This all reminds of the Monty Python scene in the Holy Grail. They were trying to prove that a woman was a witch.

After saying that she looks like a witch so she must be one, they needed some more sufficient proof. The knight asked the villagers some questions:

Question - What do we do with witches? Answer - burn them.

Question -What else burns? Answer - wood
conclusion - witches burn because they are made of wood.

Question - How do we tell if she is made of wood? Answer, after deciding they could not build a bridge out of her - wood floats so lets see if she floats.
But wait - ducks also float. Conclusion - if she weighs the same as a duck, she has to be a witch.

A lopsided scale proves the point and everyone agrees.

Frankly, this is similar logic and degree of experimination used by the "skeptics" that believe in ghosts. I call them skeptics because they will dismiss fact to justify their conclusion.

There is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise, but this is always dismissed.   

Last night, the Discovery Channel presented a program on the Loch Ness monster. It was shown how the eye really does a bad job in seeing - the brain actually does all the work. The brain can interpret images the way it wishes. Preconceived notions will give them the results they are looking for.

I realize skeptics will continue to believe in the existence of spirits as a way of justifying experiences that they cannot explain. There have been wonderful stories shared here, and I am sure each one actually occured. There is no evidence to point to the existence of "spirits from beyond", just a number of incidents that can't be explained. To draw a conclusion is wrong.

Never happened, never will.