Author’s Note: Modern Paranormal Psychology is an adjunct of mainstream Psychology (and Psychiatry) that scientifically studies the disparate phenomena that many assume – for one reason or another – to have manifested ‘outside’ of the laws of nature. That is, events ‘perceived’ through the ‘senses’ that seem to have manifested ‘outside’ of the laws of science (i.e. ‘Physics’). This is useful Paranormal Psychology that methodologically aligns itself with science as it does not a priori assume that supposed ‘paranormal activity’ is ‘real’. Poor (or ‘bad’) Paranormal Psychology aligns itself in opposition to mainstream science – and a priori assumes that ALL ‘paranormal activity’ is ‘real’ and is a product of (non-scientific) ‘mysterious forces’. Although the latter position is common – it is also the reason why Paranormal Psychology is ridicule and rejected as a ‘science’ by many who practice mainstream science. What I find interesting is ‘why’ it is that a number of modern people living in relatively wealthy and progressive societies – still retain the belief in ‘paranormal psychology’ whilst often remaining ‘disinteresting’ or even ‘opposed’ to the rigours of mainstream science. Of course, the everyday reality that people inhabit is far from simple. It is composed of many facets of interpretation – each often involving many layers of contested meaning. Most of us would prefer that others are never hurt and live a good, happy and productive life. The reality is that despite there being may good people out there – life can still be incredibly unfair and full of suffering. All we can do is continuously ‘work on our minds’ – and perfect their functionality. ACW (10.12.2020)
Dear Nick (from Adrian)
Story Number Two features ‘body-cam’ footage (gathered from Police and Rescue Workers) which appears to clearly record an adult woman’s voice calling for ‘help’ – from a car submerged in water. The problem is that the woman found in the car had been dead for fourteen hours!
Hi Adrian, (from Nick)
Thank you for this. I have watched the video a few times, not sure if I can hear a woman’s voice clearly.
Dear Nick (from Adrian)
Technically speaking, providing the Coroner is correct, the rescuers should not have heard any adult vocalisation. I originally listened to the video with no visual stimulus (as I was doing other things) and the commentator informs the viewer that a) an adult female vocalisation occurs, and b) the content of that vocalisation was ‘Help me!’. In other words, the commentator employed a common device for ‘conditioning’ an audience. It is similar to EVP whereby until a person in authority informs the viewer what might be being said – each EVP sounds just like a jumble of disconnected noise. However, after the requisite stimulus has been supplied – all one can hear is the assumed message. This is the power of suggestion and it is used throughout society to direct individuals and groups into accepting, supporting and propagating the preferred narratives. Without watching the video – but listening to the audio only – I thought I heard a woman shout ‘Help me!’ because the individuals in the video believed this had happened and the producer of the video ‘conditioned’ me to also assume that I too – had heard it. My initial assumption was that the shout happened and therefore – the Coroner must have been mistaken – the woman died the exact moment she was being rescued. Remarkably, the baby was alive but unconscious. The woman concerned – according to the Coroner had died on impact some 14 hours previously. It could well be that when the rescuer shouted ‘We’re coming!’ – my mind retroactively filled in the data (i.e. added the shout after the event) and then inverted the perception of the unfolding of said events. a) rescuers react to what they imagine is a trapped woman crying for help, whilst b) due to peer pressure my mind then invents the ‘cry’ (i.e. assumed it happened) and then my mind rearranged the series of events into an inaccurate but expected logical sequence – woman cries for help – rescuers respond! Interesting.