FourWinds
|
Re: Lethbridge & ghosts
May 17, 2004, 17:59
|
I reckon you'd hate him. He drives me mad, but does have a lovely way of saying, "I haven't got a clue what's going on, perhaps someone with more time and relevent skills should investigate this properly."
He does propose a mechanism which is oddly something akin to what I always wanted to exist because it ties in with things I observed when doing my GeoPhys stuff.
With T.C. Lethbridge you have to take each individual subject covered on its own merits, but unfortunately his books start out on one thing and ramble on into another, confusing the issue. I can fully understand why people detest his writings and scoff.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Lethbridge & ghosts
May 17, 2004, 20:22
|
"He does propose a mechanism which is oddly something akin to what I always wanted to exist because it ties in with things I observed when doing my GeoPhys stuff."
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the mechanism and save me the agony of having to read something that I'm "probably going to hate".
|
FourWinds
|
Basically
May 17, 2004, 20:42
|
It's to do with certain geological conditions, such as water flowing beneath the ground, creating a field that can act like a tape-recorder. Certain people have the mental equipment to allow these recordings to be played back to them.
There's also some ideas that extreme emotion or trauma can imprint itself upon a location and be sensed by people - as recounted by many folks when they say they could feel the 'death' or 'happiness' at a certain location.
|
FourWinds
|
Basically
May 17, 2004, 20:44
|
It's to do with certain geological conditions, such as water flowing beneath the ground, creating a field that can act like a tape-recorder. Certain people have the mental equipment to allow these recordings to be played back to them.
There's also some ideas that extreme emotion or trauma can imprint itself upon a location and be sensed by people - as recounted by many folks when they say they could feel the 'death' or 'happiness' at a certain location.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Basically
May 17, 2004, 22:28
|
I've heard that the acoustic properties of certain places can have a negative impact on some people, making them feel anything from uneasy, cold, through to nauseous. Apparently a resonant frequency close to 7Hz does the trick best.
However, it's still hard to conceive of a process that can "record" actual events and play them back as "real" images of the kind that you experienced.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 06:51
|
|
It's hard to imagine television until you've seen it :-)
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 06:54
|
Actually, I can remember my brother getting his first tape recorder. I can also remember my dear old Gran's shock when she heard her voice being played back to her for the very first time! I was about 3 when it happened, but I can remember it vividly.
My Granddad also used to tell of the time he first heard radio. He ran home and told his dad that he'd just heard a man speaking all the way from London. His father promptly gave him a clip around the ear for lying!
|
FourWinds
|
7 hurtz
May 18, 2004, 06:57
|
The 7 hurtz (basically the human body's resonant frequency) is well covered in Paul Devereux's book "Stoneage Soundtracks". Thoroughly recommend it to anyone.
This book has been covered quite heavily on this forum before so I won't repeat what's already been said.
|
Steve Gray
|
Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 08:33
|
If I hadn't heard of TV or tape recorders, as a scientist I would still be able to appreciate the principles behind these devices if someone described them to me. I might still be a little incredulous that they could be actually made to work, but I could at least appreciate them in theory. In the case of the tape recorder I would also be able to systematically verify that it was able to reproduced whatever sounds it was presented with.
What's lacking with the concept of "place" recording for me is any suggestion of how events could imprint themselves on a place, how they could be stored and how they could be played back, in such a way that they are confusable with reality. That implies a huge storage of detail and no losses due to the passage of time. A pretty tall order for any information storage system.
IF (big if) there was such a mechanism it must surely operate by direct influence of the observer's mind, as opposed to producing actual optical images. I would therefore expect that the effect would be a vague influence that the observer would "fill in" with detail. But this is not what is reported if tales such as the Roman soldiers at York are to be believed (the observer was able to describe items of tunic that were unknown outside of specialist academic circles).
That's why I have such a hard time with it. It's just too realistic to be plausible.
You might just as well say that it's the wind or the clouds that do the recording. There just doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the conjecture. I'm quite happy to change my mind if you can show me some real evidence or describe a plausible mechanism.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 09:04
|
I would say that you are only able to appreciate the principles of TV and radio etc because someone has told you some facts and because you respect that persons opinion you accept them. I know you can use an oscilloscope to see wave forms, but unless you've built that yourself do you *really* know that's it's doing the right job. There's still an awful lot of faith in other people's words in our everyday acceptence of things like TV.
"I'm quite happy to change my mind if you can show me some real evidence or describe a plausible mechanism."
Like Lethbridge I'm not qualified to give that explanation, even with my GeoPhys experience. Lethbridge's lovable approach (afterall he was just an archaeologist by training, not a scientist) was to say that enough people have indepently witnessed these things, something must be responsible and here's one idea.
In his (rather mad) book "The Sons of God: A Fantasy?" he poses two questions, which are not relevent here. The book has about 12 chapters. At the end of chapter 9 he says something like, "Well, we haven't managed to answer the first question, so let's look at the other one" !!!!!!!!
He rarely falls into the New Age plague of stating observations and theories as fact. He did, however, have the balls to raise questions that no one knows the answers to (and at the time seemed afraid to look at them scientifically).
I know I would struggle with the following, and I imagine you would too.
Suppose someone came to you with a device that appeared to react to something, but none of the scientific instruments known to you registered it. Would you accept its presence?
The vast majority of people do this with TV signals, photography, CDs, light switches every day.
|
