Post by founder on Jun 14, 2007 17:29:51 GMT -5
have been reading some articles on EVPs and Orbs I see that some tend to see EVPs in the same light as orbs. I also recently watched a paranormal show where they advertise themselves as "disprovers" of paranormal activity or at least that is their goal. They failed to develop a Class B EVP and show it to their "client." Instead, they left it untelligible. I would tend to bet those EVPs are developed in private.
This seems to have led people to believe that attempting to disprove a phenomonen is the ultimate way to go. I am often facinated by those people who dismiss a phenomonen with some illogical explanation even when they weren't on the scene to evaluate the surroundings. Remember "swamp gas" being the reason for UFOs or it's always Venus in the sky?
I think some people are professional skeptics for the money or fame. If they can't explain it away logically, they explain it away illogically. I have seen many people on TV, websites and writing books making money out of any silly explanations that defy all first-hand accounts of what really happened. Other investigators think trying to disprove a phenomenon gives them credibility. It doesn't. Give me any evidence and I can disprove it.
This has caused me to rethink my attitude of many paranormal investigators. Those who attempt to disprove something are always right. Orbs are dust, EVPs are radio transmissions, and OBEs are due to some logical explanation we just haven't figured out yet. No one can ever say they are wrong because we have yet to have "Scientific" proof of any paranormal phenomonen. But what is the standard of proof? That has yet to be identified. No one has the courage to define it yet. Perhaps if they applied the same standards to God as they do to the paranormal, there would be less people in church on Sunday and more out on Saturday midnight with their cameras. Why is there a difference?
I have more respect for those investigators who openly express the idea that they ARE trying to find something paranormal. Of course, careful analysis of the evidence is the key. I guess I would rather be wrong some of the time by trying to prove something than right all of the time trying to disprove everything.
This seems to have led people to believe that attempting to disprove a phenomonen is the ultimate way to go. I am often facinated by those people who dismiss a phenomonen with some illogical explanation even when they weren't on the scene to evaluate the surroundings. Remember "swamp gas" being the reason for UFOs or it's always Venus in the sky?
I think some people are professional skeptics for the money or fame. If they can't explain it away logically, they explain it away illogically. I have seen many people on TV, websites and writing books making money out of any silly explanations that defy all first-hand accounts of what really happened. Other investigators think trying to disprove a phenomenon gives them credibility. It doesn't. Give me any evidence and I can disprove it.
This has caused me to rethink my attitude of many paranormal investigators. Those who attempt to disprove something are always right. Orbs are dust, EVPs are radio transmissions, and OBEs are due to some logical explanation we just haven't figured out yet. No one can ever say they are wrong because we have yet to have "Scientific" proof of any paranormal phenomonen. But what is the standard of proof? That has yet to be identified. No one has the courage to define it yet. Perhaps if they applied the same standards to God as they do to the paranormal, there would be less people in church on Sunday and more out on Saturday midnight with their cameras. Why is there a difference?
I have more respect for those investigators who openly express the idea that they ARE trying to find something paranormal. Of course, careful analysis of the evidence is the key. I guess I would rather be wrong some of the time by trying to prove something than right all of the time trying to disprove everything.