Haunted by a child? Thoughts?
Discussion
WCZ said:
weird that it always happens at night in the dark when we're naturally more inclined to be scared, never first thing in the morning when you're eating your toast
Mine happened in the middle of the morning. I wouldn't have my glasses on at night so wouldn't have seen anything!!
Rollin said:
Science is invariably wrong?
What would your alternative process be?
We do look back on the scientific theories of generations gone buy and scoff at how wrong they were.What would your alternative process be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientifi...
This list will get longer, remember they are just theories or an assumption/guess.
Rollin said:
Efbe said:
haha, yes I would agree with that last part!
I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
Science is invariably wrong? I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
What would your alternative process be?
I have highlighted modern scientific theories that are testable and repeatable that border on the edge of paranormal, and ten years ago would have been ridiculed. Whilst not supporting ghosts, aliens etc, they do at least show that what we thought was a dead cert regarding consciousness wasn't correct, and what creates consciousness and how this works is ever more unknown. IMO consciousness is at the core of many of the topics being discussed in this thread.
joshcowin said:
SpeckledJim said:
And it wasn't a real dog?
I would have no idea how the dog would have entered the property, fully gated and fenced off, however its possible as animals are crafty and can get in and out of anywhere it seems. So it in the grounds fine I can accept that.It now has to get in the house, in winter so all doors and windows closed, porch door, enter porch knock on kitchen door for access. A rat, mouse, rodent yep Id believe it, but a small lap dog? Oh did I mention they have a large black dog kept in the garden for security who would loose it if another dog entered the property. He could of course been asleep or eating or in another area of the garden however the 'dog' I saw would have had to enter and leave, so the guard dog would have missed him twice.
The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
V6Pushfit said:
jmorgan said:
If it cannot be explained, it does not follow that the afterlife are involved. That is the brain getting worked up.
There's an overriding assumption that posters with experiences like the OP's haven't given it any thought at all, have jumped to conclusions and missed obvious reasons The whole point of recounting these is experiences is that there are no remaining reasons after exhausting every rational avenue.
To ask if I know what cigarette smoke smells like is ridiculous - oh yeah it wasn't smoke it was perfume after all, silly me. Thanks.
I have a very poor sense of smell but sometimes I get a distinct whiff of something, beer, fags, garlic etc, I have no reason to get that whiff because I am not near anything with those properties. It is me nogging playing tricks. Either that or a pissed up fag smoking vampire hunter ghost is stalking me.
SpeckledJim said:
So its a real dog. Fine. I believe that bit. I have also seen real dogs. I don't like to boast, but it's true.
The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Not quite sure whats your going on about, I have never said anything about ghosts for a start. So we can say you have just started embellishing my story in order to suit your own argument/view.The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Now, it was put to me (by others on this thread) that it may have been a real/physical dog, I explained the difficulties of that being the case however you started going on about a lot of weird nonsense. So I will leave it there.
Nice chatting Jim
Front bottom said:
SpeckledJim said:
So its a real dog. Fine. I believe that bit. I have also seen real dogs. I don't like to boast, but it's true.
The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Why are sceptics so obsessed with the 'G' term? The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
joshcowin said:
SpeckledJim said:
So its a real dog. Fine. I believe that bit. I have also seen real dogs. I don't like to boast, but it's true.
The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Not quite sure whats your going on about, I have never said anything about ghosts for a start. So we can say you have just started embellishing my story in order to suit your own argument/view.The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Now, it was put to me (by others on this thread) that it may have been a real/physical dog, I explained the difficulties of that being the case however you started going on about a lot of weird nonsense. So I will leave it there.
Nice chatting Jim
Five mentions of the 'G' term there.
I'm intrigued as to why the sceptics are so obsessed with it?
Front bottom said:
joshcowin said:
SpeckledJim said:
So its a real dog. Fine. I believe that bit. I have also seen real dogs. I don't like to boast, but it's true.
The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Not quite sure whats your going on about, I have never said anything about ghosts for a start. So we can say you have just started embellishing my story in order to suit your own argument/view.The real dog got into the real house. So did you. But the dog is the mystery. No you. And not the actual dogness of the dog - that's no longer in question. The presence of the dog is a mystery, not the very dog itself.
Your presence in the house is not a mystery. You're a person, it's a house, let's get over it. Whatever method you used to get into the house might be a place to start the investigation, in case this small (but cunning) lap dog was also able to use the same method - especially if in cahoots with a mischievous ghost. Did you know the cunningness of dogs is in inverse proportion to their size? If this blighter was particularly small, we can expect him to have been able to draw upon an absolute bundle of sly ruses.
I suspect, on balance, a ghost let the dog in. Just to mess with the three of you, and scare you (if any of you are scared of small dogs?) Probably the ghost himself would be considered scarier than a small dog, so I can't explain that. But that's ghosts for you. And dogs.
A caveat: This explanation depends on there being a second ghost (We'll call him Ghost C, or this will get confusing) employed solely to distract the Doberman. Maybe with food, or possibly some light variety. Skits, dances, you know.
Otherwise this story wouldn't make any sense.
Now, it was put to me (by others on this thread) that it may have been a real/physical dog, I explained the difficulties of that being the case however you started going on about a lot of weird nonsense. So I will leave it there.
Nice chatting Jim
Five mentions of the 'G' term there.
I'm intrigued as to why the sceptics are so obsessed with it?
Efbe said:
Rollin said:
Efbe said:
haha, yes I would agree with that last part!
I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
Science is invariably wrong? I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
What would your alternative process be?
I have highlighted modern scientific theories that are testable and repeatable that border on the edge of paranormal, and ten years ago would have been ridiculed. Whilst not supporting ghosts, aliens etc, they do at least show that what we thought was a dead cert regarding consciousness wasn't correct, and what creates consciousness and how this works is ever more unknown. IMO consciousness is at the core of many of the topics being discussed in this thread.
If it's invariably wrong, why should anyone accept/believe any theories that 'border on the edge of paranormal'?
Why pick and choose?
Rollin said:
Efbe said:
Rollin said:
Efbe said:
haha, yes I would agree with that last part!
I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
Science is invariably wrong? I do always like to remind people when these threads come up that a) Science is invariably wrong in hindsight, b) scientific theories are quite often a little hopeful that something from star-trek will come true.
And so whilst this may not mean the paranormal is real, it does also mean much of what we think we know is probably wrong, and in 1000 years when we(well maybe not me specifically unless the time travel part turns true.) look back on our knowledge now you can guarantee there will be laughs!
What would your alternative process be?
I have highlighted modern scientific theories that are testable and repeatable that border on the edge of paranormal, and ten years ago would have been ridiculed. Whilst not supporting ghosts, aliens etc, they do at least show that what we thought was a dead cert regarding consciousness wasn't correct, and what creates consciousness and how this works is ever more unknown. IMO consciousness is at the core of many of the topics being discussed in this thread.
If it's invariably wrong, why should anyone accept/believe any theories that 'border on the edge of paranormal'?
Why pick and choose?
I personally "believe" in 99% of the scientific theories, but then I also understand I may not be correct.
The important part is not what I believe, but what I don't ridicule other for.
Efbe said:
good question.
I personally "believe" in 99% of the scientific theories, but then I also understand I may not be correct.
The important part is not what I believe, but what I don't ridicule other for.
With all due respect, I think you've got them the wrong way round. What you believe IS important. I personally "believe" in 99% of the scientific theories, but then I also understand I may not be correct.
The important part is not what I believe, but what I don't ridicule other for.
Ridicule is not important.
People who get cheap thrills out of being 'right' on the internet fascinate me more than ghosts I think.
Plenty of evidence that those exist in this thread.
Do you get to work on a Monday morning and discuss how many times you were 'right' on the internet over the weekend? Or maybe with the lads down the pub on a Friday night? – neither of which would care I imagine.
The irony is that its usually the ones that got bullied in school that end up becoming the bully behind the keyboard, sad really.
I'm definitely skeptic about this sort of thing but find it interesting to read about.
Plenty of evidence that those exist in this thread.
Do you get to work on a Monday morning and discuss how many times you were 'right' on the internet over the weekend? Or maybe with the lads down the pub on a Friday night? – neither of which would care I imagine.
The irony is that its usually the ones that got bullied in school that end up becoming the bully behind the keyboard, sad really.
I'm definitely skeptic about this sort of thing but find it interesting to read about.
Kewy said:
People who get cheap thrills out of being 'right' on the internet fascinate me more than ghosts I think.
Plenty of evidence that those exist in this thread.
Do you get to work on a Monday morning and discuss how many times you were 'right' on the internet over the weekend? Or maybe with the lads down the pub on a Friday night? – neither of which would care I imagine.
The irony is that its usually the ones that got bullied in school that end up becoming the bully behind the keyboard, sad really.
I'm definitely skeptic about this sort of thing but find it interesting to read about.
That's almost an Inception of irony.Plenty of evidence that those exist in this thread.
Do you get to work on a Monday morning and discuss how many times you were 'right' on the internet over the weekend? Or maybe with the lads down the pub on a Friday night? – neither of which would care I imagine.
The irony is that its usually the ones that got bullied in school that end up becoming the bully behind the keyboard, sad really.
I'm definitely skeptic about this sort of thing but find it interesting to read about.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff