'Shadow people'- anyone ever seen one?

Oryx

Stoner wrote: »

well i meant spectacles, but anyone who uses the word Spectacles might not need such help

I can hold the beer glasses too, or maybe we should go somewhere that use cans.

Cans or plastic and a cage for the band sounds like it might be fun.

And the only time I used the word spectacles apart from here was blessing myself:

Spectacles
Testicles
Wallet
and Watch
(even though Im minus the testicles you get the idea)

I daresay a meetup wont come to fisticuffs. Were all mouth and no trousers here, really.

Stoner

lol we are all due a meet up soon anyway, something may brew here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054958245&page=202

we can keep an eye on it, could end up in the oval pub again.

You dont have to hold my glass , i only need 1 arm

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you see, im not trying, when it comes to yourself and John6 . Maybe if somebody who actually contributes to this forum wanted the info. I would be happy to share.

Anyways you can read more Wiki to get your evidence .

Whoot !

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?
And how exactly are we skeptics not contributing anything? Does rational debate not count? Is it a bad thing?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

Well you show me yours and i will show you mine .

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you show me yours and i will show you mine .

Wow real mature. Seriously.

Would you like to back this up at all?
Cause I have some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph...d_psychics.php

I did show you mine as a matter of fact. Should I call no take-backsies?

Oryx

johnsix wrote: »

Then it's safe to assume that you have nothing to support your claims that (1. the there is something that science couldn't explain and promptly brushed aside and (2. that police use psychics regularly and to great success.

Instead of providing the proof you claim to have, you decide to not tell us because we're not good enough.
Sir, that type of argument doesn't have a fancy Latin name because few rational, intelligent adults would use it. In fact most children know how silly and immature an argument like that is.

What would happen exactly if you did share this information? Would our heads explode? would we become so distraught that we've wasted our life being skeptics that we kill ourselves in despair?
And how exactly are we skeptics not contributing anything? Does rational debate not count? Is it a bad thing?

But no, you're right I can't force you to provide it. Please withhold all this fantastic evidence, it shows exactly how mature and rational you are.

I cant speak for Dre. But its not fair to cry foul when 'amazing evidence' is not produced specifically here. If I was to give you first hand information, firstly I doubt youd take my word for it, and youd want names dates and places which I cannot give. Not for me, but for others involved. Weak yes, immature no.

I do not claim that the police regularly use psychics, but they DO use them. Not often, but it has been known to work, quietly and without fanfare, obviously so that the police are not held up to sceptical ridicule for using woo woo techniques.

johnsix

Oryx wrote: »

I cant speak for Dre. But its not fair to cry foul when 'amazing evidence' is not produced specifically here. If I was to give you first hand information, firstly I doubt youd take my word for it, and youd want names dates and places which I cannot give. Not for me, but for others involved. Weak yes, immature no.

I do not claim that the police regularly use psychics, but they DO use them. Not often, but it has been known to work, quietly and without fanfare, obviously so that the police are not held up to sceptical ridicule for using woo woo techniques.

Actually what I'm looking for is only what Dre said he has. He claimed he knew of stuff that science had brushed as there was no explanation for, I am only asking for examples of this not necessarily proof of them.
He also claimed quite cleary that he could prove cops used psychics, but wasn't going to.

Ghost Girl

John six your very naive, if you think people are going to bother going around trying to prove some thing to you, and if you think every thing the gardai / police do is some how documented, and can be proven your even more naive. Go and talk to Barry Cummins in RTE, he'll tell you plenty, he's written books on the missing women in Ireland which operation trace was set up to solve, and off the record stuff would astound you, but i suppose you'd want some documented proof to support what people say and do off the record. Well you're not going to get it. The work the gardai do, the psychics etc. I'm done with this now. The person who set up this thread, must be bored senseless at this stage.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

He also claimed quite cleary that he could prove cops used psychics, but wasn't going to.

yeah i can , but why dont you give me one good reason why i should show it to you ?

edelgkgeraghty

johnsix wrote: »

Wow real mature. Seriously.

I did show you mine as a matter of fact. Should I call no take-backsies?

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

edelgkgeraghty

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

Were is your evidence ?

edelgkgeraghty

Deleted User wrote: »

Were is your evidence ?

Psychics are used in investigations.

Evidence.... im not on trial here.... im sharing some info.

???

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

Boston: Patrick J. Brady, Detective, said: "Peter Hurkos, a psychic from Holland, was used in the Boston
Strangler case."

"Hurkos also claimed to have identified the Boston Strangler, and he did in fact travel to Boston and spend time with the police there. However, he was not of help to them. Several days after he concluded his consultation, he was arrested (and eventually convicted) for impersonating a police officer. Hurkos allegedly posed as a police officer in order to gather information that he could later claim to be psychic revelations."

Hahahahahaha. Great psychic detective!!!

A Weekly World News article, "Cops Amazed by Crime-Busting Psychic" (Alexander 1988),
focused on diviner Carol Pate. This article contends that she has helped solve at least
65 murders and a hundred other crimes around the country.

"Carol Pate

We hear a lot about psychics’ alleged successes, but less about their much more frequent and notable failures. Take two “cases” of Little Rock, Arkansas, psychic Carol Pate, for example. The first is claimed a success. Pate appeared on Court TV’s Psychic Detectives and Larry King Live regarding her alleged assistance in the case of a missing Arkansas teenager. Although it was claimed that Pate “helped find” the boy (“Psychics” 2004), she did nothing of the sort. He was released after being repeatedly raped by his kidnapper. So when the announcer for Larry King Live asked, before a commercial break, “Can detectives use a psychic’s vision to catch a kidnapper?” (“Psychics” 2004), the answer is, no. Pate could only try to match up her stated “clues” by using the police psychic’s stock-in-trade, retrofitting. For instance the word ridge, says Pate, “came into my head,” and Ridge Road was the name of the main route leading away from the kidnap site (“Psychics” 2004). Pate could easily have learned this fact when she visited the location or consulted a map.



Another case involving Carol Pate concerned Dr. Xu “Sue” Wang of Darien, Illinois, who disappeared in 1999 after she left for work at a medical center. Just over a year later, Carol Pate claimed that, from photos mailed to her by the Darien police, she had a psychic vision. She said she visualized the scene where Wang had been buried in a previously dug grave (Zorn 2000a). Subsequently, the police, acting on Pate’s advice, announced plans to conduct an aerial search as well as use dogs to look for the missing physician’s burial site (“Police” 2000).



Reporting on Pate’s claims, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn was skeptical. He quoted me as stating, “They count their lucky guesses and ignore all their misses,” and “I have just one question for all of them: Where’s Jimmy Hoffa?” Zorn (2000a) gave odds that the police would not “find anything,” and concluded that Pate was merely “guessing.”

Subsequently Zorn sent an e-mail to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, quoting Darien’s deputy police chief Ron Campo. Campo said of Pate’s psychic input, “It didn’t pan out.” Concluded Zorn (2000b): “Turns out the woman was just guessing, like every other phony who claims to have such powers—exactly, eerily as I predicted. Hey, d’ya suppose. . . ?”"

http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/
A little clip from the above link....

Her ability to visualise past and future events has led to her being called upon by police in England,
Ireland and Wales, her accuracy in several murder investigations promoting senior officers to call for her
psychic assistance in a number of high profile crimes. Diane recently re-investigated the murder of
twelve-year-old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe
the child’s final walk home from school, her rape and shooting by a ‘friend’. She identified the murderer
as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file.

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that!

edelgkgeraghty

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that![/quote]

I have tasted my own medicine and it is bitter!

'Proof' and 'Evidence' is indeed important. However i genuinely believe that nobody will believe in the paranormal, psychics etc, unless they have an experience for themselves. So for the fortunate ( and sometimes unfortunate depending on the case!) who get the experience feel privildged. Your obviously regarded as been important enough to be used as the medium. And for the others, well, wait and see.

???

Hahaha. Restecp!

Havermeyer

caoibhin wrote: »

You asked the question. Maybe you should have qualified it by requesting only people who would believe you should respond.

Ye see, that's the problem. Most of the time, when you give an opposing view to the ones favoured here you get frowned upon. But what can you do, you are in the paranormal forum after all.

Ostrom

edelgkgeraghty wrote: »

That's from her personal website, I'm not going near that!

If you're after evidence (assuming you consider psychiatary a sound basis for exploratory research) there is a wealth of scientific data on experimental ESP, encephelography, stat studies of medium abilities.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but....its out there

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah i can , but why dont you give me one good reason why i should show it to you ?

It would validate your piont?
It would prove me wrong?
It would show other people curious about it where the evidence comes from?
It would add credibility to a lot of other arguements on the fourm?
It would add to the overall knowledge of everyone?
Please, take your pick.

But the thing I'm really curious about is the reason you won't tell.

johnsix

efla wrote: »

If you're after evidence (assuming you consider psychiatary a sound basis for exploratory research) there is a wealth of scientific data on experimental ESP, encephelography, stat studies of medium abilities.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but....its out there

There has been tests of various esp powers, but they vary on how scientific they actually are. The tendency is that the more stringent and controlled the test the worse the esp powers do, mainly due to eliminating the chance of cheating and accounting for statistical anomalies.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

It would validate your piont?
It would prove me wrong?
It would show other people curious about it where the evidence comes from?
It would add credibility to a lot of other arguements on the fourm?
It would add to the overall knowledge of everyone?
Please, take your pick.

But the thing I'm really curious about is the reason you won't tell.

Sorry they are not good enough for me .

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry they are not good enough for me .

Of course they are not.
As I said, It safe to assume you can't show an example of science ignoring or pushing aside something because they can't explain it, neither can you show any evidence that police use psychic regularly or to success.

Ziycon

This brings me back to one of the topics here awhile ago to do with the corner of the eye, with some cultures believing the eye is the gateway to the soul and many people (including myself) have seen dark or black shadowy figures out of the corner of my eye due to the fact that your not concesly looking out of the corner of your eye. Possible that it could be something relate due to lack of concentration maybe due to fatigue.
But as said, thats not to rule of an optical elusion as they can be very convincing.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

Of course they are not.
As I said, It safe to assume you can't show an example of science ignoring or pushing aside something because they can't explain it, neither can you show any evidence that police use psychic regularly or to success.

I can actually on all counts .

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

I can actually on all counts .

So why not enlighten us?
Why do I not deserve the enlightenment you have to offer?

Maybe you would like to grow up and debate like an adult.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

So why not enlighten us?
Why do I not deserve the enlightenment you have to offer?

Maybe you would like to grow up and debate like an adult.

Because im not looking to debate .

Anyway this is a discussion on shadowpeople Tell me what you know about them ?

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Because im not looking to debate .

Anyway this is a discussion on shadowpeople Tell me what you know about them ?

Or act like a rational adult apparently.

johnsix

johnsix wrote: »

Or act like a rational adult apparently.

Im actuing as an adult here in work . Your just entertaining me on my short breaks . Are you a shadow person ?

???

"I'm sleeping with Angelina Jolie."
"Really. Can you prove it?"
"Yes."
"Then do?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"I don't want to."
"But why?"
"Your not good enough."
"But if you proved it, it would add weight to your arguments."
"Give me one good reason that I should?"
"You wouldn't sound like an ignorant fool."
"You're an ignorant fool."


That's what you sound like...

johnsix

Deleted User wrote: »

Im actuing as an adult here in work . Your just entertaining me on my short breaks . Are you a shadow person ?

What are you on about?
Why can't you give me one example of science brushing something aside like you said? It will take two seconds to type it out. Whats stopping you exactly?

Nevyn

From my experiences there are two types of 'shadow people', what types have people run into and where and when ?

stevenmu

johnsix wrote: »

So why not enlighten us?
Why do I not deserve the enlightenment you have to offer?

Maybe you would like to grow up and debate like an adult.

johnsix wrote: »

Or act like a rational adult apparently.

johnsix banned for personal abuse.

Also can people please stick to the topic of shadow people. We can not have every thread be dragged off into the whole proof/no-proof argument. This is the paranormal forum which implicitly means that many, if not all, threads will be related to topics for which there is no scientific proof, if there was they would be in one of the science forums instead. This forum expressly exists for the purpose of discussing those topics and continually getting bogged down in whether there is proof or not is only getting in the way of that purpose.

???

Ghost Girl wrote: »

John six your very naive

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe if somebody who actually contributes to this forum wanted the info. I would be happy to share.

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously you know nothing about it. So i am not going to go any further with this conversation .

And the crowning jewel:

lilRedSmurf wrote: »

this just makes you an intolerant and close minded human being.

Pray tell me good Sirs, how the infraction Johnsix has commited is worse than those commited by the fellons indicated above...

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

From my experiences there are two types of 'shadow people', what types have people run into and where and when ?

It seems to be some sort or craze at the moment. But now there are shadow people that just wear black clothes, but i dont know too much about that yet.

Waverly Hills is supposed to be the place were you can see them . Ask Stoner he was there this year but he saw nothing.

I still dont think they or worthy of their title yet as lets face it . They can be easily re-created.

trishw78

Back on Topic

Shellbell I too have seen a 'shadow person' although I wouldn't call it a shadow nor would it had more substanance to it nor would I call it the Sandyman Port man.

I was at home in the kitchen my mother was there and the dog. The dog was standing facing the door growling so my motherand I turned around I went to open the door to see what he was growling at. I opened the door and the dog shot off barking like a lunatic. As he ran off both my mother and I saw what appeared to be a cloaked figure disapear around the corner of the house. I went out brandishing a hurly only to find nothing and no one there even the dog had stopped barking.

at the time my mother & I just put it down to a trick of the light or our imaginations but something happened a few nights later that made us think again.

on something Johnsix said about detectives not using psychics. Isn't the tv show medium based on a real woman, who can see how you're going to die.

EDIT: Yeah I know it's a TV SHOW

Nevyn

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to be some sort or craze at the moment. But now there are shadow people that just wear black clothes, but i dont know too much about that yet.

I'd say that mib or men in black is a lot different from shadow people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Waverly Hills is supposed to be the place were you can see them . Ask Stoner he was there this year but he saw nothing.

oh didn't know there were a type that were assocated with a certain place.

Deleted User wrote: »

I still dont think they or worthy of their title yet as lets face it . They can be easily re-created.

Why so and how ?

The two types I would have encountered would be shadows or impression of people who have been in place before and then a very different type all together who seem to some from the between places.

???

Detectives use physics all the time!

6th

Thaedydal, would you agree that there are those that come about natually and those that are "created" for want of a better word?

trishw78

??? wrote: »

Detectives use physics all the time!

you know what I ment, there's no need to be pedantic

???

PERSONAL ABUSE!!!





No offense intended.

stevenmu

??? wrote: »

Detectives use physics all the time!

Stick to the shadow people topic please. No more warnings for this.

Nevyn

6th wrote: »

Thaedydal, would you agree that there are those that come about natually and those that are "created" for want of a better word?

"Created" or summoned to preform a task and function ?

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

I'd say that mib or men in black is a lot different from shadow people.

oh didn't know there were a type that were assocated with a certain place.

Why so and how ?

The two types I would have encountered would be shadows or impression of people who have been in place before and then a very different type all together who seem to some from the between places.

In work sor not gonig to quote each question .

1 . These peopel are now bing classed as shadow people in the paranormal world. I wouldnt . But poeple who are studying the subject class them as Shadow People.

2 . Waverly Hills is Classed as "the home" of shadow people . There is supposedly more of a chance at seeing one there.

3 .Lets face it a shadow is a shape and thats all. Alot of the time people say they are a shape of human form. I saw a cloud that looked like a person . Is it a Cloud person ? So somebody goes into a house and see's a shadow of a person .
If her have shadow people , we should have Haizey people . See through people. Young people, Old people . Animal People .

To me its another appirition .

6th

Thaedydal wrote: »

"Created" or summoned to preform a task and function ?

Summoned suggests that it already existed but do you think it (as a drone to carry out tasks) can be brought into existence?

Nevyn

6th wrote: »

Summoned suggests that it already existed but do you think it (as a drone to carry out tasks) can be brought into existence?

I think that tupla or enties or tought forms can be 'created' to appear as shadow people but that to me is different from Shadow Pepople.

Again I am coming at this at a pretty different angle then most people where hence the trying to feel and figure out what you lot and what in current parrots normal terms is meant by shadow people.

Nevyn

Deleted User wrote: »

In work sor not gonig to quote each question .

1 . These peopel are now bing classed as shadow people in the paranormal world. I wouldnt . But poeple who are studying the subject class them as Shadow People.

what would you class them as ? and what would you class as shadow people ?

Deleted User wrote: »

2 . Waverly Hills is Classed as "the home" of shadow people . There is supposedly more of a chance at seeing one there.

tbh never heard of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

3 .Lets face it a shadow is a shape and thats all. Alot of the time people say they are a shape of human form. I saw a cloud that looked like a person . Is it a Cloud person ? So somebody goes into a house and see's a shadow of a person .
If her have shadow people , we should have Haizey people . See through people. Young people, Old people . Animal People .

Does't mean that to me at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

To me its another appirition .

what do you consider to be an apparition ?

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

what would you class them as ? and what would you class as shadow people ?

what do you consider to be an apparition ?

I currently Class them as shadows. Until i see one and make up my own mind.


An Apparition ? Well i am yet to see one of these also . Are they just residual energy left behind. Are they are recording of an event in the past . Or are they an actually intelligent entity .


I approach this from a skeptical point of view .

Here is a picture i took . Its in the shape of a man. It was pitch black when i took the picture and i didnt see it until i looked at my phone.



To me its just a shadow.

shadowatching

For me, its a constant. I would be talking to someone, then all of a sudden i turn my head thinking i see someone walking up behind me. No, I am not paranoid, nor anything like that. I am aware of my surroundings, as is the next person I hope. But, i started to see them when i was 13 years old, when i went from child to adult. Normally, adults dont see them as much as childern. IF you see your kids talking then the attention is drawn someone where, else ASK them, what they see. Sometimes, its your parents or loved ones just checking up on you.

eveie

i use to see "shadow people" all the time when i was younger and i had a few scary experiences and some pleasent ones as well. i do believe that children are more open to seeing them. i know myself that i have closed myself off from seeing them. i have been told that i have a "gift" i dont know if i'd agree with that, but i do know that they exsist.