[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I interview people who claim to be possessed and had my “Oh Demi” moment. (Page 4 of 8)
|
Quoted: If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I’m not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I’m not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. As I understand from reading the story, all the recording devices were brought by the priest, meaning they belonged to the priest/church as well as any recording made with them. |
|
OP, they are aware of you now and they will enter your life on a more frequent basis until you are possessed or take extreme measures to keep them at bay. To protect yourself, you should now immediately enter the priest hood. As this will necessitate you to get rid of your earthly possession, you should transfer all of your firearms to me for doing doing you the solid of saving your soul. Your welcome. |
|
Quoted: By all means, inform me. I guess we could distill this down to a pretty simple question; If you went to a psychiatrist for a session & it was video/audio recorded, would you consider it a violation if your psychiatrist posted that video on ARFcom without your permission? Would HIPAA? Would a court? Would an ethics review board? We all know the answer of course, but feel free to keep shoveling. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I’m not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. That’s a grey area. Do you need the possessed’s consent to release video, or the possessors, or both? It’s the .gov so even the “overview” of the rule is thousands & thousands of words. If you want to attempt to make sense of it I wish you good luck. I know where I work the blanket rule is absolutely zero release of anything to anyone who is not the primary contact or POA. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. He could blur out the patient, mute their voice, and show just him in the chair doing the things he said. Would that really be better than none? With that level of scrubbing anything could be faked & there would be no way to know. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I’m not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif I’ve always found that gif humorous, but not the way it’s intended. I picture the sender making those same faces attempting to understand the most basic of concepts. Like you & HIPAA. It’s ok if you don’t understand, maybe ask next time, you might learn something & then won’t be forced to post that stupid gif in the future. Clearly you don’t understand how HIPAA works. Here is a better picture for you. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1874/FDD47835-46A4-4F67-9E9B-E3A5A5D77A27_jpe-2713076.JPG By all means, inform me. I guess we could distill this down to a pretty simple question; If you went to a psychiatrist for a session & it was video/audio recorded, would you consider it a violation if your psychiatrist posted that video on ARFcom without your permission? Would HIPAA? Would a court? Would an ethics review board? We all know the answer of course, but feel free to keep shoveling. Hey Mr. Helper.  The OP said… About 10 years ago I left my private medical practice as a psychiatrist and went into IT. Based on what the OP said and your inability to understand what he wrote your theory is bullshit! Attached File |
|
Quoted: chatgpt story. I ran it through OpenAI's own text classifier to see if it was generated by AI and this is the result:  I don't know if the story is true or not, but I've had some experiences that lead me to believe it's possible. I've not encountered any possessions, but I've encountered *something* trying to communicate with me. When I share my experience with other people, they often open up about their own. Kind of like the way vets often don't want to talk about their experiences in war, but will with the right people. |
|
Quoted: Hey Mr. Helper. The OP said About 10 years ago I left my private medical practice as a psychiatrist and went into IT. Based on what the OP said and your inability to understand what he wrote your theory is bullshit! /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. That's a grey area. Do you need the possessed's consent to release video, or the possessors, or both? It's the .gov so even the "overview" of the rule is thousands & thousands of words. If you want to attempt to make sense of it I wish you good luck. I know where I work the blanket rule is absolutely zero release of anything to anyone who is not the primary contact or POA. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. He could blur out the patient, mute their voice, and show just him in the chair doing the things he said. Would that really be better than none? With that level of scrubbing anything could be faked & there would be no way to know. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif I've always found that gif humorous, but not the way it's intended. I picture the sender making those same faces attempting to understand the most basic of concepts. Like you & HIPAA. It's ok if you don't understand, maybe ask next time, you might learn something & then won't be forced to post that stupid gif in the future. Clearly you don't understand how HIPAA works. Here is a better picture for you. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1874/FDD47835-46A4-4F67-9E9B-E3A5A5D77A27_jpe-2713076.JPG By all means, inform me. I guess we could distill this down to a pretty simple question; If you went to a psychiatrist for a session & it was video/audio recorded, would you consider it a violation if your psychiatrist posted that video on ARFcom without your permission? Would HIPAA? Would a court? Would an ethics review board? We all know the answer of course, but feel free to keep shoveling. Hey Mr. Helper. The OP said About 10 years ago I left my private medical practice as a psychiatrist and went into IT. Based on what the OP said and your inability to understand what he wrote your theory is bullshit! /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif The fact that any of you are arguing about this as if it's real is ridiculous. |
|
Quoted: Yeah. But I don't remember the shtick, exactly. Quoted: Quoted: Nice try. I remember this username. Yeah. But I don't remember the shtick, exactly. I think one story he told was about the neighbor lady grabbing his cock in the pool. There was another one too but I can’t recall. |
|
Quoted: The fact that any of you are arguing about this as if it's real is ridiculous. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. That's a grey area. Do you need the possessed's consent to release video, or the possessors, or both? It's the .gov so even the "overview" of the rule is thousands & thousands of words. If you want to attempt to make sense of it I wish you good luck. I know where I work the blanket rule is absolutely zero release of anything to anyone who is not the primary contact or POA. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. He could blur out the patient, mute their voice, and show just him in the chair doing the things he said. Would that really be better than none? With that level of scrubbing anything could be faked & there would be no way to know. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Claims there were cameras, provides no video or pics. Arfcom fail. Nice try op If OP is a licensed psychiatrist & was acting in that capacity he would be required to follow HIPAA & could not release the video or audio recordings without the permission of his patient. I'm not saying his story is true. It may be, but he has a very plausible explanation for not releasing video evidence. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif I've always found that gif humorous, but not the way it's intended. I picture the sender making those same faces attempting to understand the most basic of concepts. Like you & HIPAA. It's ok if you don't understand, maybe ask next time, you might learn something & then won't be forced to post that stupid gif in the future. Clearly you don't understand how HIPAA works. Here is a better picture for you. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1874/FDD47835-46A4-4F67-9E9B-E3A5A5D77A27_jpe-2713076.JPG By all means, inform me. I guess we could distill this down to a pretty simple question; If you went to a psychiatrist for a session & it was video/audio recorded, would you consider it a violation if your psychiatrist posted that video on ARFcom without your permission? Would HIPAA? Would a court? Would an ethics review board? We all know the answer of course, but feel free to keep shoveling. Hey Mr. Helper. The OP said About 10 years ago I left my private medical practice as a psychiatrist and went into IT. Based on what the OP said and your inability to understand what he wrote your theory is bullshit! /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/raw-355.gif The fact that any of you are arguing about this as if it's real is ridiculous. It’s all fake anyway! Why not have some fun with it? |
|
A woman sexually assaulted me Post# 13 gives OP away. Attached File |
|
Quoted: Everyone thinks of scary horror when they think of demons and Satan. Subtlety is their most effective approach. "Yet we are in greater danger than all others, because we are beset by the 'elegant demon,' who does not make a loud entrance, but comes with flowers in his hand,". - Pope Francis |
|
Quoted: A woman sexually assaulted me Post# 13 gives OP away. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/ThisDidntHappen-737.gif To be fair, it was a parody thread. Called out numerous times on page 1. |
|
I attended a Jesuit College Prep (and University) with a a large faculty of Jesuit clergymen. One of my teachers, told us of his experience with demonic possession. As a young priest, he had volunteered at a mental hospital. As he was walking down a hallway one night, a patient he had never met called out to him by his first name, from behind a closed door. He stopped to inquire about the patient's identity when the patient proceeded to describe to him a past event which he personally considered to be his gravest sin. There was no way a stranger could have known of this sin. The priest was so shocked, that he actually suffered a crisis of faith stemming from the experience. He admitted that he would never be spiritually strong enough to perform an exorcism if asked to. |
|
Quoted: Exactly right. Come at me bro!  good morning Eta: the OP shouldn't be taken seriously. The truth is: No one is interested in knowing the truth. Quoted: Quoted: Uh oh. We have Bishop3 and we have thepantydropper. Is this a MrHiggs and CapnRob moment? Exactly right. Come at me bro! good morningEta: the OP shouldn't be taken seriously. The truth is: No one is interested in knowing the truth.  |
|
Here's another interesting thing out of Catholic theology on the subject of demonology (years ago I read a lot about this stuff, having been raised Catholic): Satan and his legion (the fallen angels - i.e., demons) can know every sin you commit in life, EXCEPT the ones you confess and repent for in the name of Jesus. If you do that, it completely erases the power of demons to know that particular sin and torment you with it - IOW, they can't "see" it anymore. Kind of like the ecclesiastical equivalent a something being ruled non-admissible and struck from evidence in a courtroom trial. I always thought that was interesting. Jesus is a good guy to have around, if you believe in this stuff. |
|
Quoted: Here's another interesting thing out of Catholic theology on the subject of demonology (years ago I read a lot about this stuff, having been raised Catholic): Satan and his legion (the fallen angels - i.e., demons) can know every sin you commit in life, EXCEPT the ones you confess and repent for in the name of Jesus. If you do that, it completely erases the power of demons to know that particular sin and torment you with it - IOW, they can't "see" it anymore. Kind of like the ecclesiastical equivalent a something being ruled non-admissible and struck from evidence in a courtroom trial. I always thought that was interesting. Jesus is a good guy to have around, if you believe in this stuff. This explains it very well.  Banned Mormon Cartoon - EXTENDED VERSION |
|
I'm sure this has been covered but as a protestant/evangelical I believe the Bible teaches about 'familiar spirits'. Demons who know enough of past events to make themselves out to be some long-dead person. This is a fascinating story per se but nothing particularly surprising, to me. |
|
Quoted: Here's another interesting thing out of Catholic theology on the subject of demonology (years ago I read a lot about this stuff, having been raised Catholic): Satan and his legion (the fallen angels - i.e., demons) can know every sin you commit in life, EXCEPT the ones you confess and repent for in the name of Jesus. If you do that, it completely erases the power of demons to know that particular sin and torment you with it - IOW, they can't "see" it anymore. Kind of like the ecclesiastical equivalent a something being ruled non-admissible and struck from evidence in a courtroom trial. I always thought that was interesting. Jesus is a good guy to have around, if you believe in this stuff. Beware of dogma. If it isn’t expressed in the Bible you should be suspicious of it. Especially the stuff that sounds good, like this. Don’t get me wrong, repenting and confessing is suppose to clear you of sin. I’m saying just watch out for what the Roman Catholics and other men attach to it. |
| How come it's only Catholic priests that get to play this bullshit game? I've never heard of a Jewish, Mormon, or Muslim exorcism. Not even the Pentecostals with their speaking in tongues jibba-jabba have this. Sounds like bullshit to me. Just like everything else "Religious Leaders" throw out there to scare the masses into compliance. And don't forget to give the Big Guy his 10%. It's in the Bible, ya know. |
|
Quoted: As a career cop, I, along with other LEO’s, have had encounters with that very small group of people out of tens of thousands who instantly make the hair on the back of your neck stand up and give you the overwhelming feeling that who you’re speaking to is not the person you see in front of you. It feels like there’s something darker and more twisted there than the run of the mill rapist or murderer, and that person may not have even committed a crime. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with one of those people, it’s quite disconcerting.  Morris Albert - Feelings (1975) |
|
Quoted: How come it's only Catholic priests that get to play this bullshit game? I've never heard of a Jewish, Mormon, or Muslim exorcism. Not even the Pentecostals with their speaking in tongues jibba-jabba have this. Sounds like bullshit to me. Just like everything else "Religious Leaders" throw out there to scare the masses into compliance. And don't forget to give the Big Guy his 10%. It's in the Bible, ya know. IIRC there is exorcism instructions in the Quran |
| Funny how these encounters (fiction and nonfiction) has the demon speaking Latin, the official language of the Roman catholic church. But not Hebrew or Greek which is what was used by Israel and early Christians up until the 4th century (Hebrew still used in Judiasm). |
|
Quoted: 2018 Wife and I were monkeying around. It was around 10pm. I suddenly started feeling this super evil feeling. I don’t know why, but it felt like it was around our house, trying to get in. Mind you, ( and I’m not trying to be tough guy) I don’t get “creepy” feelings or “evil” feelings. I believe in Elohim but I think most of that stuff is nonsense. But this feeling was EVIL. So much so I was on the verge of getting off my wife to go check the house and get our daughter out of her room. This went on for about twenty minutes. It wasn’t just some short feeling. Then it just….went away. Next day my family and I were in our pool in the back yard. My daughter went in the house to get a snack. I wasn’t going to say anything but for some reason I did. “Hey babe, last night when we were monkeying around I felt this insanely evil presence around 10pm and it lasted a while. It was bad. Real bad.” She stopped what she was doing and looked right at me. “I felt it too” She went on to explain it just how I experienced it. I never really liked that house. I’m glad we are out of it. I heard someone say you have to be careful of the places you move into and I always called BS. Maybe it isn’t such BS. Obligatory pic of wife, per rules: https://i.imgur.com/g5n4RwQ.jpeg I would have finished too. |