Working On Book about Paranormal State

[kirby]

If the book is it it's (almost) final draft, what's the point? Why didn't you ask while you could still get them into the book?

we have until Jan4 to finsh hoping to reach out to anyone until then

 

[kirby]

our main focus has been Paranormal State due to the fact they claim that they help people deal with issues while the other shows just claim to be just ghost hunting

 

[plumjam]

Just to be clear, I was simply answering your question as to why anyone would subject themselves to public scrutiny. I'm not leveling charges against any specific person, and I've never seen an episode of Paranormal State.

That's fair enough, and honourable. So kudos for that.

But then I'd have to wonder why you were wading in and suggesting 4 possible explanations - 3 of which are borderline slanderous - for a show you've never bothered to watch.

 

[dlorde]

we have until Jan4 to finsh hoping to reach out to anyone until then

So not almost at the final draft then.

Jus' bein' sceptical

 

[Blackwell]

That's fair enough, and honourable. So kudos for that.

But then I'd have to wonder why you were wading in and suggesting 4 possible explanations - 3 of which are borderline slanderous - for a show you've never bothered to watch.

I "waded in" to answer your question. Here it is again, in case you forgot:

"Why would any person subject themselves plus, perhaps, their partners, their children, and other assorted relatives/friends to all that - for free - if they didn't have a concretely perceived problem that needed to be dealt with?"

Regardless of whether or not I've seen the show, my answers were perfectly in line with possible reasons as to why someone would subject themselves to televised paranormal investigations.

 

[Garrette]

Sure.
The first 3 possibilities are pretty serious charges, and would need some kind of corroborative evidence from other reputable sources.
The fourth possibility tallies very well with my own personal impression of having watched most of the episodes.
If it turns out the PS guys could not help them, then that's a shame, but I guess they were limited to a few days time with them.
(As a caveat, I found it a bit disappointing that at the end of every episode I watched there was a message to the effect that, in some sense, things had improved. Over a sample of 40 or 50 cases that's not a position that's easy to believe. If, for example, in 2 or 3 cases they had said there had been no improvement, or even a deterioration, then it would have added credibility... but then it's a TV show, with producers and big money involved. Regarding the individual 'investigators' seen on screen, they seem pretty sincere IMO.)

Reference the text I highlighted: Is there a reason to think that (a) there was anything paranormal going on, and (b) if so the people from PS could help with it?

If this is OT, I'm happing to let it drop or move to another thread.

 

[plumjam]

I "waded in" to answer your question. Here it is again, in case you forgot:

"Why would any person subject themselves plus, perhaps, their partners, their children, and other assorted relatives/friends to all that - for free - if they didn't have a concretely perceived problem that needed to be dealt with?"

Regardless of whether or not I've seen the show, my answers were perfectly in line with possible reasons as to why someone would subject themselves to televised paranormal investigations.

Yes, in an imaginary sense, the reasons you suggested might have some legitimacy. But only in an imaginary sense.
And 3 out of the 4 reasons you suggested were negative to the point of being slanderous.
And they were presented without any evidence, and without you ever having bothered to watch the show.
The 4th reason at least had some promise of being non-prejudicial to people and events you know nothing of.

We can all improve. Maybe next time you'll reach 26%

 

[plumjam]

Reference the text I highlighted: Is there a reason to think that (a) there was anything paranormal going on, and (b) if so the people from PS could help with it?

If this is OT, I'm happing to let it drop or move to another thread.

Well, b) is a very moot point. Who knows?

As for a), did you watch the shows?
In some of the shows the perceived existence/non-existence of paranormal activity had created relationship rifts (usually between the husband/wife .. if it was not a single adult situation) to the point of threatening to break up the family unit.
There were also shows in which the whole family,.. parents, kids, had taken to sleeping all together in the living room each night, for fear of being alone during those hours.

What other circumstances can you think of that would engender such behaviour over a sample of many families?

All I can think of is, perhaps, aerial bombing.

 

[Garrette]

Well, b) is a very moot point. Who knows?

I don't understand why it's moot. I asked if there is a reason to think that the PS guys could help if there is anything paranormal going on.

As for a), did you watch the shows?

I've seen one, long ago. Can't recall anything about it except that the investigators weren't Grant and what's his name from TAPS.

In some of the shows the perceived existence/non-existence of paranormal activity had created relationship rifts (usually between the husband/wife .. if it was not a single adult situation) to the point of threatening to break up the family unit.
There were also shows in which the whole family,.. parents, kids, had taken to sleeping all together in the living room each night, for fear of being alone during those hours.

What other circumstances can you think of that would engender such behaviour over a sample of many families?

All I can think of is, perhaps, aerial bombing.

Then you are pretending your imagination is far more limited than your posting history suggests.

The word I highlighted is sufficient in itself to explain everything.

Next on the list is attention-seeking (one of the things you dismissed from Blackwell's list rather imperiously and unfairly).

There are more which, while perhaps falling in the category you call slanderous, remain nonetheless more plausible than ghosts/demons/etc.

 

[ScannerHead]

CONFIDENTIALITY GUARANTEED! Seeking victims of/or participants in fake paranormal reality programs. Our book, Paranormal Lies (working title), which already has a publisher, is in its (almost) final draft. Please contact us if you have any information concerning fake paranormal programs. We will protect you and get you the justice that you deserve. or if you have any info you would like to share

Odd. "How" do you plan to guarantee confidentiality of someone who's supposed to give you specific information and circumstances that, IF published and talked about publicly in a book or where-ever, will reveal that THEY are the ones claiming to have been defrauded or taken advantage of?

And without proof of such, anyone's claims, especially 'anonymously' done, will carry very little weight or credibility.

 

[Resume]

What other circumstances can you think of that would engender such behaviour over a sample of many families?

Are you familiar with Balloon Boy and his family?

 

[plumjam]

I don't understand why it's moot. I asked if there is a reason to think that the PS guys could help if there is anything paranormal going on.

Well, did I ever suggest they could help?

I've seen one, long ago. Can't recall anything about it except that the investigators weren't Grant and what's his name from TAPS.

Thanks for your honesty.
But then again here you are trying to enter into a debate on a topic you have almost no experience of. Why should anyone take that seriously?

Then you are pretending your imagination is far more limited than your posting history suggests.

The word I highlighted is sufficient in itself to explain everything.

Thanks, but 'perceived' does not mean 'wrong'. It may do and it may not.
But the important point is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone in this JREF forum thread was present to be available to perceive what was going on.
In such a situation it is entirely logical and rational to give greater weight of credence to those people who were actually there and thus able to perceive what was going on.

Like any court case or news write up or scientific experiment, don't you think?
It's all just experience to those closest to it.

There are more which, while perhaps falling in the category you call
slanderous, remain nonetheless more plausible than ghosts/demons/etc.

They may be more plausible within your own life experience and/or belief system, but recognise that you sustaining your current belief system involves writing off millions of present and past human beings as 'delusional', 'liars' or involved in some massive multi-centennial hoax.

 

[plumjam]

Are you familiar with Balloon Boy and his family?

How many families did Balloon Boy have?
Answer: 1

Does Balloon Boy have anything to do with the paranormal or the TV show Paranormal State?
Answer: No, of course not

So, why ask such a daft question?

 

[Resume]

How many families did Balloon Boy have?
Answer: 1

Does Balloon Boy have anything to do with the paranormal or the TV show Paranormal State?
Answer: No, of course not

So, why ask such a daft question?

Because whole families can be attention whores. Or co-dependents. Or enablers. I'm aware you choose to be credulous in regard to the paranormal; doesn't mean I have to have a daft world-view.

 

[Garrette]

Well, did I ever suggest they could help?

No, nor was I implying such when I asked. I wasn't even attempting an antagonistic discussion. I was really asking.

Thanks for your honesty.

I ain't perfect, but I try.

But then again here you are trying to enter into a debate on a topic

What debate? I have adopted no position, though I admit it is quite easy to tell where my bias lies. For me personally, I asked you two questions. I chose you because you have seen the show. Now you tell me I'm out of line for even asking.

You're overly defensive, pj, and you're implication that our credibility is nil is both poor form and misguided.

you have almost no experience of.

Of this particular show, not of this type of show in general or this type of claim in general. Now you're making assumptions and establishing your own arbitrary criteria just to ask questions.

Why should anyone take that seriously?

Take what seriously? That I asked questions?

Thanks, but 'perceived' does not mean 'wrong'. It may do and it may not.

Absolutely. I said that word is sufficient to explain everything. I stand by that. If the perception is correct, it explains everything. If it is incorrect, it explains everything.

But the important point is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone in this JREF forum thread was present to be available to perceive what was going on.

So you have no credibility to be in this debate? Whatever the debate is?

In such a situation it is entirely logical and rational to give greater weight of credence to those people who were actually there and thus able to perceive what was going on.

No.

That would be true only in a complete absence of any other relevant information, but we do have that information. No other show has demonstrated such paranormal claims to be true; no parapsychological investigation or experiment has shown such paranormal claims to be true; we do know that people lie; we do know that people misperceive; we do know that people seek attention regardless of truth.

Your statement is exactly the same as me saying I should give credence to someone claiming to have levitated simply because I wasn't there.

Like any court case or news write up

Absolutely positively not. I'm horrified you would even suggest this.

or scientific experiment, don't you think?

Since scientific experiments do not disregard prior knowledge but actively depend on it, then no.

It's all just experience to those closest to it.

I don't doubt the experiences, for the most part; I do have doubts about paranormal explanations.

They may be more plausible within your own life experience and/or belief system, but recognise that you sustaining your current belief system involves writing off millions of present and past human beings as 'delusional', 'liars' or involved in some massive multi-centennial hoax.

False trichotomy.

I suspect you haven't read much about my experiences or my studies or my knowledge. As far as my past beliefs go, I'll stack them up with nearly anyone on this forum or even believer forums. As far as my knowledge of how people are deceived by themselves and others I'll stack it up against a large portion of people on this forum.

But let's play that game. Can you turn your statement around on yourself, plumjam? Your belief system involves writing off the hard won knowledge of study and science over hundreds if not thousands of years.

It's easy to point out the bias ball in someone else's court; just don't forget the stack of them right behind you.

 

[plumjam]

No, nor was I implying such when I asked. I wasn't even attempting an antagonistic discussion. I was really asking.


I ain't perfect, but I try.


What debate? I have adopted no position, though I admit it is quite easy to tell where my bias lies. For me personally, I asked you two questions. I chose you because you have seen the show. Now you tell me I'm out of line for even asking.

You're overly defensive, pj, and you're implication that our credibility is nil is both poor form and misguided.


Of this particular show, not of this type of show in general or this type of claim in general. Now you're making assumptions and establishing your own arbitrary criteria just to ask questions.


Take what seriously? That I asked questions?


Absolutely. I said that word is sufficient to explain everything. I stand by that. If the perception is correct, it explains everything. If it is incorrect, it explains everything.


So you have no credibility to be in this debate? Whatever the debate is?


No.

That would be true only in a complete absence of any other relevant information, but we do have that information. No other show has demonstrated such paranormal claims to be true; no parapsychological investigation or experiment has shown such paranormal claims to be true; we do know that people lie; we do know that people misperceive; we do know that people seek attention regardless of truth.

Your statement is exactly the same as me saying I should give credence to someone claiming to have levitated simply because I wasn't there.


Absolutely positively not. I'm horrified you would even suggest this.


Since scientific experiments do not disregard prior knowledge but actively depend on it, then no.


I don't doubt the experiences, for the most part; I do have doubts about paranormal explanations.


False trichotomy.

I suspect you haven't read much about my experiences or my studies or my knowledge. As far as my past beliefs go, I'll stack them up with nearly anyone on this forum or even believer forums. As far as my knowledge of how people are deceived by themselves and others I'll stack it up against a large portion of people on this forum.

But let's play that game. Can you turn your statement around on yourself, plumjam? Your belief system involves writing off the hard won knowledge of study and science over hundreds if not thousands of years.

It's easy to point out the bias ball in someone else's court; just don't forget the stack of them right behind you.

Do you seriously want me to make a 12 point response (count your paragraphs) on the matter of a TV show that you have admitted to only ever having watched one episode? (when I have watched probably 40 or 50)
Sorry, but I think that would be a massive and willful waste of time for myself.

And I think you know that.
I also thnk you wllfullly broke up your response into 12 parts in the hope that I wouldn't respond.

Well done.
Timewaster.

 

[Garrette]

Do you seriously want me to make a 12 point response (count your paragraphs) on the matter of a TV show that you have admitted to only ever having watched one episode? (when I have watched probably 40 or 50)
Sorry, but I think that would be a massive and willful waste of time for myself.

And I think you know that.
I also thnk you wllfullly broke up your response into 12 parts in the hope that I wouldn't respond.

Well done.
Timewaster.

I truly expected more from you, plumjam.

You may respond in whatever way you like, either point by point or in a chunk. I respond in the manner that suits me best when I'm answering.

So if you'd care to change your mind I'm up for it, regardless in what form you choose to craft your response.

Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that you really have no response. I think I have more grounds for that conclusion than you have for yours of timewaster for me.

 

[Buckaroo]

Many of the clients that turned to PRS for help were promised all kinds of assistance even after the team left. In reality, after the cameras stopped rolling, the families were left in worse shape then they were before PRS arrived. Ryan Buell presents himself as someone who helps people but in reality he just uses them.

I must be missing something -- what exactly were the PRS guys supposed to be "helping" with? What do you mean by "in worse shape," since these people were clearly not being haunted by woolyboogers and haints to begin with?

 

[plumjam]

I truly expected more from you, plumjam.

You may respond in whatever way you like, either point by point or in a chunk. I respond in the manner that suits me best when I'm answering.

So if you'd care to change your mind I'm up for it, regardless in what form you choose to craft your response.

Otherwise, I'd have to conclude that you really have no response. I think I have more grounds for that conclusion than you have for yours of timewaster for me.

Garrette, I don't mean to be - for the want of a better word - mean, but do you have anything to say about the TV show Paranormal State, or is your motive for discussion more to do with just a natural need of yours to seek to 'diss' anything that doesn't fit into your current worldview?
Because, to me, it seems like the latter.

To demonstrate, if there had been 50 TV shows in one series about veterinary practices, and I had watched 1, I would not be here trying to argue with someone who had watched them all.
Yet here you are.

Why?

Ideology and faith on your part.
That's why.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, I don't mean to be - for the want of a better word - mean, but do you have anything to say about the TV show Paranormal State, or is your motive for discussion more to do with just a natural need of yours to seek to 'diss' anything that doesn't fit into your current worldview?
Because, to me, it seems like the latter.

To demonstrate, if there had been 50 TV shows in one series about veterinary practices, and I had watched 1, I would not be here trying to argue with someone who had watched them all.
Yet here you are.

Why?

Ideology and faith on your part.
That's why.

I am here to discuss the show because such things interest me, and I have seen such shows and paranormal claims in the past.

My original post stands and was not and is not aggressive:

Reference the text I highlighted: Is there a reason to think that (a) there was anything paranormal going on, and (b) if so the people from PS could help with it?

If this is OT, I'm happing to let it drop or move to another thread.

If you cannot answer the two questions, I understand.