With the right questions and honest answers, any Psi-Paranormal can be tested - validated - verified.

Does that mean they can explain the dynamics at play? That is the cart before the horse. You first have to have something to actually test. The answer comes AFTER we have the results to evaluate.

I posted in this group the "Astral Projection Test" .. as of yet and again not for a lot of lack of trying, no one has yet to be able to pass the test.

... The test was based on Q & A and observations of what the 'believers' in this tell us, they see themselves asleep on their bed as they stand on the side or the foot of the bed or float above it. Another person said, "I always see the top of my neighbor's garage." But failed to note that his neighbor changed the top of the garage based on his claim. (oops) A very large RED AND YELLOW "Flag" 10 ft by 10 ft.

The Power of Prayer. Doctors found "Prayer" for patients in a hospital did indeed get better "quicker" then those patients with similar medical issues that had no prayers said for them. (This test did NOT talk about which faith was in effect.) Just prayer in general. Prayer in general was tested and found it did indeed help.

It all comes down to how the people "sell" their "psi-paranormal" powers. Subjective or Objective.

Now understand this does not deal with one or two 'paranormal' events one might experience .... but even then, these can be investigated to a point, if the 'event' continues over a period of time.

I know I'm late to the party, but I've been busy....

This is really the crux of it, don't you think? That the paranormal is just as faith based and dogmatic as any other belief system? We make noises about being "scientific," but in most cases the paranormal is anything but scientific - if what they are referring to in being "scientific" is actually following scientific method.

That being said - I think there's a place for belief. But then, there's also a place for science. Perhaps there needs to be some flexibility in each for the other.

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

Many people have asked me these questions and if I believed the paranormal was real. My answer without hesitation is always, Yes!

Why, because people believe and it is truly a belief system not unlike many others based on faith. So just for the simple fact that people truly believe that spirits exist etc, makes it real.

Now, is there a place for science in the paranormal field? I am not convinced there is at this point. Where and how would it apply? Simply using gadgets doesn't make what people are doing, scientific or does it mean they are using scientific means. I am still on the fence about how people can even use the term scientific in a field that has no basis in science.

However, I won't go as far as to say never. I believe there is a missing link between the normal and paranormal. We just haven't made the connection yet.

Not to mention that a lot of the paranormal is still faith based. Also I know a lot of groups that consider orbs to be paranormal and then they show every single picture that has an orb in it as evidence that a location is haunted. This annoys the heck out of me but then evidence has always been a matter of interpretation.

I know I'm late to the party, but I've been busy....

This is really the crux of it, don't you think? That the paranormal is just as faith based and dogmatic as any other belief system? We make noises about being "scientific," but in most cases the paranormal is anything but scientific - if what they are referring to in being "scientific" is actually following scientific method.

That being said - I think there's a place for belief. But then, there's also a place for science. Perhaps there needs to be some flexibility in each for the other.

9 times out of 10 these "stop fraud" site developers turn out to be guilty of that which they so vociferously decry...not to mention any names ....b /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

The lady doth protest too much me thinks...

GB, I also hope Phelps get shut down!!!!!!!!! And when he dies hope he meets the true spirits he's never respected!!!!!!!!!!

I second the motion!

Yes, I was refering to the Phelps case. It will be quite a decision to make and I hope they take a good hard look at it before ruling. I believe they will go against him but you never know. We sure need a ruling in favor of the victim in this case.

GB, I also hope Phelps get shut down!!!!!!!!! And when he dies hope he meets the true spirits he's never respected!!!!!!!!!!

Websites that post the 'stop fraud' thing really don't bother me in the slightest - I think it is a good thing because it hopefully causes them (and others) to really think about what they present and how they present it, but I've also seen stuff from groups that have been around for a long time post things that have very simple explanations for them. So I wouldn't just say it is the "pop-up groups," as so many people like to say...

That being said, I think that there are many people that may not be consciously trying to 'rip off' others with what they present as evidence, but then again I think it is a rip off when people either choose to remain ignorant about certain explanations or flat out refuse to be open to any criticism simply because they "believe" they are not lying. Ignorance is not an excuse, is it?

It is becoming clear that the people who report spontaneous PK cases (Poltergeists) are likely encountering effects produced by living people. These spontaneous PK agents have been shown reliabily to suffer from mental and often physical illnesses. This is a resonably reliable finding. Under these conditions, how qualified is the average ghost hunting team in dealing with this phenomena? Is it appropriate to debunk or emply other techniques based on questionable facts when dealing wihth such individuals. The fact of the matter is that they need pyschological counseling by clinically trained professionals. They do not need to have their fragile mental states assaulted with the beliefs of others who likely have no real understanding even of metaphysics, much less psychology. This is potentially a real problem with frightening consequences. Consider a well-meaning ghost hunter who talks about 'negative energies' in a place, or a budding demonlogist who decides someoner is 'possessed' (because that's what they specialize in), and further presume this affected individual is suicidal. It is not a far reach to presume that thd affected individual might be pushed over the edge by such an encounter. In this hypothetical case, how responsible is the well-meaning ghost hunter or the budding demonologist? It is these sorts of risks, coupled with the reality that there is too much public posturing with relatively little real knowledge, which should be of great concern to anyone objectively observing the world of paranormal experiences.

So perhaps there is something to these critical sites after all.

GB, are you referring to the Supreme Court hearing the case involving Fred Phelps and his "church" that protests at military funerals? I hope he gets shut down because I am so tired of hearing his free speech /angry.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

On the point about fraud and rip offs, I agree that although free speech is protected there is also consequences for committing libel or slander. Defamation of character may be difficult to prove but nonetheless it is one course of action a victim could take. I don't believe that "nice guys finish last" but they do need to make themselves heard so the jerks can't just do whatever they **** well please! Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now /dry.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

Yes, I was refering to the Phelps case. It will be quite a decision to make and I hope they take a good hard look at it before ruling. I believe they will go against him but you never know. We sure need a ruling in favor of the victim in this case.

Many hide behind the term freedom of speech without knowing what it means and it may come to bite them in the butt one day. We may see shortly by this being challenged in the Surpreme Court now.

The free communication of ideas and opinions of every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but they are also responsible for such abuses of this freedom as defined by law. Many legal systems, and society at large, for that matter, recognize there are and should be limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with people's other values or rights. The jerks aren't the only ones that have rights although they seem to be the only ones squawking about them.

So, even though the jerks have rights, they don't have the right to do harm to others and are not blindly protected by the free speech rule. The problem is that the good people just let things go and let the jerks get away with it. Well, until now. Can't wait to see what happens with this in the surpreme court.

GB, are you referring to the Supreme Court hearing the case involving Fred Phelps and his "church" that protests at military funerals? I hope he gets shut down because I am so tired of hearing his free speech /angry.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

On the point about fraud and rip offs, I agree that although free speech is protected there is also consequences for committing libel or slander. Defamation of character may be difficult to prove but nonetheless it is one course of action a victim could take. I don't believe that "nice guys finish last" but they do need to make themselves heard so the jerks can't just do whatever they **** well please! Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now /dry.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

Many hide behind the term freedom of speech without knowing what it means and it may come to bite them in the butt one day. We may see shortly by this being challenged in the Surpreme Court now.

The free communication of ideas and opinions of every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but they are also responsible for such abuses of this freedom as defined by law. Many legal systems, and society at large, for that matter, recognize there are and should be limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with people's other values or rights. The jerks aren't the only ones that have rights although they seem to be the only ones squawking about them.

So, even though the jerks have rights, they don't have the right to do harm to others and are not blindly protected by the free speech rule. The problem is that the good people just let things go and let the jerks get away with it. Well, until now. Can't wait to see what happens with this in the surpreme court.

Personally, I am a big believer in freedom of speech, even if I don't like what is said. To quote Voltaire, I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to defend it.

Our founding fathers made freedom of speech the very first right that they specifically protected in the Bill of Rights and I absolutely agree that it's the most important right we have as a free people. How can a free people be censored?

Putting limits on freedom of speech is a VERY slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's offensive? Whose values determine what can or cannot be said? I'd rather be offended every once in a while that have the thought and speech police in charge of what we say. I think we've already gone too far in that direction as it is.

Just my opinion.

Unfortunately people are always going to be people and some people are jerks. I don't know what can be done about people who ridicule other people's work or findings. Freedom of speech applies to jerks,too.

Many hide behind the term freedom of speech without knowing what it means and it may come to bite them in the butt one day. We may see shortly by this being challenged in the Surpreme Court now.

The free communication of ideas and opinions of every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but they are also responsible for such abuses of this freedom as defined by law. Many legal systems, and society at large, for that matter, recognize there are and should be limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with people's other values or rights. The jerks aren't the only ones that have rights although they seem to be the only ones squawking about them.

So, even though the jerks have rights, they don't have the right to do harm to others and are not blindly protected by the free speech rule. The problem is that the good people just let things go and let the jerks get away with it. Well, until now. Can't wait to see what happens with this in the surpreme court.

Personally, I think it's a rip off when people present fake evidence. I think that actually does fall under the category of fraud. Any videos or pictures that have been faked or photo shopped, etc. should clearly be labeled as such. It would be great if this could be regulated, but I'm not sure how it could be enforced other than posting a list of people who have been caught presenting such "evidence" so that anything they present will be taken with a grain of salt.