Why do skeptics investigate the Paranormal?

[LadyHay]

Thanks Ethyl

Then why do skeptics comment on this? I don't get it!? LOL...

Why do they participate at all if they do not believe in it? Show me proof it doesn't exist... Just as much as proof is asked of Paranormal Investigators, where is the proof of yours that there is nothing out there?

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.

[snuffypuffer]

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.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

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.

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

[Veliska]

I'm with you on accepting nothing more than stories or unclear images, but a chance encounter with something paranormal is not an everyday event for most & thus could not be recreated.

Do you accept that comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter, as that can't be recreated either, or was that a con................you see my point?

You respect the honesty, integrity & reliability of some sources of information above others, which ultimately comes back to faith & belief. Even the most well defined ghostly image captured, or the clearest of EVP recordings could easily be photoshopped or created by someone who wants to con others, which is why I stated the only acceptable proof will be your own experience.

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

[Pluto-x]

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!?

[DianneG]

I have a good question...

Why do skeptics investigate the Paranormal? If you don't believe in the paranormal, what rewards do you reap out of the field? Are you out to prove there is nothing out there? Me personally, I do not understand why skeptics get involved in the paranormal. It kind of defeats the purpose. I am not out there to fool myself, or any of my clients either. I investigate the paranormal because I'd like to know what there is to look forward to after you pass away. Our energy must go somewhere, and I'd like to know where our spirit goes. I refuse to believe that when we pass away there is just emptiness or nothing. I think even skeptics have to admit there is something out there.

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

[Barek Halfhand]

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

Edited September 26, 2007 by Barek Halfhand

[evil inside]

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.

[spiridion]

^what she said.

[Episteme]

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.

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 shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - C.G.Jung

[JackalnChainz]

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."

[Buddharat]

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.

[JackalnChainz]

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

Edited September 27, 2007 by JackalnChainz

[Buddharat]

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.

[JackalnChainz]

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

[Buddharat]

I am an x cop, and I can pick apart someones fabrication in no time at all.

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

[JackalnChainz]

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

[spiridion]

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.

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.))

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

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

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?

Edited September 27, 2007 by Eric Raven The Skeptic

[coldethyl]

, I enjoy a debate without all the drama...it's nice to see level headed discussions of opposing views.

You say that and then you're super condescending:

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."

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

[Pluto-x]

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.

[coldethyl]

Most Skeptics attack believers for believing in the paranormal.

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

[Pluto-x]

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!

[coldethyl]

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.

[LadyHay]

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?".