Ghostly Experience

[Tannhauser]

Can we mention man-made global warming at this point?

 

Monsieur Provocateur

 

There is no such thing, its a Hoax.

 

No it's not, even if you give it a capital 'h'.

[Morpheus]

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Maths deals in absolutes. Science deals in probabilities. It tries to use a systematic gathering and analysis of evidence to establish general principles that can then be used to make specific predictions.

 

I agree with what you just very eloquently said but surely, if science deals in probabilities, not absolutes, hence the theory of relativity etc. how can it or anyone representing it, state that witnesses to ghosts, in this case, are "Woo Woo" or loopy etc. because that's more akin to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness or mass delusion.

 

It seems like a very absolute judgement to me about a fact, as you have chosen to see it. Do mathematics disprove disincarnate entities? Mathematics is afterall, the incredibly limited symbolic language of pattern recognition and nothing does that quite like the brain which also has the advantage of senses, ESP among them. Heard of RV, OOBE's? All mumbo jumbo, ok. I suppose Derren Brown disproved it all.

 

Interstingly though, it is apparently more common for people with abnormalities in their brains to experience such paranormal phenomena but that's not to put a negative conotation on abnormal. It simply means above or below average, which constantly begs the question, what is normal?

 

I'd say that on the balance of probabilities, (still a subjective opinion), ghosts and related phenomena, do exist, even if they are only a matter of perception, since everything is. Your brain right now is re-creating in it's own imagination, it's best attempt at the world around it via the available senses and no two people are alike in that regard. That's the whole point, btw!

 

You're just receiving reflections from visible light and sound etc. bouncing off everything and interpreting it all as solid when we know that atoms are anything but solid, as I said before, I think.

 

Where's the evidence for ghosts? That's the problem isn't it? Who decides what is and isn't 'admissible evidence' as if anyone had any right to pronounce judgement in the first place. It's still a process of subjective value judgements born out of the need for effeciency in order to pidgeon hole a subject and move on to the next. Scientists hate uncertainty. I wonder why? My brother is a nervous wreck!

 

To the experiencer, 'The paranormal' is real enough. Loads out there and a few good accounts in this thread but dismissing it all is merely convenient, not scientific. Also, just because science might not have the tools yet to observe them, though some would say they have, that isn't a logical argument for their non-existence. It's what David Icke calls tent pitching. How far down the road will you travel before you get tired and pitch your tent, (or close your mind). He's still walking and so are many others because he's not satisfied with what science has to offer, or more accurately, the way in which it has been used/misused. It conflicts with his experience and ideals.

 

I'm not knocking logic but it has it's limitations in proving or disproving things like this. Computers use logic circuits but they can't parallel process to the degree that the brain does. The brain uses logic too, I'm sure but people who only use basic logical arguments like computers aren't thinking, they're calculating, i.e. using specific rules applied in specific ways to determine a specific outcome, usually the desired one depending upon who pays for the research!

 

The mechanisms are well known in cancer for example but still "We need more money to develop a DRUG that will cure it". Twenty more years and it will be the same, no doubt. You have it right now in some of your three trillion cells. The body deals with it on it's own every day. How? This is known but it's not profitable to find a cure or help prevent it. Causes vary, of course.

 

I would argue for instance, that logically ghosts should exist because I can see the mechanism by which this can occur. Infact if they didn't appear to atleast some people, I'd be more surprised, given the way in which conciousness works.

 

They may only be memories 'imprinted' in the magnetic field of the Earth in specific locations but they're still ghosts to the experiencer.

 

If matter isn't solid and visible light is but a tiny fraction of the (known) energy spectrum which is theoretically infinite, (some animals, insects etc. can see infrared, ultraviolet, Sharks can 'see' electrical fields etc.), then maybe some people can also sense or see higher or lower frequencies than the norm?

 

Logic starts with a set of rules or assumptions, (A+B=X for example as determined to be valid already by whatever means, as you said), and proceeds to apply them in the assumption that the outcome will be correct. According to those rules it will be, of course.

 

However, if those rules are decided by individuals with a desire to deny a particular outcome for whatever reason, there is a bias. The rules dictate the outcome, since they are variable. Pure logic begins with first cause. The very beginning of space/time itself. If relativity (or similar) is the rule, there is no one correct view. You could say that the entire Universe is a big blob of sh*te if you wanted to and no-one could prove you wrong!

 

Again, calling someone loopy etc. sounds pretty biased and unscientific, not to mention disrespectful.

 

It wouldn't matter what I or anyone else said, if that's your position, you'll stick to it. This is how we create our reality, by projecting, since everything 'out there' is a projection 'in here', in the mind's eye. Mind energy is another 'matter'.

 

I think Bill Hicks said it best;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q95kX_EP2Nk&feature=related

[Ian C]

This explains a lot about your "technical" posts.

 

"Next door's cat miaowed and my car started! That's the fix for any car not starting ever! Evidence is all I want it to be! Now to build an airport out of wood on my island, to attract the great iron birds again."

[Charlotte]

The mechanisms are well known in cancer for example but still "We need more money to develop a DRUG that will cure it". Twenty more years and it will be the same, no doubt. You have it right now in some of your three trillion cells. The body deals with it on it's own every day. How? This is known but it's not profitable to find a cure or help prevent it. Causes vary, of course.

 

Oh. My. God.

[Rob]

You are actually saying that a cure for cancer is easily achieved but scientists and pharmacy companies are holding out so they can sell more treatment stuff?

 

I ask just so we are all clear on what you are implying.

[Lbm]

Has my good friend Carl S got a double account?

 

Regarding this..and I'm no scientist...

 

...but surely, if science deals in probabilities, not absolutes, hence the theory of relativity etc. how can it or anyone representing it, state that witnesses to ghosts, in this case, are "Woo Woo" or loopy etc. because that's more akin to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness or mass delusion.

 

I'd like you to define Theory.

 

I believe a theory can be more than just an hypothesis.

 

Over time through careful observation, a theory becomes accepted as fact.

 

I'm no Mr T, but I believe this is correct.

[marc_p]

My house is haunted, I keep waking up to find a ghost has deposited it's sticky ectoplasm in my underwear:blink:

[Tannhauser]

4 am post

 

Your post covers a lot of ground, and it would be difficult to respond to all of it. You've now raised the issues of evidence, science and the paranormal several times, so let's have a crack at that.

 

I definitely don't see people who have paranormal experiences as all being loopy. Many of them have experiences that are profound and sometimes life-changing. I see them as being mistaken as to the origins of those experiences.

 

There are terrifically strong reasons for distrusting reports of the sort you're talking about - anecdotal evidence from 'everyday experiences'. Careful research has established many ways in which its possible to convince yourself that something has happened.

 

To give you one example, there's a paper by Wiseman R. & Greening, E. (2005). ['Its still bending': Verbal suggestion and alleged psychokinetic metal bending. British Journal of Psychology,96(1), 115-127.] Here's what they did. 100 participants viewed video footage of a magician apparently bending some keys. Half of them had a soundtrack that suggested the keys were still bending after they were placed back on the table, the other half had no soundtrack. They were then asked what they could remember.

 

I'm looking at the graph now and it's astonishing. None of those without the soundtrack recalled the keys bending, whereas two thirds of those with the soundtrack did. Remember, they are recalling what they thought they saw. More amazing is when they were asked about the soundtrack: 90% of those who thought the keys bent didn't even recall the statement.

 

The point is that suggestion, mood, cognitive dissonance, prior belief systems, Forer effects, Barnum effects,cold reading, confirmation bias,placebo effects and so on can all be very powerful. There is no way of controlling for these in everyday experiences. The only way to come up with convincing evidence for the paranormal is to move it into the lab.

 

Even lab studies have one terrific vulnerability: they are run by scientists who aren't used to dealing with liars. This was comprehensively demonstrated by James Randi's infiltration of Project Alpha in 1981 (?). It's taken a few years before paranormal researchers have developed the savvy to deal with fraudsters.

 

And guess what? When you strip away all possibilities of other explanations, the paranormal phenomena just disappear. The only positive results come out of the same one or two labs, which is highly suspicious.

 

If a phenomenon is genuine, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't appear under controlled conditions. There's nothing magical (or anti-magical) about a lab: it just takes away the possibility of cheating or self-deception. Time after time after time, the same thing happens: supposed psychic abilities evaporate the instant the conditions become controlled. Paranormal buffs use the excuse of 'jealous phenomena': the effects cannot be manifested if the researcher isn't a believer! Now, if that isn't the lamest excuse in the known universe, I'm Graham Norton (and I'm not!).

 

That, in a nutshell, is my principal objection to claims of paranormal activity: if we apply the same rules of careful observation as we do to anything else, the evidence vanishes into the mist.

[Tannhauser]

Heard of RV, OOBE's? All mumbo jumbo, ok. I suppose Derren Brown disproved it all.

 

Funnily enough, I have heard of OOBEs. In fact, I think that there's a thread where I mention some current thinking on either those or NDEs: It's in this thread somewhere.

 

RVs certainly are mumbo jumbo.

 

RV should have gone the way of witches and forest-sprites years ago. Derren Brown does his bit, but there's also plenty of serious research into them. Since the use of auto-Ganzfeld procedures (which eliminate a lot of unintentional cue giving), they've been on the wane.

[Harry Sachs]

at the thread tag.

[Tannhauser]

at the thread tag.

 

Not my handiwork, by the way.

[Morpheus]

This explains a lot about your "technical" posts etc.

 

This one's a monster too so it's going to seriously annoy some of the A.D.D. ones so just skip the post or delete the email notification or unsubscribe, PLEASE! You have been warned!

 

Ian,

 

I know that this was a general gripe with me so all I can say is that evidence means nothing on here it seems, so long as it conflicts with accepted wisdom or lack of. Click on Bertrand Russell on my signature for one of his quotes to the effect that, if something doesn't agree with your instincts, you'll reject it and vice versa. Of course, you'll turn it round on me and use it as evidence that I'm the one who refuses to listen to reason. It works both ways ala 'theory of relativity', more on that with Lbm's reply later.

 

Sorry for not multiquoting, as I do it all from memory and it will appear as tangential as ever to everyone else, I'm afraid.

 

The thrust of my posts here is that belief affects/creates reality, as no amount of evidence will be accepted by a professional skeptic (my definition = active denial, selective memory or one who's income depends on maintaining their current belief system etc. like my Physicist/Scientist brother) or indeed someone who doesn't know what they're talking about or simply dislikes someone or their car. That's all it takes. Same as racism and misplaced trust is all it takes for Government/Big Pharma to get away with genocide, 9/11 etc.

 

It's all a click away but knowledge brings the burden of responsibility, hence denial ad infinitum of the provable and obvious.

 

Trust in authority figures is key.

 

That's literally all it takes if people can't or won't think things through for themselves as it replaces the need to do so. That is why Government exists; clever, organised people plan everyone else's life for them from cradle to grave to save them the effort of being self-sufficient/responsible. It's called Socialism. For this to be workable/stable, you need compliance. A Status Quo. Very simple but I wasn't taught this at school.

 

I am a born skeptic. I question everything (within reason). That's why I'm so convinced about David Icke's work etc.

 

He's spent 20 solid years of fulltime research into the origins of civilisation and I've done my own along side, which includes but is not limited to 'his' mostly referenced material. He questions everything and he's not the only one saying all this 'controversial' stuff about shapeshifting etc.

 

If I am 'wrong' about something, as I've been told many times on here, usually in blanket statement form, people should be able to correct me with specifics, since you (and others) are obviously 'right'. Logical enough? Yet I get slandered and told to prove everything with evidence, which then gets ignored anyway, since few seem to have understood a word I've said so far. We are not born equal in our ability or more importantly our desire to understand things. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

Do I literally have to spell this out? Why do you think my posts are so long? Do you think I enjoy staying up until 4am to explain stuff that I've already covered, just in a different way, in an attempt to home-in on an explanation that 'makes sense' to a trained skeptic?

 

Next I'll be accused of going off topic when I didn't even mention cars, like I didn't mention David Icke until Tannhauser did, as I said I wouldn't, except in my defence (against cheap jibes usually). I was told that this is primarily a car forum elsewhere by Lbm (like, hello? 'Off Topic' anyone?) but even on off topic threads I am held to account. I'm not on here as a 'sounding board for my beliefs' anymore than anyone else. I'm just confident enough to publish them, that they may help someone else. Take it or leave it. What's the worst that can happen? They waste ten minutes. Oh dear me, I'm sure! Try several weeks!

 

As for Mr. T..... I respect your methodical approach and agree with most of your comments but you even (deliberately?) misunderstand obvious intended meanings because of your genuine inability perhaps, to see so much in the context of the worldview of the speaker/poster. The aim seems to be to score points, rather than understand someone's underlying point. My Bro does this and even keeps score.

 

This is what happens when you are inexperienced in dealing with people who don't write or think with scientific discipline and rigour. It just doesn't work with most people because they're not logical! They have their own way of expressing themselves as best they can. One needs to have the good grace to allow them that privilege. Lack of presentation skill doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, though I'm the first to complain about it under my breath.

 

We can all disect eachother's sentences and too many do it themselves and don't clean up afterwards by the look of it but words are the least reliable form of communication. What are words if not individual symbols to represent mental images or beliefs? What are beliefs? Experientially derived or borrowed jigsaw puzzle pieces. When you sort them out, they form a big picture. If they don't sit well with eachother, they're in the wrong place or the wrong puzzle. I have a totally coherent worldview now although I can quite understand anyone laughing at that statement, given their worldview. Everything can be seen in context for me. I've been around the block a few times, maybe.

 

"Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in Dollars and Cents, Pounds, Shillings and Pence." as the Genius Roger Waters put it. What a song! It goes a lot deeper than just money though (another classic). That reminds me, must check tickets for O2 concert. Hope there's still some left!

 

Sorry for the stupidly long posts but when I think I have something to contribute, I say so. When I don't, I don't. I see everything and everyone in context, myself included, as the sum total of their experience so far.

 

Sorry, what was the question? Oh, there wasn't one, just another cheap jibe about me not knowing some guy called Jack Schitt.

 

Lbm, it's still called 'The General Theory of Relativity', I believe, not 'The General Law of Relativity' as in 'Boyle's Law' or 'Newton's First Law of Motion' where a high powered Deer with it's legs blown off ( ) will travel in a straight line until an unbalanced force acts upon it, like a car bonnet for example. (From another thread).

 

To whomever asked me to clarify regarding cancer and cures being withheld; yes, that's what I meant. Please don't hold me to task about this next bit as I'm quoting from memory from a book I read twenty years ago called 'The Calcium Diet'. I was heavily into bodybuilding, nutrition and fitness like Tannhauser appears to be when I was at that age. 41 now. I did more reading than training though, due to back problems trying to do what he's doing in his Avatar. Just not built for it. Scoliosis.

 

I digress.

 

Forgive the pre-amble but it's important to my point. This is a serious subject and anyone can succumb to it these days it seems. Cancer is apparently the out of control multiplication of cells when one cell dies for whatever reason, as they do all the time, and the surrounding cells 'take a vote' and one reproduces to replace it. This is dependent upon sufficient Calcium etc. in the area, for the electrical communication to be effective, since every cell communicates with atleast those around it through calcium bonds, so it says.

 

You need sufficient Magnesium to utilise/absorb Calcium and this is the main deficiency so I'm told, atleast in my case. Without sufficient Magnesium, the body stores calcium, which can cause other problems in the joints etc.

 

Due to poor diet or food quality, metabolism, genetic faults etc., this routine repair process sometimes, though rarely becomes a runaway problem because the replicating cell doesn't receive the signal to stop and next the immune system attempts to stop it by killing it, if it knows about it in time and functions properly itself.

 

Now, I beg the obvious question; given that the entire Human Genome (DNA blueprint) has been mapped, after how much money and time does the collective World 'Scientific' Community not ask themselves, "What is the difference between a healthy individual and one with cancer?"

 

"What causal factors may affect this differential?"

 

Do you think that this hasn't been established by now, or are all cancers so unique, as to send researchers back to square one without passing 'GO' in each case, as you'd be forgiven for thinking, like they haven't learned the basic causes or atleast methods of prevention by now by a process of elimination or trial and error? This is to say nothing about listening to those who 'claim' to know the solution/s.

 

I know it messes with many people's comfort zones but it makes sense to me and I'm not afraid to consider the implications, uncomfortable as they may be. Cue Roger Waters again.........

 

I believe that Ghosts are real, though I've never seen one. Felt one, yes (ooer!). A workmate said today when told about this thread, that he gets the same feeling at the bottom of his stairs, except that it's "Satan behind him, or an old woman". I kid you not. There, back on topic.

 

P.S. Heavily edited before posting to get it under 10,000 characters.

 

Probably to be told it's all rubbish anyway. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.

[Tannhauser]

I was heavily into bodybuilding, nutrition and fitness like Tannhauser appears to be when I was at that age. 41 now.

 

Not that it matters, but actually, I'm not into any of those things. I'm a powerlifter (albeit not a very accomplished one). Also, if you're suggesting that I'm younger than you - though I may have misunderstood what you're saying - sadly, that's not the case.

[Charlotte]

To whomever asked me to clarify regarding cancer and cures being withheld; yes, that's what I meant. Please don't hold me to task about this next bit as I'm quoting from memory from a book I read twenty years ago called 'The Calcium Diet'.

 

Two things. Do you drink? A lot of your post doesn't actually relate to anything, not just off topic but off the scale of randomness.

 

And how can you not be held to task about this (the above statement) when you say such a thing as that?

 

Come and spend a day at my place of work - a clinical trials department - you might learn a thing or two.

[stevie_b]

The inevitability of David Icke coming up in paranormal internet discussions seems to be a variation of Godwin's Law!

 

Beast, I hear what you're saying and believe some of it, although most/all of it can't be proven in a scientifically rigorous way. Scientists have to be able to reproduce results and be able to use theories in order for those theories to become accepted. Whatever it is about ghostly phenomena (whatever it actually is, whether it's really supernatural, someone playing elaborate tricks, or the mind playing tricks on oneself), it is unable or unwilling to be relaibly reproducible.

[Tannhauser]

Whatever it is about ghostly phenomena (whatever it actually is, whether it's really supernatural, someone playing elaborate tricks, or the mind playing tricks on oneself), it is unable or unwilling to be relaibly reproducible.

 

Steve, I commented on this in an earlier post.

 

If a phenomenon is genuine, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't appear under controlled conditions. There's nothing magical (or anti-magical) about a lab: it just takes away the possibility of cheating or self-deception. Time after time after time, the same thing happens: supposed psychic abilities evaporate the instant the conditions become controlled.

 

It seems to me we have two explanations of paranormal phenomena available to us:

 

 

1. They are explicable through physical/psychological effects that are already described by science.

2. They are geninely something 'beyond' our current understanding (such as the existence of a spirit world).

 

When we look at explanation (1), I think we do actually have reproducible evidence. We know that many paranormal type effects can be produced by fraudsters. We know that at least some of the effects can be reproduced in experimental situations. For example, there is some very interesting work on out of body experiences an 'sensing a presence' that can reliably reproduce these types of effects through (for example) inducing certain brain states (e.g. hypoxia). What we don't have is reprducible evidence for explanation (2).

 

When we strip away any possibiliy of effects due to explanation (1), the paranormal effects disappear, leaving us no reason for accepting (2) as a valid hypothesis.

 

Now, this isn't to say that explanation (2) could never be correct, but that the available evidence gives us no reason to believe that it is the case. It's just not a robust phenomenon. Paranormal experiences have now been investigated in controlled conditions for eighty years - ample opportunity for them to come to light if they are real.

[Morpheus]

Not that it matters, but actually, I'm not into any of those things. I'm a powerlifter (albeit not a very accomplished one). Also, if you're suggesting that I'm younger than you - though I may have misunderstood what you're saying - sadly, that's not the case.

 

No worries, I was talking about the book I read 20 years ago and said I was into weights like you appear to be now, back when I was younger, so no, not referring to your age atall.

[Ewen]

I was driving back to Dorset from Lowestoft one night. I'd driven there that morning, starting off at around 4.30am, five hour drive, full day of work up there, five hour drive on the way home to look forward to. It was very late, I was dog tired, it was very dark.

The first time I 'saw one' I honestly thought a large black bison had walked out into the motorway a way ahead in front of me. I was actually surprised that it wasn't there when I got to where I thought it had crossed the carriage way. The hairs on the back of my neck were up, but after a while I was back in the driving groove. Then, a few miles later, I saw another one...much larger this time, crossing the road a few hundred yards ahead or so. It moved slow, left to right, a massive black shape hunched up and head down I thought. It didn't have legs, it just drifted across the road surface. Again, it had gone when I reached the spot.

I was really shaken up, I'd seen something I couldn't explain or comprehend. I carried on, miles and miles in the dark, then I saw some more of these things...this time two or three great hulking black shapes crossing the road from left to right. I slowed right down, trying to make out what the effing ell these things were...as I focussed on them, they slowly vanished into the dark, moving back the way they had come. They seemed to merge with the trees lining the motorway, and they were gone.

I stopped at the next services, got some coffee, fell asleep in the car park and slept for a few hours before carrying on. I didn't see any more for the rest of the journey home.

[Morpheus]

Two things. Do you drink? A lot of your post doesn't actually relate to anything, not just off topic but off the scale of randomness.

 

And how can you not be held to task about this (the above statement) when you say such a thing as that?

 

Come and spend a day at my place of work - a clinical trials department - you might learn a thing or two.

 

I'm sure I would learn something Charlotte. Trialling what precisely? Dietary supplements? Detoxification protocols? Diagnostic equipment? Double blind research studies to find the most effective cures from all the known substances/methods/healing arts etc. for each ailment?

 

No, I rarely ever drink alcohol as it's a chemical solvent and fuel and certainly never at home, nor am I under the influence of anything else but coffee, hence the late nights! I am stone cold sober, though in the context of the complex principles and ideas that I am trying to explain and the fact that I'm constantly misunderstood, I feel that too much is not enough, as proven again here.

 

If you re-read the bit where I said "Please don't take me to task" etc. it was clearly in relation to the information in the book that I read and the possibility of misquoting it from memory.

 

The more controversial statement, was entirely a seperate matter and I was not asking not to be held to account for that. I see it as utterly self-evident that finding a cure for cancer is just about the last thing that the Pharmaceutical Industry wants. Ill health is a bigger earner than good health. The cure for cancer is like the war on terror or my posts, i.e. never-ending!

 

A cure or an effective 'lifestyle based' prevention regime would put them out of business, plain and simple. They'd have to come up with something else like 'Aidswinebirdsars'. All man-made. You ain't seen nothin' yet. Just look after your immune system is all I can say.

 

Infact, as if I needed to spell it out, drug companies only exist because of ill health so what possible motivation have they for finding a cure? That's like saying that Kwik-Fit have developed a tyre that never wears out or gets punctured, (infact......). That's not to say that one or more effective methodologies for dealing with cancer as an example, don't exist, as I believe that they do.

 

Businesses exist to make a profit for the handful of individuals who founded it or run it. Let's call them Shareholders. They may start out with altruistic goals but to compete, they will be forced or inclined to 'compromise' those principles sooner or later, if anyone else has already done so, as it tightens the profit margins. It's a downward spiral of cost cutting and market chasing and as we all know, ethics go out the window.

 

Before you know it, Smithkline becomes Smithkline Beecham, then Glaxo becomes Glaxo Wellcome, then they merge into Smithkline Glaxo Wellcome and then you're left with The Wellcome Foundation or whatever . as a hypothetical or actual scenario.

 

My point is that drugs are seen to be the only option in practically every ailment. Your Doctor is now just a State funded Drug Rep. sitting there with his prescription pad and a financial incentive to issue prescription drugs. If ever there was a conflict of interests..............

 

How about Pfizer and Tamiflu that cost us £2 billion was it? Swine Flu, Bird Flu, H1N1, H5N1 respectively if I recall.

 

Anyone see a pattern here?

 

I remember Mayor Ken on the radio saying that "When the pandemic hits etc." in regard to Tamiflu 'vaccines' (which don't exist for our consumption) for 'Birdflu' or SARS a few years ago. Pandemic?

 

Turned out that it faded away and didn't cause many deaths compared to regular flu which kills thousands every year. Then came Swine Flu. Same talk of Pandemic, no pandemic to speak of. Meanwhile, we're billions in debt to drug companies. Feck me, how does this work?

 

Remember Sars before Bird and Swine? It was genospecific to Asians, in most cases as they were the only ones dying in Canada. When they got wind of this, if you'll forgive the pun, guess what the Chinese and Japanese did? They bankrupted The United States by selling their Treasury Bonds to stop them trying to kill everyone!

 

That kickstarted this whole global crisis. The world is now run by a virtual monopoly of criminals who have a stated intention to reduce the population and the last thing they want is cures for anything, while you or your colleagues work hard to develop them. Sorry but feel free to correct me.

[Ewen]

....I see it as utterly self-evident that finding a cure for cancer is just about the last thing that the Pharmaceutical Industry wants....

I see it the other way round. Skcollob gniklat er'uoy basically.

[TonyP]

I see it the other way round. Skcollob gniklat er'uoy basically.

 

deedni

[Morpheus]

I was driving back to Dorset from Lowestoft one night. I'd driven there that morning, starting off at around 4.30am, five hour drive, full day of work up there, five hour drive on the way home to look forward to. It was very late, I was dog tired, it was very dark.

The first time I 'saw one' I honestly thought a large black bison had walked out into the motorway a way ahead in front of me. I was actually surprised that it wasn't there when I got to where I thought it had crossed the carriage way. The hairs on the back of my neck were up, but after a while I was back in the driving groove. Then, a few miles later, I saw another one...much larger this time, crossing the road a few hundred yards ahead or so. It moved slow, left to right, a massive black shape hunched up and head down I thought. It didn't have legs, it just drifted across the road surface. Again, it had gone when I reached the spot.

I was really shaken up, I'd seen something I couldn't explain or comprehend. I carried on, miles and miles in the dark, then I saw some more of these things...this time two or three great hulking black shapes crossing the road from left to right. I slowed right down, trying to make out what the effing ell these things were...as I focussed on them, they slowly vanished into the dark, moving back the way they had come. They seemed to merge with the trees lining the motorway, and they were gone.

I stopped at the next services, got some coffee, fell asleep in the car park and slept for a few hours before carrying on. I didn't see any more for the rest of the journey home.

 

Blimey, that sounds like something out of Lord Of The Rings!

The trees have had enough! In that case, I'm done for, as I'm a Joiner/Cabinetmaker!

[Lbm]

Ewen's story...

 

Perhaps it was the spectre of your imminent fuel bill

 

I like these kinds of things though.

 

I've had a 'being thrown around my bed by an external force' episode and seen a UFO with my mum when I was 10 years old. But do I believe in poltergeists and visiting alien craft?

 

No.

[nevins]

I'm so fed up of seriously long posts full of crap, and Beast a word of warning don't try and go up against tanhauser, you will not win!

[Morpheus]

I see it the other way round. Skcollob gniklat er'uoy basically.

 

Prove it.