|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:04 am
Some investigators prefer to use a medium/ sensitive to investigator while other relight solely on their scientific equipment. Which method do you think is better?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:28 am
Scientific. There's no room for flat out fraud and the investigations aren't soiled by the integrity of the human mind. When you have science on your side, it makes it harder for skeptics to call you a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Injection Crew
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:35 pm
Scientific. It's not that I don't believe in mediums, empaths, clairvoyants, psychics, and the like but it makes it very easy to fake things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:01 pm
Personally I agree with you all scientific is the best methiiod. It’ like I have said before, I could say Elvis is next to me but that don’t mean he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Which is why the spiritual approach can be counted as unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:52 pm
Yeah, scientific.
The hints that even /good/ empaths get are far too generic for an investigation to be based on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Johnny Vice Captain
Springtime Autobiographer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Injection Crew
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 am
That or they could give off descriptions of events or themes that were easily found by researching the location's history. Even if they say they want to go in uninformed, they could have always researched in private.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
