Are paranormal events frequent with you?

Question

Haunted houses, seeing things, etc. So many claim this, yet a company offering a million for real evidence and none have ever passed. If you see / experience all these things, then what would be so hard proving it or getting it on film?

Answer 1

interesting observation,however i had read an article that says that they have passed the test ,but they are not interested in the money:

this is the title of the article;

James Randi owes me a million dollars

How I discovered my psychic powers at the library

Answer 2

Yes, an excellent question, which I'll let others answer.

I'll just use the opportunity to make a minor point - it's been said by paranormal believers " why are you so obsessed with the million dollars, and the money?".  And the answer is, we're not - you can still take the test, and refuse the money, or, better still, take the test, take the money, and give it to charity.  The whole point of the test is precisely to examine whether *any* paranormal phenomenon has any basis outside of people's imaginations - and clearly, to date, there is no such phenomenon - not telekinesis, not clairvoyancy, not remote viewing, not dowsing, not auras.

.

Answer 3

First, paranormal refers to that which is outside the realm of normal, therefore it may not be easy to capture such events using "normal," or conventional, means.

Second, the million dollar prize you're referring to is being offered by James Randi, a skeptic to the nth degree.  The rules he has posted and what he considers acceptable proof have made it impossible for anyone to ever claim the prize.  From what I have read many have accepted his challenge and offered what any scientist would consider legitimate proof, but he finds a way to disallow the evidence based upon his own rules.

Answer 4

Paranormal events are not like normal events, hence the term, paranormal.  Paranormal events do not occur on a regular basis or on a schedule.  They are difficult to capture on film or on tape because they are transient events.  Have you ever tried to take a photo of lightning?  It's not an easy thing to do, and you have a general idea of where and when lightning might occur.  In addition, you can't just take the picture, because, in order to appease the skeptics (skeptics who have every right to question and examine every claim in fine detail) you need to have witnesses and corraborating evidence.  It's hard to get corroboration and witnesses for irregular and transient events.

Now to the psychics:

In my experience, psychics are not like carpenters who have the skills to build a house.  Psychic abilities are more like a baseball player's ability to hit a home run.  You can't do it every time you bat, even if you're controlling most of the conditions.  In the Home Run Derby at the MLB All Star Game, 4 or 5 HRs ouf of 10 is pretty good.  A psychic who got 4 or 5 right out of 10 would be demonstrating skills above probability, but not certainty.  The million dollar challenge is asking for a standard much closer to statistical certainty.

Psychics don't take that challenge because most of them are not sure that they could pass on a regular basis.  If they fail, they are risking their reputation, and they are giving the skeptics more fuel to ridicule their life's work.  It's not worth the risk for most.  Many people who have applied for that challenge are not professionals and they do not have anything to lose in the process.  It's apparent from their applications.

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not advocating for people who claim they have the ability to get it right every time.  It's just not likely to happen, and people who do claim to get it right every time will get in trouble (like Sylvia Brown).  But, just because Barry Bonds doesn't hit a Home Run every time he bats doesn't mean he doesn't hit Home Runs.  It's just not very easy to do consistently on demand.

Answer 5

I don't know of anyone who investigates hauntings who is looking for a million dollars. Many are into it out of curiosity. Those who come up with the real evidence are in it to help others.

There are many phenomenal photos and recordings out there. It's proving they haven't been faked that's difficult.

For instance the infamous "ghost boy" photo - taken during the investigation of the Amityville House.

When shown to skeptic Joe Nickel on ABC Primetime, he looked dumbfounded. And yet during an interview the very next day swore with absolute certainty that the entire thing was a hoax.

The photo was taken via a timelapse camera. One shows a little boy leaning out of the Lutz's  daughter's bedroom. The photo was discovered some 3 years after the investigation because it was in the middle of 100 or so photos of the empty hall way.

At that time, the daughter was 8. She was only 5 when they lived in the house. When asked who the boy was she told her parents he lived in the house WITH them.

Now, flash forward to the year 2000. Friends of mine are working on the History's Mysteries documentaries about the events in that house. They get a set of autopsy photos of the murdered family.

The image of that boy exactly matches the youngest murdered Defeo. John Matthew Defeo.

But that image isn't of a dead boy. The image is of a demon.

You can see the photo on the History's Mysteries episodes about the case. If you've got Netflix, they carry one of the two that were made.

There are crappy copies of it floating around the net. Most of them compare the image to a portrait of the real life little boy. But in the portrait his hair is short. When he died, he had a "dutch boy" cut, that was popular at that time. The image carries that same dutchboy hair cut.