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

Hiding Under The Covers

Whew! :shock:

I'm just happy I thought to get the remainder of my sleeping pills filled today--or rather, yesterday. Otherwise I definitely would not sleep a wink tonight!

I just hope for no nightmares.... :(
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
....I parted company from OldTimeRadio....

Fine, fine - most people do.

But you still haven't explained why you equate "it has been speculated that...." with "I firmly believe that...." And that was the point of my post.

...
We have already discussed the respective differing World views:
OldTimeRadio said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Perhaps the problem lies in the possibility that you, like many people in the USA, still seem to evince a 17th, or even 16th Century, World view, whilst many in the 'Old World' took on at least some of the implications of the philosophical theories of Immanuel Kant and his heirs, sometime in the late 18th, early 19th Centuries?

Exactly. The 17th Century saw the birth not only of modern science but also of modern democratic thought. It was the century of Joseph Glanville, the founder of psychical research, and of the most noted of proto-Forteans, that splendidly "idle fellow" John Aubrey. (In fact I sometimes describe myself as an Aubreyist rather than as a Fortean.)
Seems fairly clear to me what those two viewpoints are, with regard to Evil. One: Evil is a culturally defined description of acts, deed, thought processes, or phenomena, which are socially, or personally detrimental, displaying damaging consequences, possibly related to asocial and/or socially immoral tendencies. Something qualitative and subjective. Two: Evil is an objective and autonomous Force, which can act directly upon the World. Something quantitative.

OldTimeRadio may not believe in the second wholesale, however, since he has brought it up, he might defend, or clarify his position, rather than going on the attack, when I lay out my position and point out where it differs to the one which he has stated, even if his statement was only a suggestion, or tentative conjecture.
.
.....
OldTimeRadio said:
...

And what exactly is "heavy Evil"? If I drop it will it hurt my foot?

But all this is starting to drift off-topic here, especially when there are several "evil" threads already on these boards.
Firstly, if Evil did have weight, it would ipso facto be heavy.

Secondly, if most childhood fears and nightmares had some sort of actual, objective reality, a manifestation of Malevolent Evil, rather than being the byproduct of internal processes in the growing brain, or the product of childhood traumas and mis-apprehensions, carried forward into later life, then we would be talking about two very different sorts of phenomena, both with relevance to this Thread.

Similarly, if there really were normally invisible entities, which could interact with humans, in real life, directly, through psychic possession, or in dreams, then the assumption that they were first and foremost manifestations of an objective and malevolent Evil, rather than denizens of the natural Universe, albeit form some invisible plane, or dimension, would be a big assumption to make and I would hazard, Culturally defined, through religious, or social beliefs, rather than through actual proof.

Is a tiger, however terrifying, or dangerous, 'Evil' in and of itself, or even a manifestation of of some external, objective Evil? The somewhat, Gnostic and erratic, but really rather brilliant William Blake, also a bit of an expert on the Invisible World, asks a question along similar lines.

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?


Blake knew, that before we can seek an answer, we must first ask the right questions.
 
Again6, I absolutely love your experiences. They are the most interesting anyone has posted on here for a long time.
I am also very interested in the face you saw and called "evil". Now I can imagine exactly what you mean by something that looks so horrid to us humans that we basically "shut down" [in the way that you fainted].
I need to ask a little more please.
1) When you saw the grimace of this face, I assume you [or many others] have never seen anything like it before, it was so unnaturally distorted that it basically rocked the very core of you. You reacted the way you did out of fear, is that correct?
2) If you were frightened, your body reacted the way it would in many other situations that would be as frightening [especially in life or death situations]. In history, people have reacted with the same fear as you did to things that are now very common to us and will not scare us anymore. Humans can be very adaptable and get used to the most shocking experiences if encountered often enough.
Do you think that if that face would have been shown to you many times over plus the knowledge that others have experienced it as well without any negative effects [apart from the initial fear], that you could have desensitised yourself to it and looked at it from a calmer viewpoint?

What if...What we call evil and are absolutely horrified might just be the "look" of otherworldly beings. I mean what could the face have done physically, any idea?
Could it be that we call something "evil" and menacing because it frightenes us?
Does it make it automatically evil when we get frightened about it?
Do we read human emotions into something that might not have been human and therefore would not adhere to our facial expressions and the meanings we see behind them?
A tiger can look very frightening but is it evil?
I'm not trying to make your experience look less scary but because I am so fascinated by it I need to know all I can to make up my mind.
 
Dingo667 said:
Again6, I absolutely love your experiences. They are the most interesting anyone has posted on here for a long time.

Dingo, just let me add my second to that.
 
Dingo wrote:

Humans can be very adaptable and get used to the most shocking experiences if encountered often enough.
Do you think that if that face would have been shown to you many times over plus the knowledge that others have experienced it as well without any negative effects [apart from the initial fear], that you could have desensitised yourself to it and looked at it from a calmer viewpoint?

Could it be that we call something "evil" and menacing because it frightenes us?
Does it make it automatically evil when we get frightened about it?

Do we read human emotions into something that might not have been human and therefore would not adhere to our facial expressions and the meanings we see behind them?

Humans can be very adaptable and get used to the most shocking experiences if encountered often enough.

Dingo, I'd describe myself as someone who is adaptable; who learned the necessity to adapt to widely ranging circumstances from early childhood on, in common with millions, particularly those exposed to extreme violence. For example, I'm extremely familiar (through exposure to same) with the facial expressions, noises, odours, muscle movement, eye-movements, sweating, etc. of those engaged in physical violence and infliction of extreme fear/terror.
* Such people invariably grimace.
* Their eyes exhibit extreme intensity and luminosity -- can appear 'demented'. (One terrifying individual's eyes however, appeared to me 'dry' and had the appearance of dry, cracked, glass marbles).
* the muscles around the eyes can cause the eyes to bulge to several times their usual size
* the whites can appear to enlarge --- or even disappear altogether
* the eyes can protrude far beyond the socket
* the entire top third of their face can seem to be carved of wood, with the bony structure around the eyes standing out in stark relief and the veins and muscles enlarged.

Their faces contort horribly, particularly around the mouth.
* At such times, they can appear demented, even 'inhuman'.
* they often appear to go white, or yellowish, or greenish-yellow around the entire mouth area, from under the nose, around the mouth and covering the lower jaw
* the lips are often stretched back rigidly in what I call the 'square' look, so that you see all the teeth
* the muscles in the chin often contract, tightening and drawing down the lower lip rigidly

While this is happening, the veins in their neck often stand out like rope.
* the neck is often bright red at this time
* this can involve the shoulder and chest muscles also, so that the person seems to swell to much larger than their usual size

The person doesn't move in the way we're used to seeing people move
* they often curve the head, neck and shoulders forward and 'loom' forward, muscles bunched and forearms and hands held out threateningly.

In combination, the above comprises a horrifying sight and the violent individual described above is capable of inflicting dreadful damage upon others and property.

The individual engaged in strangling another, for example, will often thrust his own chin forward and will actually bite his own lower lip. His eyes will gleam with frightening intensity and will protrude out of the socket. The same, basically, can be used to describe those engaged in raping or attempting to rape, another.

When violent individuals are engaged in beating another, they often stick their tongue out, so that it protrudes. They hold their teeth down on their tongue. They can resemble Maoris doing the haka. They sometimes afterwards discover they have bitten partly through their own tongue.

Some violent individuals, often women in this instance, narrow their eyes (which gleam ferociously) and press their lips together tightly, while inflicting pain on another. The lips of violent individuals often appear white or 'bloodless'.

Violence is accompanied by sounds of horrible nature. The violent individual doesn't breathe normally. They often sweat a great deal and the sweat has a range of odours, none of them pleasant.

Those accustomed to violent individuals can usually sense it coming, in the same way as those accustomed to dealing with animals. Humans, like animals, often demonstrate specific pre-violence 'signs' that can often be 'read'. (emphasis on 'often' as opposed to 'usually' or 'always'). At such times, those around them, if aware enough, often have time to decide whether to fight or flee. On occasion, those accustomed to dealing with violence can take the initiative; can thrust or shout loudly in the violent person's face, for example, and 'back' them down. Not advised unless you know the violent individual in question or have made an accurate assumption regarding the violent individual and circumstances. It's a reasonable stall in some cases however.

The signs of violent arousal can be mimicked. Mike Tyson for example, often mimics violence-displays at pre-match interviews; he draws in his lower lip and bites down on it and lowers his brow-ridge, swells out his neck, bulges out his eyes, grimaces, etc. He's been genuinely violent so often, he's learned his physical reactions to it and is able to 'fake' them for the camera in order to attract a larger audience for the upcoming show.

Violently inclined individuals sometimes duck and feint (sp?) in order to take their victim by surprise and maximise the terror -- and their own advantage. Often they will conceal their violent intentions by smiling and speaking softly and behaving almost 'normally' -- then they lunge or strike the victim, at which point many of the horrifying bodily characteristics described above may become evident.

Violence of horrifying nature can occur of course in a hundredth of the time it takes to read the above. As such, it's a terrifying experience for victims, who're often caught unaware and experience physical and mental/emotional trauma.

Someone who's only rarely or never experienced violence may well confuse what is basically ordinary human-inflicted terror with the supernatural.

A person experienced in human-inflicted terror does not. I fall in the latter category.

I've observed all the physical manifestations of human violence/terror displays detailed above at close quarters. At the time, I was physically strong and resilient. Further, I was able to understand quite often, the circumstances responsible for the violent individual's behaviours. The violent individual may have been drunk or under extreme emotional stress, for example (and had a much lower tolerance to stress than others) or may have possessed the type of personality which chose violence as usual response to whatever problems arose in their lives.

If exposed to violent threats and physical violence on regular basis, it's possible to 'numb' oneself for the duration. On one occasion, I calmly observed as two extremely violent individuals beat me with all their might. At the time, I physically felt very little and waited for them to exhaust themselves. I knew it was pointless to attempt to defend myself as they were too strong physically and too lost in their violent enjoyment. Afterwards of course, the physical results were felt. While it was occurring however, I was able to glance sidewards and saw an observer, almost at the point of faint; white faced and paralysed. My concern at the time, was primarily for the long-term effects upon the observer. I experienced a similar situation as an adult when refusing to relinquish car-keys to a violent individual intent basically on preventing a group of individuals from escaping by vehicle. Those individuals stood by in helpless fascination; virtually rooted to the spot in extreme distress and unable to assist me. Ridiculous as it sounds now, I repeatedly assured them; 'It's ok, I can't feel it. It's ok, it looks worse than it is'.

I've never been confronted by a tiger. I'm sure I'd succumb. In the process, I would observe to varying degrees of horror, an animal engaged in normal animal behaviour. I would assume (I hope) the responsibility to be mine, for venturing in the animal's domain. To describe the tiger as evil would be lunacy; at best, 'ignorant'.

Human beings are capable of the most horrific behaviours, yet these are not 'evil' actions or caused by 'evil', in the vast majority of instances, at least in my opinion. Some of the violent individuals I've known personally, had in their genes a combination of factors which predisposed them to violence as a solution. Others suffered physical and/or mental conditions. One particularly violent person I knew suffered, it was discovered, high blood pressure from his late teens on; two of his uncles had dropped dead on the spot from cerebral hemhorrage (sp?) one while running to jump on a bus. As a middle aged man, he is less violent now, although his wife and four children (and several relatives who apparently joined the fray) took apprehended violence orders out on him in the end ... and this seemed to curb his violence quite remarkably. Most violent individuals I've known have tended (we'll call it 'coincidence', lol) to become quite reasonable in middle and old age, at which time they became more than willing to discuss, rather than punch. A lot of violence is old-fashioned bully behaviour. But it's nonetheless terrifying at the time.


[/i][/b]
 
In addition to ordinary human violence/terror displays, I've experienced some paranormal/supernatural events; not an enormous number by any means. I've never tallied them up, but it's sort of interesting the way most of them have been different, rather like being given a Whitman's sampler box of chocolates, lol. The most common, I suppose, have been precognitive (but of course precognition may not be paranormal at all).

Three stand out as being particularly horrifying (and I immediately remembered another which ranks close). It's a toss-up, horror-wise, between the little people, the 'thing' that threatened me after I'd assisted in someone else's botched 'exorcism' attempt, and the Jane-face thing we're currently discussing.

As the Jane-face caused me to black out and then block out the experience for over a decade, I guess it must qualify as the worst, because at least I retained a level of control, thought and physical movement during the others.

Dingo wrote:

Do you think that if that face would have been shown to you many times over plus the knowledge that others have experienced it as well without any negative effects [apart from the initial fear], that you could have desensitised yourself to it and looked at it from a calmer viewpoint?

Do you think .... you could have desensitised yourself to it

Dingo, I don't know; I've never considered that.

What I can tell you is this; once, in response to request that I describe the incident fully, in writing, I foolishly (realise now) replayed the Jane incident in my mind, preparatory to committing it to paper.

I was already cautious enough to have deliberately chosen a particularly nice time of day, mid-afternoon, full sunshine. I drew back the curtains from a double sliding door which took the full sun (and as you'd probably know, the Queensland sun is sunny, lol). I then placed my chair so that the sunlight flooded over me and a good way into the room. I was in good humour, felt in control. I knew what I was proposing to do. I believed I could do it, get it over with and get on with my day.

I don't know about other people's memory (am always curious about it) but mine is similar to a video recording, complete with sound, colour, atmosphere, etc. I can pull it up, even stuff from dreams, decades later. In fact, people have sometimes initially claimed my recollection has been incorrect and that they hadn't said or done such-and-such, yet I've been able to describe what they were wearing, their clothing, hair-do and surrounding circumstances plus events immediately prior to the event, based on these 'bubble' type memory clusters, at which point their memory has been prodded (usually based on something relatively minor, such as what they were wearing, per my memory) at which point they've often exclaimed: 'Oh, that's right -- I remember now -- gee, remember those stupid flares we used to wear then?' or similar. So, come to think of it, I guess other's memories do survive in little clusters surrounded by minor detail, also. And of course, others have also been able to jog my memory quite often, using the same method.

Something else may play a role too. My sister said to me on a couple of occasions that I don't remember events as much as 're-live' them.

So back to this particular experience -- I deliberately brought up the Jane event in order to commit it to paper. I'd not done so as purposefully ever before. But I wanted to provide as factual and detailed an account as possible in this instance.

I took myself back to the day in question. I walked myself though the uneventful moments leading up to the Jane face. I re-lived the experience. I became the girl I had been. I experienced again the girlish sense of mild curiosity I felt when Jane didn't respond when I re-entered the house with the items she'd requested.

As far as I was possibly able, I put myself right there, inside the memory; the sunshine outside, the shadows cast at the rear of the kitchen (where the stove and Jane were) by the big water-tanks immediately outside. Everything was realistic; a memory-copy of that room, the temperature that day, the sounds outside, the heat from the stove, etc. I was there.

What made it worse, really, was that I was in a particularly cheerful frame of mind immediately before the event, almost giddy with relief actually, because it was such a welcome event to find Jane engaged in such a normal, domestic chore as cooking quietly with none of her usual ranting and bad humour.

So I was a sitting-duck. I went closer to her, but she still didn't respond. It was quiet right at the point I went even closer to her. She was in profile, her head tipped slightly forward as she stirred, and her hair had fallen forwards and was covering the side of her face. I didn't know if she was annoyed by the fact I hadn't been able to get all the things she'd wanted. So I leaned forwards and a bit around towards her, in order to see her expression. She didn't move a fraction, which I just had time to think was odd.

Then she turned towards me, at close quarters and I got the full face -- or, really, full force.

So, pulling myself back from that, I'll go on to tell you that I was there, decades later, sitting with the sun all around me, as I pulled this memory up on the screen of my mind, preparatory to writing it down in detail.

And I was too successful. The entire memory came back. But instead of blacking out this time, I was subjected to what I've always suspected was another form of demonic assault. Because when I remembered the Jane-face (and not in its entirety, I don't think, but bad enough) something -- actually a group of things, I've always thought -- attempted to take me over. And I don't know how to describe what it's like to be subject to a spiritual take-over, but I'll try. It's as if your mind is being pushed out of you. You begin to fade and slip into nothingness. At the same time, something is pushing its way in. It doesn't feel the same as when you begin to faint. Instead, you're conscious and aware. You feel yourself getting weaker, actually losing tenancy of your own mind and body. Sounds dramatic, but I'm understating it, to be honest, because there's no way to describe the terror and helplessness you feel at a time like that and no way to describe the energy or violence of the assault. It's very fast.

So there I was, in two places at once, yet still sitting in my own house in the sun. My children saved me, I think, or at least my total concern for them. I understood in an instant that if I lost this battle, my children would see this woman who looked exactly like me and may even sound like me -- but she would not be me. They would be, from that point on, at the mercy of whatever had kicked me out. Obviously whatever it/they were was not benign. It would not be good to my children. And there they were, just metres away from me, chattering away to each other and eating ice-blocks and utterly defenceless.

I couldn't make a sound, or they would look up to see what was wrong. If that happened, I would lose my hold and would lose the concentration and will-power that were all that was holding me in place. Then it would be over and I would lose and so would my children.

With my hands on either side of the seat of the chair, I struggled to remain upright. Whatever it was was trying to force me sideways. I was actually leaning a bit to the right. I fought back to stay upright. It took all my strength. I could feel myself going.

Then I just prayed. Not so much a prayer as a silent scream for help. And I kept it up, meanwhile holding onto the chair for my life to resist the force. I didn't think. Just fought and screamed out for dear life, in my head. A couple of times a thought -- that of failing -- tried to get into my mind but I booted it out before it could finish itself. Hang on. Sceam for help. Fight to stay there. That's all I allowed myself to do. And not a sound or my children would have come up to me, frightened by the look of me, and would have said; 'What's wrong, mummy?' If they did that, or touched me, or diverted my total concentration, I would have lost my grip.

Then it was over. The pushing had stopped. My mind was my own again. The things had gone. I relaxed my grip. The room came back in focus. The sun was still shining. The children were still chattering to each other in the kitchen.

I grabbed them and took them outside into the garden and got them interested in a game. I had this sense that the sun would protect us and cleanse us.

The experience scared me, a lot. I've never attempted to re-live the Jane-memory again. It would be reckless. And for the same reason, when it seems warranted, I try to advise others against reliving traumatic experiences, particularly those of paranormal bent. Better to gain what information may be sought by 'viewing' a situation from a distance, after taking precautionary measures.

Should add that the house in which I experienced the rebound 'take over' attempt re: the Jane-memory, was 'disturbing', for want of better term. I had a number of disturbing paranormal experiences in that house as did, other family members. The house, though quite new and modern, had a possibly strange history. I had the daylights frightened out of me in that place. We sold it and a few years later bought another, a few doors down, and it also was the scene for a handful of paranormal experiences. Then a version of Hag experience in a brand new townhouse I bought in the same area (we liked the area, obviously). The whole suburb was built on reclaimed land, which may or may not have something to do with it. Life has been almost incident free in our present house, where we've lived now since 2001. I still would not attempt to relive the Jane experience however. I think I have a tendency towards the paranormal.

Should add that my own 'explanation' for what happened when I tried to remember and write down the Jane-thing years later, is that the malign influences already present in that house combined with my existing vulnerability to the paranormal. They saw their chance and went for it, thanks to my stupidly 'opening' my defences.

Dingo wrote, regarding the Jane-face:

Do you think .... you could have desensitised yourself to it

It's possible, if the experience consisted of my merely being required to 'see' the face within and behind Jane's.

However, the experience was not just one of 'seeing' something horrible.

If it were, I daresay I could become desensitized to it to the point I might even become brave enough to tell it to take itself and throw itself down the toilet.

However, the Jane-face experience was not restricted to that of mere terrifying visage; it was a spiritual attack by something that knew exactly what it was doing; i.e., terrifying the consciousness out of a human being, a child, simply for the enjoyment of being able to do so. The situation was set-up. Jane was not behaving normally. Sure, she was behaving as is 'normal' for others, in stirring food at the stove, in remaining quiet and non-violent. I should have known something was wrong when I found her that way. But children are endlessly optimisitic.

Dingo wrote:

I mean what could the face have done physically, any idea?

I don't know. I passed out, I think. If I hadn't, I'm not sure what would have happened. It was voracious, it obliterated Jane's face, basically, and seemed to screech out and occupy its own space, in front of Jane's head -- larger than her head, from what I remember without returning to it properly. Maybe it was impotent and restricted to delivering terror, I don't know.

Dingo wrote:

What if...What we call evil and are absolutely horrified (of) might just be the "look" of otherworldly beings

This may be so. If so, we must then assume that otherworldy beings' natural appearance is that of voracious demons and that their natural means of expression consists of looming out of taken-over humans in order to deliver threats capable of blowing human minds. In which case, unless one's addicted to extreme-sports of the X-variety, I'd advise avoidance wherever possible, lol.

Dingo wrote:

Could it be that we call something "evil" and menacing because it frightenes us?
Does it make it automatically evil when we get frightened about it?

My own response is 'NO'. I'm frightened of heaps of things, yet I don't consider them to be even mildly 'evil'.

Why then do I consider the thing that superimposed itself within and over Jane's face to be 'evil' ? Very difficult to explain, other than to say it 'felt' evil, evil for the sake of it, evil that enjoyed what it was doing, evil that wanted to do what it was doing, evil that had no excuse for what is was doing, that had not been provoked or sought. It wanted to express itself. It set it up. My brother and I were children. We had few defences against something of that magnitude and no experience that could have prepared us for it. It lured us in, in different ways. It wasn't instructional. It traumatised.

I was about 13, my brother was about nine. I don't know if his youth protected him to a degree. What I can say is that I was suicidal until I was about 25, as was he and he continued to be so well into his 30's and may still be. He used to take phenomenal risks; just thinking about some of the things he did makes me cringe and push it aside, it's so frightening. I feel better with every year he gets older and tell myself he's past it and will be ok now. I can hardly believe he's made it this far. I used to try to mentally prepare myself to hear that he'd died, so that I'd be able to cope with it. He was still brought mentally to his knees by the memory of the Jane-face when a married man with children of his own. Yet he's lived in the wild, lived off the land, done high-wire acts of bravado on unfinished high-rise buildings he's worked on and has remained calm to the point of laughter re: events that others are still trying to get over years later. He doesn't scare easily. I do, I admit.

Maybe it was a situation waiting to happen, with Jane, my brother and myself already 'sensitive' or vulnerable to the paranormal. Perhaps the location further assisted. Maybe this explains a lot of paranormal events. And maybe it explains why some never experience any.
 
We may ask 'what is beauty' in the same way as 'what is evil'. Is evil, like beauty, defined in/by the eye of the beholder?

In earlier posts, I've tried to illustrate that it's perfectly possible to become desensitised to human type monsters and at the same time, perhaps, come to understand and sometimes sympathise with their condition.

Humans are capable of some bizarre and very frightening acts, yet these are still human behaviours. We're exposed to humans of every shape and type every day.

We're far less familiar with paranormal denizens and thus have far less opportunity to become desensitised to them or understand them and what makes them behave as they do.

We might speculate that like humans, paranormal creatures come in all shapes and types and some people do claim to have become less afraid of and even familiar with ghosts, for example, through repeated exposure.

Someone arriving on this planet may not believe Caucasians, Negroid, Asian, blonde, brunette, red-head, English-speaking, Urdu-speaking, wheelchair-bound, Olympic athletes, babies, geriatrics, abbatoir workers, conservationists, nurses, killers, etc. are simply variations within humankind.

In the same way, we currently sometimes suspect that ghosts, extraterrestrials, leprachauns, poltergeists, possessing-entities, haunted locations, etc. are independent phenomena, when in fact it may be that they are also just variations on a theme.

A human in pain may scream at random, no matter where he's located. An angry human may lash out randomly at passers-by. A shy and withdrawn individual may seek to blend with the background regardless of where he is; boardroom or bus-stop. A violent human may stab and attack diners in a restaurant. A policeman may apprehend an innocent by-stander for simply being in the vicinity of a crime. Politicians make decisions in broad sweeps, yet these effect millions in millions of different ways.

Paranormal entities may be similar in type and function and those interested in paranormal phenomena seek to impose order on seeming chaos by attributing 'types' to ghosts; vengeful ghosts, for example, or 'replay' ghosts, in the same way some attempt to categorise extraterrestrials; tall blondes, diminutive greys, etc.

Far better that paranormal phenomena be subjected to such scrutiny and earnest attempts to understand than be dismissed outright as something which should-not, cannot and therefore 'does not' exist.

Why wouldn't there be heavy evil? Who's in a position to deny its existence? There's certainly no-one on this entire planet of 6 billion who's in a position to dispute paranormal phenomena in any of its many apparent forms, whilst at the same time there are millions, throughout all eras, who've come forth with their paranormal experiences and twice as many who've kept their experience/s to themselves.

But we're willing to believe some extraordinary claims. For example, billions willingly, ardently comply with the dictates of religions which are based on very thin evidence and millions flock at great cost to alleged shrines, based on the alleged testimony of a handful of peasants. Water sanctified by men who bugger little boys in private is considered 'holy'.

Yet a policeman whose testimony has the power to free or imprison people is regarded as reliable, honest, eminently sane, trustworthy ... until the day he states as fact that he saw a ghost or extraterrestrial craft or entity. Pilots are responsible for the lives of hundreds of people, six miles in the sky. They're respected members of society, their judgement is unquestioned ... until the day they claim they saw the ghost of an ex-pilot or saw an extraterrestrial entity, at which point they're offered the choice between retirement and keeping their mouths shut.

There are plenty of people with 20/20 vision like the airline captain and plenty who're decent, law-abiding citizens like the policeman -- and they claim to have seen ghosts and extraterrestrials too, as do members of the clergy and of the medical and scientific communities, also teachers, plumbers, architects, electricians, horticulturalists and housewives.

When these people see a car, or a donkey or helicopter, no-one disputes it. Their witness testimony is relied upon in court. They are summoned as jurors. They raise children with nary a mishap. They drive on their side of the road. They have unblemished driving records sometimes for fifty or more years. They have never been arrested, accused or convicted of a crime. They are trusted with cooking and delivering food to the disabled, etc. and others are each entrusted with dozens of children daily in child-care facilities, all over the world. When they draw a scene, others are able to recognise it as a factual -- the trees and sky and mountains and water are recognisable as such. They somehow manage to keep their underwear off their heads and know that shoes belong on feet. They can tie their laces. They don't cook the family pet. They don't put the cart before the horse. And they've always been the same.

I've said it before and will continue to say it until I drop: I trust my fellow man, by and large. If I didn't, I'd never dare step out the door or drive on the road or eat any food or drink the water.

My fellow man has been saying -- on occasion -- since the dawn of time, that he saw/experienced something that was not human as we know it. The descriptions and experiences differ, but they have one thing in common -- it was not 'normal' even within the wide range we allow as being 'normal'.

I believe him. I've seen and experienced some odd things myself. And interestingly enough, religions say pretty much the same sort of things, as do/have numerous philosophers, scientists, mystics, poets, painters and others who're generally regarded as being 'pretty smart'.

Do I unquestioningly accept every paranormal-type claim? No, in the same way I don't accept every big fish-that-got-away story I hear, in the same way I accept every claim that someone missed work because their grandmother died. Some big fish get away however, just as some grandmothers die.

I have my own theories regarding those who claim to be sceptics regarding the paranormal and it has nothing to do with the paranormal and a heck of a lot to do with momentary pow-ah. Those who report their own or other's paranormal experience/s go out on a limb; they reveal things they probably don't reveal in the course of an ordinary day. Those with a stated interest in the paranormal climb out on that same limb. They've had the courage to render themselves vulnerable.

Along comes a claimed-sceptic. They dispute the paranormal and others' claimed experiences and/or interest in same. This is calculated to put the person on-the-limb on the defensive, publicly. Try walking down the street and putting someone on the defensive and you're very likely to get hurt. Do the same in a forum and it costs nothing. You can have the other person (until they learn to ignore you) leaping through hoops in the attempt to validate or at least dignify their beliefs and/or experiences. The claimed-sceptic derives a cost-free sense of pow-ah and moves on to do it again and again until his angst-bubble of the moment subsides.

Do the same sceptics burst into a production of Hamlet and announce; 'I'm a sceptic and I don't believe in ghosts, they're all a figment of Shakespeare's and Hamlet's imagination, or the result of mental disturbance or just something from a dream they had' ? Nope, I've never seen that happen. Did people rock up to Fort's house and suggest he'd dreamed all those falls of red fish? Couldn't say, but if they did, he obviously paid them no heed.
 
I've not been ignoring Again6's "Jane-face" post. It's still resonating through me, trying to dredge up some long buried memories of my own.
 
again6 said:
Do the same sceptics burst into a production of Hamlet and announce; 'I'm a sceptic and I don't believe in ghosts, they're all a figment of Shakespeare's and Hamlet's imagination, or the result of mental disturbance or just something from a dream they had' ? Nope, I've never seen that happen. Did people rock up to Fort's house and suggest he'd dreamed all those falls of red fish? Couldn't say, but if they did, he obviously paid them no heed.

You really do have a problem in distiguishing between fiction and reality. Why would they? If you believe in ghosts you read the play as Hamlet having actually been visited by his father's ghost to goad him into action. If you don't believe in ghosts the story works if the ghost is simply a projection of Hamlet's guilt at hesitating in avenging his father's death.

What Shakespeare believed we don't know. The ghost in the play seems real, but whether this reflected his own beliefs or whether it was a way of initiating the plot, in a society where the objective reality of ghost was possibly more widely accepted, we'll never know unless someone invents time travel and gets to interview him.

People didn't suggest Fort had dreamed the falls of fish, because he never witnessed them. He collected and collated newspaper and other stories, and queried whether the explanations given were the real ones and riffed on some wild alternatives. Whether he believed his own explanations and theories or was trying them on for size is debatable.
 
Timble2 wrote:

You really do have a problem in distiguishing between fiction and reality

Timble, once again you've launched into unsolicited personal criticism and have succeeded in appearing bitter and unpleasant.

You are clearly attempting to provoke, lol, despite my pleasant responses following your personal attacks in a separate thread.

Is it that you want me to notice you?

Why? What do you have that I'd be interested in? I'm straight, lol.

Take care :)
 
again6 said:
Why? What do you have that I'd be interested in? I'm straight, lol.

Take care :)

Well the ability to point out silly analogies like the Hamlet thing, and actually knowing how Fort did his research.
 
again6 said:
Timble2 wrote:

You really do have a problem in distiguishing between fiction and reality

Timble, once again you've launched into unsolicited personal criticism and have succeeded in appearing bitter and unpleasant.

You are clearly attempting to provoke, lol, despite my pleasant responses following your personal attacks in a separate thread.

Is it that you want me to notice you?

Why? What do you have that I'd be interested in? I'm straight, lol.

Take care :)
Too much 'lol' and a bit too much flaming for my liking.

Are your self reported experiences objective, or subjective? Do you know the difference? Timble2 is asking a perfectly reasonable question.
 
I'm just wondering how often criticism is solicited. I mean, it is on occasion, but a lot of the time we don't want to hear it.

Anyway Again's inference:
Is it that you want me to notice you?
stands as a case in point, regarding distinguishing fiction and reality. Does Again honestly believe that Timble is interested in them purely because he's responded to some of Again's posts? Or is Again just trying to make a joke?
 
Timble2 said:
You really do have a problem in distiguishing between fiction and reality.

No, I really don't think so. Again6 isn't the first Paranormalist to reference Hamlet (and Macbeth, too) in this context; I've done it myself. But perhaps an even better example would be THE TURN OF THE SCREW, since that was based on a genuine case confided to Henry James by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Bishop Benson).

In any case, when people dismiss my own ideas as "silly" because they fail to fall into lock-step with their own, it is difficult for me not to take that as personal criticism.

People didn't suggest Fort had dreamed the falls of fish, because he never witnessed them.

I've never seen a fish fall either, but when I cite the evidences for them from Fort and other sources, Skeptics commonly accuse me of "dreaming them up."

Whether [Fort] believed his own explanations and theories or was trying them on for size is debatable.

But that's what Forteans do....."try explanations on for size." Even those explanations I "believe" in are sacrosanct only so long as they still fit.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Are your self reported experiences objective, or subjective? Do you know the difference?

Almost all personal paranormal experience are subjective.

That's what makes them the very devil to research - even by the percipients themselves.

The best evidence for the existence of the Paranormal lies in the morphology of the collected and collated accounts down the long centuries.
 
Again6, you have added so much to these boards, and to my own store of knowledge, that I am reluctant to criticize - but I fear than your recent response to Timble did go considerably beyond the pale.
 
Stuneville, I'll not question your decision.

However, I do have a question. Again6 and I were trading some fascinating and provacative Fortean and Paranormalist ideas on several different threads, and I really hate for that conversation to end in mid-sentence, as it were.

So will it still be possible for me to contact her privately through the FTMBs? I mean OFF-LIST, of course.

That's the only point of contact I have.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

George Wagner (OldTimeRadio)
 
It was a joint mod decision, but not a difficult one to reach. As she is banned the private messaging system won't work, and she specified on sign-up that her e-mail address wouldn't be made available publicly.

Sorry, but she had her chances.
 
[Emerges from under the covers, awakes & stretches]

I dreamed a Troll was sitting on my chest! :hah:
 
Sad, though, and in more ways than one. For one thing it leaves me, who wasn't guilty of anything, forever stuck with that blamed unfinished sentence.

So I'm the one left feeling extremely depressed. Double dose of the Zoloft tonight.
 
again6 said:
I can tolerate fully exposed feet but I find they seek each other for comfort and intertwine and basically attempt to 'cover' each other.

Hah! I do the exact same thing. In fact, when I lay on the couch, my feet seem to automatically dig into the corner, especially after my instinct realizes, sadly, that one foot CAN cover another, but must sacrifice itself to do so. :)
 
I think it's high time to confess that the reason I yet sleep with my eyes under the covers after all these years is that I'm still afraid of seeing the Old Hag pop up alongside my bed or exit the shadowy bureau mirror across the darkened room.

And I'm scared of seeing Pietro Mercurios, too. <g>
 
I have a Jack Russell on my bed every night. Sometimes I feed her tripe and offal. On those nights, under the duvet is a good place to be. :shock:
 
Grabbed by the FEET

The emphasis which has been placed here on protecting the feet under the covers while sleeping triggered a memory of an extract from a Shadowlands.Com account which I posted to the "Old Hag" thread here on March 1, 2006. I had to search for it, since I didn't consider feet the operative part of the report at that time. So here it is, with emphasis added:

"My name is Diana....About 2 years ago [1993/1994], when my youngest child was between 6 & 7, he came screaming into our room one night. He shared a bedroom across the hall with his older brother who had spent the night elsewhere. They had bunk beds and my little man slept on the lower bunk that night since his brother was not home.

"What he described was an old lady that looked like a witch. He swears she woke him up by pulling his feet. He was very adamant when telling us this and kept saying over and over again that he was wide awake while this happened. I believed him by the look in his eyes. Pure fear! The witch he described had evil eyes and rotten teeth and had sharp nails, he said her skin was rotten too....[H]e saw her fly up to the upper bunk, that's when she leaned over the end of the top bunk and hung upside down....reaching for him and laughing. That's when he came running into our room. He would not go alone into that room alone for a few months, let alone sleep in there if his brother was gone....[H]is belief in what he saw was very convincing. He was and still is very adamant that this really happened."

If this was "just a dream," it's sure as heck not one I'd wish on any six-year-old.

NOTE: The usual caveats regarding anonymous web-postings apply, of course, but this one passes all my internal tests and I see no reason to automatically disbelieve it.
 
I don't know the authenticity of the following story. But it certainly fits our "head under the covers" discussions:

In the Spring of 1945 a United States Army Field Hospital was established on or very near the bombed-to-gravel ruins of Pforzheim, Germany.

One day there was a heavy influx of Allied battle casualties, too many for the hospital tents to handle.

Because of this it was decided to keep the more severely wounded men in the tents and to have 23 of the healthiest soldiers sleep on cots outside, under as many blankets as they requested.

In the morning 13 of these "healthy" men were found dead. No cause of mortality seems to have ever been established.

But all 13 had been men who slept with their heads uncovered. The ten survivors were those who slept with their heads covered by sheets or blankets.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to sleep with my head under the covers, I wake up with my head above the covers. If that's true of everyone, it makes the above story a bit suspect.
 
gncxx said:
I don't know about anyone else, but when I go to sleep with my head under the covers, I wake up with my head above the covers. If that's true of everyone, it makes the above story a bit suspect.

You'll note the caveat with which I opened the story.

The source, by the way, is Roger de Lafforest's HOUSES THAT KILL, published in France in 1972 and the United States in 1974. I believe it's still in print in the original French edition.

The author claims that he heard the details from the American physician who was the director of the field hospital in question.

There's another story, older, in which a French Army patrol bivouacked for the night on open ground. In the morning all the soldiers were dead except for a few who'd covered their faces with hankerchiefs.

I first read that story when I was 14 years old and it spooked me for several years. That was a long time ago.
 
Get yourselves a Jack Russell dog. Cure for all that ails'ee. :D
 
Back
Top