How long will it take the skeptical community to realize paranormal phenomena isn't just going to go away?

I was listening to the Paranormal Podcast today, and the episode featured Robert McLuhan, author of the blog Paranormalia.  The topic was whether or not skeptics are looking at paranormal claims fairly, or have they already reached their own conclusions without looking at the research.

I think it's probably safe to say your hardcore, cynical skeptics like Michael Shermer, Benjamin Radford, and Joe Nickel already have a conclusion in mind before they even begin their investigation of a paranormal claim.  I imagine they, and other skeptics like them, begin any research or investigation with the idea that whatever they are investigating is a fraud, delusion, or a mistaken identity.  They just have to figure out a way to explain it as such.

In some cases, the research and explanation of skeptics may be informative and accurate.  Other times though, their explanations can be laughable (see this example) and sometimes they seem to just be grasping at straws to find an explanation (see this example).  It's like they are so determined to explain something mysterious as being something completely normal, they don't even realize how silly their "rational" explanation can sound sometimes.

So my question now is, when will this community of cynical skeptics finally realize that there is still paranormal phenomena out there?  They assume it is all a matter of erroneous belief, so they think if they keep explaining paranormal phenomena away with generic answers and petty narratives, eventually people will stop believing and won't experience paranormal phenomena anymore.  But that's just it -- it's not always just a belief and people won't stop reporting paranormal experiences because paranormal experiences will continue to happen.  There will continue to be people who are born with an innate sixth sense of some sort, so they will still continue to experience the world with that sixth sense.  And there will still be people who see ghosts or other phenomena of that nature.

I know there are fraudulent psychics out there and there are people who are just imagining ghosts.  But there's also genuine psychics as well as haunting cases that cannot be easily explained away.  You've even got documented examples of serious research like the US Government's project Stargate which utilized remote viewers.  So instead of trying to explain everything paranormal away with generic answers, why won't these skeptics take a step back and say, "Ok, there is something unusual going on with this case," and then refocus their efforts on trying to figure out what the phenomena really is?  Isn't that how science progresses?  Instead of trying to force something to fit into your skeptical worldview with a petty explanation, why not try to learn something new?  At one point in time, the skeptics and debunkers did a great service to the advancement of science and reason by pointing out how parlor tricks and con artist deceptions worked.  But that is in the past, and now, ironically, I feel they are the ones who are slowing down the advancement of science and reason by failing to realize that genuine unexplained phenomena still exists.

There are academic researchers who recognize that there is still unexplained phenomena.  People like Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake who investigate psychic phenomena from a serious academic setting.  But many of their peers will turn a blind eye or frown upon the research they do.  Why won't more of their peers and skeptics take their research seriously?  If more people would get involved, then perhaps they could develop a scientific explanation for psychic phenomena and it would no longer be considered paranormal but normal.

So how long will people continue to experience paranormal phenomena before more researchers begin to take it seriously?

The Doppelganger of Emilie Sagée

A doppelganger is said to be the double or a ghostly apparition of a living person.  Sometimes a doppelganger may be seen in one location when it is known the person was actually in another location.  Other times, the doppelganger may be seen with the person, as was known to have happened in the case of a 19th century teacher named Emilie Sagée.

It is said that one day, while teaching a class, Sagée's double appeared right next to her and mimicked her every move as she wrote on the chalkboard in full view of 13 students.  Although others could see the double, Sagee never noticed the double nor did she notice that own movements slowed when the double appeared.

Sagée's double also appeared away from her though.  In another instance, the entire student body of 42 girls assembled in the school hall for their sewing and embroidery lessons.  The double appeared in Sagée's chair while Sagée could be seen outside in the garden.  Two of the girls attempted to touch the phantom Sagée but felt an odd resistance to her.  One of the girls stepped between the chair and table and passed right through the phantom, which remained motionless and then disappeared.

It was said that Sagée's double would appear when she was worried or immersed in her work.  It was said the double could also appear in a place Sagée was thinking about, like in the case above where she was in the garden; she looked inside at her chair and thought to herself that without supervision, the students may waste time and gossip.

So what was Emilie Sagée's double?  A piece of her spirit leaving her body and traveling on it's own?  Or just some kind of projection she gave off without even knowing it?  The bigger question may be did it really happen at all?  The sources I looked at said the tale was written by Robert Dale Owen who heard the story from Julie von Güldenstubbe, a student at the school Emilie Sagée taught at.  Although it was said that her double was witnessed by multiple witnesses on more than one occasion, the sources don't indicate the story was actually corroborated by multiple witnesses.  It would be nice if others had come forward with the same story.  Without multiple witness corroboration, you have to wonder if the story was true at all.

Source 1
Source 2

Real Monsters...?

The popular educational YouTube channel Vsauce2 did an episode on mythological monsters.  Some you've heard of, like werewolves and vampires, and some you might not have heard of, such as the encantado or vinegaroon.

A quick thought about reincarnation

A thought about the reincarnation topic popped into my head this afternoon while I was listening to the latest Skeptiko podcast.  We've heard stories of people remembering past lives, either through spontaneous memories when they are small children or through hypnotic regression (also see this link and this earlier post of mine for more information about the topic).

For those that believe in reincarnation, these stories seem like evidence of that.  But maybe it isn't.  Another interpretation of what may seem like memories of a past life can be read about on Sharon Day's Ghost Hunting Theories blog.  She says she had dreams where she saw scenes from the life of a Jewish girl back in the 1930s and 40s somewhere in Europe.  She was viewing the scenes through the girl's eyes and it seemed as if she were seeing a past life.  Yet, she doesn't think that's what was actually happening.  She said it felt more like a psychic reading.  So could that be what past life memories are?  A type of psychic reading of someone else's life at an earlier time?

So anyways, the thought I had was this:  Of all the NDE and OBE stories I've read, I don't ever recall hearing one where someone who returned from the other side reported remembering any past lives while they were on the side.  We hear about what they saw and what they felt and many report having their life "flash before their eyes."  But I don't recall anyone reporting having multiple lives pass before their lives.  If there are stories reporting having multiple lives flash before their eyes, I am not aware of them.

So with that in mind, what should we make of this?  Should we assume people who have reported having NDEs or OBEs are all 'new' souls who've only lived one life?  Or should we assume it just takes longer for any past lives a person has lived to 'download' after crossing into the other side and no one has been on that side long enough and returned to tell about it?  Or should we assume that the traditional view of reincarnation isn't accurate and souls don't actually return to a new physical body after crossing over?  My guess is it is the latter, but who knows?  Maybe it is something more complex that any of that.

Some questions just seem to lead to more questions!

How early religious beliefs about the afterlife may have been formed

I was listening to a Skeptiko podcast where Alex Tsakiris talks to Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon who had a near-death experience (NDE), and I began to wonder what the first person to have a NDE may have experienced.  Could that be how people first learned of an afterlife?  Could this be how the earliest religions began?

Each person who has a NDE has a unique experience.  But many commonalities have been noted.  People often report being aware of being outside of their body and may be able to remember hearing doctors or nurses saying specific things or just floating around and being able to see things that they wouldn't be able to see from the position of their physical body.  They also often report seeing loved ones that have already passed on and possibly religious figures such as Jesus or some other divine beings like angels.  Traveling through a tunnel towards light is common factor as well as having a life review.  But despite commonalities, each experience is unique.  Sometimes cultural differences may even be a factor.

But differences shouldn't be surprising.  In life, we all have unique experiences everyday.  Our consciousness may be confined to our physical self, but we still have free will and make our own decisions.    We also have our own opinions and interpretations.  Our day to day lives may have their similarities, such as brushing teeth, going to work, having lunch, watching TV, etc.  But despite similarities, there are still differences.  We don't all use the same toothpaste.  We don't all have the same job or drive the same kind of car to work.  We don't necessarily like exactly the same foods or TV shows.  If you lived in a third world tribal society, you probably wouldn't being using toothpaste or watching any TV at all...but you'd still get up in the morning and you'd still want something to eat.  So if our day to day lives are unique with some similarities, why should it be surprising that the afterlife would be unique with some similarities?

But anyways, the question here is, could a NDE have been the origin of any number of ancient and possibly prehistoric religions?  Although many of the reports of NDEs come from people who have been revived on an operating table, there are instances where people have been mistakenly thought to be dead when they really weren't, and, in times past, there are even reports of people being mistakenly buried alive (you can see a Snopes article on that subject here).  So if people have been mistakenly thought to be dead in time's past, then it may also be possible that they may have experienced a NDE.  If so, then the story they may have told about their experience may have formed an ancient religion...especially if the stories were being told by someone everyone else had thought to be dead.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that some religious beliefs were formed by drug induced hallucinations or outright fabrications, but what if there is something more to it?  What if some beliefs began from a real experience?  What if religious beliefs that mirror common events that occur during a NDE are not the result of a person's preconceived notion of the afterlife, but because that is just the way it really is?

New sky and a new planet?

As many times as I have read the book of Revelation in the Bible, I don't know if I have ever really stopped to think much about the first verse of chapter 21. I think I've always just assumed the passage was meant in a spiritual or figurative sense. But yesterday the possibility that it might be suggestive of something physical popped into my mind. Here is what the passage says:

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. -Revelation 21:1

The word 'heaven' means 'sky'. We typically think of Heaven as being the spiritual dwelling place of God -- and I am not suggesting that it isn't -- I'm merely pointing out that when the term 'heaven' is used in that context, the notion is the spiritual dwelling place of God is 'out there' somewhere in the sky. So what exactly is this "new heaven" and "new earth" mentioned in Revelation? It's actually not the only time that is mentioned in the Bible. It is also mentioned in the Old Testament book of Isaiah.

See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind. -Isaiah 65:17

So are these passages suggesting that a new sky and a new earth (new planet) are in humanity's future? In this sense, the sky may more literally refer to the visible constellations and the movement of the stars. But if you were on another planet, the constellations would appear differently. So could that be what is meant by a new sky, or "new heaven?" If so, is this a prediction that humanity will one day move to a different planet, or a "new earth?" The passage in Revelation also says there was no longer any sea, so could that mean that the new planet is quite literally a newly formed planet that a sea hasn't even formed on yet?

I'm not really sure. It's difficult to tell if the passage is meant to be taken figuratively or literally. Is it suggesting that humanity will one day travel to another world on a spaceship? Or is it just saying that humanity will one day travel to a new world in spirit? Going there in spirit would probably be more in line with traditional interpretations. In verse 2 of Revelation 21, John says he saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. To the ancient alien enthusiast, this probably sounds like a spaceship landing. But I'm not so sure about that. The passage could very well be meant in a spiritual or figurative sense. To me, most of the rest of the chapter seems to be more indicative of something figurative or spiritual. In fact, in verse 10, John even says than an angel carried him away in "Spirit" to see the Holy City coming down out of heaven from God.

John goes on the describe what the city looks like. An ancient alien enthusiast might say he was describing some sort of spacecraft in terms he was familiar with. But it really doesn't sound like that to me. The description really just sounds like the description of a beautiful ancient walled city with enormous wealth.

So what is this passage really saying? Is it humanity's destiny to one day travel through space and settle a new world? Or is just saying that humanity's destiny is to travel to a new world in spirit one day? Judging by the chapter as a whole, I think it probably means in spirit. But hopefully one day it's meaning will become clear to us definitively.  We may just have to wait and see what happens.  :)

You can read the whole chapter here: Revelation 21

You can read the whole book here: Book of Revelation

Qi and Prana on Nat Geo

I typically don't watch that much on the National Geographic channel because a lot of their programs are very predictable.  Nat Geo is very biased in favor of establishment materialism and atheistic thinking, so I know if the program is about something paranormal in nature or religious, the program is going to have a debunking stance.

I did watch an episode of Is it Real? the other night though, and I thought it was interesting.  They were investigating spiritual energies, including what the Chinese call qi (pronounced "chee") and what the Hindu's call it prana.  

One of the people they featured was martial artist George Dillman, who can not only knock people out using pressure points but also without even touching them by using his qi.  Dillman is no fraud or stage magician though, he is a legitimate black belt in Ryukyu Kempo Tomari-te and has even trained with Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali.  He was not only shown knocking people out without touching them, but he was also shown to be able to make a line of people move without even being able to see them (and them not being able to see him).  

Two scientists who were skeptical of his ability to knock people out with his qi were bought on the show, and they felt his ability had more to do with hypnotic suggestion than qi.  They thought the people being knocked out were expecting it to happen, so therefore, it happened.  One of the skeptical scientists even let one of Dillman's top students attempt to knock him out with his qi (I'm not sure why Dillman himself didn't try; they may have been filming the scientists in different location where Dillman wasn't present).  Dillman's student failed to knock the scientist out with his qi.  Afterwards, Dillman said if a person was holding their tongue a certain way, it wouldn't work, or if they press one big toe against the floor while raising the other big toe up, it wouldn't work.  Dillman did appear to have an impressive ability, but in the end, he sounded like he was just making excuses.

Another person featured in the episode was a clinical psychologist named Howard Hall who is also a hypnotist.  He went to Baghdad in 1998 to investigate whether or not a sect of Sufi Muslims who perform self mutilations without any apparent ill effects and then heal almost instantly were under some sort of hypnotic suggestion.  The Sufis shown had blades in their chest, head, and mouth.  According to their belief, a sheikh channels the energy and 'protects' them.  Dr. Hall did not think the faithful who were mutilating themselves were under any sort of hypnotic suggestion and was so impressed by what they were doing that he asked the sheikh if he could have 'protection' too.  The sheikh said he could, and Hall stabbed a pointed object through his cheek with no ill effect.  

After that experience, Hall began studying the Sufi religion and agreed to repeat the mutilation for National Geographic.  He and another doctor used some sort of machine that supposedly shows a person's aura (something similar to Kirlian photography, but more updated).  After Hall stabbed an ice pick through his cheek from inside his mouth, a gap was shown in what was alleged to be his aura where the ice pick had been in his cheek.  He bled very little and the wound closed up quickly.

The skeptics brought in to counter Hall's claims didn't think the machine that supposedly shows an aura could be trusted, and they had their own machine that they claimed was similar and showed why the machine Dr. Hall used couldn't necessarily be trusted (although their machine that they claimed was similar seemed to be quite different to me...I'm not sure if it was really an accurate comparison).  Another doctor said that the wound Hall inflicted on himself was small and he wasn't surprised that it didn't bleed much.  He also said putting pressure on it afterwards probably helped to close the wound up quickly.  So he wasn't impressed with how quickly the wound healed; he thought the healing seemed normal.  

The show also featured a Hindu version of a shady televangelist who was setup by a debunker with a group of people with problems that they made up.  The shady Hindu holy man, who I don't doubt was a fraud -- he was deceiving the poor and making himself wealthy (and he had a shady looking smirk on his face too) -- didn't catch on to the deception being played on him and he was considered debunked...and this case, I think the debunker was right on.

The show also featured a guy who could inflict self mutilation without ill effects who claimed it was just mind over matter.  I think the program basically just featured that guy because he didn't claim to use any spiritual energies -- in other words, they were just showing more evidence of their bias against the concept of spiritual energies.  

They also featured some yogic flyers who don't really fly, but just sit in the lotus position and then start hopping quickly across the floor.  Apparently they get really happy and just start hopping.  It looks hard to do, but I'm assuming Nat Geo took the stance that there wasn't really any spiritual energy involved and just included it as part of their bias against the belief in spiritual energies.  

But anyways, lets look and Dillman and Hall again, who were the two most intriguing people featured in the episode.  In the end, it looked like Dillman's ability may have had more to do with hypnotic suggestion than qi, and Dillman was left making excuses.  I've often wondered if hypnotic suggestion may be how televangelist Benny Hinn is able to knock people down with a light touch.  However, hypnotic suggestion still doesn't explain how Dillman was able to make a line of people move without them being able to see him.  In the end, it may have appeared that the skeptics won in Dillman's case, but I'm not thoroughly convinced.  I think it may still be possible that Dillman really does know how to use his qi to make people move (or knock them out).

In Hall's case, I don't even think the debunkers did a very good job of debunking it.  The doctor may have been correct in saying he thought the wound closed up and healed in a normal way, but it still doesn't explain how Hall was able to jab an ice pick through his cheek without feeling pain.  And even if you think the machine that supposedly can show a person's aura is hokey, it still doesn't explain how Hall could jab an ice pick through his cheek without feeling pain.

In the end, Nat Geo took the position that the abilities had less to do with spiritual energies and more to do with the power of the mind and the belief in an ability.  And although I agree that the mind and belief can be very powerful, I'm not convinced that spiritual energies don't exist.  I think there is ample evidence to suggest that spiritual energies do exist, even if little of that evidence was present in that particular Nat Geo program.

Destination Truth didn't ask enough questions in Petra

In last night's (4/14/10) episode of Destination Truth, the team went to the ruins of Petra in Jordan to search for djinns (a type of spirit, which is the word that our word "genie" is derived from).  At one point, Josh was doing an EVP session and asked out loud if anyone was there with them, and almost immediately afterward, the team heard what sounded like a voice saying "yes."  This wasn't something they heard on the recording after the fact, they actually heard the "yes" out loud.

For some reason, they seemed to be content with just getting that "yes."  You'd think that if someone asked if anyone was around and someone -- whether it's a person, djinn, or something else -- responds, they'd ask for more details.  Instead of settling for a single answer to a question, they should have also asked other questions such as who it was, why it was hanging around Petra, can it grant wishes, etc.  For all they knew at the time, it might have just been a lost tourist wandering near them!

I love Destination Truth, Josh's sarcasm as well as the adventures the team goes on seeking the truth about the unknown give it a real-life Indiana Jones feel that makes for a very entertaining show.  But I think they might have dropped the ball at Petra.  They should have asked more questions!

Alien Teachers Too?

In a post I wrote titled 'Elusive Aliens: Are They Watchers?', I compared a modern theory suggesting that ET aliens remain elusive because they are merely here to observe us with the story of the Watchers from the Book of Enoch.  The Watchers were angelic beings who were apparently supposed to just 'watch' us.  Eventually, some of the Watchers betrayed their duty and began intermingling with humans.  As I mentioned before, the Book of Enoch says the fallen Watchers taught men things such as cosmetics, building weapons, astrology, and writing.  When I wrote about that in my previous post though, it didn't occur to me at the time to mention that the fallen Watchers teaching men new things bears a resemblance to another modern theory about aliens -- a theory that suggests the rapid advancements in technology over the last century are the result of aliens from an advanced technological society secretly working with governments and people in power to teach them how to develop new technologies (or, alternatively, the government is secretly reverse engineering crashed alien spacecraft).  This also bears resemblance to the ancient Greek story of Prometheus, who defied Zeus and taught men to make fire.

So it seems that the modern theory suggesting aliens are assisting men in developing new technologies is not really all that modern afterall.  Modernized perhaps, but not really a modern concept.

View my original post on this subject here.

Elusive Aliens: Are They Watchers?

The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal text that has been left out of nearly every edition of the Bible today.  However, the book was popular in the 1st century AD, and Jude, author of the canonical text of Jude, even quoted a passage from the Book of Enoch in his epistle.  The book was supposedly written by Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah in Genesis.  Scholars have only been able to date the book to around the 3rd century BC, but this doesn't necessarily mean the book isn't older.  It may also be important to note that Genesis says that God took Enoch, indicating that Enoch may have avoided mortal death altogether.  If so, it's possible he could have written the book later.  And, of course, I also realize the whole book could have just been someone's imagination.  But for the rest of this post at least, we're going to take the stance that the book is at least partially based on truth.

One of the most notable stories in the Book of Enoch is the story of the Watchers.  Here's an excerpt from chapter 6 of the Book of Enoch:

And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

As I've pointed out in previous posts (here and here), the word 'angel' means 'messenger'.  The 'angels' and the 'Watchers' may very well be the same type of entities (or species, whatever term you prefer), but they apparently have different roles in their society.  Some relay messages, some are apparently just supposed to watch.  The fallen Watchers taught men things such as cosmetics, building weapons, writing, and astrology.  The passage above says of the fallen Watchers that "they were in all two hundred."  But does that mean there are only 200 Watchers?  Or does it mean that only 200 Watchers are fallen?  Could there be more Watchers out there?

I've pointed out before some similarities between the elusive 'aliens' of today and the angels and demons spoken of in ancient texts (here, here, here, and here).  In the past, the beings known as 'angels' typically only appeared to certain individuals.  Today, most people never see any aliens.  And last I checked, there is no ancient story of a group of angels descending on the Roman Forum and declaring, "Hey, were those angels people have been talking about all these years," and then shaking hands with the emperor.  Nor have any aliens landed on the White House lawn and shook hands with the President either.  Is it a coincidence that angels and 'aliens' tend to be elusive?

And what about these Watchers?  The Book of Enoch is not the only place that watchers are mentioned; the book of Daniel also mentions watchers (lowercased though, and Daniel does not elaborate about them).  There are those among UFOlogists today who have postulated that the reason aliens are so elusive is because they are merely here to observe.  I wonder how many among those who have considered that theory have considered that the idea that the earth is being observed is a very ancient idea?  Indeed, it seems the ancients thought they were being 'watched' too.  So could the aliens that are allegedly observing us be Watchers?  Could they be Watchers that didn't break the Watcher status quo and have continued to watch throughout the millenia?

The Book of Enoch may be folklore akin to Greek mythology.  But maybe some of these old stories are at least based on truth.  Maybe some of the best evidence for that comes from comparing ancient folklore with some of our modern 'folklore'.

------------------------------------------------
P.S. View an update to this post here.

Green Fog

The "Paranormal Pastor" Robin Swope tells a story here about a lady named Mary who saw a ghost-like figure in the form of a green mist.  Mary described the green mist as writhing and twisting around in the air as if it were trying to take on a more solid form.

The green mist in the story reminded me of green fogs I've heard about from other stories. Green fogs have allegedly appeared in the Bermuda Triangle before.  The green fogs may have something to do with some of the mysterious disappearances reported in the Bermuda Triangle.

The story of the Philadelphia Experiment also describes a green fog. The Philadelphia Experiment was an alleged military experiment that supposedly attempted to make a warship invisible.  Here is a description from Wikipedia:

In most accounts of the experiment, the destroyer escort USS Eldridge, was fitted with the required equipment at the Philadelphia Naval Yard. Testing began in the summer of 1943, and it was supposedly successful to a limited degree. One test, on July 22, 1943, resulted in the Eldridge being rendered almost completely invisible, with some witnesses reporting a "greenish fog" appearing in its place.

Some versions of the story also claim that the USS Eldridge teleported to Norfolk, Virginia or traveled back in time for about 10 seconds.

Wikipedia also points out in its article on the subject that the Philadephia Experiment is widely regarded as a hoax. Some parts of the story do sound a bit-far fetched, but it's possible that the story may at least be partially true.  The military probably did want to make an invisibility cloak of some sort and may have attempted to do so, but whether or not they were successful, I don't know. Attempting to make an invisibility cloak would not be the strangest experiment carried out by a government around that period of time (the Nazis and Soviets were known for strange experiments too). The more far-fetched parts of the story may have been exaggerations or disinformation.

But what of the green fog mentioned in the story? Oddly enough, the green fog may be what lends some degree of credibility to the story. Bruce Gernon described seeing an "electronic fog" during an experience he had in the Bermuda Triangle. He did not report the fog he saw as being green, but he has reported seeing "green flashes" around the Florida Keys (the fog and flashes may not be directly related though).

In an interview with Bruce Gernon and Rob MacGregor that I found here, MacGregor mentions a researcher named John Hutchinson who created the Hutchinson Effect, in which objects of various materials levitate under the influence of intense electromagnetic activity.  While Hutchinson was conducting experiments, a green fog appeared.  So electronic fog and green fog may be similar types of phenomena.  If so, could there be some kind of connection between the electronic fog Gernon described and the green fog that appeared during the Philadelphia Experiment?

So what are these green fogs?  In the Hutchinson Effect and the Philadelphia Experiment, the fog seems to have been the result of electromagnetic activity induced by man-made technologies.  But what about the reports of green fogs in the Bermuda Triangle or the green mist mentioned in Pastor Swope's article?  Green mists/fogs aren't really all that common in ghost stories, but Pastor Swope's story is certainly not the only one to mention a green mist/fog (see a couple more here and here).  So is green fog also a naturally (or supernaturally) occurring phenomena?

I'm not sure what these green fogs are.  I'm not sure what causes them to be green (or appear to be green) either.  Taking the man-made examples into consideration, the green fog seems to be more of an effect than a cause.  My guess is the phenomena can occur naturally (or supernaturally), but the phenomena can also be duplicated by man with the right electronic technologies.

But regardless of what causes it, if you ever see a green fog, don't be surprised if something weird happens.

--------------------------------
P.S.  I left a comment on a blog posting written by Rob MacGregor mentioning that I had cited something he said in this post.  In his response to my comment, he mentioned another story about green fog that he included  in the book he wrote with Bruce Gernon named The Fog.  According to that story, a fisherman and his partner were pursued by a bank of green fog while fishing off the coast of Florida at 2 AM. As the green fog neared them, they ran for it and called it a night.

So there is another example of green fog around the Bermuda Triangle.

---------------------------------
P.S.S.  I also want to clarify that the reason I think the green fog may lend some credibility to the story about the Philadelphia Experiment is because it happened before these other stories were written.  So these other examples of green fog/mist and the Hutchinson Effect that Rob mentioned may lend some credibility to the story about the Philadelphia Experiment because green fog was also said to have been witnessed during the experiment.  If the Philadelphia Experiment was completely fictional, what are the odds that the story tellers of the time would have mentioned green fog?  I can't dismiss the possibility that the Philadelphia Experiment is a hoax, but it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that the story tellers of the time would have been familiar with green fog in this context.

Introverted Ghosts?

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is commonly used as evidence of ghosts trying to communicate audibly. You can find EVP clips on the internet or listen to them on TV shows like Ghost Hunters. I've listened to various clips of alleged EVPs, and some of them are rather intriguing. Sometimes they seem to say a person's name or respond to a question out loud.

But they aren't very clear. They usually just sound like blips of static to me. Once the ghost hunters suggest what they think the static says, I do think to myself, "Oh yeah, it does kind of sound like that I guess." But is it really saying that? Or is it just the power of suggestion? Are we just trying to hear what were told to hear? I don't know, maybe I'm just not good at interpreting EVPs.

But lets go ahead and assume for a moment that EVPs are communications from the spirit world. Why are they so brief? Why don't the ghosts ever seem to give many details? Why don't they say more? Is it difficult for them to communicate via sound waves? Do they have to muster up a lot of energy just to make a sound that an electronic device will pick up that will sound like a spoken language understandable to the listener?

Someone might argue that the ghost hunters can't hear the ghost say anything at the time, so they aren't able to carry on a conversation with them. But if that were the case, why not just explain to the ghost that they can't hear them now but that they are going to leave a recording device running and ask the ghost to give them a full dissertation on who they are, what the 'other side' is like, and what they do all day and that they will check back on the recording device later for any messages.

What if the ghosts have another reason for not saying that much though? What if they are intentionally vague because they don't think we can fully comprehend their answers? Sometimes ghost hunters sound like they are talking to a scared toddler when they talk to a ghost. Maybe they should consider the possibility that the ghosts know more about being ghosts than they do. Maybe they should consider that the ghosts are not confused and are fully aware of what is going on. Maybe the ghosts think we wouldn't be able to understand what its like on the 'other side' yet. Maybe it's like how a parent waits until a child reaches a certain age before they tell them about the birds and the bees. Maybe the ghosts think we're just to 'young' to understand.

But actually, I think it's probably more likely that the ghosts find it difficult to communicate via electronic recording devices. People have communicated (or at least appeared to communicate) with spirits via Ouija boards for years (Ouija boards are not recommended though!). Psychic mediums have claimed to communicate with spirits in another way. Ghost hunters have apparently carried on conversations with spirits via K2 meters (either that or they've gotten really really lucky with getting the device to light up right after asking questions out loud). So it's not necessarily that ghosts are always short on words, they just don't seem to be to fond of saying a lot on electronic recording devices.

 Of course, I can't dismiss the possibility that the static is just static from a random radio wave passing by. But there's still plenty of other types of evidence to suggest that ghosts do exist. I'd still believe in ghosts even if EVPs were just static.

An Interview with Dr. Charles Tart

I found an interview with Dr. Charles Tart, a Psychology Professor with an impressive academic resume, where he answers questions regarding his views on science and spirituality.  I was very impressed by the interview, so I'm posting a link to it for anyone interested in reading it.

Read the interview here: An Interview with Dr. Charles Tart (original link is no longer available, see this link instead)

H/T

Posted using ShareThis

Crossing Back

Michael Prescott posted another interesting near-death experience (NDE) story on his blog.  The story is about Noelle McNeil, who suffered brain injuries in horse riding accident.  Here is an excerpt he quoted from the newspaper story he found the article in:

McNeil was diagnosed with diffuse axonal injury in which many of the connections of the brain were severed. She said less than 3 percent of such patients make meaningful recoveries ...

[But] while her family and community and community prayed for a bedside miracle, the comatose McNeil was on an otherworldly journey. McNeil said she remembers leaving her body, gliding over brightly lit clouds into a brightly lit place where she encountered her Uncle Joe, her father's brother, who had died several years before.

"I asked Joe if this was heaven," McNeil explains in her book Heaven Exists. "He said yes. I asked if I could go back because I did not want to leave my life yet. I had so much more left I want to do."

Communicating telepathically, she said, Uncle Joe ultimately told her she could return to her body. He promised she would recover but told her it would take a long time.

"I had been to heaven and now I would have a glimpse of what hell is -- waking up to find myself totally debilitated in a hospital, unable to eat, walk or function in any real sense," she wrote.

McNeil returned to her body, but she had a long period of recovery ahead of her.

One aspect of her story that I found interesting was that she asked if she could return to her body.  In many of the NDE accounts I have read, the NDErs were content to stay in the spiritual realm.  Some didn't want to return but were told it was not their time yet (or something to that effect).  McNeil wanted to return to her physical body though.  When I thought about her story some more, I wondered if others may have asked to return to their physical bodies but were denied their request.  Could a situation like that possibly result in an 'intelligent haunting' (the type of haunting where the ghost seems to be aware of what's going on around it)?   Intelligent hauntings are commonly thought to be the ghost of a dead person.  If true, could these ghosts be haunting a location because they were denied a request to return to their physical body?  Could they have chosen to defiantly remain in a location familiar to them instead of crossing over?

I'm not claiming to know the answers to those questions, but I figured if someone could ask to return to her physical body and have her request granted, then theoretically, I figure that it may also be possible that similar requests could be denied in some instances.

The Queen of Heaven

Today, the designation 'Queen of Heaven' is often associated with the Virgin Mary.  Historically, the designation has been associated with Isis and Astarte.

In regards to the so-called 'Marian apparitions', it seems to me that the Catholics who claim to have seen the Lady assume she is Mary.  In the accounts that I have read about her, she either refers to herself  as something like 'Lady of the Rosary', or she may not introduce herself at all.  So if she does not specifically introduce herself as the mother of Jesus, why should we assume that she is?

I am not denying that Mary existed; nor am I denying that she gave birth to Jesus.  I'm not denying that she was a virgin either.  The question in my mind is whether or not these so-called Marian apparitions are actually visitations by the spirit of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

What if these apparitions have been appearing for much longer than previously thought?  Could it be that this entity or spirit - whatever you prefer to call her - is the same as Isis?  It's long been thought by mainstream historians that Isis, along with all the other pagan gods and goddesses, is a myth.  Some of the more open minded ones may consider that these ancient pantheons of gods and goddesses were once based on real people that had stories about themselves fabricated or were perhaps fabricated over time.  Fringe historians have suggested that some of the gods and goddesses were aliens or some other type of non-human intelligences.  I tend to think that the gods and goddesses may have once been based on real people, but I can't discount the possibility that the stories are entirely fictional.  But I'm also not closed to the possibility that the pagan gods and goddesses were some sort of aliens, or non-human intelligences - perhaps something akin to angels or fallen angels.  It could be that the pagan pantheons consisted of a combination of any or all three of these viewpoints.

So with that in mind, I can't help but wonder if these apparitions are some sort of non-human intelligent being who has been visiting people for thousands of years.  Maybe she just adapts to the audience.   To the Egyptians, she let them think she was Isis.  To modern Catholics, she lets them think she is Mary.  Mac Tonnies suggested a possibility that the 'aliens' people claim to see today have merely adapted to our cultural expectations.  In the past (and still today, actually), people may have observed such phenomena as gods, angels, fairies, or something else.  Perhaps the aliens are not the scientists with advanced technologies that they are assumed to be; maybe it's just a facade to fit our modern expectations.  The aliens may be something else entirely.  So could it be that this 'Queen of Heaven' (translatable as Queen of the Sky) is doing the same thing?  Does this 'lady' just try to fit the appearance that the viewer(s) would expect?

Catholic traditions that grant Mary her Queen title and divine status come later in history.  The Bible never says that she ascended to heaven and it doesn't say she remained a virgin throughout her lifetime.  In fact, the Bible even makes reference to Mary having other children.  The Catholic version of Mary more closely resembles a pagan goddess than the Mary depicted in the New Testament.   Pagan goddesses of the past were often known by many names and titles, and the alleged apparitions of Mary have many titles too (Lady of the Rosary, Lady of the Pillar, Lady of the Snow, etc).  So the question in my mind remains; are the so-called Marian apparitions actually appearances by Mary?  Or is the apparition actually someone else - perhaps a pagan 'goddess' from the past?  I'm not aware of her ever specifically introducing herself as Mary, but she doesn't deny being Mary either; so does she want people to think she is Mary?  Or does she just not care who they think she is?  Is she content just being called 'Our Lady'?

Of course, skeptics say these apparitions are just hallucinations or hoaxes.  Maybe they are.  But if they are real, I wonder if she is who she is assumed to be.  If she isn't who she is assumed to be, then who - and what - is she?

The Star of Bethlehem

One question that often comes up around this time of year is what the star of Bethlehem was.  The star of Bethlehem is the star that heralded the birth of Jesus Christ.  Many theories have been suggested as to what it could have been.  It's difficult to determine exactly what it was because not much was actually said about it.  Here is an excerpt from chapter 2 of the book of Matthew:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.

Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.

And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Matthew keeps it simple, he just says they saw a star.  Apparently a star that can move, and not just along the normal progression of the stars in the night sky.  There have been several suggestions as to what the star might have been.

• Comet - A comet would explain the sudden appearance of a star and could even appear to stay in the same place for a while.  Although we base our calendar today on the birth of Jesus, most people seem to think Jesus was actually born around 4 BC, as opposed to the year 0.  Halley's comet is said to have flown by around 12 BC, but that would be too early.  I suppose it's possible another comet could have gone by, possibly a comet that rarely ever passes by earth and has not been recorded before.  There is a whole universe out there, so I guess we shouldn't necessarily assume we have recorded every comet that ever has or ever will pass by the earth.  However, there is a flaw in the comet theory. A comet may appear suddenly and appear to stay in one spot, but therein lies the problem.  The star of Bethlehem didn't stay in one spot.  It moved over to the location of Jesus' house.  
• Supernova - A supernova is an exploding star that would give off an enormous amount of light.  This could account for the sudden appearance of another star.  It's possible it may have been too faint to see, but after going supernova, the added brightness may have made it visible.  Still, we have the problem with the movement of the star.  A supernova wouldn't move outside of the normal progression of stars.
• Astrological conjunction - Considering that the magi from the east were probably astrologers, this sounds like it might be a good explanation.  Here is one suggestion of what the astrological sign might have been:

John Mosley, program supervisor for the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles believes the Christmas star was a rare series of planetary conjunctions that took place in during the years 3 B.C. and 2 B.C. "The show started on the morning of June 12 in 3 B.C., when Venus could be sighted very close to Saturn in the eastern sky," says an MSNBC article about Mosley's findings. "Then there was a spectacular pairing of Venus and Jupiter on Aug. 12 in the constellation Leo, which ancient astrologers associated with the destiny of the Jews. Between September of 3 B.C. and June of 2 B.C., Jupiter passed by the star Regulus in Leo, reversed itself and passed it again, then turned back and passed the star a third time. This was another remarkable event, since astrologers considered Jupiter the kingly planet and regarded Regulus as the 'king star.' The crowning touch came on June 17, when Jupiter seemed to approach so close to Venus that, without binoculars, they would have looked like a single star."

It appears to be in the right timeframe and may even explain how the star was able to move in the sky.  Even the astrological significance of the event sounds kind of fitting.  However, the passage in Matthew says that the star went and stood over the location where Jesus was.  It doesn't say the star just moved in the sky and then the wise men went towards the direction of the star until they bumped into Jesus' house. Perhaps that is what it meant, but that isn't what it actually says.  It said it stood over the house.                                                                                                   

(Update 11/26/12: I've come to prefer this explanation since I originally wrote this piece.  See my new posting about this here.)

• UFO - In the strictest definition of the acronym, I suppose you could say the star was an unidentified flying object.  That's not to say it was necessarily a metal spaceship built by aliens, it's just saying that it was an unidentified flying object.  But, some kind spaceship would explain how it was able to change positions in the sky.  

These are the most common explanations.  We now know that stars are actually big balls of burning plasma, and they maintain a normal progression in the sky.  So we know that a star itself didn't just move out of its normal progression because stars can't do that.....

......or can they?  It wouldn't be the last time a star moved - or at least appeared to move - out of its normal progression.  In Fatima, Portugal in 1917, thousands of people saw the sun spin around and 'dance' in sky.  The dancing sun was accompanied by an apparition who called herself the Lady of the Rosary (presumed to be Mary, the mother of Jesus, by Catholics).   Of course, billions of other people didn't notice the sun doing this, so apparently the so called 'miracle of the sun' was only visible to those people assembled in the Cova da Iria fields in Fatima (and apparently not everyone in attendance there saw the sun do anything out of the ordinary).  But the fact that only a limited number of people observed the sun dance may be significant.  If you read chapter 2 of the book of Matthew, it seems that Herod and the Judeans hadn't noticed the star had appeared.  Not only that, considering the passage says the wise men  followed the star to Jesus' house, it may be that the wise men were the only ones that saw the star move.  I don't know what the Lady of the Rosary did to make the sun appear to move in the sky in front of thousands of people, but if she could do it, I suppose a similar event could have occurred a couple thousand years ago with another star.

Even if what the Lady of the Rosary did and what happened in Bethlehem in 2000 years ago are totally unrelated phenomena, I don't think we should assume that it wasn't some other kind of supernatural event.  I mean, it's not like it's the only supernatural event recorded in the Bible.  Unless you are someone who is 100% skeptical of anything supernatural, there's no reason  to assume that the appearance and movement of the star of Bethlehem couldn't have been a supernatural event.

However, there is another question about the star of Bethlehem that I think often gets overlooked.  People are so busy trying to figure out what it could have been, they don't bother to ask why the wise men associated the appearance of the star with the birth of Christ.  I've asked that question before, and no one seems to have a good answer.  Sometimes people don't seem to even understand the question when I ask.  They'll answer by trying to explain what the star was.  But that's not what I was asking.  What I'm asking is how did the wise men know exactly what the significance of the star was?  How did they know to travel west to Bethlehem to visit Jesus?  How did they know the star appeared because of the birth of Christ?

The only answer I've ever really gotten is the suggestion that maybe the Jews, who were held captive in Babylon and Persia for 70 years, passed along a story of a star appearing that would herald the birth of the Christ.  It sounds plausible that eastern astrologers might have learned about Jewish traditions while the Jews were held captive, however, there is no record of a Jewish tradition concerning a star appearing at the birth of the Christ.  Some people have suggested that Numbers 24:17 is a prophecy of the star of Bethlehem, but I disagree.  I think the passage has been taken out of context, and furthermore, the passage doesn't specify anything about what the star would look like or where it would appear in the sky.  So if Jews living during the Babylonian captivity passed along a tradition about a star appearing to herald the birth of the Christ, then that tradition has been lost to history.

So I'm still left wondering how the wise men knew what to associate the appearance of the star with.  If we knew the answer to that, we might be able to figure what the star was (or which one appeared to move).  I guess it's just one of history's mysteries though.

----------
Update 11/26/12: I now prefer the astrological conjuction theory and have written a new posting about it.  Click the link below to read it.

The Star of Bethlehem revisited

Meteorology: A Falsehood

Admittedly, the title of this post is slightly tongue in cheek.  But only slightly.  I looked at the weather report the other day and it predicted rain and thunderstorms all day.  By lunch time, the sun was coming out.  I got to thinking that if meteorological predictions were judged by the same standards psychic predictions were, would skeptics consider meteorology a falsehood?

I think the answer is no, otherwise meteorology wouldn't still be considered a credible science.  I suppose that because meteorologist use technology and can visibly see how their technology is affected by the atmosphere, that somehow makes meteorological predictions more credible than psychic predictions, nevermind if they're wrong.

And boy are they wrong quite a bit.

I haven't come across any comparative statistics regarding psychics and meteorologists, but I'd be curious to see who's more accurate.  Granted, most any statistics you'd find on the subject would probably be cherrypicked and biased, and it would be hard to actually compare statistics between the two anyways.  Psychics come in many forms, some predict the future, some read objects and can tell you about its past, others read people's feelings, and some do a combination of those techniques.  Psychics may see something relatively routine, however, they may also see something that they would be unlikely to have known beforehand.  The meteorologists though, they mostly just focus on normal events that can be expected to occur somewhere at some point regardless of when or where they predict it will happen.

With that in mind, I think meteorology should scrutinized with much higher standards.  I mean, if any of us were to wake up in a room with no windows and were asked if we thought it would rain that afternoon, we'd pretty much have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.  So why shouldn't meteorologists and their fancy gadgets be expected to achieve significantly better results than just guessing?

Although I didn't find any comparative statistics, I did find an article on the New York Times website reporting how inaccurate meteorological reports can be.  Here are few interesting comments the article quotes from meteorologists and station managers that were asked about the accuracy of meteorological reports on TV:

“We have no idea what’s going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out.”

“There’s not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy.”

“All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers.”

I can't say that I'm surprised that presentation takes precedence over accuracy.  The primary purpose of the news is to sale advertisements, and good presenters help bring in good ratings.  But if a psychic were to admit they were more focused on putting on a good show for paying customers as opposed to being focused on accuracy, they'd be branded as charlatans.  Which, of course, if they are scamming people out of money they should be branded as charlatans, but the point here is that meteorologists are practically doing the same thing, yet they aren't considered charlatans at all.

The article also queried the meteorologists about how close the actual temperature had to be to their prediction for them to consider themselves accurate.  Here is what the article says:

All of the chief meteorologists were asked, “How close does your high-temperature prediction have to be to the actual temperature for you to feel like you did a good job?”

Without exception, all of the meteorologists answered, “within three degrees.”

The chart above shows the results of the stations’ temperature prediction accuracy for their full seven-day forecasts. For next day predicting (one day out), all stations met their “within three degrees” goal. For two days out, all but one was within three degrees. But for three days out and beyond, none of the forecasters met their three-degree benchmark, and in fact get linearly worse each day.

Here's a question the article asks the reader:

Have you ever noticed that the prediction for a particular day keeps changing from day to day, sometimes by quite a bit?

Yes actually, I have noticed that.  One reason why the reports change so frequently is because the meteorologists are basically just guessing for anything beyond three days out.  Here is what the article says about it:

Meteorologists take a blind stab at what the high temperature and rain possibilities might be seven days out, and then adjust their predictions on the fly as the week goes on. As mentioned earlier, one meteorologist told us: “We have no idea what’s going to happen beyond three days out.”

Meteorologists have such a bad track record they don't even bother keeping any statistics on how accurate their predictions are.  Here's another excerpt from the article:

No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their résumé. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists.

Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation. Their words say they care about accuracy, but their actions say they do not. Yet, they wish to continue providing inaccurate seven-day forecasts that are no more than a semi-educated shot in the dark because a) their competitors do and b) they can get away with it since they think the public does not know how inaccurate they are.

I recommend reading the whole article at the New York Times website here.  The article has some interesting statistics about precipitation and makes some other good points.

So why is meteorology considered a credible science when they get predictions wrong so often?  Is it because they have fancy scientific gadgets?  Why are they not more heavily scrutinized for just guessing on what the weather will be a week into the future?

Imagine if a skeptical scientist was conducting an experiment on psychic phenomena and the psychic used in the experiment kept changing his or her story everyday.  In addition to that, the psychic just predicts events that are relatively common and already has a good chance of occurring anyway.  The scientist probably wouldn't even bother to see the experiment to the end.  Yet meteorologists do it day in and day out and its considered credible science.

My intention in this post is not to criticize meteorology specifically, but to criticize the double standard of how significant statistics are when it comes to meteorologist predictions and psychic predictions.  Many people check weather reports daily to try and plan events, yet no one seems concerned with scrutinizing the inaccurate predictions of meteorologists.  Yet when a psychic predicts something, suddenly accuracy statistics are necessary and the standard is expected to be set very high.

I've mentioned before how ambiguous the results of psychic experimentation can be.  I think part of the problem with research on psychic phenomena is it is focused on accuracy statistics.  The research need not be focused on accuracy  but on the mechanism.  If a psychic receives information telepathically and the information is wrong or they just interpret it wrong, their inaccurate prediction isn't proof that they didn't receive information telepathically at all.  If research were done as to what the mechanism is that makes psychic phenomena possible, perhaps it would be possible to better learn how it works.  If we can better learn how it works, maybe people could better learn to hone their psychic skills too.

We know how meteorological equipment works and no one seems concerned with statistics.  Maybe if we better understood how psychic phenomena worked, people wouldn't be concerned with statistics on it either.

And you know, it's funny, but I remember as a kid I read about some of the old ways people used to predict the weather, and one of the ways mentioned was based on how high starlings flew in the evening.  If the starlings flew high in the evening, the next day would be sunny.  If they flew low, the next day would be stormy.  I haven't thought much about it anymore over the years, but one thing I do recall from when I would watch the starlings as a kid is that the starlings were never wrong.

I'm also reminded of how so many of the animals on the Sri Lankan and Indian coastlines somehow seemed to know they needed to move inland when the big tsunami was about to hit in December 2004.  It seems that despite all of our fancy technologies, no one was able to predict the tsunami until the people saw it looming over them.  The animals had no technology, but they seemed to somehow know a tsunami was coming.

I'm not aware of any psychics that specialize in predicting weather, but maybe some of them should start trying to do it.  Hey, maybe one day psychics could do the weather report on TV!  Statistically speaking, they probably wouldn't be much worse, and they might even do better.

The Alien - Angel Topic Revisited

I've written about the alien-angel connection before and dedicated a whole post to the topic a while back.

As I stated previously, the phrase 'angel from heaven' translates to 'messenger from the sky'.  But people have been questioning for a long time whether or not extraterrestrials could exist from a religious perspective.

Here is an article I came across today about it.  But the topic isn't something new, people have been questioning the subject for years.

I guess I'm just really surprised that there is some much confusion about this.  I mean, it just seems like such a non-issue!  If an angel from heaven has come to earth from the sky, then technically, you could classify it as a type of extraterrestrial.  This doesn't mean that the traditional concept of an angel is the only type of extraterrestrial life there is - there may very well be grays, reptillians, insectoids and other types of extraterrestrial life - but the point is, by definition of the phrase 'angel from heaven', angels themselves could very well be considered extraterrestrial.  So the whole question as to whether extraterrestrials exist from a religious perspective is like questioning whether or not angels themselves exist.  I suppose it's possible some angels could actually be terrestrial in origin, but if it's an angel that has specifically come from heaven, then technically, it's an extraterrestrial.  I don't think it matters if it is made of flesh and blood or not, a lifeform is still a lifeform.

So why all the hoopla about whether or not extraterrestrials fit into God's universe?  I guess it's somewhat understandable why some people might question from a religious perspective whether or not specific types of alleged ETs such as grays or reptilians exist, but I see no reason why anyone with a religious perspective should question whether or not extraterrestrials exist at all.

The whole debate just seems like a waste of time to me.  It's like spending years trying to decide whether or not we should say the sky is blue, or say the sky appears to be blue.


H/T for the linked article.

Just a thought...

I've never experienced an "astral projection" (at least not that I can recall) and don't know a whole lot about it, but I do consider it to be a possibility and more than just someone having a vivid dream.

I saw an astral projection FAQ page, and I don't know if the author of the page is credible or not, but one of the questions and its answer on the page piqued my curiosity.  Here it is:

You had said that there is an image of every physical object in the astral. Can you touch or change a particular object in the astral? Say, if it is a piece of paper, can you write? If you can, will it be in the altered condition when you return to the physical world? 

 The astral counterpart is exactly that. For example, once in the astral, I picked up a lipstick and drew something on the bathroom mirror, but it was not there in the physical. I have heard of cases where electric objects can be affected by the astral. All things can be changed in the astral but whether they will be changed in the physical depends on how close vibrationally you are to the physical. I have read that things exist in the astral because of our thoughts, and how long that remains in the astral depends on how much it is thought about. For example, mass religion may construct a "heaven" which becomes almost a permanent place in the astral because of so many millions of continual thoughts; whereas the lipstick I drew on the mirror will not be there after a few hours. That is why you can sometimes see furniture in your room that is not your own. It is probably the previous owner's furniture, which has its own imprint that has remained, and will take months to years to fade.

Again, I can't vouch for how credible that answer might be, but let's just take it into consideration for a moment.

Now, before we go any further, think back to the ancient Egyptians and their burial practices (the kings in particular).  When we think of the Egyptians, we often think of what a magnificent civilization they were.  We marvel at their accomplishments and their amazing architectural skills that still remain a mystery today.  The ancient Egyptians seemingly appeared out of no where in the historical record as an already advanced civilization.  There's little evidence of their progression from primitive to advanced.

But when we think of their burial practices and how they included all sorts of treasures and objects that they thought their dead kings would need in the afterlife, we often think of them from a perspective of 'oh those silly old ancient peoples and their hokey rituals'.

Now, with the above question and answer in mind, could it be that the ancient Egyptians thought their kings would be able to use the 'image' of the physical objects they placed in their tombs?  If so, then going by what the author of that FAQ page said, it would explain how the dead king would be able to use the objects, while the objects appeared to remain physically intact and in place.

If so, then I guess maybe the old burial rituals the Egyptians used might not be as silly as we thought they were.  Of course, presumably the dead king's spirit wouldn't be limited to just hanging around his tomb, so the ritual of putting the objects in his tomb would have still been kind of pointless.  However, I thought it was an interesting thought to consider that maybe the dead kings spirits  might have actually been using the objects in their tomb!

The Christmas Story

It seems that every year around Christmas, you can find someone pointing out the pagan origins of some of the Christmas rituals and decorations, as well as the pagan connections between the date suggested to be the day of Christ's birth.

Well, this post isn't about all of that.  Instead, I thought I'd clarify a few common misconceptions about the Christmas story as told in the Bible.

Before I get into that though, I want to make a few points about the Gospels themselves.

Each of the four Gospels are written from a different perspective with a specific audience in mind.  Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, and presented Jesus as the messiah the Jews had been waiting for.  This is why Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father.  Joseph was a direct descendant of King David through Solomon's royal line, giving him legal claim to the throne of David (which, of course, during this period of time, the Romans had control of Palestine).  An adopted child had all the rights of a biological child, thus, Jesus had legal claim to the throne of David through Joseph.  So Matthew gives us the perspective of Jesus being King of the Jews.

Mark's Gospel may have been written to a Roman audience.  Mark portrays Jesus as a servant.

Luke, a gentile, wrote to a Greek audience, and more specifically, to someone named Theophilus (Luke 1:3).  Luke portrayed Jesus as a man, the perfect man.  Greeks were known as thinking men, so this was an appropriate perspective for a Greek audience.  Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Mary was actually a descendant of King David too, although not through Solomon's royal line.  But as the biological mother of Jesus, this was an important genealogy from the perspective of Jesus being human.

The book of John, which was the last of the Gospels written, was probably written to a Christian audience in general.  John emphasized Jesus' divinity.

It's been suggested that the prophet Ezekiel saw a vision that predicted these four records of Jesus.  In chapter one of the book of Ezekiel, Ezekiel mentions seeing a vision of four living creatures.  Here is what he had to say about their faces:

Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle.  -Ezekiel 1:10

These four living creatures are also mentioned in the book of Revelation.  The lion symbolizes Kingship.  The Ox (a.k.a. 'beast of burden') was used for pulling carts and ploughs, making it a symbol of servitude.  The face of a man symbolizes..well...a man, and the eagle symbolizes divinity.  In the book of Revelation, the four living creatures are named in the same order that the four Gospels were chosen for inclusion in the Bible.

Huh...I guess maybe the Council of Nicaea did pick the right books to include in the Bible.

Matthew and Luke are the only two Gospel writers that mention the birth of Jesus.  Neither of them said a whole lot about it though.  Neither of them give us a date of his birth, indicating they only thought it was significant that he was born, and not when he was born.  One of the reasons they probably chose to mention his birth was because of the perspective they were writing from.  Matthew needed to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for, and Luke wanted people to know that Jesus was a man in flesh and blood.

Luke tells us that an angel informed shepherds that were out with their flocks at night that the messiah had been born.  The shepherds then went to visit Him (Hmm...imagine that, an angel announcing the birth of the messiah to lowly shepherds.  Interesting that the angel didn't bother mentioning it to the 'authorities' and the big government.  I'm still wondering if it is just a coincidence that most alien sightings today are reported by country folk.  And come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard someone report an alien saying, "Take me to your leader.").

So as for the date of Jesus' birth, it was probably in the spring time.  It wasn't winter, because the shepherds wouldn't have been out with their flocks at night during the winter.  It's possible that it was summertime or fall, but the springtime is probably more likely just because it seems more appropriate.  Spring was (and still is) considered to be a time of new birth, and at one point was considered to be the beginning of the new year (am I the only one that finds it odd we use a calendar that starts the new year in the dead of winter and begins new days in the middle of the night??).  So it seems fitting that the messiah would have been born during a time of new birth.  At this point, I don't see much need in changing the date it's celebrated though.  The Gospel writers didn't bother to include a date, so I guess December 25th is as good as any date.

In a lot of Nativity scenes, you'll see figures of Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus along with figures of animals and three wise men.  The problem is, the wise men didn't visit Jesus in a stable as a newborn.  Nor is there any indication there was only three wise men.  The wise men and the shepherds didn't arrive on the same night.  The wise men traveled from the East, and it may have been several days, weeks, or months after the birth when they visited.  By that time, Jesus and his parents were living in a house.  In fact, Matthew 2:10 even states the wise men visited Jesus in a house.  Matthew doesn't say anything about a stable.  We know that the wise men didn't arrive on the night of his birth, because Matthew 2:7 states that Herod asked the wise men when the star they had been following first appeared.  Matthew doesn't explicitly tell us what the wise men told him, but in Matthew 2:16, Herod decreed that all children two years old and younger were to be killed, and he based his decision on the timeframe the wise men had told him.  So going by that, the wise men may have arrived as late as two years after Jesus' birth (Although it probably wasn't quite that long, Herod probably just stated two years and younger in attempt to make sure all his bases were covered.).  It may also be important to note that Matthew says the wise men visited the "child," not the "baby."

The tale of the three wise men, known as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, came several centuries later.  It crept into Christian tradition, and there's even a famous Christmas carol about them.  The Christmas carol further confuses the tale by describing them as being "three kings." But they were not kings.  I'm not aware of any translation of the Bible that describes them as "kings."

I'm not sure why people got the idea that there were only three wise men.  Maybe it's because only three gifts were mentioned.  But naming only three gifts doesn't indicate that only three people came and each gave an individual gift.  I could say that I received money, clothes, and gift cards at Christmas.  But I received those gifts from more than three people.  Additionally, I also received a combination of those gifts from some individuals!  So going by how many different gifts were named is not an indication of how many wise men there were.

More than likely, there were many wise men that came.  They might not have all been traveling together either.  If there were only a few of them, they might not have been granted an audience with King Herod.  The king probably had more to do than meet with a few eccentric astrologers from the East.  But if an entire entourage came, he might have to clear his schedule for that.  Also consider that if there had only been three of them, the king might not have been concerned with them coming into town looking for who they claimed was a newborn king.  Matthew also indicates that the people of Jerusalem were also disturbed by the arrival of the wise men; again, three visiting astrologers probably wouldn't have gotten the whole city into a frenzy.  I don't know how many there were, but I think there were probably more than three.

The story of the manger comes solely from Luke's record.  It's thought that Luke, who was not one of the Twelve, probably consulted the mother Mary as a source for his writings.  Some of the stories he writes about seem as though they may have been told from Mary's perspective, particularly the story of Jesus' birth and the events that led up to it (Luke begins his record by telling the story of the birth of John the Baptist first).  Luke actually skips over the part where Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt to escape King Herod's wrath.  Matthew included it in his record because the prophet Hosea said that God would call his son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15).  Since Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, it was necessary to point out the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies.  Luke wasn't writing to a Jewish audience, so he didn't even bother to mention that part of the story.

Neither Matthew or Luke say a whole lot about the birth of Jesus.  They don't dwell on the topic.  Luke mentions an incident at the Temple when Jesus was twelve years old, but both records mainly focus on Jesus as an adult.

What's interesting to me is that some of the Christmas traditions have become so ingrained in the public consciousness, many people don't even notice that some of the traditions aren't a part of the Biblical record.  Even some people that have read the records all the way through don't seem to notice that the Bible never mentions wise men named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar visiting Jesus on the night of his birth.

So yes, I suppose it is true that many of the common Christmas traditions are pagan in origin.  A lot of them seem to be adapted from Norse/Scandinavian traditions.  I can't say that I'm surprised though.  The Romans were known for adapting some of the customs of the people they conquered.  It's not mere coincidence that Roman and Greek pantheons were so similar.  The Romans had their own pantheon, but they also adapted aspects of the Greek pantheon into their own.  When Christianity came to Rome, the Romans adapted aspects of it too.  Over the years, Roman Catholics did as their pagan Roman ancestors did.  It took hundreds of years to convert the Scandinavians from their pagan beliefs to Catholic beliefs.  Various methods of forcing them to convert or demonizing their gods were tried.  But they also tried more subtle methods.  Sometimes the Catholics would also blend aspects of the Scandinavian traditions with Catholic beliefs, or in some cases, essentially just tell the Scandinavians the reign of their gods was a thing of the past.  In other words, the Catholics didn't always try to convince the Scandinavians their traditions weren't true, they just tried to convince them they were from an era of the past.  With that in mind, I'm not surprised that ancient Scandinavian traditions have continued into the present day.  Even those cold, snowy Scandinavian winters seem to be the traditional image of what the Christmas season is 'supposed' to look like.

Nevertheless, I love the Christmas season.  I love the cool air, the decorations, the music, and the joy.  So Merry Christmas!