The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial

[Dajjal]

The Amazing Randi has a million dollar or more prize still out there for anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities. No one has claimed it. The Amazing Randi is an accomplished magician and mentalist. Scammers know that they cannot get anything past him.

True occultists and spiritualists are fully aware that it is never intended for us to have absolute proof of psychic powers, or the existence of God. We must evolve spiritually by free choice.

We are incarnate for experience sake, and we learn by trial and error over countless incarnations. Proof of the afterlife would take away the point of incarnating as we would no longer be free to act. We would be bound by fear of the consequences of self serving acts. Actions have a reaction, and according to spiritual philosophy we are accountable for everything we do, and this works itself out over many lifetimes. This is the way we evolve and it is a perfect, divine plan.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Amazing Randi has a million dollar or more prize still out there for anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities. No one has claimed it. The Amazing Randi is an accomplished magician and mentalist. Scammers know that they cannot get anything past him.

And yet police forces have utilized psychics with favorable results among honest assessments of mostly failures and/or wrong information which is more commonly the result of such efforts. And while I believe that the human mind is capable of receiving information through means undetectable and unverifiable by modern science, I also know that most psychic demonstrations are slight of hand so to speak. Still others are 'proved' after the fact and sometimes straining at gnats to fit a conclusion into a prediction.

So since I believe psychic abilities exist and that most demonstrations of them are phony, I have to believe such abilities are a form of spiritual gift and cannot be summoned on demand. But is it possible that a race of beings exists somewhere who communicate entirely through telepathy? I keep an open mind.

 

[PredFan]

The Amazing Randi has a million dollar or more prize still out there for anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities. No one has claimed it. The Amazing Randi is an accomplished magician and mentalist. Scammers know that they cannot get anything past him.

True occultists and spiritualists are fully aware that it is never intended for us to have absolute proof of psychic powers, or the existence of God. We must evolve spiritually by free choice.

My, how convenient.

We are incarnate for experience sake, and we learn by trial and error over countless incarnations. Proof of the afterlife would take away the point of incarnating as we would no longer be free to act. We would be bound by fear of the consequences of self serving acts. Actions have a reaction, and according to spiritual philosophy we are accountable for everything we do, and this works itself out over many lifetimes. This is the way we evolve and it is a perfect, divine plan.

Mmmm-kay.

 

[PredFan]

The Amazing Randi has a million dollar or more prize still out there for anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities. No one has claimed it. The Amazing Randi is an accomplished magician and mentalist. Scammers know that they cannot get anything past him.

And yet police forces have utilized psychics with favorable results among honest assessments of mostly failures and/or wrong information which is more commonly the result of such efforts.

Actually, if you sift through the non-sense, you can find, at least in the rare cases where the psychic had success in solving crimes, you will find solid "police work" from the "psychic". In many other examples, the cases are selected personally by the psychic. In every major case where there's been intensive investigation by the police, no psychic has been able to solve the crime and most are way off base.

And while I believe that the human mind is capable of receiving information through means undetectable and unverifiable by modern science, I also know that most psychic demonstrations are slight of hand so to speak. Still others are 'proved' after the fact and sometimes straining at gnats to fit a conclusion into a prediction.

I'd like to see those "proved" after the fact cases.

So since I believe psychic abilities exist and that most demonstrations of them are phony, I have to believe such abilities are a form of spiritual gift and cannot be summoned on demand. But is it possible that a race of beings exists somewhere who communicate entirely through telepathy? I keep an open mind.

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.

It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Amazing Randi has a million dollar or more prize still out there for anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities. No one has claimed it. The Amazing Randi is an accomplished magician and mentalist. Scammers know that they cannot get anything past him.

And yet police forces have utilized psychics with favorable results among honest assessments of mostly failures and/or wrong information which is more commonly the result of such efforts.

Actually, if you sift through the non-sense, you can find, at least in the rare cases where the psychic had success in solving crimes, you will find solid "police work" from the "psychic". In many other examples, the cases are selected personally by the psychic. In every major case where there's been intensive investigation by the police, no psychic has been able to solve the crime and most are way off base.

And while I believe that the human mind is capable of receiving information through means undetectable and unverifiable by modern science, I also know that most psychic demonstrations are slight of hand so to speak. Still others are 'proved' after the fact and sometimes straining at gnats to fit a conclusion into a prediction.

I'd like to see those "proved" after the fact cases.

So since I believe psychic abilities exist and that most demonstrations of them are phony, I have to believe such abilities are a form of spiritual gift and cannot be summoned on demand. But is it possible that a race of beings exists somewhere who communicate entirely through telepathy? I keep an open mind.

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.
It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

I thought that was what I have been expressing in some detail? (I must be getting old.)

 

[PredFan]

And yet police forces have utilized psychics with favorable results among honest assessments of mostly failures and/or wrong information which is more commonly the result of such efforts.

Actually, if you sift through the non-sense, you can find, at least in the rare cases where the psychic had success in solving crimes, you will find solid "police work" from the "psychic". In many other examples, the cases are selected personally by the psychic. In every major case where there's been intensive investigation by the police, no psychic has been able to solve the crime and most are way off base.



I'd like to see those "proved" after the fact cases.

So since I believe psychic abilities exist and that most demonstrations of them are phony, I have to believe such abilities are a form of spiritual gift and cannot be summoned on demand. But is it possible that a race of beings exists somewhere who communicate entirely through telepathy? I keep an open mind.

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.
It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

I thought that was what I have been expressing in some detail? (I must be getting old.)

You have, but if that was the gist of your posts then it is I who must be getting old.

 

[Dajjal]

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.

It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.

It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

So in the interest of the curious, how do you know this?

 

[Dajjal]

Among other things I attended many trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London, during the 1970s. Trance lectures are when a medium purportedly goes into a trance, and a spirit speaks with their mouths. I heard many lectures by a medium called Ursular Roberts and I was fairly convinced she was genuine at the time. Although she has now died, some of her talks are posted on the Internet.
I also attended white eagle lodge, where I heard the medium Grace Cook give trance lectures.

I heard a lot of lectures, and although I have forgotten much of what I heard it gave me an overall picture of the afterlife, and a spiritual theology.

http://www.whiteagle.org/we_home.htm

http://website.lineone.net/~enlightenment/ursula_roberts.htm

 

[Foxfyre]

Among other things I attended many trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London, during the 1970s. Trance lectures are when a medium purportedly goes into a trance, and a spirit speaks with their mouths. I heard many lectures by a medium called Ursular Roberts and I was fairly convinced she was genuine at the time. Although she has now died, some of her talks are posted on the Internet.
I also attended white eagle lodge, where I heard the medium Grace Cook give trance lectures.

I heard a lot of lectures, and although I have forgotten much of what I heard it gave me an overall picture of the afterlife, and a spiritual theology.

So your experience is witnessing something that FELT honest and real to you? I'm sure you would apprecciate those of us who know such things can be faked but made to look and feel quite real to the receptive. At the same time, I have experienced phenomena that there is no way that I can relate without sounding a bit wooo wooo, so I'm not about to tell you that what you experienced was not real. I wasn't there. You were. As Predfan said, I don't have to believe it to be open to the possibility that what you experienced was the real deal.

I was once part of something called a "Lay Witness MIssion" some years ago in which a volunteer team goes into a troubled church with the intent of helping the people regain their faith in revitalizing it. And part of the program is various team members providing their Christian witness. Few of us had any idea what we were going to say when we were called on, but somehow everybody found the words.

But I distinctly remember two occasions when we were in prayer as the team leader was deciding who to call on. And each time, there was a real sense of a kind of electrical energy--not at all unpleasant but quite discernable--that passed thorugh me. . . .just before the team leader called my name. Can you prove something like that? Nope. No way. But I know as certainly as I am typing this, that it happened.

 

[Dajjal]

Here is a link with the actual teachings on it.

Wisdom of Ramadahn

 

[Dajjal]

So your experience is witnessing something that FELT honest and real to you? I'm sure you would apprecciate those of us who know such things can be faked but made to look and feel quite real to the receptive. At the same time, I have experienced phenomena that there is no way that I can relate without sounding a bit wooo wooo, so I'm not about to tell you that what you experienced was not real. I wasn't there. You were. As Predfan said, I don't have to believe it to be open to the possibility that what you experienced was the real deal.

I was once part of something called a "Lay Witness MIssion" some years ago in which a volunteer team goes into a troubled church with the intent of helping the people regain their faith in revitalizing it. And part of the program is various team members providing their Christian witness. Few of us had any idea what we were going to say when we were called on, but somehow everybody found the words.

But I distinctly remember two occasions when we were in prayer as the team leader was deciding who to call on. And each time, there was a real sense of a kind of electrical energy--not at all unpleasant but quite discernable--that passed thorugh me. . . .just before the team leader called my name. Can you prove something like that? Nope. No way. But I know as certainly as I am typing this, that it happened.

I have had a lot of experience of psychic and spiritual matters, and I used to be sure of what I believed, but I have not been to a spiritualist church for years now, and I must admit I have doubts about it in my old age. Never the less I feel moved to keep writing about it.

Here is a link to a Guru I studied under, and I can tell you he had some kind of power.

Gururaj Ananda Yogi

 

[PredFan]

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.

It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

None of which has ever been proven.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not telepathy as we know it. Probably communication through some form of sound waves like bats or cetacians, but telepathy? Thoughts by humans or even any creature with a brain are elecrical impulses that travel accross neurons. They don't float through the air and jump to other people's neurons. It's just impossible.

It's good to have an open mind, I do, but I also am a skeptic. You can be both.

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

None of which has ever been proven.

And yet there are those of us who have experienced that which strongly suggests a form of telepathy.

Does something have to be provable now in order to be plausible? If you really do some soul searching, there is so much that you believe that you cannot prove. You trust scientists to tell you what exists 'out there' and how things work 'out there', when scientists have been doing that for millenia even as so-called 'settled science' has been reordered and rewritten again and again as the consensus views are proven to be in error. And with all that, we still all believe in science.

So why not that which science cannot yet found a way to address? Why is it so important to some to believe in science and to disbelieve in the paranormal and/or supernatural?

 

[Montrovant]

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

None of which has ever been proven.

And yet there are those of us who have experienced that which strongly suggests a form of telepathy.

Does something have to be provable now in order to be plausible? If you really do some soul searching, there is so much that you believe that you cannot prove. You trust scientists to tell you what exists 'out there' and how things work 'out there', when scientists have been doing that for millenia even as so-called 'settled science' has been reordered and rewritten again and again as the consensus views are proven to be in error. And with all that, we still all believe in science.

So why not that which science cannot yet found a way to address? Why is it so important to some to believe in science and to disbelieve in the paranormal and/or supernatural?

Because generally the paranormal and/or supernatural is based on things that either go against what we know against reality, or is based on things which are impossible to test/prove. Take telepathy. There have been no discoveries of parts of the human body that transmit or receive telepathic signals that I know of. No one has even shown what those signals are made of.

Science is at least supposed to be based on observable evidence. It should be repeatable. It's easier to swallow someone telling you to believe in a scientific study which some other scientists reviewed and possibly even repeated on their own, than it is to just take someone's word that what they experienced was a ghost/telepathy/magic/god/whatever. Especially when there are so many supposed supernatural events of many different sorts.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of which has ever been proven.

And yet there are those of us who have experienced that which strongly suggests a form of telepathy.

Does something have to be provable now in order to be plausible? If you really do some soul searching, there is so much that you believe that you cannot prove. You trust scientists to tell you what exists 'out there' and how things work 'out there', when scientists have been doing that for millenia even as so-called 'settled science' has been reordered and rewritten again and again as the consensus views are proven to be in error. And with all that, we still all believe in science.

So why not that which science cannot yet found a way to address? Why is it so important to some to believe in science and to disbelieve in the paranormal and/or supernatural?

Because generally the paranormal and/or supernatural is based on things that either go against what we know against reality, or is based on things which are impossible to test/prove. Take telepathy. There have been no discoveries of parts of the human body that transmit or receive telepathic signals that I know of. No one has even shown what those signals are made of.

Science is at least supposed to be based on observable evidence. It should be repeatable. It's easier to swallow someone telling you to believe in a scientific study which some other scientists reviewed and possibly even repeated on their own, than it is to just take someone's word that what they experienced was a ghost/telepathy/magic/god/whatever. Especially when there are so many supposed supernatural events of many different sorts.

Yes, it is easier--perhaps because it is more socially acceptable?--to accept a peer reviewed scientific study printed in a magazine than to accept a 'wierd' experience related by an 'unscientific' person. And yet how many 'scientific studies' have been falsified just so somebody would have something to publish in those journals? Peer review is not consensus or agreement. It is generally simply an agreement that the reported method utilized in the study is a valid scientific method.

And yet I know people whom I deem credible--including myself--who have served as scientific research assistants who admitted that the research being done and the published scientific study was at best flawed. At worst, entirely bogus. In the 'publish or perish' world of religion/academia/science, the tempation to get creative is immense.

Who would have thought a thousand years ago that the speed of sound or light would be scientifically measurable? That great vessels would be able to travel beneath the waves and ice caps or fly through the air or journey to the moon? And certainly those who first conceived of such a thing or a thousand other scientific principles that we now take for granted must have been the wierdos and looney tunes people of their time. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for supporting the heliocentric model of the solar system as first proposed by Copernicus. Kepler was excommunicated when he put forth a scientific concept that the moon was a solid body. Nobody knew how to prove that scientifically at the time of course.

So the fact that there is no known way to scientifically test or prove the existence of telepathy or the supernatural or the paranormal or extraterrestrial beings is not a good reason to dismiss as bogus all the reported experience with such phenomena.

 

[Montrovant]

And yet there are those of us who have experienced that which strongly suggests a form of telepathy.

Does something have to be provable now in order to be plausible? If you really do some soul searching, there is so much that you believe that you cannot prove. You trust scientists to tell you what exists 'out there' and how things work 'out there', when scientists have been doing that for millenia even as so-called 'settled science' has been reordered and rewritten again and again as the consensus views are proven to be in error. And with all that, we still all believe in science.

So why not that which science cannot yet found a way to address? Why is it so important to some to believe in science and to disbelieve in the paranormal and/or supernatural?

Because generally the paranormal and/or supernatural is based on things that either go against what we know against reality, or is based on things which are impossible to test/prove. Take telepathy. There have been no discoveries of parts of the human body that transmit or receive telepathic signals that I know of. No one has even shown what those signals are made of.

Science is at least supposed to be based on observable evidence. It should be repeatable. It's easier to swallow someone telling you to believe in a scientific study which some other scientists reviewed and possibly even repeated on their own, than it is to just take someone's word that what they experienced was a ghost/telepathy/magic/god/whatever. Especially when there are so many supposed supernatural events of many different sorts.

Yes, it is easier--perhaps because it is more socially acceptable?--to accept a peer reviewed scientific study printed in a magazine than to accept a 'wierd' experience related by an 'unscientific' person. And yet how many 'scientific studies' have been falsified just so somebody would have something to publish in those journals? Peer review is not consensus or agreement. It is generally simply an agreement that the reported method utilized in the study is a valid scientific method.

And yet I know people whom I deem credible--including myself--who have served as scientific research assistants who admitted that the research being done and the published scientific study was at best flawed. At worst, entirely bogus. In the 'publish or perish' world of religion/academia/science, the tempation to get creative is immense.

Who would have thought a thousand years ago that the speed of sound or light would be scientifically measurable? That great vessels would be able to travel beneath the waves and ice caps or fly through the air or journey to the moon? And certainly those who first conceived of such a thing or a thousand other scientific principles that we now take for granted must have been the wierdos and looney tunes people of their time. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for supporting the heliocentric model of the solar system as first proposed by Copernicus. Kepler was excommunicated when he put forth a scientific concept that the moon was a solid body. Nobody knew how to prove that scientifically at the time of course.

So the fact that there is no known way to scientifically test or prove the existence of telepathy or the supernatural or the paranormal or extraterrestrial beings is not a good reason to dismiss as bogus all the reported experience with such phenomena.

Perhaps not, but it IS a good reason to dismiss anyone who claims to be able to prove such things, at least until they actually do so. The methods of science just have more credibility as a general rule. Especially when you consider the inconsistent nature of memory and how relying on someone's interpretation of an inexplicable event may color their description.

Of course there is nothing preventing scientists from using or creating bad data, of lying about results, etc. The important difference isn't the people involved but the method of discovery. 'I conducted experiments to support my conclusions' is more reasonable than 'I saw a light I couldn't explain, it must have been a ghost'. It's just the nature of the events.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because generally the paranormal and/or supernatural is based on things that either go against what we know against reality, or is based on things which are impossible to test/prove. Take telepathy. There have been no discoveries of parts of the human body that transmit or receive telepathic signals that I know of. No one has even shown what those signals are made of.

Science is at least supposed to be based on observable evidence. It should be repeatable. It's easier to swallow someone telling you to believe in a scientific study which some other scientists reviewed and possibly even repeated on their own, than it is to just take someone's word that what they experienced was a ghost/telepathy/magic/god/whatever. Especially when there are so many supposed supernatural events of many different sorts.

Yes, it is easier--perhaps because it is more socially acceptable?--to accept a peer reviewed scientific study printed in a magazine than to accept a 'wierd' experience related by an 'unscientific' person. And yet how many 'scientific studies' have been falsified just so somebody would have something to publish in those journals? Peer review is not consensus or agreement. It is generally simply an agreement that the reported method utilized in the study is a valid scientific method.

And yet I know people whom I deem credible--including myself--who have served as scientific research assistants who admitted that the research being done and the published scientific study was at best flawed. At worst, entirely bogus. In the 'publish or perish' world of religion/academia/science, the tempation to get creative is immense.

Who would have thought a thousand years ago that the speed of sound or light would be scientifically measurable? That great vessels would be able to travel beneath the waves and ice caps or fly through the air or journey to the moon? And certainly those who first conceived of such a thing or a thousand other scientific principles that we now take for granted must have been the wierdos and looney tunes people of their time. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for supporting the heliocentric model of the solar system as first proposed by Copernicus. Kepler was excommunicated when he put forth a scientific concept that the moon was a solid body. Nobody knew how to prove that scientifically at the time of course.

So the fact that there is no known way to scientifically test or prove the existence of telepathy or the supernatural or the paranormal or extraterrestrial beings is not a good reason to dismiss as bogus all the reported experience with such phenomena.

Perhaps not, but it IS a good reason to dismiss anyone who claims to be able to prove such things, at least until they actually do so. The methods of science just have more credibility as a general rule. Especially when you consider the inconsistent nature of memory and how relying on someone's interpretation of an inexplicable event may color their description.

Of course there is nothing preventing scientists from using or creating bad data, of lying about results, etc. The important difference isn't the people involved but the method of discovery. 'I conducted experiments to support my conclusions' is more reasonable than 'I saw a light I couldn't explain, it must have been a ghost'. It's just the nature of the events.

Not more reasonable. Just more socially acceptable. It is no more unreasonable for me to report that I saw my shadow earlier than for me to report that I conducted a scientific experiment with the following result. Both events are just as valid. And, depending upon my credentials, the shadow story might be the more believable. And yet there is absolutely no way in heaven or earth that I can prove what I saw.

So when somebody tells me that they saw what, for want of a better explantion, a 'ghost', then yes, I think there is room for an open mind about what was actually seen. But to dismiss it as 'impossible' just because there is yet no consistent scientific proof for the existence of ghosts, is in my opinion to be close minded, narrow minded, and devoid of openness to possibilities.

 

[PredFan]

The theory is that the seat of conciousness is in the immortal spirit and it filters down into the brain through the chakras. Conciousness survives the death of the brain and in fact, is greatly enhanced by being free of a brain.

One of the faculties of a discarnate spirits mind is they can communicate by telepathy.

None of which has ever been proven.

And yet there are those of us who have experienced that which strongly suggests a form of telepathy.

That isn't even remotely like proof.

Does something have to be provable now in order to be plausible?

If the claim defies what we know to be true about reality? Absolutely.

If you really do some soul searching, there is so much that you believe that you cannot prove.

I can't think of anything actually. Except for God, but i know I can't prove he exists and wouldn't even try.

You trust scientists to tell you what exists 'out there' and how things work 'out there', when scientists have been doing that for millenia even as so-called 'settled science' has been reordered and rewritten again and again as the consensus views are proven to be in error. And with all that, we still all believe in science.

Actually, I don't trust them without reading up on it. In fact I think that they are bull shitting us on Global Warming. The reason I can say that is that I've looked at it and investigated it and found the truth. I did that with the paranormal and found that the scientists are correct.

So why not that which science cannot yet found a way to address? Why is it so important to some to believe in science and to disbelieve in the paranormal and/or supernatural?

It isn't that science cannot find a way to address it, it's that science shows that it doesn't exist.

If somehow psychic abilities were proven to be true, THEN it would be something that science cannot yet find a way to address.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really, Predfan? To pull one example from your post, you have conducted your own experiments, dug out your own ice cores, tested the temperatures, content, acidity, and all other variables of the air, soil, and oceans, and done the exhaustive statistical analysis using all the available data around the world to form a scientific conclusion re global warming? I'm really impressed.

Or have you read what the AGW advocates have written and read the rationale of those who question their conclusions, and picked a side based on who you deemed the most believable? Or, in the case of some, the one you WANTED to believe?

Do you believe those stars twinkling in the night sky are distant suns similar to our own? Why? Nobody has ever been able to test or evaluate what they are even using our most powerful telescopes. Our conclusions about them are based on scientific REASON only without a single shred of proof being available to us.

Nor is there any test in the universe that can positively confirm that I saw my shadow when I went outside earlier. You believe that I did because you have seen shadows. And I am guessing that if you ever saw or dealt with a phenomenon that you had absolutely no explanation for other than it was a ghost, you would believe that there is a strong possibility that ghosts exists. And you wouldn't be able to prove it to a soul.