View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

UM Ghost Segments

Share or recommend interesting films and videos about paranormal phenomena, awakening topics, skepticism, spirituality, metaphysics, science, conspiracies, etc.

UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 01 Dec 2009, 16:36

Some of my favorite segments on ghost encounters on Unsolved Mysteries ...

- Gordy's Ghost: Part 1

- Gordy's Ghost: Part 2

- Always Karen: Part 1

- Always Karen: Part 2

- Ghostly Attraction: Part 1

- Ghostly Attraction: Part 2

- Tatum's Ghost: Part 1/1
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26






Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2009, 01:24

I think I'll post some of my favorite episodes from Penn and Teller's BullSh*t in another thread...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 02 Dec 2009, 06:44

ProfWag wrote:I think I'll post some of my favorite episodes from Penn and Teller's BullSh*t in another thread...

They are good to critique. Full of holes. Very Sloppy. Very data omit happy. Very one-sided (never fairly represent the data or the other side at all). They tend to show the proponents who are the real extreme wackos complete with silly sci-fi music playing ("best of us, worst of them" logical fallacy), and then the serious proponents they interview, they heavily edit their comments, and edit out any good counter-arguments they make, to make them look like a buffon (some of those interviewed have complained about this on their blogs). Etc. At least their stuff on Paranormal Topics (the others don't seem as bad and as sloppy as those). I'd love to see them again (at least the paranormal ones) just to point out the errors, omitted data, misrepresentation, etc, in them.

Their episodes on Ghosts and NDEs were among the most ridiculosly strawmaned I've ever seen, they totally omitted ALL veridical aspects of those phenomenon (some types of which are in the cases I posted above), didn't even mention verifiable details once, and then went with an explanation that doesn't fit the data at all. A skeptic friend of mine even said their NDE episode was a shame.

I recall with one episode, I looked up two of the proponents who were interviewed on the show, on their blog, and they stated that they did answer all of Penn & Teller's skeptical arguments when they were interviewed, but THEY CUT IT OUT of the episode, and highly edited their segment to make them look like a buffon. And I've read similar complaints from other proponents who have been interviewed on the show.

Several years ago, I thought about writing an article called "Calling BS on Penn & Teller's BS". Maybe I should look into doing that again. I only care to tackle some of the Paranormal Topics though.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 02 Dec 2009, 22:03

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I think I'll post some of my favorite episodes from Penn and Teller's BullSh*t in another thread...

They are good to critique. Full of holes. Very Sloppy. Very data omit happy. Very one-sided (never fairly represent the data or the other side at all). They tend to show the proponents who are the real extreme wackos complete with silly sci-fi music playing ("best of us, worst of them" logical fallacy), and then the serious proponents they interview, they heavily edit their comments, and edit out any good counter-arguments they make, to make them look like a buffon (some of those interviewed have complained about this on their blogs). Etc. At least their stuff on Paranormal Topics (the others don't seem as bad and as sloppy as those). I'd love to see them again (at least the paranormal ones) just to point out the errors, omitted data, misrepresentation, etc, in them.


Yes, what you said is very true of Unsolved Mysteries... ;-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ciscop » 02 Dec 2009, 23:37

ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I think I'll post some of my favorite episodes from Penn and Teller's BullSh*t in another thread...

They are good to critique. Full of holes. Very Sloppy. Very data omit happy. Very one-sided (never fairly represent the data or the other side at all). They tend to show the proponents who are the real extreme wackos complete with silly sci-fi music playing ("best of us, worst of them" logical fallacy), and then the serious proponents they interview, they heavily edit their comments, and edit out any good counter-arguments they make, to make them look like a buffon (some of those interviewed have complained about this on their blogs). Etc. At least their stuff on Paranormal Topics (the others don't seem as bad and as sloppy as those). I'd love to see them again (at least the paranormal ones) just to point out the errors, omitted data, misrepresentation, etc, in them.


Yes, what you said is very true of Unsolved Mysteries... ;-)



uuuuh!!! NICEEEE ONE!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 03 Dec 2009, 05:01

ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I think I'll post some of my favorite episodes from Penn and Teller's BullSh*t in another thread...

They are good to critique. Full of holes. Very Sloppy. Very data omit happy. Very one-sided (never fairly represent the data or the other side at all). They tend to show the proponents who are the real extreme wackos complete with silly sci-fi music playing ("best of us, worst of them" logical fallacy), and then the serious proponents they interview, they heavily edit their comments, and edit out any good counter-arguments they make, to make them look like a buffon (some of those interviewed have complained about this on their blogs). Etc. At least their stuff on Paranormal Topics (the others don't seem as bad and as sloppy as those). I'd love to see them again (at least the paranormal ones) just to point out the errors, omitted data, misrepresentation, etc, in them.


Yes, what you said is very true of Unsolved Mysteries... ;-)

The difference here, is if you post Penn & Teller's BS (the paranormal episodes they did anyway), I can point out exactly where they are distorting the topic, what they are leaving out, etc. Why? Because rather than taking the show at face value, fact checking independently the statements being made is the smart thing to do.

With Unsolved Mysteries, I do the same thing (when I can find independent information online or offline regarding the cases presented.) Also, I NEVER CLAIMED NOR IMPLIED THEY ARE UNBIASED, DON'T LEAVE THINGS OUT, ARE NOT ONE-SIDED (Well, not all the time, they frequently had Michael Shermer, Joe Nickell and other Skeptics on many Episodes to get the Skeptic's side of the story). However, in some of these cases, you can look up the information on the cases presented independently of Unsolved Mysteries (you didn't think of that, brains are good, let's use them a little bit), and guess what? The information often matches. Stuff is often condensed for time purposes, but in some cases, like the first segment I posted, I've looked up the information independently, and guess what? It matches.

You skeptics are too lazy to do that, so with Penn & Teller's BS, you accept it at face value, and with paranormal segments on shows, you reject it as a television conspiracy at face value, without bothering to look up the cases independently and see what they got right or wrong.

Unsolved Mysteries is notorious for leaving information out of segments, they will profile murder cases and leave important clues and theories out of the mix, and with paranormal cases, oddly enough, they often leave out some of the best veridical (verifiable) stuff out of the cases (you'd think it would be the opposite, leaving out the skeptical stuff, but since many episodes interview Shermer and Joe Nickell, not really so). Like with the Dorothy Allison episodes, they left out quite a bit of her biggest hits from the cases they profiled.

Both shows have their flaws, and you need to look up stuff independently to filter out whatever was omitted or distorted. The episodes should only be merely a starting point for investigating the cases profiled.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 03 Dec 2009, 05:35

I have a better idea. How about not looking at either of those shows for information on the paranormal, but rather, research verifiable information from solid, respected sources on your own in all cases. Take these two shows (and others like them) at face value for what they are, extremely condensed versions of stories made for entertainment purposes only with little hint of scientific research. They are not to be taken seriously at all (and yes, even coming from a skeptic, that includes P&t's BS). I recognize what those types of shows are, but unfortunately, many don't. None of those shows should be used in any way, shape, or form to support a paranormal stance one way or the other.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 03 Dec 2009, 05:41

ProfWag wrote:I have a better idea. How about not looking at either of those shows for information on the paranormal, but rather, research verifiable information from solid, respected sources on your own in all cases. Take these two shows (and others like them) at face value for what they are, extremely condensed versions of stories made for entertainment purposes only with little hint of scientific research. They are not to be taken seriously at all (and yes, even coming from a skeptic, that includes P&t's BS). I recognize what those types of shows are, but unfortunately, many don't. None of those shows should be used in any way, shape, or form to support a paranormal stance one way or the other.

Well, you see, I grew up watching Unsolved Mysteries as a kid, and many of the cases they profiled (Paranormal and not) intrigued me growing up, that's why I have such a soft spot for it. And, now that there is so much information on the internet, I tend to watch many of these old cases on YouTube, and then look up whatever additional independent information I can find on them online, to get a better understanding of what actually happened. There is a great Unsolved Mysteries forum online where many people who were involved in these cases (usually relatives of murder victims) come on and give the full side of the story that was profiled in the show. There are also many people there who post new updates to the old cases, and present links, articles, books, etc, and other sources on many of the episodes profiled. So, it's not like it's hard to find independent information on the cases profiled. That's why I said I use Unsolved Mysteries and similar shows as a starting point for a case, and then research it independently from additional sources.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 03 Dec 2009, 05:54

Man, did I love that show back in the day so believe it or not, I do know what you mean about the soft spot. Just as good, if not better, was "In Search Of" with Spock.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 03 Dec 2009, 08:18

ProfWag wrote:Man, did I love that show back in the day so believe it or not, I do know what you mean about the soft spot. Just as good, if not better, was "In Search Of" with Spock.

Here's a YouTube User who has over 166 segments of the old "In Search Of" series on his channel, great nostalgia...

http://www.youtube.com/user/g8trman77
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Scepcop » 16 Dec 2009, 23:38

ProfWag,
You have no standards. Penn and Teller's Bullshit is full of just that, Bullshit! It's the most awful and insulting program I ever saw, period. It's nothing but ridicule and lies and using actors to make the other side look dumb. Shame on you. You obviously have the worst taste to even mention that disgusting show!
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 17 Dec 2009, 00:33

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
You have no standards. Penn and Teller's Bullshit is full of just that, Bullshit! It's the most awful and insulting program I ever saw, period. It's nothing but ridicule and lies and using actors to make the other side look dumb. Shame on you. You obviously have the worst taste to even mention that disgusting show!

And due to your lack of, well, whatever, you obviously didn't understand that I was trying to make a point. Eteponge uses Unsolved Mysteries as evidence of the paranormal. I mentioned the Penn and Teller thing to show that television shows such as the ones mentioned should NEVER be used as evidence of anything and are there only for entertainment purposes. So, you can criticize me again, as you have become quite good at it, but without comprehending the posts, you criticized for no reason. I made a point in another thread earlier that the negativity in this forum more often than not comes from the non-skeptics. This is just another notch to back my statement up.
Have a great day Scepcop!
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 17 Dec 2009, 01:57

ProfWag wrote:Eteponge uses Unsolved Mysteries as evidence of the paranormal.

That's not accurate. I use certain episodes as starting point overviews of specific cases that can be independently researched from additional (non-unsolved mystery) sources, to get a more accurate full view of the cases in question. Whenever I watch Unsolved Mysteries (no matter what case is being profiled, paranormal or non) I google the names involved to get additional and more up to date information on the cases in question. The show is just a starting point for data gathering. It's not hard to find independent sources on cases profiled to see what they got right or wrong or omitted in the episodes.

Another reason I post them is because they often contain rare video interviews with the actual persons involved in the cases, often times the only known video interviews with these persons. Such as the Dorothy Allison episode, the main reason I posted that one (in another thread) is because it interviewed the police detectives, relatives of the deceased, etc, involved in those cases, and is the only known video interviews done with them.

I don't claim the episodes as "evidence of the paranormal", merely an overview of specific cases that can be looked into independently.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby ProfWag » 17 Dec 2009, 03:04

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Eteponge uses Unsolved Mysteries as evidence of the paranormal.

That's not accurate. I use certain episodes as starting point overviews of specific cases that can be independently researched from additional (non-unsolved mystery) sources, to get a more accurate full view of the cases in question. Whenever I watch Unsolved Mysteries (no matter what case is being profiled, paranormal or non) I google the names involved to get additional and more up to date information on the cases in question. The show is just a starting point for data gathering. It's not hard to find independent sources on cases profiled to see what they got right or wrong or omitted in the episodes.

Another reason I post them is because they often contain rare video interviews with the actual persons involved in the cases, often times the only known video interviews with these persons. Such as the Dorothy Allison episode, the main reason I posted that one (in another thread) is because it interviewed the police detectives, relatives of the deceased, etc, involved in those cases, and is the only known video interviews done with them.

I don't claim the episodes as "evidence of the paranormal", merely an overview of specific cases that can be looked into independently.

Hmmm, my comment is not accurate? Let's let the readers judge for themselves:
"You keep ignoring over and over the significance context I give to the UM Episode, that it contains video interviews with the actual police detectives and family members of the victims who Dorothy Allison worked with, giving their testimonies of what happened, in context." by Eteponge on Friday, 14 Aug 2009 at 1:28 p.m. in the Dorothy Allison and the COncept of Signifance thread
So, I stand by my comments. If I was discussing astrology and used Penn and Teller's Astrology is Bullsh*t episode as a baseline, I would get hammered on here! But others can use a similar entertainment show just because it supports, rather then debunks, the paranormal? Sorry, obvious double standard.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: UM Ghost Segments

Postby Eteponge » 17 Dec 2009, 03:13

ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Eteponge uses Unsolved Mysteries as evidence of the paranormal.

That's not accurate. I use certain episodes as starting point overviews of specific cases that can be independently researched from additional (non-unsolved mystery) sources, to get a more accurate full view of the cases in question. Whenever I watch Unsolved Mysteries (no matter what case is being profiled, paranormal or non) I google the names involved to get additional and more up to date information on the cases in question. The show is just a starting point for data gathering. It's not hard to find independent sources on cases profiled to see what they got right or wrong or omitted in the episodes.

Another reason I post them is because they often contain rare video interviews with the actual persons involved in the cases, often times the only known video interviews with these persons. Such as the Dorothy Allison episode, the main reason I posted that one (in another thread) is because it interviewed the police detectives, relatives of the deceased, etc, involved in those cases, and is the only known video interviews done with them.

I don't claim the episodes as "evidence of the paranormal", merely an overview of specific cases that can be looked into independently.

Hmmm, my comment is not accurate? Let's let the readers judge for themselves:
"You keep ignoring over and over the significance context I give to the UM Episode, that it contains video interviews with the actual police detectives and family members of the victims who Dorothy Allison worked with, giving their testimonies of what happened, in context." by Eteponge on Friday, 14 Aug 2009 at 1:28 p.m. in the Dorothy Allison and the COncept of Signifance thread
So, I stand by my comments. If I was discussing astrology and used Penn and Teller's Astrology is Bullsh*t episode as a baseline, I would get hammered on here! But others can use a similar entertainment show just because it supports, rather then debunks, the paranormal? Sorry, obvious double standard.

I also pointed out how everything the detectives and relatives said in the videos matched what they said in other independent sources. I didn't use the UM Episode as my only source either. Fail.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Next

Return to Share Interesting Videos and Films

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron