It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robbie Williams: My mansion is spooked

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Because most sane people realise the Sun is infamous for lieing and Robbie Williams is completely and utterly mad!


So you reject the Sun as a reliable source, which no one can blame. But what makes your opinions more credible? It would be interesting to see, which sources you base your knowledge with, regard to his mental condition, addictions and his "role " in Take That?

He has made no secret of his addictions. Nor has it been at the expense of others or made him a criminal.

Nor is it a secret, he has fought his way out of his addictions, which is excellent, when you consider how many people die every day as a result of abuse.

Fortunately, it seems as though he is linked to some people he can trust. This must mean everything to them that end up in the company of fame and fortune. Especially if the person in the end, when you peel away that image, is and always will be a "regular" guy who makes money by being a popstar




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner
 



Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner

I dont disagree with you but when you abuse alcohol and drugs who in their right mind is going to take for granted what you say you've experienced? I think Robbie Williams is a great guy but as a witness his testimony Isn't worth two carrots as any researcher worth his salt would admit that a witness who takes drugs or indulges in excess alcohol cannot, now or ever, be deemed a reliable witness.


So you would dismiss the testimony and doubt the credebility of anyone who has used drugs or over indulged in alcohol?
That doesn't leave many people at all and certainly discounts most of the greatest minds and talents that ever lived.

And to be honest, my experience and impression of those of a more temperate disposition is that of a more opinionated and conservative outlook and certainly not being open minded or responsive to new or 'unconventional' ideas.
A generalisation?
Yes.
But certainly no more so than your's!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner
 


There is a BIG problem with your words..

You're not wrong, as EMF does have a bit part in some of the modern day issues that get reported, be it ill health, halucinations etc..

the problem is that paranormal activity has been reported for hundreds of years.. way before electricity was ever "invented" as such. This, of course, does not discount natural earth fields of EMF but, nonetheless, ghosts have been seen, heard and influenced many peoples lives.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


I'm not discounting the fact that ghosts and poltergeists have been experienced since records began. I think the first good description of a polt case comes from Roman garrison camped out somewhere in France in the 400s! What I'm saying is that science will dismiss a haunting anyway they can. The current chief topic for blame is the EMF build ups, either natural or artificially produced. They will go to any lengths to debunk these cases! So, the testimony of a drug taker and alcohol abuser will simply be laughed out of court. I dont agree with it but it is what would happen if ever Williams claims were put to the test.
It falls into the same category as those who see UFOs while on the way home from the pub who, in the minds of the debunkers, suddenly become drunks who are seeing pink elephants.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I think this is going a little bit off topic for this particular thread,

Anyway, Sharman’s, witch doctors, native American ‘s. Australian aboriginals, oh my gosh the list goes on and it covers the whole world.

They all used or still do use certain herbs and rituals to speak to their deceased elders and guides.

And I haven’t even covered those like Nostradamus who could see the future.
And yes if you read about him you will discover he was also in some kind of trance and used many herbs and items to get in the “zone”

Now I’ve never taken drugs and only had major drugs while in hospital for operations.
Never the less I still believe in what has been written about other realms and ghostly appearances.

Doctors and scientists to this day state they do not know the potential of the human brain and that’s not even counting all of our senses .

So no, in my opinion no one’s statement should be rejected until scientist , doctors and cult leader (church’s) have it all figured out.

edit on 19/2/11 by Whateva69 because: oops



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
What I'm saying is that science will dismiss a haunting anyway they can. They will go to any lengths to debunk these cases!


What you're describing is not science. Science is the systematic study of nature based upon knowledge gained through use of the scientific method, a step by step model utilized to avoid falling prey to the logical fallacies and pitfalls that you're not only describing, but actually employing through your use of ad hominem attacks against Mr. Williams in this thread. Someone who claims to be a researcher "of some thirty years" should know this well, and know better.

You've provided no evidence that Mr. Williams was under the influence of any substance that would alter his senses at the time of his alleged sighting(s). Instead, you attack the man based on the fact that he's been uncommonly honest regarding his past transgressions. Such actions are poor form for a claimed "researcher".
edit on 2/19/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I've also seen ghosts and indeed, the spirits of both my grand-granma and my grand-granpa lives in my flat. And i'm not a popstar nor a drug user (just alcohol and cigarettes for me) so...
Also I've read some of his posts here and he doesn't seem to be mad at all, just a nice guy (who's incredible modest too it's scary) that if you take away the fact of being famous is just that, a pretty nice guy.
There's plenty of another celebs on this forum that goes anonymous and maybe if you all knew who is behind the keyboard you'll be surprised, because if they exposed their real identities, you'll blame them in the same way you're doing it with mr. W. ...

... Lord...



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


But I don't have to provide evidence that Robbie Williams was under the influence of alcohol or drugs as he does that for me! He admits it himself, and as such, any debunker who studied his testimony would instantly point this out and claim that he was under the influence of said drugs or alcohol...
Therefore his testimony whether it be real or hallucinatory, would be rendered pointless.
If you don't see that then you are kidding yourself or have your head full of the nonsense portrayed on are television sets which claims to be serious psychical research such as Most Haunted etc...
If we are going to accept the testimony from known and admitted drug and alcohol abusers should we now accept the evidence from psychopaths who killed due to hearing voices in their head? Where do you draw the line between a witness a who you can take seriously and someone you doubt!!?
Me!? I wont to listen to witness who is clean from mind influencing drugs or allcohol, who I can question and at the end of the day have to answer one of two questions... Are they serious or are they lieing... I don't need to wonder if they were drunk that night or were they high on drugs prior to their experience...
You, in my opinion, should stick to watching Most haunted and TAPs and leave the serious investigation of hauntings to those of us who can spot bull# from a mile off.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
But I don't have to provide evidence that Robbie Williams was under the influence of alcohol or drugs as he does that for me! He admits it himself...


For a claimed "researcher" it's beginning to look as if you may have been too lazy to even read the article in the original post. If you can quote the portion of the article where Mr. Williams states he was under the influence of a substance that would alter his senses at the time of his alleged experience it would certainly help to clear the air, and prove that you're not just blatantly lying with your allegation.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
any debunker who studied his testimony would instantly point this out and claim that he was under the influence of said drugs or alcohol...


I'm fully aware that 'debunkers' sometimes lie and/or use logical fallacies in attempts to sway public opinion; however, in this case it certainly wouldn't be necessary as long as you were being honest in your prior allegation. Again, simply quote the portion of the article (helpfully linked in the thread's starting post) where Mr. Williams states that he was under the influence of an intoxicant in order to clarify that aspect of the alleged experience.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Therefore his testimony whether it be real or hallucinatory, would be rendered pointless.


Only if you believe that logical fallacies constitute valid arguments to draw conclusions from. Here's how such a fallacy plays out...

Someone calls the police and proceeds to tell the dispatcher that there's been a shooting. It's known that the caller has an admitted history of past substance use. Now, if we subscribe to your beliefs/reasoning, then the dispatcher should immediately hang up the phone, and move on through the day casting disparaging remarks about the "mad caller" who had the audacity to claim that there had been a shooting. This course of action, and subsequent behavior, would be completely acceptable because a claim is "rendered pointless" and unworthy of earnest investigation if it's been made by a person who's experienced intoxication in their past.

Maybe this chain of reasoning seems perfectly sound to you, but if I were the dispatcher... I'd have squad cars en route to at least investigate the claim.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
If we are going to accept the testimony from known and admitted drug and alcohol abusers should we now accept the evidence from psychopaths who killed due to hearing voices in their head?


Your analogy makes no sense at all.

"If a known 'psychopath' claims that voices drove him/her to commit a murder... do we just laugh it off, cast insults, and never bother to investigate whether any crime actually took place?". That would be a far more applicable analogy since your stance appears to be, "claims made by people who've openly experienced intoxication in their past, and claims made by psychopaths are both entirely dismissible, and unworthy of earnest investigation".

With that said, the general notion of attempting to legitimately equate people who've been intoxicated with "psychopaths" seems pretty laughable, and reminds me of an old government propaganda film... Did ya hear they made it into a musical?



Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Where do you draw the line between a witness a who you can take seriously and someone you doubt!!?


Generally speaking... a reasonable conclusion can only be drawn after a full investigation has taken place, and all of the subsequently available evidence has been examined.

I realize (through your persistent use of ad hominem attacks) that you clearly want to turn this thread into something entirely about Mr. Williams; however, he's not the real story, and the majority participants here know it. Most simply seem intrigued by the notion of two alleged hauntings (one being a property formerly owned by Henry VIII’s sixth and final wife). Some posters are gathering more information about the properties in question, and some are looking for details regarding the actual claims made (a.k.a. earnest investigation); however, I have yet to see anyone reply supporting a conclusion that, "Robbie Williams claims his pad is haunted!!! That's proof positive, once and for all, that ghosts really DO exist!!!". The only conclusions being thrust out, that I cans see, are by those accepting logical fallacies as definitive proof of nothing. Everyone else is still in gathering mode, or reviewing the information that's been found so far.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Me!? I wont to listen to witness who is clean from mind influencing drugs or allcohol, who I can question and at the end of the day have to answer one of two questions... Are they serious or are they lieing.


So due to the fact that you don't have personal access to Mr. Williams in order to question him, you somehow feel it's ok to simply dismiss his experience, and conclude that he's lying based on your own ad hominem fallacies?


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
I don't need to wonder if they were drunk that night or were they high on drugs prior to their experience...


Thankfully, there's much to wonder about in this case. First off, he's already been forthcoming and honest regarding his prior transgressions with intoxicants so he has a record of honesty regarding the topic, and second, you clearly alleged that "Robbie Williams was under the influence of alcohol or drugs" and "He admits it himself.". I do look forward to you bringing that portion of the article to light in your reply.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
You, in my opinion, should stick to watching Most haunted and TAPs


Sorry, never really been a much of a TV fan. I'll have to pass.
edit on 2/20/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 

You are talking utter nonsense. Nowhere do I say that Williams is lieing! Please point that out for me and the rest on this thread... I think with your above statement you could teach us all a lot about being a liar and being deceitful! Neither do I say he was out of his head on drugs and alcohol at the moment he had his experience...Again, you're lieing! I say that as an admitted drug user and alcohol abuser, who has a history of using such things, a debunker who came across the case would dismiss it due to his past. That is all I am saying... You then take my words and contort them and lets face it, openly lie, to try and make out I'm personally attacking him!
You so obviously are into all this celeb worshipping... I'm not...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
hey there, is sad to read how many peoples love to kill robbie, im sure he is not an perfect person, but he is a human like me and you, sometimes i think he is a bit cynical but im sure this is for himself protection coz for me robbie is a sentimental boy so everything hurt him; really i dont know why the peoples hate him, he is only a human what love to say what he feels, what is in his world, coz a person is or not on drugs sometimes is not because he wants im sure is not easy to be in, if robbie is or not nobody here need to touch this way coz im sure for robbie is not easy , if the subject here is about ghost in his house why is so hurting with him, what sad is to see how some peoples love to talk about hurts things and not about the real things, why some peoples here think other peoples are on drugs too and are better than robbie for me drugs is drugs not matter who are you talking, but robbie is a good boy with a lot beautiful things, he has a big heart and very noble sentiments not matter if he is on or off , if he says he felt something im sure this is true coz he is very clever not matter the way what he says im sure robbie is a good boy and not crazy for the drugs as some peoples are saying, sorry if i am defending robbie but for me he is better person as more peoples think. bless



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Nowhere do I say that Williams is lieing! Please point that out for me and the rest on this thread.


I can only assume you're taking offense to the question put forth when I posted...

Originally posted by redmage
So due to the fact that you don't have personal access to Mr. Williams in order to question him, you somehow feel it's ok to simply dismiss his experience, and conclude that he's lying based on your own ad hominem fallacies?

...as this is the closest portion of my post that could be misconstrued to support the notion your straw man objection is rooted upon (that I somehow proposed you openly said "Williams is lying").

Did I claim you ever said Williams was lying? No.

Do I feel that you've implied Williams is lying? Absolutely, and I asked you a question partially derived from such a notion.

If you don't understand how someone could logically garner the impression that you appear to imply Mr. Williams may be lying, I can attempt to walk you through it.

You openly stated the following...

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
I wont to listen to witness who is clean from mind influencing drugs or allcohol, who I can question and at the end of the day have to answer one of two questions... Are they serious or are they lieing.


I think we can all agree that claims made by someone who was sober at the time of an occurrence are preferred, and whether or not he was sober has yet to be shown (still waiting for you to back up your allegations of 'self admitted' intoxication at the time); however, at the end of the day you've given us two options as possible conclusions to be drawn.

1) The witness was serious.
2) The witness was lying.

Now, if one were to attempt to glean your stance, lets see what you've offered that may be relevant to answering such a question....

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Can I just say that the self appointed King of Stoke honestly doesn't take anything seriously...


I don't think you could have denounced option #1 any more clearly than you did right there, and your other posts show a blatant pattern of ridicule in regards to his credibility (even going so far as to compare the value of his words to those of "psychopaths"). Do you now comprehend how your posts could easily give someone the impression that you likely lean towards option #2?

I realize, being online, you don't have the luxury of vocal tone to help punctuate the fact that the 'objectionable' question was a question; however, there's the benefit of a question mark being present to undoubtedly clarify that aspect for you. If you disagree with the inference contained in the 'objectionable' question, then the proper course of action would have been to address that issue rationally as a part of your answer; however, coming back with a straw man fallacy wrapped in righteous indignation seems highly disingenuous when, after reviewing the whole of your posting in this thread, the inference appears to be sound.

 


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Neither do I say he was out of his head on drugs and alcohol at the moment he had his experience...Again, you're lieing!


When I stated...

Originally posted by redmage
You've provided no evidence that Mr. Williams was under the influence of any substance that would alter his senses at the time of his alleged sighting(s).

Your direct reply to me was...

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
But I don't have to provide evidence that Robbie Williams was under the influence of alcohol or drugs as he does that for me! He admits it himself


I think people can clearly judge for themselves who is lying regarding this aspect.


 


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
I say that as an admitted drug user and alcohol abuser, who has a history of using such things, a debunker who came across the case would dismiss it due to his past.


Not only "debunkers", but you actually claimed that science would dismiss a haunting anyway they can, and that they will go to "any lengths" to debunk these cases! I informed you of your lack of understanding regarding what science is, and I pointed out your fallacious ad hominem reasoning.

 


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
You then take my words and contort them and lets face it, openly lie, to try and make out I'm personally attacking him!


No contortions or lies are necessary. Are you actually trying to deny that you've resorted to personal attacks in this thread?

Do I really need to go back and pull up such gems as...

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
He's as mad as a huge mad thing wearing a T-shirt with the words, I Am Mad, written across it who has just won this years Mr Mad competition.


Again, I think people can clearly judge for themselves who is lying.
edit on 2/20/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)


CX

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by chrisonhisbike13
 


You seem to have amazing inside knowledge of Robbie Williams, care to share how you know him this well?

Please don't tell me you know all this because you read it in a teen mag? Just making a guess there due to your username.

I'm sure i read somewhere, maybe have even been in his UFO sighting thread, that hea had not been using drugs for some time when he has his sighting. Was not drunk either.

Hopefully people will remember that whilst he is a celeb, he is also a member of ATS, hopefully he'll get the civility and respect that is expected towards all members.

CX.


CX

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Ok......for those who ask about Robbie's "state" duribg the sighting (i'm talking about the black light sighting specificaly), here is a quote from him...




No probs bud....I have'nt had a drink for 8 years and i can assure you no hallucinogens were harmed during this process....



Link to the post...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hopefully that will clear up at least some of the questions concerning the reason for the sighting.

Had to trawl through 20 damn pages of thread.....but i got there at last.


CX.
edit on 20/2/11 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 

With the greatest of respect, Williams, as a witness, has no respectability or credibility. He doesn't...In the eyes of the debunkers they would dismiss his sightings and experiences out of hand due to his past abuse of drugs and alcohol. Highlight your own responses all you want and lie about what I've said, which you have many times, my only reply was to say that the debunkers would not take him seriously! They would say he's a past addict and alcoholic so what he says happened could have happened while under the influence. The argument that he's said he's not abused either for years would fall on deaf ears because, and grab onto your socks and hold on cos what I'm about to divulge is obviousloy new to you, drug addicts and alcoholics often refuse to admit they have a problem and will tell porkies. Its something you and him may have in common!!!
For the hard of hearing and learning, let me make my points clear once more... A debunker (Not me or any other serious investigator) will point to Williams' past and dismiss out of hand what he says happened. Its not right, its not the scientific way, but they will. Therefore his testimony is not worth a carrot. Might make interesting reading but at the end of the day its not worth the paper its written on...
Let me put it this way to you... If a lawyer put a confessed drug addict or alcoholic on the stand in court and asked a jury to take hi word as proof of a crime then the defence would simply point out his past and ask the jury to simply ignore what he said.. They would ask, are you willing to take the word of a drug addict/alcoholic as proof of anything!
I sincerly hope I've made my point clear, whether you agree with it or not, and that you wont continue to put words in my mouth and proporgate falsehoods about me anymore. Please, no more lies...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
With the greatest of respect, Williams, as a witness, has no respectability or credibility.


I fully understand that you hold this opinion, you've re-iterated it numerous times, and you're welcome to it. Personally, If I held the same opinion I'd likely just stop returning to the thread as it would seem to be a waste of my time.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
In the eyes of the debunkers they would dismiss his sightings and experiences out of hand due to his past abuse of drugs and alcohol.


Again, I'm fully aware that 'debunkers' often lie and/or use logical fallacies in attempts to sway public opinion. Quite honestly... I couldn't care less what the 'debunkers' think, accept, or dismiss. You seem to place a lot of value on what they say; however, there's an often overlooked difference between 'debunkers', and legitimate investigators who attempt to prove things as being true or false.

Have you ever looked up the word "debunk" in a thesaurus, or dictionary? You may be surprised to find many listings like...

Synonyms: disparage, ridicule, mock, belittle, denigrate

Frankly, I could wander into any thread on ATS to post "It's a HOAX!!! LOL", and leave. It would literally fulfill the minimum requirements for "debunking" it. The bar is set preposterously low when it comes to debunking, and I don't see the value of such tactics and negativity in regards to earnest investigation.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
For the hard of hearing and learning, let me make my points clear once more... A debunker (Not me or any other serious investigator) will point to Williams' past and dismiss out of hand what he says happened.


Not you?


Is your memory so short that you've already forgotten this post, or how about this post, then there's this post, and this post. Do I need to continue? There's plenty more. Pointing to Williams' past, and dismissing out of hand what he's said, has been the overall theme-of-choice in your posts throughout the thread.


Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
Its not right, its not the scientific way, but they will.


I'm glad to see there's something we agree on.



Originally posted by CholmondleyWarner
If a lawyer put a confessed drug addict or alcoholic on the stand in court and asked a jury to take hi word as proof of a crime then the defence would simply point out his past and ask the jury to simply ignore what he said.


I do see you repeatedly trying to utilize courtroom "trial" analogies in this thread, but please confirm that you understand the fact that "trials" only take place after an investigation has occurred.

This thread is merely an investigation; any subsequent "trial" is a loooooooong ways off.
edit on 2/20/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join