Paranormal Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal

AlienView

StarGate Explorer
Anyone watch this show? It is supposed to be based upon real incidents that were investigated by a private agency specializing in investigating paranormal events - watching it is fascinating though most of the episodes are hard to believe as true - How much truth is involved here? And have any of you started watching the newer series on syfy "Paranormal Witness"? Is it any good"

Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal/ˈpsaɪ/ is a Canadianscience fictiondrama television series which was filmed in and around Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and aired 88 episodes over four seasons from 1996 to 2000. The presence of Dan Aykroyd opening and closing every episode and emphasizing the legitimacy of the organization it was inspired by led some viewers to take the show somewhat more seriously than intended, though it was in fact a scripted drama. Partly for this reason, in 1997, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, then called the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, awarded Aykroyd a "Snuffed Candle" award, for "contributing to the public's lack of understanding of the methods of scientific inquiry."[1] In 1996, Peter Aykroyd co-created the show with Christopher Chacon.[2]

Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MV5BMTY5NDIxMDg4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDI2ODQyMQ@@._V1_UY268_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg
 

Tom

An Old Friend
I caught a few episodes a few years back. Dan does the intros and exits. I found the few eps I did see very interesting. It was in a 'docu-drama' style that was entertaining to watch.
I think, at that same time frame I was watching Poltergeist: The Legacy (TV Series 1996–1999) - IMDb and that show actually won the time-slot.
Still, no matter its validity as science I still want to get the entire 88 episodes for my Dan Akroyd Collection.

This inspires me to comment on a pet peeve of mine that has destroyed my faith in documentaries.
It seems that as far back as I can remember documentaries pose more questions and suppositions than hard facts. In the recent years, scandalous methods have been brought to light where scientists comments have been manipulated to say something completely different than the statements they made.


Carl Sagan once had a website called the Baloney Detection Kit.
Here is a rendition of that.
The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking
Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.
In a chapter titled The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible — from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.”

  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal could not pass the requirements needed for Baloney.
For that reason, It is and shall be considered Fantasy.
 

AlienView

StarGate Explorer
Tom said:
"Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal could not pass the requirements needed for Baloney.
For that reason, It is and shall be considered Fantasy."

Thing is they are not claiming true stories - At the end of every episode there is printed disclaimer that appears stating these are fictionalized stories based upon real events - that is enough for me to make the stories more interesting than say 'the X-Filee' which are nothing but fiction and often I don't find them interesting - but when stories are based upon fact - that is another story. But some of the stories like the one where first a dog, and then a human kid are cloned supposedly by aliens are really hard to believe - You ever read about a Human being cloned by aliens ?

The newer 'Paranormal Witness' which I think is still playing on SyFy is supposed to be based upon real factual stories and I intend to watch that as soon as I finish Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Thing is they are not claiming true stories - At the end of every episode there is printed disclaimer that appears stating these are fictionalized stories based upon real events
Take a look at the words of that statement and the implied meaning.
"Not Claiming True Stories" then "Based on Real Events"
I read that as a contradiction.

Any Fiction is a Fantasy otherwise it would be considered an Accounting.
Accounting does not require a disclaimer because it is fact.

I'm not trying to argue about the validity of the show. I am only trying to reveal how words affect the concept of a statement. When I see statements that make no sense, I pull them apart to try to understand the meaning of the words written or said. When the meanings/concepts conflict I see it as nonsense.
 

AlienView

StarGate Explorer
Sure they admit that it is fictional - But even the idea that something like what you get to watch 'mght' have happened - does add interest.

Now the question is have you seen the recent one from scyfy "Paranormal Witness"? - That one is supposed to be based on real incidents with corroborating data and witnesses - Is if any good ?
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Now the question is have you seen the recent one from scyfy "Paranormal Witness"?
I don't watch Tv and syfy is on my boycott list anyway. They corrupt honorable science fiction with junk and it destroys the genre for those newbies that don't know any better.

As for paranormal activities being real, my head doesn't think like that. Just because I can't explain something don't make it devine or paranormal or cursed or blessed. It just means the actual phenomenon has not yet been explained. Like "Dark Matter" there is likely a scientific reason but it has not been found yet or nobody is looking.

TV Shows are created to make money. I am wary of a TV Show called Paranormal Witness because even if it is a so-called reenactment the fact that they can reproduce the paranormal events for the camera make the whole process suspect. Show me a demon appearing on a regular news broadcast and actually interacting with someone or something. Show me a tree that is actively being carved into a resemblance of Jesus with nobody or no thing doing the carving, with continuing activity in the foreground or background of the single cut shot. Heal Stephen Hawking and let him stand up and talk on screen. Cook an egg on a regular block of ice where the ice never melts at all.

Recently scientists discvered that methane gas pockets explode under the Bermuda Triangle and cause a bouyancy change in the water sinking ships. Downdraft micro-bursts can throw airplanes to the ground/ocean from high altitudes with little or no warning.

The Bigfoot film and the Lock Ness picture have been declared hoaxes. That brings the validity of any claim under suspicion.

Misinterpetation of cave drawings and pyramid paintings have been scientifically explained. The Nasca Lines are not actual aerial landing sites or instructions but a result of an ancient people's belief system.

As time progresses, our science gets better. The better the science, the harder to allow oneself to get wrapped up in all that mumbo jumbo.

I like horror and fantasy movies. These tv shows that claim reality are fun to watch but in the end they are just entertainment.
 

AlienView

StarGate Explorer
Tom said:
"I like horror and fantasy movies. These tv shows that claim reality are fun to watch but in the end they are just entertainment."

Just finished the last episode - Just entertatinment? - NO IT WAS GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!!!


Even if you watch it as pure fiction and discount the claim of based upon real incidents, It is better than good, it is very good to great. Good acting and the actors are likeable, good directing and done from the style of a group of scientists investigating cases- gives it the appeal of realism in stories, which admittedly are very ulikely.

If you lke sci-fi, horror, fantasy, ufos, aliens, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, time travelers, telekinesis, etc, etc, there is a bit of something for everyone - Four full seasons worth - One of those series you wish they would bring back - give us MORE, MORE, MORE!!!

Psi Factor: (S1E1) Dream House & UFO Encounter











"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
UNIVERSAL SPACE ALIEN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION
 
Last edited:

AlienView

StarGate Explorer
The series actually improves in season two when Matt Frewer {stared in Max Headroom and has had other
sci-fi acting role} assumes the lead actor role. In season four he is eventually removed from series with a very
sci-fi explanation - Series does miss his presence but there were still great episodes remaining, including the final episode that should appeal to all time travel fans.

Psi Factor 422 Stone Dream






"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE"
UNIVERSAL SPACE ALIEN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION: SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE
 
Top