Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[Andyman409]

I can't see anything at that link.

Have you read Paranormality by Richard Wiseman (to name just one example)?

I heard that Paranormality was a good book, although it was aimed at a lay audience. Wiseman's essays and CSICOP articles are some of the best however, and are required reading.

 

[Andyman409]

You know, I was doing some reading, and I think I figured out how to make a case for apparitions using "objective evidence". Just as a reminder, however, I am merely presenting this case- not supporting it.

The case for apparitions would be three steps long:

1) one would begin by looking at the statistics from the 1894 Census of Hallucinations by Sigwick, E. This census is the biggest and most authoritative survey on apparitional experiences to ever be released. Considering that it surveyed 17,000 recepients, I think this report would accurately represent the claims of the general populace (9.8% of those surveyed had experiences described as paranormal).

2) Than, one would look at how many collective apparitions are reported. According to the census, about 10% of the cases were collective.

3) Lastly, the believer would try to rule out naturalistic explanations for these cases. They would claim that there are too many cases for fraud to be tenable. They would also claim that the circumstances in which many events occurred rule out hallucination or illusion.

Now, before you call me a believer- I need to be upfront about the fact that I lack stats training, and therefore do not know how to interpret the survey results. There may be serious methodological flaws in the survey for all I know. I also wouldn't know whether the collection of reports deviate from chance expectations, since I dont really know the probabilities for hallucinations, illusions, etc. These numbers could use a good sifting.

 

[zooterkin]

I heard that Paranormality was a good book, although it was aimed at a lay audience.

A lay audience? As opposed to what, precisely? ETA: And why do you exclude yourself from the intended audience, apparently?

Wiseman's essays and CSICOP articles are some of the best however, and are required reading.

Have you read them? If so, I find your previous posts here somewhat perplexing.

 

[Pixel42]

1) one would begin by looking at the statistics from the Report on the Census of Hallucinations by Sigwick, E. This census is the biggest and most authoritative survey on apparitional experiences to ever be released. Considering that it is made up of 2000+ recepients, I think this report would accurately represent the claims of the general populace

2000 anecdotes amount to no more objective evidence than one does.

2) Than, one would look at how many collective apparitions are reported. According to the census, about 10% of cases were collective.

I still don't understand why you attach so much significance to the fact that some supposed apparitions are observed by more than one person. Yes it rules out one possible explanation, but one of the least common ones. Most mistaken perceptions - the man in the moon, Jesus on a toasted sandwich - are shared by everyone who sees them, including those who know exactly what they actually are.

3) Lastly, the believer would try to rule out naturalistic explanations for these cases. They would claim that there are too many cases for fraud to be tenable. They would also claim that the circumstances in which many events occurred rule out hallucination or illusion.

It doesn't matter how many naturalistic explanations a believer thinks of and rules out, there could still be another one they haven't thought of which is the actual explanation. There would still be no objective evidence for the phenomenon of apparitions.

 

[Andyman409]

It's now definitely clear that you believe that apparitions/spirits/ghosts if they exist, ought to/surely could/should, knock stuff over/leave a physical mark.
But why do you believe that without evidence to support that belief?

Let me put it another way. If ghosts (we'll call them that) leave behind physical marks, then we can infer that they constitute a viewer indepentant reality. If they dont leave behind marks, we cannot make this judgement

Of course, the vast majority of parapsychologists consider apparitions to be esp induced hallucinations. For them, it doesn't matter whether or not apparitions leave behind physical traces or not. Personally, I think this view explains the information far better than the spirit hypothesis. However, I also think it is at least 10 times stupider. I mean, why on earth should we have secret magic powers that only go off at certain times? The ESP hypothesis explains everything, and so explains nothing.

 

[Andyman409]

A lay audience? As opposed to what, precisely? ETA: And why do you exclude yourself from the intended audience, apparently?

Have you read them? If so, I find your previous posts here somewhat perplexing.

A lay audience as opposed to a more scholarly audience. I mean, surely it would take far more effort to explain why a specific esp test is erroneous, since it would involve heavy statistics.

At any rate, I don't exclude myself from the lay audience. I don't think the book really goes into much detail regarding apparitions. If memory serves, the closest he gets is a brief history of mediumship, like leanora piper.

Of course, I understand he can only fit so much into one book

2000 anecdotes amount to no more objective evidence than one does.

I still don't understand why you attach so much significance to the fact that some supposed apparitions are observed by more than one person. Yes it rules out one possible explanation, but one of the least common ones. Most mistaken perceptions - the man in the moon, Jesus on a toasted sandwich - are shared by everyone who sees them, including those who know exactly what they actually are.

It doesn't matter how many naturalistic explanations a believer thinks of and rules out, there could still be another one they haven't thought of which is the actual explanation. There would still be no objective evidence for the phenomenon of apparitions.

The 2000 figure is my mistake. It would actually be about 1700 cases (10% of 17000). The exact amount of cases involving groups would be harder to obtain, since I dont know how they calculated it. For instance, did they remove cases that occurred at night? How about ones that weren't of full figures? I haven't had a chance to look at the raw data, so I dont know.

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me put it another way. If ghosts (we'll call them that) leave behind physical marks, then we can infer that they constitute a viewer indepentant reality. If they dont leave behind marks, we cannot make this judgement

Of course, the vast majority of parapsychologists consider apparitions to be esp induced hallucinations.

First, says who?

Second, that is of course an example of begging the question.

The ESP hypothesis explains everything, and so explains nothing.

Yes!

 

[zooterkin]

At any rate, I don't exclude myself from the lay audience. I don't think the book really goes into much detail regarding apparitions.

You know this, how, since you haven't read the book?

If memory serves, the closest he gets is a brief history of mediumship, like leanora piper.

Memory of what? There's a whole section on ghost hunting, helpfully entitled, Ghost-Hunting, so even if you've only seen the Contents page, you would be aware of it. Leonora Piper is not mentioned at all; are you thinking of a different book?

Of course, I understand he can only fit so much into one book

Of course, there's a limit to how condescending one can be in a single post.

 

[pakeha]

...
The case for apparitions would be three steps long:

1) one would begin by looking at the statistics from the 1894 Census of Hallucinations by Sigwick, E. This census is the biggest and most authoritative survey on apparitional experiences to ever be released. Considering that it surveyed 17,000 recepients, I think this report would accurately represent the claims of the general populace (9.8% of those surveyed had experiences described as paranormal).

How is this document a reliable source of information?

2) Than, one would look at how many collective apparitions are reported. According to the census, about 10% of the cases were collective.

How could one possibly verify or substantiate these claims?

3) Lastly, the believer would try to rule out naturalistic explanations for these cases. They would claim that there are too many cases for fraud to be tenable. They would also claim that the circumstances in which many events occurred rule out hallucination or illusion.

We have no way of knowing anything about these cases and their circumstances.

Now, before you call me a believer- I need to be upfront about the fact that I lack stats training, and therefore do not know how to interpret the survey results. There may be serious methodological flaws in the survey for all I know. I also wouldn't know whether the collection of reports deviate from chance expectations, since I dont really know the probabilities for hallucinations, illusions, etc. These numbers could use a good sifting.

Why are you suggesting this method if you haven't the slightest idea whether the source is trustworthy on any level?

 

[Stray Cat]

The 2000 figure is my mistake. It would actually be about 1700 cases (10% of 17000). The exact amount of cases involving groups would be harder to obtain, since I dont know how they calculated it. For instance, did they remove cases that occurred at night? How about ones that weren't of full figures? I haven't had a chance to look at the raw data, so I dont know.

You miss the point again.

It doesn't matter if the figure is 2000, 1700 or eleventy hundred million and two.
They are all nothing more than unsubstantiated anecdotes... therefore not objective evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, they could also be illusions, hoaxes, lies, delusions, false memories, temporal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, or even the product environmental factors. I'm sure there are thousands of possibilities I missed.

Probably. The question was, why do you neglect those thousands of possibilities?

Page 109 of this book is the closest thing I've seen to a skeptic attacking these

A skeptic doesn't need to analyze possible causes that might explain the phenomena which some people claim is caused by ghosts or poltergeists. The responsibility for supporting claims of ghosts existing goes to the people making the claims, your steadfast willful ignorance of that concept notwithstanding. Pretty much everyone here is trying to help you understand this simple stuff...

I see page after page of people trying to reason with you, but at this point, you actually have to be making a deliberate effort to be this willfully ignorant about evidence and burden of proof

Every time we say "evidence?", that's a direct and deadly attack on all claims of the paranormal.

Your abject resistance to what these helpful people are telling you is somewhat baffling, and frankly, is pretty weighty supporting evidence for the possibility that you're a ghost believer just pretending to be skeptical.

You know, I was doing some reading, and I think I figured out how to make a case for apparitions using "objective evidence". Just as a reminder, however, I am merely presenting this case- not supporting it.

The case for apparitions would be three steps long:

1) one would begin by looking at the statistics from the 1894 Census of Hallucinations by Sigwick, E. This census is the biggest and most authoritative survey on apparitional experiences to ever be released. Considering that it surveyed 17,000 recepients, I think this report would accurately represent the claims of the general populace (9.8% of those surveyed had experiences described as paranormal).

What differences are there in the belief in ghosts between the general populace in 1894 and today. Would people's beliefs have any bearing on their reported perceptions? Why not do new research instead of using a 100+ year old book?

2) Than, one would look at how many collective apparitions are reported. According to the census, about 10% of the cases were collective.

How many or what percentage of total reports were collective apparitions is a useless number when the only ones you want to work with are the collective apparitions. It's as meaningless as the number of reports of collective apparitions among the general populace, or among people who speak French, or among people whose favorite color is purple. You've added this step #2 for no reason.

3) Lastly, the believer would try to rule out naturalistic explanations for these cases. They would claim that there are too many cases for fraud to be tenable. They would also claim that the circumstances in which many events occurred rule out hallucination or illusion.

Yes, the believer may go through that nonsense. We have a couple of "UFOs = alien craft" believers on these forums who use that kind of convoluted logic, and it results in failure 100% of the time. They have never once succeeded in making a cogent argument for their position. Believers can say ghosts exist because they felt a cold spot in an old house, and it seems they often do. So really, what the believers might do when trying to make a case for apparitions has nothing to do with what you said above. You haven't figured out how to make a case for apparitions using "objective evidence" at all.

Now, before you call me a believer- [...]

There is much in these threads to support that idea, and little that would indicate otherwise.

[...] I need to be upfront about the fact that I lack stats training, and therefore do not know how to interpret the survey results.

You don't say.

There may be serious methodological flaws in the survey for all I know.

And possibly even more in the rather bizarre way you believe that data should be analyzed.

I also wouldn't know whether the collection of reports deviate from chance expectations, since I dont really know the probabilities for hallucinations, illusions, etc. These numbers could use a good sifting.

When it comes to what you are attempting, figuring out how to make a case for apparitions using "objective evidence", those numbers could use a good discarding. Here's a suggestion. All these fine folks who have been trying to help you learn a thing or two about critical thinking, skepticism, and the scientific method? Start paying attention to what they're telling you. Your persistent reluctance to apply the tools of critical thinking is much of the reason for your persistent failure.

 

[Dr B]

That may not be the best example to use.

errrr no - it was the perfectly suitable for the point I wanted to make. Although people exaggerate the effect and in constant re-telling it gets a bit over-blown, I was only highlighting that some people were confused enough to make odd reports base don suggestion and nothing else.

The same thing happened in the UK in the 1990s I think with a similar show about ghosts on halloween (TV show). However, the media blew it out of proportion - but there was some confusion and some complaints

Like I said, social contagion.

 

[Dr B]

I heard that Paranormality was a good book, although it was aimed at a lay audience. Wiseman's essays and CSICOP articles are some of the best however, and are required reading.

I would advise against reading coffee-table books writen by anyone, beleiver or skeptic.

I find Wisemans offerings woefully insufficient in terms of mechanistic understandings of what is really going on. Not novel, and not comprehensive enough. Just my opinion of course.....

 

[Daylightstar]

...If ghosts (we'll call them that) leave behind physical marks, ...

Which you believe they ought to, surely could or should. We still don't know why you believe this, considering there is no stories evidence to support that belief.
Why do you believe that apparitions/spirits/ghosts if they exist, ought to/surely could/should, knock stuff over or leave a physical mark?

... then we can infer that they constitute a viewer indepentant reality. If they dont leave behind marks, we cannot make this judgement...

Then I guess you didn't pay attention to zooterkin's excellent point:

...
Rainbows are real, and you can take pictures of them, but they don't knock things over. Your question is just a non-sequitur.

...
Of course, the vast majority of parapsychologists consider apparitions to be esp induced hallucinations. For them, it doesn't matter whether or not apparitions leave behind physical traces or not. Personally, I think this view explains the information far better than the spirit hypothesis. However, I also think it is at least 10 times stupider. I mean, why on earth should we have secret magic powers that only go off at certain times? The ESP hypothesis explains everything, and so explains nothing.

Neither do you I'm afraid.

 

[cj.23]

For anyone who isn't aware of this stuff, this is a cogent description of the field

www .jerome23.wordpress .com why-everything-we-think-we-know-about-ghosts-is-probably-wrong

(sorry, I cant post a proper link until I have 15 posts. Just google it)

I am unsure what to make of these experiences. I haven't really found much on the topic, pro or con. It seems much more interesting than psi research which is, well, boring. Why haven't skeptics looked into this more? Or have they? Anyone here know about this topic?

Well I guess as it's my essay the answer is yes and yes. I did not realise you had a third thread, at this rate I'm never going to get to sleep and my Enfield analysis for Polterwotsit must wait till tomorrow. I'm deeply honoured you enjoyed my piece though - it sent Becky (my girlfriend and colleague) to sleep!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Even more strangely, skeptics seem to have a different set of data! For example, this excellent article from Wiseman seems to completely undermine the findings from the many parapsychological surveys that are briefly mentioned here. For example, Wisemann claims that: "Fifteen years ago, he analysed almost a thousand ghostly experiences to discover what people report when they believe that they have encountered a spirit (Lange et al. 1996). Houran’s work revealed that reports of full-fledged apparitions are very rare. In fact, they account for only 1 percent or so of sightings; when such figures do turn up, they usually appear at the foot of a bed as people are either waking up or drifting off to sleep. Around a third of Houran’s reports involve rather fleeting visual phenomena, such as quick flashes of light, odd wisps of smoke, or dark shadows that move furtively around the room. Another third involve strange sounds, such as footsteps from an empty room or ghostly whispering. The remaining third are a mixture of miscellaneous sensations, including odd odors of flowers or cigar smoke, sensing a ghostly presence, or feeling a cold shiver down one’s spine"

Yes: the article that Richard cites is Lange, R., J. Houran, T.M. Harte, et al. 1996. Contextual mediation of perceptions in hauntings and poltergeist-like experiences. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82: 755–62. I need a copy badly if anyone can help.

Unfortunately Lange's study is not discussed in any detail anywhere (not even in the final chapter of Multidisciplinary Perspectives!). We do not know what the exclusion criteria were, how the data was collected, or anything about how it was analysed. As such the variance from the other studies if hardly unexpected? All of the other studies used variations on the 1894 census question and survey form, and the same exclusion criteria. So where did Lange's 1000 cases come from? I think, though do not know, that the answer can be found in another one of Lange and Houran's papers - A Rasch Hierarchy of Haunt & Poltergeist Cases (2001) Journal of Parapsychology 65:1

In this we read

We used two data sets from two research projects (Kumar, Pekala, & McCloskey, 2000; Pekala, Kumar, & Marcano, 1995) in which the AFI (Kumar et al., 1994) was administered. These data sets had been gathered for independent research purposes. The first set contains the data of 400 respondents with known gender information (282 women, 118 men). The second data set consisted of 465 respondents of unknown gender. The respondents were students in Introduction to Psychology at West Chester University in West Chester, Pennsylvania, who participated to complete a departmental requirement of participation in a research study or another project. Participation was voluntary inasmuch as the students had a choice among several research projects and they could terminate their participation at any time with impunity.

the nature of the survey?

Building on this earlier work, we address the question of whether haunt and poltergeist phenomena form a hierarchy as defined by the self-reported experiences derived from the Poltergeist subscale (Kumar & Pekala, in press) of the Anomalous Experiences Inventory (AEI; Kumar, Pekala, & Gallagher, 1994). The AEI was originally constructed to measure general paranormal belief, experience, ability, drug use, and fear of the paranormal (see Gallagher, Kumar, & Pekala, 1994). However, Houran identified eight items on the AEI that parallel experiences typical of haunts and poltergeists (see Table 1), and Kumar and Pekala (in press) subsequently used these items in a study on how haunt and poltergeist experiences relate to hypnosis-specific attitudes and behaviors.

Now the kinds of experiences reported in such a student based study at one college on a paranormal belief scale are not equivalent to the data from the other studies, which encouraged detailed descriptions of experiences from those answering yes to the Census question. Furthermore we know that the exclusion criteria were completely different from what Richard tells us -- lets look at it. He writes

Houran’s work revealed that reports of full-fledged apparitions are very rare. In fact, they account for only 1 percent or so of sightings; when such figures do turn up,

they usually appear at the foot of a bed as people are either waking up or drifting off to sleep. -- excluded from SPR collection

Around a third of Houran’s reports involve rather fleeting visual phenomena, such as quick flashes of light, - excluded from SPR collection

odd wisps of smoke, or dark shadows that move furtively around the room. - excluded from SPR collection

Another third involve strange sounds, such as footsteps from an empty room or ghostly whispering - both excluded from SPR collection

The remaining third are a mixture of miscellaneous sensations, including odd odors of flowers or cigar smoke, sensing a ghostly presence, or feeling a cold shiver down one’s spine - you guessed it - all excluded from SPR collection

Now Richard does not really do apparitions or poltergeists (see my review of Paranormality for a critique, or various writings on my blog), and wonderful, charming witty and clever chap he certainly is, and I do like him a great deal,but this is I am afraid utterly misleading.

If my suspicions are correct the datasets are completely disparate - even if they are not, the survbey tradition I am dealing with -- Sidgwick et el, 1984, the three West Studies, Becky's and now Haraldsson and the work of Tyrell Hart Green & McCreey & Evans are all total different, concentrating on the 1% of "cases" Lange mentions, as their exclusion criteria rule out as hypnagogic/hypnopompic or trivial to explain the majority of the material he refers to here.

I hope that clarifies the apparent disagreement. Just ask me if any questions and I'll do my best to answer though. As to sceptics and me disagreeing, depends on the sceptic. I think Chris French and i get on pretty well (he said he was a fan of mine on Twitter which was lovely of him, and I'm certainly a huge fan of his work), however different our conclusions, and I'll happily challenge Wiseman on these matters, he must be used to it by now

cj x

 

[cj.23]

On Wiseman's articles

Have you read them? If so, I find your previous posts here somewhat perplexing.

Andy has clearly read them, he cites one. He also mentions Wiseman's Science of Ghosts website - he may be interested to hear there is a detailed set of blog posts on the 2008 Science of Ghosts event on my blog. Why would he think Richard had much to say on apparitions, or it would have more validity than say my stuff which he cites, given I specialise in spontaneous cases (ghosts and polts)? If you read my review of Paranormality you will notice that it is weak in precisely this area, and skims over it largely. Even French et al 2012 which has a generally very good chapter on apparitions has very little on poltergeist phenomena.

Rather more useful might be these --

http://www.publicparapsychology.org/Public%20Parapsych/Apparitional%20Experiences%20Primer%20Final.pdf

and

http://publicparapsychology.org/Public Parapsych/Poltergeist Phenomena Primer Final.pdf

I think Williams and Ventola excelled themselves in putting these together.

However given Andy appears to have read many of the standard texts, or at least know them, and has a fairly good idea of some of the modern papers in the field, pointing him to Wiseman seems rather pointless. I have a lot of time for Wiseman, but I don't think that he has done much work on collective cases or the survey tradition? If he has I am unaware of it, and i find that hard to believe, given my heavy involvement in the field for the last twenty odd years.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

I would advise against reading coffee-table books writen by anyone, beleiver or skeptic.

I find Wisemans offerings woefully insufficient in terms of mechanistic understandings of what is really going on. Not novel, and not comprehensive enough. Just my opinion of course.....

Dr B, are you Dr B of Dr B, Perez Aquino & Townsend fame? Not seen you about for a while, but good to see you here if so.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Incidentally from memory the three recent studies I have seen Haraldsson (2012), Sherwood (2012) and Smith (2012) all give roughly the same proportion of collective cases or thereabouts as earlier studies. It's 4.30am here so I'll check in the morning, but as that is rather curious. Actually I'll just ask Smith - I keep her in my bedroom for just such parapsychological debate emergencies - OK 12% in her study; we both think it was around 8% in 1894. Haraldsson (2012) gives 12%.I think Sherwood cited c.15% at SPR conference last month, but I could be mistaken. I wonder if this has any implications.

While the numbers do vary significantly (modern cases being more likely to be collective than in 1894) it does seem collective cases are relatively common. The lower figure for 1894 was because the SPR excluded cases of dubious collectiveness I think, that is where they could not track down or get a statement from the other witness, as they had died , refused or were simply unavailable. If the phenomena was a real external entity I don't see why the number of collective cases would be particularly consistent over time though. If we imagine hearing a certain song on the radio tomorrow as our criteria, the number of persons we are with would surely stand independent? The seeming consistency tells us little i fear, but it is curious.

cj x

 

[Andyman409]

Yes: the article that Richard cites is Lange, R., J. Houran, T.M. Harte, et al. 1996. Contextual mediation of perceptions in hauntings and poltergeist-like experiences. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82: 755–62. I need a copy badly if anyone can help.

Unfortunately Lange's study is not discussed in any detail anywhere (not even in the final chapter of Multidisciplinary Perspectives!). We do not know what the exclusion criteria were, how the data was collected, or anything about how it was analysed. As such the variance from the other studies if hardly unexpected? All of the other studies used variations on the 1894 census question and survey form, and the same exclusion criteria. So where did Lange's 1000 cases come from? I think, though do not know, that the answer can be found in another one of Lange and Houran's papers - A Rasch Hierarchy of Haunt & Poltergeist Cases (2001) Journal of Parapsychology 65:1

In this we read

the nature of the survey?

Now the kinds of experiences reported in such a student based study at one college on a paranormal belief scale are not equivalent to the data from the other studies, which encouraged detailed descriptions of experiences from those answering yes to the Census question. Furthermore we know that the exclusion criteria were completely different from what Richard tells us -- lets look at it. He writes

Houran’s work revealed that reports of full-fledged apparitions are very rare. In fact, they account for only 1 percent or so of sightings; when such figures do turn up,

they usually appear at the foot of a bed as people are either waking up or drifting off to sleep. -- excluded from SPR collection

Around a third of Houran’s reports involve rather fleeting visual phenomena, such as quick flashes of light, - excluded from SPR collection

odd wisps of smoke, or dark shadows that move furtively around the room. - excluded from SPR collection

Another third involve strange sounds, such as footsteps from an empty room or ghostly whispering - both excluded from SPR collection

The remaining third are a mixture of miscellaneous sensations, including odd odors of flowers or cigar smoke, sensing a ghostly presence, or feeling a cold shiver down one’s spine - you guessed it - all excluded from SPR collection

Now Richard does not really do apparitions or poltergeists (see my review of Paranormality for a critique, or various writings on my blog), and wonderful, charming witty and clever chap he certainly is, and I do like him a great deal,but this is I am afraid utterly misleading.

If my suspicions are correct the datasets are completely disparate - even if they are not, the survbey tradition I am dealing with -- Sidgwick et el, 1984, the three West Studies, Becky's and now Haraldsson and the work of Tyrell Hart Green & McCreey & Evans are all total different, concentrating on the 1% of "cases" Lange mentions, as their exclusion criteria rule out as hypnagogic/hypnopompic or trivial to explain the majority of the material he refers to here.

I hope that clarifies the apparent disagreement. Just ask me if any questions and I'll do my best to answer though. As to sceptics and me disagreeing, depends on the sceptic. I think Chris French and i get on pretty well (he said he was a fan of mine on Twitter which was lovely of him, and I'm certainly a huge fan of his work), however different our conclusions, and I'll happily challenge Wiseman on these matters, he must be used to it by now

cj x

Thanks for the papers and the kindness- although sadly I already read them. I have had the privledge to talking to French via emil and he certainly is a great guy. Wiseman hasnt responded to my emails- but he is a hell of a busy guy, so I dont take it personally at all.

If I can ask one question though- if SPR exluded +99% of cases (cases not involving a full figure and not at a bedside), wouldnt that make the number of collective apparitions in question very small. Wouldnt this account for the lack of consistency between the numbers of collective apparitions (8-12%). Also, wouldnt this make it easier to account for these collective apparitions naturalistically (being a fraction of the 1%, there would be less weight to account for). I recall you putting far less emphasis on collective cases than on cases with physical phenomena, so I think youd agree with me on this.

BTW I would prefer to keep all future dialgue confined to this page. No offense, but it is a huge pain in the neck to scramble through my three threads. Plus, I have relatively little interest in poltergeists at the moment. My interest is in the statistics of apparitions- specifically collective cases. Crisis cases are interesting, and seem to be considered as better evidence for validity than collective ones within the parapsychological community. But as you wrote, people tend to forget their paranormal experiences (within 12 years I think). I can imagine people putting down apparitions of living people, while more often remembering the apparitions of the deceased or endangered. But thats just my speculation. I am unaware of any other type of apparition that can be used evidentially (excluding physical phenomena, if they are a part of the same phenomena).

Andy