The real principle that needs the attention is not the perception of what happened but what happened. to even call it a poltergeist already shuts the door for sound logical reasoning becuase it opens belief. the sceptics are attacking Maurices belief instead of focusing on what happened with proof. if you do not have the evidence to debunk something then you can not debunk it.
People trying to explain away events static this & water that. When events such as these take place around an individual. Nobody but, that individual can explain to their best of ability to another exactly," lets say in the right words" for another to get a clear impression of the event. You just cannot get the impact of the event not being there.You have to experience or witness it yourself to get the impact. Those that havn't had anything unusual happen in their lives LET IT STAY THAT WAY
@Kilooscarromeo But if we accept that argument, true it becomes true that there is no case that can even be looked at by anybody who was not there. Somebody could make any old thing up, and nobody would be allowed to question their story, as the person would simply say 'you were not there, which means you have nothing of any value to add'. 'Only by being there would you be able to understand what really happened.' It would be such an easy way of getting out of having to answer any questions.
i know the guy in the middle but forgotte his name i saw him in a show ''hunted homes'' and i like the guy he's open mined if he sees something that cant explain he accept it then
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well im not a paranormal investigator so i cant really argue the case but i do have a belief of the paranormal.I always make a point in ANYTHING to keep an open mind.Check out Interview with a Poltergeist on YOUTUBE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gross seemed to be a rashional man in my pinion and he felt so strongly about this paranormal activity that it honestly makes me believe him.I know he lost his daughter when he investigated the Enfeild case but i dont think it had any bearing.
@suckyamomma30 I'd say Gross was an Empiricist instead of a rationalist. He thought the best way to investigate these strange stories was to go there and look for evidence and get data to later analyse. I'd say that Green was a rationalist as he tried to use reason to solve the problem and avoided supernatural explanations.
You should be careful when saying because someone feels so strongly about something that you are inclined to believe them. Some Christians are 100% sure Jesus was the son of God, many Hindus believe in Lord Krishna, Many Elvis fans claimed to have spotted him all over America and you'll never be able to convince those fans Elvis is dead. Some people who are insane believe they hear voices in their head. I think believing in something because someone else does is not a sensible idea.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think Dr. French shouldn't even open his mouth. He wasn't there , so how does he know what is real and what isn't? And someone should have put a muzzle on that man in the audience. lol
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hmm. Yes this French chap seems rather boring. Why go into science if you think there is nothing new to learn about the world? It's people like him who history will never remember because they did nothing original. Awful man.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dr french was never part of the investigaton at Enfield, strange how he feels so qualified to pull down the offical reports of a wide range of witnesses who for the most part can clarify seeing and hearing the exact same things. the moment you say you saw something strange, people like Chris french then in their own minds reduce you to a simpletone. i have had 3 different undeniable supernatural experiances in my time and i wish i hadn't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
there's stuff that happens that is unexplainable, I have experienced it and once you have you need no more proof. Dr French is simply a know-it-all who has plums in his mouth who is only interested is winning a debate to try to get some value out of his 50K education.
of course spirits exist,anyone who osent believe is small minded. maurice grosse was a very reliable source. wud loved to have met him. cant stand that skeptic green, hes boring boring boring and very small minded
what some skeptics seem to think is that people are all stupid and ignorant and superstitious. if somebody was to experience a strange phenomena, and if there were multiple reliable witnesses, i think that thats better than all the evidence in the world. humans can always detect when something is not quite right, and French just disregards this as a lot of tall tales. heres some 'intensive research': thousands of people saying that they have seen something that they cannot explain. douchebag.
It is quite pathetic that the first thing French comes up with is a rubbish joke. He is usually a fairly coherent and respectable guy, but in this case he comes across as a total idiot towards Maurice.
Sceptics will always, without question, dispute any and all evidence. They will explain it away as mere trickery without ever proving their claim. Believers don't need to prove a thing. Sceptics will have to work hard to prove there is nothing in the beyond.
maurice grosse deals with the sceptics here in such a dignified and gentlemanly way.
ames462 3 months ago
Maurice is a legend
22greg48 5 months ago
The real principle that needs the attention is not the perception of what happened but what happened. to even call it a poltergeist already shuts the door for sound logical reasoning becuase it opens belief. the sceptics are attacking Maurices belief instead of focusing on what happened with proof. if you do not have the evidence to debunk something then you can not debunk it.
hem0sam 1 year ago
People trying to explain away events static this & water that. When events such as these take place around an individual. Nobody but, that individual can explain to their best of ability to another exactly," lets say in the right words" for another to get a clear impression of the event. You just cannot get the impact of the event not being there.You have to experience or witness it yourself to get the impact. Those that havn't had anything unusual happen in their lives LET IT STAY THAT WAY
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
@Kilooscarromeo But if we accept that argument, true it becomes true that there is no case that can even be looked at by anybody who was not there. Somebody could make any old thing up, and nobody would be allowed to question their story, as the person would simply say 'you were not there, which means you have nothing of any value to add'. 'Only by being there would you be able to understand what really happened.' It would be such an easy way of getting out of having to answer any questions.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
i know the guy in the middle but forgotte his name i saw him in a show ''hunted homes'' and i like the guy he's open mined if he sees something that cant explain he accept it then
lordhawksmoor 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well im not a paranormal investigator so i cant really argue the case but i do have a belief of the paranormal.I always make a point in ANYTHING to keep an open mind.Check out Interview with a Poltergeist on YOUTUBE.
suckyamomma30 2 years ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gross seemed to be a rashional man in my pinion and he felt so strongly about this paranormal activity that it honestly makes me believe him.I know he lost his daughter when he investigated the Enfeild case but i dont think it had any bearing.
suckyamomma30 2 years ago
@suckyamomma30 I'd say Gross was an Empiricist instead of a rationalist. He thought the best way to investigate these strange stories was to go there and look for evidence and get data to later analyse. I'd say that Green was a rationalist as he tried to use reason to solve the problem and avoided supernatural explanations.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
You should be careful when saying because someone feels so strongly about something that you are inclined to believe them. Some Christians are 100% sure Jesus was the son of God, many Hindus believe in Lord Krishna, Many Elvis fans claimed to have spotted him all over America and you'll never be able to convince those fans Elvis is dead. Some people who are insane believe they hear voices in their head. I think believing in something because someone else does is not a sensible idea.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Dr. French shouldn't even open his mouth. He wasn't there , so how does he know what is real and what isn't? And someone should have put a muzzle on that man in the audience. lol
TinkPixie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hmm. Yes this French chap seems rather boring. Why go into science if you think there is nothing new to learn about the world? It's people like him who history will never remember because they did nothing original. Awful man.
Connection500 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dr french was never part of the investigaton at Enfield, strange how he feels so qualified to pull down the offical reports of a wide range of witnesses who for the most part can clarify seeing and hearing the exact same things. the moment you say you saw something strange, people like Chris french then in their own minds reduce you to a simpletone. i have had 3 different undeniable supernatural experiances in my time and i wish i hadn't.
80sOGRE 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
there's stuff that happens that is unexplainable, I have experienced it and once you have you need no more proof. Dr French is simply a know-it-all who has plums in his mouth who is only interested is winning a debate to try to get some value out of his 50K education.
ncf1 3 years ago
of course spirits exist,anyone who osent believe is small minded. maurice grosse was a very reliable source. wud loved to have met him. cant stand that skeptic green, hes boring boring boring and very small minded
iowntheclough 3 years ago
what some skeptics seem to think is that people are all stupid and ignorant and superstitious. if somebody was to experience a strange phenomena, and if there were multiple reliable witnesses, i think that thats better than all the evidence in the world. humans can always detect when something is not quite right, and French just disregards this as a lot of tall tales. heres some 'intensive research': thousands of people saying that they have seen something that they cannot explain. douchebag.
padam4 3 years ago
fucking sceptics...... maurice grooos is a hero!
Espero26 3 years ago
RIP Maurice...leader of lots of battles :(
zogo5 3 years ago
It is quite pathetic that the first thing French comes up with is a rubbish joke. He is usually a fairly coherent and respectable guy, but in this case he comes across as a total idiot towards Maurice.
French, you twat.
DrinkScene 3 years ago 2
Esther Rantzen is a fucking ghoul
1L0V3C1IT 4 years ago
Sceptics will always, without question, dispute any and all evidence. They will explain it away as mere trickery without ever proving their claim. Believers don't need to prove a thing. Sceptics will have to work hard to prove there is nothing in the beyond.
devinraymond 4 years ago