how can we prove the psychic phenominon?

[Bram]

hi everybody,

lately i had some words with skeptics.

do you think that it is possible to prove in a scientific way that spiritual phenominon are real to skeptics, and how do you think its possible?

the "arch skeptic" James ♥♥♥♥♥ claimed to have an OBE but told that it was an hallucination of some kind because he said his cat was in the bedroom on a green bedspread when he had the OBE while his cat was outside and could not have been in the bedroom because he also locked the bedroomdoor and found the bedspread in the laundry the other day(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwKkbd2e-c).

Or could it be that his cat was also having an OBE and was out of its body in the bedroom? only that leaves out the bedspread?? or can this be a parrallel/ copy dimension wich lookes exactly like the physical with only few differences? what can we think of this?

also do you know about the James ♥♥♥♥♥ 1 million dollar paranormal challenge? do you think there is a way to prove the reality of paranormal in a scientific way? or do you think this is almost an impossible challenge(also because they say nobody has ever come through the preminairy test)?

and what do you think is the strongest verifiying evidence that NDE's and OBE's are no hallucinations that we have documented right now? do you have some good links where i can find some real nice stories of undeniable evidence?

Also does anybody know about any results of the aware study lead by dr. Sam Parnia? i still have not find any reply with the results of that investigation?

grts Bram

[Sinera]

R@ndi's prize is a scam operation by the (pseudo-)skeptic's societies. No one there is interested to "let you win". R@ndi and his biased pseudo-skeptic disciples are the ones who decide in the end and they only decide what they want to be the result. The result is to uphold their BELIEF system (materialism) at all costs.

I suggest you read these blog entries on R@ndi's "prize" by M. Prescott which are good ...

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... lenge.html (http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html)

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/ ... ♥♥♥♥♥.html (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_♥♥♥♥♥.html) (oops, doesn't work since R@ndi's written normally is censored here, don't ask me why...)

here's the same link to paste into your address line of your browser, but you must put in an o for an a at the end...

"http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_Rondi.html"

Even better: read THIS great book which any R@ndi's disciple wouldn't even touch with gloves, as it could shatter their belief system:

http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-scep ... 848764944/ (http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/dp/1848764944/)

Here, also renowned parapsychologist Dean Radin has interesting things to say about that 'prize' offered by 'debunkers':

http://deanradin.blogspot.de/2010/07/co ... ptics.html (http://deanradin.blogspot.de/2010/07/compassion-for-skeptics.html)

Btw, Randis semi-religious group is not made up of REAL skeptics, he does not refer to close-minded people who call themselves skeptics but are only superstitious in their own little way.

Another good page I had bookmarked long ago when it comes to de-construct the arguments of the PSEUDO-skeptics, it's a good write-up:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm#How

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php#Vinstonas

Also if you like take a look at some literature by parapsychologists and their (scientific laboratory!) research, such as D. Radin or C. Tart. The evidence on the paranomal is VAST, it's accumulated over many decades now. Remote Viewing, NDEs etc. all lead to validations that prove that there is a larger reality.

Last not least, here's a private page with a collection to "VALIDATIONS" of OBErs. Some are from literature and some are from accounts on message boards such as the Astral Pulse or sites on NDE/OBE such as OBERF. Have a look at it because it is very good:

http://da-lai.lima-city.de/OBE/index.html

Sam Parnia's experiments are bound to fail because no NDEr who experiences him/herself out of body will feel reminded to 'look up some numbers somewhere at the ceiling'. They've got other business to attend to. ;) The whole premise of this research is futile.

Unless, they do it this way maybe ...

http://www.near-death.com/images/graphics/hospital/veridical%20operation%20cartoon/you_are_dead.jpg

:mrgreen:

Best wishes,
V.

ps: last recommendation: ignore close-minded skeptics, it's the best you can do, no, seriously... any discussion with them is futile as they cannot step out of the box of their dogma

[atsguy]

Its probably not worth anyone's time to try and convince skeptics. Other than individuals like robert bruce, you and me, and ppl on this forum being pretty much the for front poster boys for this type of work in today's day and age...Science and the eventual increase of knowledge in our society be the key!

Science will eventually have to progress to spiritual/dimensional levels, at that point and even before; knowledge of the entire brain/mind will be complete and that in itself will unlock the door to psychic phenomena and probably much more.

I am sure other technology's will also play a key part in it.

I have pretty much come to realize that the majority of problems that we all face with astral projection and spiritual matters all have to do with different aspects of our physical bodies. Our ability to concentrate fully, our ability to relax, our health, even our beliefs play a huge part of exerting pressure on our physical bodies. Once these aspects are understood, controlled, and developed to a very high level and integrated into society (schools, daily life...)than psychic phenomena will be the norm.

that's just what i believe though... who knows when that time will come, maybe 50-100-200 years?

It sucks really, i dont kno about you guys but i am frustrated. I know that i would be able to make way more progress with my life and astral projection/spirtuality if this stuff was common knowledge and accepted as a part of life. Instead if you even mention it people, they will look at you like a fool, and that can really burn your progress.

[heliac]

hi everybody,

lately i had some words with skeptics.

do you think that it is possible to prove in a scientific way that spiritual phenominon are real to skeptics, and how do you think its possible?

the "arch skeptic" James ♥♥♥♥♥ claimed to have an OBE but told that it was an hallucination of some kind because he said his cat was in the bedroom on a green bedspread when he had the OBE while his cat was outside and could not have been in the bedroom because he also locked the bedroomdoor and found the bedspread in the laundry the other day(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwKkbd2e-c).

Or could it be that his cat was also having an OBE and was out of its body in the bedroom? only that leaves out the bedspread?? or can this be a parrallel/ copy dimension wich lookes exactly like the physical with only few differences? what can we think of this?

also do you know about the James ♥♥♥♥♥ 1 million dollar paranormal challenge? do you think there is a way to prove the reality of paranormal in a scientific way? or do you think this is almost an impossible challenge(also because they say nobody has ever come through the preminairy test)?

and what do you think is the strongest verifiying evidence that NDE's and OBE's are no hallucinations that we have documented right now? do you have some good links where i can find some real nice stories of undeniable evidence?

Also does anybody know about any results of the aware study lead by dr. Sam Parnia? i still have not find any reply with the results of that investigation?

grts Bram

One of the things i've noticed so far about OBE is that you don't need to believe in it in order for it to occur. There is no need to be frustrated by skeptics or even to be attached to your own beliefs surrounding OBE so much so that skeptics start to rustle your feathers.

I think skeptics and materialists have a very important role in the grander scheme of things and it can be helpful to look at the material aspect of things. If i had to take a guess in 100-200 years from now our greater understanding of the OBE phenomenon and psychic phenomenon in general will come from looking at the material aspects of it more. The next major breakthrough in OBE type phenomenon will probably come from studies involved in the brain and how to control brain functions. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this happen in that belief is removed from the equation. The phenomenon can be experienced regardless of someones belief system and experiences can be repeated and observed by others.

[ButterflyWoman]

R@ndi's written normally is censored here, don't ask me why...
Oh, I can aswer that. :) It's because his obnoxious fanboyz sometimes like to Google the web and find mentions of his name in communities like this one, and then turn up en masse and start flame wars. This hasn't been a problem here lately, but in times past, it most certainly was, and it was extremely disruptive. Hence the censoring of the name. It's not that we care if people talk about him, it's that we don't want to attract that kind of negative attention and those kinds of negative people. It's probably not that much of an issue these days on this board, though it was on the previous system, but it remains a policy for historical and slightly paranoid reasons. ;)

On the original topic, skeptics, I don't give a flying fig about any of them. They can believe or disbelieve whatever they want. It doesn't affect or change my considerable experience. I don't try to convince anyone of anything, because it generally only reinforces their beliefs. They can't change my views. Why would I care about changing theirs?

By the way, look into the work of Dean Radin some time. He's got years and years of verifiable, peer-reviewed studies on various psi phenomena. His position is that the scientific/academic world is simply not open to any suggestion of psi phenomena, no matter how well a study is conducted or whether the results can be replicated, etc. It goes against the biases and beliefs of the majority of those in the field of science, so they won't even look at it or consider it, and dismiss it entirely as bunk and nonsense. (I have to warn you, Dean Radin is an extremely dry speaker and writer, with the flattest, most uninspiring delivery you can imagine, but the information he's got to share is worth pushing past the yawn factor. There are some talks of his online, and you can find is books on Amazon and elsewhere.)


One of the things i've noticed so far about OBE is that you don't need to believe in it in order for it to occur.
The same can be said of hauntings. Hauntings are a common phenomenon, and they happen to all kinds of people, from the most disbelieving to the most avid of ghost lovers, and everyone in between. It's a non-discriminatory paranormal experience. The only difference is in the interpretation of the experience.

[CFTraveler]

Bram, regarding OBEs and scientifically verifiable evidence, I'm sorry to say the word is no.
Now realize I'm only talking about OBEs, not any other type of 'spiritual' phenomena.
The reason I say 'no' is because I can have many validations for some of my experiences, but it doesn't mean they are all repeatable or verifiable scientifically. This is because it's a subjective experience, and there is some evidence (anecdotal, but quotable) that reality fluctuations affect the results of tests done to test realtime projection experiences.
For example, I've had about five or six experiences that were verified, amongst the hundreds (or thousands, I haven't counted) that were to places that were not verifiable (not really) and others that are considered 'not realtime'. When you project you can go to your subconscious, as well as realtime.
No credible scientist would accept results that are not repeatable, and even though that I know for a fact that I sometimes go out and see stuff that is happening somewhere else to someone else, I also know that sometimes I go to places that are created by the collective unconscious- making it not verifiable by current scientific standards.
If you look at ESP and other types of disciplines (you can read Charles Tart's findings in a book called 'The End of Materialism', for example)- you can see where double blind studies showed results better than chance in many experiments.
But, (and this is a real example that you can read in my journal, if you have that kind of patience) if you see that once I projected out of my body, saw that the seeds I had planted months ago had just germinated that night on top of the fridge (high up, out of sight) was amazed at this sight, and flew back to my room, and the next morning I went to check and there they were, exactly what I had seen in my flight- This is verifiable to me, and to me only. But any scientist would say 'you could have guessed or dreamed it', or worse, 'you are lying', and I couldn't really prove to him that this really happened.
So you do it and eventually have a verifiable experience, and know this really happened, or you just don't.

Plus, many 'so called' skeptics are really materialists, and that is not the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sinera]

Oh, I can aswer that. :) It's because his obnoxious fanboyz sometimes like to Google the web and find mentions of his name in communities like this one, and then turn up en masse and start flame wars.
My goodness, isn't this sad, I wonder what's wrong with these people? Is there really so much fun involved for them or is it the need to defend one's worldview to a dramatical intensity and at all costs - even by coming to forums like this one and play the "hornet in the beehive"?

Maybe it's also because they want to play up to their idols they adore? Reminds me of another blog post about the possible background psychology of the people doing this called "Too uncool for school". It's a nice read and gives a new twist to the "pseudoskeptic behavioural pattern":

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2011/06/too-uncool-for-school.html



I think in many cases skepticism appeals to people who are reluctant to think for themselves, and who ground their self-image in the borrowed authority of relatively high-status figures like Gardner, Carl Sagan, and James ♥♥♥♥♥. By simply latching on to the stated opinions of these people and parroting them, the skeptic can cultivate the illusion that he is one of them, or at least is in their orb.

(...) the real motivation behind much of skepticism is to be accepted as one of the "in" crowd. If one cannot be an expert oneself, the next best thing is to be a cheerleader for the experts and gain some measure of credibility, authority, and status via osmosis.

This may account for the peculiar fan-boy quality that many skeptics exhibit toward figures like ♥♥♥♥♥, Sagan, and Gardner. As Greg Taylor notes, a contingent of these skeptics patrols the pages of Wikipedia to edit out any information that might cast their idols in a less than favorable light. They also descend on any pro-paranormal book listed on Amazon.com to inundate it with one-star reviews, repeating the standard skeptical talking points, even when it's obvious they have never looked at the book in question. And they gather at conventions, like ♥♥♥♥♥'s "Amazing's Meetings" apparently for the sole purpose of congratulating each other on how smart they are.

It also accounts, I think, for the blustery condescension and snarkiness that characterize too much skeptical output. Often it seems that the principal objective of the skeptic is to establish that he is cleverer than his adversaries, and his principal tactic is to assume an air of bored, wryly amused detachment, as if to say, "People as smart and knowledgeable as I can scarcely be bothered with all this nonsense." It's a pose, and not an especially convincing one.

To me, the whole thing smells a little too much of high school. You know how in high school, there's the "in" crowd, and then there are the insecure poseurs who aren't cool enough for that crowd but who desperately attempt to score points as hangers-on?
True skepticism requires the opposite approach -- a willingness to think for oneself and to disregard the experts if their expertise is found lacking. (...)

- M. Prescott

I know this is a hard judgement on these people, but something inside me tells me that he is probably right with this.

[CFTraveler]

I just wish they would stop calling them skeptics. It's my one big problem with it. A true skeptic looks at everything, and exhibits no bias. They're not skeptics, they're materialists.

[Eyeswideopen]

It sucks really, i dont kno about you guys but i am frustrated. I know that i would be able to make way more progress with my life and astral projection/spirtuality if this stuff was common knowledge and accepted as a part of life. Instead if you even mention it people, they will look at you like a fool, and that can really burn your progress.

I completely agree, I am trying so many things to heal myself and expand my mind and all the astral comes with it. Instead I have to bottle it up and listen to the everyday stuff that people talk about during get togethers. It's nice to see people but I lack a depth and meaning. Perhaps it's just my selfish hedonistic side but I just want to talk about me :lol: I feel that for the first time in a long time maybe ever that I have something interesting to contribute but I can't as I will appear way off key. Thank god for the Internet.

[ButterflyWoman]

My goodness, isn't this sad, I wonder what's wrong with these people? Is there really so much fun involved for them or is it the need to defend one's worldview to a dramatical intensity and at all costs - even by coming to forums like this one and play the "hornet in the beehive"?
I know. Pathetic, isn't it?

[BDeye]

I have to agree with CFTraveler. In itself there is nothing wrong with skepticism. I think when it's combined with a belief system that is incapable of accepting new information that it then can becomes a problem. Everything has to filter through the belief system and whether the information is right or wrong if it doesn't fit with the established thought pattern it will be rejected. This can work both ways whether it be in the scientific community or the religious.

[Bram]

hey everybody check this out, i found the latest intervieuws of Dr Sam Parnia. in both interviews he says, CONSIOUSNESS SURVIVES DEATH!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9IOwfuoIwM at the end of interview

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CC_2yzqUVs at 34:00 minutes

this is the freshest stuff in medicall science thats out there now i gues :-)

[CFTraveler]

I saw this on TV when it first came out.... and it frightened me.

[Bram]

why? i havent heard the whole interview yet but also he advocates strong evidence for conciousness after death at 54: 50 minutes

[CFTraveler]

Just watch the whole thing. ;)

[Sinera]

I just wish they would stop calling them skeptics. It's my one big problem with it. A true skeptic looks at everything, and exhibits no bias. They're not skeptics, they're materialists.
What I find even more disturbing is the fact that they also hijacked the words "Freethinker" to label themselves with sometimes. They do not think freely at all imv. Also I do not like the term "naturalism" or "naturalist" because it implies they (science..) know what "NATURE" (of consciousness, the universe) is about, which they don't.

Ps, will check out the Sam Parnia interview soon, but I thought that the expermiments were unsuccessful , so why did he come to the other conclusion then? Well, maybe he accepted the fact that the whole setup is flawed from the outset and that you need other empirical approaches to the phenomenen (such as has been done, e.g. see Pim van Lommel's work, or Kenneth Ring's work about blind people who see in NDEs).

[Bram]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-24509/Near-death-patients-afterlife.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10424998.htm

[ButterflyWoman]

This thread has really shown me something interesting. I sincerely have no more attachment to "what other people think". I mean, I still sometimes seek out people's opinions and viewpoints for various reasons, but it seems that any desire I might have once had to show anyone anything, teach them anything, convince them of anything is gone. It's kind of a relief, actually. I used to be quite wound up with "what other people think" and so on. Now... meh. Whatever. I don't care. I sincerely and genuinely and truly do not care. So long as they stay out of my immediate reality experience, I have no interest at all.

Cool. :)

[Bram]

getting back to CFTraveler, i just watched the whole coast to coast show, still don't know what frightened you :-) but no problemo, to me it was a nice show about scientifically talking about death and the stages after death and also 100% pro the existing of afterlife or soul in this case. To me Dr. Parnia stated clearly that the evidence shows there is lets say in the eyes of a medicall scientist, "high likely" chance of existing of an afterlife, but its just the amount of results he had wich were to little so the study is still ongoing. to prove it scientifically some parts of the evidence just needs more numbers. that's what i got out of the interview :-) (he in no way stated that the afterlife could not be real but was more talking in a way like it was more like a reality for him allready) definately from 30:36 minutes

[Eyeswideopen]

This thread has really shown me something interesting. I sincerely have no more attachment to "what other people think". I mean, I still sometimes seek out people's opinions and viewpoints for various reasons, but it seems that any desire I might have once had to show anyone anything, teach them anything, convince them of anything is gone. It's kind of a relief, actually. I used to be quite wound up with "what other people think" and so on. Now... meh. Whatever. I don't care. I sincerely and genuinely and truly do not care. So long as they stay out of my immediate reality experience, I have no interest at all.

Cool. :)

Hi ButterflyWoman, I like the idea of where you are, it's sounds a bit self centred but I guess that's where we are supposed to be detached compassion, offering ideas and such when asked but no need for approval. Happy to just be,and be with just yourself sounds bliss.

[BDeye]

I wish I could feel Like ButterflyWoman, but in truth I don't think I'm quite there yet. There are a few people whose opinion greatly matters to me and value there counters to my current outlook. Sometimes a non aggressive challenge to an idea is healthy and it has helped me reevaluate ideas I may have become too attached to. So long as the brass knuckles are left at the door.;).

[Energize]

I completely agree, I am trying so many things to heal myself and expand my mind and all the astral comes with it. Instead I have to bottle it up and listen to the everyday stuff that people talk about during get togethers. It's nice to see people but I lack a depth and meaning. Perhaps it's just my selfish hedonistic side but I just want to talk about me :lol: I feel that for the first time in a long time maybe ever that I have something interesting to contribute but I can't as I will appear way off key. Thank god for the Internet.

I think that for most people, they are stuck in a very narrow concept of what they are and what reality is. The daily routine, watching the football, going to work, going to the pub. That's it, from horizon to horizon! When you bring up esoteric subjects with people that have narrow views, it's so outside their frame of reference that to them, you sound a little goofy or gullible.

This used to drive me crazy, especially when I was younger and desperately searching for answers. Not only was I scared that they might be right, and this drudgery was really all there was, but I had no avenue to ask questions. So I turned to books. Over time, as my knowledge increased, my urgent need to seek people out and speak with them about esoteric matters diminished.

Last year I was at a house warming party. I was getting quite inebriated. One of the people I spoke to was this guy who said he had studied a course in parapsychology for years, at some university or other. I thought "Yahoo! Finally someone who is interested in something other than football teams!". Turns out that after completing his course, he came to the conclusion that absolutely none of it was true - not any of it. Not souls, hauntings, UFO's, psychic abilities, etc. etc., you name it. Totally convinced anything to do with the mysteries was complete hogwash. We proceeded to drunkenly argue for the rest of the evening, so I guess I finally did get to discuss things with someone at last. Sigh.

At the time, I felt the flickering of those old negative emotions - maybe he's right, and it's all nonsense, and I'm on some gullible fools errand. The positive thing was, that I think it was around that time I decided to seek out experiences that would verify the truth of what I had been reading about for years...that there is more to life. So I guess I have him to thank for my current pursuit of an astral projection experience!

[ButterflyWoman]

I think that for most people, they are stuck in a very narrow concept of what they are and what reality is.
This continues more or less indefinitely, too. There are plenty of people who think they're "very spiritual" but who actually have a limited idea of reality. They think that because their view of reality includes non-standard and/or supernatural extras, they're somehow "more aware", but they're actually just in a slightly different reality box. ;) (Note: I'm not referring to any specific person, and I don't want anyone reading this to think I might mean them, because I don't. This is a general observation, based on many years of hanging around religious, supernatural, metaphysical, and similar communities, online and off.)


This used to drive me crazy, especially when I was younger and desperately searching for answers.
Me, too. But now I know there are no answers, because there are no questions, and nobody else can experience my reality and tell me about it, anyway. (Oooh, there's that bad wannabe Zen mastery babble again. Sorry. Can't seem to help it. It's not intentional. :))


Not only was I scared that they might be right
And THIS is the reason that people sometimes fight so strongly against opposing ideas. Unfortunately, resistance just leads to more of the same, because energy put into any idea, though, belief, etc just powers it up more and causes it to keep happening in your reality.


maybe he's right, and it's all nonsense
In HIS reality, I'm sure it is nonsense. But what happens in other peoples' realities stays in other peoples' realities. You only have to adopt their stuff if you want to.

For what it's worth, though, I went through years and years of this kind of agonising and self-doubt. I called it "tail chasing". I have a figurine in my curio cabinet of a baby dragon with its tail in its mouth (yes, like a cute puppy, but it's a dragon), and I got it during a period of very intense self-doubt and reality-questioning. Sometimes when I look at it now I can't help but smile. That used to be me...

[BDeye]

ButterflyWoman are you familiar with Robert Anton Wilson?.

[ButterflyWoman]

The name rings a bell... *goes off to see what Google has to say*

Ohhh, yes. Scifi author. Haven't read any of his work, though. I have read rather a lot of Philip K. Dick, though (I don't know if the censor is going to let me say that... we'll see ;)). PKD wrote a LOT of "reality bending" stuff. I read his works and thought, "Yeah, I know what he's trying to say." He was definitely a mystic, though I don't know how well he understood that. A lot of people, possibly also himself, attributed his visions and odd views to drug use, but he was an amphetamine addict and as far as I'm aware, speed doesn't turn you into a mystic... ;)

[BDeye]

Yeah I'll carefully avoid the whole drug angle of it, but he had some very interesting ideas about reality tunnels. Although copious amounts of any narcotic may produce novel ideas.:wacky1:.

[Sinera]

Yeah I'll carefully avoid the whole drug angle of it, but he had some very interesting ideas about reality tunnels. Although copious amounts of any narcotic may produce novel ideas.:wacky1:.
many musicians and other kinds of artists are known to have used all different kinds of drugs through history in their creations, some astonishing results came to be in existence

on a sidenote: maybe we should write instead of ♥♥♥♥♥ now: "that bearded Dick" to avoid ceonsoring and yet we know who we're talking about .... :mrgreen:

[BDeye]

many musicians and other kinds of artists are known to have used all different kinds of drugs through history in their creations, some astonishing results came to be in existence[QUOTE Volgerle]

Yeah but I thought that talk of drugs was discouraged so I moved away from it.

[ButterflyWoman]

Drug talk is discouraged, but it's a very fine line. You're allowed to mention drugs, I mean, the taking of drugs is a fact of human existence. But the promotion of drugs, illicit or otherwise, is not allowed for various legal reasons (this is Robert's rule, by the way; the mods would probably feel comfortable with some kinds of drug talk, I mean, most of us grew up in the 60s and 70s, yanno? :))

So it's pretty close to the line now, and I don't want to be all moderator in your face, but let's not go over the line and advocate the taking of drugs for recreational or spiritual or creative purposes, m'kay?

But the fact remains that Philip K. Dick ("dick" is apparently not in the censorship file :)) was an amphetamine addict, and that is NOT a good thing, and I definitely do not recommend the taking of speed, nor of any other drug unless your doctor prescribes it and you feel it's in your best interest to take that prescribed drug. (There. I think that should be okay. If not, CFT will step in and clear her throat and then we're all in trouble. ;)).

[BDeye]

No worries, cool.:D

[CFTraveler]

Yeah, like Kurt Colbain, and Michael Hutchins, and Whitney Houston, etc.
Jimmy Hendrix, Amy Winehouse, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon, Bon Scott...

Just off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

EDITED by ButterflyWoman: Awww, bugger. I meant to reply to this, and I edited it, instead. *sigh* CFT can edit to fix it if she notices, but in a nutshell, she named several musicians whose lives were made worse or even ended prematurely due to substance abuse, and asked for a cessation of the drug talk. I meant to follow up to mention a few more. Ah, well. She can chew me out in the mod forum later. ;)

[heliac]

The same can be said of hauntings. Hauntings are a common phenomenon, and they happen to all kinds of people, from the most disbelieving to the most avid of ghost lovers, and everyone in between. It's a non-discriminatory paranormal experience. The only difference is in the interpretation of the experience.

Yep. In order to prove it under fair conditions with open minded observers there would need to be some kind of repeatable demonstrable quality to the paranormal action. But the thing is, many times paranormal activities happen when no one is looking or under unsuspecting times.

The people who would be able to demonstrate paranormal activities may not be interested in showing it.This is because a lot of what goes into achieving demonstrable paranormal like attributes involves letting go of desiring the kind of reaction people would have if they were able to observe the paranormal action.

[CFTraveler]

Jimmy Hendrix, Amy Winehouse, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon, Bon Scott...

Just off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

EDITED by ButterflyWoman: Awww, bugger. I meant to reply to this, and I edited it, instead. *sigh* CFT can edit to fix it if she notices, but in a nutshell, she named several musicians whose lives were made worse or even ended prematurely due to substance abuse, and asked for a cessation of the drug talk. I meant to follow up to mention a few more. Ah, well. She can chew me out in the mod forum later. ;)
This morning when I saw this I thought someone slipped something in my coffee. Hahahahahahahaha! Perfect ending to this part of the thread.

[CFTraveler]

The people who would be able to demonstrate paranormal activities may not be interested in showing it.This is because a lot of what goes into achieving demonstrable paranormal like attributes involves letting go of desiring the kind of reaction people would have if they were able to observe the paranormal action. This is also another very valid point. Even if I could turn it on and off at will and be able to get perfect results, I wouldn't be publishing any results, and drawing attention to myself.