The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

People are gullible, some more than others.
My question revolves more around the people who deceive, or fabricate anecdotes, and tales about paranormal experiences.

I feel personally that the longing of such people is in self promotion. Self promotion with, or without reward.

So what of the believer, those that allege to have had their own experiences. I am reminded of the TV show "Fact or Faked" and the way they use Voice Stress Analysis to screen those who submit material.

As some may know Mark Twain was on the board of the first Paranormal Investigation I can only image how he weeded thru the piles of mail submitted by people claiming genuine paranormal experiences.

There are tell tell signs in Tall Tale Tellers. There are also clues in the accounts of people who may have witnessed something that especially impressed upon them the conclusion that it must be paranormal.

So the question is.

How do you weed through the mucky waters of testimony, and outright fabrication?


Do you feel that scrutiny would be welcomed by anyone with a sincere claim?

All cons and false claims associated with them have a few universal traits separating them from legitimate ventures, philosophies and claims.

Because false claims and cons cannot withstand dispassionate objective scrutiny, those "selling" them always appeal primarily to emotion, first, and reason only as an after thought, if at all. The emotions most often appealed to in such deceptions are greed, vanity and lust. In other words... it's the emotions and desires inflamed by the message that are important. Only after the emotions are sold does the con-artist permit a limited "intellectual" review of the con's claims knowing that if the person is already "sold" emotionally, he/she will happily accept as intellectual fact any pseudo-scientific evidences placed before them

In sales, this appeal to emotion and pride is expressed in a well-known phrase: "You don't sell the 'steak'; instead, you sell the 'sizzle'!"


Another equally universal characteristic in cons... especially where cults or other "spiritual" movements and religions are concerned... is the con's focus not on the message and its actual claims, specifically, but, instead, on the person claimed to have "revealed" it to the world. In other words... it's not the message that's truly important; it's the MESSENGER.


Notice how it BOTH of these universal traits of deceit, it's never about a dispassionate consideration of the message and its claims in which such are verified and tested prior to acceptance. Instead... it's all about appeals to emotion and vanity in lieu of such evidenciary investigation and verification.

This is the hallmark difference between the dogmatic (i.e., belief-driven) mind and the scientific mind:

The dogmatic mind starts with a set conclusion (the belief... the con... the claim) and then fights to the bitter end to defend this against ANY investigation and/or verification. This is the textbook definition of being closed minded... of having one's mind already made up.

On the other hand, the scientific (skeptical) mind starts with NO preconceived conclusions, no "axe to grind," that limits the possibilities ... and then proceeds carefully from there to examine the evidences free of personal emotions, vanities and self-interests, carefully and systematically proving each step along the way through experimentation and verification, toward possible conclusions that are developed into theories... that are then tested and tried, accepting only such as pass all such tests as probabilities until or unless better evidences come along that help develop more accurate theories to be, likewise, tested and tried. And if such better evidences come along, regardless who comes up with them, all such are welcomed and accepted... because, unlike with the dogmatic (... errr.... gullible) mind, it is indeed the MESSAGE (the theories resulting from such experimentations) that matters, not whoever came up with it.

I have just read a book by a Nazi Camp Survivor and it shows the constant position of the movie name sake "King Rat", or those prison laborers in position to manipulate other prisoners for their own profit.

I should also mention that Duped Agents are best for initial introductions to contacts that paid in graft. These are often early investors who withdrew their early investments and reaped their grandiose taste of promise to come... yet just like all Tales eventually fails under scrutiny, under water made murky by those who believe they- will -get their pay-off-.. (make it to the promised life/land).lt

Ive always gone by the philosophy to believe 10% of what I read and disregard the rest unless it can be backed up by other sources

ive always asked for the facts but then again when some one presents them im always looking it up after wards to deliver what ive been told vs what i personally know on the matter. Understanding is a three edged sword.

My trick has always been to listen intently, or read thoroughly the persons spiel and right away, copy it, and have them write it again, or recite the spiel again.. as if you were interested in a key element. A person that is fabricating will falter notable at this point. Even people who maybe reciting an experience will have a varied telling as well. There is always evidence of self promotion in Tales, and Fabrications. Of course the most obvious liars are those who desperately claim such experiences in order impress, and astound their peers.. or to use the experience as a spring board to another farfetched claim about themselves.

I think that those believers who lack discernment leave themselves open to ridicule by extending their umbrella so willing over everyone who alludes to, or claims to have experiences (or even gifts) of the supernatural/paranormal kind.

I feel that this scrutiny would not be welcome warmly. In fact, if someone were to try those sceptical tricks on me, I would just be hostile towards that person. People definitely do not like their emotions to be taken very lightly. Pride, Shame, Honour, Integrity would all seriously be open to attack. Nobody likes feeling that vulnerable. If they claim it to be the truth then so be it. It's not like they would be getting money running into the thousands from doing this.

It is the smug satisfaction of knowing that they can make others ingest their crap. Their intent is to belittle people with sincere experiences. How can you give them a passing bill? You yourself just posted a comment claiming to only believe 10 percent of what you read, are you reigning.

Most of those who proclaimed to have a super natural experience, to increase the size of their ego, I just say, "WOW" dude, that was incredible. At the same time, my tiny brain, keep saying to me, what that heck this person think that I am. For every story, there is a reason and fact as why happen. Supernatural activities, are NOT the exception.

To deny someone's personal experience simply because science or you cannot explain it is also belittling and smug.

I am sure some (if not most) experiences are false. But, to exclude every experience?

I am not suggesting clumping every account into the category of fabricated, or embellished. I am simply stating that it is naive to accept every claim. I am trying to open duologue on how a person can spot a sincere account from a fabricated, or otherwise testimony.

" People definitely do not like their emotions to be taken very lightly."

Why would a person be emotionally invested in their personal account of an alleged paranormal experience?

Because these experiences are usually life-altering. They will not leave your perception and how you view life untouched. Of course you are speaking of Credibility which is undeniably intertwined with Integrity. How can someone's emotions be not invoked and be of a minor issue?

I feel most don't wish to prove their claims just because of the emotional issues that rise. It can and for most is a very life changing thing. So to open up to let people make a mockery of you just so they can prove or disprove(and what evidence will truely ever be enough to prove lets be honest please none) and then "tell" you your a nut becuase what they are trying to prove didn't happen on command like a trained animal. lets be honest about that too please we treat them like trained show ponnies move this say that do this touch that but when they don't oh it's not real can't happen. which hurts to have someone ridicule you or be abusive to you just because you had an experience that can not be duplicated. can a sunrise be EXACTLY the same from one day to the next? No there are variables which always need to be taken into account when discussing such things. above all at the very least be polite :)

It all comes down to sincerity in a persons testimony. There are hallmarks (as I have mentioned) that make one account (anecdote) more agreeable then another.

One can often smell the smoke being blown up ones ass.. so to speak.

I have found the possibility of someone deceiving you is inversely proportional to the quality of empirical and verifiable evidence accompanying the claim... and directly proportional to the degree to which they are attempting to "sell" you something. ;)

i think not believing in things like ghosts is like not beliving in a washing machine.both are just the same to me

How so? Everyone has seen a washing machine.

Very Cute little picture Dabs.
Nice thread too.
It has been my experience that normally between the bizarre and the mundane is where the truth lies.
I know that's a somewhat ambiguous statement, sorry for that. just the facts.

Well if it sounds impossibly true, then it's possibly false. ask question, delve down deep and stuff. Demand direct answers.

Well stated Mel. Well stated indeed. While a sincere person (with a sincere testimony) is far more likely to be receptive to just that. A person who is weaving tales will shun defensively any sign of scrutiny, sympathetically, or adverse.

I don't think one should be judgmental. Even a court of law goes by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule. Who are we to judge testimonies? Of course, we shouldn't believe what we hear or see. Investigation is the key. All the better if one has the means to do so. Debunked theories/testimonies can be found in multitudes if one searches for them. It all boils down to Time. :)

That depends, I think when you are given all sorts of wild information without any proof whatsoever, and the story is quite crazy then you have the right to (and perhaps should) judge that person, either as insane, a liar or as a common attention seeker but whether you should say what you think of them to their face...well, thats up to you. I have no problem telling them what I think about them. I find this thread interesting because its true that no matter what day and age we find ourselves in....someone is always getting suckered. Thankfully humans have wisened up somewhat now and those with a brain do challenge someone's claims and asks for proof and any other forms of evidence. It is naiveto just accept whatever someone tells you.

However, I do admit that there can be some things unexplainable or without proof. Of course, one then has to somehow separate the "true" instances from the bullcrap. I bet 80% is the latter.

Any group/project that seeks to present testimony needs to have standards, otherwise they are likely to have too many people under their umbrella (so to speak).

As it was mentioned in the Thread Opening. Even the show Fact, or Hoax screens their would be submitted material by using voice stress analysis.

In a like manner one can read through a stack of written, or typed text, and similar to Doctor Lightmans research using clues of human micro-expressions, writing can be examined in the form of reoccurring phraseology.. gaps in tense.. preemptive plausible accreditation.. blatant, and miniscule Fallacies of Logic.. and a number of other "Tells" that are the hallmarks of deception, or insincerity in written anecdotes.

Personally I am not cynical, I am open to the fact that any number of testimonies may have a sincere foundation in fact.. however I will qualify that by saying that a person who testifies with such conviction may still be biased in their conclusion, for example they may have seen an anomaly that they could not explain. These cases are often unique in that they usually have more than one person as a witness. And as anyone can tell you collaboration adds to credibility. Yet one still needs to guard against bias, and autosuggestion in such cases.

Remaining open minded and not leaning to the disbelief may help to ease the "weeding out process"

There will always be a chance of someone trying to sell you a line. Just like a 5 year old will just as easily claim they didn't steal the cookies from the cookie jar...

This being the internet... as well as all the technology out there and it being so easy to fabricate such things, I would never expect anyone to just take me at my word.

It would not emotionally devastate me, it would not 'crush me' and my world.. would not end.

What happens to me in my life will remain with me. If someone chooses to ask me questions in regards to something I may have experienced as well and I feel I can assist? I will. If they wish to question, I would be surprised if they didn't.

I will never purposely go out and advertise and try to 'sell my experiences' I merely share some of the evidence I have collected to enlighten those who have asked me to present it.

I have no one to impress, nothing to loose, and certainly nothing to gain from arguing on something that really isn't going to make or break me.

All in all great subject and hope you get whatever insight you are seeking! =-)

~Niffy

And thusly, the 10th Man Rule stands sound.... LOL

I'm such a conspiracy theorist, I can barely trust what I type, myself! With so much information, misinformation, misdirection and now, reliance upon social media to manipulate all of it -- it's a world where either everyone has the potential talent to be blowing smoke up your ass... OR!! A perfect Sun Tzu move and hide in plain sight.

If nine out of ten men says "black", it's the obligation of the tenth to say "white"... I love that philosophy.

(somewhere in there I think I answered you)

Truth is relative.If you cannot compare all the data and viewpoints on a certain Topic,you cannot arrive at The Truth.You can however arrive at A Truth.
For Example we know that the earth is round.We have satellite Pictures and mathematical equations which prove without a doubt that the earth is round.However we do not have such proof in the existence of Aliens,at least not in the General public sector(if we do and I`m woefully uninformed,forgive me).So we can say that ``the possibility of life on other planets`` exists,not that ``life exists on other planets``.So as Long as you do not go to extremes you will always be in some way right,unless you are dealing with a Mathematically proven absolute truth,then you`re either 100% right or 100% wrong

Which is why each case,and testimony must be evaluated individually.

Quite right

Reviewed by the individual(s), but only to reconvene and compare findings to establish a baseline of "truth".

Seems like a lot of rationalization to me. Some things at this time cannot be proven or disproved, just believed or not believed. I personally don't care one way or the other. There will always be hard headed disbelievers who will not believe anything they haven't experienced themselves regardless of how much information has been accumulated on the topic.

Then there are those who are fascinated by the unknown and will believe almost anything they read. I personally take a lot with a grain of salt. I have no agenda to prove or disprove anyone's beliefs or experiences. I have never experienced a haunting but have been in places said to be extremely haunted. I felt nothing so either they weren't out and about that day or I'm not sensitive enough. We rationalized it to too many people hanging around in the same place. I just chalked it up to a fun experience and no real paranormal phenomena I could tell and that was in the Whaley House.

Why would anyone care enough to want to disprove what some say or not? Seems a little toward being a busy body to me. I have heard many claims having been a member of IANDS and other groups but I listened, took it in and made no decision about it either way because it wasn't my experience. I don't feel people have to slice, dide and try to disprove everything someone else believes. I realize people write books and make money and unless you have a pretty good detective team you will be hard put trying to disprove their claims. Look how many people bought the book "The Secret." It was pure rubbish and rehash of things I already had heard many times but people bought it. Anyone who did research on the background of the author would have not. If you hang with spiritualists you know about what they call prosperity laws and positive thought, etc. It was nothing new and the author made tons of money off of people who for some reason didn't get that there was no concrete evidence that anything she wrote was anything more than pie in the sky BS. I couldn't believe how many bought that silly book but there are so many people who are clearly not aware when someone takes something that is well known by certain circles for years and repackages it and makes tons of money. This is what I detest concerning paranormal claims. Each person must decide on what they believe. If this wasn't so there wouldn't be religion because it is based on faith, belief and nothing more.

I wouldn't say rationalization=truth. There are people that enjoy eating paste. Is it "rational"? No (at least, not to me), but it still is truth.

Between experience and supposition lies truth. Like a good sandwich!

*off to go make a grilled cheese with paste*

CryingDutchess is right.Anything can be made to sound rational,but not everything is truthful.For example I can right now find fifteen articles by outside sources who prove that they have captured an extraterrestrial,complete with photos,expert consultations and so forth.Yet These ``facts`` may be complete hoaxes,though they are rational and have a Basis in fact

all depends on the experience your'e having, I have seen dead more then once.

FOR EXAMPLE

I have had lost my grandfather in 07 and after his death i seen him standing before me saying it will be ok, cause me and him were extremely close and he knew how much i worry for hm and my gramma , which is now 89 this week smiles :) i'm proud of having this sense most of it is not scary if you look at it, for realty the just want to touch out to you,

If its and dark entity then you must of opened a portal out some were , maybe thought negative during a astral projection or used a Ouija board these aren't toys folks, shit will come flying when you least aspect it.

The following is what I mean:

ra·tion·al·ize


1. offer reasonable explanation for something: to attempt to justify behavior normally considered irrational or unacceptable by offering an apparently reasonable explanation

2. make something rational: to make something rational, logical, or consistent

3. interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective

Synonyms: justify, give good reason for, vindicate, excuse, explain, account for

This has nothing to do with truth. It is done by both the naysayers and the believers. My opinion is don't worry about what others believe. Make your own decisions from research or personal experience. We don't need to be each others keepers. Beware of those asking for lots of money in connection to any sort of phenomena and research the person doing it including authors who write on this kind of thing. Beware of the skeptics that will bad mouth anyone who says or writes about anything in the area of the unknown. They are very often people who don't really want to know or want to control others ideas. Make up your own mind in so far as what you believe is the truth of anything. We are not sheep. Many know ahead of time that even with some concrete facts, they aren't going to believe unless they witness it first hand or have the same experience. Acceptable evidence is not always available if it is out of the realm of what most accept to be true. Just my opinion and doesn't have to be yours.

once a ghost knows its place it wont move it likes is were about's and will stay there even if you renovate a home.

I say dont fix something if it aint broken!