So would you work in a building on ancient Indian Burial Grounds? (1 Viewer)

[Grant B]

Rumor has it that land that Lockheed Martin finally sold off which was never built upon, is a Indian Burial Ground.
The Moffett Towers is being built directly over the land which has the dead indians on it. Not sure if they relocated the dead or not but it might make those cubicals a little interesting in the future.

 

[Ron-P]

Sure, why not?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Grant, if your going to start discussing ghosts, tread carefully, this forum is full of skeptics who will eat you up and spit you out.

Trust me, I know.

BTW, I say that with lots of love in my heart so easy.

 

[Grant B]

That's fine, skeptics are us.
I'd rather work there then some insanely tall highrise any day of the week!
If the dead Indians get too upset they can turn it into a casino like the rest of Indian Land

 

[Mike Brogan]

What about live American Indians getting upset? I'm one and it's a little unsettling to me and not because of any bogus, haunted, poltergeist tripe. Would it be alright to put a strip mall over Gettysburg? Condos on old death camp sites? I guess the question is how long is long enough?

"If the dead Indians get too upset they can turn it into a casino like the rest of Indian Land"

I realize that's a joke, but let me understand your delivery. So "dead Indians" are going to build a Casino "like the rest of Indian land"? What? Dead Indians are working as contractors?

 

[Hank_P]

if it pays the bills, yes. Jobs are not the easiest to come by, and when you are trying to provide for your family.. I don't think this would be a big concern to the majority. Now some, I could see if freakin' out.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

You broke #'s 1-3 in your very first post, opening with a salvo that not only "dissed the Scientific Method", but completely misunderstood the scientific method entirely. Start off with an initial post like that and teeth and saliva often follow. No one ever said a belief in ghosts was wrong, they only said that if one is going to critique science in order to bolster some sort of proof for extraordinary beliefs, they ought to understand about science and the scientific method before criticizing it. It's our subject, so when you throw down a challenge in our dojo, we get to make the rules. I didn't lug 1200 page calculus and physics books in my back pack for 5 years for nuthin' you know!

Edited for my atrocious spelling and to add a "no hard feelings smiley".

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Yes, our culture's death-worshipping obsession with turning battlefields into parks is macabre.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Where is this building?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

 

[andrew markworthy]

I used to live in a student hall of residence that was built on a medieval plague pit. Never did me any harm (okay, except for the strange wailing at night - though often that was my neighbour's girlfriend expressing her satisfaction with his technique).

 

[Jeff Gatie]

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, Jeff, I never actually stated that science doesn't have ANY answers, just that most of the one's i've ever heard to explain away hauntings do not satisfy me and that falls within my right I believe.

Let me be clear, I do not dismiss science as a whole, but when it comes to the subject of the supernatural or life elsewhere in the universe I take anything that science says about those subjects with a grain of salt because like I stated before, science doesn't have all the answers, i'm not saying that I do but I simply do not believe in a lot of the thoeries science offers to explain those two things.

I'm not getting into this again, suffice to say that my first post in this thread extends only partially from my experience in the thread your thinking of, the rest comes from my experience a few years ago in another thread where I was attacked for simply believing in the paranormal, science never even entered into the equasion in that one, it mostly consisted of posts like "So, you believe in ghosts? Oooookayy..." and then nothing but jokes and smart-ass remarks at my expense.

The thread was closed needless to say.

So when it comes to the supernatural and this forum I don't have alot of confidence that a discussion can be positive for the believer, heck i'm surprised that the yearly Ghost Hunters thread has remained "uneventful" thus far!

Why is it so hard for people to understand that any discussion about the supernatural will lead to nothing but back and forth banter that will lead both parties absolutely nowhere? For the skeptic, I will never be able to convince you and the skeptic will never be able to convince me, so why bother? But to clearify my stance again, I love science, I don't dismiss all science, but it's my right to believe that it dosn't provide satisfactory answers to certain subjects which is normal...i'm a believer, it's in my nature to be skeptical about their explanations to certain things just as it's the skeptics right to not buy into any evidence they are confronted with that contradicts their beliefs.

Round and round...

And no hard feelings at all.

BTW, just so that I cannot be accused of thread-jacking, I would work in such a building, but the first sign of anything strange and i'm outta there.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

One piece of friendly advice John - Next time you post in a paranormal thread, copy and paste the above and you will have no problems. Lead off with


and the scientist types tend to get their hackles up. Repeated posts that ask the skeptics to prove a negative do the same.

Back to the thread; my personal reservations about Indian burial grounds would have more to do with respecting a place that is sacred to a race of people rather than any spooks or spirits, although I could be accused of hedging my bets with that one and it would not be totally untrue.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, I should have worded it differently so you got me there, Jeff, but my basic point in that post remains...we don't know everything.

And as for the "proving the negative" part, I still don't see the big deal, I can't prove that the supernatural does exists and you can't prove that it doesn't which goes back to my back and forth with no destination in sight statement.

And don't worry, outside of the Ghost Hunters thread you'll never catch me engaged in this subject again, well, presant thread excluded. In fact IMO the whole subject of the supernatural should be off limits in this forum along with politics and religion. Silly and unrealistic? Perhaps, but it's just my opinion and one that i've felt for many years now here.

 

[Grant B]

The actual building is in the Silicon Valley which tends to got through about a 10 year boom to bust cycle.

For years we listened to huge furnitured being moved around every day in the flat above us. Considering two little old ladies lived above us and most of the time nobody was home,it was a little strange to say the least. We pretty much ignored it until one day my wife noticed that it stopped. Guess they got tired or something. I wonder if Ghosts use Ben Gay?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It is a basic tenet of logic that "proving a negative" is impossible, so therefore it is not a relative argument in a debate. There is no equivalency between being asked to prove something does exist and being asked to prove something doesn't exist, despite the seemingly "equal, yet opposite" relationship between the two concepts. One only requires that something exists and can be measure, observed, etc. The other requires that an infinite number of situations be examined and/or observed for the absence of the thing in question. This is an impossible scenario and to require it as "proof" is a fallacy of logic, for the proof itself is impossible. Since the requirer is always "right" and the requiree is always "wrong", as a tenet of logical debate the "proving of a negative" is useless in determining "truth" and therefore is neither relative nor allowed in logical exercises.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

We simply differ in that opinion, Jeff, it's quite unfair IMO to ask me to prove my argument when you can't prove yours.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Actually, it is not an opinion, it is a rule of logic established way, way back when Socrates was still upright.

Besides, where exactly did any of the skeptics argue that ghosts do not exist? No scientist worth his salt would definitively say any such thing (and they didn't ). They would simply say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until that proof is shown, the existence of 'X' is up for debate, with neither side able to definitively say anything. By the way, anyone claiming that ghosts don't exist are under the same rules, except their proof is impossible, so they are judged wrong from the get go. Given that, the "fairness" factor is actually weighted in your favor. All you have to do is find a ghost.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well I guess i'm just shit out of luck because i've never seen one.

Okay, we're good here. Later.