What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[Andyman409]

Before I talk about the evidence for poltergeists, I might as well link to a quick introduction to the field.

Poltergeists definatly make the most extraordinary claims of all paranoral phenomenon. ESP advocates claim it can effect zener cards and number generaters. Cases of Poltergeists contain objects being thrown, apparitions seen, and people hurt. Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, do poltergeists have extraordinary evidence? Parapsychologists like Robert McLuhen say they do, and criticise skeptics for not knowing enough about poltergeists. They would have us debunk every single one of their documented cases of poltergiests before admitting they might be wrong. He even included the list of supposedly genuine poltergiets reported by SPR in his post.

So, what is there to know? Apparantly, William Roll's book "the poltergeist" is the most authoritative book on the subject, and that skeptics should read it or else there ignorant. I have read a few articles that link to it, which summarize some impressive looking cases documented in the book. One of these involved a man who supposedly brought his poltergeist into a lab, and got impressive results on a PK test with it. It's a shame I dont have the details to this case- I'm sure the key to debunking it is there.

So, has anyone here read William Roll's book? Does anyone feel that Robert McLuhan is wrong, and that skeptics have done enough homework after all?

 

[PixyMisa]

What is the best evidence for poltergeists?

None. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The empty set. The null domain.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Before I talk about the evidence for poltergeists, I might as well link to a quick introduction to the field.

Poltergeists definatly make the most extraordinary claims of all paranoral phenomenon. ESP advocates claim it can effect zener cards and number generaters. Cases of Poltergeists contain objects being thrown, apparitions seen, and people hurt. Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, do poltergeists have extraordinary evidence? Parapsychologists like Robert McLuhen say they do, and criticise skeptics for not knowing enough about poltergeists. They would have us debunk every single one of their documented cases of poltergiests before admitting they might be wrong. He even included the list of supposedly genuine poltergiets reported by SPR in his post.

So, what is there to know? Apparantly, William Roll's book "the poltergeist" is the most authoritative book on the subject, and that skeptics should read it or else there ignorant. I have read a few articles that link to it, which summarize some impressive looking cases documented in the book. One of these involved a man who supposedly brought his poltergeist into a lab, and got impressive results on a PK test with it. It's a shame I dont have the details to this case- I'm sure the key to debunking it is there.

So, has anyone here read William Roll's book? Does anyone feel that Robert McLuhan is wrong, and that skeptics have done enough homework after all?

Just that book then? Great, You guys are going to be in for it, wasting your time with all those other books when all I have to read is one!

To answer your question. 0,nothing,nill

 

[SusanB-M1]

I agree with #2 and#3 of course. I wonder why you would like there to be evidence for poltergeists? For me, it is far more exciting and interesting to know that our brains have the capacity to imagine such things and write stories about them.

 

[Stray Cat]

The best evidence for poltergeists is that some people write books about them.

Apart from that, nothing.

 

[Mojo]

Parapsychologists ... criticise skeptics for not knowing enough about poltergeists.

This is a type of argument that often gets used against Richard Dawkins by religious apologists, who say that he hasn't studied theology enough to be able to assess whether there is evidence for God.

It has also been used by tailors.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah the "Since you don't agree with me, by definition you don't know enough to argue with me, since I'm defining people that agree with me as experts" thing got old a long time ago.

 

[Craig4]

Well, I'm not going to read that book. Of course, you could just present the evidence.

 

[Sledge]

Apparantly, William Roll's book "the poltergeist" is the most authoritative book on the subject, and that skeptics should read it or else there ignorant.

And yet I know the difference between "there" and "they're." Who's ignorant again?

 

[Gr8wight]

What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

I am unaware of any evidence supporting the existence of "poltergeists." Could you provide some, so we can evaluate it?

 

[Bikewer]

To my knowledge, every single poltergeist "incident" that's been impartially investigated has shown evidence of human agency....Usually a teenager.

 

[baron]

I'm a sceptic and I've read it along with approximately 30 others on the same subject. I'm happy to go against the grain and agree fully that most sceptics haven't done their homework, but I speak as one who has and can say with reasonable certainty that classic poltergeist phenomena do not exist.

 

[GeeMack]

Before I talk about the evidence for poltergeists, I might as well link to a quick introduction to the field.

Poltergeists definatly make the most extraordinary claims of all paranoral phenomenon. ESP advocates claim it can effect zener cards and number generaters. Cases of Poltergeists contain objects being thrown, apparitions seen, and people hurt. Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, do poltergeists have extraordinary evidence? Parapsychologists like Robert McLuhen say they do, and criticise skeptics for not knowing enough about poltergeists. They would have us debunk every single one of their documented cases of poltergiests before admitting they might be wrong.

It is dishonest of the woo believers to ask for other people to disprove the woo claims.

He even included the list of supposedly genuine poltergiets reported by SPR in his post.

So, what is there to know?

Here is what there is to know: It is dishonest of the woo believers to ask for other people to disprove the woo claims.

Apparantly, William Roll's book "the poltergeist" is the most authoritative book on the subject, and that skeptics should read it or else there ignorant. I have read a few articles that link to it, which summarize some impressive looking cases documented in the book. One of these involved a man who supposedly brought his poltergeist into a lab, and got impressive results on a PK test with it. It's a shame I dont have the details to this case- I'm sure the key to debunking it is there.

The believers are responsible to objectively support their belief. Until and unless they can do that, the beliefs already exist in a state of debunction. No further debunking necessary.

So, has anyone here read William Roll's book? Does anyone feel that Robert McLuhan is wrong, and that skeptics have done enough homework after all?

Robert McLuhan is wrong if he believes skeptics have any responsibility to do any homework at all. If the woo mongers can't objectively demonstrate their claims to be true, they may be summarily dismissed as false.

 

[joesixpack]

I think the OP is simply asking what the poltergeist believers put forward as their own best evidence. I don't think the OP is a believer, I think he's just wondering what the "Roswell" of the poltergeist world is.

 

[Akhenaten]

Evidence for poltergeists?

Just watch this documentary . . .

 

[Sledge]

I'm a sceptic and I've read it along with approximately 30 others on the same subject. I'm happy to go against the grain and agree fully that most sceptics haven't done their homework, but I speak as one who has and can say with reasonable certainty that classic poltergeist phenomena do not exist.

What homework haven't we done?

 

[I Ratant]

I allus haveta ax this question... "if the entity is insubstantial enough to pass through solid objects such as walls, how does it substantialize sufficiently to move anything at all, without its motionatory appendage not passing harmlessly through the object?"

 

[Bikewer]

Ectoplasm.....

 

[baron]

What homework haven't we done?

Who's "we"?

 

[dlorde]

I allus haveta ax this question... "if the entity is insubstantial enough to pass through solid objects such as walls, how does it substantialize sufficiently to move anything at all, without its motionatory appendage not passing harmlessly through the object?"

The angrier they get, the more solid they get, or they can focus their vibrations or energy - or something. You can always fabricate some unfalsifiable answer for such questions.