Conference hydra::dejavu

    Heard this on the radio this morning (Paul Harvey?).  They said
    that a forensic expert had determined that it was human blood, and
    that they had been unable to locate a body.  A "parapsychologist"
    from (something like, I think) Southern Georgia University (I don't
    know, off hand, of any parapsychologists in Georgia) had been turned
    away, on the basis of the police believing that there must be a
    natural explanation (a parapsychologist, if competant, would be
    qualified to look for such an explanation).
    
    					Topher
    

    Topher, thank you for replying!  If you hear anything
    else, please let me know...if anyone hears anything,
    please let me know!
    
    I think I'm interested because this looks like it may
    be a very clear cut case of 'supernatural' and I'm in-
    terested in how it is handled.   
    
                     Deb
    
    

    "Couple, police puzzled by house oozing blood" (Nashua Telegraph)
    
    	ATLANTA (AP) -- Human blood seeping from the floors of an elderly
    couple's house has authorities puzzled.
    	The blood, which was found in the bathroom, kitchen, living
    room, bedroom and halls of the six-room brick house belonging to
    William Winston and his wife, Minnie Clyde, was identified as human
    Wednesday by the State Crime Lab, said police Lt. Horace Walker.
    	Police spokesman Kevin Forier said investigators could not
    immediatly solve the mystery but that it is unlikely they will go
    so far as tearing up the floors to find the source of the blood.
    	Homeowner William Winston undergoes kidney dialysis at a clinic,
    and may have other medical problems, Forier said.  In dialysis,
    blood is run through a machine to cleanse it as a kidney normally
    does.
    	But Winston said: "I'm not bleeding.  My wife's not bleeding.
     Nobody else was here."
    	Forier said police expected to learn the blood type Thursday.
    	Homicide Detective Steve Cartwright said there is nothing to
    indicate any wrongdoing at the home, but it was declared a crime
    scene to keep reporters and curiosity-seekers away.
    	"It's an extremely strange situation," Cartwright said.  "I've
    never seen anything like this."
    	The Winstons, who have been married for 44 years, have lived
    in the house for 22 years.
    	"I don't know what the stuff is," said Winston, 79.  "My wife
    is upset because she doesn't know where it's come from.  Me, I'm
    not bothered by it because I'm in bad enough shape as it is."
    	Mrs. Winston, 77, said she discovered the blood shortly before
    midnight Tuesday after stepping out of the bathtub to find a floor
    covered with blood.
    	"I didn't get scared, because I didn't know where it was coming
    from.  It didn't look like blood and it didn't smell like blood,"
    Mrs. Winston said.

    Re .1:
    
    >that they had been unable to locate a body.  A "parapsychologist"
    > ...  had been turned
    >away, on the basis of the police believing that there must be a
    >natural explanation  ....
    
    Topher, should we watch out for Ed Warren in this one, d'ya think?
    :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I will bet you it is either a deliberate hoax, a murder, or has
    some simple rational explanation (such as a rusty pipe). 
    
    And, I'll further bet you that at least 50 per cent of those who
    read of the simple explanation refuse to believe it.
    
    -bs

    Re .5
    
    >some simple rational explanation (such as a rusty pipe). 
    
    Well then, it must be a rusty pipe that contains blood, if we're
    to believe the reported results from the crime lab. :-)
    
    Bruce, I can go along with the first part of your wager: there's
    probably some "simple" explanation, though I'd feel that the obvious
    ones, such as your example, were already investigated by the police.
    
    However, there's always a _slight_ possibility that there's something
    paranormal here.  The point is, whatever it is ought to be
    investigated, just to settle the matter.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .5
    Of course there's a simple, rational explanation - there is for
    EVERYTHING..

    Just what that explanation is, remains to be seen.  As far as
    poo-pooing the matter because you don't like the idea that it
    might be of a 'paranormal nature' doesn't lessen the mystery.  If
    forensic medicine has determined it to be human blood then why
    doubt it's authenticity?  How it happens to be there ought to be
    the question.
    
    I suggest a wait-and-see attitude.  Time will tell..

    Kip

RE: .4
    
    Ed Warren might show up (though its *very* far afield for him) but
    that wasn't him.  After I posted .1 I headed home.  In the car I
    thought "Wait a minute! Isn't Bill Roll in Georgia now?".  When
    I got home I checked -- sure enough he's at "West Georgia College".
    If I had to elect one person as the polar opposite of Ed Warren
    it would be Bill Roll.  Bill has investigated many, many cases,
    has found subtle and not so subtle non-paranormal explanations for
    many, left others as indeterminate, and in a few cases, has
    systematically built up evidence eliminating "normal" explanations
    so thoroughly that the critics prefer to ignore them completely.
    Despite the high level of care which he takes in his investigations,
    he places the welfare of the people involved above his investigations.
    
    The police were, very simply, fools to reject his help.
    
RE: Last few
    
    No there is not "always a simple explanation".  Sometimes the
    explanation is subtle and complex.  And sometimes, very rarely,
    no non-paranormal explanations at all seem possible.  Its very hard
    to explain, for example, an object sailing through the air, slowly,
    following a curved path, when it was examined just before and
    immediately after for strings and the possible "suspects" were under
    observation throughout and did not come close to it.
    
    I think that it is very likely that a non-paranormal explanation
    will be found, but give me long enough odds and I'll be glad to
    bet with you.  There have been thoroughly investigated cases in the past
    which have found no explanation consistent with "conventional" beliefs.
                               
    				Topher
    				

    Anyone...
    Who is Ed Warren? I've seen his name mentioned more than once, and
    I've only been reading DEJAVU for about a month.  Is there somewhere
    earlier in the conference that mentions him?  When you mention some
    past reference in the conference, if you have time, it would be
    helpful to give the location of the thing you're referring
    to...what do you think? I feel like I missed out on a lot by coming
    in so late, and it's enough to keep track of the current
    discussions...I have a lot of reading ahead of me!
    
    DW

    Ed Warren is a self proclaimed "Demonologist" who "investigates"
    odd occurances -- which always turn out to be caused by demons --
    and does so in the most ethically questionable ways possible.
    
    See notes 193.1, especially 193.10, 193.18 and following.
    
    You may also find it useful to read the HELP entry on the SEARCH
    command (I also recommend the ENOTES utility which I have mentioned
    earlier today -- it's how I found the appropriate note numbers.).
    
    				Topher

    Why would a house ooze blood?
    
    
    
    
    John M.

Think about it....  Why blood?  Why not any other liquid?  If the house
dripped Kool-Aid, would there be all this brouhaha?  No way!  Everybody's
big question would be "Who's spilling Kool-Aid all over the floor?"  So
why do people assume that something supernatural is going on just because
some guy has blood on his floor?  Lord knows it's easy enough to get.

Anything for a story.


John M.  

    Re .12:
    
>why do people assume that something supernatural is going on just because
>some guy has blood on his floor?  Lord knows it's easy enough to get.
 
    Is it?  If the blood turns out to be human and is from no easily
    explained source, there are two possibilities: 1) it's indication
    of foul play, perhaps implying that something's concealed in the
    walls or upper floors of the house [example: the John W. Gacy case
    some years ago]; or 2) it's of supernatural origin, since blood
    is central to a lot of supernatural lore.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

RE: .13,.12
    
    You missed the possible "blood bank" source, Steve.
    
    I would say that if the description is accurate than all conventional
    explanations seem unlikely.  Unlikely does not mean impossible,
    and it is something that needs investigation.  Unlikely *does* mean
    that there is a higher liklihood of it being something which can
    not be adequately explained with current scientific theory than
    a situation where we would expect the given event to take place.
    
    There is a general feeling, correct or not, for whatever reason,
    that paranormal or supernatural events follow a certain "symbolic"
    rational.  Human blood certainly has a strong symbolic association,
    more so than Kool-Aid.
    
    I think both those who simply assume that something supernatural
    is going on and those who assume that a simple, "natural" explanation
    will be found are both being naive.  The possibility for both exists,
    and the possibility exists that the phenomenon is due to "natural"
    causes but those causes will not be found.
    
    					Topher

Re: Note 481.12              

    What kind of "natural causes" would cause a house to drip human blood?
    If a house dripped Kool-Aid it would be just as weird wouldn't it?  
    Is a house that drips anything foreign to it a common, everyday, 
    natural occurence?  It should be fairly easy to prove if the couple 
    reporting it was doing it deliberately.. just trace the blood, right?

    Skeptics always assume that the people involved in something like this are
    liars, frauds, or psychotics.  That outlook prejudices them from
    the start and restricts any really objective analysis.  If these
    people have credibility in the eyes of the local system then they should
    not be assumed guilty before proven guilty.
    
    So tell me someone.  Where can I get a significant amount of human
    blood today?  Just how easy IS it to get?  Do I rob a blood bank?  
    Do I get a job in a hospital and steal it?  Do I milk a blood slave I 
    keep chained in the attic?  Thats a lot of trouble to go to for
    a prank.  Where does profit or motivation come in?

    Its hard to stay objective while facing the absurd.

    Maybe the house was hurt from a cut and it was bleeding.
    
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist.  Just one of those strange days.

    Makes as much sense as anything else_:-)

    One important fact that we lack is how much actual blood and in
    what form is actually involved.  We have indications of a fair
    amount of volume, but it is unclear whether that represents a total
    of a couple of quarts or multiple gallons.  Furthermore we know
    that it "didn't look like blood".  Was it dilute blood, somehow
    discolored blood, blood plasma?  If it was dilute blood, just how
    dilute was it?
    
    It is true that many debunkers start with the assumption that everyone
    involved are crazy, stupid, fraudulent or a combination of all three.
    All to often a debunker announces that they have proven something
    when, after some investigation, they have come up with a subset
    of the statements that if assumed to be lies leaves things "ok".
    The game is to make as few as these assumptions as possible, but
    since you can always find some set of lies or mistakes which would
    explain *anything* its a game which can't be lost (Palmer refers
    to this as the "Hume game" because the supposed justification is
    Hume's statement that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
    proof").
    
    On the other hand it is equally a mistake, from the scientific
    viewpoint (i.e., from the viewpoint whose major goal is to find
    objective truth) to assume that the people involved are *not* crazy,
    stupid or frauds.  People in all three categories are all to common.
    And, of course, people who fit in none of those categories can still
    be mistaken.
    
    					Topher

    But Topher,... it would have to be a pretty massive psychosis for
    the people who haved owned the house for twenty years, some members
    of the local police force, and some technicians in the police lab
    to all have the same illusions or to all make the same mistakes
    (LSD in the town water supply_:-)_?.

    The lab techs wouldn't put their jobs in jeopardy to lie about this
    would they?  The police wouldn't subject themselves to ridicule
    would they?  They only people involved who could have set this up
    would be the people who owned this house and they need motive and
    opportunity.  They are the ones I'd be watching and they are the
    ones the police must be investigating.  If they are an elderly couple
    with no recent illnesses who have a stable history and a good
    reputation (and thats a big *if*) then why shouldn't they be believed?
    If their word would be accepted if they testified in a court of law
    why should they be considered guilty of deceit before evidence is
    presented to warrant that assumption?

RE: .19
    
    First off, any judge, prosecutor, jury or even defense lawyer who
    *assumed* that *any* witness is telling the truth would be failing
    to do their jobs.
    
    Second, the goals of a court of law are different from the goals
    of objective, ideal scientific enquiry.  The purpose of the court
    is to accomplish certain social goals, explicitly and deliberately
    starting, in this country, from a biased non-objective viewpoint
    (that is what "innocent until proven guilty" means).
    
    Third, the conspiracy you mention does seem to be very unlikely,
    but *not* impossible.  In any case, all we need is one of the two
    people to be lying (or psychotically forgetting) about, for example,
    the small samples of blood they've been removing, freezing and
    collecting from the (was it a dialasis machine?) over the past four
    years.  Or the lab technician, who reported that the fluid which
    did not look like blood *was* blood may have been mistaken or
    psychotic.  Or the reporter who put this on the wire, or his/her
    informant, may have been lying about the whole thing or specific
    details.
    
    The truth is, we know at this point very little about what went
    on, about the people involved, about their possible motives, about
    medication they may be on, etc.  What we *do* know comes essentially
    from a single source who's reliability we cannot be sure of.  We
    cannot assume much of anything at this point and claim to be objective.
    
    Everybody involved should be treated with the same respect we would
    give them as if we assumed they were honest, sane, etc.  That does
    not mean, however, that we should so assume.
    
    						Topher

RE: .20
    
>>First off, any judge, prosecutor, jury or even defense lawyer who
>>*assumed* that *any* witness is telling the truth would be failing
>>to do their jobs.

Hold on Topher.  Where in our judicial system is that written?  

Granted "truth" is not something our judicial system appears to value,
but that is a political issue and not an appropriate rathole for DEJAVU.  

>>Second, the goals of a court of law are different from the goals
>>of objective, ideal scientific enquiry.  

In theory they both search for truth.

>>The purpose of the court is to accomplish certain social goals, explicitly 
>>and deliberately starting, in this country, from a biased non-objective 
>>viewpoint (that is what "innocent until proven guilty" means).

The purpose of the court is to administer justice.  Innocent until proven 
guilty does not imply a biased non-objective viewpoint.. it implies an 
assumption that the truth is yet to be determined... that an arrest does
not predetermine guilt (theoretically, of course).
    
>>Third, the conspiracy you mention does seem to be very unlikely,
>>but *not* impossible.  In any case, all we need is one of the two
>>people to be lying (or psychotically forgetting) about, for example,
>>the small samples of blood they've been removing, freezing and
>>collecting from the (was it a dialasis machine?) over the past four
>>years.  Or the lab technician, who reported that the fluid which
>>did not look like blood *was* blood may have been mistaken or
>>psychotic.  Or the reporter who put this on the wire, or his/her
>>informant, may have been lying about the whole thing or specific
>>details.

This kind of conspiracy *could* be present in every facet of our lives 
Topher.  Our government *could* be continually plotting to deceive us,
our religions *could* be plotting to control us, our families *could*
be plotting to manipulate us.  The possibilities are endless.  
    
>>The truth is, we know at this point very little about what went
>>on, about the people involved, about their possible motives, about
>>medication they may be on, etc.  What we *do* know comes essentially
>>from a single source who's reliability we cannot be sure of.  We
>>cannot assume much of anything at this point and claim to be objective.

Thats true.
    
>>Everybody involved should be treated with the same respect we would
>>give them as if we assumed they were honest, sane, etc.  That does
>>not mean, however, that we should so assume.
    
I know, I know ... I'm ok,... its the rest of the world thats dishonest and 
insane_:-)_(old joke... sorry)

RE: .13 (Steve)

    > If the blood turns out to be human and is from no easily explained
    source, there are two possibilities: 1) it's indication of foul play,
    perhaps implying that something's concealed in the walls or upper
    floors of the house [example: the John W. Gacy case some years ago]; or
    2) it's of supernatural origin, since blood is central to a lot of
    supernatural lore.  < 


You left out several possibilities, including the most obvious one: someone
is sprinkling it around.  To my knowledge NO ONE has actually seen it ooze
out of the walls; that's just a romantic assumption.  Of course, something
so obvious does not sell papers.


RE: .14 (Topher)

    >  There is a general feeling, correct or not, for whatever reason,
    that paranormal or supernatural events follow a certain "symbolic"
    rational.  Human blood certainly has a strong symbolic association,
    more so than Kool-Aid.  < 


Symbolic of what?  Since we have no way to interpret the supposed meaning
of the blood, the symbolism is wasted.  Was there a murder?  Who?  When?
Or is it just "that time of the month" for some ghost?

Blood is not just some kind of red dye, but complex organic machinery composed
of diverse components.  When you consider what blood IS and how it is made,
the possibility of it simply "appearing" on the floor of a house becomes
silly beyond belief.  It makes as much sense as a Chevy van appearing in
the bathroom.


    >    I think both those who simply assume that something supernatural
    is going on and those who assume that a simple, "natural" explanation
    will be found are both being naive.  The possibility for both exists,
    and the possibility exists that the phenomenon is due to "natural"
    causes but those causes will not be found. < 


C'mon Topher.  There is nothing naive about expecting a rational explanation.
In fact, rationality and naivete are mutually exclusive.  And the statement
that "the possibility for both exists" is meaningless since the possibility
for ANYTHING exists!  It is possible that the house will become a twinkie.
It is possible that it will begin to ooze Gatorade.  It is possible that
elephants will grow out of the bedroom carpet.  Need I go on?
    

RE: .15 (SPIDER:PARE)

    > What kind of "natural causes" would cause a house to drip human
    blood? < 

Someone is putting the blood there or it is leaking out of someone.


    > If a house dripped Kool-Aid it would be just as weird wouldn't it? < 

Yes, but it wouldn't sell papers.  As I said, if Kool-Aid were found on
the floor, everyone would come to the obvious conclusion that someone put
it there.  But when there is blood on the floor, they make a big deal out
of it.  The mechanism is the same; someone is putting it there.
  
  
    >  Is a house that drips anything foreign to it a common, everyday,
    natural occurence?  It should be fairly easy to prove if the couple
    reporting it was doing it deliberately.. just trace the blood, right? < 


Well, no.  Blood, though complex, is a very common fluid.  It could have
come from anybody.


    >    So tell me someone.  Where can I get a significant amount of human
    blood today?  Just how easy IS it to get?  Do I rob a blood bank? Do I
    get a job in a hospital and steal it? < 

No, you GO to a hospital and steal it.  I find it interesting that the man is
on dialysis.  That means he spends an awful lot of time in the hospital... 


    >  Thats a lot of trouble to go to for a prank.  Where does profit or
    motivation come in? < 

I suspect it is a way for some lonely old people to get a lot of attention.
However, there may be some money to be made in interviews, tours etc.


Reminds me of when I lived in San Diego and a cross mysteriously appeared
in a bathroom window of a local (and poor) church.  Much ado was made and
the story even appeared nationwide.  The papers reported all kinds of
supernatural phenomena, such as a man appearing on the cross, and there
were "healing" services being performed (with the offering plate passed
around, of course).  I went to see it for myself and couldn't believe my
eyes.  There were about 150 people witnessing the miracle of a lightbulb
behind a pane of shower glass!  The lenticular surface of the glass naturally
cast a cruciform pattern.  You could do the same thing in your own bathroom
with the right piece of glass and a light bulb.

About a week later the paper had an interview with the man who had installed
the showerglass...backward...in the window a day before the "miracle" appeared.
He demonstrated that light passing through that type of glass is naturally
refracted into the shape of a cross.  Needless to say, the healing services
and pilgrimages immediately stopped.  People are amazing.

John M.
                         

RE: .21

    Somehow I am failing to make myself clear, since I really think that
    you would not be disagreeing with me if you understood me.

    Would you really have a prosecutor quit when the defendant claimed
    to be innocent?  Would you have the judge or jury let the defendant
    off because of that claim, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt
    ("Well you see, your honor, I was standing there talking to Sam
    when someone came up with the gun registered to me, shot him, took
    all his money and put it in my pockets, stuck the gun in my hand, and
    preceded to hypnotize all 15 witnesses so they believed that they had
    seen me shoot him."  "Case dismissed!" :-)?  On the other hand, would
    you really have the defense lawyer decide that the only option is for
    the defendant to throw him/her-self on the mercy of the court if a
    single, unsupported witness comes forward with an accusation?  Would
    you have the judge or jury convict the defendant on that basis ("Well
    you see, your honor, I was standing there talking to Sam when the
    defendant came up with the gun registered to me ..."  "Guilty as
    charged, take him out and shoot him!" :-).  These are the consequences
    of simply assuming that witnesses are telling the truth.

    I don't know the precise words, but they are something to the effect
    of the instructions to the jury to "weigh and judge all the evidence".
    It is part of their jobs -- in many cases the most important part of
    their jobs -- to *decide* which witnesses, if any, are telling the
    truth.

    The courts *are* quite properly biased in favor or the defendant.
    The Founders quite deliberately demanded a presumption of innocence
    not simply a lack of a presumption of guilt.  They believed that the
    greater justice is better served if a few who are guilty-in-fact
    escape retribution than if the judicial system risks oppressing the
    innocent.

    The roles of the prosecutor and the defense lawyer are not symmetric.
    The prosecutor must prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", while
    the defense only needs to establish that the defendants innocence
    is not completely far-fetched.

    The greater purpose of the court *is* to establish justice.  This
    requires the determination of truth, but while that truth is similar
    to scientific truth, it is not the same.

    Here is an example: say
    I was asked, *strictly as a scientific question*, to determine the
    probability
    that a particular person had committed a particular crime.  One factor
    that I might legitimately take into account is the ethnic background
    of the person.  That is a useful *objective* factor in determining
    the likelihood that a particular person commits a crime -- it has
    high predictive value.  It is clearly and unmistakably contrary
    to the goal of *justice*, however, for that factor to be used in
    determining the legal guilt of someone in a courtroom (unfortunately,
    of course, it is used in reality all too often).  If asked by a court
    to make that determination as a scientist (as opposed to a
    citizen/jurist) I would be forced to refuse, or would simply apply
    different standards than I would to a purely scientific question.

    I get the impression that when I say "don't assume X" that you are
    hearing, in part "do assume not-X" or "assume not-X is likely" and
    those are *not* what I mean.

				    Topher

    
    I also find it suspicious that the man of the house is on dialysis
    and, in [roughly] his own words, is "not in good shape" physically.
    This fellow could have bladder control problems, or running open
    sores, etc.
    
    Further, the report indicates that the stuff "didn't look like" blood.
    I wonder who even thought it might be blood? Was it another "precious 
    bodily fluid" contaminated with blood (internal bleeding)? It could be 
    a gaslight job, too.
    
    Intuition tells me that this whole matter is something embellished to 
    absurdity by an over-eager press. Until I see evidence,
    rather than groundless speculation, I'll vote _nolo supernaturalio_.
    
    Tananda
    

    Re .22:
    
 >     > If the blood turns out to be human and is from no easily explained
 >   source, there are two possibilities: 1) it's indication of foul play,
 >   perhaps implying that something's concealed in the walls or upper
 >   floors of the house [example: the John W. Gacy case some years ago]; or
 >   2) it's of supernatural origin, since blood is central to a lot of
 >   supernatural lore.  < 
 >
 >
 >you left out several possibilities, including the most obvious one: someone
 >is sprinkling it around.  ...
    
    <sigh>
    
    Please note my qualification: that the blood comes from no easily
    explained source.  Of course, if it _does_ come from some such source,
    all bets above are off.  My point was and is that whatever happened
    is worth investigating; further, more details, such as how much
    blood was/is involved, are highly desirable.  Further, it'd be
    interesting to know if there were reported any thefts from local
    blood banks.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    We all agree guys that if the little old couple who lives there
    is a little old demented couple looking for attention then we pity
    them, pat them on the head and (as Tananda so charming put it_:-)_nolo
    supernaturolo (or words to that effect).
    
    The question is... (as the question always is)..  What happens when
    and if the obvious rational causes are ruled out.... (I used to
    work in a hospital guys,... its possible but not easy.. blood is
    usually kept in refrigeration in the lab)  
    
    Well,... we'll just have to wait and see won't we?  And by the way,.. 
    don't slip on that nasty red wet stuff beside your desk... its just
    kool aid the maintenance man spilled last night._:-)   

    > What happens when and if the obvious rational causes are ruled
    > out....
    
    Not much.  If Bill Roll or another competent scientific investigator
    gets in, it will be written up for the parapsychological journals.
    In any case, the "occultists" will be sure it was supernatural,
    the pseudo-rationalists will feel serene in the knowledge that since
    everything can be explained in terms of things we already know and
    understand that nothing worth paying attention to took actually
    took place, and those of us in the middle will be puzzled and either
    forget it or try to fit it into the big picture and see if any
    *new* science (really the only kind of science there is) gets created.
    
    					Topher

    It doesn't take much blood to make a mess. Ever see someone with
    a nose bleed? A simple cut can bleed quite a bit _ one time my wife
    wanted to take me to the hospital because of all the blood on the kleenex
    from a shaving nick.

    Or, it could be animal blood. Let a raw steak sit in an unrefrigerated
    bowl for an hour, and you'll have plenty of blood to sprinkle about.
    
    It could even be red kool aid.
                                 
    -bs

    Yea... thats it.... red kool aid...:-)

RE: .22

> >  There is a general feeling, correct or not, for whatever reason,
> that paranormal or supernatural events follow a certain "symbolic"
> rational.  Human blood certainly has a strong symbolic association,
> more so than Kool-Aid.  < 
>
>
>Symbolic of what?  Since we have no way to interpret the supposed meaning
>of the blood, the symbolism is wasted.  Was there a murder?  Who?  When?
>Or is it just "that time of the month" for some ghost?

C'mon John, you're playing games.  What it's specific symbolic meaning is
is irrelevant.  If you were a spiritist you might say that the blood is to
inspire fear and/or disgust.  If you were a mystic, you might say that
there exits a Platonic plane of pure "archetypes", blood being one of them,
from which the blood instantiated.  If you were an occultist you might say
that the blood was a materialization of the "vital force". If you were a
parapsychologist (like me) you would say that (assuming no conventional
explanation applies) the blood is a psychokinetic manifestation of
subconscious phenomena.  The specific meaning to any specific individual is
not the point.  The point is that "human blood" has a strong emotional
"charge" which Kool-Aid does not -- that's why the former sells newspapers
while the latter is not.  The "meaning" is those emotional connotations. 

>Blood is not just some kind of red dye, but complex organic machinery composed
>of diverse components.  When you consider what blood IS and how it is made,
>the possibility of it simply "appearing" on the floor of a house becomes
>silly beyond belief.  It makes as much sense as a Chevy van appearing in
>the bathroom.

Straw-man.  No one, least of all me, has suggested that it "just appeared".
It was manufactured by some process or transported from elsewhere or both
(this is clearly true whether or not it is paranormal or supernatural, as
long as it is not completely fictitious).  Why do you assume that the
hypothetical unknown process is incapable of simulating the processes that
take place in the human body to produce blood, or could not perform a
duplication and reduplication process on a small sample (perhaps existing
somewhere in vivo)? 

For that matter, it is just an assumption that we are dealing with human
blood.  Even if we accept the report as accurate, what we actually know is
that it reacted to tests (probably quite routine ones) as does human blood.
The marvelous complexity then reduces to the presence of a few specific
proteins or their analogues (probably histo-campatability-complexes).  The
observational theories of psi (which manage to make some sense of a lot of
seemingly irrational aspects of the experimental data, and even seem to
have some good predictive value) posit the psychic processes are "goal
oriented" towards the observed outcome. In this case they would be expected
to produce the appearance of blood, according to whatever tests ended up
being performed, rather than producing the blood itself (keep in mind that
precognition is one of the processes included in the theories).
Alternately, they could simply bollix the tests via PK rather than actually
producing simulated blood. 

> >    I think both those who simply assume that something supernatural
> is going on and those who assume that a simple, "natural" explanation
> will be found are both being naive.  The possibility for both exists,
> and the possibility exists that the phenomenon is due to "natural"
> causes but those causes will not be found. < 
>
>
>C'mon Topher.  There is nothing naive about expecting a rational explanation.
>In fact, rationality and naivete are mutually exclusive.

C'mon yourself, you're arguing with a point which I did not make.  I said
that it was naive to "assume ... a simple, 'natural' explanation will be
found".  I said nothing about *expecting* a *rational* explanation. 

In my opinion there is absolutely nothing naive about assuming that the
phenomena is caused by a natural (note the *lack* of quotes) mechanism. As
a firm disbeliever in the supernatural, I make the assumption myself. But I
do believe that it is naive to assume that all natural explanations are
simple, and that whenever a natural explanation exists it will be found.
This is the belief that the CSICOP people and their ilk try to foster, both
by direct assertion and by selective reporting, but it just isn't so.  And
of course, the people who I am talking about assume that "natural" and
"well understood" are synonymous (which is why I quoted the word "natural"
in the original statement).  This belief (roughly stated "nothing really
unknown is ever likely to have any effect on me -- what science doesn't
understand is very small, or very large, or very far away") certainly has
no rational basis, and, furthermore, I think it is a naive belief. 

As far as rationality and naivete being mutually exclusive, I simply cannot
agree.  It is true that a perfect rational agent with absolute knowledge
and infinite "computational" resources with which to make deductions would
not be naive.  But a merely human agent, with limited, even incorrect
information, and the need to make simplifying assumptions and apply
rational but imperfect heuristics is quite capable of being naive.  And of
course, many of those who claim to be rationalists are nothing of the kind
-- they are rationalizing rather than rational. 

>							   And the statement
>that "the possibility for both exists" is meaningless since the possibility
>for ANYTHING exists!  It is possible that the house will become a twinkie.
>It is possible that it will begin to ooze Gatorade.  It is possible that
>elephants will grow out of the bedroom carpet.  Need I go on?

No, there is no need to go on.  (For that matter there wasn't any reason to
begin. :-)  I said quite distinctly that to assume that the phenomena
represented anything supernatural was naive.  Perhaps I expressed myself
poorly in seeming to imply that "natural" (with quotes) and supernatural
explanations were equally likely.  As I said before, I think that this
event is probably caused by a simple, conventional (i.e., "natural" with
the quotes) mechanism.  There is a distinct possibility that it is due to a
more complex, but still conventional mechanism.  There is a great deal of
evidence that there exists major natural mechanisms which are not
consistent with our present scientific understanding (minor example: some
people seem to be able to find lost objects :-), and so there is a real
possibility that this event has no *conventional* explanation.  I make the
assumption that the supernatural, almost by definition, does not manifest
in the natural world, but I try to keep my own fallibility in mind and
admit to the possibility that the supernatural does exist in some
meaningful way -- I'm not going to look for it, but I won't state
categorically that I won't ever change my mind. 

Back to the paranormal (as opposed to the supernatural): since we don't
understand the gaps in our scientific worldview, we don't know their limits
(specifically, every attempt to test proposed limits to psi has so far, in
the long term, failed), and so we must keep in mind when dealing with a
possible manifestation of these gaps in our understanding, that some very
odd things *might* be true. 

"Keeping in mind that they might be true" is not, of course, the same thing
as assuming that they *are* true, or even likely.  It just means that the
rational course is to be aware of the limits of applicability of our
experience with other types of phenomena. 

				    Topher

    So anyway.....has anyone read in the newspaper or seen on the
    television a "logical answer" for this strange occurance?
    
    The original newsstory showed a brief view of the interior
    of the house-ceiling and walls, and there appeared to be large
    (very large) dark stains.  So I would guess that we are talking
    about more than a few drops of blood (or whatever the substance
    is-the lab reported that it was human blood)....also mentioned
    was that the woman first discovered blood 'spurting' from the
    floor in the bathroom near the toilet.
    
    I still find it very odd and am wondering what the final 'solution'
    is, or will be.....
    
    

     I don't believe this.  First entry for this note  is  10-SEP-1987  and
     everyone is still talking about *one* televised news program, which no
     one seems to clearly remember,  and  *one*  newspaper  article,  which
     doesn't have a follow-up.  Doesn't anyone suspect that the whole thing
     might be a prank or something a la George Plimpton's story a couple of
     years ago about that mysterious baseball pitcher?

     >          The blood, which was found in the bathroom, kitchen, living
     >    room, bedroom and halls of the six-room brick house belonging to
     >    William Winston and his wife, Minnie Clyde, was identified as human
     >    Wednesday by the State Crime Lab, said police Lt. Horace Walker.
     >          Police spokesman Kevin Forier said investigators could not
     >    immediatly solve the mystery but that it is unlikely they will go

     Notice we have names, but no address.  Notice  it  says  "State  Crime
     Lab"  but  it  doesn't  say  which state.  Yes, I know the article was
     marked "ATLANTA (AP)", but that only tell us where the reporter  filed
     the  story,  *not*  that  it  took  place  in Atlanta.  Does anyone in
     Atlanta know that Kevin Forier is real and, if so, *is* he  a  "police
     spokesman"  (whatever that means)?  In Chicago I think we only get our
     stories from the policepeople who are part of the investigation.

     Were there any pictures with the newspaper article like there  *seems*
     to  have  been  with  the  CNN broadcast?  Was CNN showing pictures or
     film?  Did they say the pictures were actually of the  house,  or  did
     they  use  "file"  pictures to illustrate how they *thought* the place
     might have looked?  Did CNN interview the couple?

     >          Homicide Detective Steve Cartwright said there is nothing to
     >    indicate any wrongdoing at the home, but it was declared a crime
     >    scene to keep reporters and curiosity-seekers away.

     Really?  How did this story get reported then?   No  wrongdoing?   Why
     are the police there?

     If I told all of you great things would happen to  you  if  you  would
     each  send  me  a  hundred dollar bill, I suppose you'd all believe it
     only because YOU SAW IT IN PRINT.   Get  serious.   If  anyone  really
     cares  about  this "story", find out if it's real first before wasting
     any more time on it!

     Alvin

    	Well, they wouldn't have printed it if it wasn't true, right?
    Actually there was a follow-up article in the next day's paper,
    but I wasn't able to save the article.  It didn't give much in the
    way of additional explanation as to the source of the blood, though.

RE: .32
    
    (-: That's right people! GET REAL!  Only dopes are curious about
    things.  Us smart people know that nothing unusual ever actually
    happens.  CNN and the AP are THE MEDIA, and you know who else is
    THE MEDIA, don't you?  That's right!  The National Enquirer!  So
    its stupid to be even curious about a surprising events when reported
    by THE MEDIA, since they have a policy of only reporting things
    which they have not checked on. :-)
    
    Stories are filed "locally" to the AP, for local publication, and
    will frequently not bother to explicitly mention the locale.  The
    story is not originally written for national distribution, but is
    "picked" up by the national service when it strikes someone as
    interesting.  If you check your local paper, you'll find that for
    many stories the only indication of their location is the by-line.
    These will be "human-interest" stories, stories based on local
    conventions, stories about local politics etc.
    
    So yes, we can pretty much assume that the story took place in Georgia,
    specifically in the Atlanta Metro. Region.
    
    It's the police's job to find out if foul play took place.  Blood
    raises the suspicion, but does not provide evidence -- hence they
    would investigate.
    
    It would be unethical, and irresponsible to publish the address,
    or otherwise make it too easy for casual curiosity seekers to come
    and harass the people involved.
    
    I really don't think that a healthy interest in an odd occurance
    shows any particular credulity or stupidity.  How come *you* read
    this notes file, anyway? 
    
    
    				Topher
    

    Alvin, *I* care about this particular story or I would not
    have entered the base note in the first place!  My very purpose
    for entering the note was to find out if more information was
    available.  If YOU feel this discussion is a waste of time, 
    then I suggest that you stop participating.  Please don't
    decide for ME that the things I am interested in are a 'waste
    of time'.
    
                         Deborah
    
    

    I just spent the necessary 10 minutes in the DEC Hudson library
    with the Greater Atlanta Residential White Pages (they also have
    a business white pages -- if that library hadn't had a copy I could
    have called the reference desk at a larger library).  There is
    a listing for a William Winston, two for Horrace Walker, and one
    for Kevin Forier.  There was none for any variants I could think
    of for Minnie Clyde or Minnie Clyde Winston.
    
    	  			Topher

    Has anyone heard anything else about the story?
    If not, how can you get in touch with AP or CNN to find out more
    about it. (note that CNN is based in Atlanta...)
    
    Speculation without facts gets you into BIG ratholes, I just want
    to find out more about what is happening.  Everyone is saying "We'
    find out when all the facts get in" WELL WHERE ARE ALL THE FACTS?
    
    And Please state that you are speculating BEFORE you start, as an
    example:
    
    Speculation:
    
    Personally, I think that unknown to the occupants of the house,
    a small film crew was filming for FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE SERIES in
    the house and filming the reaction of the household to all the
    morbid and unexplained phenomenon.  They decided to trash the footage
    because the reaction to the occurrences was too tame. ("Harold, did
    you cut yourself shaving?"  "No Dear.")  
    
    The camera crew was able to get away from the house before the police
    showed up.  Now the FBI is searching for the crew to stick a one
    minute FBI label at the front of the tape before anyone attempts
    to sell it to the network news.
    
    Inquiring minds want to know. %-O
    
    End Speculation

RE: .37
    
    Actually, I have said several times that all the facts may never
    come in.  Frequently they don't.
    
    I wouldn't start with either CNN or the AP.  Rather I would start
    with the Atlanta Public Library information desk, go on to the
    police, and then call the largest local Atlanta Newspaper.  If,
    that is, you consider it important enough for you to ask those people
    to donate their time for your curiosity.  (No, I'm not saying it
    isn't -- I'm just pointing out that there is an element of
    responsibility involved in any investigation, and you're going to
    have to decide).  CNN might have some more information, the AP
    office would only be able to (possibly) tell you the name of the
    reporter who originally filed it.
    
    					Topher

    Atlanta City Govt. Police Services - 
      General Information - (404) 658-6600
      Special Investigations Unit - (404) 753-0844
    
    Atlanta (Fulton Cty.) Public Library -
      Information Line - (404) 688-4034
      
    Atlanta Journal and Atlanta Constitution -
      City Desk - (404) 526-5342
      Main Office - (404) 526-5151
    
    
    All I've heard is the people want privacy, so it's unlikely the
    investigation will go much further.  From Atlanta,
    
    Theresa.
    

     This REPLY is late.  It answers replies to my note,  .32,  and  should
     have been written on 18-SEP-1987.  Sorry, but I was busy.  So...

     RE:  .34

     >    (-: That's right people! GET REAL!  Only dopes are curious about
     >    things.  Us smart people know that nothing unusual ever actually
     >    happens.  CNN and the AP are THE MEDIA, and you know who else is
                                       .
                                       .
                                       .
     >    I really don't think that a healthy interest in an odd occurance
     >    shows any particular credulity or stupidity.  How come *you* read
     >    this notes file, anyway? 

     Topher,

     You start by making a joke regards my note and then  you  turn  around
     and  project  that  thought  onto  me.   I  didn't  mean to imply that
     *anyone* who had "a healthy interest in an odd occurance"  was  guilty
     of "credulity or stupidity." After all, as you point out, *I* read the
     note too.

     No, my point was that from 10-SEP-1987  through  18-SEP-1987  no  one,
     especially  from  the  Atlanta  region,  had  supplied  any additional
     material or facts that would give further credence to a story  that  I
     felt  had  all the earmarks of a joke, which I tried to illustrate.  A
     week without additional facts was  *too*  long  to  spend  *seriously*
     discussing  *this*  topic.   I  was simply trying to wake people up to
     that.  Sorry if I offended.

     RE:  .35

     >    have entered the base note in the first place!  My very purpose
     >    for entering the note was to find out if more information was
     >    available.  If YOU feel this discussion is a waste of time, 
     >    then I suggest that you stop participating.  Please don't
     >    decide for ME that the things I am interested in are a 'waste
     >    of time'.

     Deborah,

     *Where* did I decide *you* were wasting your time?   Seems  to  me  my
     purpose  was  the  *same* as yours, otherwise I wouldn't have read the
     note in the first place let alone spend,  *not*  waste,  the  time  to
     offer another point of view.  Possibly my language was a little strong
     because I was so frustrated about a conversation that  I  thought  was
     much  too long about a topic that had such little information.  Again,
     sorry if I offended.  That really wasn't my purpose.

     People who really care often use strong language to express the  depth
     of  their feelings.  If you both go back and reread my note, I believe
     you'll see my real intentions.

     Alvin

    Yo! From Atlanta.  The Police dismissed the case. no one is checking
    anything and the "force" wants nothing to do with this sort of thing.
    Some guy here in atlanta is checking the history of the house.
    
    c.j.

    Thank you, all, for replying and supplying info!
    
    P.S.  I found the 'experiment' very interesting also!!!
    
                           Deborah
    
    

    Well, here it is into 1988.  The investigation, apparenmtly, is
    a dead end.  However, for relative newcomers to this Conference,
    the note is very worthwhile reading.
    
    Because the investigation was closed (for whatever reason), the
    most one can expect of this is the story's entry into some Fortean
    publications, and a lot of speculation.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.