View previous topic | View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:13 pm Post subject: Thornton Heath Poltergeist |
|
|
The Thornton Heath Poltergeist
Location: Thornton Heath, South London, England
Date: 1972 - 1975
The Thornton Heath poltergeist case is not to be confused with the 1938 case of the same name, which was investigated by Dr Nandor Fodor!
Nearly 40 years ago, in Thornton Heath, England, a family was tormented by poltergeist phenomena that started one night in late August 1972, when they were woken in the middle of the night by a blaring bedside radio that had somehow turned itself on – tuned to a foreign-language station. This was the beginning of a string of events that lasted nearly four years. A lampshade repeatedly was knocked to the floor by unaided hands. During the Christmas season of 1972, an ornament was hurled across the room, smashing into the husband’s forehead. Apparantly as he flopped into an armchair, the Christmas tree began to shake violently. As Christmas became New Years there were footsteps in the bedroom when there was no one there, and one night the couple's son awoke to find a man in old fashioned dress staring threateningly at him. The poor boy lay frozen with fear and confusion, until he managed to duck under his cover and close his eyes - for quite a long time I'd guess! The family's fear grew when, as they entertained friends one night, there was a loud knocking at the front door, the living room door was then flung open and all the houses lights came on.
Having the house blessed sadly failed to rid the house of the poltergeist phenomena. Objects flew through the air, loud noises were heard and the family would sometimes hear a noise which suggested a large piece of furniture had crashed to floor. When they went to investigate, nothing would be found.
A medium who was consulted told the family that the house was haunted by a farmer of the name Chatterton, who considered the family trespassers on his property. An investigation bore out the fact that had indeed lived in the house in the mid-18th century. The medium sensed that Chatterton's wife now joined in in causing mayhem, and often the tenant's wife would be followed up the stairs at night by an elderly gray-haired woman wearing a pinafore and with her hair tied back in a bun. If looked at, she would disappear back into the shadows. The family even reported seeing the farmer appear on their television screens, wearing a black jacket with wide, pointed lapels, high-necked shirt and black cravat.
After the family moved out of the house, the poltergeist activity ceased, and none have been reported by subsequent residents.
Overall, a chilling, unexplained and famous case. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Overall, a chilling, unexplained and famous case.
Unexplained to some but not unexplainable.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was a hoax or it was real. If it wasnt a hoax, the activity is unexplainable. |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | It was a hoax or it was real. If it wasnt a hoax, the activity is unexplainable. |
Cactus, that is soooo wrong. Just because something can't be explained based on the evidence provided doesn't mean it's unexplainable or paranormal.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maybe one or two seperate happenings in any one case; but consistent different seperate incidents and you have to assume they are unexplainable or paranormal |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | maybe one or two seperate happenings in any one case; but consistent different seperate incidents and you have to assume they are unexplainable or paranormal |
Your logic is severely flawed there Cactus, severely flawed.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
in your meagre opinion |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | in your meagre opinion |
Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.
This is a common logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed towards the crucial issues being discussed. It is succinctly described as, attack the messenger not the message (hence – shoot the messenger). It is often seen in both politics and pseudoscience. Its aim is to undermine the position of ones opponent, by undermining the opponent personally (in a manner that is actually completely irrelevant to the debate). The hope here is that if one can discredit the individual, this by default, discredits his / her argument. It does not. The fallacy here relates to the irrelevance of the attack. It is not viable to argue against a position and then justify that argument by criticising the individual who holds it. Arguing that the proposals from the Educational minister are unlikely to work because he / she have no children of their own is hardly convincing. Furthermore, saying that Einstein or Darwin were selfish men does nothing to discredit the theories of Relativity and Evolution. They may have been the most selfish or the most unselfish of men, but this is an irrelevance as to the ‘truth’ of their scientific claims. Similarly, a cognitive neuroscientific account of strange experiences (i.e., near-death experiences) is not incorrect simply because the scientist proposing it is a skeptic. These are all examples of the ad-hominem fallacy. Any claim or theory should not be rejected solely on the basis of who holds it.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes i know the term - all you had to say was 'no need to shoot the messenger' not give an extended unnecessary definition but
Quote: |
Your logic is severely flawed there Cactus, severely flawed.
|
that wasnt a message, it was an opinion |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was an opinion that can be supported by the dubious nature of some of your claims such as:
It was a hoax or it was real. If it wasnt a hoax, the activity is unexplainable.
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
ok then, if it wasnt a hoax - explain the activity |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 2842 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
thecactus wrote: | ok then, if it wasnt a hoax - explain the activity |
I'm not the one making the claim
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
DB |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
flossy Moderator
Joined: 17 Oct 2006 Posts: 4921 Location: UK tyne/wear (geordie land)
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
is wikipedia a reliable sorce to get imformation
im just woundering because it looks like you can edit whats there and if thats the case isnt it a little like youtube
you could put anything up there and say it was fact |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
you are making the claim that the activity is NOT unexplainable, hence it is explainable
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
flossy, i agree its definately no more reliable than youtube - its all user generated material |
|
... |
|
Back to top |
|