Posted on 01/28/2014 11:50:18 AM PST by BlatherNaut
A Gary, Ind., mother of three claims demons caused her 12-year-old daughter to levitate and her 9-year-old son to walk on a hospital ceiling — accounts supported by medical personnel and police officials, according to a shocking report. For Latoya Ammons, the late night footsteps, the creaking of a door and wet footprints left by a shadowy male figure through her living room were merely child's play when that was all her family had to endure. But then things turned violent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Why is it that “ghost snaps” are still so grainy in the age ridiculously megapixeled phone-cameras that let Japanese business men take up-skirt shots from the other side of town?
If you're going to talk ceiling walking then it's remiss not to snap it.
-— Because people react instantly to shocking and horrifying events right in front of their faces — by grabbing their cell phones -— right? -—
Some people reject the possibility in principle, so arguing the evidence is pointless.
I’m surprised by the Christians who seem excessively skeptical in light of the large number of disinterested witnesses, and the amount of documentation.
I find the evidence to be very convincing.
I think when the kid decided to walk backward u the wall, he should have given his mom and the nurse a heads up so they could get out the phone bring up the app and film. Some of those little devils are inconsiderate.
Disagreement is "attack"? Wow. Sensitive.
You're right, the Bible doesn't have anything about an EBT mom in its pages, but it does give an account of Jesus driving demons from a man. It also says He gave His apostles the power to do the same.
Its an interesting phenomenon. When I showed a video to a group of Christians that documents the very compelling scientific evidence of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and the supernatural event associated with it, at least half of them behaved the same way. They simply rejected it out of hand without any counter explanation of the evidence. A few claimed that the scientific evidence was somehow harmful to faith...huh?????
Weird.
I just wanted to see the Carfax... sheesh.
-— Weird -—
They’re probably conflicted between scientific naturalism, which is taught in school and which is in the air we breathe, and religion, however that term is defined in their minds.
In their minds, faith, or the supernatural, and “science,” or the natural world, are completely separated, and cannot overlap, the miracles recorded in Scripture, and existing miraculous phenomena (like the Shroud) notwithstanding.
This statement repudiates what was said by the Indiana DCS social worker Valerie Washington, and the RN at the hospital, Willie Lee Walker, both of whom were there in the hospital room and were eye-witnesses. You didn't mention them by name, but you are clearly dismissing their testimony.
According to the article, there's an 800-page official record compiled by the DCS, and no evidence (yet) of fraud.
My view is that we're not in any position to say "It didn't happen". To reach a sound explanation, this needs, not instant judgment, but careful, unbiased investigation.
Another case of "the Narrative" trumping "stuff that actually happened." Rather a paradox.
That is because all it takes is for one report of the supernatural to be true to destroy the materialist worldview. Therefore they MUST claim all reports of the supernatural to be false regardless of the evidence. It takes great faith to be a materialist, and quite a bit of denial.
I find this highly interesting, because other disinterested parties testified to truly unnatural occurrences in a neutral setting. Being a boy going up a wall and ceiling. That is truly bizarre. Tell me how a boy happens to do that.
For myself, I’ll say that I am scientific but also a believer. I believe in ghosts, but don’t believe 99% of the stories (because I don’t see the evidence or doesn’t make any sense, etc.). This piques my interest, despite not seeing a video, for reasons stated.
In some ways these people may be very lucky. They’ve witnessed the supernatural which is surely proof there is a god.
I share your perspective.
In some ways these people may be very lucky. They’ve witnessed the supernatural which is surely proof there is a god.
The logical necessity of a self-existing First Cause is hard to ignore, isn't it? But for anyone who requires further proof, phenomena which contradict natural law are difficult to dismiss.
“Video, or it didn’t happen” is a common figure of speech in use on the internet, not some attempt to attack the witnesses. It’s basically the equivalent of “I’ll believe it when I see it”. Or, I could have just as well used another, more classic figure of speech: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Eyewitnesses are not extraordinary evidence, not by a long shot.
This used different words but has the same meaning and the same lack of justification. You don't just discount eyewitnesses because they eye-witnessed something you didn't expect.
" Or, I could have just as well used another, more classic figure of speech: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”."
This careless cliche also lacks justification. Extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence, just like any other claims. Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead.
"Cui bono?" is always a good question. Everybody has heard of bizarre mothers who inflict harm on their children for publicity, sympathy or attention in "Münchausen by proxy." That would be one line of inquiry.
But it's not at all clear why professionals would put their own credibility on the line by giving positive testimony of what they'd seen, especially as it is outside of their education, training and previous experience.
It's also unclear how they could have engineered the wall and ceiling-walking of the 9-year-old boy without extensive prior preparation of the room with hoists and pulleys or magnets or whatever, and without the connivance of the hospital. Again on the basis of "Cui bono?" ---that could be ruled out because hospitals don't benefit from the public perception that they have onsite demonic activity.
Extraordinary claims don't need extraordinary evidence. They just need evidence. Would you expect to find evidence of hospital collusion?
If you want to believe everything that someone says they saw, with no corroborating evidence, then that is your prerogative. Some of the rest of us require a little more verification when the claims are spectacular. If you can’t understand that, I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
I never said that: but then, it's always easier to rebut what somebody didn't say.
I said "They need evidence," and "Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead."
If you can't construe somebody's written statements accurately, you can't have much of a discussion.
“I never said that: but then, it’s always easier to rebut what somebody didn’t say.”
Put the whole sentence from the quote in there if you are going to claim it’s not accurate:
“If you want to believe everything that someone says they saw, with no corroborating evidence, then that is your prerogative.”
You have been arguing that I should accept the testimony of these witnesses, with no corroborating evidence, haven’t you?
If not, then what are you going on about, exactly? You made a dispute with a figure of speech referencing what type of evidence, ordinary or extraordinary, should be required to confirm a claim. Yet, nobody has even produced any ordinary evidence to confirm this claim.
No.(!!)
I am assuming youm mean "admit it into evidence," not "regfard it as irrefutable proof."
I have been saying you should not reject eyewitness testimony out of hand. I did say, "Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead."
Eyewitness testimony from several parties whose testimony agrees, especially from people with no benefit to be gained from their claim, is ordinary evidence. To reject it out of hand is bias. If you see that, then we have no disagreement.
“I have been saying you should not reject eyewitness testimony out of hand.”
I’m not rejecting, or accepting it. I have no way to know whether their testimony reflects reality or not, because there is no corroborating evidence. Absent that evidence, their testimony means nothing to me, so I am going assume that the normal observed rules of physics and reality were actually in force, and nobody walked on the ceiling. You go ahead and form whatever opinion you want, I really couldn’t care less. Capiche?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.