The Office of the Attorney General sent me a form letter indicating they had registered the complaint and gave it an index number. I never heard anything more from them. I never heard anything from the Office of the Governor.

The Consumer Protection Board, however, did pursue the complaint. I had initially asked that the magnet hucksters not be allowed to sell there wares but the CPB decided they could sell their products — if they didn’t make outlandish claims. The packet of information I received from the CPB included their communication with an attorney for the State as well as photo copies of some other communication as well as their ruling.

Where should skeptics draw the line at avoiding looking like we might believe something? Do we draw that line so harshly that we end up making ourselves look even more ridiculous than the people making these claims?

When skeptics use terms like, psychic, haunted houses, aura and the like aren’t we buying into the unicorn wings? We are saying that people can be psychic, houses can be haunted, and glowy things exist around people, all without any proof that any of this is possible. I suppose we should use air-quotes when speaking of such things, but that becomes awkward and annoying. Still when these words are used without some kind of disclaimer then to the believer and the general pubic we have already bought into the argument. And perception is so important to education isn’t it?

Susan

While your comments apply to the vast majority of people who call themselves paranormal researchers, they do not apply to everyone. With that said, I agree wholeheartedly that the use of these devices, by and large, is nothing but woo-inspired, pareidolia-ridden, belief-confirming parlor tricks. Most of what goes on in the paranormal community is either an effort to “get noticed” or validate pre-existing beliefs. Attempts to get these individuals to test their claims using a scientific protocol are met with excuse after excuse after excuse. Offers to help set up a scientific testing protocol have repeatedly been ignored or met with comments such as “you are just a cynic” or excuses are made as to why a specific type of protocol will not work. Efforts that have been made to provide a venue for peer review of research have been virtually ignored and therefore have been unsuccessful.

You are right. People will believe what they want to believe. What always angers me is when these people refer to what they are doing as “science” or attempt to back up their snakeoil salesman’s pitch with their “research data.”

If I had no scruples, I would tell the world that I can send and receive text messages from ghosts and take my show on the road. I’d make millions!

I stumbled across a group on my brief visit to the US last year who used a device much like Frank’s Box to communicate with the “other side”. Their skepticism of the device impressed me via email but I was not impressed when I saw them in action with the device. “We’ve had interesting results” they claimed whilst relaying their “evidence” of voices they captured.

The fact is, people will believe what they want to believe and genuine “research” has nothing to do with their “paranormal” endeavors.