I'm curious about something and have some questions.

[JDMS]

I understand that some people think "hunting" ghosts is fun, but it can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing and are fooling around rather than being on the lookout for potential danger at a location. I was with a group of paranormal investigators once at an abandoned psychiatric hospital, and two of the newer, inexperienced investigators were joking around and being loud on the second floor when one of them fell through the floor and had to be taken to the hospital. He wasn't paying attention and stepped into a hole in the floor. Paranormal Investigation 101: Before conducting an investigation at night in the dark, always go to a location and do a thorough walk-through of any building and of the property during the day. If you do this, you will become familiar with the interiors of the buildings as well as the property's landscape, which lessens the probability that you'll walk into something in the buildings or walk into a tree somewhere on the property. You may not realize it, but most paranormal investigations are conducted in complete darkness, using only the light of a small video camera screen or, occasionally, flashlights to see where you're going. It's still very dark, and you need to be cautious and aware of your surroundings. As previously stated, conducting a paranormal investigation can be dangerous, and people can be injured if they don't know what they're doing or are joking around. I don't let anyone who's joking around and acting up participate in my investigations.

:useful:

Yes, I'm sure that visiting such locations in real life is vastly different than a video game. Regardless of whether there is paranormal activity or not, there's a lot of potential risks visiting any dilapidated or isolated building. There's risk from other people, poor infrastructure, mold, etc. All good things to consider! And don't worry about me; I don't plan on running around abandoned buildings qny time soon

 

[Alien826]

Having said all of that, I'd like to ask the following questions: (1) How many people on this forum who doubt the existence of earthbound human spirits, nonhuman entities, or anything else that could possibly be paranormal have personally investigated a haunting or anything else paranormal? (2) How many skeptics on this forum have taken the time to research and purchase the proper ghost-hunting gear, look for and research places they think might be haunted, go to a place they think might be haunted and do a thorough investigation there, and then spend hours and hours going over their collected data, such as digital photos, recorded videos, and EVP recordings on digital recorders or EVP recorders? (3) How many skeptics of the paranormal on this forum have spent their time and energy honestly seeking answers at a suspected haunted location, whether the haunting is residual, intelligent, poltergeist, or potentially sinister, rather than posting on this forum that they don't believe in human spirits or nonhuman entities because those who claim to believe in them haven't given enough evidence to satisfy the skeptics? I wouldn't necessarily say, "Put your money where your mouth is," but the idea is the same.

I'll answer from my own experience. All this happened a long time ago.

My first wife was much into this kind of thing, and used to do horoscopes for people (yes I know that not the same thing). I was triggered to do my own investigation. I consulted several psychics and attended a Spiritualist church, talking to anyone who would take the time. I attended "spiritual healing" sessions and even tried it myself.

I found the psychics were helpless if I didn't feed them any information.

I found that many people that attended the church were very sad bereaved people that were very ready to accept anything that let them believe that their deceased relatives were not really "gone". I felt that the mediums were providing a very real service, genuine or not.

I noted that the psychic healers' hands turned red as they worked. I found that I could get the same effect by concentrating on my hands. I still can. I tried healing a friend with psoriasis. She reported an improvement. My wife called me at work say she had a bad headache. As we talked, she said, "The headache has gone, what did you do". I hadn't done anything consciously.

When I was practicing Buddhism, we had a resident Tibetan Lama as part of the group. He talked about ghosts as if they were real. When challenged, he showed surprise, and said he knew lots of people that had seen ghosts. These would be his Tibetan compatriots.

I think that's about it.

 

[blü 2]

In science cannot 'Observation (of phenomena) precede its Understanding'? Seems that still happens all the time. And to add, some suggest that the paranormal is not immaterial but subtle material in dimensions beyond our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments. Even science tells us that the vast majority of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments (so-called Dark Matter).

The question I raised is about immateriality. If something is immaterial, then it's non-existent in reality, which, as we presently understand it, is entirely material.

What those who argue otherwise need (and I'd naturally welcome) are good clear repeatable experiments that demonstrate the existence of immaterial things/entities in the world external to the self.

As you know, at present there isn't even one.

Dark matter is interesting, of course, but in terms of physics, it's presently the name of a problem, not a thing. It's one conjectured answer to a physical problem revealed in our understanding of gravity / mass. Whether it proves to be the correct answer, or whether something else does, time will tell.

Note that the problem arises from a tendency observed empirically (the observed size and speed of rotation of certain galaxies) that doesn't fit existing theory. And of course the explanation offered by the hypothesis doesn't involve immateriality.

How would the kind of immateriality you have in mind fit with such schemes? What kind of empirical evidence would they / do they provide?

Now we are getting to the crux of this thread.

Inexact wording like 'remarkably good' make the answer to your question a subjective opinion. Our OP has provided some links that can be no more than grains of sand on the beach. My opinion is that after the fairest consideration of the quantity. quality and consistency of evidence suggesting the paranormal that the case for the paranormal is not only 'remarkably good' but 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This much evidence strongly suggesting the paranormal being all in error seems to approach impossible IMO.

Whereas I find the case for the paranormal is non-existent.

For example, US armed forces experiments in the 50s got nowhere. The late Martin Gardner remarked that statistical evidence of ESP is overwhelming statistical evidence of fraud (though innocent error is perhaps possible). No one ever claimed James Randi's prize, which at one point was a million bucks. Yuri Geller was a stage magician.

But I'm still persuadable by evidence ─ a repeatable experiment that not only defies explanation in scientific terms but over and above that, points to a paranormal explanation and a testable theory of what the paranormal is. Meanwhile, of course, I'm unpersuaded.

It'd be very interesting indeed. Bring it on!

 

[George-ananda]

The question I raised is about immateriality. If something is immaterial, then it's non-existent in reality, which, as we presently understand it, is entirely material.

What those who argue otherwise need (and I'd naturally welcome) are good clear repeatable experiments that demonstrate the existence of immaterial things/entities in the world external to the self.

As you know, at present there isn't even one.

Dark matter is interesting, of course, but in terms of physics, it's presently the name of a problem, not a thing. It's one conjectured answer to a physical problem revealed in our understanding of gravity / mass. Whether it proves to be the correct answer, or whether something else does, time will tell.

Note that the problem arises from a tendency observed empirically (the observed size and speed of rotation of certain galaxies) that doesn't fit existing theory. And of course the explanation offered by the hypothesis doesn't involve immateriality.

How would the kind of immateriality you have in mind fit with such schemes? What kind of empirical evidence would they / do they provide?

Whereas I find the case for the paranormal is non-existent.

For example, US armed forces experiments in the 50s got nowhere. The late Martin Gardner remarked that statistical evidence of ESP is overwhelming statistical evidence of fraud (though innocent error is perhaps possible). No one ever claimed James Randi's prize, which at one point was a million bucks. Yuri Geller was a stage magician.

But I'm still persuadable by evidence ─ a repeatable experiment that not only defies explanation in scientific terms but over and above that, points to a paranormal explanation and a testable theory of what the paranormal is. Meanwhile, of course, I'm unpersuaded.

It'd be very interesting indeed. Bring it on!

First I did not use the term ‘immaterial’ but subtle matter outside our three-dimensional physical senses and instruments. These things are beyond current science but (allegedly) in the range of the psychic sensing of people like the OP.

And I argue the cumulative weight of the evidence suggests important things beyond current science are real. And you say there is no evidence and quote skeptics like Randi. And never our two can meet without some paradigm shift somewhere But we don’t need to agree to be at peace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(2) How many skeptics on this forum have taken the time to research and purchase the proper ghost-hunting gear, look for and research places they think might be haunted, go to a place they think might be haunted and do a thorough investigation there, and then spend hours and hours going over their collected data, such as digital photos, recorded videos, and EVP recordings on digital recorders or EVP recorders?

I've researched "proper ghost hunting gear" to the point that it was obvious that what's being hunted is just anomalies. Pursuing things beyond that would have been moot.

I'm satisfied that paranormal investigation methods are unreliable and poorly thought-out at best and outright fraud at worst. I suppose that I can't completely exclude the possibility that there could coincidentally be a ghost in some "haunted" house where some non-ghost anomaly does something that an investigator decides is significant, but at that point, I just don't care.

 

[Mock Turtle]

From my perspective, I've seemingly never had any experiences that I could put down to anything spiritual - seeing no ghosts or hearing any voices that I couldn't attribute to my own mind's processes. I tend to believe that I have inevitably to go with what science shows us in relation to this subject and what it hasn't, and hence I am of the default belief as to - show us the evidence. And it appears that many have tried but not succeeded as to this. I am sceptical as to any technology capturing anything that might reflect on and inform as to this particular subject too - given the technology might be measuring something else rather than what is claimed.

Over the years I have read some of the material as to claims but I've always tended to leave them as 'not proven', given we know there are many fraudulent people in the field or those just mistaken as to what they experience, and I would have thought by now that we would have rather more convincing evidence as to these phenomena being as depicted. Hence my approach is much the same as to other areas of parapsychology and the paranormal in general - until enough evidence to convince is provided - that is, not proven.

Perhaps spirits just avoid interacting with those more sceptical.

But I do try to be consistent, hence I have the same doubts as to UFO sightings and abductions.

To add to this - I have experienced several loud and apparently unexplained sounds within the house. But, the fact that the area is known for subsidence, and the ripple in the road outside showing this, I think it very likely that the stresses and strains due to house movement will account for all these noises - with some cavity wall insulation possibly contributing to this too. The latest was a loud noise in the attic - as to which I haven't even investigated yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I don't believe that any amount of my personal stories, visual images from my investigation, or even random articles about a haunting will ever persuade even the most ardent skeptic that the paranormal is real or that my mediumship is real.

I think no amount of personal anecdotes would persuade someone a skeptic unless you gave the thing that I've never seen from you or any ghost hunter: a rational, defensible methodology.

Show me that your approach is something deeper than "I'm going to set up lots of gear to pick up on - or create - random environmental noise and digital artifacts, capture stuff that seems anomalous, and then assign the anomalies significance based on how I feel about them" and I might start taking you seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To add to this - I have experienced several loud and apparently unexplained sounds within the house. But, the fact that the area is known for subsidence, and the ripple in the road outside showing this, I think it very likely that the stresses and strains due to house movement will account for all these noises - with some cavity wall insulation possibly contributing to this too. The latest was a loud noise in the attic - as to which I haven't even investigated yet.

I think it's worth pointing out that "unexplained" means "unexplained," not "ghosts."

In my experience, the justifications for the leap from "here's something we can't explain" to "the thing must have been caused by a ghost" tend to be pretty flimsy (and often non-existent).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m curious to know if I’m the only paranormal investigator (“ghost hunter”) on this forum.

I've spent over a year on this forum sharing stories about my years of experiences as a psychic medium and paranormal investigator (with 43 years of experience as a medium and 15 1/2 years as a practicing medium and paranormal investigator). I've started several threads about my recent paranormal investigations, and I've shared many stories about my experiences as a medium in both my own and other people's threads. I haven't simply stated in my threads or other threads that I'm a medium and a paranormal investigator or that I believe in the paranormal. I've backed up my claims many times with detailed personal accounts of my experiences as a medium, as well as with visual SLS images, EMF readings, and specific details about my investigations.

Having said all of that, I'd like to ask the following questions: (1) How many people on this forum who doubt the existence of earthbound human spirits, nonhuman entities, or anything else that could possibly be paranormal have personally investigated a haunting or anything else paranormal? (2) How many skeptics on this forum have taken the time to research and purchase the proper ghost-hunting gear, look for and research places they think might be haunted, go to a place they think might be haunted and do a thorough investigation there, and then spend hours and hours going over their collected data, such as digital photos, recorded videos, and EVP recordings on digital recorders or EVP recorders? (3) How many skeptics of the paranormal on this forum have spent their time and energy honestly seeking answers at a suspected haunted location, whether the haunting is residual, intelligent, poltergeist, or potentially sinister, rather than posting on this forum that they don't believe in human spirits or nonhuman entities because those who claim to believe in them haven't given enough evidence to satisfy the skeptics? I wouldn't necessarily say, "Put your money where your mouth is," but the idea is the same.

Based on my fifteen and a half years of personal experience as a practicing medium and paranormal investigator, I am more than convinced that "seeing is believing," even for the most adamant skeptic of the paranormal. I've been posting about my experiences as a medium and paranormal investigator in my own threads and in many others for over a year, and yet there are skeptics who still don't believe in the paranormal. Personally, I don't believe that any amount of my personal stories, visual images from my investigation, or even random articles about a haunting will ever persuade even the most ardent skeptic that the paranormal is real or that my mediumship is real. I do, however, believe that seeing is believing, and if one of these skeptics thoroughly investigated a suspected haunting for themselves, they may change their minds and begin to believe. Of course, I can't say that for certain because spirits are often unpredictable, and they rarely perform on command, especially when the paranormal investigators are very rude and disrespectful to them.

Spirits don't always respond to a polite request to make their presence known to the living, and they certainly don't like provocation, as seen on some paranormal shows. It usually does not end well for the untrained or arrogant paranormal investigators who provoke the spirits in order to elicit a response. I don't feel sorry for the rude investigators who get the desired response and then flee the building screaming like little girls, terrified of the spirits they have just provoked. As a paranormal investigator who has traveled across the country to various haunted locations, I've been to well-known haunted locations where the spirits refused to communicate with or interact with me or with the other paranormal investigators present. On the other hand, I've visited places that weren't previously known to be haunted, and I've been bombarded with poltergeist activity. To thoroughly investigate a haunted location, it takes a lot of patience and many hours of dedicated investigation. Most paranormal investigators will leave a location empty-handed, but other times they're able to collect a lot of evidence of a haunting. Finally, if you're one of the people on this forum who believes in the paranormal (i.e., earthbound human spirits, nonhuman entities, and anything else paranormal), but you haven’t investigated the paranormal, then why do you believe?

I'm wondering about something myself:

In your fifteen and a half years of paranormal investigations, how often have you done a full investigation in a place you know not to be haunted in order to establish a "baseline" level of hits (i.e. so you can say "okay - below this threshold, a potential haunted location we're evaluating can't be confirmed to be haunted")?

 

[George-ananda]

I've researched "proper ghost hunting gear" to the point that it was obvious that what's being hunted is just anomalies. Pursuing things beyond that would have been moot.

Step 1 would be determining if anomalous events actually occur that could suggest what some colloquially call 'paranormal'.

Step 2 would be theories as to what is going on.

Personally, I've checked off Step 1 and am onto step 2. My leading theories are heavily influenced by wisdom traditions (Hindu, Theosophical) and the insights of many (such as this OP) that claim direct (psychic/clairvoyant) insight into what is beyond the physical senses.

The valid criticism you make is towards those that lump Step 1 and Step 2 into one Step.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's pretty much describes me. I believe because being as fair and objective as I can possibly be it seems beyond reasonable doubt that things happen that do not fit into the materialist paradigm of reality. The quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence has me overwhelmed that something dramatic is behind the scenes and not yet understood by science.

I think you take a reasonable approach to the paranormal, and I appreciate your input.

I am actually a former materialist and understand the so-called skeptic/materialist perspective. I can understand how they can challenge every piece of experience forever. Random phenomena can be challenged forever. Even controlled experiments can be challenged forever.

I guess in the end we believers should not be overly concerned with the determined non-believers. We can coexist just fine in the public arena. But I do enjoy a good debate myself and that can quickly get personal and emotional.

This is one reason why I won't argue or debate with skeptics about the evidence I find during my paranormal investigations or about my mediumship and experiences as a medium. I decided a long time ago not to argue or debate with skeptics, and I've made it clear to the ones I've met in person and on this forum that I won't argue or debate with them. Any religious objections to my mediumship or any doubts about my experiences will not change the fact that I've had these abilities my entire life, and I refuse to suppress them again for fear of what others will think. They've never walked a mile in my shoes.

I've met a lot of skeptics in person, so I know that most of them would persistently argue with me about any kind of paranormal evidence if I gave in to them. So, I don't give in and argue or debate with them. I have experienced a few occasions during my paranormal investigations when they've attempted to argue with me (basically pick a fight), and I told them flatly that I wouldn't 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 to accept the evidence and believe it or not. I’ve made it perfectly clear to them that it doesn't matter to me whether they accept and believe the evidence they've seen. And I left it at that. I don't post about my experiences as a medium or paranormal investigator in an effort to persuade skeptics and win them over to my point of view. I've realized that debating and arguing with skeptics online is pointless and a waste of my time because they won't change their minds unless they see something paranormal and are truly convinced that what they saw is or could be paranormal. I will share my experiences as a medium and some of the evidence from my paranormal investigations, and then I'll let the chips fall wherever they may. As far as I'm concerned, skeptics can decide for themselves whether or not to believe in mediumship and the paranormal. I'll listen and consider what they have to say, but I won't argue or debate with them. Some have tried to argue, but they were unsuccessful.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Step 1 would be determining if anomalous events actually occur that could suggest what some colloquially call 'paranormal'.

Step 2 would be theories as to what is going on.

Personally, I've checked off Step 1 and am onto step 2. My leading theories are heavily influenced by wisdom traditions (Hindu, Theosophical) and the insights of many (such as this OP) that claim direct (psychic/clairvoyant) insight into what is beyond the physical senses.

The valid criticism you make is towards those that lump Step 1 and Step 2 into one Step.

As an experienced paranormal investigator, I believe that it is important to rule out any natural explanations for an unusual event that appears to be paranormal at first. It's important to make a concentrated effort to debunk the incident and properly document it using ghost-hunting equipment in order to establish that the incident was indeed paranormal. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to ensure that any evidence of the paranormal is genuine so that skeptics can't rationally refute it. As I often say, "seeing is believing." I've been investigating and researching the paranormal for the past 15 years, and despite being a psychic medium and a sensitive, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence, such as lights flickering or a loud bang, is paranormal. Even if I sense the presence of a spirit, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence is paranormal. As a medium, however, I have the psychic ability to see and hear spirits, so if a spirit is the source for the unusual event, I am aware of it right away. Despite the fact that I am a medium, I make every effort to adequately document the incident with my ghost-hunting equipment to prove that it was paranormal. As an experienced paranormal investigator, I will not leave my paranormal evidence (recorded videos and pictures of spirits, EVP recordings) wide open for skeptics to harshly rip apart.

In fact, I'm my own worst critic when it comes to the potential evidence of the paranormal that I collect, because my objective when analyzing the evidence is to try and debunk it so that I may authenticate it. I also let other experienced investigators and even skeptics I know and trust look over any possible paranormal evidence I find during an investigation. I never take any pictures I take or videos I record at face value, despite my abilities relating to the paranormal. If I'm conducting an EVP session, then I make sure that the people around me hear what I hear via the Spirit Box. I've asked the other people around me, "What did you hear?" rather than repeating what I heard myself. I could tell them that I audibly heard the spirits speaking directly to me because of my abilities, but that isn't sufficient evidence for the skeptics in the crowd. If I show other people the pictures I've taken at a haunted location, I don't tell them what I see but rather ask them what they see. I don't try to influence how other people interpret my evidence. In addition, before I enter a specific location that is believed to be haunted, I'll ask the people I'm with not to tell me anything about the place or any experiences they have had there. I don't want to be influenced. I prefer to go into a location with a clear mind so that I can be certain that what I sense in the location is real.

A professional paranormal researcher and investigator won't just assume that something strange and unexplained is paranormal. An expert paranormal investigator will first try to disprove the phenomenon. If that doesn't work, he or she will ask the spirits to repeat the event so that it can be accurately recorded using special ghost-hunting equipment. An experienced paranormal investigator will use their equipment to do a long, thorough investigation to either prove or disprove the phenomenon. They will also ask other experienced investigators to check their evidence. When looking into a place that is known to be haunted, a professional paranormal investigator may also ask for help from a trusted psychic medium or a sensitive. After explaining all of that, I'd like to end my post by saying that as a medium, I'm aware of paranormal events that can't be proven by ghost-hunting equipment, explained by science, or legitimately explained away by religious dogma that strongly opposes the idea that spirits can talk to and interact with the living. Personally, I believe that there are a lot of supernatural occurrences that happen in the world that brazenly defy scientific explanation and even religious explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

As an experienced paranormal investigator, I believe that it is important to rule out any natural explanations for an unusual event that appears to be paranormal at first. It's important to make a concentrated effort to debunk the incident and properly document it using ghost-hunting equipment in order to establish that the incident was indeed paranormal. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to ensure that any evidence of the paranormal is genuine so that skeptics can't rationally refute it. As I often say, "seeing is believing." I've been investigating and researching the paranormal for the past 15 years, and despite being a psychic medium and a sensitive, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence, such as lights flickering or a loud bang, is paranormal. Even if I sense the presence of a spirit, I don't always assume that an unusual occurrence is paranormal. As a medium, however, I have the psychic ability to see and hear spirits, so if a spirit is the source for the unusual event, I am aware of it right away. Despite the fact that I am a medium, I make every effort to adequately document the incident with my ghost-hunting equipment to prove that it was paranormal. As an experienced paranormal investigator, I will not leave my paranormal evidence (recorded videos and pictures of spirits, EVP recordings) wide open for skeptics to harshly rip apart.

In fact, I'm my own worst critic when it comes to the potential evidence of the paranormal that I collect, because my objective when analyzing the evidence is to try and debunk it so that I may authenticate it. I also let other experienced investigators and even skeptics I know and trust look over any possible paranormal evidence I find during an investigation. I never take any pictures I take or videos I record at face value, despite my abilities relating to the paranormal. If I'm conducting an EVP session, then I make sure that the people around me hear what I hear via the Spirit Box. I've asked the other people around me, "What did you hear?" rather than repeating what I heard myself. I could tell them that I audibly heard the spirits speaking directly to me because of my abilities, but that isn't sufficient evidence for the skeptics in the crowd. If I show other people the pictures I've taken at a haunted location, I don't tell them what I see but rather ask them what they see. I don't try to influence how other people interpret my evidence. In addition, before I enter a specific location that is believed to be haunted, I'll ask the people I'm with not to tell me anything about the place or any experiences they have had there. I don't want to be influenced. I prefer to go into a location with a clear mind so that I can be certain that what I sense in the location is real.

A professional paranormal researcher and investigator won't just assume that something strange and unexplained is paranormal. An expert paranormal investigator will first try to disprove the phenomenon. If that doesn't work, he or she will ask the spirits to repeat the event so that it can be accurately recorded using special ghost-hunting equipment. An experienced paranormal investigator will use their equipment to do a long, thorough investigation to either prove or disprove the phenomenon. They will also ask other experienced investigators to check their evidence. When looking into a place that is known to be haunted, a professional paranormal investigator may also ask for help from a trusted psychic medium or a sensitive. After explaining all of that, I'd like to end my post by saying that as a medium, I'm aware of paranormal events that can't be proven by ghost-hunting equipment, explained by science, or legitimately explained away by religious dogma that strongly opposes the idea that spirits can talk to and interact with the living. Personally, I believe that there are a lot of supernatural occurrences that happen in the world that brazenly defy scientific explanation and even religious explanation.

Some ghost-hunting equipment seems better than others. If you capture a voice or a humanoid shape on a recording device that's good for analysis. But a hard-Skeptic can always present a challenge to things you claim are clearly documented. The question for me becomes at what point do the hard-skeptics stop seeming reasonable.

Skeptics will not be impressed by things like SLS cameras where a machine creates the figure itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Step 1 would be determining if anomalous events actually occur that could suggest what some colloquially call 'paranormal'.

Step 2 would be theories as to what is going on.

Personally, I've checked off Step 1 and am onto step 2. My leading theories are heavily influenced by wisdom traditions (Hindu, Theosophical) and the insights of many (such as this OP) that claim direct (psychic/clairvoyant) insight into what is beyond the physical senses.

The valid criticism you make is towards those that lump Step 1 and Step 2 into one Step.

I don't think that you have properly checked off number one. No ghost hunter that I know of has ever done so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some ghost-hunting equipment seems better than others. If you capture a voice or a humanoid shape on a recording device that's good for analysis. But a hard-Skeptic can always present a challenge to things you claim are clearly documented. The question for me becomes at what point do the hard-skeptics stop seeming reasonable.

Skeptics will not be impressed by things like SLS cameras where a machine creates the figure itself.

So you succeeded by being irrational and accused others of your flaws.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think that you have properly checked off number one. No ghost hunter that I know of has ever done so.

It has to come down to a personal judgment. My judgment is that the evidence that anomalous events do occur is overwhelming.

 

[George-ananda]

So you succeeded by being irrational and accused others of your flaws.

(almost doesn’t warrant a reply)

But where am I irrational?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has to come down to a personal judgment. My judgment is that the evidence that anomalous events do occur is overwhelming.

And that appears to be an irrational judgement. Why didn't you try to find actual evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

(almost doesn’t warrant a reply)

But where am I irrational?

By not approaching this problem in a rational manner. You have no evidence for your beliefs and yet you said "good enough"..

 

[Aupmanyav]

(2) How many skeptics on this forum have taken the time to research and purchase the proper ghost-hunting gear, look for and research places they think might be haunted, go to a place they think might be haunted and do a thorough investigation there, and then spend hours and hours going over their collected data, such as digital photos, recorded videos, and EVP recordings on digital recorders or EVP recorders? (3) How many skeptics of the paranormal on this forum have spent their time and energy honestly seeking answers at a suspected haunted location, whether the haunting is residual, intelligent, poltergeist, or potentially sinister, rather than posting on this forum that they don't believe in human spirits or nonhuman entities because those who claim to believe in them haven't given enough evidence to satisfy the skeptics?

IMHO, that will be a big waste of time, and time is precious.