Jacques Vallee

[Kieran]

I haven't really looked into the "Trickster" aspect so maybe I misunderstand what you guys are arguing about here. To me (and I have admitted I am not well versed in it.) what I get is that some people think there is a spiritual or interdimensional presence interfacing with mankind. That sometime they manifest as a UFO and sometime as "Little People" or even Djinn. I don't know that Chris it trying to say it's an actual "personage." But, maybe he is since I'm not real sure. I will say this. I have not personally seen anything that convinces me of the reality of a off planet presence in the cosmos. I have had my own personal experience with "paranormal" reality but even that is something I think "science" will catch up to. Although, when they do it won't be as simple as a brain fart or as religous as a glimpse of heaven. I personally do believe in the human soul but I don't beleive in religion or dogma. I am intriegued (scuse muh spellin) by the NDE and work of people such as Chris Carter and Von Lommel in Europe. I don't mind "discussing" the paranormal with a skeptic becaue in actuallty I'm a pretty skeptical person myself. But, I get annoyed at people who dismiss all of human hope and searching as simply a fairy tale. I get annoyed with fundi Christians that label everything the devil or resort to beating you over the head with a bible. I also get annoyed with so called skeptics that yell "Science" as if it is a "thing" you can hold in your hand instead of a mulitude of human diciplines. It's just another form of religious bulling at that point. I respect Angel and Trained Observer although I have had some heated discussions with both of em at times. Will again I'm sure. Macdady did not impress me (not that he has to) because he simply came in roaring and acting contentious instead of introducing himself to the forum in a civil manner. I get the fact that some folks feel like they have to have the scientific method to prove everything. But, I also get the fact that people such as Sir Rodger Penrose and Sir John Echols and other really,really smart folks are not reductionist. Not bible thumping Christians but not reductionsist either. But, ya know what? It wouldn't matter to me anyway. I am simply not a materialist reductionsist. Similar to the well known skeptic who said in speaking of the paranormal "Even if it were true I wouldn't believe it." Belive it or not I read that in a book published by Scientific American but I can't find it right now. So, either I need to find it and give you a link or I guess you can decide to believe or not believe me. Doesn't really matter. There is ample evidence that something is going on in human and earthly life that is more than we have measured with a test tube. But, what it is and how to define it is still not something I can say for sure. I call myself a Christian Agnostic because I know that "I AM" and I know that I'm not a by product of a chemical process in the brain. But, like all of us I'll cross that "river" when I come to it.

There was a show on Coast to Coast back a few months ago. I believe the guest was a Dr Von Lommel, i not sure ( The guest was a doctor from Europe) Anyway, he was discussing near-death experiences. Really fascinating person, really articulate and bright. It was one of those episodes, that was kind of life changing somewhat, odd enough is was Coast to Coast show lol.. but lot of what he said, well the next day I was stilling thinking about it in my mind, which is very rare that happens!

I love if Gene and Chris, if it is the same person, asked him to do an interview? In someways what happens after we die is far more important than UFO's and other Weird things!

 

[MacDaddy]

Hi Angel welcome back. Having another Skeptic on the site is cool, but I haven't been impressed at all with MacDaddy as you have. He is just mouthing off to himself, people here responded to his posts, but all I have seen since is more mouthing off, it seems other people are doing the work for him, yet he is the one who brought up those issues in the first place. Well personally for me, I like MacDaddy to get more involved in the discussion, then just posting opinions and more opinions, that just becomes a pointless exercise in the end!

What would you like to discuss?

Some here have noted that I sound angry. I didn't think I was giving that impression but there is no denying that year by year I am becoming a grouchier old man, so I accept the label. What I'm really searching for is knowledge --- Truth, if you will. When the concept of the trickster is offered as a way forward, I think I can be forgiven a little sarcasm. I really had no idea that you had so much emotional investment in the concept. But, really, if you sign up for something like the trickster, shouldn't you expect a little razzing now and then? Do you really think that the notion is that unchallengeable just because a few PhDs did some theses on it?

OK. So convince me. Distill your work on this subject into a few simple sentences that demonstrate why the concept is valid. I'll read what you have to say and discuss without sarcasm if that's what you want. If your sentences are good enough, I may even see about obtaining your book or books on the subject.

 

[CapnG]

YOU, my demon friend are extremely judgmental. You have an agenda, therefore, you and the other boo-birds are not the trickster.

OOOoooh! I LOVE these! Pray tell, what is this nefarious "agenda" you think I have?

You have tricksterish qualities, but they only lean toward the part of the trickster that most of us would perceive as the "fool." As to pissing in my personal sandbox (? weird analogy, dude, but you are entitled to your languaging), go use the toilet or, at least be polite and go behind the bushes. And don't forget to shake your pee-pee and for Lucifer's sake be sanitary & go wash your hands...

Really, never heard that one? It's a rarely used but not uncommon expression in my neck of the woods. For future reference the analogy breaks down as follows: you're a kid, you have a sandbox, you like to play in your sandbox, then a cat comes along and pisses (or craps, equally valid) in your sandbox. Now your sandbox is ruined.

That's what going on here.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Speaking of skeptics, whatever happened to that other guy, Lance Moody, or something like that? He use to post here a lot but I haven't seen him around in quite some time.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Man... This thread is becoming increasingly unpleasant.
I frequently heard criticisms on the Paracast shows about the "UFO crowd" berating each other in a swordplay of egos and beliefs (by then the enigmas at hand were long forgotten). Never thought I'd see such skirmishing in Paracasts' own forums. Destiny is indeed an ironical bastard!

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Man... This thread is becoming increasingly unpleasant.
I frequently heard criticisms on the Paracast shows about the "UFO crowd" berating each other in a swordplay of egos and beliefs (by then the enigmas at hand were long forgotten). Never thought I'd see such skirmishing in Paracasts' own forums. Destiny is indeed an ironical bastard!

Happens all the time around here. Where ya' been? Heck, the other day I got into one here at the Paracast good enough to get me banned...from another forum!

 

[crabtown]

How can you pass judgment on something, anything, any subject that you are obviously unable to even properly define, let alone understand? It is glaringly obvious to me that you have next to no idea what "the trickster" (as a concept) actually entails, and instead of finding out, its much easier for you to sneer that it is "totally ridiculous" with the implied suggestion that I have no critical thinking abilities. So when I say "do your research" kind and gentle Angel, what I am suggesting is admit to your intellectual dishonesty, put on your bi-focals, do a little work and expand your thinking before making ridiculous statements such as "It's a silly concept," or "nothing proves that the concept of a "trickster" is one that's based in reality." I am fairly certain that if you do some research you would not dismiss this difficult subject so readily with such prejudice.

Wait. Like Loki and Coyote and Brer Rabbit and Q from Star Trek? Those tricksters? Are you saying you believe that because most if not all cultures tell tales of a trickster, then this is evidence of the existence of an actual super-being who is a trickster? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that your best explanation for the UFO phenomenon involves trickster gods? What? Is that the consensus of the people who listen to this show?

No wonder you have sponsors trying to peddle alkaline water and magic beans. Hell, they're probably selling the stuff to this bunch!

 

[Kieran]

What would you like to discuss?

Some here have noted that I sound angry. I didn't think I was giving that impression but there is no denying that year by year I am becoming a grouchier old man, so I accept the label. What I'm really searching for is knowledge --- Truth, if you will. When the concept of the trickster is offered as a way forward, I think I can be forgiven a little sarcasm. I really had no idea that you had so much emotional investment in the concept. But, really, if you sign up for something like the trickster, shouldn't you expect a little razzing now and then? Do you really think that the notion is that unchallengeable just because a few PhDs did some theses on it?

OK. So convince me. Distill your work on this subject into a few simple sentences that demonstrate why the concept is valid. I'll read what you have to say and discuss without sarcasm if that's what you want. If your sentences are good enough, I may even see about obtaining your book or books on the subject.

I never signed up for the trickster, that is so funny. I stayed out of that discussion Friend, . I believe you need to check back. I have not researched the "Trickster" in all it's graces, so I am kind of stuck. The Trickster is not a term I understand fully to be able to explain it with full sentences. However by using the word "Trickster" in any sentence, and trick been a significant part of that word. Trick, to me means, someone not usually a thing, made a fool of you for spite or just for some fun, often without thinking over the possible consequences of the action. If there is entities at play here of non-human identity, for the Trickster to make any sense, those entities in essence are manipulating our senses thoughts and beliefs, messing with Human consciousness. As far as I am aware, the Trickster language or word originated from Indian cultures in the Americas, so to understand that term in relation to the Paranormal, you have to go to first source. Chris as far as I am aware is the only person on the forums, who has had interactions with those indigenous tribes still in existence, the word "Trickster" ok is this an accurate translation of a native word, the Indians used to describe odd and weird experiences, or is this a word used by people from outside, westerners to explain the legends of these Indian Tribes?

---------- Post added at 12:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------

Speaking of skeptics, whatever happened to that other guy, Lance Moody, or something like that? He use to post here a lot but I haven't seen him around in quite some time.

Lance, has thanked MacDaddy a couple of times Today, Cough don't be a stranger Lance any updates on your solution?

 

[MacDaddy]

I never signed up for the trickster, that is so funny. I stayed out of that discussion Friend,

Sorry, K. I thought I was responding to a quote by Chris. My bad. That paragraph needs a response from Chris, if anybody.

 

[tyder001]

Old skeptics never die. They just change avatars.

 

[SurferMike]

What a pile of shit! IT's called the PARAcast. So, yeah there are people here who are interested in the paranormal. Hell ya what hoss run your azz over to the jimmy randi forum and say you think we are more than meatbots! Wanna see how long you last? Sheeeesh, get over it. I love science. I have a pc and a t.v. and I was raised watching black and white footage of John Glenn orbiting the moon. I "see" because of scientist using their God given intellengence to "design" a lens to correct my vision. I've dipped my toes in the ocean at Wakiki and walked the woods in the foothills of the Appalachian mountain chain in North Alabama because of planes that fly from one place to another. But, once you "ask" a question be it about evolution or God or life or death then ya know what? You just put "reason" into the equation. Matter of fact just by trying to "design" proof that evolution is a cosmic accident the materialist screws the pooch. So, wake up and stop "worshiping" a method of human inquiry that is a "amalgamation" of many disiplines and not simply a "thing" to be trotted out by loud mouth bullies to stop all wondering and mystery in the world. I take "science" for what it is. It's wonderful when it cures heart diesease and fights cancer. It's misguided when it invents bombs and sells out to the phamacutical industry. I indeed to take my intuition and inner life seriously. I go to the doctor when I'm in need of medical help. I pray and he/she does the medical and I have enough sense to know there isn't a grumpy old white man in the sky micro managing things. But, just coming here and attacking folks (on a frickin PARANORMAL board) for wondering if we are alone or not. Or wondering if we are more than a brain fart is just...oh I don't know...STUPID!

Boy, you just gotta be from Alabama! And probably a Crimson Tide graduate to boot!

You did not grow up watching John Glenn orbiting the moon. He never did.

Intellengence?

When you dipped your toes at Waikiki, you should have noticed the sign with the correct spelling of the beach's name.

And there's no reason for "all" those "quotes" unless you are from Alabama, in which case it's par for the course.

Disiplines?

Diesease?

Phamacutical?

" I indeed to take my intuition and inner life seriously"

Anyone who doesn't understand that evolution is a proven fact is STUPID.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So you're going to stand by your statement that the concept of the trickster makes about as much sense as science?

So what does science bring to the table regarding UFOs, the paranormal, the trickster? Where are your reams of info definitively disproving theses subjects? It's funny how when some so called scientists do try to disprove any of it that it doesn't seem to sway anyone's mind.
Human beings are terrible and unreliable witnesses? Maybe sometimes. But if you take that as gospel then witness testimony should be banned from the Law courts and even scientists observing experiments should be banned from publishing their results as the as they too are human and their observations should be disregarded for the same reasons.
Next you'll probably say that pilots are unreliable witnesses for aerial phenomena as well.
Where are the NIDS results? Locked away somewhere because some mega rich philanthropist has decided not to share his toys with others?
Have you ever seen a UFO? Had an Paranormal experience? If you have not had either then commenting on the validity of them places you in a less then stellar position of authority on the subject.
As for Vallee he is highly rergarded amongst the UFO fraternity and your opinions of him, while you are entitled too them, place you firmly in the minority.
As for the trickster theory it is just that, a theory. So what if Christopher or anyone gives it credence or not. What do you bring to the table? Please enlighten us on your theories. Or do you just flat out disbelieve in the whole subject? If you do then that places you in the same basket as the doe eyed believer camp and should be afforded the same amount of credibility.

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

Boy, you just gotta be from Alabama! And probably a Crimson Tide graduate to boot!

You did not grow up watching John Glenn orbiting the moon. He never did.

Intellengence?

When you dipped your toes at Waikiki, you should have noticed the sign with the correct spelling of the beach's name.

And there's no reason for "all" those "quotes" unless you are from Alabama, in which case it's par for the course.

Disiplines?

Diesease?

Phamacutical?

" I indeed to take my intuition and inner life seriously"

Anyone who doesn't understand that evolution is a proven fact is STUPID.

Yeah nice first effort Surfer troll. Nicely endearing yourself to the forums.

 

[tyder001]

Surfermikey.

OMG I said the moon? Anyway, gotta own it when ya mess up. As for the rest? Kiss my Aladambama Crimson Tide Ass!

 

[MacDaddy]

So what does science bring to the table regarding UFOs, the paranormal, the trickster? Where are your reams of info definitively disproving theses subjects? It's funny how when some so called scientists do try to disprove any of it that it doesn't seem to sway anyone's mind. Human beings are terrible and unreliable witnesses? Maybe sometimes. But if you take that as gospel then witness testimony should be banned from the Law courts and even scientists observing experiments should be banned from publishing their results as the as they too are human and their observations should be disregarded for the same reasons. Next you'll probably say that pilots are unreliable witnesses for aerial phenomena as well. Where are the NIDS results? Locked away somewhere because some mega rich philanthropist has decided not to share his toys with others? Have you ever seen a UFO? Had an Paranormal experience? If you have not had either then commenting on the validity of them places you in a less then stellar position of authority on the subject. As for Vallee he is highly rergarded amongst the UFO fraternity and your opinions of him, while you are entitled too them, place you firmly in the minority. As for the trickster theory it is just that, a theory. So what if Christopher or anyone gives it credence or not. What do you bring to the table? Please enlighten us on your theories. Or do you just flat out disbelieve in the whole subject? If you do then that places you in the same basket as the doe eyed believer camp and should be afforded the same amount of credibility.

Where to begin?

It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You can't prove that Santa Claus isn't real. Reason does suggest that it's more likely that fallible human beings are making mistakes, dreaming, lying, hoaxing, telling stories than that there is a crypto-terrestrial civilization playing games with crop circles and ufos.

Eyewitness testimony is pretty unreliable as numerous studies have shown and that's why DNA evidence is overturning so many felony convictions. Sorry, but we just don't observe things very reliably.

Scientists, either. That's why there's a peer review and replication process before any new scientific knowledge is truly accepted.

Human pilots are human witnesses and subject to the same defects of perception as other humans. Their experience makes them better observers of aerial phenomena than you or me, but not perfect ones.

I don't have the NIDS results, honest.

I've seen four UFOs in my life and was thrilled each time. Unfortunately, I was able to determine prosaic explanations in each case. I don't claim that every UFO has been prosaically explained. I live in hopes of a genuine, evidence-backed, smoking-gun, provable case.

When I was a kid, I was walking near some dark woods and became completely convinced that something was staring at me from the woods. I have since come to believe that this was completely a product of my imagination, but for years you couldn't convince me that something evil wasn't stalking me that night. I once saw a stage magician perform a mind-reading trick that I cannot explain. For a long time I thought that it COULDN'T be explained, but I now doubt that. But I still don't know how he did it.

I doubt that I am firmly in the minority in thinking that Vallee doesn't bring anything useful to the pursuit of knowledge, but if I am, so be it.

I have only my reason to bring to the table. I have read many books on the paranormal, but probably not as many as most on this forum.

My theory is that most paranormal stuff is a product of mostly healthy human minds doing things which humans are prone to do: misperceive, confabulate, lie, hoax, draw incorrect conclusions, make poor estimates and think wishfully. When I hear a theory about crop circles involving tricksterish crypto-terrestrials, I have a strong tendency to believe that the vastly more likely explanation involves some hoaxers with some boards and rope.

And I would be proud to be afforded the same amount of credibility as the doe-eyed believer camp receives in this forum.

I'm not sure if I answered each of your points, but I gave it the old college try.

And SurferMike is kind of a douche.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You can't prove that Santa Claus isn't real. Reason does suggest that it's more likely that fallible human beings are making mistakes, dreaming, lying, hoaxing, telling stories than that there is a crypto-terrestrial civilization playing games with crop circles and ufos.

The problem is that science pretty well does nothing about any of these subjects at all. It's all very well to say that there is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove these phenomena but science in general does nothing about the subjects. Until science and or scientists do get involved, then to invoke science or scientific opinion is akin to invoking Ronald McDonald.

I've seen four UFOs in my life and was thrilled each time. Unfortunately, I was able to determine prosaic explanations in each case. I don't claim that every UFO has been prosaically explained. I live in hopes of a genuine, evidence-backed, smoking-gun, provable case.
When I was a kid, I was walking near some dark woods and became completely convinced that something was staring at me from the woods. I have since come to believe that this was completely a product of my imagination, but for years you couldn't convince me that something evil wasn't stalking me that night. I once saw a stage magician perform a mind-reading trick that I cannot explain. For a long time I thought that it COULDN'T be explained, but I now doubt that. But I still don't know how he did it.

What if you were wrong? If you say that people are unreliable witnesses how can you say that what you saw could be reliably explained away with a prosaic explanation?

Not every human witness testimony is unreliable and flawed. That is very disingenuous. If the policemen escorting Lee Harvey Oswald say they saw Jack Ruby shoot him at point blank range are we to totally disregard their evidence because people make unreliable witnesses? Of course their testimony is backed up with other testimony from other observers who were there as well as film of the incident. Are we to consider all of that unreliable?
Just as not all UFO sightings are witnessed by solo witnesses. In the Kelly Cahill case her testimony was supported by 3- 4 other independent witnesses who were unknown to each other at the time. All drew strikingly similar sketches of the craft and humanoid figures.
Of course you maybe right, up to a point. Some humans do "misperceive, confabulate, lie, hoax, draw incorrect conclusions, make poor estimates and think wishfully" but not all.
You may be able to explain away the phenomena to your satisfaction but to say that all paranormal experiences had by others can be explained away by your personal methodology is naive.
One must be very careful when dealing in the absolute.

 

[CapnG]

The problem is that science pretty well does nothing about any of these subjects at all. It's all very well to say that there is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove these phenomena but science in general does nothing about the subjects. Until science and or scientists do get involved, then to invoke science or scientific opinion is akin to invoking Ronald McDonald.

That's not completely fair, Phil. There are plenty of scientists involved in researching the paranormal. The problem is half of them are trying to prove something and the other half are trying to disprove those exact same things, effectively nullifying each other and resulting the highly frustrating situation we find ourselves in. If everyone would get on the same page and treat the paranormal like any other kind of obscure phenomena (like say, theoretical physics) we might actually get somewhere.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

That's not completely fair, Phil. There are plenty of scientists involved in researching the paranormal. The problem is half of them are trying to prove something and the other half are trying to disprove those exact same things, effectively nullifying each other and resulting the highly frustrating situation we find ourselves in. If everyone would get on the same page and treat the paranormal like any other kind of obscure phenomena (like say, theoretical physics) we might actually get somewhere.

So what is the point of crying "science" at all then? There is no point in throwing science into the mix if all it is doing is cancelling it's efforts out with in fighting and elitism. I take my hat off to those who have the balls to try and research this arena.
As i have said before, and as you have also intimated Cap, a more concerted scientific effort would be more than welcome if the sciences and its apologists would stop making excuses as to why (as you say) they aren't treating the paranormal like theoretical physic or such. I respect your opinion on that Cap but i think mainstream science is at the mercy of reputations and those who supply it money. If either baulk then the result is as frustrating as you say.

 

[CapnG]

So what is the point of crying "science" at all then? There is no point in throwing science into the mix if all it is doing is cancelling it's efforts out with in fighting and elitism. I take my hat off to those who have the balls to try and research this arena.

It's not totally hopeless. In the tug-of-war between the camps something interesting occaisionally shakes loose. New insights come forth, long held beliefs are challenged, some cases are debunked, still others gain new-found validity. It's just really, really, REALLY freakin' slow.

I respect your opinion on that Cap but i think mainstream science is at the mercy of reputations and those who supply it money. If either baulk then the result is as frustrating as you say.

I hear ya. The fact so many are so concerned with their standing within the scientific community drives me nuts, it's like their egos are made of eggshells. But on the other hand I can appreciate that scientists are people too, they have to eat, pay bills, put kids through college, etc. and are in no hurry to jeopardize their own livelyhoods pursuing subjects that may never be resolved within their lifetimes.

As I said, highly frustrating.

 

[MacDaddy]

What if you were wrong? If you say that people are unreliable witnesses how can you say that what you saw could be reliably explained away with a prosaic explanation? Not every human witness testimony is unreliable and flawed. That is very disingenuous. If the policemen escorting Lee Harvey Oswald say they saw Jack Ruby shoot him at point blank range are we to totally disregard their evidence because people make unreliable witnesses? Of course their testimony is backed up with other testimony from other observers who were there as well as film of the incident. Are we to consider all of that unreliable? Just as not all UFO sightings are witnessed by solo witnesses. In the Kelly Cahill case her testimony was supported by 3- 4 other independent witnesses who were unknown to each other at the time. All drew strikingly similar sketches of the craft and humanoid figures. Of course you maybe right, up to a point. Some humans do "misperceive, confabulate, lie, hoax, draw incorrect conclusions, make poor estimates and think wishfully" but not all. You may be able to explain away the phenomena to your satisfaction but to say that all paranormal experiences had by others can be explained away by your personal methodology is naive. One must be very careful when dealing in the absolute.

Not all human eyewitness testimony is unreliable, granted, but the whole perception thing is too fraught with the possibility for error to serve as conclusive proof for paranormal events. Science has a wonderful record of helping us to gain an understanding of the world. A truly paranormal happening would be an earth-shaking, paradigm-shifting event that would cause us to make major adjustments in the way we understand the world. I for one am willing to make those adjustments, but only if the proof were truly extraordinary. For me, that means it has to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Eyewitness accounts don't suffice, they just don't. Eyewitness accounts corroborated by multiple witnesses are better, but still not ironclad. Innocent people have been executed based on corroborated testimony given in good faith.

All that said, the Kelly Cahill case is very interesting and I'd like to see it investigated by someone with a true skeptical bent. On its face, the story is probably one of the most compelling of its kind, despite indications that Kelly herself seemed to be susceptible to religious hysteria both before and after the purported event. But being a believer in what I consider to be religious claptrap does not in itself rule out that something strange happened to this person. The multiply-witnessed part of the case seems to be associated with a grounded craft seen at night. Yes, I'd be very interested in an in-depth account of this case by a hardnosed skeptical reporter. Whitley Strieber need not apply.

I don't pretend that my personal litmus test can absolutely explain away all cases of the paranormal, but I think that in order to make a case for something truly extraordinary, truly solid evidence must be presented. In the absence of that, my money is on the more prosaic explanations involving the human tendency to tell stories, seek attention, imagine things, outright lie, engage in wishful thinking, embrace religion and misinterpret the stimuli reported by their senses, to mention only a few of the ways we tend to get things wrong. Even one little piece of unambiguous evidence would completely change my mind. Just one.

---------- Post added at 04:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 AM ----------

It's not totally hopeless. In the tug-of-war between the camps something interesting occaisionally shakes loose. New insights come forth, long held beliefs are challenged, some cases are debunked, still others gain new-found validity.

OK, you've got my attention. Which paranormal cases has science declared valid?

 

[CapnG]

OK, you've got my attention. Which paranormal cases has science declared valid?

To my knowledge, none. "Validity" may not have been the right word to use there however, perhaps I should have said "... added more weight to". And what I meant was things like radar data for UFO cases, anomalous video footage from areas reputed to be haunted, etc. Granted, these things aren't exactly repeatable in the laboratory sense but they are a certainly a step up from the "My friend says he saw something with his uncle when he was five." realm of paranormal "evidence".