The British tabloid press are at it again. Virtually every tabloid paper in the UK has reported on this piece of footage from Honduras breakfast TV show First Edition over the last 24 hours.
Take a look.
So is this "chilling" or paranormal in any sense?
No. Not in my opinion. What we are seeing here is the natural outcome of a glass resting on a glass table with a speck of moisture , or even moist air trapped underneath it. The coefficient of static friction being very small between two glass surfaces even without the presence of water or moist air.
Arnold Anderson, retired professor of frictional forces explains the effect:
"When a wet glass is placed on a smooth surface, a ring of water first makes a seal around the bottom edge of the glass. Then, as the glass continues toward the countertop, air that is under the glass bottom is compressed. Under ideal conditions, this small volume of pressurized air is able to support the weight of the glass. The water around the bottom edge of the glass functions as a seal to prevent the air from escaping. For a short time, the glass is floating on the surface water, and moves with almost no friction. A different, but related behavior is possible with a container that has a very smooth, flat bottom. Here, the water can not escape quickly, and temporarily supports the glass on a squeeze film of water alone. This is much like an ice skate, which melts the ice under the blade, so the skater glides freely on a thin film of water. The first case is like a hovercraft, where a large fan pressurizes the air under the craft so it can move freely over water or even smooth land. Technically, the glass uses what is called a 'squeeze film' bearing to temporarily support the glass. Hovercraft are supported by 'externally pressurized' bearings. Ice skates employ 'self-lubricating' bearings. These are all ways to reduce friction, using lubrication."
So what sets the glass moving? Could be one of two things, or a combination of the two, heat from the studio lights causing the fluid to expand, or the presenter disturbing the air around the glass and setting it in motion. Notice that the glass begins to move as the Presenter moves his hand past it, the initial movement is very slow and the glass speeds up as it moves towards the middle of the table. It finally stops when the moisture is exhausted. It would take very little force to get the glass moving as the static coefficient, the resistance against sliding, is so small.
Examination of the surface doesn't immediately reveal the presence of liquid. But all that is needed here is moist air, or condensation on the outside of the glass.
More tabloid stupidity then. As mentioned in a previous post, I'm not linking to any of the stories, click-bait shouldn't be encouraged.
Ever since I reviewed Destination America's "Demon Files" and found it to be one of the most exploitative, trashy pieces of schlock ever to be vomited onto a television screen, I've been inundated with requests* to review Destination America's other recent exploit into the "demonic" Exorcism Live. The truth is I haven't seen it and probably won't. I have recently taken a look into one of the show's participants Bishop James Long, who has participated in a few other paranormal shows, is an author, an educator and an investigator.
You may deploy your pinch of salt now.
In addition to his Bishop and exorcist status, Long claims to be a demonologist, which as I've pointed out before is a title as meaningless as Fairyologist in the context that Long and others employ it. He is the founder of The Paranormal Clergy, a group that offers to cleanse and exorcise the homes of "demonic infestation". Their website offers advice on how you can tell if your home is occupied by a demon.
According to the group signs of demonic possession include amongst foul smells, growling sounds and badly behaved animals, knocking sound emanating from walls :
Wait.... Long and his group consider Poltergeist activity to be a logical explanation!
Perhaps not surprisingly the Paranormal Clergy's site contains not a jot of skepticism or room for doubt that demons actually exist. There is no attempt to even evidence the claim, the closest we get is this:
WOW... that is simply stated. Unfortunately to many people "Believe it because I've seen it" isn't a terribly convincing argument, especially considering the adage popularised by Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Let's say you are convincing by being TOLD what you should believe, in fact you are so convinced that you want to become a demonologist and fight evil, Long has great news for you! He operates his own ParaUniversity were you can study.
Before you enrol though there are a few thing Long thinks you need to know. First and foremost his definition of Demonologist:
Hmmm... so be a demonologist you have to research the field (well yeah), and devote your life to that study.... that's a bit vague. You also have to be appointed by your Church leadership to investigate demonic cases. So Long has been endorsed by the Catholic Church? Yes... not the Roman Catholic Church... of course. One of the other ones. The United States Old Catholic Church.
And its a good job because, as Long states in this interview, one has to have good knowledge of scripture if one wishes to be a demonologist. Just declaring oneself to be a Christian isn't good enough, and Being a pagan is certainly out, if a Pagan weilds a crucifix it won't to anything to a demon he states (watch from around twenty minutes in).
These statements lead to some fundamental inconstancies in Long's worldview: Firstly, his own knowledge of Scripture, or certainly his interpretation, has been quite heavily criticised. Reverand Jack Ashcroft had these comments to make regarding Long's book "Through the eyes of an Exorcist":
"I've read many books on the subject of exorcism, spiritual warfare, angelology and demonology, yet none were as light on content and, in my opinion, demonstrative of the author's lack of theological knowledge.... Long starts off by telling us there are four types of spirit entities that interact with the living; Human, Inhuman, Elementals and Poltergeists. I can only assume this classification is an invention of the author, since it does not come from Christian theology, either Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Long writes of homes he claims are “haunted” by human spirits...the idea that the spirits of the dead are hanging around haunting people is Biblically fallacious. The Apostle Paul tells us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. (II Cor. 5:8) There is no intermediate state wherein “ghosts” can stick around to bother the living. Beyond this, even if one were to take a different theological position on that matter, (On Long's use of smudging in Blessings) smudging would be out of the question. Smudging is a Native American animistic practice and as such would fall under the prohibitions of Deut. 18:10-12. The fact that Long either does not know this, or at best ignores these facts is quite disturbing considering his claim to be a Christian clergyman."
You can read the first part of the review which elaborates on Long's issues with scripture here.
Another of Long's inconstancies is his rejection of Wicca and paganism, in fact at 30:00 in the interview he positively rages at paganism and Wicca. But as Rev. Ashcroft points out above, Long uses smudging in his rituals- part of Native American paganism- at 33:00 Long specifically states he has no right performing Paganistic rituals... yet he does anyway! Long's philosophy seems to be a hodge-podge of what ever practices appeal to him.
Also if he rejects Wicca and Paganism what does that tell us about his own Paranormal Clergy team, which consists of two shamans! By Long's own standards it tells us we probably should be entrusting the exorcism of the family dog to them. The way Long rants in the interview one would suspect that he wouldn't trust a shaman to walk the family dog, never mind rid it of demons!
Also consider the symbol Long's team uses on the right here. Seems to encourage secularism right? But on the very same site Long states his "theory" that exorcism rituals are being made too secular. This is a theory he is so proud of he puts a trade mark after printing it!
You can't trademark a theory you bloody idiot!
Add to these inconsistencies a charge of outright hypocrisy. At 37:00 minutes into the interviews he states that he went on Ghost Adventures to publicise the services his groups offers. "I just couldn't afford that kind of advertising" he states. He then goes on to rail about "attention seekers" on paranormal TV shows! According to his own profile on this website you've appeared on all of the following channels and shows.
Long states that this was to publicise endeavours that he does for free, but he blatantly solicits donations not for his Church, but for his personal ministry.
Also a course in Demonology at his ParaUniversity is anything but free! This is from man who explicitly states "I don't charge for anything." Sorry, that's an outright lie and to claim some moral superiority for doing everything for free when you know that you're charging $99 for your "expertise" is disgraceful. Long calls exorcists performing exorcisms via Skype "shysters" for charging for the service: I agree but how is he any better?
Also you'll notice that the required reading for this highly academic course are trashy shlock available from Amazon for $1.99! Here's a snippet you'll read from your first "textbook" as you embark on your "higher learning". Its highly complex so be prepared.
Taken from Dark Siege 1: A Connecticut Family's Nightmare. Reprinted for purposes of criticism and review.
The book continues in this vain, like a poor horror novel that purports to be a "true story." How does this sample stack up with the course description offered by Long?
Hmmmm.... its hardly "research" or "data" is it?
If you want to examine Long's motivation for his work as a demonologist listen to that interview I posted from about 1 hour 4. Long complains for twenty minutes about not earning enough money. About receiving only a "twenty dollar donation" or at one point "lousy ten dollar donation" for a job he did.
Charming. One presumes that he didn't embark on his calling for financial reward? He sure as hell gives that impression in that interview.
Inconsistencies, hypocrisy, outright lies, greed, bitterness, anger..... If I thought my house was occupied by a demon, I'd be tempted to stick with rather than call in Long. The demon isn't the only thing giving off a foul smell.
There's a lot around Long that stinks.
*One request... well suggestion. What can I say, I'm easily inundated.
Has anyone seen the supposed Bolivian football stadium ghost yet? During a match on 17th April 2014 at Hernando Siles Stadium in La Paz, Bolivia, a shadowy figure appeared to sprint at high speed through supporter seating, unimpeded by physical obstacles. Here it is and below that is my best guess as to what the rational cause may be.
First I though it may be a person running amongst the bleachers which separate one block of seats from another. I rejected this because the figure seems to be moving too fast, and crucially the movement seems too smooth to be an actual person.
I think what we are seeing here is simply the shadow of one of these cameras, this would explain the smoothness of motion, the apparent and the lack of physical interaction with seeming obstacles.
"But what about the distinct moving legs!" I hear you cry. I think that is simply an illusion caused by the shadow distorting as it passes over objects and dips between the stadium seats.
To me this case suggests the desperate need for GHOUL line technology.... Get it "ghoul" instead of "goal"! See... it's funny... sorry... OWN GOAL!
UPDATE: I WAS WRONG!
This isn't the shadow of an overhead camera, it actually is a person! Check out this video at around 0:48 and 1:05 to see him running down the stadium steps! Apologies guys. Just goes to show we all make mistakes, and we have to adjust our positions based upon new information.
Pet Peeve Time! I hate it when paranormal groups post "evidence" and then get offended when people come along and critique it. Take this group for example. The Supernatural Investigation Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/supernaturalinvestigationgroup/). Snappy name guys! They posted video footage to their page showing "something" interfering with one of their investigations in the bedroom of a client's house.*
As you can see, the camera shakes a little, strands of a light coloured fibrous material flash across the right-hand side of the screen, and the camera jerks upwards and then downwards. Now, it looked to me like someone accidentally nudging the camera, and then readjusting it. My first instinct said a curious child, told under no circumstance to touch the equipment, getting a bit bold then trying to cover their tracks. This seemed logical as the bedroom was clearly that of a young girl's. There were quite a few toys, dolls and what looked like a play kitchen and a fairytale castle.
When I asked the lead investigator if this was possible, they said no. Their clients had no children. Unfortunately, they had previously given the client's name and a link to her facebook page, a mere click revealed, the clients in question do indeed have children. Five of them, including two daughters, with... LONG... BLOND... HAIR. When I put this to the lead investigator, I was kicked from the group, the video was swiftly removed and the following rather libellous post was put up.
Here is something else interesting, how did the investigator set up this camera then leave the room, with toys stacked against the door? The lead investigator told me there were no other entrances or exits to this room. Implies to me there was someone in this room all along.
Look, if you are part of a paranormal group, and you have "evidence" that you are so emotionally invested in that you prepared to lie to preserve it.... DON'T PUT IT FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION. This will save butt hurt feelings all around. You can't expect everyone to share your complete lack of objectivity.
*Video reproduced for purposes of critical review.
** Unfortunately after this was posted implications were made that I was somehow viewing private information regarding people involved with this case. I can categorically state I have, at no point viewed anything that was not shared in the public domain, specifically Facebook. In addition to this, I only followed links provide by Deborah head investigator of this group. This demonstrates clearly how low some, by no means all, of these investigators are prepared to stoop to protect their evidence. Disgraceful!
The first thing I noticed when checking the gallery of photos in the Coventry Telegraph is that the rest of the photos clearly show that whatever the effect is, that it is also reflected in the floor of the hall.
The Green "apparition" reflected in the polished floor.
A little research revealed that the tapestry behind the Irish President is protected by a special form of glass which protects the piece from certain wavelengths of light. I think the "phantom" is simply light from one of the attending TV crews studio lights. In the top photo, the outline of a chair in front of this glass clearly makes up the right-hand side of the "apparition".
Its due to this that I think this apparition is simply light from studio lights, reflecting off the protective glass and then on to the polished floor. Could be vice versa. It's something for us to REFLECT on! Sorry...
Here's an image that has been circulating around the paranormally inclined on the net for a little while now. Variously described as either a "demon" or an extraterrestrial looming over the bed of a terminally ill patient (who died some after if you believe the story that is coming along with this in many cases), what this actually presents is an example of how our eyes can deceive us, and how our minds seek to organise random data based on our cultural bias.
So.... Quite creepy. The "shape" certainly resembles a hunched, deformed figure. But what are we actually seeing here? Here's an excellent breakdown of the "demon's" constituent parts from a metebunk user.
Now I don't know about you, but once I viewed that breakdown I could no longer "see" the demon or alien in the original image. That's the power of pareidolia and a great example of why we should never just believe our eyes when it comes to assessing indistinct images of alleged paranormal entities.
By Rob Lea. Ever since The Secret became a massive seller, the self-help market has been flooded with "mind-over matter" philosophy espousing books. These books claim to teach the reader how to receive gifts from a variety of mysterious forces, simply by wanting them enough. E^2 by Pam Grout is one such book which claims to contain experiments that allow the reader to "prove" that their mind shape shapes reality. Here is a list of principles given by Grout upon which this method is based. "1. There is an invisible energy force or field of infinite possibilities. 2. You impact the field and draw from it according to your beliefs and expectations. 3. You, too, are a field of energy. 4. Whatever you focus on expands. 5. Your connection to the field provides accurate and unlimited guidance. 6. Your thoughts and consciousness impact matter. 7. Your thoughts and consciousness provide the scaffolding for your physical body. 8. You are connected to everything and everyone else in the universe. 9. The universe is limitless, abundant, and strangely accommodating. Among other things, it teaches people how to drop poundage by doing nothing but changing the focus of their thoughts."-http://pamgrout.com/e-squared/
There is no suggestion here, or even a hint, of what mechanism is responsible for transferring ones thoughts to the matter which one desires to alter. Also notice the liberal use of the word "energy". Scientists have something very specific in mind when using the term "energy" it is in short, the capacity in a system to do work, it is a measurable feature of that system. There are many forms of energy, but the description above seems to conform with the New Age definition of energy, which is used as a place holder in lieu of explanation.
The concept that "thoughts and consciousness impact matter." is something I will address when I focus on the dangers of this way of thinking. But suffice to say until then this primacy of mind is quite easily disproved by the fact that physical influences on the brain alter the mind. Think of the effects that hallucinogens can have upon the mind, for instance. Experiments mapping neurological changes in the brain would also suggest that matter takes precedence over mind.
The following review, graded as most useful on Amazon.co.uk,£ highlights some of the ways in which believers in such nonsense fail in their justifications for these principles and the ultimate cruelty of "mind over matter" beliefs. I understand that this is just one person's opinion, but it is quite demonstrative of the way people who support this kind of thinking justify their beliefs. http://www.amazon.com/review/RV1V6EUXU7RRT/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RV1V6EUXU7RRT
From the review it's clear to see that when the supposed "proofs" manifest they are quite mundane, such as receiving tickets for an event. "Experiment #1 The Dude Abides Principle: I got a ticket to see Eckhat Tolle and Deepak Chopra at the Chopra Center in Carlsbad, California. How cool is that!!"
It maybe "cool", but it is not at all extraordinary if the said tickets were ordered and paid for! The reviewer fails to mention how apropos of nothing these tickets actually are. It seems like a case of making an everyday event extraordinary simply to suit purpose. "Experiment #5 The Dear Abby: I asked God and my Angels for guidance on how to make my business more succesful, and what I got at the next morning was a bunch of creative ideas, and something made me yell YES!!" The reviewer cites as further evidence coming up with ideas to improve their business, if this is an issue that has been on the reviewers mind, then it is likely they will eventually have some ideas which seem productive. Again there is no reason to imagine that some mysterious external force was responsible. Also we can't consider this extraordinary in anyway as we are not told if these ideas were actually successful or not. "Experiment #7 The Jenny Craig: I lost 1 pound by just thinking every zip of water would clean my organism."
In this case the Jenny Craig is a diet, if the reviewer is already on a diet then it seems likely they are, at very least, making some effort to control what they eat. So how can we possibly attribute weight loss to be due to how one "thinks" about water. "Experiment #8 The 101 Dalmatians: The friend I was thinking about and sending lots of blessings and happiness, rarely posts comments in Facebook, however at the second day of my experiment, she posted a picture of her beautiful growing vegetable garden and expressed how happy she was about it. That same night I was watching a movie and it turned out it was filmed in Verona,Italy; the city this friend is from." Again, there's nothing here that can be attributed to anymore than coincidence. If the friends garden had somehow been destroyed and then miraculously recovered after the start of experiment... that would be more convincing. One can only assume that this friend spends a great deal of time on his/her garden, and the only help they receive from the heavens is purely natural in the form of rainwater. As for the city connection. A coincidence, not at all convincing and as below, would of probably gone unnoticed if the reviewer had not been looking for it.
Then there are instances in which the reviewer has to do some "reaching" to make an experiment appear as if a success. "Experiment #2 The Volkswagen Jetta: I didn't see any sunset-beige cars, but I saw lots of yellow butterflies while watching Baby Einstein with my kids."
One could quite as easily said "well I didn't see any sunset-beige cars, but I did see lots of other cars" Also, let's say the reviewer had seen a sunset beige car. They would likely have no idea how many times they have seen a similar car, but simply never acknowledged the fact, because it simply hadn't been suggested to them that they should. And there are instances in which the reviewer blames themselves for the failure of these methods:
"Experiment #4 The Abracadabra: What I learned from this experiment is that you have to be specific when asking for something to manifest. I focused on getting $ 5,000 but I didn't specify if I wanted them in cash of check, so what I got was a spam e-mail with a picture of lots of bills a huge sign " Win $ 5,000" in the bottom of the e-mail."
This highlights the cruelty of those who propose this way of thinking. Anything that the reviewer does not achieve is not evidence that this nonsense doesn't work. No. They didn't want it enough! They should of been more specific!
OK, it maybe cruel, but is it dangerous? Well, without wanting to sound hyperbolic, I think this kind of thinking has the potential to do great harm. The people who tend to go in for this sort of thing are either looking for quick fixes for their problems or have problems which are beyond there capability to deal with. The employment of these methods may encourage those looking for a quick fix not to seek professional help for their problems.
This is especially troubling in the case of serious medical conditions.
This book is being promoted on pages such as this (www.facebook.com/HealYourLife?hc_location=stream), on Facebook, in conjunction with accounts of how thinking such as this aided in the recovery of cancer.
"When Louise Hay first heard that by changing your thinking your could change your life my life changed forever. This is the revelation she used to overcome cancer and to create the life she really wanted which was a total turn around from the life she had during the first 50 years of her life."
Now, I don't know if Louise Hay is a real person, or if she had cancer. But I would seriously doubt that if she recovered from cancer she did so purely through this method. To suggest this is the case is deeply irresponsible and, yes, dangerous. Oh and by the way if Louise had succumbed to her illness, according to the logic proposed by proponents of this method, it would of been her fault for not wanting it enough.
There is often no quick fix for our problems, all available evidence suggests that the universe doesn't bend to our wills, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
