Odd Experience at Cousin's Birthday - What Could it Be?

[zoobyshoe]

I was in my bank one afternoon...

Indeed, eyewitness accounts have been tested over and over and over again ad nauseam and have been proven to be unreliable.

There was a show on the History Channel about two months ago where they drove people down a dark road telling them to be on the lookout for anything unusual. They'd set up a wooden painted "mothman" figure on the side of the road. Afterward all the witnesses were asked how tall the figure was. Two thirds, more or less correctly, estimated it at a yard tall. One third, though, confidently declared it to be at least six feet tall. This was a case where all had been told something unusual would be seen, and to pay attention.

On another show a group of nature hikers was stopped by a guy in military uniform with a rifle and told they couldn't proceed: there'd been a crash ahead and the scene had to be secured for investigation. Later, half the hikers reported they could see a wreck in the distance (there was none) and one woman said she had caught glimpses of the "UFO" through the brush behind the guard.

On another segment they tied a line to a log in Loch Ness and made it rock back and forth. Tourists about a 100 feet away started pointing at it. More tourists gathered and watched the log. Later they asked people for descriptions. Most described an indistinct shape, but some reported a "head". One sketched a profile much like the famous "surgeon's photograph".

Sometimes they ask misleading questions and this really trips people up. After being shown a video of a car crash they might ask "Estimate how fast the white car was going when it passed the car wash sign." In fact, there was no car wash sign in the video, but people throw out estimates anyway.

Someone posted a link to this in Medical Sciences last week:

The topic of his dissertation was social influence in perception, and the experiments have come to be known as the "autokinetic effect" experiments. In an otherwise totally dark room, a small dot of light is shown on a wall, and after a few moments, the dot appears to move. This effect is entirely inside-the-head, and results from the complete lack of "frame of reference" for the movement. Three participants enter the dark room, and watch the light. It appears to move, and the participants are asked to estimate how far the dot of light moves. These estimates are made out loud, and with repeated trials, each group of three converges on an estimate. Some groups converged on a high estimate, some low, and some in-between. The critical finding is that groups found their own level, their own "social norm" of perception. This occurred naturally, without discussion or prompting.

When invited back individually a week later and tested alone in the dark room, participants replicated their original groups' estimates. This suggests that the influence of the group was informational rather than coercive; because they continued to perceive individually what they had as members of a group, Sherif concluded that they had internalized their original group's way of seeing the world. Because the phenomenon of the autokinetic effect is entirely a product of a person's own perceptual system, this study is evidence of how the social world pierces the person's skin, and affects the way the understand their own physical and psychological sensations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafer_Sherif

In groups, therefore, people will relinquish their own perceptions of indistinct phenomena to arrive at a group consensus. Hence the situations where it is claimed "Everyone there saw it! Ask them!"

It may irk people trying to be believed about something extrordinary but the fact eyewitness accounts can't be relied on is inescapable, and has to be raised in all cases.

 

[Geigerclick]

Indeed, eyewitness accounts have been tested over and over and over again ad nauseam and have been proven to be unreliable.

There was a show on the History Channel about two months ago where they drove people down a dark road telling them to be on the lookout for anything unusual. They'd set up a wooden painted "mothman" figure on the side of the road. Afterward all the witnesses were asked how tall the figure was. Two thirds, more or less correctly, estimated it at a yard tall. One third, though, confidently declared it to be at least six feet tall. This was a case where all had been told something unusual would be seen, and to pay attention.

On another show a group of nature hikers was stopped by a guy in military uniform with a rifle and told they couldn't proceed: there'd been a crash ahead and the scene had to be secured for investigation. Later, half the hikers reported they could see a wreck in the distance (there was none) and one woman said she had caught glimpses of the "UFO" through the brush behind the guard.

On another segment they tied a line to a log in Loch Ness and made it rock back and forth. Tourists about a 100 feet away started pointing at it. More tourists gathered and watched the log. Later they asked people for descriptions. Most described an indistinct shape, but some reported a "head". One sketched a profile much like the famous "surgeon's photograph".

Sometimes they ask misleading questions and this really trips people up. After being shown a video of a car crash they might ask "Estimate how fast the white car was going when it passed the car wash sign." In fact, there was no car wash sign in the video, but people throw out estimates anyway.

Someone posted a link to this in Medical Sciences last week:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafer_Sherif

In groups, therefore, people will relinquish their own perceptions of indistinct phenomena to arrive at a group consensus. Hence the situations where it is claimed "Everyone there saw it! Ask them!"

It may irk people trying to be believed about something extrordinary but the fact eyewitness accounts can't be relied on is inescapable, and has to be raised in all cases.

There is in fact, a region of the brain which contributes to this, the Nucleus Accumbens. Recall also changes memory each time that memory is recalled. Our brains are designed to fill in blanks, and that keeps us sane and alive. It also makes most people without significant training useless as eyewitnesses to even simple events.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is in fact, a region of the brain which contributes to this, the Nucleus Accumbens. Recall also changes memory each time that memory is recalled. Our brains are designed to fill in blanks, and that keeps us sane and alive. It also makes most people without significant training useless as eyewitnesses to even simple events.

I can see that even in myself. Each time I recall a thing it's not quite as sharp. I either sharpen it up or allow it to get foggier. In sharpening up the foggier things, memories with bigger holes, I'm sometimes completely unsure whether I'm just throwing in what's plausible or if I'm reconnecting actual dots.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is in fact, a region of the brain which contributes to this, the Nucleus Accumbens.

I looked this up, and am not seeing it's role in recall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens

You'll have to clarify what you meant by "this".

 

[GeorginaS]

The candle situation becomes even more unlikely when you consider when the flames disappeared, and my cousin's grandmother's reputation of a so-called prankster.

You should link even more unrelated events, then, to the candles going out to make the situation even more unlikely still. How about, two of your aunts had Corn Flakes for breakfast that morning, and your cousin, whose birthday it was, loves Corn Flakes and had won a free candle as a prize from a box of Corn Flakes when he was three. And! Two women who resembled your cousin's dead prankster grandmother crossed the street the day previous at the precise time the candles went out the following day. How likely is it that all of those things will come together?

QuanticEnigma, we keep trying to point out to you that they're unrelated events. You keep refusing to see that. I don't know why. Evidently you just enjoy the story and you're wed to it, I guess.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if we assume that the candles were mysteriously extinguished by some unknown operator, there is no reason to relate this to a deceased prankster.

You are free to share your story, but you are not free to posit unsupportable explanations for that experience.

 

[QuanticEnigma]

I keep hearing the same old arguments, about Nucleus accumbens, recalling information, eyewitness testimonies etc. It seems to me that this is a way of denying everything that I've said, or attempts to render everything that I've said useless or irrelevant. If you disagree with this statement, think about it - you are questioning my way of thinking and my ability to recall information, rather than this quirky situation itself.

When skeptical people (myself included!) stumble upon something they can't readily explain, they start to question the source(s) of the information itself. This, in my opinion, is very un-scientific and narrow minded, only willing to accept what we see as reality. On a slightly different note, there are so many things that we don't understand about this universe, it could be that reality and laws of nature are incomprehensible to us, and we are only seeing a small portion of it. My point is, what we see and observe on Earth is not the full picture.

I am a (future) scientist/engineer and consider myself to be very skeptical about a lot of things (just as everyone here seems to be), but I am willing to make an exception when it comes to this situation. All I can do is describe what happened, but nothing compares to actually experiencing the situation. It's easy to be critical about occurrences like this, especially the ones you see on History and Discovery Channel, but this situation seems different to me, and I'm willing to accept that there are some things in this world that we don't understand (yet). I find it saddening that others do not agree, and only accept what they can observe as concrete fact.

 

[QuanticEnigma]

Even if we assume that the candles were mysteriously extinguished by some unknown operator, there is no reason to relate this to a deceased prankster.

It wasn't me who made this association but my aunt. She knew the woman well and instantly associated the situation with her, thinking that it was something that she would do (my cousin took in a breath to blow out the candles, and then they disappeared just as he was about to blow them out, which does seem like a joke). I'm just saying, that's where the association between a deceased prankster and vanishing candles comes in; it's more the fact that the flames went out when he was about to blow, which caused people to make the connection between the situation and a deceased prankster - than the disappearance itself, which is mysterious.

But anyway, ghosts and spooky stuff aside, could there be any other explanations of simultaneously vanishing flames? Air currents and carbon dioxide have already been ruled out...well, rendered extremely unlikely (but don't mention anything about coincidences, very low probabilities are effectively useless, there's a probability I could quantum tunnel through my wall and end up on Jupiter, but it's definitely not going to happen!) ^_^

 

[GeorginaS]

It wasn't me who made this association but my aunt.

Your aunt isn't here relaying the story, you are.

And you're the one who keeps repeating and emphasising the association.

I'm just saying, that's where the association between a deceased prankster and vanishing candles comes in; it's more the fact that the flames went out when he was about to blow, which caused people to make the connection between the situation and a deceased prankster

The candle situation becomes even more unlikely when you consider when the flames disappeared, and my cousin's grandmother's reputation of a so-called prankster.

As for all explanations vis the party candles being discarded, it's only the ones you care to think about that you are considering and not all of the contributing factors offered as ideas here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When skeptical people (myself included!) stumble upon something they can't readily explain, they start to question the source(s) of the information itself. This, in my opinion, is very un-scientific and narrow minded, only willing to accept what we see as reality.

Total baloney. To be scientific it's imperative to question the source. For two thousand years no one questioned that heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects because the source of that notion was none other than Aristotle. When people decided to test the notion they found out it was completely false. And that was the dawn of Science as we know it.

When eyewitness accounts have been scientifically tested it turns out they can't invariably be relied on. They're wrong so often they always have to be questioned. This is serious. People have been sent to jail for years because of eyewitness accounts only to be exonerated later by DNA evidence.

 

[Geigerclick]

It wasn't me who made this association but my aunt. She knew the woman well and instantly associated the situation with her, thinking that it was something that she would do (my cousin took in a breath to blow out the candles, and then they disappeared just as he was about to blow them out, which does seem like a joke). I'm just saying, that's where the association between a deceased prankster and vanishing candles comes in; it's more the fact that the flames went out when he was about to blow, which caused people to make the connection between the situation and a deceased prankster - than the disappearance itself, which is mysterious.

But anyway, ghosts and spooky stuff aside, could there be any other explanations of simultaneously vanishing flames? Air currents and carbon dioxide have already been ruled out...well, rendered extremely unlikely (but don't mention anything about coincidences, very low probabilities are effectively useless, there's a probability I could quantum tunnel through my wall and end up on Jupiter, but it's definitely not going to happen!) ^_^

No, there isn't.

 

[QuanticEnigma]

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating in that instance I should probably study quantum mechanics a bit harder though, I have an exam next week.
But I'm trying to say that if the probability of something happening is extremely low, it doesn't mean that it has to happen, sometime, somewhere.

Can someone please explain to me what people are implying when they outline the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (which I agree whole-heartedly with)? That I was just seeing things, that the candles might have actually flickered, that they might have not gone out simultaneously, etc. because I am 100% without a shadow of a doubt sure that those candle facts are true (at this point you're probably thinking, that's what they all say...). But if you ask the 30 or so people that were there what they saw, they would at least give you those general facts. Maybe that's actually a good idea, to ask everyone what they saw and see if the recounts agree.

But, according to my recount, I would have to disregard those explanations of air currents and carbon dioxide smothering, NOT because I desperately want the story to be true or for a ghost to have done it, or whatever, but because I believe they're not possible enough (refer to a previous post of mine where I discussed the simultaneous release of CO2 be everyone, I think I did a pretty good job explaining! ^_^).

On the other hand, and this is a question in general, not necessarily pertaining to my own experience, but why can't ghosts exist? There seems to be no evidence against them, and a lot of different people claim to have seen/experienced them in some form or another...perhaps this relates to the individual's perception or willingness to believe in ghosts? Even if it does, it doesn't conclusively rule them out. Anyway, that's probably a whole new thread on its own.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Total baloney. To be scientific it's imperative to question the source. For two thousand years no one questioned that heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects because the source of that notion was none other than Aristotle.

I blame Thomas Aquinas and his obsession with Aristotle for that.

 

[Nick666]

Hey everyone,

I've noticed a lot of "ghost" threads on here and would like to share a pretty odd experience that I've pondered for quite some time now, and have failed to deduce a reasonable explanation , which is interesting, as I am a pretty scientifically-minded person . I also consider myself to be non-religious, although non quite atheistic as in my opinion there is a degree of plausibility regarding some "higher power" or whatever, but anyway...

A while ago at my cousin's birthday, he was about to blow out his candles when all 12 or so flames just vanished at the same time - they didn't even flicker or seem to be blown by wind (all the windows were shut, there was no breeze in the room whatsoever), but just completely disappeared all at the same instant. Nobody blew them out, even if somebody did the flames would have flickered. It was also revealed that my cousin's grandmother had died a few weeks before, and apparently she "never missed a birthday".

Now I'm not saying that I sincerely believe in ghosts or anything, so I've considered some (pretty unconvincing) explanations...
1) The batch of candles had some impurity or something and the flames were extinguished as they burned down to this point (not very likely, as the candles were lit at different times)
2) They were joke candles, if there even are such things (which is also unlikely, they seemed like ordinary candles to me)

...well, at least it's something

So, does anyone have any ideas as to what this could be?

Your cousin is a prankster .