“Prove” is the word you used. Nevertheless, is that photo any more compelling than the one I linked to showing evidence of anti-gravity? If so, why?
And, again, why are you assuming that a ghost caused the crash?
I scanned the cite, re-read the description a few times, and it doesn’t make sense. I mean I literally cannot make any sense out of it. I’ll try again later.
So that just leaves the others to qualify as paranormal, right? The rest have been independently verified?
No, the operative phrase I used was “does not prove.” Don’t mess with an English major, pal. 
Your supposed “evidence” is clearly Photoshopped.
I’m not assuming anything. But I’ve seen ghosts crash cars before, or hear them brag about it afterwards. It’s a little disturbing sometimes.
There is nothing about the ‘ghost’ photo that makes me think that there is anything supernatural about it. (I don’t think it’s photoshopped or otherwise faked, though. Just that there’s something on or close to the lens.)
How do *that *one isn’t Photoshopped? More to the point, how do you know that Lekatt’s photo is genuine?
As I said, it is more and more difficult to take you seriously. Do they say how an incorporeal being can affect a physical object like a car?
The intention of my comment was not to suggest that consciousness can only emerge from the human brain. You are clearly fishing with this statement, and I don’t commend you for it.
I would not be so brash as to assume that you are conscious. However, if you would like to hypothesize that the consciousness that I have direct epistemic access to lies outside of my brain, the burden of proof for such an immaterial homonculus (read: paranormal) is on you. Evidence that consciousness resides within and among the brains of subjects who do not appear to be zombies can be found in any neuropsychology textbook and at least 100 years of research in psychology and neuroscience. The “ghost in the machine” argument you seem to be a proponent of was seriously entertained in the 1600s. We’ve learned a bit about the relationship between mind and brain since then. You should consider reading up on it.
Are you suggesting that your barn photo is the real one?? (In any case…link.)
Lekatt’s photo may or may not be genuine. It’s unusual, but it could be just an artifact. I’d have to physically view the negative to be sure.
When you say “they” do you mean…oh yeah, Them. Hehe. Well…no, they don’t. That connection is more of a direct observation.
It’s a little hard to explain, so I’d recommend you watch the series Dead Like Me. It’s not an exact match of my philosophy, but close. Think gravelings.
Fair enough. (Maybe I’ll write up that thesis after all.)
But remember, your original question was not about proving paranormal events exist, but for parapsychologists to convince you that we are scientists. How’m I doin’?
Not well - you accepted and presented lekatt’s photo as proof of spirits prior to verifying whether it’s a genuine spook pic (which it sure doesn’t look like to me; it looks like some out of focus speck of something on or close to the lens). Putting agenda before science makes for bad science.
Umm…
Don’t misquote me again, please.
(And now that you mention it, it does kinda look like a ghost-shaped smudge. My bad.)
It’s not evidence either.
I’m not the one who misquoted you the first time. (And in discussion such as the exchange at the end of post #117, you seemed to accept the picture as proof pretty readily; the only point you corrected was that the deceased may have been improperly ID’d. But whichever.)
Regardless, I think that even the best-intentioned of paraphsychologial researchers are afflicted with the same sort of “looks like a ghost - probably is a ghost” assumption-leap-to affliction you had. This sort of thing afflicts ‘serious’ scientists too on occasion I gather (though not usually about ghosts), and when it does and they get married to some cockamamie preconception, it hampers their contribution to science as well. (I mean, look at Tesla for goodness sake.)
Of course, among regular, credible scientists this is a fairly uncommon and not-overly-damaging-overall thing. Among parasychologists it seems like an occupational prerequisite.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Tell me about it. 
And if you really believe that most scientists never jump to the wrong conclusion, then you haven’t met many scientists. It’s human nature to make mistakes.
Either claim to be an English major and pursue pedantic nitpicks, or make jokes and deliberately misunderstand, but not both, please, if you want to be understood. You claimed to “hear” the ghosts “brag” about crashing cars. Your exact words, in context.
The gravelings and the reapers in Dead Like Me had corporeal existence. They were real physical entities. Is that what you believe ghosts are?
Don’t have any idea what the rubber/glue debate means.
You said about the same thing I did. Science puts all its marbles in the scientific method and doctrine. Scientists actually believe the results are true reality. But the results are not reality, only the product of the doctrine. You see, the science doctrine totally ignores anything it can’t measure, even teaches such things don’t exist. This doctrine can be compared with religious doctrine which says the same thing. So man is not infallible, man made the scientific doctrine, therefore the doctrine is fallible. Billions of people see ghosts, but science says they couldn’t possible exist because they don’t fall under the doctrine. So the billions shirk their shoulders and walk off mumbling about the nuts that said they couldn’t see ghosts. Coming in the future.
Lekatt
Guy. You can duck and weave and pontificate and complain about how the scientific method is unfair and doesn’t reflect reality and all of that. At the end of the day though, you got nothing.
Testy
A teacher once told me that I have not only a highly logical mind, but also a highly creative mind. That’s rare, because most people only have one or the other. The practical effect, unfortunately, is that most people can only follow 50% of what I’m saying. 
You seem to be an extremely literal, black-and-white thinker – good for solving puzzles, but not so skilled at understanding metaphor & humor. Your failure to understand synchronicity (a scientific principle) gives me pause, because it’s something I understand intuitively. Not that it means there’s anything wrong with either of us…we simply have differing mindsets, which (especially in this type of debate) is fertile ground for mis-communication.
So I promise, from now on, to try and be as literal as possible, in order to facilitate communication. You may not always understand my words on the first try, but trust that I am being honest, and sometimes I use flippancy and cite creative works because that is how I deal with the real world. Ok? Now, to answer your questions:
Ok, first of all, when I said “hear them”, I was using those words as an idiomatic phrase. For example, if you say, “I heard from Aunt Bessie yesterday,” it doesn’t necessarily mean you literally heard her voice. You could have received an email, or a text message, or even a birthday card, and refer to that connection as “hearing” from them. I don’t “hear voices” in the traditional sense…when it comes to communicating with ghosts, it’s more of an empathetic connection. Follow me?
As for ghosts “bragging” about what they’ve done…boy, do they ever! They are like small children in that regard. Sometimes, they outright lie. Luckily, I’ve learned enough about the world to know that certain large-scale events (like Katrina, or the Northridge earthquake) cannot be affected by ghosts, period. As for car accidents…well, it only takes a small distraction to trigger an accident. Even a real, living person can do that.
Ah, so you have seen the show. Good. (Funny show, isn’t it? I love Mandy Patinkin’s character.)
Now…keep in mind that Dead Like Me is a fictional show, and any comparison I draw between fiction and my subjective reality is an analogy, and nothing more. In other words, certain aspects of the show are similar, but not identical, to my beliefs. Follow me? Ok…
Ghosts (at least the ones I’ve seen) are basically like gravelings. No, they don’t look like deformed monsters – they look like people. As for how they affect the the real world…you remember how “gravelings” cause people to die by making a very small change in the physical world? It’s basically the same concept. How that works exactly, I’m still working on – my current theory is that real ghosts don’t interact directly with physical objects (since ghosts have no matter, they can’t affect real matter, I think) but they do affect a “rhythm” in the energy field which, in turn, affects the physical object. And not even that is necessary. Sometimes all it takes is a reflection in the rear-view mirror to distract the driver long enough to cause an accident.
And please don’t jump to the conclusion that I believe ghosts are responsible for ALL accidents. 99% of the time, it’s just a random distraction. (I suppose it’s possible that every aspect of our routine lives is directed & guided by unseen forces…but that concept is so gigantic, it doesn’t fit in my head. And I’ve got a pretty big head. )
I do none of what you say. The scientific method doesn’t cover everything possible in this world, and in that it is false. Reality is all of reality not just the part science doctrine covers.
lekatt, you’re not coming across very well here. If you’re serious about defending paranormal events, you should work on your debating skills first.
Regarding NDE’s, you should look into the subjective effects of centrifuge training. Most people who experience blackouts from extreme G-forces report the same type of experience – white light, seeing grandma w/open arms, etc. – as those who’ve had Near Death Experiences. In other words, these effects appear to be a symptom of the brain lacking oxygen, and nothing more. (Occam’s Razor in effect here.)
Reality = Science. Or rather, Science is the method we human beings use to explain reality. The disconnect here is that we human beings don’t understand 100% of science yet…but many people think we do.
Here is the first such picture I’m aware of, of the IBM logo. It was done with a scanning tunneling microscope. Since it actually “saw” the pattern, I don’t think you can dismiss it as the output of a model - any more than a radio map of the sky is a model. And it goes beyond just observation - the ability to move atoms is powerful confirmation of the theory. (Not law, I agree.)
I can only imagine what that same teacher might say having read this thread. While you are certainly creative, I’ve found your particular variety of logic just as difficult to follow as Contrapuntal and others. When most people can’t understand half of what you say, do you suppose- logically- there’s a chance that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense?
How do you happen to characterize synchronicity as a “scientific principle”? I’d call it more of an assertion lacking evidentiary support-- and a particularly inane assertion, at that. It’s really pseudoscience at best.
When you’re seamlessly meandering in and out of “idiomacy” I fear you’ll have to be a little more deliberate in your meaning. For most people, “hearing” something in the idiomatic sense relates exclusively to “normal” channels of communication. Aunt Bessie, being a sentient, living, inhabitant of this plain of existence may employ any typical means of correspondence. Nobody will bat an eye at your declaration that you “heard from” her. However, once you reveal that Aunt Bessie is dead, those means of correspondence are no longer available to her and eyebrows will begin to raise.
When you say you “hear” ghosts conversing with regard to car crashes they’ve caused through an “empathetic connection”, don’t be surprised to find that nobody has any idea what you’re talking about. Just for the sake of clarification, how does it work? Do you experience emotional content which, in your view, is consistent with with the emotional content experience by a ghost shortly after intentionally crashing a car and then assume that emotional content is not actually your own? How do you differentiate between your own feelings and the feelings of any ghosts that happen to be in your vicinity?
Why is that? What if a lot of ghosts got together in a concerted effort to crash a lot of cars at once? Or is it more that ghosts can’t affect natural phenomena like the weather or earthquakes? Could a ghost cause a large-scale disaster like, say, distracting the captain of the Titanic long enough to make the ship hit an iceberg? Has a ghost ever made you do something?
What is this “energy field”? Are we talking about “The Force”? The Tao? Can this field be measured? If ghosts are immaterial and cannot interact with physical objects, how do they project the appropriate photons to the mirror such that they’re reflected and become observable to the driver?
Naturally, you are free to assume that at some point in the future, science will divine a means by which we can detect and manipulate this energy field of yours. Science is all about developing human understanding, after all. But here’s something to consider…
A long time ago, people saw a lot of weird stuff they didn’t understand and postulated some wild explanations which later turned out to be completely inaccurate. The neat about science is that, when the scientists finally get around to it, the real explanation isn’t only more interesting most of the time, it can explain other stuff too! The assertion that “ghosts” use an “energy field” to distract drivers in order to cause an infinitesimally small percentage of car accidents is certainly as intriguing as the idea that “God threw a lightning bolt at me!”. It also has just about as much grounding in reality and rational thought.