I have been watching this series since it started and it seems like they cover the same topics, which are Ghosts, Demons, UFO's, Bigfoot and Werewolves. I am curious if they had any reporting related to Vampires. I think it would be interesting if they could document something like that just for a change.
shareYou see the problem with 'vampires' is much like the problem with fairies and hobgoblins. They are, in other words, mythical beings created by the imaginations of writers either to stimulate the minds of others or to sell fictional works; and therefore they are 'alive' in the works of fiction, from the past few hundred years only.
You might have more luck if you asked for these to be featured on a program like The Unexplained Files, 'True (!?) Supernatural' or possibly 'My Child sees Dead People'. All of these programs seem to have more (cough ...shall we say) 'creative flexibility' as to how certain accounts are presented...
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
I believe they will. Especially in New Orleans. I would love a few shows or series there. A real paranormal series, not a fictional series.
shareI believe they've already done one episode with a guy that was supposedly a werewolf ........vampires should atleast be discussed in future seasons
shareLooollll!!! Hello guys, Vampires do not exists!!!
shareSome say werewolves don't exists and they featured them. Just keep an open mind.
shareHello guys!!!!! Demons and ghosts aren't real, either. Vampires are exactly as likely to exist as any other imaginary creature.
shareAh but demons and ghosts weren't invented by the minds of particular writers, within the past few hundred years.
Vampires, OTOH, definitely were.
What's more, the so called "werewolf" episode was, and most of us would likely agree, the lowlight of an otherwise generally good 3rd season. So, perhaps those who are looking for 'vampires' shouldn't quite hold their breadth. As suggested, you might have more luck with them, on other (cough) 'more flexible' shows...
Hmmm
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
1) It doesn't make one bit of difference whether a fictitious entity was created 10 years ago or 10,000 years ago. Imaginary is imaginary.
2) How do you hold your "breadth"? For that matter, how would you hold length or height?
3) Any show that deals with so-called (note the proper use of the hyphen) paranormal activity is, by its very nature, "flexible." There's simply no other way to present obviously non-existent events as true.
Re 1) Of course it doesn't make a difference whether a fictitious entity was created on X year or Y year. OTOH, some of us, yourself obviously excluded, are open to the possibility that ghosts are not in the slightest fictitious. For example, take a look at the Hampton Court 'Skeletor' incident (you can see it, as it was reported by UK news on youtube) and pls try telling me that that's only a man dressed up in a period costume. It's submitted that that is absolutely a ghost. And what's more, to date, nobody has satisfactorily disproved same.
Re 2) You've completely lost me. That word ('breadth') was very obviously a typo/spelling mistake. If you really want to go down that road with me, then I can assure you that I can find plenty of mistakes in your writing too; that is, if you're interested. For example, you wrote this: " Vampires are exactly as likely to exist as any other imaginary creature." If you wished to be grammatically accurate, then you would have written as follows: " Vampires are exactly and as likely to exist as any other imaginary creature." And, I can explain why, if you're interested.
Re 3) Again, if you are completely inflexible as to the possibility that certain aspects of the paranormal (including ghosts etc.) are not at all unproven, but rather *STILL* to be proven, then it would naturally make sense to you that those entities which are undoubtedly and entirely fictitious (vampires, hobgoblins, toothfairies etc.) are just as valid to be shown, as those which are most questionably otherwise. For that reason, I would disagree with you: That is, ghosts are more likely to be true yet unproven, insofar as they don't *yet* fit in with conventional contemporary *and* scientifically accepted methods of provability. Whereas, there is plenty of unquestionable evidence to show that vampires were created in fictional works. Thus to portray such unquestionably fictitious entities on a show, which is produced not as a comedy - but rather for those who are open to the possibility that certain aspects of the paranormal are real (yet still to be proven) - makes negligible sense to those who aren't diehard sceptics.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
...some of us, yourself obviously excluded, are open to the possibility that ghosts are not in the slightest fictitious.
OK, you hold caveman-level superstitions. Check.
For example, take a look at the Hampton Court 'Skeletor' incident (you can see it, as it was reported by UK news on youtube) and pls try telling me that that's only a man dressed up in a period costume. It's submitted that that is absolutely a ghost. And what's more, to date, nobody has satisfactorily disproved same.
Very bad example. There's never been one iota of proof that that was remotely supernatural. I know YouTube is, of course, only known for its 100% truthful and reliable news stories, but the video you're referencing doesn't even hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny, since no one has ever shown evidence that it's not a hoax or a video artifact of some sort.
By the way, in the educated world, no one ever asks for anything to be disproved. There is never a need to disprove something, because the burden of proof only exists for those who wish to PROVE something. You can't disprove anything that doesn't exist. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy of the greatest magnitude.
If you wished to be grammatically accurate, then you would have written as follows: " Vampires are exactly and as likely to exist as any other imaginary creature." And, I can explain why, if you're interested.
I'd love to hear an explanation for that one. It might be the case that "and" would work there if both adverbs were part of the prepositional phrase, but, as "exactly" is modifying the prepositional phrase and not included in it (that's what happens when an adverb comes before the preposition), your example makes no grammatical sense at all.
To put it in a simpler way, remove the "and" and the preposition/adverb that follow it, and see if you're left with a grammatically correct sentence. "Vampires are exactly to exist as any other..." Sorry, it doesn't work. Nice try, though.
Again, if you are completely inflexible as to the possibility that certain aspects of the paranormal (including ghosts etc.) are not at all unproven, but rather *STILL* to be proven, then it would naturally make sense to you that those entities which are undoubtedly and entirely fictitious (vampires, hobgoblins, toothfairies etc.) are just as valid to be shown, as those which are most questionably otherwise.
Your logical fallacies here are so extreme as to be ridiculous. Everything you say about ghosts holds equally true for vampires. Vampires have yet to be proven. There is no more evidence for ghosts than there is for vampires.
You do use the "and" between adverbs well there, though -- note that you're using them to modify an object, however, and not using one to modify a prepositional phrase that contains the other.
Let's get back to the burden of proof thing. You believe in something that isn't real. You have no proof of that. No one is required to prove that what you believe is imaginary, because it is impossible to prove such a thing. Logic 101. I can't prove black cats aren't the minions of Satan, nor can I prove that breaking a mirror doesn't cause seven years of bad luck. Someone who believes those things isn't open-minded; they're superstitious. The burden of proof is on them to prove that their beliefs are true.
You believe that Paleolithic man's explanation for scary noises in the dark (must be ghosts!) is true. That's fine. You can believe whatever you want. Since you cannot prove your hypothesis, though, it is you who isn't flexible in your beliefs.
What a joke your latest response is. Trust me, I could pull your post apart, far more than I'm about to do, but given that you've done a such a splendid job yourself in exposing your ignorance as to the many matters raised above, I am almost thankful that you've made my work so very easy. Mind you, I'm in the mood to not let you escape lightly, so here's some further thought:
Firstly, I can't escape the niggling feeling that anyone with an IQ which lies on the sunny side of 120, will be enjoying your puerile attempts to appear intellectual. Gee you know about 'prepositions'. Gosh you've heard of 'fallacies'. Wow. (BTW, to anyone else reading this please excuse my putting this fellow in his place, but as you can see above, he has very much asked for it. So, on this rare instance, I'm actually delighted at least partly to oblige... Having said that, I don't ordinarily enjoy exposing others for their ignorance, as everyone has a right to be at a different stage of learning, and people should generally be encouraged. I'd make an exception for his type though. After all, by his leaping upon an accidental typo, and then taking several sentences to show how he believes himself to be so much more erudite, he invited trouble: But why feed the troll? I usually don't, folks, but today, I'm in the gleeful mood to take him on...)
Now to you, David3444, it's delightful at this moment at least, that you 'try' to lecture this respondent about grammar - and moreover - in the following most unspectacularly clueless manner:
" It might be the case that "and" would work there if both adverbs were part of the prepositional phrase, but, as "exactly" is modifying the prepositional phrase and not included in it (that's what happens when an adverb comes before the preposition), your example makes no grammatical sense at all.
To put it in a simpler way, remove the "and" and the preposition/adverb that follow it, and see if you're left with a grammatically correct sentence. "Vampires are exactly to exist as any other...""
Is that so, dear student of the grammatical arts? That's utter nonsense I say. It's almost painful to read your meandering and obtuse attempt at an explanation, partly because your grammatically correct use of prepositions, in the said example (which you''ve not at all needed to defend, unless you enjoy missing the point) perfectly overlooks anything to do with your first (...of several which follow) grammatical fumble; i.e., that which was exposed several hours before now. Hint: you meant to talk about correlative conjunctions, but instead you've bizarrely chosen to bark on about something which is altogether and grammatically irrelevant. What's more, when you wrote this, "You can't disprove anything that doesn't exist." I was actually musing to myself that this poor fellow might someday have a read up about double negatives too.
Ouch.
Psst I see you're mentioned some nonsense about fallacies. You should feel embarrassed for yourself: " You can't disprove anything that doesn't exist. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy of the greatest magnitude. " Well then, you might realise that disproving the in-existent is your going off on your own tangent, inasmuch as your post mostly proves one thing above anything else: that you are capable of nattering on, almost uncontrollably. Poor fellow - ...goofing off on your obviously very limited knowledge of fallacies to someone who knows the major and minor fallacies better than the back of his a++. Ooops...
Altogether, your response misses the points I've raised, so much so, that I can't be bothered to respond much further to you. Believe me, there is little you've written above, which is worthy of anyone's criticism. Let alone mine. I'm left wondering if you're even capable of any further reasoned debate? And no, you've not actually spotted any known fallacy whatsover, in anything I've written (i.e., on this entire site, & not just above), despite your proud misconceptions to the contrary. Which is the reason why you weren't even able to name any particular fallacy in your forgettable attempt to criticise my writing.
Nevertheless, because I believe you to be a trollish cad, and further because there are far more interesting persons on this board, many of whom are actually well worth the time to debate, I look forward to reading not a single further word from you. Bye bye.
And here's a bit of parting advice: please don't take the above to mean that you've failed to argue v/s someone who is not as dumb as you assumed him to be. With a lot more learning, anything's possible. In other words, just because you aren't able to formulate intelligible ripostes, when your passions are raised, you should still never tire of learning.
PS (A.K.A. hint 2/2): "david-3444" Ignore this user? Confirmed. Reason? He thinks he's smarter than his supporting evidence corroborates.
Hint: you meant to talk about correlative conjunctions, but instead you've bizarrely chosen to bark on about something which is altogether and grammatically irrelevant. What's more, when you wrote this, "You can't disprove anything that doesn't exist." I was actually musing to myself that this poor fellow might someday have a read up about double negatives too.