Paranormal Proof - An Impossibility?

I have been fascinated by the concept of life-after-death, spirits and hauntings for as long as I can remember.

I confess that although I always try to keep an open mind, and search for all possible answers to supposed paranormal phenomena, I do lean towards believing. I think this is because of a number of different reasons: mainly because I have had some unnatural/inexplicable occurrences myself, and also because I believe there is enough documentation/evidence/studies to prove that there is at least SOMETHING that exists beyond our natural understanding and material world.

Sceptics will naturally ask where the proof lies. If you make such a big statement- that the paranormal exists (E.G, ghosts, hauntings etc) – then there should by now be enough evidence to show the world. My answer to this is quite simple – I feel that the clues are out there already, but much depends on ones interpretation and personal bias.

This is where the difficulty lies. I have come across accounts/photos/documentation of paranormal phenomena and when the evidence seems to suggest that it very well could be a result of something other-worldly, people are quick to find ANY other reason to discount the persons claims. Sometimes, it seems people will go to great lengths to come up with an alternative explanation – even if that explanation sounds just as outlandish as the paranormal claim itself.

Can the paranormal really ever been proven? I took a look at one dictionary definition of ‘Proof’ and found this:

“…the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.”

So is there evidence? Can anyone be right in trusting that ghosts or hauntings exist, or be justified in saying it is true? One thing that sticks in my mind is this: There have been hundreds of thousands of accounts of paranormal experiences from people the world over…If people of that amount were claiming witness to anything else, like a psychological issue or witnessing crimes, we would trust it. The sheer amount of people willing to attest to such things occurring would naturally convince us that there was indeed SOME merit to their claims. Yet because it is of a paranormal nature, we try to seek many ways to disprove, undermine or find alternate reasons to why people are seeing and hearing ghosts.

Can anything be used as evidence for the paranormal? Those who seek to study this subject seriously use a number of ways to gather proof. Anomalies caught on camera, direct communications as response from spirit, EVP data which include full answers and speech from disembodied voices, electrical spikes/draining with no apparent cause, serious studies from both psychologists and parapsychologists using state of the art sound, visual and recording equipment, physicists, physical movements caught on devices using ‘trigger’ objects and let’s not forget the value of witness testimony from people the world over. Search through data of any well respected paranormal case or paranormal group, and you will find evidence of this kind in multitudes. In truth, though, some studying this would not find any of it convincing. One cannot tie a ghost down and interview it in a science lab.

I also find that respectable shows and documentaries do further the field of paranormal study. I think any show which seriously aims to shed light on the paranormal should be supported – it is only through such means that the general population may view such experiments and feel enabled to make up their own mind about the nature of hauntings. I cannot convince anyone that spirits/hauntings are real. Neither is it my job to. I don’t have the answers myself. However, I would say that there is too much available evidence to simply allow people to disregard those who have encountered the paranormal as simply “over-imaginative.”

Can the paranormal ever be ultimately proven? I hope so, one day.

the only proof you can ever really get is seeing it with your own eyes. and even then it's not proof to the next guy.

a reply to: AlmostRosey

What we need is physical tangible evidence-something we can study or examine.

I know many people see or even photograph anomalies; and that is enough proof for others who have had a similar experience, but that is not enough for others. A grainy photo or video of a ghost or a UFO does not constitute as hard proof and anecdotal evidence is even less credible-not to the witness but to the researcher. Somebody will swear by their mothers grave that what they saw is true and that may be the case but a verbal account is not proof.

Proving the existence of the paranormal could end up being harder to prove the existence of UFO's. If a Saucer crashed in New Jersey it would leave physical evidence that could not be denied. But since ghosts and spirits are 'ethereal' in nature then it would be hard to find any physical proof of their existence, but perhaps their existence could be detected by indirect means however that would require ruling out the mundane explanations that caused those occurrences.

I wouldn't say it's impossible but I would say it's unlikely.

a reply to: AlmostRosey

Long ago, the concept of man flying like birds was a unbelievable concept. As well as the fact that the world was flat and not round. That optical illusions with mirrors and lights, were actually magic. Things aren't proven as fact until its understood. Maybe the paranormal will never been proven, maybe one day it will. Sometimes people will believe what only want to believe, no matter what proof or evidence you provide for them.

a reply to: AlmostRosey


The very vast majority of cases are not going to be able to provide evidence suitable for large scale convincing and examination for many reasons.

I knew of a case that had good evidence structure. So I began an investigation, about 1990, to gain access to news footage associated with the case. This led to contact to the then recent head of Duke Universities paranormal research department, several police officers who were present for much of the events and news men and crews who were present for several days during the event. Hoping eventually it would not only lead to the footage in archive but the good solid combined witness testimony to include the above and the family members involved as well as the subject herself.

Let me just say its not easy at all digging into a poltergeist case. The reason is the absolute stark raving fear and consternation those close to the case experienced during the event. The trauma incurred by the primaries is worse than combat PTS if you can believe that.

Anyway the former professor from Duke just shut me down and one of the officers involved, primary investigator, was attacked by said forces although it had been 15 years from the time of the event. He broke off all communications with me due to the very high cost of talking with me and no wish whatsoever to tangle with this entity again. He did tell me that at the time the Catholic church had sent out some high level investigators to look into the case.

The victim in the case, a young girl that had conjured a powerful incubus poltergeist by way of ouija board was taken to Duke that at the time had facilities for such observation. The incubus had passed itself off as a dead young boy ect. There was really nothing uncommon in these regards. But the nature and level of activity demonstrated was very unusual. The nature of the relationship between the girl and the geist became "extreme" to those who are familiar with such cases.

No info on what happened at Duke. That info is never going to be released in any for public consumption.

You can start with understanding how the body interacts with energy in meditation and Reiki by measuring what happens and see how effectively the consciousness with a body in a certain energy states interact with the probability field around it. Creating ways to measure when Synchronicity is achieved and information can be sent from one body to another thru telepathy for instance.



We are still in the theory state where we cannot fully prove how it works and the theories will probably have to be tweaked to represent reality on all levels.

a reply to: Nemox42

Long ago, the concept of man flying like birds was a unbelievable concept.

Still is. Unless you see birds using machines to fly.

As well as the fact that the world was flat and not round.

Only the ignorant ever thought that.

That optical illusions with mirrors and lights, were actually magic.

Only the gullible thought that. They also thought seances are real.

Things aren't proven as fact until its understood.

We don't really understand what causes gravity. I guess it doesn't exist.

I suppose if someone never experienced anything paranormal themselves, or known someone who has, it is difficult for them to believe. Out of the thousands of stories from all over the world, they can't all be explained,. They can't all be liars. I myself am a believer.

a reply to: Night Star

Out of the thousands of stories from all over the world, they can't all be explained,. They can't all be liars.

False dichotomy.
You've left out a lot of shades of grey.

a reply to: AlmostRosey

I think by the very word-definition "para-normal" is it provable. At least to being "above the expected norm". The world is filled with things "above and beyond" what is considered "normal".

We can try to prove or disprove things...some never...because they are "above normal".

a reply to: Phage

Deny Ignorance, Bro.

I disagree with most people, and usually get fun comments from other "believers" that I don't really believe, or know, or whatever; but I digress...

Oh yeah - I disagree we can't eventually provide proof or, in reference to your other thread which is remarkably similar to this, provide answers to the questions we face in paranormal subjects.

There are several problems, however, with us getting there. One of the biggest is the lack of consistent, repeatable evidence to apply our current methods of science to. Paranormal experiences, especially the ghostly ones, are almost always anecdotal. Even when captured video there is a lot of room for falsehood, and even if not without being able to test and get similar results we really can't make much headway.

In addition we, as I've said before, are hampered by a lack of consensus among experiencers. I dare you to post something asking "What are ghosts" right now and you'll get a dozen, earnest answers. From spirits to interdimensional visitors, to time slips or demons, few people agree on what we are experiencing. Worst yet some people not only disagree, but are adamant their interpretation is correct because...

...they are special in some way. I'm not pointing fingers, and I'm not judging. I'm stating this as a matter of fact: There are a lot of people who view their experiences as proof they are special, enlightened, chosen, cursed, take your pick. The point is there are people who not only have set their views as to what things are but insist they are right because of their special senses, or abilities, or that they commune with them; anyone who disagrees is simply just not aware like them.

Then there are the ones who say science can't explain everything, and utter its very name like an epitaph when it's brought up. I tend to think they know that it might indeed be a answer questions but the answers aren't what people want to hear, and therefore dismiss all possibility.

So how can you provide proof or answers when no one is even willing to agree on a basis to test? How can you test when we already know the experiences are not easy to replicate?

I'd say if people were willing to really come together, and start hammering out a few starting hypothesis to go from. Testing that wouldn't be conclusive in our current manner, so we'd have to widen our margins of error and start really collecting every datapoint we can until we have a better idea of what our testing result range should be. Put real focus on developing new tools to test the hypothesis. Much as we've gone from just video cameras and audio recorders to various custom EMF readers and full-spectrum cameras we should continue to develop tech to help support testing.

And people that have that special insight should be welcomed without mockery, but in turn accepting of challenging questioning, about their insight, because it may also be something that can be shared and developed. It would have to be people willing to accept that there is even the possibility, as they improve their testing, that it might just not be what we hoped. It could still be something amazing and new to science, but it might turn out it's not what we thought it was, and not let that fear taint their efforts.

That's my take on it, anyways. I absolutely believe with the right effort, positivity and willingness to set aside their personal disagreements to develop testable hypothesis.

I think it's unlikely proof will be produced, except perhaps for the time when technology is more developed and computers have integrated with the brain.

It might be a conspiracy in the hereafter: a power structure of several powerful spirits that would want to keep the living as they are. Instead of cooperating with experiments. An easy way to prove the paranormal would be to have two mediums and one spirit and the spirit would simply state numbers or objects and then the two mediums would repeat that number or object.

If spirits would cooperate this would be easy to prove, even though finding two genuine mediums might be difficult. But I'm guessing those in charge in the afterlife would not want to risk losing power; heaven and hell would be at stake.

There are thing which we can do to move towards repeatability. Not complete but partial. For example we could use physical tests rather than electrical. We can make absolutely sure there are no vibrational interferences caused by natural explainable phonomena like wind,traiNs, vehicles,etc. We can have controls set up.

Any tests we develop would move us in the direction of better understanding our environment and some of the phenomena we already experience and may help in understanding other similar phenomena too. Aliens,yeti,mothman,ufos,all these kinds of things perhaps.

If the brain is like a large receiver or filter it would explain why some people can receive or experience energies which the majority cannot.

Evidence never proves anything until that evidence can be placed within a context that allows it to be interpreted properly. In a court of law, both the prosecution and the defense work to create and establish a reasonable narrative that their circumstantial evidence will support. The circumstantial evidence that does not support their narrative is challenged, and if their narrative ends up being successful, it is rarely because their evidence is overwhelming in support of their narrative. Generally, it's because their narrative makes more sense AND the evidence supports it to a reasonable degree.

There's plenty of evidence of a human afterlife already. A lot more evidence of that than there is of the physical existence of Black Holes, or even the Big Bang, and yet, a narrative that lifts the notion of a human afterlife out of the realm of mysticism and religion hasn't become part of the discussion. There are those who've tried to equate eternal human life with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but let's face it, that's not a narrative (a story with a beginning, middle, resolution) so much as a quick shot at an explanation. The only narratives that exist for the notion of a human afterlife are theologically based, and filled so full of holes that no one (other than those who've handed their reality view over to faith) is going to embrace them even if stuff like the Ark and other biblical residue are ever found to actually exist. The narratives themselves are clearly fanciful, and don't align with what's been scientifically determined to be real and demonstrably tangible.

If a full description of reality were presented that successfully makes the case that eternal human afterlife is a default ramification of how the material brain works, and if the finer aspects and nuances of human existence were properly associated with the evidence that exists right now, I think that the debunkers would really have their hands full with trying to not sound embattled as they continue to dismiss the evidence out-of-hand. Not that the evidence would necessarily become better, but that the overall notion of human afterlife would become more realistic and less of a belief system.