Another point of clarification. Even if the alleged evidence is not acceptable to science, which I agree that its' not, that doesn't preclude the possibilty that the evidence is credible. "Acceptable" [meeting the standards for scientific rigor] and "credible" [factual, truthful, representitive of the actual events] are two different concepts. We can determine the former according to agreed upon definitions and standards, but not necessarily the latter.
I thought about you last night when I was channel surfing. As I buzzed by an old Happy Days episode, I noticed that it was the one where James Randi made an appearance, back when he was The Amazing Randi, so I stopped to watch. And get this, the bum had to let the Fonz do his magic trick for him! Geez!!! More like The Amazing Fonzy, I would say.
I don't know anything about Ghost Hunters, but doesn't Randy have an interest (financial and reputational) in Ghost's not existing? If so, he can hardly claim to be scientifically objective. :uhh:
In this context I found another forum that appears to be dedicated to the scientific question about ghosts: LINK REMOVED
However, at first sight I get the impression that the people there are biased towards finding that ghosts exists. :tongue2:
Last edited by a moderator: