How Seeing a Ghost This Weekend Can Win You $1 Million

People have questioned the existence of ghosts since the beginning of civilization, or at least since civilization's second generation. Today, journalists, individuals and organizations who investigate the paranormal are found almost everywhere there are -- or were -- people.

Recently, members of the Alabama Paranormal Society reported hearing ghostly whispers and seeing strange, unexplained shapes at a defunct Birmingham blast furnace (pictured below). They strongly suspect the site is haunted.

Now, if they can prove it, they will not only put the age-old question to rest, they'll win $1 million.

The not-for-profit James Randi Educational Foundation offers a million-dollar prize to anyone who can provide evidence of ghosts. Or even a single ghost.

Moreover, any applicant who can do so little as bend a fork or move a piece of bread with his mind or otherwise prove that anything psychic, supernatural or paranormal of any kind exists or ever has: gets a million bucks.

The foundation was started by James Randi, long famous as a stage magician but perhaps best known as a skeptic with regard to paranormal claims. During a 1964 radio show, Randi was challenged by a parapsychologist: "Put your money where your mouth is."

Randi responded with an offer to pay $1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers in a controlled test. When word of the challenge spread, several donors pooled their money with Randi's, increasing the prize to $1 million.

To date, he's had more than 1,000 applicants, many claiming to have evidence of ghosts. Applicants have also included purported clairvoyants, exorcists, astrologers, psychics, telepathists, practitioners of telekinesis, energy healers, mind readers, ouija board communicators, and a woman with the ability to converse with animals. (See their actual applications by clicking on each link.)

All failed to prove their claims.

With a Vaudevillian's mock surprise, Randi told me, "You'd think someone would have taken the prize long ago."

Applications continue to pour in -- none, however, from noted paranormalists John Edward, Sylvia Browne or Uri Geller, each having declined the challenge. According to Randi, "They've been too busy to make a million dollars for twenty minutes work."

I asked Randi about the likelihood that an applicant would win the prize. "I don't see any possibility, now or ever," he said.

He would be satisfied, however, to cut a check to the Alabama Paranormal Society.

The age-old question, finally, will have an answer.

"I've always just wanted to know if anything [paranormal] is happening," he says. "Also I'd win a Nobel Prize because we'd have proof of something that only has been rumored to exist for centuries -- I'd make the million back."

Click here for an application in the event you see a genuine apparition on Halloween or have another paranormal experience at any time, including a past life.

The Sloss Blast Furnace site in Birmingham, AL: Haunted?


James Randi

 

 

Follow Keith Thomson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kqthomson

Comments

[Magick1]

Well, Keith, thanks for the article. It got some people thinking, always a good thing, in my opinion. I can with a fair degree of certainty predict that the Randi prize money is still safe.

It is apparent to me reading this and other articles and looking at the posts that the term Paranormal is big enough to drive the planet Jupiter through. In other words, the term paranormal is so encompassing that it does not lend itself to anything other than open discussion. That moves it to the territory of philosophy rather than science, as science prefers to contend with smaller issues to examine that require testing and repeatability. It is difficult to work with a subject that is at best sporadic and anecdotal, although I personally cannot dismiss all the evidence of personal experiences that are related by individuals.

Even the terminology is not defined. The term ghost, for instance, means different things to different people. It is an old, antiquated term with far too many attachments to myth, folklore, issues of faith, and issues of belief and with that comes prejudice pro and con in the argument of the phenomena. Perhaps in the future their will be actual agreed upon evidence and a means to identify, to debate, and to evaluate it in a scientific manner, but for now, we are left only to conjecture.

[Meteor]

You'd think for a million bucks James Randi could buy his way out of stupidville.

[Grasse7]

I'm posting this once again, in case it was missed first time around; if you plan on defending Randi or his methods, I suggest you read this carefully first:

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge

[lucyring]

I read the Daily Grail article yesterday. I fear the reporting is slightly biased. Regardless, to quote Gordon Gekko, "Greed clarifies." It seems that it's in Randi's interest to have a winner if only because he himself, as he says above, would make the million dollars back, probably several times over. Also he would get a good deal of attention, which it's safe to assume he likes. Probably he wants a big ticket item, like a clairvoyant, as opposed to aberrant meta-analytic hit rates, like in the Daily Grail article. But everybody wants a big-ticket paranormal item. Everybody just wants to know one way or the other.

[Grasse7]

The author definitely has a perspective (just as Randi has)--but did you find any factual errors in his piece?

[bobdcat]

I think the Daily Grail may have a vested interest in protecting their advertisers.

[Grasse7]

Oh yeah, bobcat--big bucks trading hands there... ;-)

[lastpost]

"I've always just wanted to know if anything [paranormal] is happening," he says. "

When it was first demonstrated that bats navigated by use of ultrasonic sound. One of the scientists present gripped the researcher by his lapels, and demanded to be told that what he had just revealed was not real. When Einstein proposed that gravity could bend light. His most eminent opponent demanded that his assistant disprove such nonsense. What is paranormal? Is it something magical? Or is it something, just outside our current understanding of reality?

[tehixe]

If there are things we don't understand, they can be demonstrated by physical evidence, the results can be replicated, then studied. Then we come up with a theory for why they work, and that's called scientific understanding. Paranormal is not a word used for things that exist that we don't understand, it's a word used for things that do not exist, that people nevertheless claim to exist despite lacking credible evidence. Paranormal phenomena, in other words, are the same kind of thing as Birtherism. Its followers have decided before the fact that it's true, and any evidence or lack of evidence only strengthens their conviction.

[Grasse7]

"Paranormal is not a word used for things that exist that we don't understand, it's a word used for things that do not exist, that people nevertheless claim to exist despite lacking credible evidence."

By playing with semantics, you basically miss the point the poster was trying to make. If you know your history of science, you'd know that many now-accepted theories were once considered--well, if you don't like "paranormal," then simply find a more comfortable word. Galileo felt that Kepler's notion of "action at a distance" (i.e., gravity) was "occult"--and I suspect you wouldn't like that word, either, but there it is. There are many other such instances like this. The upshot? Today's "paranormal" (or "occult," or "magical," etc. etc.) often turns out to be tomorrow's "normal." It's a perfectly valid point, and really shouldn't be too hard to understand, however you choose to phrase it.

[malodorousgit]

It's not the same as Birtherism, that's just a way of dismissing and scorning people and trying to bully them into feeling stupid. And not everything in the world is testable and replicable. Scientists come up with theories they can never test, about what happened millions of years ago or at the edge of the universe or in human consciousness. Yes, they use scientific equipment like scanners and spectroscopes. But they use their own perception systems to read the results, so in the end it is their own experience they are consulting. I like the scientific method, it's great, but it is very limited to think that it is the only way of arriving at the truth, and that it arrives at the only valid truths.

[Magick1]

Not all things that we do not understand can be currently demonstrated by physical evidence. You cannot at this point in time break down every bit of the human experience into a physical experiment. Now, I do realize that some think that psychology and psychiatry are voodoo science, but we have yet to map human consciousness.

As for belief in the paranormal being the same as birtherism, that's an unsupported statement. Many individuals who claim to have encountered a ghost have previously been very skeptical of or denied the exisitence of the phenomena. Does that validate the phenomena, no, not at all. It validates the individual's response and reaction to a stimulus and their interpretation of what was the causitive factor.

[bobdcat]

Your two examples were vindicated by REPEATABLE experiment. There was no "paranormal magic" - just data that did not fit into contemporary theory. The theory was modified to encompass the new data. That's how science works.

[zizyphus]

If you accept the notion of a multidimensional universe, string theory, then you can account for paranormal phenomena by saying that under certain conditions, elements of one dimension can be perceivable in another. That is not to say that the laws of physics that we observe here are the same everywhere.

Randi is right to expose psychic frauds, but that doesn't account for the numerous experiences people have in their lives that cannot be explained in any other way than to attribute it to the dearly departed.

Anyway, there are some people that no matter what proof you provided for any phenomena would not believe their senses.

Maybe Randi should come to Hawaii and hang out at night at the City of Refuge - Puuhonua o Honaunau. Bring friends.

[bobdcat]

"that doesn't account for the numerous experiences people have in their lives that cannot be explained in any other way than to attribute it to the dearly departed."
NO, NO, NO. You're right if you are saying that the possibility of the "dearly departed" haunting you has not been disproved, but, just because no satisfactory explanation has been offered, that does not NECESSARILY lead to your conclusion. Senses can be fooled or can just be plain wrong.

[Magick1]

Every year around Halloween one or more writers bring up the Randi challenge. The headline on this one is simply incorrect. Randi's challenge does not apply to providing proof of ghosts. It relates to those claiming psychic abilities to demonstrate and prove those to Randi's satisfaction. Further, not just everyone is accepted for the challenge. If you read the application, the person accepting the challenge must be someone known to the media, published, filmed, generally someone who has a reputation as a psychic or as someone who claims paranormal powers. Joe ghost buster, and Sarah psychic, at the new age bookstore, are not the folks Randi is looking for. He is looking for publically known targets. He doesn't care about ghost video tapes, anecdotal or second hand stories, theories, ghosts in bottles. These are not included in the challenge. I am wondering if the author of the article even read the challenge attachement placed in the story.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/how-seeing-a-ghost-this-w_b_338248.html

[Keith Thomson - Huffpost Blogger]

Magick1, I'm not interested in shilling for Randi or judging him or his contest. I would like to address two misconceptions.

First, the majority of the applicants (see the application links) are unknown.

Second,having interviewed Mr. Randi, I can attest that he does indeed care about the evidence. In encouraging me to accompany the Alabama Paranormal Society on an upcoming investigation, he gave me a good deal of advice and explicit instructions on what to look for, re: the use of the EVP-recording equipment, and much more. If the investigation bears fruit, he would be satisfied, as the post states.

[Magick1]

Keith, it never once occurred to me that you were shilling for Randi or judging him or his contest. My issue is that Randi will not give anyone money for seeing a ghost. The one claimant listed in the story with evidence of ghostly phenomena, by way of EVP, was turned down for the challenge. His evidence did not meet the requirements of Randi's challenge. Randi does not accept anecdotal or recorded evidence for his challenge. So, the tagline for the story is misleading, but it is seasonal headline, so I should just let that go.

Reading the application, what he does prefer is someone with credentials and media exposure. The testjng is set up for documentation in front of Randi and uses protocols agreed to by both parties. Even a few Phd's have questioned the manner in which his challenge is applied. I know, that as a Mentalist and Performing Magician, Randi must have at least some interest in the paranormal. Likely he has seen enough deception or attempts at it to place him in an understandable skeptical position.

It's enlightening to read that during an investigation he gave you advice and instruction. Still, such activity is sporadic at best and until or if there is something providing a stable measurement and repeatability, I am sure that the prize money is safe from distribution.

I did enjoy the article and appreciate the fact that you took part in some form of investigation while preparing to write it.

[JustDavid]

Suppose, under valid scientific conditions, a person was asked to predict 10 numbers between 1 and 100 and following that a computer (or some other random method) did likewise. And they did this 1000 times or whatever it takes to be statistically irrefutable. If the person is correct 20% of the time do we say he was 100% better than chance odds or do we point out that he was wrong 80% of the time. If you are a skeptic how do you explain this?

I have never seen a ghost and I am convinced the concept of ghosts is ridiculous.
I have had psychic experiences.
I have seen UFO's.
I had a dog that could predict when either my daughter or I started for home by excitedly running to the window. Very occasionally she would miss and we would show up at the door to her surprise. But when she signalled we were coming she was right 100% of the time.

I don't know what it means either. I do believe you can't command this stuff to happen at will.

[bvf]

What?

bvf

[JustDavid]

Two points:

First) The results of many ESP experiments are that the test subjects are consistently right 1-of-5 when blind luck would only allow 1-of-10. Is that ESP? I say what else could it be? A skeptic like Randi would laugh pointing out they were wrong 4-of-5.

Second) If you haven't experienced these things the skeptics ridicule you will be on their side....like I am because I haven't seen a ghost. If you have experienced them then you know there are things going on we don't understand yet.

[malodorousgit]

There's a book, Dogs Who Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, by Rupert Sheldrake. He did controlled experiments, with video cameras. There are dogs, apparently, that run to the window when their owners leave work to come home. And if the owner then goes back to work, the dog leaves the window. I've never experienced anything remotely psychic or telepathic, but...the world is full of things we don't understand yet.

[JustDavid]

Thank you malororuosgit. A friend gave me the book after hearing what I was seeing. Sheldrake's description was right on.

[Jimi Lee]

James Randi wants to keep his million dollars. Countless times respected psychics have reported that Randi changes the rules of determining whether a paranormal event has been proven. In the end, only Dandy Randi himself is the final judge of whether proof has been established. No independent agents can enter into judging the results. Yeah, not like he has any conflict of interest.
Randi is an accomplished entertainment showman. And this phony, baloney offering is only intended to generate publicity for his greater glory.

[bvf]

> James Randi wants to keep his million dollars. . .

Uh, you haven't been paying attention. It's 0.1% his. The rest comes from donors who since joined the challenge.

> Countless times respected psychics have reported that Randi changes the rules of determining whether a paranormal event has been proven.

"Countless"? I guarantee you anyone could count the number of reports. That is, unless you want to change the rules every time a result is reported. Let's say, oh, 200, for the time being. Please let me know if my number is high, low, or on the money, as well as an explanation for the variance.

> ". . . respected psychics. . . "

Presumably, every asylum has its elites -- care to rephrase this?

bvf

[shimmyshammy]

I always wondered why, with so many "psychics" in the United States, there wasn't a widespread warning to the nation on September 10, 2001. All of those psychics could have gotten the word out but I guess they were just too busy fleecing the suckers.

Randi's offer shows the fraudulent nature of "faith".

[Magick1]

I don't have faith in many things at all either, but if mankind does have some psychic component that is not fully explored, there is absolutely nothing to connect it to the word faith, or any religious dogma.

[nightwind928]

I'm going to predict the winning lottery numbers right here, right now and PROVE that I deserve the million bucks.Hmmm­mmmm....I'­m focusing..... I see... 23-7-38-49­-12-03...n­ow when these hit , I expect to get my million. Oh, oh...the magic trance is lifting.... I can't guarantee what day, month or year or even what state these will come up in, but they will eventually come up.

[bvf]

As will the combination 01-02-03-04-05-06. Yet it's surprising how many people blanch at this proposition.

bvf

[S-]

If there were ghosts, as in a conscious supernatural being, their existence is quite useless. Let's see, if I were a consciousness unfettered by physical limitation what should I be doing? Imparting universal truths for the benefit of all living beings? Traveling and discovering the wonders of the universe? Communicating the reality of an afterlife to humanity? Nah, I'll think I'll just stick around making noises and move things around now and then to freak people out. Now that's what it's all about!

[bvf]

Enthusiastically fanned!

bvf

(But of course, our contentious friends here will respond that we have no way of knowing what information those confined to the spirit world are privy to--which will doubtlessly strike the rational among us as, well, a pretty convenient argument.)

[Magick1]

What is a spirit world? By even the standards of folklore ghosts walk both in our world and a so-called spirit world. If so, how can they be considered confined? S-, you are postulating that a ghost is a conscious supernatural being. Do we have any proof of that at all? Also, do you think all reports of ghosts are minimized to making noises and moving things around?

[Magick1]

Who is to say that our existence isn't also useless?

[bvf]

Oh, no, our existence is quite useful, without doubt!

bvf

[RaisingAwareness]

Wonder if Mr. Randi would allow this as evidence of the paranormal?

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5965wcH2Kx0&feature=related

[Ilene2theRight]

Why don't they enter?

[Ilene2theRight]

Maybe James Randi isn't the world's best arbiter. But what about his argument. In several thousand years of civilization, how come there isn't any proof of any of this stuff signed off on by a better arbiter?

From an evidentiary standpoint, the people who claim the moon landing never took place have about as strong a case.

[ianrthorpe]

I'm not interested in Randi's money but the first thing he should understand is we don't see ghosts, we experience them. The mind then creates images to rationalise totally inexplicable emotional reactions. I recommend those sneerers in the thread to arrange to spend a night alone in the tunnels of Edinburgh's underground city. I have never know any sceptic come out of a tour of those dark places without bing in urgent need of clean underwear. They are also suddenly not sceptics anymore.

Or you can come to the place where this narrative is set.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewpoetry.asp?id=239906

[centerleftsam]

And why are the conditions that they be alone, and at night? Are ghosts vulnerable to sun burns? And do they fear crowds? Perhaps your social skills diminish if you avoid the other ghosts and hang out in tunnels in the after life.

[bobdcat]

To those who say Randi is trying to disprove the paranormal - he's not. He's asking those who think they have proof to put up or shut up. Anecdote is not evidence. He is doing a great service if he can unmask cynical "psychics" who prey on the credulous.

Read about a condition called "sleep paralysis" if you want to know why there are so many reports of ghost and alien visitations - especially at night.

[lucyring]

I agree. The scientific explanations, although hard to accept, are a lot easier to accept than the paranormal explanations.

[Magick1]

Sleep paralysis might explain a number of ghost visitations, but far from all.

[bobdcat]

And you have proof of this? Or is that just an assumption based on....?

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.