Steven, I am aware of your PhD in psychology as you’ve mentioned that before. I on the other hand do not hold a PhD and therefore am not your colleague. You may find the links to a ‘peer reviewed parapsychology journal’ implanted on my website, as a courtesy I provide an easy enough link in my signature graphic below. I do recall in a recent post (by you?) reading about the importance of published findings in peer reviewed journals (hence my annoyance at your reference to said journal as a ‘magazine’, …clearly the attempted indication to alter the facts is most unbecoming a professional scientist), I imagine that your impressions of such a distinction have not changed in the past six weeks.
The analysis of evidence regarding ‘ghost’ photography recognizes a single individual for providing compelling ‘evidence’ of paranormal activity, to be more specific spirit photography. Needless to say such a distinction would have required providing substantially overwhelming evidence as well as disclosing the methods and procedures for acquiring said evidence. The author of the article, a psychologist with a PhD in parapsychology is more typically your scientific colleague which is why I suggest any serious inquiries concerning his published findings be addressed to him.
If I may continue; in another examination by one of your colleagues, a PhD and professor of psychology as well as the Director of the VERITAS Research Program: University of Arizona publicly stated said material was in his opinion ‘credible spirit interpretations’. VERITAS as you may/may not know also performs research on alleged psychic mediums and their claims of abilities. If as you state the basics of good research is to share data and methods with ones colleagues then contacting VERITAS should not be a problem for you.
The insinuation that I am afraid of a thorough and competent examination is hardly the case as I have obviously undergone several that have ‘gone my way’.
Jim, I believe science, paranormal research and potentially all professional fields are thoroughly competitive. This is the primary reason I continue to be evasive concerning my methods and techniques, particularly since my results have been confirmed and credibly identified as a system that (works). Why on earth would I disclose something that I consider to be a trade secret?
I’ll share this: I posses a 20+ year background in IBM mainframe programming, more specifically 370/BAL assembler language (and others) which among other responsibilities included training others and maintaining the integrity of data for literally billions of dollars worth of actuarial data (NYC). In my spare time (if any) I also build personal computers from scratch based upon my needs at the time. I appreciate your concern regarding knowledge of ones equipment and completely agree with your assessment of its importance.
Obviously, I make claims of unique paranormal interactivity, and thus far these claims have been substantiated as most reasonable by members of the scientific community who also possess not only the academic credentials but an in-depth working knowledge pertaining to the study of such phenomena.
I would imagine that you would find this interesting as well, note in paragraph one the current research and establishing of the ‘Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit’ at Adelaide University. http://www.parapsych...rs/l_storm.html
Clearly, I understand the concerns many people have regarding this subject, and I believe I have provided ample information and frankly more than I intended regarding myself. I don’t feel it necessary to continue to establish my credibility and achievements in paranormal research or in the contribution of evidence recognized by esteemed members of the scientific community.
Which leads me to this: If anyone wants to continue to bust my balls, please be so kind as to submit any similar achievements regarding paranormal evidence and more specifically any credibly recognized research regarding ‘spooks’.
...then we’ll talk.
In the meantime my participation in this discussion regarding alternative theories of ‘spooks’ is based primarily on an intimate knowledge of the above stated ‘evidence’ as well as my obvious attempt to share with members my opinions based on evidentiary assessment. The fact that certain members are now discussing potentials of quantum physics is a clear indicator the skeptic’s board is not simply a place to be continuously challenged when the term ‘evidence’ is mentioned, but also a forum to discuss potentially cutting edge research on spirit phenomena.
Am I wrong?