Residual Energy And Haunts by Mark Hunnemann - Part 1
Residual Energy And Haunts by Mark Hunnemann - Part 2
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Before we jump in, I want to emphasize that my argument is cumulative in nature—about a dozen. There are numerous “red-flags” which, when taken together, dismantle the notion of residual energy. I ask the reader to keep the totality of the arguments/reasons in mind and not miss the forest for the trees, by getting too bogged down in one particular argument.
Let it be noted at the outset that my focus is on dismantling the residual theory, and not an in-depth analysis of demonology. Along the way, I will be making reference to explaining the truth behind the residual haunts, but it is not my primary burden in this book, which is showing how unnatural this alleged natural theory is. In any case, the truth is quite simple, as it should be.
1.Ockham’s Razor
The scientific/logical principle of Ockham’s Razor has been a useful tool for centuries as a guiding principle for determining which of two or more competing theories is likely correct. The basic concept is parsimony or simplicity. Which ever theory that explains the phenomena most simply is to be preferred, and is almost always correct.
Aristotle is believed the first to express this principle, but as with logic, he didn’t create either principle, rather he discovered what is woven into the fabric of God’s world. ‘Shaving away with a razor’ all but the barest essentials to adequately explain the data is what we are after. There are two issues involved: 1. adequately explaining the phenomena, 2. and a concern for simplicity. For example, if two theories equally explain the data, but one is much simpler, then the simpler one with less variables is most likely the correct theory; beauty of simplicity and symmetry are woven into the fabric of the cosmos by the Logos (in Greek, one meaning is ‘logic’) So, Jesus is the Logic of the universe—holding it together (Col.1:17)
Ockham’s Razor is a time-honored principle that has assisted in many fascinating discoveries, and in dispensing with competing theories that were overly complicated in their explanations.
E=mc (squared) Consider both sides of the equal sign; Energy= matter times the constant (squared). For something so mysterious and so basic to everything, this is its mathematical equation! Is it not lovely in its simplicity?! Think about this for a moment: does it not reflect the simplicity and beauty of God Himself? One can easily imagine such a profound concept as having multiple variables, but it has two—matter and the constant, squared. Beautifully simple; simply beautiful. Or, profoundly simple; simply profound.
Since we are dealing with energy in the notion of residual energy, I thought it particularly appropriate to mention this here. And it is an especially profound expression of parsimony/simplicity.
Consider the classic example of Copernicus vs Ptolemy. Both theories could explain the phenomena of the solar system, but the Ptolemaic system had to continually add ad hoc hypothesis to account for The earth centered galaxy could only explain the phenomena by introducing complex epicycles, which added unwieldly and unnecessary complexity. From a modern vantage point, it is an ugly theory considered from an aesthetic perspective, which physicists often appeal to: beauty in an equation. Nature reveals the wisdom and beauty of God, as seen in its unity and diversity, and design.
19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.(Romans 1:19-20)
Some things about God’s character are so clearly revealed in nature, that it leaves us without excuse. Ockham’s Razor simply expresses this reality.
Copernicus’s theory prevailed primarily because it clearly and SIMPLY explained all the phenomena. Conversely, the more variables that are introduced to explain natural processes, then the more likely it is mistaken. God’s world is wonderfully mysterious, but there is an underlying beauty of simplicity which makes exploration and discovery possible. The death knell for a proposed theory is when it is contains many variables which are themselves mysterious, unexplainable, untestable, etc. A natural theory which lacks verifiability or falsifiability is to be rejected.
The existence of demons is not the issue being discussed; residual energy is. It would take a separate volume to adequately deal with the former, and many fine books have already been written.
When we apply Ockham’s Razor to our discussion, we have two proposed solutions for explaining ‘paranormal looking’ activity. Whatever else we may say about either theory, we are talking about phenomena which looks, sounds, and smells just like supernatural activity, but is alleged to be non-intelligent. However, the competing theory (mine) assumes that the same phenomena is actually quite intelligent.
Let’s see the difference. 1.The Paranormal Community asserts that the following variables are included to explain the process: a trauma occurs; this trauma emits psychic/emotional energy shock waves; sometimes this emotional energy adheres to a rocky surface with special photographic qualities; it remains clustered instead of diffusing; this rock takes a picture/movie of traumatic event; upon cue, this energy re-animates; this energy/rock combination also contains extraordinary projection capabilities and it projects into the surroundings a looping of the past event which may include: sounds, smells, and even solid apparitions; upon completion, it then re-clusters and waits for next loop; this looping may continue perpetually. I trust that I have not set up a straw man but have accurately expressed the basics of the residual energy/haunt theory. Now, (and this is vital) all of these steps/variables are necessary to explain the phenomena in this theory. We count perhaps 6 or 7 possible steps or variables. How many are explainable in current scientific language? None.
2. The demonic theory asserts one step/variable: demonic mimicry to explain the same phenomena. It’s assumption differs widely from the first in that we assume the activity is intelligent. Whatever sounds, smells, or apparitions which normally would be classified as paranormal but are not, due to the subjective process of observing alleged non-intelligence, are explained as being intelligent.
The reason why the phenomena looks paranormal/supernatural is because it is supernatural; and not because it is some unprecedented, complex, multi-staged process of nature. The appearance of non-intelligence is either due to mis-perception or demonic deception or both.
Comparison of two equations:
1. Appearance of non-intelligent, paranormal looking activity=a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
2. Appearance of non-intelligent, paranormal looking activity=x
Which is simpler? Obviously # 2. And #2 explains the phenomena, as we shall see, without breaking/stretching natural laws. Yes, it appeals to the supernatural to explain the phenomena, but (and this is vital) it already has all the traits of supernatural, except ‘perceived’ non-intelligence, which is subjective.
Just on a cursory glance, without going into specifics (which we will), it is manifestly clear that theory #2 is much simpler. Both explain the phenomena, but the demonic theory is vastly more simple, according to Ockham’s Razor principles. Hence, just from viewing the two models side-by-side, the demonic theory is preferable.
We will see that, from beginning to end, the processes (a--h) behind the residual energy/haunt theory are numerous and ALL are mysterious or unexplainable. When a mysterious process like residual energy is explained in terms which are themselves dripping with mystery-laden variables, then it’s significantly problematic. We shall see that there have been attempts to explain its processes via abstruse scientific theories but this is contrary to the principle of simplicity.
The competing theory is the demonic theory, which is simplistic only if you assume your conclusion—which is circular reasoning and/or assume naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions. If you are a Christian, then you should never underestimate the creative power of the evil one to deceive by means of mimicry of even non-intelligence. And the theory I am proposing has ONE step, and is entirely explainable—as opposed to 6 step process, none of which are explainable.
It is the paranormal/parapsychological community that has painted itself into a corner by asserting that residual energy/haunt is caused by entirely natural processes. Introducing the supernatural is not unwarranted complexity because the biblical worldview is thoroughly supernatural; and it is manifestly not natural processes at work. And this phenomena is by no means analogous to something like Copernicus or gravity, because it has all the hallmarks of paranormal/supernatural activity, but people perceive that it is non-intelligent. Unseen forces of some kind, are causing screams, footsteps, smells and apparitions. By the end, we shall see that the demonic theory is most certainly in line with Ockham’s Razor.
There is no precedent for this kind of supernatural looking activity as being natural. Nature looks like nature, and if it looks like a paranormal duck and walks like a paranormal duck, then it’s a paranormal duck. Calling obviously supernatural activity natural processes is unreasonable and unnatural.
Ockham’s Razor is a time-honored principle that has assisted in many fascinating discoveries, and in dispensing with competing theories.
2.There is no evidence for residual energy/haunts. None. Since it is supposedly natural forces at work, then one would assume that it should be subject to the normal processes of the scientific method, but it is resistant at every turn. Every aspect, every variable in the process, is itself inexplicable. The only ‘evidences’ I have seen are the positing of abstruse theories, and experience, interpreted in circular fashion.
Honest defenders of the theory acknowledge that the entire process, from beginning to end, remains a total mystery. Giving an analogy (e.g. tape recorder) is not evidence; and yet when many people hear the analogy they are convinced by it. That analogy has been repeated so often that folks think they are hearing evidence, but they are not.
Before you cry foul, think of how it usually is defended. Someone will state that they are going to show ‘evidence’ for residual energy, and they point to a building which is allegedly filled with residual energy because of trauma that occurred there—then they mention the activity, and that’s it. Or, they will show footage of activity or EVP’s of voices, and then declare that they are evidence of residual haunts because they are non-sensical answers. Again, that is not evidence, but an experience, interpreted circularly. It is arguing in a circular fashion, which is a logical fallacy. The data is interpreted in line with their assumptions regarding residual energy, but could easily be explained in a different fashion. Or they will present ‘evidence’ which allegedly reveals that the activity is non-intelligent. However, we shall spend an entire chapter on the insuperable problems associated with making that distinction. The ‘evidence’ usually offered is experience, which is interpreted ‘residually’.
A theory which lacks any hard evidence is itself evidence that it is false, because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It would seem that we treat this theory with ‘kid gloves’ in that I know of no other theory accepted by so many, that is entirely lacking in any hard evidence. “Not a good start”, says Dr. Ockham. Normally, that in itself, would be enough to dismiss it out of hand. If that does not seem persuasive, let us look at point # 3.
3.Let me begin by quoting Ms. Sherrie Jones in an article on Jeff Belanger’s Ghost Village newsletter (best-selling author, and advisor to The Ghost Adventures): “No universal way seems to exist to be able to shut-down or to stop a paranormal time reflection because we simply do not know what causes it to happen. Some people claim residual haunts/PTRs happen due to traumatic events leaving an energy imprint. That may be true in a few cases, but many scenes of PTR are commonplace occurrences, like someone repeatedly walking from room to room, exiting through an apparent doorway that is no longer there, or doing some mundane task. Nothing seems to indicate why that particular moment in time gets captured and repeatedly reflected back during our time or perhaps through time perpetually. So, we are also left with the disconcerting truth that perhaps the majority of residual haunts, or paranormal time reflection (PTR), is not caused by the alleged primary cause of residual haunts: a traumatic event which leaves imprint on surroundings! Rather confusing, to say the least! And no known means of cleansing it either.”(bold added) In addition, in this article she belabors the point that we probably should not even call it a haunt in order to not frighten the homeowner, who is in no danger whatsoever because of its non-intelligent nature.
Jones, who strikes me as intelligent, makes several significant points which amount to more than mere anomalies for current residual energy/haunt theory—it’s evidence against it.
First, she asserts that the entire process, from beginning to end, is an enigma; we don’t know what causes it to happen. Not even a clue! It is significant that a notion accepted by so many, is basically an entire mystery. She alludes to our third argument below regarding how the theory has no mechanism, so I’ll skip over that for the moment, even though it’s enormously significant.
Have you ever tried to visualize in your mind the process of a traumatic event occurring, emitting psychic energies which imprint on a surface, ect? I have. I have tried hard and sincerely to picture this process occurring and I simply can’t. Be that as it may, we must not pass too quickly over her comment that the entire process remains a mystery. The mystery cloud that hangs over the entire process should be a cause for concern, but it does not seem to phase anyone. As long as they have the tape/film analogy, then that is sufficient. That ALL the variables are inexplicable is unheard of and is devastating. In light of Ockham’s Razor, this theory is in serious trouble.
With the principle of parsimony, the mystery of any anomaly is seen as something to be suspicious of and a razor is taken to it; but in this case every step in the process is unexplainable—from the means by which alleged psychic energy gets trapped on a surface, to how it remains clustered, to how it is able to generate images and sounds, ect. Surely for the open minded, inexplicability of the entire process is evidence against its truth. Unless you like your theories drowning in darkness and anomalies, then it is time to re-examine this popular theory.
By the way, it is not my intention to be harsh, but when dismantling a commonly held belief, one has to be relentlessly logical. And it has always been my belief that helping folks to see the truth is an act of love and compassion. For many, their eternal destinies are at stake—not because the belief itself is damnable, but because it can lead to circumstances that accelerate peoples damnation.
4. She eviscerates the basic idea that a traumatic event is the cause behind this energy imprint. Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in residual energy, and is well known. Jones asserts that the evidence captured is mostly that of mundane activity and not traumatic events. Based on the collection of a large body of various kinds of evidence of alleged residual energy/haunts, the trauma theory does not correspond to the paranormal communities enormously extensive body of data. She readily admits it is confusing and disconcerting that the majority of the evidence is of simple, everyday, mundane activities-which should not cause an energy imprint on the environment. I assume that Ms. Jones has access to advanced technology and has seen many hours of audio and video, and so her assessment or conclusion is devastating for the residual energy/haunt theory.
Some may call it anomalous but she is saying the majority of evidence contradicts the trauma theory. That’s not an anomaly; it is evidence against the theory. I find her honest assessment of the data to be hugely significant, and any man or woman of integrity has to interact with her findings. It is what one would expect if the causal factor behind these events were not residual at all, but intelligent; as I am asserting.
To re-state, the evidence captured is mostly of mundane activity, and not traumatic. This observation is more than disconcerting; it should lead one to consider a paradigm change. What we have here is hard evidence which debunks the basic foundation of residual haunt—traumatic event. How more devastating can evidence get? It is an honest summary of the totality of the evidence gathered by the paranormal community itself. This is empirical data and not subjective feelings.
How many ‘anomalies’ have to accumulate before you will consider changing the theory itself? In a normal scientific setting, a theory which does not fit the majority of the evidence is usually tossed out and a new theory is sought. But folks are keenly wed to this notion, and the paranormal community is not as rigorous in its pursuit of the scientific method as they claim to be. (e.g. frequently depending on one’s senses/intuition, using psychics, believing the voices of EVP’s, smudging, ect) Those are not scientific techniques nor the scientific method at work.
Again Jones honestly admits that residual energy is difficult to get rid of. I find her candor refreshing because many would look at the same data and spin it differently and less honestly. My friend Dana Emanuel has written a wonderful blog and video on invalid forms of cleansings.
https://xposingtheenemy.com/2017/11/28/spiritual-cleansing-techniques-and-why-they-dont-work/
The bottom line is that one cannot get rid of demonic activity using occult means like smudging, which attracts and accelerates demonic activity. So, it is no wonder that she finds it difficult to get rid of. However, if you treat it as demonic, then it does go away. I know because I’ve done it many times—and it was supposed to be residual energy, but it wasn’t. That, by the way, is verifiable. Show me an alleged case of residual energy and I’ll show you one that can be cleansed through the Word of God Incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth. But please remember what I said earlier: rebuking in the Name of Jesus usually only works for those who know the Lord and are walking in the Spirit.
Lastly, she states that we should not tell the homeowner that it is ‘haunted’ since that might frighten them; and since it is allegedly non-intelligent, it is of no danger to the client. Given her assumptions, that conclusion makes sense. However, what if it is intelligent? By telling the homeowner they are in no danger because its merely looping energy causes them to be in more danger than before. Why?
At least before the investigation, they had enough healthy worry or concern to be on guard and call for help. But since the healthy fear has been erased by telling them “peace, peace” when there is no peace (like false OT prophets did), then they not only still have the demonic presence, but are now welcoming of it—pure evil out to destroy them. They were concerned and guarded, but now they are embracing the enemy of their souls. That’s tragic beyond words, and it angers me. Telling the homeowner the truth is always the best policy, just as you would want a medical doctor to not sugar coat your diagnosis. Hell is infinitely more frightening than any initial reaction a homeowner may have.
Asserting that the theory does not correspond to Ockham’s Razor; the entire process is unexplainable, it does not explain most of the phenomena, usually can’t get rid of residual energy-- what does all that suggest to you? Without realizing it, Sherrie Jones, in telling the truth, has gone a long way to undermining the foundation for residual theory. Though we have several more to go, please take these arguments and their force, cumulatively.
5. No mechanism exists to explain this process. Consider the following quote: “The problem is that we know of no mechanism that could record such information in a stone or play it back. Chunks of stone just do not have the same properties as reels of tape. Even magnetic tape can’t record sound or video without a special recording head. Speaking to a magnetic tape will not record anything. Nor can one hear what’s recorded on a magnetic tape by putting it up to one’s ear. In both cases, a special device like a read/write head is needed, and the stone tape theory provides no clue as to what such device would be.” (Schick, Theodore; Vaughn, Lewis. How to Think About Weird Things, pg 326)
I keep repeating myself, but please do not see this as yet another ‘anomaly’. It is not an anomaly; it is evidence against it. If it were true, there should be a mechanism to explain the process. That’s the way real, reality works; It is how natural nature works. For a process that allegedly occurs so frequently, one would assume it could be explained at some level. But this speculation’s processes can’t be explained at all; only analogies given.’ (e.g. film recorder) On the other hand, I can explain the mechanism behind the truth; demonic deception. Simple, yes—as in Ockham. On the other hand, is an alleged natural theory which is wholly unnatural.
Think of what has been said by these men: there is nothing in nature that is similar to magnetic tape; nothing in nature that is equivalent to a recording head; nothing in nature that resembles a read write head that would play back sound. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
For arguments sake, even if we accept that limestone can receive imprinted memories (similar to magnetic tape), what is there in this rock which even remotely resembles a read/write head which projects loud cries, footsteps two floors away, or multiple solid apparitions running through the woods at Gettysburg? You know what this resembles? A miracle—self generated by nature.
Are you familiar with the technology behind building film-recorder equipment? It takes considerable skill and intelligent design to accomplish this task. Then think of the technology needed to project SOLID apparitions running through the woods. To my knowledge, nobody can do that with even the most advanced technology. Not even the military. But energy soaked rocks can.
What these two men did not mention was the further need of the equivalent of speakers, amplifiers, and visual projection mechanisms capable of projecting a solid object; The read/write head is just the beginning of a complex process of audio and visual special effects—miraculous looking special effects.
How does a rock project a solid figure that walks perfectly? Please try to visualize how a simple, energized rock could produce an astonishing sound and light show that out-performs our best efforts at ‘hologramming’. Have you ever studied how holograms are created? I would suggest that you do so, in order to grasp what this speculation is alleged to do. As we noted earlier, the solid apparitions are not attainable through current technology. It is mind boggling in the extreme to think that rocks could project a vaporous apparition, but a sold one is unspeakably incredible!
In real life, there needs to be a person to press the equivalent of the record button, as well as a person to press the play-back button. These men have stated a devastating truth about this central paranormal theory: it lacks a mechanism. In most cases, if a theory lacks a mechanism, it is rejected.
A mechanism is simply a means of explaining how the process works. If one merely asserts that something happens, but cannot explain HOW this process happens, then that is problematic in the extreme. Stating that residual energy acts like a tape/film recorder is not an explanation; it is simply an analogy, and a faulty analogy at that. Yet folks continue to regularly use the tape analogy to explain residual energy. May I suggest that there is a spiritual component that is driving this faulty theory along with such force; it is as demonic driven as the forces it is attempting to explain.
When you consider the other ‘anomalies’ we mentioned—and add to them that the theory lacks an explanation of how it’s processes work, then that is evidence against it being true. It certainly does not conform to Ockham’s Razor because it is becoming increasingly and unnecessarily complex, complicated, riddled with inconsistencies, and lacks explanatory power. Ockham’s razor states that the simplest theory which explains the phenomena is to be preferred.
***And this theory is far from simple, and as Jones noted, it does not explain the phenomena. And the current issue is the lack of falsifiability or verifiability of a mechanism that does not exist.
I need to repeat a key point: the trauma theory does not explain the phenomena; it is entirely and empirically false in that it does not conform to the observable phenomena.***
Remember the cumulative nature of my arguments from science. Take all that Ms. Jones said, add the lack of a mechanism, and one is left with no scientific evidence for this theories validity. It does not explain most of the phenomena, and it lacks a mechanism. But we have not finished.
6.The entire theory rests upon another unproven assumption: that there is a new, as of yet uncategorized, kind of energy: psychic/emotional energy. One or two scientists are talking about it but that is not the same as it being verified and officially categorized. Demonic ‘energy’ is usually behind this anyway—(e.g. Reiki) It is said to be the explosive outburst of this kind of energy that gets imprinted on the environment and replays, over and over. That there is energy is not the issue; that there are emotions is not the issue; that the uncontrolled outburst of emotions causes expenditures of energy is not the issue; what IS the issue is this: is there a category of energy known as “psychic/paranormal/emotional energy”? That is the issue.
Anthropomorphizing energy:
If you consult any textbook on energy, or Google ‘kinds of energy’ then you will find things like: electrical, chemical, radiant, nuclear, mechanical, thermal, elastic, and gravitational energy. However, there is no category known to science as “psychic/emotional energy.” There are alleged examples of it (we shall examine one of the most popular examples later—walking in after an argument) but it is an ‘experience’ and not evidence, interpreted in circular fashion. It is not an accepted category of energy in science circles. What often passes for psychic/emotional energies in an environment is either psychological processes, perception of body language cues, or demonic ‘energy.’ Hence, the very ‘stuff’ that allegedly gets imprinted/replayed on the environment does not itself even exist, despite half the world speaking of it as if it did. In other words, residual energy is comprised of a substance that is non-existent. We should be more careful with our language.
In addition, energy is inanimate and to attribute emotions to it is anthropomorphizing it; giving it human traits. That is a fallacy. Anger is real, and energy is real, but angry energy or energy filled with anger is to speak as if an inanimate object were a person. People have anger, people have joy, people have love or hate—rocks or energy do not. The more I ponder this notion of residual energy, the more “unreal” it becomes. Just because many people believe this kind of energy exists, does not make it so. Our believing has no bearing on the ontological status of emotional/psychic energy or anything else for that matter—despite what some New Age authors say regarding the power of belief/speech. God’s Words have omnipotent power and it’s blasphemous to assert that ours do too. Just as many people believed the earth was/is flat does negate the fact that it is essentially spherical. Just because the idea of emotional energy has taken root so firmly in our culture, does not prove anything…other than its popular. And many wrong-headed notions have been almost universally believed in the past.
7. If these are place memories, photos of past event imprints –holographic images caught on natural surface, then why isn’t the original scenery included? Occasionally it is, but why not all the time? If you see an image of a woman apparition walking, why isn’t the original scenery included? When one takes a simple photo, the original situational scenery is included, right? If this is a “photo or film” of original image of 100 years ago, then why isn’t the original situational scenery surrounding that event included as well? If this process is advanced enough to capture and replay the person in the environment, then why can’t it replay the environment the person was in? For something so incredible, why can’t it even get the scenery right? Maybe it’s not a ‘memory’ or filming at all? It does not act like a camera or video recorder, so why use the analogy? It seems to be intentionally stripping the person from their environment and looping just them. More signs of intelligent intervention.
Do you catch the force of this reasoning? Since a simple photo, or video obviously catches the scenery, and not just the primary subject, then why does that not occur in the process of place memory? Is it ‘selective memory’? The traumatic event occurred to an individual in a situation, and not in a vacuum, so why isn’t the ‘photographing’ element not capturing the situational context as well; especially since it was the situation that was causing the trauma? The subject was surrounded by scenery when the event occurred; does the process prefer people over things? Perhaps the film analogy should not be used because it’s so untrue to what it’s depicting. I suggest it can be better explained as very intelligent deception via mimicry. Makes more sense of the data than the mystery laden alternative.
If there can be such high tech ‘place memories’ occurring in locations like Gettysburg, where allegedly multiple, beyond holographic (I say beyond because in many cases apparitions are solid), images are moving through the woods (not original woods, but existing woods) then why can’t something as relatively simple as the soldiers original scenery be part of the holographic equation/surroundings as well? Part of the mystery? Well, I readily and happily admit there is mystery and wonderment in God’s world, but this is not mystery, it is ugliness of asymmetrical reasoning and false/demonic reality.
If one were to postulate demonic mimicry, as I am, then explaining the various mysteries is rather simple. We must not forget the ‘angel of light’ principle (2 Cor.11:14) in which Satan/demons can appear as anything. If they can appear as Jesus, then appearing as anything else would be easy.
I remind the reader we are not discussing the run of the mill scientific theory, but one that occurs in paranormal circumstances, with all the same indicators of supernatural activity, except the alleged perception of non-intelligence-- of exactly the same phenomena that in other circumstances would be interpreted as paranormal. The subjective nature of this distinction process will be spelled out in detail in a later chapter.
Cumulatively speaking, more evidence is piling up that this theory is deeply flawed. And consider how much human intelligence it would take to holographically project very realistic looking soldiers moving through the woods. Are we to believe that non-intelligent natural forces can out perform our best hologram efforts? Our best scientists can’t approximate what this speculation proposes, which cannot even be explained. Where are you Ockham?
No evidence for the theory, no correlation of the data to the theory, no mechanism to explain the process, no category known as psychic/emotional energy or emotionalized energy, and subjects being filmed with no background scenery. The ‘red-flags’ are accumulating, and the contra-evidence is mounting higher and higher.
8. Did you know that according to some folks, the phenomena of period dress did not start occurring until 100 years ago? Prior to that, ghosts were seen in contemporary garb. If one saw a ghost in 1905 they were dressed in garb of 1905. I do not have any way of verifying if this true, though I have tried. So, I offer this more as suggestive, than as ‘evidence’. But if it is true, then it is quite significant. And there is a precedent for it in the UFO phenomenon, as we’ll see. It is because of this precedent that I decided to include this observation which I cannot verify. Yet.
If ghosts are intelligent and residual energy haunts are non-intelligent, then they must have occurred throughout human history in similar fashion. If these are manifestations of non-intelligent residual apparitions, then something has happened that shouldn’t have occurred. 100 years ago, Victorian women in white dresses started appearing and countless other apparitions in ‘period dress.’ Perhaps the devil knows there is something ‘romantic’ about a Victorian ghost woman dressed in white; or civil war soldiers. If he can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), then appearing as anything else would be a snap. Anything. I saw a demonic ‘cat’ in one location, and it was the ugliest cat I’ve ever seen, and appeared to be hyper-ventilating as I approached it! It was paralyzed with fear and looked as if it were having a heart attack.
Satan is very smart and the ultimate opportunist in learning a good thing when he sees it, too deceive people. It sounds like intelligent changing of strategy to fit our expectations and desires—folks like their Victorian ghosts. It is eerily similar to early UFO sightings as saying they were from Mars (Martians), but as our technology got more advanced, ‘somebody’ realized this was becoming implausible—it was much more exotic (and harder to falsify) to say they were from outer reaches of the galaxy, ect. It has all the signs of intelligent deception. Since most activity is said to be residual (past and present), then non-intelligence cannot change its MO 100 years ago. This is further evidence that the residual speculation is implausible. Non-intelligence is not going to decide one day to start appearing in ‘period dress’ because, by definition, non-intelligence cannot decide anything.’ Based on UFO/alien encounters, there is no doubt in my mind that true alien-appearing activity is demonic in nature. In terms of their anti-Jesus/hell message and actions, it is evident that this is yet another scheme of the evil one, just as are ghosts, and residual energy/haunts.
9. Residual energy/haunts are not reproducible in the lab. One would think that a surface that contains this stored energy could be removed and stimulated in some fashion in the lab to cause it to ‘loop’. Or think of material taken from a residual haunt used to build another structure, is said to result in it being residually haunted as well.
After all, it is said that lightning, or EMF pumps, ionize the air and make re-play likely. Has anyone on site, or in the lab, been able to electrically stimulate this energy surface and cause it to re-play? The problems with testing it on-site is that at the first sighting of ‘activity’ one will be tempted to call it residual in order to produce desired results. In other words, it is not a controlled setting. And non-reproducibility is normally considered at best seriously problematic, and at worse, a death-blow to a theory in science. It is assumed that a theory is reproducible in the lab, if it is true.
This is about the third or fourth time that same point has been made, but in regards to different anomalies. But this is residual energy and it seems nobody messes with it. I do not divulge my personal business but exposing this scheme has attracted unwanted attention, and ‘messing’ with it has come at a spiritual price. This attack has only caused me to re-double my efforts, and reinforced what I already knew: Satan is quite fond of his residual energy deception. But God is good.
It is said that surfaces retain energy. Fine. Bring it to the lab and reproduce the desired effect.
10. Utter unpredictability. The vast majority of traumatic situations that should lead to residual energy/haunts do not. Trauma, of countless varieties and intensity, occur every day across every city. If we assume the ‘trauma theory,’ in spite of # 2 above, then one would expect all significant trauma to send out emotional/psychic energy which would result in imprinting on the surroundings. Residual haunts occur in all types of physical environments, and not just those with limestone, ect. There is no surface or kind of substance that has been isolated as the cause/causes. (see the last chapter on limestone) My point is this: if a theory is truly scientific in nature-- if it is true-- then it should be predictable. But in this case, it is utterly unpredictable as to the: if, what, when, where and how of which events will be recorded and played back. There is no simplicity to this theory at all; just one anomalous complexity after another.
This is a distinct argument from the lack of a mechanism (# 3); that has to do with the inability to explain how the process works. This has to do with if and when the process even occurs, despite serious trauma. No, this is the total lack of predictability. Even in places where there is intensified, horrific trauma on a daily basis, like a prison, there should be much more residual energy/haunts than there are, according to the theory; especially if part of the reason it was posited was because the prison was made of limestone. A place like that should be ‘crawling’ with residual energy.
It would seem that someone is choosing which trauma produces this effect. But in the residual theory there is nobody ‘there’ to choose’ which event makes an imprint; and ‘choosing’ is an obviously intelligent activity. One could go further and say that some of the very worst traumas have not produced any residual haunts, even in limestone environments, or in different kinds of environments. The contrary theory can easily explain why some events are causing some ‘issues’ and others are not; intelligent intervention.
A basic component of a theory passing the ‘muster’ of the scientific method in becoming accepted as ‘scientific’ is the simple test of predictability. Yet, one of the hallmarks of this theory is its sheer unpredictability. Nothing about this theory is explainable; every aspect of it is shrouded in mystery and contradictions.
Along these same lines, there is, as I said, no substance that has been isolated as THE photographing element or surface. Residual haunts, due to their alleged frequency, are found in every mineral/rock surface imaginable. So, forget limestone.
11. Have you ever heard of a perpetual motion machine? If you have, it’s not because you have seen one: they are an impossibility in the world God has made. Why? Due to friction, gravity, and especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the energy will eventually wind down; the energy has not been destroyed but it has ‘changed’. These inventions have always been a failure, and always will be.
My point is this: the theory of residual energy as usually proposed, is essentially a theoretical model of a perpetual motion machine. As Ms. Jones said, the residual energy will continue to loop, PERHAPS PERPETUALLY. Of course, nobody has any clue as to how many volts of psychic/emotional energy is emitted in a trauma (is this measurable?), but the human body has relatively little energy in it, compared to the tasks that are said to be performed in a residual haunt. How much energy is needed to create a hologram on steroids, which is what many of the apparitions appear like? In fact, they are not holograms because, they are much more sophisticated—in many cases, actual human bodies are generated which can be touched. In addition, consider just how problematic it is to visualize this happening for centuries. You have energy expending itself through ‘self-exertion’ due to cue and response, over and over. The cue-ing process is just that, a cue to prompt the loop; but there is nothing in an anniversary to refuel energy.
Supposing for arguments sake that the energy did cluster photographically on the rock surface. It seems to me that after just one exertion the amount of usable energy would have been depleted. Verbal loops are energetic enough, but think of the energy needed to create a visual image/body? Unless this energy field is being resupplied with new, usable energy, then it would seem to me that the notion of residual energy/haunt is a variation of a perpetual motion machine. Robbing energy from batteries would seem to be a very insufficient amount to project a visual apparition. Hence, it is impossible. And in order to avoid this dilemma, yet another ad hoc hypothesis will need to be added to make this model work.
If one proposes lightning, as Timothy Yohe does, as the energizer, then why is there residual energy/haunts happening frequently, worldwide in places where lightning has not occurred in many months? It would seem that these energy clusters are reenergizing themselves, which is the same as postulating perpetual motion, and ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which we will turn our attention to shortly.
A subpoint: it would seem that there is no aspect of this process that is actually measurable
When Moses saw the burning bush, he was aware that fire usually consumes its fuel. So, he turned aside to look. The Lord re-revealed that His name is Yahweh (this name had been known by Adam, Genesis 2:5ff, but apparently forgotten) It contains the idea of aseity; God alone is self-existent and unchanging; everything in creation is marked by change, dependence, and energy expenditure.
.
12. The cue problem. It is common in discussions of residual energy/haunts to state that certain anniversaries of the event cause it to loop. I have a problem with that. Anniversaries are memorable dates, and intelligent entities, like humans/demons, remember dates; rocks and energy cannot remember anything. Even if, for arguments sake, we assert that rocks can project images, they cannot remember anything because they have no conscious awareness. Rocks are inanimate. Electrical energy is inanimate. Is it being suggested that this psychic energy is ‘alive’, can remember events, and act upon itself to re-animate and loop? Again, we are anthropomorphizing energy.
How many times have you heard someone state that the looping usually occurs on anniversaries of the trauma? Fine. Explain, please, how an anniversary can trigger energy to loop. Since it is a date, it has no ‘fingers’ to press anything. It takes energy to trigger energy and anniversaries have no energy because they are….nothing-ontologically.
An anniversary is not a thing. Ontologically speaking, it is nothing; it has no being. My birthday is in two days, and it is significant to me, but the date of my birthday is not a ‘thing’. The date itself is nothing in terms of being. It is literally no-thing. Of course it has significant emotional value, but that can only be recognized by intelligence. But since it is ontologically nothing, how can it act as a cue or trigger for energy to loop? Nothing cannot create something. Ex nihil, nihil fit…Latin for: ‘from nothing, nothing comes’. So, we have what appears to be spontaneous generation of energy occurring as well, which is logically and physically impossible. Something would have to be its own cause. How can an anniversary, which has no being, cause a physical object to re-energize and loop? It is so easy to say that anniversaries cause energy to loop, but it is quite another to show HOW it can cause it to happen.
It makes much more sense to posit an intelligent spirit/demon who knows the date of the suicide, and loops the action on that date. It avoids all the spontaneous generation problems.
There is a reason I took the time to lay the foundation in the first two chapters, and I’m glad I did because, the more I look at this notion, the more it seems that folks are assuming that nature is at least semi-divine; animism in modern garb. How else can one explain all of this ability being attributed to rocks?
No evidence for the theory, no correlation of the data/evidence to the theory, no mechanism to explain the process, subjects being filmed with no background scenery, non-intelligent residual entities ‘deciding’ they want to change their clothing habits, non-reproducible in the lab, unpredictability, no common photographing substance, it acts like a perpetual motion machine, and anniversaries have no ability to cause looping. The anomalies are no longer anomalies; they are hard evidence that this theory needs to be rejected and a new paradigm adopted: evil intelligence.
Ockham’s razor states that the simplest explanation that explains the phenomena is to be preferred; residual energy is neither the simplest explanation nor does it explain the phenomena (see all the arguments above, in addition to my next chapter)
Nine years ago I was able to come to ‘cognitive rest’ regarding my utter certainty that the notion of residual energy/haunt CANNOT be right. It must be wrong. That comes from my next argument which I spend an entire chapter on, which is the next scientific evidence against residual energy. This one line of evidence was sufficient nine years ago to persuade me, but since then other reasons have emerged.
