Effects - Pedals, Multi-Effects, and Floor Boxes

[Urinate Forever]

Just to make this clear, boytbpc, i am not religious. my post was sort of irrelevant, i was drunk. apologies.

[goodhonk]

---

boytbpc wrote:

---

---

I like you too Honk, we just disagree on some things.  As an atheist, vegetarian, liberal from a small Kansas town, I'm used to liking people I disagree with though.  

Anyway, back to the point, first, eyewitnesses are the worst witnesses.  Second, the brain has a well known trait to see faces (or other significant input from our other senses)  where there isn't one, it is known as paridolia.  There is an evolutionary theory for this, those that didn't react to the sounds in the savana, didn't become your ancestors.  Third, I'm going with James Randi on this one, evidence is what speaks, and I don't see any evidence for ghosts, also Randi comments on where are the animal ghosts?  Finally, I get a kick out of being called closed-minded, the reason I find it funny is because I'll be the first one to change my mind once quality evidence is presented to support an opinion I disagree with, but a few people who see bunnies in clouds and faces in drapes isn't quality evidence.  "Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.", Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.  

---

would you accept multiple eye witnesses of the same event?

[soapbladder]

As a PRS owning lawyer, I can tell you that multiple eyewitness accounts of a single event will vary significantly--although they are far better in the aggregate than a single eyewitness account.

[boytbpc]

---

goodhonk wrote:

---

boytbpc wrote:

---

---

I like you too Honk, we just disagree on some things.  As an atheist, vegetarian, liberal from a small Kansas town, I'm used to liking people I disagree with though.  

Anyway, back to the point, first, eyewitnesses are the worst witnesses.  Second, the brain has a well known trait to see faces (or other significant input from our other senses)  where there isn't one, it is known as paridolia.  There is an evolutionary theory for this, those that didn't react to the sounds in the savana, didn't become your ancestors.  Third, I'm going with James Randi on this one, evidence is what speaks, and I don't see any evidence for ghosts, also Randi comments on where are the animal ghosts?  Finally, I get a kick out of being called closed-minded, the reason I find it funny is because I'll be the first one to change my mind once quality evidence is presented to support an opinion I disagree with, but a few people who see bunnies in clouds and faces in drapes isn't quality evidence.  "Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.", Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.  

---

would you accept multiple eye witnesses of the same event?

---

No. 

[Folky_Grunge]

---

goodhonk wrote:

---

boytbpc wrote:

---

Not so, I argue that no supernatural creatures exist, faries, ghosts, big foot, gods, they are all the same..  

---

yes, but you dismiss everyone's account, many eye witness accounts, and equate it with someone no one has seen, to prove your point.  

i like you boytbc, and i dont' think you are crazy or foolish or brainwashed for your beliefs.  maybe a lot close minded is all.

---

He wasn't really using a strawman, he was basically doing the same thing Carl Sagan did when he came up with the "invisible dragon in my garage thing;" creating a somewhat facetious scenario to point out flaws in the logic of people who argue for the paranormal. It's not intended to create an imaginary target, just to point out the special pleading that happens when people talk about irrational things that are widely believed by a culture. There's functionally no difference between a fairy at the bottom of a well, an invisible dragon in someone's garage, and a ghost: they all have the same amount of evidence - none. Just because lots of people believe in something, or think they've seen it, doesn't make it more likely to exist.

And a quick note on labeling someone as close-minded: it seems like goodhonk has looked into the phenomena of ghosts, considered the evidence from both sides and concluded that ghost don't exist, which logically means all witness are mistaken in some way (whether they know it or not). That's not being close-minded, it's being rational. Maybe he could have put things a little nicer, but there's nothing wrong with his reasoning. He's not dismissing things out of hand, he even presented the science backing his claims up; if you don't consider the counter argument/evidence (you don't have to agree if you don't think it's valid), you're the one who's actually being close-minded.

[goodhonk]

thank you for that summation of our exchange.   haha, the science of ghost debunking.

[Folky_Grunge]

---

goodhonk wrote:

thank you for that summation of our exchange.   haha, the science of ghost debunking.

---

I guess I have some experience with stuff like that, since I spent some time on a bigfoot message board (unsurprisingly, a community that doesn't take kindly to skepticism, or the field of anthropology) a while ago. I got pretty decent understanding the dynamics that happen in discussions like this and thought a summation might be in order to keep things from getting too combative.

[PurpleTrails]

---

Lanefair wrote:
Was this at night?

---

Yes, sometime around 1:00 am after we had done some editing.  It was outside, and we saw an amorphous, glowing white thing move around, maybe 20' away, on a clear night with no wind.  No face or human features were visible; it looked sort of like the prototypical white-sheet ghost, except you could see through it, and it wasn't a sheet or piece of plastic or whatever.  Freaked us out. 

The guy's house we were outside of had a room that would go very cold on occasion, even in the middle of summer in an area that is known for its high temperatures, and people who slept in that room reported having terrifying dreams.  The house was on the edge of a ravine, and there was an abandoned mine shaft 50-100' down from the edge that ran under the house.

[JetCityMatt]

Summary of some previous posts:
1. Well if I didn't see it it didn't happen

2. If someone else saw it they didn't see it

3. Our eyes always work reliably and don't show us things that aren't there... except when people see ghosts. At the moment they saw the ghost their eye malfunctioned. Eyes are like that.

4. Eyewitnesses are unreliable 

5. Numerous eye witnesses are unreliable 

6. You weak-minded religious people are taught that imaginary things exist so you are prone to believing that imaginary things exist. Therefore you jump to the conclusion of "ghost" just because someone who wasn't there was stroking your neck and gave you a hickey.

7. We will not address any of the numerous eyewitness accounts posted in this very thread. We are ignoring them. After all, there is no evidence.

And last but not least, the Implied arguments: If science can't measure it - it doesn't exist. Even though there are photos of ghosts- and also numerous pieces of video footage of silver orbs flying through the sky in Mexico and elsewhere... because science can't measure it doesn't exist. 
Plus, all those photos and videos are doctored. I know it because I didn't see it so it doesn't exist.
Plus, ghosts don't exist.
All eyewitness accounts are wrong because ghosts don't exist and niether does a spiritual world.
Nevermind the people with near-death experiences who describe floating above their bodies (hopefully no one mentions the girl in a video on youtube who was in a serious car accident and floated out of her body and witnessed a conversation her family was having down the hall in the hospital lunchroom).
Only religious idiots believe in such a thing because they have been brainwashed with fairy tales about a spiritual world since they were children. Idiots.
Look, scientists know what exists and what doesn't. Only the stuff you can touch and measure exists (still hoping you forget about photos and videos of ghosts).
So ghosts can't exist, despite any factual evidence, because I BELIEVE that they cannot exist.
So, evidence be damned, I believe that there is no spiritual world and no ghosts.
I believe this in spite of any contrary evidence in exactly the same biased and closed-minded dogmatic manner as the religious people that I call stupid because they are so ignorant and biased and hold to their simple-minded fairy tale belief in spite of factual documented evidence.

In case it isn't apparent... an extreme bias on a dogmatic religious level is my pet peeve.
Even when that bias is held by an athiest.

Rock on!

[bjcarl]

---

JetCityMatt wrote:

Summary of some previous posts:
1. Well if I didn't see it it didn't happen

2. If someone else saw it they didn't see it

3. Our eyes always work reliably and don't show us things that aren't there... except when people see ghosts. At the moment they saw the ghost their eye malfunctioned. Eyes are like that.

4. Eyewitnesses are unreliable 

5. You religious people are taught that imaginary things exist so you are prone to believing that imaginary things exist.

6. We will not address any of the numerous eyewitness accounts posted in this very thread. We are ignoring them. After all, there is no evidence.

And last but not least, the Implied arguments: If science can't measure it - it doesn't exist. Even though there are photos of ghosts- and also numerous pieces of video footage of silver orbs flying through the sky in Mexico and elsewhere... because science can't measure it doesn't exist.  Plus, all those photos and videos are doctored. I know it because I didn't see it so it doesn't exist. Plus, ghosts don't exist.
All eyewitness accounts are wrong because ghosts don't exist and niether does a spiritual world.
Nevermind the people with near-death experiences who describe floating above their bodies (hopefully no one mentions the girl in a video on youtube who was in a serious car accident and floated out of her body and witnessed a conversation her family was having down teh hall in the hospital lunchroom).
Only religious idiots believe in such a thing because they have been brainwashed with fairy tales about a spiritual world since they were children.
Look, scientist know what exists and what doesn't. Only the stuff you can touch and measure exists (still hoping you forget about photos and videos of ghosts). So ghosts can't exist, despite any factual evidence, because I BELIEVE that they cannot exists. So, evidence be damned, I believe that there is no spiritual world and no ghosts. I believe this in spite of any contrary evidence in exactly the same biased and closed-minded manner as the religious people that I call stupid because they are so biased and hold to their simple-minded fairy tale belief in spite of factual documented evidence.

In case it isn't apparent... an extreme bias on a dogmatic religious level is my pet peeve.
Even when that bias is held by an athiest.

Rock on!

---

Earlier I said that I've seen what could only be described as "ghosts" but still have my doubts and realize that there could well be a rational explanation.

I also had an "out of body" experience so convincing that I did research on the subject of Astral Projection(something I had never heard of) and was shocked to discover that my experience was TOTALLY in-line with most others' experiences.  Despite my own experience with Astral Projection, I think it more credible to believe that what happened was some sort of chemical or electrical mis-firing of my neurons than my conscious actually leaving my body, floating around and witnessing things happening in the physical world.

[JetCityMatt]

bjcarl, I am curious. After having such a vivid experience of floating out of your body (just like people do when they die and their soul comes out of their body), I am curious how exactly you justify to yourself that you did not really have the experience- in spite of the fact that you had the experience. 

Did you hit your head or something or did it happen out of the blue?
Did you ever experience a head injury or have you ever experienced any other type of, what you would call, a delusion?
Or was this a one-off thing?

[bjcarl]

---

JetCityMatt wrote:

bjcarl, I am curious. After having such a vivid experience of floating out of your body (just like people do when they die and their soul comes out of their body), I am curious how exactly you justify to yourself that you did not really have the experience- in spite of the fact that you had the experience. 

Did you hit your head or something or did it happen out of the blue?
Did you ever experience a head injury or have you ever experienced any other type of, what you would call, a delusion?
Or was this a one-off thing?

---

It was a one-off thing...I was sitting in a living room alone, staring into a candle and thinking about nothing, then the next instant, I was in the opposite corner of the room looking down on my own body from the ceiling.  It lasted for no more than a couple of seconds-once I had full grasp of what I was seeing, I was snapped back into my body and felt really disoriented.

I absolutely had the experience, I just don't believe it was anything supernatural.  

I'll also add that while I'm a skeptic, I'm sure there are things that happen that are currently beyond our abilities to explain...that doesn't mean that there is no scientific explanation.  Additionally, while I believe the other forumites posts(none of them are unbelievable), there are enough bullshitters in the world who make things up for money or attention and people who are truly delusional, that any rational person would automatically view "crazy" statements with a skeptical eye.

[Trick Fall]

Wait there's a fucking big foot message board?

[1001gear]

That lil dot is rly hrd 2 klk

[­­]

Yes. I am one.









































































BOO!

[soapbladder]

---

­­ wrote:
Yes. I am one.









































































BOO!

---

I see nothing.

[TomVanDeven]

Fuck ghosts. With giant dicks. 

Real dicks ramming ghost pussies.