posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:40 PM
The guy's arguments against paranormal activity are piss-poor.
1. A poltergeist might be expected to hurl objects TOWARDS the man in order to annoy or provoke him - which is often what poltergeists seem to be
intent on doing, if you read the literature in parapsychology. The fact, therefore, that the telephone and towel DO move towards the man cannot be
taken as unambiguous evidence of hoaxing. It ignores the possibility that an irate poltergeist just might want to throw things AT someone.
2. If the guy thinks everything was done with string, it is up to him to provide evidence of it. He doesn't. All he does is make the same bleats that
debunkers of the paranormal always make, namely, it had to be a hoax and so he had to have used string. Unless he provides proof of this, the
accusation is totally vacuous as an explanation.
3. The guy's analysis of the towel moving is ludicrous. How does the fact that the towel moves slightly before the man says so evidence or a sign that
he was pulling on string tied to it? It is nothing of the sort! It could be simply that the man in the room did not notice the initial very slight
movement. The guy needs to use some common sense.
4. Is a pair of scissors so uncommon in a house that it has to be evidence of cutting string before carrying out a hoax? Again, the guy is clutching
at straws. Hardly "damning evidence." Just a case of concocting evidence for what you want to believe.
5. Interpreting the man's right hand as what it would look like if it were pulling at a string attached to the hanger is once more clutching at
straws. Show me the string.
6. Far from being evidence of a hoax, the fact that the cup does not move when the man asks it to is evidence of paranormal activity because the man
would surely have pulled a string to move it after issuing the request to the supposed poltergeist.
This kind of piss-poor analysis of alleged paranormal activity will make debunkers here at ATS no doubt happy. More objective observers will just roll