as a reply to the original post.

after seeing this and other similar sites, if one were to own a website one would have to ask members only to only sign up if they were 'like minded' individuals - then there would be a harmonious exchange of information and conversation. which would be preferable.

rather than put up with the 'assumed authority' of those who label themselves 'skeptic'.

they might just as well hold up a banner saying 'i am not knowledgeable on the subject'

neither do we like the way skeptics refer to the opposite of themselves as 'believers' - they do not appreciate the difference between understanding/knowledge/truth and belief, and confound them.

nothing good is ever achieved by argument.

Truth's arrive through the experience of the individual :that is the continuing unfoldment of the individual .

alas

Making an argument is different than having one. Personally I believe that a good argument promotes discussion and through that, knowledge.

Yes, it completely ruins the programme for me, too.
...I could just hug you!

Ftr, I am not saying I am one of those skeptics - I do believe there is unexplained stuff out there, and I highly respect the work of paranormal investigators, (which is why I'm here.) But many skeptics do not.

As for proving that something doesn't exist - I think that nonbelievers would say there is nothing to prove - that believers in the paranormal should be the ones proving that something does exist.

I guess I'd be called a skeptic, since everyone has to be labeled.

I don't make a habit of asking people for proof. What I do is offer alternative, logical explanations when they are asked for.

How many people have come to this very board with no clue about sleep paralysis and then because of a link I or someone else have provided, went away understanding what happened to them?

Threads like this invariably end up as a skeptics vs. believers hate bash. I don't know why everyone tries so hard to convince each other when the convictions are obviously so strong.

I state my opinion and move along for the most part. It's pointless to try and flog a dead horse.

In saying that, I've said this several times as well.

i consider that everything has to have balance. but what i hate, is extreme sides of spectrum. in kinesis related things i see many "oh i have been doing pyrokinesis for four years, i 'm thinking of going to electrokinesis now". no, i don't generalize, but this field of work attract many such people, many from teenage population. so i feel skeptics are very much needed there. on the other hand, i get very irritated when skeptics assume all-knowing position, and treat believers like kids, just because of their beliefs. i have seen this not only in paranormal studies, but also in religion related stuff

I dont get it either.

I have to admit, this topic is getting interesting. Long as we can keep it clean and stray away from bashing one another, perhaps it can come to some kind of conclusion somewhere. So far nobody has bashed each other in this thread, surpisingly enough. Those are the kind of threads I can enjoy. It goes to show everyone a thread can be started without bashing someone. So far nobody has really answered my questions. They've given us a perspctive of what both skeptics and believers are but never really answered why skeptics get involved in the paranormal? If they do not believe in such a thing, why are they leaving comments about it? What is considered to be enough evidence for a skeptic to believe something is paranormal? Nobody has shown me proof that it doesn't exist yet.

Did you read what I said at all? How can you say that when I said this: What I do is offer alternative, logical explanations when they are asked for.

How many people have come to this very board with no clue about sleep paralysis and then because of a link I or someone else have provided, went away understanding what happened to them?

I believe I have answered this too! A skeptic can be interested in the paranormal because although skeptic, we still believe such things are possible. Skepticism does not necessarily mean that a person is 100% sure that paranormal things don't exist, (I would call this a nonbeliever,) just that we have our doubts.

And how can you prove that paranormal things don't exist???

I agree with this Spiridon. Here's a definition of skeptic from Wikipedia.

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

I agree with what you say about a non-believer being someone who is 100% sure there is no such thing. I myself am a floater, a technical term that, well that I've just made up. I would like to believe and hope to be convinced of such things - but I feel this won't happen unless I have an experience of my own. I love hearing people's experiences and seeing the evidence, if something looks fake to me, then I'll say so - but I never set to be negative about other people's experiences or evidence. Also number 2 in that list above states "the doctrine that true knowledge is uncertain" - that doesn't mean out and out disbelief.

Anyone else care to come out as a Floater?

Reg

Not all skeptics are respectful of the field. There are alot of skeptics on this board that post comments to get a rise out people. They're obnoxious & forceful of their way of thinking. Then there are others, like Coldethyl, that have the right idea. It's good to try & find other possibilities otherwise you'd be very very gullible.

^ Thank you very much for that.

I hate labels. I think the term floater is a nice one, Reg!

Thanks Coldethyl.

Also, I'd just like to say that when my sister tells me she saw candles being held by some invisble entity walking up a staircase - I believe what she's saying to me, my belief here is in my sister. I know she wouldn't lie to me and that she absolutely believes she saw what she did.

I also believe that some of the photographic evidence and personal accounts here are entirely plausible to be paranormal and some of them push me closer to that knowledge... I just think it would take a personal experience for me to KNOW, but I think that's true of most people.

Phew, there was a lot of beliefs there, did that make sense.

Reg... isn't that what I've been kind of saying all along? That Skeptics should be labeled as something different? There is a lot of similarities to a paranormal investigator who believes as to a skeptic. Both are trying to find logical & scientific explanations first... but if there's something you cannot explain, then it leans towards being Paranormal. Most groups revolve around that method. I also think non believer skeptics should be labeled as something different as well. I don't understand why "Non Believers" get involved at all. I can see those skeptics who are interested but using the method like I mentioned before.

Reg... when I posted my terminology and definitions earlier, I too got them from good old Wiki...

I did that to better understand the terms myself to make myself more clearer when commenting on it.

In the end... I think we ALL lack the knowledge of knowing what's really going on. Isn't that why we are all investigating? So we basically have a common goal there???

This is such a philosophical subject that I don't think any of us will be completely happy with any one answer.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more and there lies the answer to the original question "why do skeptics investigate the paranormal".

I bet it didn't have floater in wiki though, eh?

Hey all,

Like to add my two cents on this.

First of all, why does there have to be "sceptics (Canadian spelling)" and "paranormal investigators"? They are not antonyms to each other. They do not necessarily mean the opposite. I know many believers who use rational and sceptical thinking in their line of hobby. The opposite of skeptic

I think that sceptic has become a dirty word because a lot of believers do not like to be questioned. Even when someone (a sceptic) is trying very hard to understand or make sense of the believer's experience.

People here complain that sceptics question them harshly when they claim to have had perhaps a very bizarre experience. I think the goal of a good sceptic in that case would be to bring forth RATIONAL THINKING. Why is that a bad thing?

Consider this - A homeowner hears banging in their home, things go missing, apparitions are seen, voices are heard - there are all the classic signatures of what we know to be a possible haunting. The homeowner takes a few pics of the house and VOILA!! ORBS!!!! He goes into a frenzy saying he has proof of the ghosts in his home.

That is NOT rational thinking. And I have seen that non rational kind of thinking all over this board and in the seven years I have been dealing with my group.

Someone once put it to me this way: If a home is haunted, and you are taking photos in the home, and a cat walks into the picture, does that mean the cat is a ghost or haunted?

Certainly, those orbs MAY be ghosts, or they MAY NOT. But this is where scepticism comes in boys and girls... PROBABILITY over POSSIBILITY. Sceptics would probably be more than happy to admit that something odd is going on in the home, however, they might draw the line at orbs=ghosts.

That is MY take on a sceptic.

Cheers Hezzbelle!

Absolutely!

for Regency and Hezzbelle. I guess I would be labeled a floater too, but I don't want to think of what Wikipedia or the dictionary defines this as...

((Not so nice images.....toilets.....You get the picture.)

EewW! That is not a lovely mascot.

it's good to have sceptics around. it keeps the mofo hoaxers away.

Back to my point...lol.

Don't fight the feeling... Sincerely, JackalNChainz

EXACTLY!!!

(The emphasis is mine.) That's the best sentence ever.

Some believers only want blind belief and be damned with everything else.

Thanks Ethyl



I can explain this.

On our team, we actually have a member of a sceptic's society. For those of you who don't know this, sceptics do more than debunk paranormal stuff (actually, the GOOD ones do not debunk unless there is debunking to actually be done i.e. provable fakes - more likely they will provide probable factors to explain something). They also look into our health care. They'll have a look at fringe scientific claims like say, chiropractic medicine and hopefully gather information that YOU the consumer, might find valuable.

They also discuss topics such as religion, other medical modalities, herbal medicine.

Without these people, those of us who WISH to be informed, wouldn't BE informed.

I am thankful for this, as it has helped with my rational thinking regarding the paranormal. If we didn't have paranormal or ghost researchers who are sceptic, then because of lack of rational thinking, we would never learn anything.

To illustrate this, I'll use the damn orb controversy. How many times do you hear people say, "I see a face in it!"... To me, this is annoying because a) I don't see the damned face and THIS is what makes paranormal and ghost enthusiasts/researchers/believers look irrational and it doesn't help the study one bit. When people claim to see a face in an orb and will not accept any further PROBABLE explanation, or point their fingers and yell "SKEPTIC!!" when someone sincerely questions this, this is damaging to the people who are sincerely interested in researching this field.

Instead of going back and forth between believers in orbs and non believers- "its a GHOST", "no it ISN'T"... the sceptics have stepped in an actually researched orbs and their probable causes. They have come up with logical and rational reasons as to what these could be, complete with testing and can provide evidence as to their theories.

This is what this field of interest needs. And that's why sceptics come in and question.

Sorry to bring up orbs again, but it best illustrated my point.

What's so wrong with wanting a little bit of hard evidence or at least applying logic and some scientific knowledge to things that aren't all that easy to classify? Honestly, some of you believers go so far to defend some of your beliefs that it defies reason. Especially when your theories have been debunked a thousand times. There are things out there that we don't know, that's why skeptics are here. Truth be told, most of us are former believers that have learned a thing or two and know better to take anything here at face value.

the fact that many of you want to believe in something fantastic so much that you'll throw on some blinders and completely ignore an obvious mundane explanation for certain things never ceases to baffle me. And in your endless fairy hunt, you miss out on so many amazing things that are real and ordinary is just sad. I'm not saying all of you do this, but some of you don't care about reality, you just want to live in your own little Never-Never Lands.

And now we serve fruit punch.

Because most of us want to believe. We are just waiting for the day where solid proof is shown.

I was going to reply to this forum but I couldn't of said it better

I think its good to have beliefs, faith, be a skeptic and believer. I think there can be a common ground for it all... as I said earlier, eventually we all look for the same thing, proof!?

I agree; first I feel that believeing is seeing not seeing is believeing. I have found that the more I believe in what I'm doing in my research the more results I get. Also, I believe that like attracts like, and if you have negative energy going in, guess what you're going to attract!? I for one do not want to be in a situation where the hunter becomes the hunted!! DianneG

I think we have already compiled enough raw evidence in our little forum alone to confirm the existence of recordable paranormal phenomena ...and I that feel complete and total reorganization of how we evaluate the submitted data is desperately needed.....b





halfhandshuffle:Spinal Tap - Big Bottom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZilI_ct1A

Unless the proof is something that I have attained myself or through a source that I personally know to be agreeable with my personal standards, I cannot responsibly accept it as viable evidence. It would be careless for me (or anyone) to accept evidence from possibly capricious investigators because there is no way to verify without doubt the sources or techniques used to attain that evidence were not arbitrary and or impulsive.

^what she said.

I agree. I can take a picture, do an exceptional job of doctoring it, edit the exif data to appear it was taken right off the camera, and come up with a fantastically convincing story to accompany the photograph. I know it's a lie, but many would believe. This alone isn't solid scientific evidence. But at least the majority seem to be honest, but trusting and knowing are very different.

Now if I saw an investigation into paranormal events that came up with evidence that was backed up by the Society for Psychical Research or a like minded group that has proven it's methods, I'd have no problem trusting it's validity. They're not harsh, they just take a scientific approach, and often the results are surprising. I love the little motto on the website, I think I might it as a sig quote. I bet it sounds familiar to many of you:

I have to agree with evil inside regarding the attainment of evidence. And further with Arcana, Gene and Barek, and I think most of you present a good arguement. And most of all, I enjoy a debate without all the drama...it's nice to see level headed discussions of opposing views.

I think that assuming skeptics lend some rational quality to the investigation is assuming that it does not already exist. Any good investigator is "skeptical". But being a skeptic, (by definition) is nothing to brag about. As defined at WordWeb....1. Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs. Habitually doing anything is not good, where the paranormal is concerned. And in this forum, the paranormal is an accepted belief, and the defining topic. A person that just drops into a particular thread, and says something blanket and nonspecific, and altogether disruptive by design, brings the investigation, this forum, and the subject in general, no redeeming or positive componant. And frankly, I am at the point, where I would like to see their proof that the paranormal does NOT exist, as they continually badger the believers in here for theirs.

There is a difference between contributing to the nature of the discussion, and purposefully creating disharmony and casting aspersions. If a doubter comes to the floor and says "I believe that it could realistically be this, or that, and not paranormal at all" I would welcome his contribution. But popping in and saying "all paranormal phenomena can be explained with pschological/mental disorders", I tend to hit the ignore button, or demand their evidence. All with a smiling face. of course. Being skeptical and a true skeptic are different. And I welcome only rational individuals on my investigations. So again, I am back to the opening question...why do they come in here and disrupt everything if they do not believe in it? I think someone already gave me a satisfactory answer. Someone posted that indeed, the skeptics are seeking their own answers to the paranormal as well. But I find it chickensh** that they do not stand up and say so. They seek answers with OUR probes, removing themselves from any social liability or possible ridicule. There are always those that seek to achieve on the coat tails of others.

And in fact, they do contribute one thing. They force unity and solidarity among believers. So, I guess that is something. I harbor no disdain or ill will. I wish them the best. I just pat them on the head and tell them, "Whatever let's you sleep at night, my friend. Whatever let's you sleep at night." I prefer to sleep with one eye open. ~Jackal


"I think that assuming skeptics lend some rational quality to the investigation is assuming that it does not already exist."

I can't agree with with this. I believe in ghosts, but I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to looking at proof as well as life situations. Why is it that believers are so towards skeptics? I know a lot of skeptics (myself included) that do a lot of research into the field of the paranormal. I will tell you straight up, if I get something I can't explain away, this board will be the first place I'll put it to get everyone's opinion, but as of the moment, I haven't gotten any proof that can stand up against my own judgement, so I certainly wouldn't put it up on this board.

I'm not saying all believers, but a good portion will be more inclined to call possible, non conclusive evidence as being evidence for a true haunting. This doesn't help anyone in the field to prove anything. If there isn't logical, skeptical thinking about the evidence, then science will never take the field seriously. If someone came up to a scientist and said "i felt a presence in a house" they will say, "okay where's your proof". A feeling isn't proof. But if a skeptic who has a piece of video they can't explain away, and they show it to a scientists they would be more likely to say "Okay, that's interesting, let's see if we can do it again."

I'm sorry, it just gets a bit frustrating being a skeptic in this field. It seems like we're more novelties that are an annoyance to be complained about then a true help.

(Oh and also, that's only one of many definitions. Here are a few more:

skep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skep-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

–adjective 5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics. )

:0) Just so you know, I'm not trying to pick a fight, just stating my view and debating the topic, so if I sound a little upset, it's not meant to be. I don't like a lot of drama either.

Well said Buddharat. I take no offense. And sincerely offer none. But if you care to look, you do not fit any of those definitions exactly, 100%. Real knowlledge, or factual implies believers know...and that is far from what we profess. In the search for truth and evidence, we analyse and theorise...that is all. As someone who has had many cases in court, I know that law is interpreted one word at a time. So I tend to extend that practice to other interests in my life.


You stated, "If there isn't logical, skeptical thinking about the evidence, then science will never take the field seriously." Once again, (and it has been repeated several times in this thread) skeptics view themselves as the only source of rational logic. You and the others are showing your colors, by insinuating that just because believers believe, is proof enough that they are not rational and are without logic, that you somehow feel obligated to provide (to a field that you do not even believe the subject matter exists ((most confusing!)). Now, I shouldn't imply that none of you contribute positively, and I apologise for saying so...but the fact of the matter is, it is most confusing why you are here. By human nature, one is drawn to that which he is attracted to, or even repulsed by. But NOT to that which he denies exists at all. I am sooooo confused by this. I've always enjoyed your personal posts, and you are not one of those that drops a fleeting blanket statement, which is so irritating. But I still find it fascinating that you do not lend any creedance to the paranormal, yet here you are. Surely you can see why people assume skeptics are just trolling for trouble. ~Jackal

Thank you for your understanding. I'm sorry if I came off that I'm saying that only skeptics will provide the only rational thought. I guess, like most topics, it's very polarizing and when trying to display your own point of view, the extremes are used, and that isn't always correct and I can say that I'm guilty of that myself. I'm here because I had an experience when I was younger. I saw a ghost, two feet from my face. Since then I have been trying to find out why that is; what it was; why people see ghosts. That event pushed my interests into the paranormal (not just ghosts, but also ufos, cryptozoology, alternative histories, etc.) I have gone from a true believer, seeing almost every picture as a ghost and every story as truth. As I grew in age I started to realize that not everything I saw was real. That's when I began researching alternative ideas for paranormal activities. From that study I became skeptical because I saw ways it could be faked or misinterrepted. From then on out, whenever I investigated someplace, I would look for those alternative ideas. That's why I look at evidence skeptically and I continue to question. I really, truly want to find out the truth of what millions of people experience.

My views on true believers come from two places: 1.) Being one at one time and being easily duped; 2.) Investigating with them. I know a few really good investigators that are true believers. They are excellent and some of my best friends, but at the same time, I have been on some investigations with people who believe anything is a ghost. They go into an investigation to prove a haunting (which for my investigations I consider a bad thing, I think people should go in to disprove, so if you get evidence you can't disprove, then it's got to be at least decent...but just my belief).

I came to this board because from looking at forums, this one seems to be a good place where evidence is shown and most people think logically. I only want to contribute, and I contribute by the ways I said above. I hope this makes things a bit clearer. I always liked your posts too, even if I don't always agree. :-) But the world would be boring if everyone agreed with me.....I would hate it.

Peace.

So you are not a skeptic of the phenomena itself. You are just skeptical of everyone elses account of it, with lack of evidence. I can understand that, and thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I also believe that one should try and disprove a haunting in order to rule out any disturbances of a conventional or normal source. THEN, one is forced to consider the paranormal. That is my method. I say that like I still actively pursue in field investigations, but I don't anymore. Just on a rare occassion.

I think where we mainly differ is our approach to human nature. You require evidence. Where I simply take someone at their word, as it really has no significant effect on me via forum thread. Were it a direct involvement however, I may use a bit more scrutiny. I am an x cop, and I can pick apart someones fabrication in no time at all.

Thanks for the get back. I appreciate you enlightening me as to your circumstances, and it is all much clearer to me now. ~Jackal

That's awesome! Never heard of it put that way but I love it!!

Well...most people. There are some pretty convincing people out there. But like I said, it's in this forum that we discuss paranormal phenomena, so it really is inconsequential. If someone needs to believe it that bad, more power to them. If you have noticed, I write my stories as truth, but I do not elaborate on what parts are fictionally enhansing and what is fact. I leave that to the reader. If someone really needs to know, I have had them write me in private and ask...and I am forthright with my answers. I agree that some want to believe so bad that they often convince themselves that they have experienced it. It is no harm to me, or anyone in here. If the story made national news, then the field of study could possibly be damaged if it were debunked or proven fraudulent. But short of that, I let people believe what they wish, and help them if I can by answering questions and being a positive contributor in this forum. I also believe you are a positive contributor, and my initial comments were not aimed at you. Thanks for the feedback. Great thread! I'm outtie! ~Jackal

I really agree with this. There are other forums and message boards about the paranormal, but I have never seen one where ther are so many people first trying to find a rational explanation for "proof" before. I have seen others where someone posts an obviously photoshopped, fake photo, or dust orb floating throug hthe air and everyone oooohs and ahhhhs over the amazing ghost photo they are privvy to, and no one tries to analyze it first. This board, however, has an amazing array of down-to-earth paranormal investigators, photo experts, and normal people which encompass the whole spectrum of believers and skeptics, and I for one think this is really cool. However, even the staunch believers here are quick to point out a water droplet posted as an orb, (I proved this with a post a few days ago.) Posts are generally friendly and opinions accepted warmly. ((Aaahhhh. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.))

Most of the time BELIEVERS don't lend rational quality. Its obvious from alot of the posts on this board. Haven't you been reading them?

You say that and then you're super condescending:



It's just as much trolling as what you're accusing the 'skeptics' of doing, is it not?

So then how about this...

What is wrong in believing?

Don't you believe in something? Whether it is religion, a belief, faith, whatever it is... Most Skeptics attack believers for believing in the paranormal. Generally I do not think its fair for a skeptic to attack someone who believes or had an experience. We do not attack you, at least I do not attack someone for believing in something. I believe in it because I have too many credible expriences, with many eye witnesses. We have had video evidence, and audio evidence. ( we do not HOAX or FAKE anything ) Our evidence is credible because of our techniques and scientific methods we practice during our investigations. For example, one of our techniques & methods in doing EVP work is we TAG everything. When you review, it is hard when there is noise going on. Therefore, we keep an absolute controlled environment around us. We are quiet at all times... keep the same level of voice, and tag anything that might make noise whether its a human noise, or something natural making noise. We do this even in video work. If a car is going by creating a light anomaly, we TAG it. Car going by! If a train is nearby, we TAG it. It makes review easier, and gives more credibility to evidence if you capture something paranormal. Tagging things is good... you won't be able to TAG everything, but it only helps things become more credible.

However, I don't think you will ever be able to satisfy a skeptic. Simply because half of them do not believe. Basically, skeptics will have to have a first hand experience in order to believe it. That narrows it down to a nutshell. besides, most of them won't experience anything because they are autmotically thinking in their minds it doesn't exist because they don't believe. Its called Laws of Attraction. Like what DianneG said in a post. Negative = Negative Positive = Positive. If you go in blind, you won't experience anything. If you go in believing, you might have a slight chance.

I don't think that's an accurate statement.

I'll rephrase it... not so much attack, but they do tend to get on our case sometimes. It all boils down to PROOF... PERIOD!

Well maybe it's just all in perception?

If someone suggested infrasound or something else as an explanation as a haunting in a non hostile way, would you consider that an attack?

I think it just all boils down again to belief and not so much proof. I might believe you when you say you saw what you did, but I might believe it happened for a different reason than a haunting.

Does that make sense?

And I don't think that suggesting alternate explanations for paranormal activity is equal to an attack, but a believer could consider it one since they only are concerned about being believed.

Believing is all good, but if you are truly TRULY interested in finding or discovering more on this or any topic, you HAVE to be sceptical.

How on earth can you create theories based on blind belief?

There is an argument here saying "what is wrong with believing?" Nothing, if that's what makes you happy. Sceptics on the other hand, are probably more interested in finding out facts so they can hopefully form theories and hopefully test that theory. Or they are more interested in observing, recording and forming theories. Or they are doing something with that information to hopefully push this field to the front. Blind believing, in my opinion, does nothing for the field of interest.

Sceptics want to know more, blind believers are more or less happy with their blind beliefs and don't wish to know more. In my opinion, that's pablum. I need meat and potatoes.

It has been PROVEN that dust, moisture, lens flare, etc can cause ORBS. It has not been proven that ghosts cause orbs. This is why I do not believe in orbs being ghosts. I am also one who has seen little lights floating with the naked eye. My jury is still out on that as in my opinion, I wasn't being "haunted" at the time. (personally, I have formed a theory that it could be an eye issue - a normal one - and a capability that everyone has)

For those interested on my own personal take... I'll try to sum it up:

I do believe in ghosts and hauntings... Personal experiences helped form this belief. What causes these events is what I would like to know.

I would like to know the cause of these reports we keep getting. I would like to know why some people seem to be more "haunted" than others (i.e. moving from a haunted house to a new house, having a haunting there as well)

I would like to know what happens to a haunting when a house is razed.

I would like to know if there are more than one type of spirit/ghost/haunting and their causes.

Just a few examples of my reason for being here.

But here is a question: if you are happy being a blind believer, what could you possibly have to discuss on this board? Since you already have all the "facts", there is really nothing more to contribute.

Sorry for sounding a bit testy, but a few times throughout this thread I have this feeling of, "This is OUR board (believers), why do you darn sceptic-type people come and mess it up?".