just dodged a bullet.

I found ..and continue to find ..that completely fascinating. If the need to avoid being seen as gullible and/or to be seen as having superior insight can distort people's responses to a perfectly ordinary image, how much more would that apply to any evidence, whether testimony or imagery, of something "paranormal"? You see of course the same mental gymnastics in the number of people who respond to every news story with assertions its a cover up/black ops/false flag etc.

I'm genuinely interested in the psychology of it, and how wide spread it may be.
 
the "I haven't so you can't have" line of thinking starts to seem irrational in itself.

There you have it in a nutshell. I would also add "I haven't and there is no evidence so you can't have".

But I have to also say that part of what we do is not expecting (or even wanting) answers? Isn't the thrill of the chase what keeps us going? For bad situations it's the not knowing that kills you. For mysteries, it's the not knowing that drives you.

Exactly this. And is not this the rationale of most of us being on this forum in the first place?
 
I believed in pretty much the whole lot as a kid. When I was eleven my folks announced a weeks boating holiday in Scotland, including Loch Ness, and I threw a tantrum because I was scared of going to where the monster lives. I soon got over it. Loch Ness is one of my favourite places now.

UFOs as evidence of visitation by extraterrestrials I believed in whole heartedly, but as my reading showed how inconsistent reports were, I realised it was more likely to be a psychological phenomenon, as well as misidentification.

I used to take for granted that ghosts existed. Actually, outside of our cultural heritage, the evidence for ghosts is slim, and the chances of phenomena being interpreted through our cultural lense as ghosts seems high. More recently I've taken a more logical approach. I don't see a world about me in which humans have a separate personality which could survive death. I see one in which age, disease and damage can affect a person's brain, often changing their cognitive abilities and personalities.

I find cryptids endlessly fascinating, and once believed in every one. I'm sure great mysteries of nature still remain for us to discover, and there's nothing intrinsically impossible about many cryptids. But the process often used to interpret reports of cryptids weakens the discipline of cryptozoology. Looking for analogues in the fossil record, in spite of its known paucity, for example. When pointed out that the identity isn't a particularly good match, the cryptozoologists will often suggest that that is because of the tens of thousands, or millions, of years of evolution since. But then, the cryptid is as likely to be something not discovered in the fossil record. Anyway, while the odd cryptid may be a real creature, I'm sure that most aren't.

None of this is intended to dismiss phenomena. I'm sure the experiences people have are real in some ways, in some cases objectively, and they mean something, even if they're unlikely to mean what their usual interpretations suggest. Even if some supposed phenomena are known almost entirely from lies or hoaxes, that means something culturally. I've had a couple of experiences which have convinced me there is some kind of intelligence or intelligences existing in the wilder places, and perhaps sometimes nearer to our homes. Most would have interpreted them as ghosts, but I see no such evidence. I sometimes half joke that I believe in fairies, but that's neither especially accurate nor too far from the truth. I just believe in something I don't have an explanation for.

This post is too long so I'm done for now :)
 
I don't think people need to believe in this stuff- they simply do as a result of their experiences.
I think some do, in the same way some people need to believe in (a) god. Once a belief becomes part of someone's self-identity, overturning a belief is akin to overturning your image of yourself. Most can't do it. To keep their self-identity intact, they need to believe.

It's just that after 20 or 30 years of anecdotes, ALL CAPS POSTS, outlandish claims and mental cases the hope kind of goes out of it.
^this^

When I was turnpike engineer, one of ones tasks was to evaluate ones 'design opportunities' (i.e. potential customers) and take an informed guess on who was going to be finished and in production (so buying your stuff) and when.

The technique I evolved was simply to ask when 'some development event' was due to take place and record this prediction along with the date of asking. Over a period, with the benefit of such notes and data, one discovers how fast the 'development event' and real time are converging. No real convergence = nothing happening. Move on, give your precious time to more likely causes.

In the same way, the vast majority of Forteana being discussed today, show no convergence with 'a solution' for (say) the last 25 years. Imo that strongly suggests one outcome is much more likely than the other and I'm going to 're-prioritise my time'...

I believed in pretty much the whole lot as a kid. When I was eleven my folks announced a weeks boating holiday in Scotland, including Loch Ness, and I threw a tantrum because I was scared of going to where the monster lives. I soon got over it. Loch Ness is one of my favourite places now.

UFOs as evidence of visitation by extraterrestrials I believed in whole heartedly, but as my reading showed how inconsistent reports were, I realised it was more likely to be a psychological phenomenon, as well as misidentification.

I used to take for granted that ghosts existed. Actually, outside of our cultural heritage, the evidence for ghosts is slim, and the chances of phenomena being interpreted through our cultural lense as ghosts seems high. More recently I've taken a more logical approach. I don't see a world about me in which humans have a separate personality which could survive death. I see one in which age, disease and damage can affect a person's brain, often changing their cognitive abilities and personalities.

I find cryptids endlessly fascinating, and once believed in every one. I'm sure great mysteries of nature still remain for us to discover, and there's nothing intrinsically impossible about many cryptids. But the process often used to interpret reports of cryptids weakens the discipline of cryptozoology. Looking for analogues in the fossil record, in spite of its known paucity, for example. When pointed out that the identity isn't a particularly good match, the cryptozoologists will often suggest that that is because of the tens of thousands, or millions, of years of evolution since. But then, the cryptid is as likely to be something not discovered in the fossil record. Anyway, while the odd cryptid may be a real creature, I'm sure that most aren't.

None of this is intended to dismiss phenomena. I'm sure the experiences people have are real in some ways, in some cases objectively, and they mean something, even if they're unlikely to mean what their usual interpretations suggest. Even if some supposed phenomena are known almost entirely from lies or hoaxes, that means something culturally. I've had a couple of experiences which have convinced me there is some kind of intelligence or intelligences existing in the wilder places, and perhaps sometimes nearer to our homes. Most would have interpreted them as ghosts, but I see no such evidence. I sometimes half joke that I believe in fairies, but that's neither especially accurate nor too far from the truth. I just believe in something I don't have an explanation for.

This post is too long so I'm done for now :)
Nice post.:hoff:
 
It's just that after 20 or 30 years of anecdotes, ALL CAPS POSTS, outlandish claims and mental cases the hope kind of goes out of it.

this ^

sorry

THIS!!!!!!!!!
 
In Fountainstown (fringes of West Cork) and the surrounding area the recycle bins are brown and the ordinary rubbish bins are green. Bet it's the same in Cromer.

In Glasgow it's green for non recycleable, brown for garden waste, blue for recyclable and purple for glass!
 
In Glasgow it's green for non recycleable, brown for garden waste, blue for recyclable and purple for glass!
In Dorset it's black for non, green for recyclable, brown for garden rubbish (which you pay extra for) and a green box for glass. Bulbs, batteries and tin foil are your problem.
 
Like others have posted, my Fortean beliefs have changed over the years.

An early influence as was my mother. I have a vivid memory of her talking to one of her friends about the grandson of the lady opposite. His mother had gone to check on him one night when he was in bed because she heard him call out. When she got to the room she saw him sleeping soundly but his voice came from somewhere else saying something like "mummy, mummy I'm over here and I can't get back" (O.B.E.?)

So I used to believe in everything.

Now I'm more sceptical and see a lot of paranormal stuff as people wanting to believe. I also think there may be rational scientific reasons to things that we don't know because we haven't, as a species, developed enough to understand what's going on around us.

What's interesting to me is that although I have had my own share of brushes with the paranormal (mentioned in other threads) none of my experiences have made me more sure, only more questioning.

My legal team have told me not to go into too much detail, for obvious reasons, but I have done two things, taken part in a shamanistic ritual and enacted my own version of a Shinto priest initiation rite, that have both led me to believe in the interconnectedness of all things and that there is more going on than we can neatly explain within our present forms of scientific analysis.
 
After decades I still haven't forgiven Walkers Crisps for putting cheese and onion in blue packets and salt and vinegar in green. That's just mental cruelty.

How long has it been now? Can distinctly remember the horror of eating a crisp from that first mis-chosen green bag; I hate salt and vinegar. The trauma.
 
I'm currently enjoying increased self-confidence and so I'm to move towards accepting things. In particular I'm hoping that some sort of plant discoveries will be very interesting.

I always accept IHTM. Mostly because I think people really believe what they say and how they describe it. Also because it's no harm to me if they are idiots.
 
I don't think people need to believe in this stuff- they simply do as a result of their experiences. But the "it's real/ it's not real" discussion is pointless isn't it? :)

Yup, what interests me a lot is the problem people have when something happens to them that they heretofore could not have accepted. The result is cognitive dissonance which they must somehow resolve.

They might say 'I don't believe in ghosts, never have! But a week after my father died I saw him in the front room, solid like a real person, sitting in the armchair and smiling like he always did!'

After that they have to re-assess their previous knowledge and assimilate the experience into their own belief system.

So, were they actually asleep and dreaming? Was it a trick of the light? Were they so distraught after Dad's death that they hallucinated? Were they drinking? Or have they a new belief that Dad can still love them from beyond the grave? They might go for this because hey, it's Dad!

One often hears a variation of this story with a UFO, some fairies, a time slip, whatever, and you know the person has had to change their mind.
It is hard to argue with the evidence of one's own senses.
 
Back
Top