I'm a hardcore skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. That does however also apply to science in a broader sense. Having a background in social sciences I have found natural science quite lacking. Social sciences are no better, and it boils down to the formulation of question and ontology. However I do not renounce science just take a critical look when statements an conclusions are made.

But, back to the paranormal. I have been interested in the paranormal and occult since my early teens (ah, the days…), much tanks to X-files and shows alike and persons close to me. I have however always remained a skeptic since the paranormal has proven to provide little more than entertainment and intellectual games. I have never had any paranormal experiences and never seen one recounted that has enough merits. This has led to quite a controversy at times with my dad who firmly believes and has had a number of experiences. I can't of course dismiss my fathers claims, calling your father, who you find to be a rationale and intelligent person, a liar is a far stretch. It is not like this is a big matter for us, but we do agree in many other matters but this is one we remain disparate on.

Now as I said I am a skeptic and therefor has quite a high standard of what can be called proof. And also a high standard as to how this proof was or will be collected. GH and GHI fall short in much of this, but their biggest fault is that the do not publish or present their proof for peer-review. Snippets on a tv show or on Youtube is not enough. I need more, theory and methodology clearly stated and referenced, timestamps, name of equipment and a written report to recount and describe what happened and when and further most what debunking was made and in what fashion. I know that is asking for much, but hey, the claims are rather rich and need to be substantiated thouroughly.

I also am of the belief that many things that is called paranormal actually are natural phenomena aka "normal", but has not yet been discovered or explained. Lack of explanation does not make anything paranormal per se, but it breaks the barrier of normal and hopefully expands the "normal". I do believe most so called residual hauntings to be natural phenomena, not thanks to limestone an water however :) , but natural nonetheless. This goes for psycho-kinetics and other similar ones to. If it's related to energy it is most likely natural phenomena, That does not make it uninteresting, quite the contrary, because we still lack the explanations to what it really is and how it works. So the attempts to find it and then finding a way to study it, that journey is quite thrilling.

Other paranormal phenomena like psychics are more inte the realm of psychology. Although there might be something else at work when it comes to psychics it is not necessarily paranormal. Of course all the hoaxers in the field does not help neither the psychic or their believers och skeptics. To me, psychics are at best good entertainers.

For it to really impress me it has to have a intelligence or an intent and communicate two-ways and repeat that under controlled circumstances a number of times. And of course make itself physically manifest a number of times when asked to. That is a far reach, I know, but it takes quite alot to make me believe.

Now that would be intriguing and is based on the possibility of paranormal, which I of course entertain, but we are far from there. Because we lack the fundamentals, that is methods and theory that makes the above possible to prove. We have a field which mostly seems to argue in circles and use each others devices and antics as tools, without scrutinizing them. Like the EMF-meters, what is the science behind that? What's the theory that makes it being used? And what basis has that theory? And if theory is correct what does that say about the "ghosts" and what they are and why is that not explored and exploited to find out more on their "constitution".

EVPs – don't get me started. They are compelling but until they are produced in controlled circumstances and scrutinized by many thay are at best intriguing anomalies.

And the videos are compelling but equipment is not scrutinized, the circumstances often uncontrolled and to much place is left for hoaxing and many things are due to inexperience in handling a camera and interpreting what the camera "sees". Poor cameramanship makes for more anomalies and I still have not seen any anomaly that really stands the test. Good example is the "black cat" at the Underground

Railroad where temperature probably played a trick on the thermal. That paired with inexperience or lack of skill using a thermal (reflections and whatnot) and the excessive, erratic panning which GH keep insisting on makes it rather uncompelling since the marginal for error is abundant.

With that said, GH has produced som interesting finds, the closet at Stanley Hotel a personal favorite as well as the voice in the stanley catacombs, and the "princess" conversation at mt. Washingtonas aswell as the attack on Jason. Also the door in the bedroom with they guy who couldn't bring ladies to his house. All this of course relying on that hoaxery was not committed. Sound does carry, and the attack leaves open for hoaxing, but that closet and the breaking glass is intriguing. And I do find Jason rather more credible that Grant. A sentiment shared by many here from what I gather.

So I do entertain the possibility but is far from being convinced. And before a real scientific appraoch is taken, with a grounded and transparent theory and methodology and results are published for peer-review I will not be.

Unless a spirit or a demon sits down with me for a Q & A, of course. I prefer one not in victorian clothing though, one of my many military ancestors in full uniform would be nice.