Let's first dispense with their pathetic attempt to pre-empt my brilliant debunking.
Of course the paranormalist or occultist could claim that the Hollywood portrayal is a rather unsophisticated and inaccurate representation of their beliefs, and thus the discussion we give hear is moot.
Hey Professor! Learn to spell "here!" What a maroon.
There were three types of monsters covered in this "paper." I will go through and debunk their debunks one by one. The first monster is the ghost. Here's what the good professor had to say.
Ghosts are held to be able to walk about as they please, but they pass through walls and any attempt to pick up an object or affect their environment in any other way leads to material-less inefficacy — unless they are poltergeists, of course!
Let us examine the process of walking in detail. Now walking requires an interaction with the floor and such interactions are explained by Newton’s Laws of Motion.
blah, blah, blah ...
Thus the ghost has an affect on the physical universe. If this is so, then we can detect the ghost via physical observation. That is, the depiction of ghosts walking, contradicts the precept that ghosts are material-less.
So which is it? Are ghosts material or material-less? Maybe they are only material when it comes to walking.
Let's do a little experiment. What happens when you shine a polarized light beam on a pair of polarized glasses at different angles? Obviously, at one angle, the light passes through; at the other angle, the light is blocked. It's pretty obvious that ghosts are made of some form of meta-material that is polarized perpendicularly to the wave of gravitons that are virtually emitted from the center of the earth. That way the ghosts are blocked from passing through the floor, but can easily walk through walls. This also explains why if you throw a sheet over a ghost, it won't pass through the ghost and fall on the floor. Yet since the ghost's polarization only blocks up and down, the sheet is free to sweep to and fro through the ghost's body--almost as if it were hanging by a wire on a B-movie set. But when he raises his hands to say "Boo!" he is able to move the sheet. It's so obvious even a 5 year old can understand it.
The next ghoul on the list is the vampire. Since the paper's explanation included charts, tables and equations, let's look at the sumarry given in this article.
He's basing his entire calculation on the assumption that every vampire creates a new vampire every time it feeds. I think Dr. Efthimiou needs to go back to the source. The only way to create a new vampire is to drink the blood of the Prince of Darkness himself. Dracula is like the queen bee: the only member of the hive allowed to reproduce. So instead of a geometric progression, you get an arithmetic progression up until the Count decides the vampire population is just right for him, then it plateaus. Once again, math that a child would undersand.To disprove the existence of vampires, Efthimiou relied on a basic math principle known as geometric progression.
Efthimiou supposed that the first vampire arrived Jan. 1, 1600, when the human population was 536,870,911. Assuming that the vampire fed once a month and the victim turned into a vampire, there would be two vampires and 536,870,910 humans on Feb. 1. There would be four vampires on March 1 and eight on April 1. If this trend continued, all of the original humans would become vampires within two and a half years and the vampires' food source would disappear.
The last of the spectres are zombies.
There exists a second sort of zombie legend which pops its head up throughout the western hemisphere — the legend of ‘voodoo zombiefication’. This myth is somewhat different from the one just described in that zombies do not multiply by feeding on humans but come about by a voodoo hex being placed by a sorcerer on one of his enemy. The myth presents an additional problem for us: one can witness for them self very convincing examples of zombiefication by traveling to Haiti or any number of other regions in the world where voodoo is practiced.
Gee perfesser, I thought you were trying to prove that movie monsters aren't physically possible. And so now you come out with a monster that you yourself admit is real. I don't even need to debunk here.
Obviously this paper fails at every attempt to disprove movie monsters, therefore they actually exist.
1 comment:
But Dracula is only one variation of vampire fiction. He most certainly is not the "be all, end all".
While I'm no expert, I would say your debunking is inaccurate. You're attempting to connect a fictional character to the mythological stories that have been passed down for generations, going back far longer than the reality of the actual Dracul or the fictional character loosely based off his life.
Post a Comment