Brad Steiger September 30, 2012

[Jeff Crowell]

Well ... first off, again, I'm not suggesting you personally hoaxed anything. I have no reason or evidence to propose that, and in the absence of any such evidence, I think it would also be disrespectful. However I don't think it would require anything too complex for a third party unknown to you to hoax the event. For example, given the height of the building, the absence of glass in windows, the shape of the shadow, and the presence of other people in the building, it seems to me that someone on the floor above or on the roof could simply dangle a cardboard cutout in front of the window on your floor using some very thin clear fishing line. Such a hoax would be simple to create and to cover up. It could be done by a single person who came in and separated themselves from one of the groups, or by some independent prankster. With a little planning and practice it could be made to look pretty convincing. Are there any factors about the incident that we've not covered that could rule out this possibility?

UFOlogy I very much appreciate your attempt to rationalize, even debunk the experience. On my end your potential explanation of a cardboard cut-out dangled from a 4th floor window to the 3rd floor window, then 'animated' to the point it gives the impression of a walking shadow is a Phil Klass-type explanation. Though I want to give it credibility there are many factors in play in which I cannot; 1. I'm not 100% convinced there was actually someone on the 4th floor at the time of the incident. 2. someone on my ghost hunting team would have seen someone else walking up stairs with a cardboard cut out to the 4th floor, or my group would have seen the cut out if it was pre-staged on the 4th floor since we had been up there not 3 minutes prior. 3. The control of the cardboard cut out/puppet to dangle it 20' down (it's a factory and the ceilings are very high), hover it in front of a window and subsequently animate it across the window in a natural patter of movement is, in my strong opinion, unlikely to be accomplished. 4. My team, trusted individuals who take ghost hunting seriously, were all over that building. If someone not on my team would have faked the experience they would have been seen and exposed immediately. If someone on my team would have faked the experience, and it's not above them to pull a joke, that joke would have been revealed within minutes followed by extended ribbing that I 'bought into' such a thing.

As far as going into 'real' debunking mode on my end I would speculate this (as in I take the role of Klass, here); The reflected light on the wall in front of me had more than one source that contributed to it...perhaps a source to the right of me instead of the window to the left. The window to my left very clearly projected that light but there were windows to the right side of me as well. I didn't look that way until after the shadow had disappeared so it's possible that another ghost hunter on my right crossed a window to my right and influenced the shadow from there. After the event occurred I did not focus on the right side of the room for several reasons (which sort of debunk this debunk explanation).

First, the right side of the room extended nearly 50 feet to the immediate right and approximately 30 feet back. The closest window on the right side of the room was at least 35 feet away and most of the windows along that wall were boarded up so if they were contributing light to the wall in front of me it was very minimal. Second, no ghost hunter on my right had any equipment. The shadow observed appeared to be holding a device in his hand. Third, two ghost hunters were on my right, one wearing a hat and another with long hair. The shadow image did not have a hat and 'appeared' to have short-cropped hair. Still, shadow play, multiple sources of illumination, and not knowing exact distances between witnesses within the area are perhaps the most viable debunk-explanation to what I observed.

Truthfully......it's possible.

 

[Randall]

UFOlogy I very much appreciate your attempt to rationalize, even debunk the experience. On my end your potential explanation of a cardboard cut-out dangled from a 4th floor window to the 3rd floor window, then 'animated' to the point it gives the impression of a walking shadow is a Phil Klass-type explanation. Though I want to give it credibility there are many factors in play in which I cannot; 1. I'm not 100% convinced there was actually someone on the 4th floor at the time of the incident. 2. someone on my ghost hunting team would have seen someone else walking up stairs with a cardboard cut out to the 4th floor, or my group would have seen the cut out if it was pre-staged on the 4th floor since we had been up there not 3 minutes prior. 3. The control of the cardboard cut out/puppet to dangle it 20' down (it's a factory and the ceilings are very high), hover it in front of a window and subsequently animate it across the window in a natural patter of movement is, in my strong opinion, unlikely to be accomplished. 4. My team, trusted individuals who take ghost hunting seriously, were all over that building. If someone not on my team would have faked the experience they would have been seen and exposed immediately. If someone on my team would have faked the experience, and it's not above them to pull a joke, that joke would have been revealed within minutes followed by extended ribbing that I 'bought into' such a thing.

As far as going into 'real' debunking mode on my end I would speculate this (as in I take the role of Klass, here); The reflected light on the wall in front of me had more than one source that contributed to it...perhaps a source to the right of me instead of the window to the left. The window to my left very clearly projected that light but there were windows to the right side of me as well. I didn't look that way until after the shadow had disappeared so it's possible that another ghost hunter on my right crossed a window to my right and influenced the shadow from there. After the event occurred I did not focus on the right side of the room for several reasons (which sort of debunk this debunk explanation).

First, the right side of the room extended nearly 50 feet to the immediate right and approximately 30 feet back. The closest window on the right side of the room was at least 35 feet away and most of the windows along that wall were boarded up so if they were contributing light to the wall in front of me it was very minimal. Second, no ghost hunter on my right had any equipment. The shadow observed appeared to be holding a device in his hand. Third, two ghost hunters were on my right, one wearing a hat and another with long hair. The shadow image did not have a hat and 'appeared' to have short-cropped hair. Still, shadow play, multiple sources of illumination, and not knowing exact distances between witnesses within the area are perhaps the most viable debunk-explanation to what I observed.

Truthfully......it's possible.

Here are my points in response ( remember this is in the spirit of investigation and not a debunking effort ):

• Before being dismissive of the hoax theory, consider the following: In the previous questions when asked about the movement of the shadow, you indicated that the shadow appeared flat to the wall ... 2 dimensional, visible from the waist up, and moved smoothly, as if taking slow, precise steps. This doesn't sound particularly "animated" especially as no leg movement could be seen. So if it gently bounced and turned a bit as it moved, it could give the impression of being animated. So a full out puppet show may not be required in order to pull it off. I suggest that as part of your investigative procedure, you test this idea out on location. It wouldn't be too hard to do and could be quite interesting ... perhaps even allow you to rule it out. You could even post a video of it. That would be kind of cool. Note that the cutout would probably end up being smaller than life-size. You'll need to experiment with sizes in order to get the shadow ( if one is even produced as suggested ) to be the right scale.
• Using Phil Klass as an answer to the question of what other factors that have not been mentioned yet could rule out this possibility doesn't count as a reason. In his own way, Phil Klass was an asset and we need to be as hard on ourselves as he was ( while remaining civil ) if we are to be taken seriously.
• If you weren't 100% certain there was someone on the 4th floor or roof, you can't be 100% sure there wasn't either.
• If nobody but the hoaxers were on the floor where the hoax was perpetrated, then your other team people would not have seen them, not to mention that it was dark and hoaxers would probably also be evasive.
• I asked you about the light source and you did not indicate any secondary light source. Now you are either not so sure or ... what? This is a key issue. If you aren't sure about that how can you be sure of the other details?

1. Apart from the above, you seem convinced that what you saw was something supernatural, otherworldly, or at the very least extraordinary. What makes you so sure? What qualities about it convinced you on a personal level?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Here are my points in response ( remember this is in the spirit of investigation and not a debunking effort ):

• Before being dismissive of the hoax theory, consider the following: In the previous questions when asked about the movement of the shadow, you indicated that the shadow appeared flat to the wall ... 2 dimensional, visible from the waist up, and moved smoothly, as if taking slow, precise steps. This doesn't sound particularly "animated" especially as no leg movement could be seen. So if it gently bounced and turned a bit as it moved, it could give the impression of being animated. So a full out puppet show may not be required in order to pull it off. I suggest that as part of your investigative procedure, you test this idea out on location. It wouldn't be too hard to do and could be quite interesting ... perhaps even allow you to rule it out. You could even post a video of it. That would be kind of cool. Note that the cutout would probably end up being smaller than life-size. You'll need to experiment with sizes in order to get the shadow ( if one is even produced as suggested ) to be the right scale.
• Using Phil Klass as an answer to the question of what other factors that have not been mentioned yet could rule out this possibility doesn't count as a reason. In his own way, Phil Klass was an asset and we need to be as hard on ourselves as he was ( while remaining civil ) if we are to be taken seriously.
• If you weren't 100% certain there was someone on the 4th floor or roof, you can't be 100% sure there wasn't either.
• If nobody but the hoaxers were on the floor where the hoax was perpetrated, then your other team people would not have seen them, not to mention that it was dark and hoaxers would probably also be evasive.
• I asked you about the light source and you did not indicate any secondary light source. Now you are either not so sure or ... what? This is a key issue. If you aren't sure about that how can you be sure of the other details?

1. Apart from the above, you seem convinced that what you saw was something supernatural, otherworldly, or at the very least extraordinary. What makes you so sure? What qualities about it convinced you on a personal level?

Before I reply let me tell a little story. A friend of mine went on a ghost hunt with a different group of investigators at a 3 story building in a small town here in IN. He set up a camera on the 2nd floor, shooting down the main hallway. At some point in time a small shadow moved across the field of view. The shadow crossed in front of a window, was in-frame for nearly 90 seconds, and was seen on either side of the window indicating it was more than just something on the outside. Investigators looked directly at the location of the shadow but did not report seeing it. I immediately debunked the shadow, claiming it was, perhaps, a cat crossing the window from one piece of furniture to another from one side of the window to the next. My friend, of course, said there was no cat in the building and no furniture on either side of the window. I remained skeptical and scoffed the entire episode off.

About a month after that time I had the opportunity, with my friend, to return to the same building. What I saw of the environment completely changed my mind about the video. Sure enough, no furniture on either side of the window, but on top of that the window was on a wall with a stairwell landing below it, and three steps that had to be taken to get up to the level of the hallway where the camera was. Based on the angle the shadow passed in front of the window about 3 feet above normal human head height (6' or so). I had a much clearer picture of what the video was showing, then...by being there and understanding the environment.

As with all things paranormal I am not 100% sure what I saw at the warehouse. There are other possibilities regarding what I saw outside of a paranormal occurrence of a shadow. Perhaps I, along with the other six witnesses, hallucinated the entire thing. Perhaps a door to an alternate universe opened and we peeked inside. Perhaps I imagined the entire experience. At this point, as I've hinted at, regardless of how much explanation I give you.....even if I provide pictures and video of the environment....you will remain doubtful and skeptical of the event....as you should be. You weren't there. However at this point I am finished with any explanation. I believe I have given more than enough of my own justification about the environment, what I saw, and my reaction to it, and why "I" believe it was paranormal. I have been in countless other situations in which I experienced something that could have been interpreted as paranormal, but I was able to sufficiently debunk those situations to the point I know they were not, indeed, paranormal. This situation did not meet that criteria.

I'm sorry, UFOlogy, but this conversation has boiled down to the typical experiencer/debunker conversation. On one hand you have me saying, "This is what happened and and this is how it happened." On the other hand you have you saying, "Well, it couldn't have happened that way because ghosts/shadow people/UFO's don't exist," or even, "Well it MUST have happened differently because ghost/shadow people/UFO's don't exist" all without having the advantage or opportunity to visit the location, see what I saw, hear my account on-site. It's a pointless, dead-end conversation from here on out.

J.

 

[Randall]

I'm sorry, UFOlogy, but this conversation has boiled down to the typical experiencer/debunker conversation. On one hand you have me saying, "This is what happened and and this is how it happened." On the other hand you have you saying, "Well, it couldn't have happened that way because ghosts/shadow people/UFO's don't exist," or even, "Well it MUST have happened differently because ghost/shadow people/UFO's don't exist" all without having the advantage or opportunity to visit the location, see what I saw, hear my account on-site. It's a pointless, dead-end conversation from here on out.

I'm not claiming the phenomenon doesn't exist. Ive seen plenty of strange stuff myself. Also, the fact that you believe intensely that what you saw was real and paranormal goes a long ways with me. I know that seems illogical, but I'll go a long ways to defend the idea that firsthand human experience should be counted as valuable evidence. However I'm just as sticky on the rational side. Firsthand experience also needs to be backed up by eliminating all reasonable and rational mundane explanations. Given the information at hand I've proposed one such explanation, and so far, the only counterpoint you've offered that carries weight is that you believe the movement of the shadow was too natural to have been hoaxed by a cardboard cutout. That's a pretty good reason, but I think it deserves some on-location testing before ruling it out entirely. If you still have access to the location, why not test it? They do much more complex tests on Fact or Faked Paranormal Files. If there are other reasons why the method of hoaxing I proposed wouldn't work, I'd like to hear them.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

They do much more complex tests on Fact or Faked Paranormal Files. If there are other reasons why the method of hoaxing I proposed wouldn't work, I'd like to hear them.

There are many. But I've spent entirely too much time asking your questions and providing details. If you'd like to test, come to IN with a cardboard cut out of a shadow person. I'll be happy to take you to the location and let you test. The experience has passed through my filters. I understand and respect if it's not passed yours, but I'm not going to expend more energy trying to convince you that what I saw wasn't a cardboard cut out of a ghost hanging outside a window.

 

[Muadib]

Just as an outside observer of this conversation, it seems pretty ridiculous to me that someone would hang a cardboard ghost cutout on a string to attempt to hoax someone and then do absolutely nothing with it for years. Usually, hoaxes are perpetrated to either get a desired reaction out of someone or to attempt to discredit someone, and the fact that nobody has come forward to have a good laugh at Jeff and since, to my knowledge anyway, nobody has attempted to discredit him, it seems pretty unlikely to me. I realize that this doesn't completely rule it out but you'd have to ask yourself why the hell someone would go to all that trouble for no good reason? Seems pretty damn pointless to me. Like Jeff said, it makes sense for an outside observer to be skeptical about it, hell, I'm skeptical about it, but I wasn't there so that's only natural. The whole "cardboard ghost on a string" hypothesis seems pretty pointless, not to mention ridiculous to me, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Randall]

There are many. But I've spent entirely too much time asking your questions and providing details. If you'd like to test, come to IN with a cardboard cut out of a shadow person. I'll be happy to take you to the location and let you test. The experience has passed through my filters. I understand and respect if it's not passed yours, but I'm not going to expend more energy trying to convince you that what I saw wasn't a cardboard cut out of a ghost hanging outside a window.

I never said you saw a cardboard cutout of a ghost hanging outside a window. I said ( to paraphrase ) that a cardboard cutout suspended outside the window from the floor above, or possibly the roof could conceivably cast a shadow through the window that looks and moves very similar to the shadow you observed. I also gave reasons why it would be fairly easy to create such a shadow based on your own description of the environment, and suggested that you test the idea to determine whether or not it could be ruled out.

You have not provided sufficient counterpoint to rule out the above possibility, and now you suddenly want to stop talking about it and shift the responsibility for testing the idea to me. If I lived nearby I'd take you up on your offer because I think it would be interesting to try. But really, shouldn't you be the one doing that? Why are you so convinced that what you saw could not have been somethying like that? It's a perfectly legitimate question and writing it off as a Klass like debunking or comparing it to another case doesn't answer it in any meaningful way.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I never said you saw a cardboard cutout of a ghost hanging outside a window. I said ( to paraphrase ) that a cardboard cutout suspended outside the window from the floor above, or possibly the roof could conceivably cast a shadow through the window that looks and moves very similar to the shadow you observed. I also gave reasons why it would be fairly easy to create such a shadow based on your own description of the environment, and suggested that you test the idea to determine whether or not it could be ruled out.

You have not provided sufficient counterpoint to rule out the above possibility, and now you suddenly want to stop talking about it and shift the responsibility for testing the idea to me. If I lived nearby I'd take you up on your offer because I think it would be interesting to try. But really, shouldn't you be the one doing that? Why are you so convinced that what you saw could not have been somethying like that? It's a perfectly legitimate question and writing it off as a Klass like debunking or comparing it to another case doesn't answer it in any meaningful way.

I have spent nearly a week typing pages of answers to your questions. You've disregarded my counter argument that someone could have hoaxed it, either within or outside of my group, and yeah, I'll spell that out. The reason why we were ghost hunting this location was as a 'tour' of the warehouse. My ghost hunting group was putting it on and the 45 to 50 people in the building were members of the public. No one would have been in that building without escort from someone in my group. No one.

Regarding the cardboard cutout theory, I'm not going to try to test it for one simple reason; it's not a viable option in my opinion. If it's a viable option in yours, fine, but it's certainly not in mine. To me someone dangling a cardboard cut out of a figure outside the window to cast a shadow on a wall and 'fool' a bunch of ghost hunters is utterly ridiculous, and yes, the explanation falls in line with the Phil Klass method of debunking..explain it away in whatever fashion you can. It's such an absurd explanation it's not worth the energy to test. My own theory of multiple light sourcing is far more viable. I've casually 'tested' that particular theory but couldn't find an obvious secondary light source. I may look into it a bit deeper.

But you've failed to mention my other two theories, UFO. What about the mass hallucination? Or the multi-dimensional theory of what I saw, which I listed in a previous post. Should I 'test' those, too? Should I spend time, money, and effort trying simulate those as well? Am I being a poor investigator with faulty technique and low tolerance for critical thinking if I don't? That is, after all, what you're implying through this entire discussion, is it not?

 

[Randall]

I have spent nearly a week typing pages of answers to your questions. You've disregarded my counter argument that someone could have hoaxed it, either within or outside of my group, and yeah, I'll spell that out. The reason why we were ghost hunting this location was as a 'tour' of the warehouse. My ghost hunting group was putting it on and the 45 to 50 people in the building were members of the public. No one would have been in that building without escort from someone in my group. No one ...

I haven't disregarded anything, and the fact that I've taken an interest in your experience to the extent that I have shows my serious consideration. I've also given you credit for your belief based on your firsthand experience, and I've drawn no conclusions about what the shadow you saw actually was. All I've done is look at the information you've supplied from an objective point of view and identify possibilities. To address your most recent post, you say no one would have been in the building without escort. That may be true, or not. You also said,

"Originally my group had around 10 people in it but I'd lost four a few minutes prior to the shadow experience due to a sudden asthma attack that one of the members had."​

​

You don't mention any escort for them. You also mention that the building is huge and that you had a planned tour with a group. It would have been a fairly simple task for someone who had caught wind of this tour to set something up in advance. It's an old uninhabited unsecured building and I doubt you searched the whole place to determine it was empty prior to starting your tour, so proclaiming the possibility of a hoax as "utterly ridiculous" is not reasonable.

A more objective reaction would be be less dismissive and include reasons why it either would or would not be possible or likely. We have also touched on the added light source theory and you were quite specific about the light source when I was gathering the initial information. A dual light source was not mentioned and if it had been, then it would cause multiple shadows and there would have been varying intensities of light cast on the wall. However you say,

"The lighting across the wall was constant for that area of illumination." ​

​

Lastly, one more time, none of these observations and questions are intended to debunk your experience. They are intended only as an exploration into the possibilities. Even if a hoax was possible doesn't mean that is the correct explanation. However unless it can be ruled out as possible or reasonable then it deserves to remain on the list of probabilities. Can you give me any other reasons to abandon the possibility of a hoax besides allusions to Phillip Klass or declarations that it is ridiculous?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I haven't disregarded anything, and the fact that I've taken an interest in your experience to the extent that I have shows my serious consideration. I've also given you credit for your belief based on your firsthand experience, and I've drawn no conclusions about what the shadow you saw actually was. All I've done is look at the information you've supplied from an objective point of view and identify possibilities. To address your most recent post, you say no one would have been in the building without escort. That may be true, or not. You also said,

"Originally my group had around 10 people in it but I'd lost four a few minutes prior to the shadow experience due to a sudden asthma attack that one of the members had."​

​

You don't mention any escort for them. You also mention that the building is huge and that you had a planned tour with a group. It would have been a fairly simple task for someone who had caught wind of this tour to set something up in advance. It's an old uninhabited unsecured building and I doubt you searched the whole place to determine it was empty prior to starting your tour, so proclaiming the possibility of a hoax as "utterly ridiculous" is not reasonable.

A more objective reaction would be be less dismissive and include reasons why it either would or would not be possible or likely. We have also touched on the added light source theory and you were quite specific about the light source when I was gathering the initial information. A dual light source was not mentioned and if it had been, then it would cause multiple shadows and there would have been varying intensities of light cast on the wall. However you say,

"The lighting across the wall was constant for that area of illumination." ​

​

Lastly, one more time, none of these observations and questions are intended to debunk your experience. They are intended only as an exploration into the possibilities. Even if a hoax was possible doesn't mean that is the correct explanation. However unless it can be ruled out as possible or reasonable then it deserves to remain on the list of probabilities. Can you give me any other reasons to abandon the possibility of a hoax besides allusions to Phillip Klass or declarations that it is ridiculous?

Just FYI...The four we lost to the asthma attack were escorted from the building by myself and three others. But that is just another example of the singular circumstance not explained by the situation which you would have no knowledge of without being there....unless you asked for that information specifically.

Regardless UFOlogy, I think you helped me figure this out, man. You're half right, half wrong though. I don't think the shadow was caused by someone dangling a cardboard image from the fourth floor, but I now believe that someone on the second floor had climbed up and was using finger puppets to stimulate the shadow effect along the third floor wall. I cannot believe I was not skeptical enough to see that. Oh....I also won't be going back to the location to test that theory....I just know that had to have been the case of what occurred.

Thank you, UFOlogy, for helping me to realize that I simply was not critical or rational enough of my assessment in this experience. I guess I'm back down to zero paranormal experiences which means that maybe there are no such things after all, huh?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Randall]

Just FYI...The four we lost to the asthma attack were escorted from the building by myself and three others. But that is just another example of the singular circumstance not explained by the situation which you would have no knowledge of without being there....unless you asked for that information specifically.

Regardless UFOlogy, I think you helped me figure this out, man. You're half right, half wrong though. I don't think the shadow was caused by someone dangling a cardboard image from the fourth floor, but I now believe that someone on the second floor had climbed up and was using finger puppets to stimulate the shadow effect along the third floor wall. I cannot believe I was not skeptical enough to see that. Oh....I also won't be going back to the location to test that theory....I just know that had to have been the case of what occurred.

Thank you, UFOlogy, for helping me to realize that I simply was not critical or rational enough of my assessment in this experience. I guess I'm back down to zero paranormal experiences which means that maybe there are no such things after all, huh?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. But please try not to take the exchange so personal. I've made no evaluation of your abilities, and your backlash is beginning to come across as evasive rather than supportive of your position. In contrast, you'll find that all I've done is gather information and propose rational possibilities. By discussing them in an open forum our readers can see how our minds work with respect to discussing paranormal experiences. From your perspective it may seem ridiculous or trivial to go over these things, but from the objective point of view of someone on the outside, the only way we can explore the event is to talk about it and consider all the possibilities with an open mind. So if you have specific reasons why something could not have been the case, then a calm, logical and in context response would be preferable to evasive sarcasm ( even if it is only meant in jest ).

To continue, you say that you personally escorted the ailing tourists out of the building, and I presume ( based on your other statements ) that you then returned to your group at which time ( or very shortly thereafter ) you then noticed the moving shadow. Did the people you escorted out drive off in a car? If so, moving car headlamps shining through a window can produce the illusion of shadows moving across a wall, and if one of the group were caught in the headlamps as they were walking toward their own car, a walking shadow could become part of that scene ... but could it have also been reflected somehow up through the window on your floor? It doesn't seem very likely ... but it doesn't sound impossible either.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. But please try not to take the exchange so personal. I've made no evaluation of your abilities, and your backlash is beginning to come across as evasive rather than supportive of your position. In contrast, you'll find that all I've done is gather information and propose rational possibilities. By discussing them in an open forum our readers can see how our minds work with respect to discussing paranormal experiences. From your perspective it may seem ridiculous or trivial to go over these things, but from the objective point of view of someone on the outside, the only way we can explore the event is to talk about it and consider all the possibilities with an open mind. So if you have specific reasons why something could not have been the case, then a calm, logical and in context response would be preferable to evasive sarcasm ( even if it is only meant in jest ).

To continue, you say that you personally escorted the ailing tourists out of the building, and I presume ( based on your other statements ) that you then returned to your group at which time ( or very shortly thereafter ) you then noticed the moving shadow. Did the people you escorted out drive off in a car? If so, moving car headlamps shining through a window can produce the illusion of shadows moving across a wall, and if one of the group were caught in the headlamps as they were walking toward their own car, a walking shadow could become part of that scene ... but could it have also been reflected somehow up through the second floor window? It doesn't seem very likely ... but it doesn't sound impossible either.

As with all your most recent posts, UFO, your assumptions are incorrect. I did escort this small group of people down to the street. I watched them get into their van, and drive down the road. Then I walked up to the third floor, spoke with a few other hunters, and a few minutes after that had the encounter. The road where the light was shining was the outside wall with the road on the other side. We were on the 3rd floor and car lights don't shine up that high. You would be more accurate if we were talking about the 2nd floor, which the car lights do play across the floor when cars drive by. Not on the third floor. This is just more example of you assuming something but not knowing something because you weren't there. You couldn't have know how the shadows played because you weren't there. You couldn't have known how many people were in the building because you weren't there. You can't know that the hoaxing idea you've proposed could NOT have happened, and yes I assert that with 100% conviction, because, you got it, you weren't there.

As far as my finger puppet hoax, explain to me why this hoax is any more or less possible from yours? You scoff at finger puppets but propose cardboard cut outs? Your belief that you can 'troubleshoot' this experience from the comfort of your mom's basement surrounded by UFO books is typical of an arm-chair skeptic. And even if you were some sort of researcher in THIS CASE you are an arm chair skeptic. You've failed to perform a geographical assessment of the situation. You've also failed to perform a temporal assessment. What I mean by that is you've not seen the location, and you WEREN'T THERE at the time of the event. There are thousands of elements you're assuming about this situation, and philosophically you are 100% wrong in believing you can make an accurate conclusion on what happened that night. Even grilling me through pointless, countless forum posts will not give you even the majority of the picture since you continue to assume more and more elements that are more and more wrong.

At this point in time this is personal. Before this posting I'd thought you critical but rational. I now know better. I will not be replying to any more of your posts. If you think this is elusive, evasive, and that I'm "protesting too much" to your inquiries, which implies a blind, cool-aid believe in this experienced, I personally do not give a flying fuck. In fact I don't give a flying fuck what you think about this any more.

~fin~

 

[Randall]

As with all your most recent posts, UFO, your assumptions are incorrect ...

I haven't been making assumptions. I've been proposing possibilities and asking for reasons why they may or may not apply. I don't think you are personally manufacturing the incident and if we accept that, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that some kind of misperception or hallucination was involved. The environmental conditions also suggest that a natural physical explanation is very unlikely and that seems to leave only two other possibilities, a paranormal experience or a hoax. I've been asking questions in an effort to eliminate the possibility of a hoax but you've let your emotional reactions to that process get the better of you, and your last comments have pretty much dissolved any objective credibility you might have otherwise gained. That is truly unfortunate. On the other hand, I would also say that your unwavering belief also seems to speak to your sincerity. Thank you for sharing your experience. It's been quite interesting.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

For those of you following this thread, I am sorry for the cursing, but not the meaning behind the cursing. I try not to let my emotions get the better of me.

 

[phantasmosxmagnum]

I listened to this episode and recall Christopher suggesting a possible connection to some paranormal experiences with DNA or a genetic bloodline connection of sorts. In spite of the fact that lots of folks ridicule EVPs I don't care since I've recorded literally hundreds of them from the so called class "A" on down. I wanted Chris to know that in an EVP recording I had a somewhat skeptic coworker, that was African American, who wanted to believe I was getting these message from wherever but wanted to ask his own questions. I kept that promise and a few weeks later I offered. He's a good old southern guy and he got replies to his questions and I was kind of surprised that his answers seemed to sound not like the most typical voices I've recorded but they sounded like they were of his ethnicity as I'm caucasian .
He asked: "you really be talkin' in here?" we were at work at that time and there was some paranormal activity around back in the summer of 2009, he told me "ask them that" smiling referring to it probably WON't be answered. The 1st EVP was "Please don't say that", in an english speaking African male voice followed by "TRAP!" I replied: "they say might something or they might say no comment" the last EVP was the voice of an African woman that in my opinion, that tried to say too much for what I call the typical EVP limited message time/window or number of words per EVP reply, "the spooks might not forget you" or "the spooks might come out to get you" In my experiences or limited recordings it always seems to be connected, even partially to who/whom is present & nearby.
I dared a nephew of mine to ask his sisters stepson to try to capture an EVP one evening. The teenager agreed boasting of his ability not to be scared of a little old EVP. They proceeded my nephew asked :"Is there anyone here with us?" the reply was a whisper: "no". The stepson was freaked a little bit since he recorded it on his iPhone so I asked hime to try again and he didn't, he had lost his earlier boasted courage. So I jumped in and recorded with my nephew again ask a related question:"If you're not in here with us then where are you?" (good question I thought to myself) the reply was the same whispering voice "not inside". Later he tried again "can you come inside?" reply: "no". The younger fellow has NOT pursued any more recordings. LOL

 

[Randall]

iPhone Paranormal State EMF App Test​

​

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: "This app is intended for entertainment purposes only and​

does not provide true Ghost Scanning functionality." We offer no guarantees of accuracy​

or any warranties, therefore, the application is intended for entertainment purposes only​

and has no true detection capabilities. Any coincidental likeness and/or sounds, voices,​

whispers or music sound effects are not real.​

© Copyright MMXI by XFactor MultiMedia, LLC dba Imagined Apps.​

 

[phantasmosxmagnum]

I've used standard voice memo apps on the iPhone, iPad and even my Mac to record EVPs, for some weird or perhaps freaky reason, I can tune them in I suppose. The apps used were the built in iOS Voice Memo, Griffin's iTalk free or paid version and the decent for free iOS Hokusai Audio Editor, I used Sound Studio by Felt Tip software to record, edit and clarify EVPs. Most of the one's I've seen so far on the App store are big time bogus Halloween ripoffs.

 

[Polterwurst]

@ Sandanfire: thanks for taking the time and for your patience. Good to see that there are keen observers and sceptical people out there doing this with a scientific but open mind. Much appreciated. It's strange how some people react and seem to instictively try to twist and turn an observation like this to fit it into their own explanation of how the world works though. I've had similar experiences when talking about my own observations regarding probable reincarnation, where people didn't tell me outright that I was making it all up or just fantasizing, but still tried to explain them away at all costs.

 

[Chris Talbert]

I know I'm dredging up an old thread again. Give me a break, I'm listening through the archives.

Anyway, around 16 minutes into the podcast, I noticed a mention of the Vril/Thule society finding something in the coal mines of southern Illinois? Are there any cross references for this? Where? I have in-laws who work in energy drilling in this area.

I don't know if we have any gamers on this site, but one of the most popular x-box 360 games was "Gears of Wars" which parallels the concept of a subterranean race and its' power source. Very similar to the proto-sci-fi novel The Coming Race. The sub-surface power source in "Gears of War" is called "liquid emulsion"

Amazon.com: The Coming Race (9781907523236): Edward Bulwer-Lytton: Books

Lytton warns that the Vril gods are one day going to ascend to our above ground world and annihilate the entire human race?

Video games imitating fiction, Nazi myth or fact?

Emergence Day --- Gears of war