@DTCwordfan
//Scientifically, one can not pooh-pooh it //
Scientifically, one should. If you can't turn observable phenomena into a hypothesis or a set of equations and *make successful predictions* with them, or *do something useful and practical* with them, then it is as woolly as your avatar.
//as there may be energy forms we don't fully know about yet. //
Non-scientists always resort to phrases like "energy forms" when they want to appeal to other non-scientists, who are easily taken in by such figures of speech.
Matter is an energy form, if you accept Einsten's equivalence:- e=mc^2
//How, for example, did folk explain electricity pre 19thC - though they could see lightning and Elmo's Fire etc....? //
Yes, I accept they couldn't explain that but those were phenomena which were *common experience*, on land and at sea. People standing in different positions, can all agree that they just saw a lightning flash, whether it was sheet or fork and, in the latter case, which direction it was.
Your ley-lines assertion is that people stood a few feet apart variously share a sighting or do not. Of course, if there were a lot of glass panels in the vicinity of the witnesses, I would quite understand the sighting discrepancies.
I'm unsure whether a believer/sceptic debate was what AB Editor (fawn, fawn) intended this thread to turn into. Depending on whether you post about ghost in R&S or Science, you will miss out on a chunk of readers who steer clear of one side of the debate or the other.
My interest is chiefly in why ghost phenomena do not make themselves as amenable to scientific testing as they should be, if they represent some genuine, undiscovered aspect of reality. The fact that they are capricious is interesting in and of itself. Inconsistent behaviour is compatible with the attributes of personality.