Where did the paranormal go?

Post 148 is what I'm asking about and post 200 doesn't answer the question! You made up your own story/"hypothesis" here, that's why you can't answer the question/provide anything. And I think I'll probably leave it there as you're just going to dodge the question again, please go ahead and quote this with a reply referencing the same posts :D

He does that. Remember the McDonalds straw thread?
 
That still required some mentalist/cold reading type skills, it isn't like he's one of those "psychics" who suddenly drops in some name or random fact he couldn't possibly know as some demonstration of their supposed "magical" ability. He's a trained mentalist/stage magician.

Perhaps he has found out she likes horses and/or found out she had a horse as a kid... it is plausible that he didn't though, she's a posh girl... good odds that she rode horses as a kid. Regardless he's still got plenty of risk when he tells her to think of a memory.

Derren Brown is that good at doing what he does and telling everybody that it's a trick that he could actually have paranormal powers and tries to deflect us.
 
He does that. Remember the McDonalds straw thread?

Oh jeeze, yeah. Coffee is not a "drink" when it is too hot or something.... :D

Derren Brown is that good at doing what he does and telling everybody that it's a trick that he could actually have paranormal powers and tries to deflect us.

The main deflection/misdirection he seems to use is letting people believe that he's somehow manipulating them psychologically when he's often doing regular magic tricks.

Some "NLP Practitioners" even seem to think he's one of them (which is highly amusing given how critical he's been of them).
 
That still required some mentalist/cold reading type skills, it isn't like he's one of those "psychics" who suddenly drops in some name or random fact he couldn't possibly know as some demonstration of their supposed "magical" ability. He's a trained mentalist/stage magician.

Perhaps he has found out she likes horses and/or found out she had a horse as a kid... it is plausible that he didn't though, she's a posh girl... good odds that she rode horses as a kid. Regardless he's still got plenty of risk when he tells her to think of a memory.
Watch how he loads his statements, excuse the paraphrasing, can't be bothered to quote him word for word:
"Think of a memory, nothing traumatic..." - so only good memories
"A memory from your childhood..." - chances are a birthday or holiday
 
This thread is a good example of why the paranormal isn't mentioned as much as it used to be, but I can attempt to break it down somewhat. Largely the internet is to blame, but I'll elaborate.

1. Diminishing relevance of folklore. As mentioned in the OP, people tend not to tell folktales as much as they used to - certainly not in the West - additionally, people tend not to tell jokes as much as they used to. The reason why these two practices have diminished are the same. Socialising has changed and largely gone from offline to online. Friends can exist in the same space physically but not psychologically. Smartphone users are easily distracted and most clutch onto their phones like they have the importance of a portable IV drip, new exciting online content being only a tap away. Additionally, people tend to get their humour online: they know which comedians they like and where to find them, and such comedians can do it 'better' than many of their peers. The art of the social joke-teller is dying, as is the art of the folktale raconteur.

Folklore is something which started in small communities and spread translocally. Nowadays folktales are largely irrelevant, not necessarily because they're untrue but because they have local origin and meaning. We interact in such large communities that spreading folktales of the paranormal on the internet would have largely no meaning and no effect. That's not to say communities don't exist which discuss the paranormal/folklore online and in social media, but these communities have become more restricted, ring-fenced and exclusive. This is largely a result of:

2. The media and public skepticism. Part of the reason why the paranormal is less featured in the media in the 21st century is because of trends. There was a time when stories about the supernatural were popular on television, but the culture has changed. People don't want to be educated by the media as much as vacuously entertained by it. It is increasingly used as a method of escapism and to kill time. Reality TV and celebrity culture are massively popular and these attract far more awe from the public than stories of ghosts would. Social media has made people more interested in aspiring to glamorous lifestyles and looks, and television and the tabloids have picked this up. As a result, it is not worth the time or money for the papers or television networks to report stories of the paranormal as much as it use to be. Seeing as such stories are likely to get buried, this results in an increasing skepticism from the general public if they do appear.

3. Technology. Nowadays cameras are everywhere - on the streets, in peoples' homes and in their pockets. Technology has made the modern man more confident that everything is explicable with modern technological know-how and that we live in the most enlightened times the human race has ever seen. As a result, unless something paranormal can be photographed or filmed, it is largely seen as a figment of the imagination, mental illness etc. Additionally - and conversely, to an extent - if supernatural occurrences are filmed, they are often explained away as CGI, camera trickery etc. It is becoming increasingly impossible for anyone to convince a skeptic that ghosts exist on camera, because footage can, 99.9% of the time, be explained away as a result of a software trick. This has a knock-on effect of the paranormal not being reported in the media, less public discussion etc and the process becomes cyclical. Technology inevitably and insidiously ends up controlling the way people act and think. Technological advances restrict the development of the open mind.

This leaves the only bastion of proof in personal experiences. Only those people who have seen ghosts or had paranormal experiences will be able to vouch for their authenticity, especially so when such experiences are shared. Otherwise, for the foreseeable future, recounts of the paranormal will remain the mainstay of niche occult communities. In a way, this isn't a bad thing. It means that the skeptics don't have to waste their time trying to disprove 'fakes', and the occultists don't have to waste their time arguing with non-occultists. Those of us who do venture into the light of day to discuss these matters outside our communities are met with harder opposition than ever before, but at least doing so maintains an awareness that keeps the topic alive.
 
Last edited:
it is largely seen as a figment of the imagination

That's because it is imagination. I refer you back to James Randi's $1 million challenge which remains unclaimed and funnily enough nobody in this thread who believes in the paranormal appears to have acknowledged it either. Strange that.

Aside from entertainment (magician sets etc), the whole paranormal scene has been a sham, a way for these people to leach money/popularity from the easily susceptible by telling them they can communicate with their dead relatives etc. Exactly why Randi set up the challenge and humiliate those taking advantage of human nature.
 
Last edited:
Exactly why Randi set up the challenge and humiliate those taking advantage of human nature.

The kinds of people who would participate in such a challenge are more likely to be charlatans taking advantage of others, ergo why they failed. Study of the paranormal and occult practice which is kept within its own communities does not fall within this category.
 
That's a cop out excuse and we all know it, the same style that hard-line religious people use when asked why innocent children get abused etc, "because god wills it and they'll be blessed in heaven".
 
This thread is a good example of why the paranormal isn't mentioned as much as it used to be, but I can attempt to break it down somewhat. Largely the internet is to blame, but I'll elaborate.

1. Diminishing relevance of folklore. As mentioned in the OP, people tend not to tell folktales as much as they used to - certainly not in the West - additionally, people tend not to tell jokes as much as they used to. The reason why these two practices have diminished are the same. Socialising has changed and largely gone from offline to online. Friends can exist in the same space physically but not psychologically. Smartphone users are easily distracted and most clutch onto their phones like they have the importance of a portable IV drip, new exciting online content being only a tap away. Additionally, people tend to get their humour online: they know which comedians they like and where to find them, and such comedians can do it 'better' than many of their peers. The art of the social joke-teller is dying, as is the art of the folktale raconteur.

Folklore is something which started in small communities and spread translocally. Nowadays folktales are largely irrelevant, not necessarily because they're untrue but because they have local origin and meaning. We interact in such large communities that spreading folktales of the paranormal on the internet would have largely no meaning and no effect. That's not to say communities don't exist which discuss the paranormal/folklore online and in social media, but these communities have become more restricted, ring-fenced and exclusive. This is largely a result of:

2. The media and public skepticism. Part of the reason why the paranormal is less featured in the media in the 21st century is because of trends. There was a time when stories about the supernatural were popular on television, but the culture has changed. People don't want to be educated by the media as much as vacuously entertained by it. It is increasingly used as a method of escapism and to kill time. Reality TV and celebrity culture are massively popular and these attract far more awe from the public than stories of ghosts would. Social media has made people more interested in aspiring to glamorous lifestyles and looks, and television and the tabloids have picked this up. As a result, it is not worth the time or money for the papers or television networks to report stories of the paranormal as much as it use to be. Seeing as such stories are likely to get buried, this results in an increasing skepticism from the general public if they do appear.

3. Technology. Nowadays cameras are everywhere - on the streets, in peoples' homes and in their pockets. Technology has made the modern man more confident that everything is explicable with modern technological know-how and that we live in the most enlightened times the human race has ever seen. As a result, unless something paranormal can be photographed or filmed, it is largely seen as a figment of the imagination, mental illness etc. Additionally - and conversely, to an extent - if supernatural occurrences are filmed, they are often explained away as CGI, camera trickery etc. It is becoming increasingly impossible for anyone to convince a skeptic that ghosts exist on camera, because footage can, 99.9% of the time, be explained away as a result of a software trick. This has a knock-on effect of the paranormal not being reported in the media, less public discussion etc and the process becomes cyclical. Technology inevitably and insidiously ends up controlling the way people act and think. Technological advances restrict the development of the open mind.

This leaves the only bastion of proof in personal experiences. Only those people who have seen ghosts or had paranormal experiences will be able to vouch for their authenticity, especially so when such experiences are shared. Otherwise, for the foreseeable future, recounts of the paranormal will remain the mainstay of niche occult communities. In a way, this isn't a bad thing. It means that the skeptics don't have to waste their time trying to disprove 'fakes', and the occultists don't have to waste their time arguing with non-occultists. Those of us who do venture into the light of day to discuss these matters outside our communities are met with harder opposition than ever before, but at least doing so maintains an awareness that keeps the topic alive.
Folklore is irrelevant because folk tales are made-up stories to scare children into doing what they're told, in exactly the same way as religion is used as a control mechanism.

And personal experiences are inherently unreliable.
 
That's a cop out excuse and we all know it, the same style that hard-line religious people use when asked why innocent children get abused etc, "because god wills it and they'll be blessed in heaven".
I personally haven't heard anyone saying that "God wills some children to be abused." I'm sure there are a handful who might believe that.

It's really the equivalent of saying that if an outdoor cat gets run over, then the cat's owner willed it to happen. It's nonsense.

If you believe in God at all, and many of us do, you might appreciate that we were given free will, and with free will comes risk. Just as the outdoor cat owner gives the cat free will, and accepts a similar risk.
 
If you are a Theist, then nothing happens which isn't God's plan. I assume you are a deist? It becomes so confusing when it comes to religion as there are simply thousands of them which many contradict each other. It's best to be a sensible atheist.
 
The kinds of people who would participate in such a challenge are more likely to be charlatans taking advantage of others, ergo why they failed. Study of the paranormal and occult practice which is kept within its own communities does not fall within this category.

What garbage.
If I could prove I could do something paranormal I'd be claiming my 1 million no matter what 'community' I came from.
More amazing is that you believe this.
 
Last edited:
The kinds of people who would participate in such a challenge are more likely to be charlatans taking advantage of others, ergo why they failed. Study of the paranormal and occult practice which is kept within its own communities does not fall within this category.
What category would you put the practises of the Bildeberg lot?
 
Oh jeeze, yeah. Coffee is not a "drink" when it is too hot or something.... :D [..]

I'll try to simplify it for you:

A drink is a substance that can be drunk without causing serious injury or death.

Something that would cause serious injury or death when drunk is not a drink.

Which part do you disagree with?
 
Back
Top Bottom