First and foremost, this editorial is NOT criticizing all people who are skeptical. Skepticism is a good thing. It protects us. It prevents liars and con artists from taking advantage of us. All professional paranormal investigators should have a healthy amount of skepticism. This article is aimed at people who are closed minded. To those who presume guilt over innocence. To those who deconstruct cases, events, and situations they have no first hand knowledge of. To those who base their entire identity on being skeptical. Creating is positive. The process of building a mansion, sculpting a statue, painting a picture, or making the case for a theory takes innovation and intelligence. Deconstructing a building, statue, or theory takes less ability.

Take the example of Leonardo's Mona Lisa. Consider the talent it took to combine the various paint pigments into this tremendous image. Now consider that any five year old with a can of paint thinner can destroy this creation for all eternity.

When it comes to theoretical issues, it obviously takes more than a can of paint thinner to "debunk" any claims. It does take some learning, logic and research. People who debate the nuances of the "DaVinci Code" or "Global Warming" need research and facts to back their opinions. However...when we consider the subjective nature of hauntings, it's obvious that any case history of a haunting rests on shakier ground than any given historical or scientific claim.

Why is this? Because hauntings are primarily anecdotal. Hauntings are dependent on eyewitness testimony. Scientific measurements of a haunting... photographic, energy field measurement, video and audio recordings... such things are also "easy" to dismiss.

Say a research group has recorded a spirit voice. All members are absolutely certain that no one in the area said or whispered what was recorded. Even the audio frequency of this whisper is lower than what human's normally hear. How hard is this for a debunker to dismiss? Not hard at all! All they have to do is claim that someone in the group was a faker and whispered... or that they recorded a radio frequency... or they recorded some noise from outside the area.

Say a research group films a chair sliding across the floor. The research group may be absolutely certain that no one was near this chair at the time, or faked the movement. All a debunker needs to say is that someone tied a thin thread to the chair and pulled it. How can the researchers prove that no thread was used? they can't.

So when all is said and done, the "credibility" of the researchers can be targeted just as much as those who directly experience the haunting. How hard is it to attack a person's integrity? Not hard at all, as the world of politics demonstrate. Any skeleton in a personal closet is dragged out for the media. Any charge against a person takes on a life of it's own...whether it's true or not.

It is a fact that there is much deception and fakery in the paranormal realm. Many people do this for fame, for money... or for both. Others legitimately suffer paranormal phenomena, and are rewarded with nothing but disdain. It can be very hard for researchers to find out just who are truthful and who are not.

Sooo... what's the solution to all this? Yes, researchers need to develop new scientific techniques, as they try to bring paranormal research from the anecdotal to the indisputable. In the meantime, both experiencers and researchers can expect to be attacked... especially if their case received any media attention, or any money was made from the story.

On the topic of money, all people need money. Making money from paranormal research is no more dishonorable than a lab technician earning a paycheck. Only those who are independently wealthy can afford to dedicate time, resources, and energy into a project and receive nothing in return. While clientele shouldn't bare the burden of paying researchers, there is certainly nothing wrong with researchers making money through media outlets. After all...skeptics ALSO make money through the media. Thus, "profit making" should never be considered "evidence" that someone is or was dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with approaching a paranormal case with a critical eye. This is preferable to believing every odd claim that comes your way. Trying to "disprove" a haunting is healthy. Finding natural reasons for would be "paranormal phenomena" is cautious and careful.

But this is different than building one's career by stepping on others. BEWARE of magicians, skeptics, and paranormal researchers who make a name for themselves by "debunking" the work others have done. While some case studies of hauntings may in fact be hoaxed, there is no way to be certain of this unless one was involved in the situation being analyzed. In my mind, the presumption of dishonesty is just as biased as the presumption of honesty. True objectivity means to have no preliminary presumptions at all.

People who build their careers on "debunking" the paranormal are talking the EASY way out. Deconstructing is easy. Attacking people they never met is seedy. Be aware of this!

Jeffrey J. Messenger