What is the best way to prove the paranormal to someone?

[Sgt. Pepper]

And then get accused of fraud like psychics and physical mediums.

Your rebuttal is one of the reasons I go to such lengths to verify any possible evidence I record, whether I'm investigating a haunted location or disclosing private information that was only shared between someone else and their deceased loved one. As I was saying in @Dan From Smithville's thread (see here), I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for a serious paranormal investigator to make absolutely certain that their evidence of the paranormal is authentic and cannot be legitimately debunked by skeptics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you can thing of one paranormal experience that would prove the paranormal to someone.What would it be?

Die and haunt them.

 

[George-ananda]

Your rebuttal is one of the reasons I go to such lengths to verify any possible evidence I record, whether I'm investigating a haunted location or disclosing private information that was only shared between someone else and their deceased loved one.

Problem is a hardline skeptic will not accept the methods you use as 'verification'.

 

[syo]

If you can thing of one paranormal experience that would prove the paranormal to someone.What would it be?

Define normal.

 

[Heyo]

And then get accused of fraud like psychics and physical mediums.

It's only fraud if you do it for money.
And yes, it is very likely that you would be scrutinized. After all, we have a lot of known cases of fraud but until now not a single one with a confirmed case of paranormal abilities.

 

[George-ananda]

It's only fraud if you do it for money.
And yes, it is very likely that you would be scrutinized. After all, we have a lot of known cases of fraud but until now not a single one with a confirmed case of paranormal abilities.

Who determined that there's been no confirmed cases? Who is your official confirmer? I would argue there have been many impressive cases of mediumship and physical mediumship observed under controlled conditions

 

[Heyo]

Who determined that there's been no confirmed cases? Who is your official confirmer? I would argue there have been many impressive cases of mediumship and physical mediumship observed under controlled conditions

It's been years that I looked into this intensively (and wasn't too impressed). So I may be a little out of the loop. Can you link to a recent study that confirmed mediumship under controlled conditions?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Your rebuttal is one of the reasons I go to such lengths to verify any possible evidence I record, whether I'm investigating a haunted location or disclosing private information that was only shared between someone else and their deceased loved one. As I was saying in @Dan From Smithville's thread (see here), I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for a serious paranormal investigator to make absolutely certain that their evidence of the paranormal is authentic and cannot be legitimately debunked by skeptics.

So you have observations and collected data, but you still have to provide a hypothesis about what caused what you have seen and recorded so that experiments can be designed to test that hypothesis. For scientists to test that hypothesis, the phenomenon would have to be falsifiable and in the realm of the material. Supernatural or spiritual hypotheses are not falsifiable because by definition they are immaterial.

 

[George-ananda]

It's been years that I looked into this intensively (and wasn't too impressed). So I may be a little out of the loop. Can you link to a recent study that confirmed mediumship under controlled conditions?

A good example is metal bending. The skeptic community like James Randi and his ilk have successfully convinced many that it is all cheap tricks. Here's what real scientists have said about Uri Geller:

“We have observed certain phenomena with the subjects [including Geller] for which we have no scientific explanation. “
“As a result of Geller’s success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal, perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner.”(The results of these experiments were published in the respected British journal Nature,Vol. 251, No. 5).
Dr Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ (Stanford Research Institute – California, U.S.A.)

” I tested Uri myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key.”
Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)

Uri bent a spoon for me, the first time he did it, I thought there must be a trick. The second time I was stunned, completely, completely stunned and amazed. It just bent in my hand. I’ve never seen anything like it. It takes a lot to impress me. Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn’t recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person.

David Blaine Magician

My opinion is that hardened skeptics will never concede so the claim of fraud can go on forever because as I said; there is no official determiner everyone will accept. So the game goes on forever.

I can give you other cases of physical mediums that have been tested by investigators and magicians.

And if someone wants to show Geller not able to perform on Johnny Carson’s show I am already familiar with it. Geller says he cannot perform his abilities on days when he doesn’t feel mentally sharp. His successes stand for themselves.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Problem is a hardline skeptic will not accept the methods you use as 'verification'.

I've long since resolved not to argue or debate the paranormal evidence I've gathered over the years with skeptics. As I've said before on this site, I won't argue and debate with skeptics about my psychic mediumship or about the evidence I present in my posts or in my threads about my paranormal investigations. Any religious objections to my psychic medium abilities or any doubt about whether they are real or not won't change the reality that I've lived with these abilities all my life, and I refuse to suppress them again in fear of what other people will think. As I've said before, the reason why I post on RF about my psychic abilities and start threads about my investigations is so that I can give other people who don't have these abilities the chance to experience what I see. It's that simple.

As far as I'm concerned, people can accept or reject what I say about my personal experiences as a medium in communication with spirits. It's entirely their decision. I've long since realized that it serves no purpose for me to debate the paranormal with skeptics. I don't post about my psychic abilities or my experiences with the paranormal in an effort to persuade skeptics and win them over to my point of view. I learned that it's pointless and a total waste of my time to debate and argue with hardcore skeptics online because they won't change their minds unless they're genuinely convinced after experiencing something paranormal firsthand for themselves. I don't argue with hardcore skeptics in person either, and skeptics like to hang around and scoff while I'm conducting an investigation.

If I'm conducting a paranormal investigation and there are skeptics present, then I will invite them to participate in the investigation, but I'll ask them to be respectful of me and of everyone else around us, even though they don't believe in the paranormal as others do. If they agree to play nice, then I will accept their participation. I'll answer their questions, inquire about their own opinions, explain to them how I conduct an investigation and what equipment I use, explain how the equipment works, let them handle the equipment, and encourage them to be actively involved in the investigation. If I show them any digital pictures, SLS images, or thermal camera images, I'll ask them what they see and not tell them what I see. If I'm using the spirit box, then I'll ask them what they hear and not tell them what I hear. If I record EVPs on a digital recorder, then I'll ask them what they hear and not tell them what I hear. I make it a point to never influence other people when they're investigating with me or when they are examining my evidence. And when I'm investigating a suspected or well-known haunted location, I never reveal that I'm a psychic medium to people I don't know. If, on the rare occasion, a spirit has a message for someone else present during my investigation, I'll wait until I can talk to that person privately.

More often than not, there will be a humbled skeptic who comes up to me after the investigation to tell me that they saw some very compelling evidence that has caused them to reconsider their view on the paranormal, and they thank me for letting them participate in the investigation. There have also been a few occasions when skeptics attempted to argue with me (basically pick a fight), and I told them flatly that I would not argue with them. I told them that they had seen the same evidence that I and everyone else present had seen, and it was entirely up to them to decide whether they accepted the evidence or not or believed or not. And I left it at that.

I've come to trust a few skeptics that I know, so I let them look through my evidence and give me their feedback. They know that I'll let them come to their own conclusion and that I won't argue with them. There are a couple of them who have told me that the evidence I have shown them is very compelling, but they weren't quite ready to admit that they believed in the paranormal. Since I have been actively involved in the paranormal field for the past 15 years, I've come to strongly believe that "seeing is believing" when it comes to hard-core skeptics. The numerous in-person encounters I've had with this kind of skeptic over the past fifteen years confirm this, as I've explained in other posts (as in this one here). In fact, Religious Forums has given me a rare opportunity to talk about my psychic abilities and my experiences with the paranormal. I've never been on another forum like it or even on Facebook (or another social media site) where I felt like I could talk about these topics freely and not be bombarded with hateful responses that viciously attack my character or question my sanity. So, I'm grateful for this site, and I value my time here. It has been a positive experience overall.

 

[George-ananda]

I've long since resolved not to argue or debate the paranormal evidence I've gathered over the years with skeptics. As I've said before on this site, I won't argue and debate with skeptics about my psychic mediumship or about the evidence I present in my posts or in my threads about my paranormal investigations. Any religious objections to my psychic medium abilities or any doubt about whether they are real or not won't change the reality that I've lived with these abilities all my life, and I refuse to suppress them again in fear of what other people will think. As I've said before, the reason why I post on RF about my psychic abilities and start threads about my investigations is so that I can give other people who don't have these abilities the chance to experience what I see. It's that simple.

As far as I'm concerned, people can accept or reject what I say about my personal experiences as a medium in communication with spirits. It's entirely their decision. I've long since realized that it serves no purpose for me to debate the paranormal with skeptics. I don't post about my psychic abilities or my experiences with the paranormal in an effort to persuade skeptics and win them over to my point of view. I learned that it's pointless and a total waste of my time to debate and argue with hardcore skeptics online because they won't change their minds unless they're genuinely convinced after experiencing something paranormal firsthand for themselves. I don't argue with hardcore skeptics in person either, and skeptics like to hang around and scoff while I'm conducting an investigation.

If I'm conducting a paranormal investigation and there are skeptics present, then I will invite them to participate in the investigation, but I'll ask them to be respectful of me and of everyone else around us, even though they don't believe in the paranormal as others do. If they agree to play nice, then I will accept their participation. I'll answer their questions, inquire about their own opinions, explain to them how I conduct an investigation and what equipment I use, explain how the equipment works, let them handle the equipment, and encourage them to be actively involved in the investigation. If I show them any digital pictures, SLS images, or thermal camera images, I'll ask them what they see and not tell them what I see. If I'm using the spirit box, then I'll ask them what they hear and not tell them what I hear. If I record EVPs on a digital recorder, then I'll ask them what they hear and not tell them what I hear. I make it a point to never influence other people when they're investigating with me or when they are examining my evidence. And when I'm investigating a suspected or well-known haunted location, I never reveal that I'm a psychic medium to people I don't know. If, on the rare occasion, a spirit has a message for someone else present during my investigation, I'll wait until I can talk to that person privately.

More often than not, there will be a humbled skeptic who comes up to me after the investigation to tell me that they saw some very compelling evidence that has caused them to reconsider their view on the paranormal, and they thank me for letting them participate in the investigation. There have also been a few occasions when skeptics attempted to argue with me (basically pick a fight), and I told them flatly that I would not argue with them. I told them that they had seen the same evidence that I and everyone else present had seen, and it was entirely up to them to decide whether they accepted the evidence or not or believed or not. And I left it at that.

I've come to trust a few skeptics that I know, so I let them look through my evidence and give me their feedback. They know that I'll let them come to their own conclusion and that I won't argue with them. There are a couple of them who have told me that the evidence I have shown them is very compelling, but they weren't quite ready to admit that they believed in the paranormal. Since I have been actively involved in the paranormal field for the past 15 years, I've come to strongly believe that "seeing is believing" when it comes to hard-core skeptics. The numerous in-person encounters I've had with this kind of skeptic over the past fifteen years confirm this, as I've explained in other posts (as in this one here). In fact, Religious Forums has given me a rare opportunity to talk about my psychic abilities and my experiences with the paranormal. I've never been on another forum like it or even on Facebook (or another social media site) where I felt like I could talk about these topics freely and not be bombarded with hateful responses that viciously attack my character or question my sanity. So, I'm grateful for this site, and I value my time here. It has been a positive experience overall.

I say you’re thinking is correct. Do not give the determined skeptics your energy.

 

[Heyo]

A good example is metal bending. The skeptic community like James Randi and his ilk have successfully convinced many that it is all cheap tricks. Here's what real scientists have said about Uri Geller:

“We have observed certain phenomena with the subjects [including Geller] for which we have no scientific explanation. “
“As a result of Geller’s success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal, perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner.”(The results of these experiments were published in the respected British journal Nature,Vol. 251, No. 5).
Dr Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ (Stanford Research Institute – California, U.S.A.)

” I tested Uri myself under laboratory-controlled conditions and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group of people present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays and found that there was no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key.”
Professor Helmut Hoffmann (Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Vienna, Austria)

Uri bent a spoon for me, the first time he did it, I thought there must be a trick. The second time I was stunned, completely, completely stunned and amazed. It just bent in my hand. I’ve never seen anything like it. It takes a lot to impress me. Uri Geller is for real and anyone who doesn’t recognise that is either deluding himself, or is a very sad person.

David Blaine Magician

My opinion is that hardened skeptics will never concede so the claim of fraud can go on forever because as I said; there is no official determiner everyone will accept. So the game goes on forever.

I can give you other cases of physical mediums that have been tested by investigators and magicians.

1. Your first link is broken.
2. The experiments by Puthoff and Targ aren't exactly "recent". (1973)
3. About those experiments:
"In An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, Randi wrote, "Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ, who studied Mr. Geller at the Stanford Research Institute, were aware, in one instance at least, that they were being shown a magician's trick by Geller [...] Their protocols for this 'serious' investigation of the powers claimed by Geller were described by Ray Hyman, who investigated the project on behalf of the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, as 'sloppy and inadequate.'"[63][page needed] Critics have pointed out that both Puthoff and Targ were already believers in paranormal powers and Geller was not adequately searched before the experiments.[64] The psychologist C. E. M. Hansel and sceptic Paul Kurtz have noted that the experiments were poorly designed and open to trickery.[65][66]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Scientific_testing

Still not impressed.

 

[George-ananda]

1. Your first link is broken.
2. The experiments by Puthoff and Targ aren't exactly "recent". (1973)
3. About those experiments:
"In An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, Randi wrote, "Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ, who studied Mr. Geller at the Stanford Research Institute, were aware, in one instance at least, that they were being shown a magician's trick by Geller [...] Their protocols for this 'serious' investigation of the powers claimed by Geller were described by Ray Hyman, who investigated the project on behalf of the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, as 'sloppy and inadequate.'"[63][page needed] Critics have pointed out that both Puthoff and Targ were already believers in paranormal powers and Geller was not adequately searched before the experiments.[64] The psychologist C. E. M. Hansel and sceptic Paul Kurtz have noted that the experiments were poorly designed and open to trickery.[65][66]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Scientific_testing

Still not impressed.

I’m impressed and I’ve fully considered that cast of media skeptics.

As I said it’s an endless debate as there is no official determiner everyone will respect.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I say you’re thinking is correct. Do not give the determined skeptics your energy.

Yes, I deliberately leave it up to the skeptics to decide whether or not they believe in the paranormal. I decided a long time ago to not give them the satisfaction of arguing with me. A skeptic who is stubbornly adamant about not believing will not be persuaded by any amount of suitably persuasive evidence, not even if they directly experience unquestionable poltergeist activity or other paranormal activity and can't logically debunk it. I've known skeptics who saw a spirit manifest before their own eyes and still refused to believe.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Documented evidence.
Google “Latoya Ammons”…
A couple social workers and administrators of the Gary, Indiana, Department of children services experienced some incidents in the building while Ammons’ children were present, and the incidents were typed on official documents.

(No video though, that I’m aware of.)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Documented evidence.
Google “Latoya Ammons”…
A couple social workers and administrators of the Gary, Indiana, Department of children services experienced some incidents in the building while Ammons’ children were present, and the incidents were typed on official documents.

(No video though, that I’m aware of.)

Yes, and the case involves the notorious Demon House. Zak Bagans, of Ghost Adventures, interviewed a few people involved in the actual case, and he investigated the house itself. His documentary, called Demon House, is available on Amazon Prime (see here) and it's available on Discovery+ (see here) as well. You can Google "Demon House Gary Indiana" to learn more about the case and house.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, and the case involves the notorious Demon House. Zak Bagans, of Ghost Adventures, interviewed a few people involved in the actual case, and he investigated the house itself. His documentary, called Demon House, is available on Amazon Prime (see here) and it's available on Discovery+ (see here) as well. You can also Google "Demon House" to find out more information about the case itself.

Hey, hope you’re well…
I’ve done some research on that, quite an experience that family had!

Thanks for posting those links.

As you are probably aware, my understanding of incidents dealing with the paranormal, is based on the Bible. In a while, I’m going to post my POV, and I hope it won’t make you feel uncomfortable (or mad, or whatever); I do it out of concern: these invisible forces can be dangerous.

Best wishes, my cousin.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Hey, hope you’re well…
I’ve done some research on that, quite an experience that family had!

Thanks for posting those links.

As you are probably aware, my understanding of incidents dealing with the paranormal, is based on the Bible. In a while, I’m going to post my POV, and I hope it won’t make you feel uncomfortable (or mad, or whatever); I do it out of concern: these invisible forces can be dangerous.

Best wishes, my cousin.

You're welcome for the links. And as you're probably aware, I don't believe in the Bible anymore. I've discussed this in other threads. While I strongly disagree with what the Bible claims about death and the afterlife, I do respect your personal opinion. I'm sure you're also aware that I won't debate about our differing views on the Bible concerning this topic in this forum or in the debate forums.

Peace, and best wishes to you as well.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'd dare to tell a skeptic to spend the night at the Crescent Hotel & Spa in Eureka Springs, AR, or at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO. If they choose to stay at the Crescent, then I'd suggest that they request room 218 and go on one of the late-night ghost tours. I have never been to the Stanley Hotel yet, but it is definitely at the top of my bucket list. To be honest, I have had far too many experiences with the paranormal over the last fifteen years to pin-point just one. However, if I were to choose one, then it would be the Crescent.

I have never left the Crescent Hotel without having gathered evidence of the spirits who are there, whether it was through the use of my ghost-hunting equipment or direct contact with the spirits, and these interactions were observed and confirmed by other living people. In fact, I've investigated the Crescent five different times in the last two and a half years (give or take), and I'm planning to go back in January and perhaps even before then. The Crescent has turned out to be my favorite haunt (pun intended) by far, and this hotel is special to me because it is where my husband had his first paranormal experience, which made him a genuine believer.

@ Sgt. Pepper
Reading through your stuff has resulted in a question for you. Besides humanoid spirits, what other spirits have you seen? (orbs, etc.) and were those causal circumstances different?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

@ Sgt. Pepper
Reading through your stuff has resulted in a question for you. Besides humanoid spirits, what other spirits have you seen? (orbs, etc.) and were those causal circumstances different?

I've seen orbs, but I believe orbs are another manifestation of human spirits. I've also seen animal spirits, nature spirits, a demonic entity, and had a momentary glimpse of an angelic being. I am also fully aware of any spiritual presence in close proximity.