More Halloween stuff… (and yes, I know Ray Stantz got the date wrong)…
In general, I love librarians. They help people learn! But not always…
According to the Charlotte Observer:
There are strange things happening in the stacks of the Morehead City library.
Large books inexplicably leave the shelves and wind up on the floor. A light bulb fell from a fixture and landed upright, unbroken.
“It’s really interesting,” says Sandy Bell, director of the Webb Library and Civic Center. “None of the staff has felt threatened.”
Hmmmm. I would certainly feel threatened.
Bell has no explanation for the incidents, but she says the building “does have an aura.”
Oh, it’s radioactive? Phosphorescent? On fire? The lights are on? Yeah, maybe, but nobody’s home:
She said unusual things seem to happen whenever the staff makes changes. For example, she said, she decided to move the children’s section from its longtime home upstairs to a new room downstairs. Soon after, she said, the staff left the library in perfect order and returned the next day to find large art books on the floor with the pages balled up.
When I am in a situation like this, I always remember what the great scientist Peter Venkman said when also confronted by ghosts in a library: "No human would stack books this way".
Seriously. Some vandals are getting away with doing a lot of damage, because librarians — librarians! — would rather think it was ghosts than the far far more obvious, simple, and rational explanation.
This is why I fight, folks. It’s not just politics, religion, and science. It’s teh stupid. It must be stopped.
Tip o’ the unlicensed nuclear accelerator to BABloggee uknesvuinng.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
GET HER!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Perhaps the librarians are menstruating.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Nikola Tesla caused the Tunguska blast during a test of wireless power transmission gone awry. Everyone knows that! Sheesh!
Tunguska, the North Pole and Shoreham, NY all lie on the same great circle! COOINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?!
October 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
This gives us skeptical librarians a bad name.
I wrote about this a few days ago. It makes more sense that they just forgot to shelve the books or there’s a homeless guy who hides in the bathroom and waits until everyone leaves (happened where I work before).
October 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
It’s most definately George Bush’s fault. [Kayne West on]George Bush hates libraries.[/Kayne West off]
October 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Shhhh! …Do you smell that?”
–favorite obscure line from the library scene in Ghostbusters
October 31st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Not that this has anything to do with the content but in the next to last sentence you wrote teh when I think you meant the. Not a big deal but you’re talking about stopping the stupid so it might be good to get rid of the typo before someone jumps on you as if it meant something.
P
October 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I once left a magazine in a cafeteria during lunch break, and when I came back an hour later to get it, I was frighteningly shocked to see that it had mysteriously been turned to a different page, and not only that, it had chillingly moved to the other end of the table!!!
I was left dumbfounded as to what supernatural forces had done this?!
But on the other hand – The Stupid, it burns!!
October 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Paleoprof, Phil’s use of the word “teh” for “the” is acceptable Internet slang. It’s an intentional misspelling.
J. D.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Having known my share of Librarians (I almost married one) my guess is someone on staff has a sense of humor, and they’re timing this story to build a little interest in the Library.
After all, I can say I believe the moon landings were filmed in a movie studio at Area 51. It doesn’t mean I believe the moon landings were filmed in a movie studio at Area 51!
Cheers.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Hey Phil, didn’t the Tunguska Fireball occur in 1908?
Right there with you on the librarians-are-being-ditzes thing. The most likely answer is so obvious, and yet they’d rather ascribe a supernatural cause to it.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
@Eric,
Eric, the magazine moved about a foot and a half.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Um, Leon, did you read the first sentence carefully?
And JD: teh stupid.
It’s always best to assume I am always correct.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Wow! “Teh stupid” has (as of now) only two thumb-up votes on urbandictionary. You must be very “with it” on slang to know a phrase that obscure
October 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Phil:
D’ohhhhh, my bad. Yup, missed the first sentence. I guess I had an “Aha! Gotcha!” moment and skipped down a bit in my haste to point it out.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Ever think there might just be a reason why the librarian in question (silly as her comment about “auras” makes her sound) suspected paranormal influence instead of human dito? Before outright (and insultingly) dismissing any claim as “teh stupid”, a logical analysis should always be made into it – preferably directly followed by practical analysis of the purported event/s in question.
Simply outright dismissing a claim (*any* claim) as “stupid” without even giving it the benefit of a doubt is, in itself, way beyond stupid. It is also in no way the behavior of a “skeptic”. Rather, it is a sure-fire sign of what is commonly referred to as “pseudoskepticism”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism#Characteristics_of_pseudoskeptics)
In this particular case, the following lines of inquiry could be followed, just to name a few:
1: The damage purportedly occured after the staff had gone home for the night. First of all, can this be verified? Did the damage not, in actuality, instead occur before that? *If* it can be verified that it did not, it means the library would have been empty and closed at the time of the damage.
2: Libraries are usually locked at night. Was it locked on this particular night? Or were the doors accidentally left unlocked so that vandals could get in? Can the latter be verified if indeed it were the case? Furthermore, libraries usually have alarm systems. Was the alarm activated on this particular night, or was there no sign of an intruder?
2: If the library was indeed locked, is there any sign of or reason to believe someone opened or tampered with the main gate or with the locks lately? Furthermore, is there any reason to believe that any other person has stolen a key to the library? If not, do the locks show signs of having been manipulated or picked in any way? Alternatively, is there any secondary way into the room with the books for a vandal to make use of?
4: Are there any physical evidence or traces of the purported vandals, including such things as fingerprints or footprints, etc, in the room or on the books?
If most or all of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative, I would suspect the event to indeed be the work of mere vandals. If not, I would remain open for the possibility of another explanation, including a supposedly “paranormal” one. However, my remaining open for said explanation does not in any way transform me into a *believer* of the paranormal. It merely prevents me from becoming as intellectually roped-in as most people on this site. People who, falsely, are professing an adherence to “skepticism” when they are, in fact, pseudoskeptics adhering to outright scientism.
Ever think of the fact that the librarian did, perhaps, check all of the above points and found the answers to them to be all in the negative, provoking her stated response? I don’t think so. You’re too busy proclaiming a completely unknown person whom you’ve never met as “stupid” to consider the fact that she might, perhaps, have considered the logical options extensively before arriving at the conclusion of which you’re ridiculing her.
Here’s a (rough) sketch of Phil’s argument in the above blog post:
“This woman is stupid. She is stupid because I say she is stupid. Therefore, this woman is stupid. She is also stupid because she believes in ghosts. There are no ghosts. I have not conducted any scientific investigation at all into the matter, but I did write something completely irrelevant about a shower curtain once which proves conclusively that there are no ghosts because I have said so. Therefore, there are no ghosts. Also, believing in ghosts are stupid. It’s stupid because I said so. Therefore, this woman and what she believes in are both stupid. QED.”
No, Phil. It is not “always best to assume [you are] always correct.” Here’s a fun exercise you can try next time you’re alone: Try picking up a safety-pin and pricking your head with it. Did your head pop? If so, it may be time to reconsider the two concepts “scientism” and “benefit of a doubt”. The first one should be avoided at all costs when one proclaims to be a skeptic. The second one, equally at all costs, should always be embraced.
You guys say you’re sick of pseudoscience. So am I. But I think I’m even more sick of pseudoskepticism. At least pseudoscience is usually less outright insulting to people.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hey, the 100th anniversary of the blast is June 30th of next year. Do you suppose that could garner any media attention and Phil could capitalize with “Death from the Skies” published?
October 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
In the other news: orangutan was spotted in the Library of Congress. When it was confronted by the police it said: “Ook! ook!” and disappeared in the cloud of smoke.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
My uncle thought he was St. Jerome.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Who pissed in his wheaties? And am I alone in this, every time I hear someone use the word “scientism” it automatically trips my kook alarm.
Wouldn’t the simplest thing to do if you were one of those librarians be to just hook up a CCD camera when nobody else was around? Then fire/prosecute the bozo causing all the damage.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The Bad Astronomer wrote:
>>And JD: teh stupid.
>>It’s always best to assume I am always correct.
Wait! I was instructing Paleoprof! It is he, not I who should be reprimanded.
I must restore my honor!
J. D.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Abject denial:
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
October 31st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Bolo: I think the line is “Listen! Do you smell something?” Just watched it the other day
Hey, why is it that ghosts are always messing things up? Just once I’d like to find a ghost who comes in and puts all the books away. Or maybe washes my dishes and does my laundry while I’m out.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Forrest:
Wow, that’s a great comeback. And it’s so incredibly relevant to what I wrote, too, and answers so many points. You sure showed me!
October 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Tim G, “Teh” for “The” really isn’t that obscure… it is used by many thousands (millions?… I don’t have any stats to back this up!) of online MMORPG players everyday… even on purpose! However, if you ever play an MMORPG, I wouldn’t actually recommend reading the global chat channels… you can feel your IQ decreasing by the millisecond if you do…
October 31st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Abject denial, if you read the original article, you will see that nowhere does it say that the librarian ruled outor even considered vandals or real people causing the trouble. It specifically says,
“Bell has no explanation for the incidents, but she says the building “does have an aura.”
According to Bell, a former library employee reported seeing spectral images of fishermen walking through as if on the way to the waterfront nearby.”
So, when I read the article, it tells me that the librarian believes in ghosts, and that ghosts must have caused the incidents. Now, I personally would blame the reporter for printing such garbage before condemning the library employees, but if they did indeed say that, then yes, they should be called out. And possibly called names. Whatever gets their attention to the obvious: There are no ghosts.
If calling a person that believes in ghosts or the paranormal delusional or stupid or simply a moron really offends you, then you have bigger problems than this library.
Ignorance is being wrong because of lack of knowledge. Stupidity is knowing something is wrong and being it anyway.
p.s. one of my favorite lines is:
Ray: “Hey, where do these stairs go?”
Peter: “They go up.”
October 31st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Nice try, Abject Denial (an ironic name in this case), but you’re wrong.
My point is, what is the more parsimonious conjecture: humans did this, or ghosts?
It is, without a doubt in my mind, teh stoopid to assume it’s ghosts without doing an investigation. The article does not even mention anything but conjecture on the part of the librarians; it would be unlikely that, if they did investigate, the article would not have mentioned it… especially since the quotations indicate the librarians and admin involved thought it was a ghost.
You may lecture me about pseudoskepticism all day long, but it won’t help when you missed the entire point of what I wrote.
There are times, lots of times, when doing a full blown investigation is silly. In this case, investigating for ghosts would be silly. Investigating for humans would far, far more logical.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Skepterist:
Thank you for proving my point. How do we know there are no ghosts? Because Skepterist says there aren’t. How does Skepterist *know* there are no ghosts? Because Skepterist just does. There is no inquiry or evidence required, scientific or otherwise. Vivá la pseudoskepticism!
The librarian may believe in ghosts, yes, but you equally firmly believe in the non-existence of ghosts. No one has conclusively proven to you that ghosts do or do not exist – or for that matter, that they are incapable of existing. You have merely taken it upon yourself to believe that the latter is the case, in spite of having no objective proof for your belief. See above. In that way, you are exactly what you appearantly so despise.
Stupidity is not what you define it as, by the way. Rather, “stupidity” is commonly defined as a lack of intelligence. Belief in something does not automatically denote a lack of intelligence. If it did, *you* would be stupid: this because you have chosen to believe in the non-existance of ghosts. As stated, you have no objective proof for your belief; you just believe it anyway.
I do not believe in the existence of ghosts. I do not believe in the non-existence of ghosts, either. I remain open for both possibilities, settling for none until I recieve more information. The agnostic standpoint is the only true one for any real skeptic. Belief, in either the existence or the non-existence of something, is not.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Abject Denial:
“At least pseudo science is usually less outright insulting to people.”
So insulting people subtly is preferable? The main reason pseudo science is “less outright insulting” is because it’s a bad idea to insult people outright when you are trying to take their money in return for nothing of value, which I find pretty insulting.
There have been many investigations into the existence of ghosts, and not one has turned up any actual evidence of ghosts. At what point would you accept that there are no ghosts, and that believing in them is silly, naive or even moronic? Substitute “flat earth” for “ghosts” in the above and answer the same question. It has been said many times that it is a bad idea to be so open minded that your brains fall out. You might want to check the floor for yours.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Abject:
Stupid is not actually defined as lack of intelligence. That’s ignorance, as Skepterist pointed out. “Stupid” is defined as “slow to learn or understand” … american heritage dictionary. Look up it. (It’s also defined as “obtuse” which makes me laugh …. “rounded at the free end” … anyone old enough for the reference?)
It is a common misconception to mistake skepticism for “belief in the non-existance of something”. In fact, being that it’s not possible to prove non-existance, skeptics instead rely on evidence that supports a test-able hypthesis. In this case, it’s not that I don’t “believe” in ghosts, it’s that there’s no evidence to indicate the existance of such things. Meanwhile, there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the existance of phenomena that can be explained scientifically. And in cases where evidence is (currently) lacking, it behooves us as skeptics to look for it and not to fall back on the “possibility” that it is truly a paranormal event.
People who back on the “ghost” explanation can easily be assumed to be stupid, or lazy, or both. In fact, when all rational hyptheses fail to be proven, the prudent skeptic keeps looking. That’s how we learn and how we grow.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
The BA wrote:
“There are times, lots of times, when doing a full blown investigation is silly. In this case, investigating for ghosts would be silly. Investigating for humans would far, far more logical.”
This entire statement is contradictory, especially when one takes the rest of your post into consideration.
As a true skeptic, one starts an investigation (*any* investigation) as if it were a “blank slate”, without preconcieved notions about what one is or might be observing. The bias exhibited by you throughout your post does in no way change this fact. Rather, it only attempts to purposefully cover it up.
I agree it is far more logical humans were behind the damage. However, until we have *conclusively determined* that either humans or “ghosts” were behind it, we *know* neither and neither can be conclusively proven (in spite of the very partial bias exhibited throughout your post). Hence, conducting a separate investigation for either “humans” or “ghosts” would both be equally impartial and pseudoskeptic, because it would mean we HAD already determined, in advance, what we were in fact searching for (”We’re searching for humans!” / “We’re searching for ghosts!”)
Conducting a completely neutral investigation, however, where we visit the site and study the evidence (or apparent evidence, I have not yet been there) without any preconcieved notions and without any bias, would however be a completely different matter. In this kind of investigation, investigating for “ghosts” and investigating for humans becomes one and the same thing. Speaking of which; what do you mean by “full-blown” investigation? Bringing PKE Meters and infrared cameras? Doing that would be *hunting for ghosts*. Why not go to the library bringing nothing but your own five senses and then see what we can locate by doing so? There would have to be no “special” investigation required especially for “ghosts”. See above.
“There are times, lots of times, when doing a full blown investigation is silly.” No, Phil, there are *never* any times when doing a full-blown investigation is “silly”; not even when dealing with the most idiotic or ridiculous of claims. If you honestly do believe that, then my “lecturing you on pseudoskepticism” is not only well-deserved but an absolute neccessity.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sounds like a scene from ghostbusters.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Abject denial said,
“Thank you for proving my point. How do we know there are no ghosts? Because Skepterist says there aren’t. How does Skepterist *know* there are no ghosts? Because Skepterist just does. There is no inquiry or evidence required, scientific or otherwise. Vivá la pseudoskepticism!”
Actually there is a mountain of evidence that says ghosts do not exist. Millions of photographs are taken every day, and yet not one single photograph has proof that ghosts exist. Nobody has EVER said, “Oh my gosh, look! A ghost!” then taken a picture or video of that object, and proven that it is a ghost. Its always someone taking a picture of something else, then when they get the picture developed or look at it later, they see something odd. Those somethings are ALWAYS explainable and repeatable, such as light reflecting off of a lens, or a minor mistake in developing, etc.
I myself have recorded thousands of hours of video and shot thousands upon thousands of photographs over the past 15 years, and never ONCE have I seen in person or on film anything that remotely resembles a ghost.
So, it doesn’t matter what I “believe,” what matters is what I can prove. And I can prove to you that ghosts do not exist. And until you can prove to me that they do, then I can say with certainty that they do not. Ghosts do not exist, and anyone that believes otherwise has been fooled or is trying to fool you.
Finally, my definition is correct. I know too many people of average or above average intelligence do “stupid” things. Doing something you know is a bad idea, but you do it anyway, is stupid. Saying something you know is wrong, but you say it anyway, is stupid. Everyone I know, myself included, has at one or more times, done something stupid. Its completely human, so don’t get all worked up over a word. Its just a word. To argue about it would be… well… stupid.
B-)
October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Sounds like a job for Scooby & the gang.
You know some librarian is just getting upset every time something changes and just trying to scare them into keeping things as they are by dressing up as a ghost and damaging books.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
They are just trying to drive some interest in the library. Considering the real lack of interest in reading anymore, who can blame them?
October 31st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Can not prove a negative, but also there is no proof ghosts exists either.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Boosterz: And am I alone in this, every time I hear someone use the word “scientism†it automatically trips my kook alarm.
Nope, not at all. The very definition of scientism is self-contradictory, which means that anyone using it seriously isn’t as bright as they like to think the word makes them sound. “Scientism” was coined by those who were trying to make evidence-based research sound like a religion. Centuries of philosophy were all turning out to be completely wasted time in the face of simple evidential research, which meant that the long speculative writings of those like Thomas Aquinas had the same value as a Tarantino script – fun perhaps, but not profound. So the idea was to make evidence-based science sound shallow and reliant on idolatry – it’s kind of like “Darwinism” in that regard.
So yeah, it’s a great warning flag
As for Abject, (s)he seems unable to grasp a very simple factor of skepticism: it relies on evidence. No evidence, no reason to waste any time with it. The fallacy of the so-called “open minded” approach is that it relies on the attempt to disprove any (and all) speculative phenomena, like ghosts – otherwise, they have merit. That’s about as ludicrous as going through every door you ever pass in the event one is a teleportation device.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If the first explanation for mundane events relies on “ghosts,” and the building has an “aura,” I feel perfectly justified in ruling such a person out as a rational source of info.
But Abject, feel free to offer your services as an investigator. I’m taking bets that the very first question they ask you has to do with what television show you represent. See how warm your welcome is when you tell them you’re not from any network.
See, that’s skeptical thought. Perfectly in line with human behavior, and making testable predictions!
October 31st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Oh those clever librarians. They usually hit us with non-fiction, but for this holiday they sneak in a true story from the fiction aisle.
And when is it we celebrate Science Day? February 12th? 14th? March 14th? It can’t be December 25th (Dana said “you want to get inside me?” Peter replied “it sounds pretty crowded in there already.”)?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Phil the world is full of this kind of irrational thinking as you pointed out but unfortunately I don’t believe it’s confined to just gullible people. Take Quantum Mechanics for instance, a tribute to science and mankind in general. Quantum theory on the other hand, the “reasons” why quantum mechanics is valid, belongs with the above Halloween story (ill-witted, scary conceptions), same as the frightening Big Bang Theory, another Halloween classic. Evolution on the other hand is a true revelation, although still a work in progress, is a treat to one’s intellect rather than a trick. Halloween stories are great fun to laugh about like the impressionable librarians above– but we don’t want to be one of them.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Abject;
Actually, unless one wants to get nowhere in an investigation, one starts with quite a few “preconcieved notions” and “biases”. One, for instance, assumes that a crime has a perpetrator. Your way of completely investigating would not assume any such thing. You would presumably completely investigate the idea that the books themselves became animated every night and had picnics with the teddy bears. One also assumes, given the slightest shred of sanity, that the crime most likely had a living human perpetrator. Even if every single bullet point in your first post gave no evidence of a living vandal, the sane person would still assume that a very clever vandal is more likely than an event which has never been documented as having had occured.
Occam wasn’t just sharp, he was the Razor.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
> “Millions of photographs are taken every day, and yet not one single photograph has proof that ghosts exist. ”
OK. So? What supports the unspoken premise that the hypothetical ghosts photograph easily?
Not defending ghosts, mind you. I have my own evidence of such things in my family, but I realize it is anecdotal to anyone else, and even the photos are no good despite my own private assurance of their veracity. However, I do grok where Mr. Abject Denial is coming from. Too often skeptical investigation forgets the investigation part.
I suggest a sort of blind test. Set up cameras in the library without knowledge of the librarians or anyone who might be a potential culprit.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:29 am
Wow, I sorta caused controversy. I got 16 minutes of fame!
Anyway, if you’re gonna claim the existence of ghosts of previously living beings, you’ve got a lot of details to start filling in. Ghosts can’t simply exist, there must be some kind of energy or matter or some other possibly unknown class of physical existence that carries identity and interacts with the universe of which ghosts are composed. This stuff (for want of a better descriptor) must somehow become attached to living entities, acquire the same identity as the living entity by some hitherto unknown mechanism and also survive the cessation of function of its previously attached living entity and be able to continue operation with will and some level of consciousness based upon the living entity. It must either take in energy and have some way to stave off entropy, or not be subject to increasing entropy at all. You need to start determining how to measure and discover the mechanisms by which it interacts with its surroundings. And those are just the things that come to mind off the top of my head. If there was real reason to believe ghosts exist, it wouldn’t be the domain of hobby “scientists” running around with EMF meters, tape recorders, and cameras despite the complete lack of reasoning to expect any use from those items, it’d be a wide branch of physics and biology demanding serious study.
On the other hand, you have a library that very likely has no security cameras, as any footage of the items moving about without human interference would have made the reporter salivate wildly and would have warranted a mention. Or, had there been a camera and it was simply a vandal, this story wouldn’t have been written, and instead there would be a small story elsewhere about library vandals being sought/arrested by police. So, what we find ourselves with are two reasonable possibilities: A. They’re lying for some reason (perhaps to drum up interest) and B: Someone’s breaking into the library and getting away with vandalism. Any decent reporter would make the effort to find out if more “mundane” explanations had been considered and would have included such details in the article. My optimism is pushing me to believe A because I don’t want to believe there’s some much credulity and ineptitude to allow B to happen. If they wanted interest, there are plenty of other ways that would be more effective and wouldn’t require dishonesty. I fear my optimism is wrong, but I’m going to remain hopeful, if just to lie to myself about how utterly silly people can be.
And to be fair, I found the story on Dave Barry’s blog, so I’m not sure I should claim complete possession of the nuclear accelerator.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:45 am
[...] here for [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 2:01 am
L Fuller,
It was a joke.
I put a
at the end.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:03 am
It’s teh stupid. It must be stopped!
We all want to see the plan,luv.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:23 am
Were any books written in Irish affected. If not, then obviously we are not dealing with ghosts. We are dealing
with leprechauns.
Do you know what this means, man!
Obviously, this proves that leprechauns can not read English!!!!!
November 1st, 2007 at 4:38 am
Quiet Desperation said,
“OK. So? What supports the unspoken premise that the hypothetical ghosts photograph easily?”
The spoken premise is that the hypothetical ghosts do not photograph easily, which is another piece of evidence that they do not exist. Anything real would show up on film or video.
I too would support the suggestion of setting up video surveillance, and decades of experience from people all over the country would strongly support the premise that any activity would be caused by real actual human beings, and not imaginary wispy figures from the past.
B-)
November 1st, 2007 at 5:06 am
I live a relative distance from where this happened. To be sure, it’s a mixture of the old fashioned religious temperament…and, well, stupid. I’m surprised it wasn’t blamed on satan, that poor guy always takes the sharpest point of blame.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:43 am
Gah! Get your quotes right, people!
It’s:
“You’re right, no human being would stack books like this.”
and
“Listen….do you smell something?”
Also, BA, I used that quote earlier in a thread about a poll on belief in the supernatural
http://p099.ezboard.com/frealitysucksfrm13.showMessage?topicID=35894.topic
(that thread is kid safe, though some of the board isn’t)
November 1st, 2007 at 5:46 am
I double checked and you actually did use the quote before I did. Darn.
In good news, there was an article on CNN about a guy clearing up a case of a “ghost” seen on a courthouse security camera. He was able to duplicate it by putting ladybugs on the camera lens.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:31 am
You forgot one possibility- the books are alive!
November 1st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Oh, and I forgot to ad:
Janine Melnitz: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Winston Zeddemore: Ah, if there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.
Love that movie!
November 1st, 2007 at 9:05 am
You’re right, Phil, no human being would stack books like this.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Tim G,
I was making a joke about your joke!
Hard to banter in pure text mode…
November 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
I worked in a library for a couple of years when I was in high school, and there’s a very obvious solution to this “mystery”…
The librarians are locking somebody in when the close for the night, and that person is getting pissed off and vandalizing things.
It could be that somebody has fallen asleep and was missed when the library is closed at night (a friend of mine locked somebody in once), or it could be that somebody is deliberately trying to remain hidden.
Libraries are big with lots of nooks and crannies, and it would be trivial to remain undetected during the sweep that is done at closing time, which is designed to find people who have lost track of time, not those who are actively trying not to be found.
And nobody does a sweep in the morning to see that there’s nobody there – you just turn on the lights and unlock the doors.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Abject
Again, you are wrong – there are plenty of times when a full-blown start from scratch investigation is not warranted.
If they were, for instance, able to completely rule out physical causes – bums hiding in the bathrooms, cats sneaking in through the ductwork, etc., then yes, a more detailed investigation might be warranted.
Investigating the cause of result A, you do not start with the assumption that “anything could have caused it”. in any query, you ALWAYS start with what you know and move to what you don’t know, and ALWAYS tackle the most likely answer first. That’s why, in murder investigations, the order of suspects is: family, friends, associates, neighbors, strangers.
How does one determine likelihood? By examining what has gone on before in similar assertions. There has *never* been a case where a ghost/spirit/magical banana split has been shown to have caused anything to happen. At best, the cause has remained undetermined.
Ergo, assuming that this is (or might be) the first provable case of ghosts/whatever is wrongful thinking. Demostrably wrong, and has BEEN demonstrably wrong for many years.
Sure – IF they investigate, and IF they find an actual ghost, Dr Plait will have been wrong – in his basic assumptions. I rather think he’d even apologize, but that would be putting words in his mouth, and only Mrs BA is allowed to do that. He would NOT have been wrong to take the position that he has.
In summation, Dr Plait is right and you are wrong.
(and, to agree with the nice person who shares a name with me, even if he does spell it wrong – it’s quite true. Having served as security guard in all manner of places – from retail stores to grain elevators, from Libraries to hotels – I can confirm it. There are very few structures that man has constructed that have more hiding places than your local library.)
November 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Man do I feel out of it. All this time I though when I wrote teh I was just being dyslexic, turns out I was being hip.
Thanks guys!
P
November 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
L Fuller,
And I was making a joke about your joke about my joke.
well…not really.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I’m a librarian, and it makes me sad to hear things like this. If it were at MY library, we’d have already checked the security cameras and solved this mystery Scooby-style. “Now let’s see who the culprit really is… RED HERRING!!!”