• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Have you ever seen a ghost?

Martimus said:
There's also no empirical evidence that ghosts don't exist...

The challenge I have with some of the so-called skeptics is that they prove nothing but challenge everything.
Click to expand...

Skeptics are not in business to prove anything. You can't prove a negative to begin with because such proof falls apart if any of your postulates are wrong. A skeptic merely asks to see what the proof is for a claim. When it comes to ghosts, there is literally 0 empirical evidence one way or the other. Therefore a skeptic keeps an open mind and waits for evidence before he/she accepts or rejects the hypothesis that ghosts exist.

You can't deny the fact that if you tell someone a house is haunted and take them in there, they suddenly experience "phenomena". This would indicate to me that ghosts exist merely in the mind of the observer or at the very least, the empirical, reproducible evidence would point us in that direction. There is no evidence to indicate that ghosts exist.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Skeptics are not in business to prove anything. You can't prove a negative to begin with because such proof falls apart if any of your postulates are wrong. A skeptic merely asks to see what the proof is for a claim. When it comes to ghosts, there is literally 0 empirical evidence one way or the other. Therefore a skeptic keeps an open mind and waits for evidence before he/she accepts or rejects the hypothesis that ghosts exist.

You can't deny the fact that if you tell someone a house is haunted and take them in there, they suddenly experience "phenomena". This would indicate to me that ghosts exist merely in the mind of the observer or at the very least, the empirical, reproducible evidence would point us in that direction. There is no evidence to indicate that ghosts exist.
Click to expand...

Sadly many "skeptics" are actually cynics who simply don't realize exactly how cynical they truly are.

For many cynics, they follow the belief that this phenomena should be repeatable in a lab environment.

Challenge Info

Riddle me this... what in nature is repeatable in a lab environment? Can we command a tornado to form simply by asking it? Can we cause a sun to go supernova simply by making the request? Can we make a wild animal talk to us and tell us what it's like living in the wild? No... we as humans have limited control over our environment. More often than not we simply go along for the ride.

So how could we expect that a dyed-in-the-wool cynic like James Randi can expect Paranormal researchers to produce a ghost who will appear, disappear, and show us beyond a shadow of a doubt that ghosts exist? If ghosts did, in fact, exist I suspect the last thing they'd want to do is to entertain that closed minded old fool...

Nature is what it is... and considering that we, as a species, continue to find new species on this planet that we never knew existed, the likelihood of finding what we classify as paranormal seems slightly more plausable.
 
Martimus said:
Sadly many "skeptics" are actually cynics who simply don't realize exactly how cynical they truly are.

For many cynics, they follow the belief that this phenomena should be repeatable in a lab environment.

Challenge Info

Riddle me this... what in nature is repeatable in a lab environment? Can we command a tornado to form simply by asking it? Can we cause a sun to go supernova simply by making the request? Can we make a wild animal talk to us and tell us what it's like living in the wild? No... we as humans have limited control over our environment. More often than not we simply go along for the ride.

So how could we expect that a dyed-in-the-wool cynic like James Randi can expect Paranormal researchers to produce a ghost who will appear, disappear, and show us beyond a shadow of a doubt that ghosts exist? If ghosts did, in fact, exist I suspect the last thing they'd want to do is to entertain that closed minded old fool...

Nature is what it is... and considering that we, as a species, continue to find new species on this planet that we never knew existed, the likelihood of finding what we classify as paranormal seems slightly more plausable.
Click to expand...

No, not in a laboratory - in controlled, predictable conditions. I can predict that if certain atmospheric conditions exist, a tornado will appear. I can predict that with 100% certainty. You may not believe in tornadoes at all. However, if I give you the instrumentation and the training, you can go our and observe atmospheric conditions and when the conditions comply with certain parameters, a tornado will appear whether you believe or not. It's verifiable. It's repeatable. You don't have to believe or disbelieve to repeat the results. If XYZ atmospheric conditions exist (which are very clearly and empirically defined) a tornado will appear. Every natural phenomena we can explain follows the exact same principle. We know what causes it. We can predict that when those conditions exist, the phenomena will appear.

You can't do that with ghosts. In fact, studies have indicated that whether ghosts appear or not is 100% dependent on the person performing the test. If the person performing the test is told a place is haunted and/or believes in ghosts, then they'll experience "ghostly phenomena". If a skeptic goes to the exact same place, they experience nothing at all. That doesn't indicate anything to you?
 
This is a funny thread to me, as I'm actually the co-founder of a paranormal team as well as a co-owner of a paranormal radio network. I've been on the show Ghost Adventures (Travel Channel) as a consultant for evidence and the other founder has been on My Ghost Story (Bio Channel) and Ghost Hunters (SyFy Channel). We've also been featured on Travel Channel dot com. Most of the time people think their place is haunted it's their imagination and/or pipes, etc. But, it is my belief that there is definitely paranormal activity out there, as we've caught a great deal of evidence. The key to us is not to classify our own experiences as the evidence, but to actually have things recorded and let them speak for themselves. Am I saying that the phenomena we've experienced and captured are actually ghosts? I can't say that with any degree of certainty. But, it's unexplainable for now and therefore in my opinion paranormal.
 
Martimus said:
There's also no empirical evidence that ghosts don't exist...

The challenge I have with some of the so-called skeptics is that they prove nothing but challenge everything.
Click to expand...

There is no way to get empirical evidence that something does not exist. The burden of proof rests on proving something exists, not proving something does not exist.

I have a friend who runs a paranormal research group. I've had a few opportunities to go along with them on investigations. While I don't necessarily believe in ghosts I do believe that things happen on these investigations that simply cannot be explained.
Click to expand...

There are many things in the universe that cannot be explained. A few more unexplained things that are observed is nothing unusual.

Personally my theory is more akin to m-theory (theoretical physics). Per m-theory there are 11 dimensions. We live in three dimensions (actually three spatial dimensions and one time-based dimension). The other dimensions most likely flow around us but are unseen. Some theoretical physicists believe that these other dimensions could be very large but could also be very-very small. In my humble opinion these other dimensions may actually contain their own universe. It's believed that the dimensions move fluidly like currents in the ocean. Sometimes two dimensions will come into contact. When these dimensions bump I'm thinking this is what preceeds paranormal events. For all we know ghosts might be inhabitants of one of these other dimensions... which might explain why we only catch momentary glimpses of them.
Click to expand...

It's quite a stretch to go from M-theory to the possibility ghosts exist in another dimension. Whether or not something exists in these other dimensions or if these other dimensions even exist at all is still unproven. My understanding of M-theory is that so far, there is no possible experiment that can be performed using existing technology to verify any aspect of M-theory. You're going to have to give me more than observed unexplained phenomenon and a theory that cannot be proven by experiment to convince me that ghosts can possibly exist outside of stories and fairy tales.
 
A.Nonymous said:
No, not in a laboratory - in controlled, predictable conditions. I can predict that if certain atmospheric conditions exist, a tornado will appear. I can predict that with 100% certainty. You may not believe in tornadoes at all. However, if I give you the instrumentation and the training, you can go our and observe atmospheric conditions and when the conditions comply with certain parameters, a tornado will appear whether you believe or not. It's verifiable. It's repeatable. You don't have to believe or disbelieve to repeat the results. If XYZ atmospheric conditions exist (which are very clearly and empirically defined) a tornado will appear. Every natural phenomena we can explain follows the exact same principle. We know what causes it. We can predict that when those conditions exist, the phenomena will appear.
Click to expand...

With 100% certainty?

I bet the Nobel committee must be pounding down your door with a ten million krona prize in tow! :rolleyes:

For discussions sake, lets just say that you are correct regarding mankinds ability to accurately predict major events like tornado's. Assuming for a minute that this is true I'm guessing that someone at NOAA got fired yesterday for not providing a timely prediction of the tornados that tore through Alabama and killed more than 300 people. While it would have been impossible to evacuate thousands of people in advance of that F5 tornado, police and the national guard could have quite easily moved them to shelters.

Monster Alabama Tornado Spawned by Rare "Perfect Storm"

Even if we overlook the tornado in Alabama as a fluke, what went wrong with the USGS early warning system not predicting the earthquake in Japan? Thousands of poor souls were taken by the earthquake and the tsunami. Had they been warned more than a couple of minutes in advance they could have fled their coastal villages and attempted to move to higher ground. But because of that lack of warning they found themselves in the path of untold billions of gallons of salt water and debris.

Japan Earthquake Not the "Big One?"

Fact is that our success rate with predicting these sorts of natural events is rather low. Why? Because nature doesn't react in quite the same manner as it does in the controlled environment of a lab. You do, I hope, see the difference...

The defining difference between this and the so called paranormal is that we have scientists, engineers, and researchers spending billions of dollars of federal funds every year to research these forces of nature. How much money does the government spend to research claims of the paranormal? *sound of crickets*

We'll never know whether or not they exist till governments start funding real scientific research on the phenomena. Right now the only researchers in the paranormal field are what might be described as regular people with digital voice recorders, FLIR cameras, camcorders, and jury-rigged am/fm radios spending their nights wandering through dark rooms looking for things that go bump in the night. Don't believe me... turn on the SCIFI channel, the Travel channel or, believe it or not, the Animal channel to watch these folks try to find what science largely ignores...
 
Stuntman said:
It's quite a stretch to go from M-theory to the possibility ghosts exist in another dimension. Whether or not something exists in these other dimensions or if these other dimensions even exist at all is still unproven. My understanding of M-theory is that so far, there is no possible experiment that can be performed using existing technology to verify any aspect of M-theory. You're going to have to give me more than observed unexplained phenomenon and a theory that cannot be proven by experiment to convince me that ghosts can possibly exist outside of stories and fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Not hardly! It's not a stretch at all. that's why they call it "Theoretical" physics. M-Theory is simply that... a theory. There is no proof that M-Theory is correct, nor is there proof that multiple dimensions exist. Theoretical physics is based on guesswork and mathematics. So extrapolating ghosts from M-Theory is no different than any other aspect of M-Theory. Until the theory is proven anything is possible... and everything is suspect. Oh and who said what we see are ghosts in that other dimension? Maybe what we see are people living in a parallel dimension or universe? Maybe what we see are ripples in the fabric of time?

Another analogy that I like is the theory of Black Holes... I'd love for anyone to show me empirical evidence of the existance of black holes. There's not an astro physicist alive who can do this. All they can provide are theories based on shadows observed in distant galaxies and data collected from radio telescopes. No human has ever witnessed a black hole. Astronomers believe the closest is about 1600 light years away but can only guess at it's presence due to high levels of X-Ray radiation in it's vicinity. Considering that a lightyear is roughly 6 trillion miles, there's an awful lot of space between the NRAO radio telescopes and that X-ray discharge...

Dramatic Outburst Reveals Nearest Black Hole
 
Martimus said:
With 100% certainty?

I bet the Nobel committee must be pounding down your door with a ten million krona prize in tow! :rolleyes:

For discussions sake, lets just say that you are correct regarding mankinds ability to accurately predict major events like tornado's. Assuming for a minute that this is true I'm guessing that someone at NOAA got fired yesterday for not providing a timely prediction of the tornados that tore through Alabama and killed more than 300 people. While it would have been impossible to evacuate thousands of people in advance of that F5 tornado, police and the national guard could have quite easily moved them to shelters.

Monster Alabama Tornado Spawned by Rare "Perfect Storm"

Even if we overlook the tornado in Alabama as a fluke, what went wrong with the USGS early warning system not predicting the earthquake in Japan? Thousands of poor souls were taken by the earthquake and the tsunami. Had they been warned more than a couple of minutes in advance they could have fled their coastal villages and attempted to move to higher ground. But because of that lack of warning they found themselves in the path of untold billions of gallons of salt water and debris.

Japan Earthquake Not the "Big One?"

Fact is that our success rate with predicting these sorts of natural events is rather low. Why? Because nature doesn't react in quite the same manner as it does in the controlled environment of a lab. You do, I hope, see the difference...

The defining difference between this and the so called paranormal is that we have scientists, engineers, and researchers spending billions of dollars of federal funds every year to research these forces of nature. How much money does the government spend to research claims of the paranormal? *sound of crickets*

We'll never know whether or not they exist till governments start funding real scientific research on the phenomena. Right now the only researchers in the paranormal field are what might be described as regular people with digital voice recorders, FLIR cameras, camcorders, and jury-rigged am/fm radios spending their nights wandering through dark rooms looking for things that go bump in the night. Don't believe me... turn on the SCIFI channel, the Travel channel or, believe it or not, the Animal channel to watch these folks try to find what science largely ignores...
Click to expand...

I live in KS. We have tornado sirens. I think maybe once in my life I've seen a tornado come through and there be no sirens preceeding it. Doesn't mean those tornadoes don't do damage. Doesn't mean those tornadoes didn't do any damage. Those who don't live in tornado alley don't realize just how quickly atmospheric conditions can change. I've seen clear, sunny skies one minute and literally 15-20 mins later the sirens are going off, it's pouring down rain, there are massive straight line winds and we'll later here reports of tornadoes forming and sometimes actually touching down in the area. I've not read any reports that indicate no sirens went off when the tornadoes came in this situation. If the sirens went off, then that's proof that the tornadoes were predicted. Predicted days and weeks in advance? No. Not there yet. But we do have advance warning. Earthquakes are different thing. We could possibly predict them, but at the moment we don't have the equipment to measure the necessary variables in order to do so.

Our success rate in predicting natural disasters is not "rather low". It is on earthquakes where we have virtually a 0 prediction rate. When it comes to things like tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.... We have a very high success rate. Sometimes the warning we get is a very small time period, but it's still there.

You do realize why no money is spent researching the paranormal right? It's because there is no indication that any of it is legit. The army tried remote viewing experiments. Turned out to be bunk. The feds and other agencies have spent money in the past researching ESP, mind control, etc.... They have found no empirical evidence lending credence to any of these things. Private research centers have also spent money over the years researching the same things and found absolutely nothing. As of this date there is no empirical evidence lending credibility to any paranormal phenomena. In fact, there is evidence indicating the opposite.
 
Martimus said:
The challenge I have with some of the so-called skeptics is that they prove nothing but challenge everything.
Click to expand...

You're now touching upon the scientific principle of a falsifiable hypothesis. A hypothesis is only scientific if it is falsifiable. It goes something like this:

Hypothesis: Ghosts exist.
Falsifiable? no. because no matter how many scenarios you find of a ghost not existing, you can't disprove the hypothesis that ghosts exist.

Hypothesis: Ghosts don't exist.
Falsifiable? yes, because all you need to do is find one scenario where a ghost exists, and the hypothesis is busted.

And just because a hypothesis is falsifiable doesn't imply that it is false.

So basically, the skeptics are saying two things:

1) they have not yet found one scenario to disprove their scientific hypothesis that ghosts don't exist. Therefore, the hypothesis is still solid;

2) 'ghosts exist' is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore cannot be refuted with logic or observation. So it cannot be examined from the realm of science. That's where faith, belief, and speculation come into play.
 
i believe in the spirit / soul...

i dont believe in ghosts... that got stuck or choose to hang around to finish business or what ever.

because if it was true ..
then any soul/ spirit can do as they please...
then a bad soul can be scary and powerful...a murder would hang around and kill freely and nothing alive can stop it.

but that does not happen!
 
dan330 said:
i believe in the spirit / soul...

i dont believe in ghosts... that got stuck or choose to hang around to finish business or what ever.

because if it was true ..
then any soul/ spirit can do as they please...
then a bad soul can be scary and powerful...a murder would hang around and kill freely and nothing alive can stop it.

but that does not happen!
Click to expand...

doesn't that assume that a bad soul has the power to interact with the living? Or are you saying bad souls will torment the good souls?
 
well from the stories about ghost... they move things.. change things...

so they mush have powers to affect the living... like throwing a knife at you!!!!!! i can think of many ways to kill if i can move things...

so to answer your question.. to hurt and harm the living.
 
dan330 said:
well from the stories about ghost... they move things.. change things...

so they mush have powers to affect the living... like throwing a knife at you!!!!!! i can think of many ways to kill if i can move things...

so to answer your question.. to hurt and harm the living.
Click to expand...

If they can interact with us, then we can interact with them. At least that's my rule. So next time you see a ghost coming at you with a knife (is the knife a ghost too?), pull out your gun and shoot that ghost dead!

But might be safe to eat the power pellet first, just in case.
 
that assumes you can "kill" a ghost.. they are dead.. right?

and that you are a wake when it comes at you..



this all are reasons.. why I dont believe in ghosts...
 
A.Nonymous said:
Our success rate in predicting natural disasters is not "rather low". It is on earthquakes where we have virtually a 0 prediction rate. When it comes to things like tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.... We have a very high success rate. Sometimes the warning we get is a very small time period, but it's still there.
Click to expand...

Sorry but in my opinion a 2 minute warning only has tangible value in football, and even thats questionable sometimes. Honestly that's not prediction... that's "Oh snap... a funnel cloud is forming!".

A.Nonymous said:
You do realize why no money is spent researching the paranormal right? It's because there is no indication that any of it is legit. The army tried remote viewing experiments. Turned out to be bunk. The feds and other agencies have spent money in the past researching ESP, mind control, etc.... They have found no empirical evidence lending credence to any of these things. Private research centers have also spent money over the years researching the same things and found absolutely nothing. As of this date there is no empirical evidence lending credibility to any paranormal phenomena.
Click to expand...

Yes and nearly a thousand years ago pretty much everyone on planet earth believed that the world was flat. At the time there was no empirical evidence to prove that it was round... yet the Vikings are known to have sent ships west to Greenland/Iceland and even North America (nearly 500 years before Christopher Columbus).

Erik the Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leif Ericson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does this mean? Only that people don't know as much as they think they know... and we especially don't know a lot about the world around us. Thanks to those that push the envelope of common thinking, we regularly learn new things about ourselves and the world around us.

A.Nonymous said:
In fact, there is evidence indicating the opposite.
Click to expand...

And, of course, you can provide documentation to support this somewhat questionable statement... :rolleyes:
 
Martimus said:
Sorry but in my opinion a 2 minute warning only has tangible value in football, and even thats questionable sometimes. Honestly that's not prediction... that's "Oh snap... a funnel cloud is forming!".
Click to expand...

Again, you don't live in tornado alley. Typically, you get tornado watches hours before a storm. This is possible because meteorologists have determined that atmospheric conditions are present that have a high probability of creating tornadoes. Then you get Tornado warnings when a tornado has actually been sighted. They know ahead of time that there is a very, very good probability of a tornado. No, they can't predict exactly what said conditions are going to do, but they can predict that if said conditions exist, there is a very high probability of a tornado. I'm sorry, but science is not stick a wet finger in the air and make a guess.

Yes and nearly a thousand years ago pretty much everyone on planet earth believed that the world was flat. At the time there was no empirical evidence to prove that it was round... yet the Vikings are known to have sent ships west to Greenland/Iceland and even North America (nearly 500 years before Christopher Columbus).

Erik the Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leif Ericson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does this mean? Only that people don't know as much as they think they know... and we especially don't know a lot about the world around us. Thanks to those that push the envelope of common thinking, we regularly learn new things about ourselves and the world around us.
Click to expand...

And yet, paranormal phenomena have been studied for hundreds of years by hundreds of mainstream scientists. Every single one of them has concluded that there's no empirical evidence. Ghosts do not exist is the proper stance for a good scientist to take. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict that. Could evidence surface tomorrow? Sure. It absolutely could. Then we would sit back and re-evaluate our premise that ghosts do not exist in light of that evidence and see if said evidence warrants rejecting our hypothesis. At this moment, as I type this, there is no empirical evidence that even indicates that ghosts exist.

And, of course, you can provide documentation to support this somewhat questionable statement... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm at work so I don't have time to exhaustively research this at the moment. A quick google search turned up an anecdotal story though - The Fake Ghost: Suggestibility in Percipients of the Paranormal
 
A.Nonymous said:
Again, you don't live in tornado alley. Typically, you get tornado watches hours before a storm. This is possible because meteorologists have determined that atmospheric conditions are present that have a high probability of creating tornadoes. Then you get Tornado warnings when a tornado has actually been sighted. They know ahead of time that there is a very, very good probability of a tornado. No, they can't predict exactly what said conditions are going to do, but they can predict that if said conditions exist, there is a very high probability of a tornado. I'm sorry, but science is not stick a wet finger in the air and make a guess.
Click to expand...

Too bad a tornado watch is not a prediction... Case in point... turn on the Weather channel. There's a 60% chance of rain in the area. That's not a prediction with 100% certainty... that's a shot in the dark based on data analysis, practical experience, and guesswork. I'm sorry but I did several years of meteorological training in my younger days. If we could predict weather with 100% certainty we'd have no need for weather forecasters.


A.Nonymous said:
And yet, paranormal phenomena have been studied for hundreds of years by hundreds of mainstream scientists. Every single one of them has concluded that there's no empirical evidence. Ghosts do not exist is the proper stance for a good scientist to take. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict that. Could evidence surface tomorrow? Sure. It absolutely could. Then we would sit back and re-evaluate our premise that ghosts do not exist in light of that evidence and see if said evidence warrants rejecting our hypothesis. At this moment, as I type this, there is no empirical evidence that even indicates that ghosts exist.
Click to expand...

And yet again you offer what you believe to be factual statements but provide no supporting documentation to prove your point. I'd love to believe what you say to be true but so far all I'm seeing is opinion.



A.Nonymous said:
I'm at work so I don't have time to exhaustively research this at the moment. A quick google search turned up an anecdotal story though - The Fake Ghost: Suggestibility in Percipients of the Paranormal
Click to expand...

OK... and what about the hundreds of anecdotal stories that seem to indicate that they do exist. Better still here are links to reports of paranormal occurrances on the exact same web site that you just referenced above.

Paranormal Evidence
Visitor Submitted Accounts

All I'm saying here is that there are two sides to every coin. It's just as easy for you to say that ghosts don't exist... as it is for me to say that Black Holes don't exist in space. Neither of us have any direct personal experience of seeing the phenomena that we discount... yet both of us (in this example) state plainly that they don't exist. Well astro physicists believe that Black Holes do exist in the center of the galaxy (even though they can't directly see them)... and paranormal researchers believe that ghosts exist (even though they can't produce them at the snap of their fingers).
 
Martimus said:
All I'm saying here is that there are two sides to every coin. It's just as easy for you to say that ghosts don't exist... as it is for me to say that Black Holes don't exist in space. Neither of us have any direct personal experience of seeing the phenomena that we discount... yet both of us (in this example) state plainly that they don't exist. Well astro physicists believe that Black Holes do exist in the center of the galaxy (even though they can't directly see them)... and paranormal researchers believe that ghosts exist (even though they can't produce them at the snap of their fingers).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I addressed your "two sides of every coin" argument above:

falsifiable hypothesis (or see post 36 above)

Only one side of the coin can be debated scientifically. As for "seeing is believing," science is powerful enough to prove truth without the need to see. Are you doubting the entire science of chemistry simply because we can't "personally" see atoms and the particles that make up atoms?
 
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I've never seen a hurricane before and I really want to see one. Let's also assume we have some sort of method to transport me anywhere in the world instantaneously on short notice. You're telling me that we don't have the ability to predict where a hurricane is going to occur and put me right in the path of said hurricane? You mean to tell me we don't have the ability to predict that?

What opinions have I stated? There is no empirical evidence indicating the existence of ghosts. None whatsoever. That's not an opinion. That is fact. The scientific standpoint calls for accepting a falsifiable hypotheses and going from there. That is fact. The falsifiable hypothesis in this case is that ghosts do not exist. That is a fact. No evidence currently exists that would falsify that hypothesis. That is also a fact. Could such evidence come up tomorrow? Sure. That's also a fact. Which of these statements are opinions?

On the other hand there have been numerous studies on susceptability of people. Home Sapiens is a pattern seeking animal. Take two groups of people. Play both of them a recording of static. Tell one of them there's a pattern in the static. Everyone in that group will find it. People find what they are told is there. Do a quick search on the psychology of suggestion. Books have been written about the subject. Tell someone a house is haunted and they experience supernatural phenomena. This principle has been demonstrated in scientific studies many, many times.
 
Martimus said:
There's also no empirical evidence that ghosts don't exist...

The challenge I have with some of the so-called skeptics is that they prove nothing but challenge everything.
Click to expand...

I cannot prove that Elvis is not alive and well and partying on the moon Titan.

Has his grave been opened? Have the contents been validated by modern DNA?

There is therefore no empirical evidence to contradict that Elvis is not alive and partying in outer space.

I can only offer evidence that would suggest such a claim is not credible.

This is the fundamental issue skeptics have with claimants - they have it backwards.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic - it is on the claimant.
 
Early-

Those weird eyes in this weird thread is weird.

/freakout.

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom