Forums

Posted: 30-08-2006 18:00 Post subject:

Hmm - IMHO 'anomalous phenomena' and the 'paranormal' are two seperate things. After all, what may be considered as an anomoly one day be shown to be more fully understood at some latter point in time - bunging it in with the 'paranormal' may therefore consign it to a greyer area. I'm thinking of things such as earthlights, as an example - they are an anomoly, which may actually point to some as yet not understood natural process, but aren't ostensibly 'paranormal'. There are some theories that earthlights are linked to paranormal events, but that's open to question. Thus, I think it would be unwise to bung the whole lot into the realm of the paranormal. That probably goes for various other anomalies too (both 'physical' and 'psychological'/'psychosocial').

Posted: 30-08-2006 18:40 Post subject:

I have to say I wasn't that fussed one way or the other but you make a good point.

The paranormal is more a sub set of anomalous phenomena which is filled with damned data. Ice falls are not paranormal and neither are other things that fall from the sky. One can argue that the airship flaps aren't either. It does then work as the equivalent to Forteana in that it is damned data just beyond the limits of current science. Ball lightning and other currently unclassified aerial phenomena aren't really paranormal.

Posted: 30-08-2006 19:27 Post subject:

IMHO, the paranormal can also be prone to psychological and/or psychological deconstruction in a way that other anomolous phenomena cannot. For instance, ghosts, demons, etc. and the belief in them or reports of their manifestation are within the bounds of the paranormal but also possibly within the realm of psychology, anthropology and other areas. On the surface, earthlights (as an example) aren't really open to the same interpretation, as far as current knowledge/theory about them stands - altho' folklore about them might. This is why banding everything together in one catch-all area tends to blur too many areas and probably won't do much to clarify anything in the long run.

Posted: 31-08-2006 16:00 Post subject:

Anomalous phenomena is a much wider range. It includes the paranormal, and the perinormal, and just plain outrageous coincidence.

For instance, rain in the Simpson desert is anomalous, but it isn't paranormal. The problem starts when people assume because it's anomalous, it must therefore be paranormal, and I think grouping them together like that encourages that kind of thinking.

Posted: 01-09-2006 12:20 Post subject:

I really wish people wouldn't use the phrase 'consensus reality'. Apart from being rather irritating, it seems quite meaningless. Is God part of consensus reality? Are Rice Krispies? Suppose I don't believe in God?Suppose I've never heard of Rice Krispies? And so on...

Posted: 04-05-2007 03:46 Post subject:

Just a note:

Nordic aliens is up for deletion. It won't be deleted but the entry needs expanding by knowledgable types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_aliens

Posted: 04-05-2007 04:07 Post subject:

Posted: 14-05-2007 02:52 Post subject:

I just found Fortean TV - needs work if anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortean_TV

Posted: 16-05-2007 12:20 Post subject:

I'll tell you one other reason why I've never tried to edit a Wikipedia page. It's all those internal links you're expected to put into the text. For instance, in the phase "Nordic aliens supposedly originated from other planets of the Solar System" you would be probably be expected to link the words "Nordic" "planets" and "Solar system" to the relevant Wikipedia entries. How does anyone have the patience?

Posted: 29-10-2009 05:01 Post subject:

I was asked to see i there is anyone who can provide more information/sources for this New Zealand kids TV show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_the_Dog_Star