Is Brooke Greenberg a Hoax or Real?
Posted 01 Sep, 2005 at 14:21 by blue in /Social | Permanent link
Some of you may have heard of this already...
In Baltimore, a girl lives who is supposedly the only one of her kind on the planet. She may also hold answers to increased longevity. She is a medical mystery. She's also pretty darned cute.
Why?
Cause, at the age of 12, she is physically and mentally, still a baby.
In a quick (5 minute) quest to determine if this story was true or false I wasn't able to prove anything other than that the story has been on going on the internet for the last few years.
Here are some quick links to get you started if you want to weigh in...
When she was 8 this article ran on WBAL TV in Baltimore Same local news agency ran this update when she was 12. This site took a stab at trying to figure out the truth... they didn't get far. This site went further... again... they were unable to prove one way or the other anything about itI have watched a video of the recent story... by all accounts it seems real. If you want to see it, let me know.
A quick search of her name on Google will turn up lots of sites... but surprisingly for something which is such a mystery... very little constructive information.
What do you think?
Real or not?
Comments (9 comments so far)
Who honestly believes its a hoax?!
come on people, you honestly think this is a hoax... think about this...they ran the report when she was 8, now FOUR YEARS LATER, they ran another story on her and shes the same size... (little known fact: normal infants grow a great deal in four years, as do their siblings) SO: if Brooke is no bigger than she was 4 years ago, and looks the exact same, and yet her siblings ARE bigger, then...reason would lead us to the conclusion that...this is not a hoax! Posted 2005/10/24 12:41:24 by kelseyA case of confusion
It seems this post caught the attention of someone else that drew a rather fantastic conclusion. I posted the following rebuttal to his site should he feel so inclined as to remove my follow up. His site is at: http://teardownthehighplaces.blogspot.com/2005/10/case-from-now-case-from-then.html.Hmmm. Interesting. So let's follow the path of argument here just a bit to be clear. It sounds like the following: Fact A (child not aging) leads to future disbelief due to incredible rarity of Fact A. Future disbelief of Fact A is like present disbelief (of resurrection of Christ) of supposed event B because it is similarly rare (1 out of all the known living human beings). Supposed event B is a fact by similarity.
The difference between the child and the resurrection of Christ is the former has evidence. The significance of this is the former is now possible and now the probability is relevant. The latter has no demonstrable proof (hence the incredible amount of disbelief) without which it can't enter into the realm of possibility regardless of how equally probable it might be should it be true (which isn't verifiable).
Another way to look at the argument itself were to compare two completely dark rooms. Everyone would agree that what is inside is not visible and hence could contain anything. However that does not mean they contain the same things. Human perception or belief does not form the basis of equivalency between anything.
I honestly don't think you would want to make this argument either even if it had a shred of substance. The child has the resources and the interest of science, medical, biological, genetic, etc that I'm sure would be glad to identify the cause of the condition. However, if science can demonstrably show that the cause is entirely natural means (such as by reproducing the phenomena--probably in a different animal), then your argument would suggest that the resurrection of Christ was also by natural means, removing any potential for him being the son of God (who is supernatural and outside the realm of science). But that would only be if your argument made sense, which it does not.
Finally, the article you referenced from goldenempires.com was to inquire on the veracity of it. Which is entirely legitimate because it is an incredible fact. It's far outside the bounds of our normal experiences. Incredible statements require incredible amounts of evidence. Particularly in present times when absurdities abound on the internet.
I might point out that I have a wealthy foreign investor that needs some help moving funds and if you would be so kind as to provide some personally identifiable information and your banking data we could certainly arrange to move the funds there and leave a percentage for your troubles. Because clearly this is less incredible than the resurrection of Christ rendering it more likely to be true.
Posted 2005/11/13 00:42:36 by Brent