Post by Arch Stanton on Jan 29, 2018 5:56:03 GMT
Would you believe photographic evidence if it were presented PP? I suspect not.
Plus that's awfully good of you PP, you not shooting Billy down for his beliefs in this particular case.
Convenient that, as I imagine you couldn't, even if you wished to..
The reason being that as an enthusiast, Billy will no doubt have invested many, many more hours trying to understand this case than you probably have as a non-enthusiast.
He will have read loads of points of view and theories from people entirely sceptical of the case or ones who try to explain it away with non-paranormal rationale.
Billy (presumably, from his posts on here), however, is not convinced by these because he feels they are unsatisfactory in explaining the events he has researched. Not because he is any more gullible or stupid than those who attempt to apply the non-paranormal rationale but rather that the more he has read about the case the less he is able to fit the square peg of non-paranormal rationale into what he sees as the round hole of the Enfield poltergeist phenomenon.
So no matter how you try to 'shoot' him down, it wont work. Billy will have read your arguments a hundred times over and he is not convinced.
Likewise, Billy would not be able to shoot you down either, not with all the enthusiasm or heavy gas fires in the world.
The way I see it the case is either:
If we take A) first, the non-paranormal camp, as far as I see their can only really be two trains of thought.
1) A Hoax. Hundreds of eyewitnesses, neighbours, officials, 'experts' etc etc were either in on it or duped by it. Every piece of phenomenon was faked. Nothing even slightly paranormal ever occurred there. The whole circus was orchestrated, over a period of two years, by two girls - one aged 14, one aged 11.
2) Natural Phenomenon. As Penguin (and Guy Lambert in the 1950s) suggested, it could all be down to a case of mistaken identity and the phenomenon was really all natural. Passing traffic making furniture move, structural heave etc. But if that's the case why did it end after two years? Why has it not occurred before or since to any other residents? Why did it only affect one house? Also a large proportion of the phenomena displayed and recorded cannot feasibly be answered by this alone.
Lambert's theory has largely been dismissed over time.
Now onto B), the paranormal theories.
3) Haunted By An Entity. In this instance the house and it's occupants were systematically attacked by a malign, sentient force. If that was true then why did the girls appear to, and also go on record as admitting to faking some of the phenomena? Would they really need to? If it was a disruptive entity where did it come from? Where did it go? Why did it start? Why did it stop? What were it's reasons? Why did it confine itself to the house?
4) Other Paranormal Source. It has largely been accepted that in nearly all cases of poltergeist activity certain types of phenomena are regularly present and that the 'ghost' appears to haunt an individual more so than a space or place. Usually but not always poltergeist activity seems to gravitate toward teenage girls and more often than not is denounced a hoax after the initial scare or bout of activity has calmed or been scrutinised. Some cases however have never been proved a hoax.
Can therefore poltergeist activity be explained by a pseudoscience we have yet to understand. ESP, telepathy, psychokinesis etc etc all brought about by a relatively rare human condition which is most likely to occur when a subject or subjects are experiencing a hormonal, electrical or chemical imbalance/change? Like for example puberty.
Personally I suspect the Enfield Poltergeist to be a combination of theories 1 + 4.