Throughout history, many people have claimed to be able to perform amazing feats that defy science and logic. Such claims continue today in many different flavors. There are claims of dowsing, psychic spoon bending, telekinesis, miracle healing, telepathy, x-ray vision, contacting the dead, electricity detection, cloud moving, and much, much more. When a person claims to have amazing abilities, usually one of two things happen. The person’s story is laughed off or ignored by the public, or they are seen as legitimate, gain a significant following, and make lots of money from public demonstrations of their powers. Both scenarios have an interesting common element: A deliberate exclusion of science. Many news reports that cover alleged psychics, for instance, maintain a skeptical tone but avoid mentioning the fact that psychic powers have not been proven to exist. On the opposite end of the public belief spectrum, people who fully believe in the reality of superpowers brush aside little things like the laws of physics and are always ready with an explanation of how their favorite psychic is not obligated to prove that their powers are real. This phenomenon of silence on the intersection of science and superpowers begs the question of how a person with superpowers could scientifically prove them to be real.
Luckily, we don’t have to speculate about this topic. There is a clear pathway for an individual with psychic or paranormal powers to prove themselves and gain scientific acceptance of the existence of their abilities. If you are such an individual, read on for a list of dos and don’ts that will help you on your quest for scientific acceptance.
Do work with experts to investigate your ability
One of the harshest realities of proving the existence of superpowers is that public acceptance means nothing. Large numbers of people routinely fall for fake psychics, political propaganda, and Nigerian prince emails. The number of people who believe in your powers does not constitute strong evidence in your favor. What you actually need is the acceptance of experts who have education and experience in a field of study that is closely related to your claims. Willingness to have an expert test your powers will earn you goodwill with the scientific community, and participating in an experiment designed by someone with knowledge of the workings of science increases the likelihood of acceptance of your powers if you pass the test. If you are telekinetic or psychic, go find a physicist or psychologist and ask them about testing your powers. If you can alter the brightness of a lightbulb, approach an expert in electricity. If you have the power to make someone urinate with your mind (yes, a person has claimed to have this ability), ask a doctor or medical researcher. Expertise comes in many forms; professional magicians are a frequently overlooked group of experts on superpowers. Since magicians make their living by fooling people, they are experts in distraction, deception, and performing the seemingly impossible on command. If you can demonstrate an ability that a magician cannot replicate with magic tricks, it greatly lessens the likelihood of fraud on your part.
Now, most individual scientists and magicians have busy schedules and may not be available to test your claims. However, there are a few professional groups that hold contests or challenges related to unusual abilities (Wikipedia Contributors 2025). Generally, the way the challenges work is that if someone is able to demonstrate superpowers under scientific testing conditions and passes both a preliminary demonstration and a final test, they will win scientific recognition of their ability and a monetary prize. One of the most prominent is held by the Center for Inquiry Investigations Group. The CFIIG’s Paranormal Challenge invites people with superpowers to participate in a two-part test of their abilities and offers a $500,000 prize to winners (Kreidler 2012). (A smaller $5,000 amount is also available to anyone who refers a winner to the CFIIG.) To accept the challenge, an applicant simply fills out an online application. Once the application is received, the CFIIG contacts the applicant to ask for further details and negotiate a testing protocol that both parties can agree on.
Don’t refuse to be tested by skeptics
The inverse of the first piece of advice is obvious, and yet it is frequently ignored. Don’t refuse tests of your powers! Science relies on repeated testing to prove the existence of any particular phenomenon, so anything that cannot be tested will not be accepted by science. This is a fact that most public psychic mediums choose to ignore. (James Randi, a famous magician, once offered a million-dollar prize to psychics who could prove their powers to him, but the most famous psychics of his day, including Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne, never took up the challenge [Higginbotham 2014].) Since a person who publicly claims to have amazing powers has nothing to lose and much to gain by getting tested, refusal makes one look suspicious at best and intentionally deceptive at worst.
Here’s a quick primer on how an experiment works. The gold standard for many areas of science is replicable experiments that are both controlled and double blinded. A “control” in an experiment is a factor that is kept the same throughout the test; it helps establish that the test procedure is working properly. (You may remember the “C” bar on a COVID-19 at-home test, which signaled that the test was invalid if it did not appear.) In addition, the use of experimental controls helps reduce the effects of chance and any variables other than the one being tested. For example, in a test of the ability to move clouds across the sky, a participant would focus on a single cloud and move it to a certain part of the sky or near a particular landmark that had been decided on before the start of the test. The researchers could keep track of the wind speed and weather at the location of the cloud mover and schedule the test for a date when low winds and no significant changes in weather are forecasted.
A double blinded experiment is one in which neither the participant nor the researcher knows crucial information about the condition or treatment that the participant receives until after the test ends. Blinding is very important in scientific research, as there are many areas of study in which the expectations of the people involved can bias results and reduce the accuracy of experiments, including paranormal research. For a person who claims to be able to predict future events, such as knowing the next playing card in a deck, an example of double blinding would be measures to keep the deck hidden and random. The researcher could replace old cards and shuffle the deck before each trial, then remove a new card from the deck and present it to the participant facedown on a table. The participant would then predict the card’s number and suit without having any information about it. Because the researcher would also be unable to see the card, they would not be able to accidentally give away any hints via body language, facial expressions, or other gestures. Furthermore, the constant replacement of cards and reshuffling of the deck would mean that the participant would not be able to make guesses that were informed by the knowledge of which cards had already appeared. In a scenario like this one, correct predictions are much more likely to be due to a genuine paranormal skill than in a situation in which, say, the cards weren’t replaced and the participant could have made accurate predictions via card counting.
Finally, all established facts in science must be replicable. This criterion is simple: If an experiment produces certain results, and someone else later runs the same experiment with the same protocol, it should produce similar results to the original. Groups of studies are more reliable than single ones, since the effects of chance and poor experimental design become diluted as the topic is studied more. Moreover, the replication of results by people who are unconnected to the original researcher reduces the likelihood of experimenter bias. Replicability is why many paranormal contests ask participants to successfully complete two tests to win. If a participant is able to demonstrate a superpower multiple times on demand in well-designed experiments, researchers can be significantly more confident in deeming the results to be truly due to the claimed power and not a statistical fluke.
Demonstrating a willingness to complete scientific tests includes not refusing controls, blinds, or repeats. The actions of one applicant to the CFIIG Paranormal Challenge, Toni M., provide an excellent example of what not to do when creating test protocol and performing demonstrations. Toni initially suggested that the CFIIG should simply take her at her word that she could perform miracle healings, exorcise demons, and speak to the dead. When informed that testimony was not sufficient and that she needed to be tested, she responded, “OK so this means no lol thank you i guess [errors in original text]” (Underdown 2022). Months later, after reapplying, negotiating, and receiving suggestions for test protocol, Toni reversed course and agreed to a demonstration in which she would determine the birth dates of eight dead people from photographs. All parties agreed that she only needed to determine months and days of birth, not years. However, she failed to show up for the preliminary demonstration three times, resulting in weeks of delays. When Toni finally attended, she told CFIIG personnel that she was confident in her abilities and would be able to correctly identify each birth date, but turned out to be incorrect on all eight people. If you are ever within reach of scientific acceptance of your powers, don’t reject rigorous testing or fail to keep your appointments. Such behavior will draw the suspicion of the people who are investigating your ability, make you look lazy and entitled, and give the impression that you want to be given scientific acceptance without having to put in the work to provide evidence.
Do create a specific claim that can be tested in a practical manner
A frequent problem relating to the scientific acceptance of unusual abilities is that the claim cannot be tested. There are a number of pitfalls that can make a claim untestable. Sometimes a person has a claim that is very vague. (“I can send thoughts to people.” Can you send words, images, or both? How lengthy or complex can they be? Do you need to sit close to a person, or can you send them thoughts from a distance?) Once in a while, a claim is unfalsifiable, meaning that it is so arbitrary and expansive that it can never be proven wrong under any circumstances. (“I am capable of remote viewing – describing a given location that I have never seen with my eyes.” In these cases, even the most vague and common details can count as a hit, such as the statement that one can see grass, trees, and fields of crops when challenged to describe a particular farm.) Occasionally, a claimed superpower is not tested because an experiment would be too dangerous for participants. (According to Jim Underdown, one of the main investigators for the CFIIG, a man once tried to enter the Paranormal Challenge with the claim that he could stop bullets with his mind. Underdown’s legal consultant immediately nixed the test [Center for Inquiry 2024].)
To avoid these issues, work with researchers to craft a specific claim about a single ability. If you have more than one power, they can each be tested in separate experiments. Think about the questions that you might be asked. If you can predict the future, what kinds of events can you predict? If you can move objects with your mind, how far? If you can sense electricity, do you see, hear, feel, or smell it? Does your ability work under any circumstances, or do you need certain conditions to use it? How much time does it generally take for you to get results? Do you need particular items or other participants for a demonstration? Answering these questions can both help you learn more about your powers and aid in creating a test that you are sure is both fair and a good demonstration.
Don’t ignore the realities of mental illness
On the CFIIG’s Paranormal Challenge application webpage, there is a section labeled “Please Read Before Applying.” It includes a video and few paragraphs for people who apply to the challenge with the claim of telepathy. Here is the most important excerpt.
“If your telepathic claim involves hearing voices that those around you don’t hear, reading other people’s thoughts, or believing others can hear your thoughts, please consider the following:
What you are experiencing is consistent with recognized illnesses of the mind that are known to cause symptoms like what you are experiencing. Conditions like schizophrenia and other disorders are not paranormal ability, they are chemical imbalances in the brain, and there may be treatment available to help you.” (CFIIG 2012)
This warning touches on an important issue that is relevant to the scientific testing of psychic abilities: mental health. Although the majority of paranormal believers and people who believe they have unusual powers are not mentally ill, there are specific alleged abilities that include symptoms of mental illness. If you (or someone you know who claims to have such abilities) experience these symptoms, it’s important to get checked by a licensed professional, even if only to check off an alternative explanation for your powers.
The presence of mental illness also has significant implications for certain social dynamics in situations where unusual abilities are involved. There are cases where a person is both mentally ill and is encouraged in their belief of their powers by the people around them, raising the possibility of abuse and exploitation. The CFIIG once tested a young man named Phillip L. who claimed that he had clairaudience, the ability to hear sounds from very far away and even through soundproof barriers (Kreidler 2011). Phillip participated in a preliminary demonstration in which he attempted to listen in on words and phrases that were spoken by a person in a room a floor above him. After he proved unable to tell what they were saying, the CFIIG interviewed him and discovered that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and that his parents and church had directed him to stop taking his medication. This scenario is extremely concerning. Instead of supporting him and encouraging him to stay in treatment, Phillip’s community likely misled or pressured him into the belief that he was clairaudient, which is unlikely to help him and could cause him significant harm. At best, this was a misguided attempt at using religion to erase a real and serious medical condition. At worst, Phillip’s parents were focused on earning monetary benefits from his “powers,” either by receiving the $5,000 referral award or by controlling the way Phillip spent his own prize money. If you are ever in such a situation, recognize the red flags and get out!
Despite the problematic nature of mental illness in testing superpowers, the CFIIG has a rule that they will not refuse to test a person due to mental illness (or any altered state of mind, including intoxication)(Center for Inquiry 2024). After all, if psychic powers or paranormal abilities truly do exist, there is no reason why a person could not have a mental illness in addition to such an ability, and it is not the CFIIG’s place to give unsolicited diagnoses. Nonetheless, anyone who believes they have a superpower or knows someone who does should know the relevant facts and be prepared to rule out mental health as an explanation.
Do remain open to scientific and alternative explanations for your powers
Not every amazing power will turn out to be real. In fact, to this day, no one has ever successfully demonstrated such an ability under scientific testing conditions. Therefore, the odds of your particular power being a genuine paranormal ability are very low. This isn’t a bad thing, but it does mean that you should be willing to explore alternative hypotheses.
Sometimes, a proposed superpower is actually an ordinary human ability or a byproduct of known physics. The CFIIG once received an application from a Jon G., who claimed to be able to “circumvent Newton’s Laws of Motion” (Underdown 2020). As evidence, Jon sent in a video showing a glass top that spins counterclockwise, then stops, turns clockwise, and then reverses again and spins counterclockwise once more. The video surprised CFIIG personnel, and they asked Jon to add controls and brainstormed various ways of cheating, but these measures did not affect the top’s motion in repeated experiments. Finally, they called in some physics experts, who told them that a slight tilt in the table and an irregular top shape would produce the effect. The CFIIG was able to create a top of their own and replicate the three turns, demonstrating that the effect that Jon observed was unlikely to be due to any superpowers on his part.
Another possible explanation for many superpowers is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, a psychological phenomenon in which a person believes they are much more skilled or competent than they actually are (Wikipedia Contributors 2025). The amusing event that inspired the original research on this topic was a series of 1995 bank robberies. Two men named McArthur Wheeler and Clifton Johnson robbed two Pittsburgh banks at gunpoint, and for some reason, they didn’t seem to take any measures to hide their faces or disguise themselves. They were caught relatively quickly due to the fact that their faces were visible on security camera footage. When asked for an explanation for their apparent lack of precautions, the men claimed that they had covered their faces with lemon juice to make themselves invisible to cameras and were shocked when they saw photos of themselves that had been taken from the camera footage. Wheeler said that he had even tested their theory by putting lemon juice on his face and photographing himself and claimed that he hadn’t appeared in the resulting photo. (This result probably occurred due to bad film or user error.) The fact that the robbers were willing to bet their freedom on the paranormal properties of lemon juice demonstrates how easy it is to become overconfident in oneself, no matter how outlandish or nonsensical one’s ideas are.
There are a host of other physics, psychological, and statistical nuances that produce results similar to many alleged psychic powers, too many to list here. However, they all demonstrate the same facts: That our perception, memory, and reasoning are flawed, and that it is entirely possible for ordinary people to believe that they have supernatural powers or have witnessed an unexplainable event when nothing out of the ordinary actually happened. These phenomena have fooled countless individuals, from Nobel Prize winners and powerful heads of state to average Joes. It’s perfectly plausible that you may have been tricked as well, and that doesn’t mean you are unintelligent or not observant; it just means that you are human.
Don’t make excuses for failure
One last piece of advice: If your abilities are tested and fail, don’t try to make excuses or ask for extra opportunities. Agreeing to a test means confirming that you believe you are capable of successfully completing the tasks involved. Success in a test provides evidence that your powers are real, and failure is evidence against their existence. If you refuse to admit this fact in the event of failure, your claims become unfalsifiable and you will not gain scientific acceptance.
The case of Natasha Demkina illustrates this fact well. Hailed by believers as “the girl with X-ray eyes,” the 17-year-old claimed to be able to see inside peoples’ bodies well enough to identify organs and make medical diagnoses (Hyman 2005). She alleged that she could see through a person’s clothing (though not through cloth screens, for some reason) and diagnose via photographs as well as in person. There were plenty of people willing to offer anecdotal evidence in her favor, but she did not participate in any formal tests until the Discovery Channel became interested in making a program about her story.
Natasha was tested in 2005 by the Center for Inquiry, the CFIIG’s parent organization, as part of the material for the television program. The issue in Natasha’s claim (and any claim involving medical diagnoses) was that it’s possible to know a person’s medical information via means other than X-ray vision. As a result, the test included measures to prevent the following phenomena:
- Good Luck and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: It’s easy to claim high accuracy when only your best results are reported. Natasha had given diagnoses for so many people by the time she agreed to be tested that she had a high probability of being surprisingly accurate in at least a few cases just by luck. Her supporters then argued that her powers were real by publicizing those “accurate” cases and downplaying or ignoring instances in which she turned out to be wrong. To prevent this fallacy from coming into play during the test, the CFI personnel simply kept track of all of her stated diagnoses, whether they were accurate or not.
- Post Hoc Hypotheses: An experiment rarely yields relevant information if a specific hypothesis and test criteria aren’t constructed beforehand. A major issue in the testimony in favor of Natasha’s ability was that no one ever took the time to craft hard rules for what counted as “accurate” diagnoses and what counted as “inaccurate” ones. This failure meant that Natasha could make any reasonably likely diagnosis and clients and supporters would decide after the fact that everything she said was correct. If Natasha told a person that they had a health issue in an area of the body where they were suffering or that they had previously experienced difficulty with, they would claim that she successfully detected a problem that they knew all along was a significant health issue. If Natasha told them that they had a disease or injury in a part of the body that they had not had problems with, on the other hand, she would be credited with discovering a brand new health issue that had mysteriously escaped the notice of both the client and their doctor. The CFIIG’s test dodged this issue by settling on specific test criteria for clear-cut medical issues, and they enlisted test volunteers who had known internal medical conditions. Natasha agreed that she would view the volunteers and write down her diagnoses for the absence or alteration of organs, since such conditions were easy to verify. (The test was even made easier because the CFIIG gave her test papers asking for certain organs: Heart, skull, esophagus, lung, hip, appendix, and one control volunteer with no changes to any of these body parts. Each paper included an anatomical diagram in addition to a written prompt.) In addition, all parties agreed on the bar for success beforehand. If Natasha was able to successfully identify the organ status of five or more of the seven volunteers, the test would be considered evidence in favor of her claimed superpower.
- Cueing and Reinforcing Feedback: When hearing about Natasha from her supporters, one can easily fall into the trap of assuming that her readings were made in a vacuum and that her accurate diagnoses “just can’t be explained” by anything other than a genuine psychic power. In reality, Natasha frequently interacted with her clients, and those interactions included both verbal exchanges and nonverbal communication such as eye movements, facial expressions, and body language. This context posed a major challenge, because any communication, no matter how subtle, could give Natasha clues about a person’s health. If they asked her to look at their heart, for example, she would easily be able to diagnose a heart problem by simply guessing common issues associated with that organ. Furthermore, a person’s appearance and the nonverbal information they communicated (unconscious on the part of the communicator and sometimes even the receiver) were also likely to make a difference in diagnosis. Limping, posture, breathing, and many other actions all hint at the state of a person’s health, and an interested expression or a nod would indicate that Natasha’s predictions were close. Even the situation would have given Natasha information; after all, most people who came to see her did so because they were already sick or injured. To eliminate the effect of cues and feedback, the volunteers were given opaque glasses to wear to obscure their eye movements. They were also instructed not to speak to Natasha and to stand still and keep their hands at their sides or in their pockets during the test. As a further control measure, the test was double blinded, so that the personnel who conducted the test were ignorant of each volunteer’s medical conditions and could not give any cues to Natasha or to her interpreters.
Natasha seemed to do everything correctly. She and her supporters negotiated with the CFIIG and developed a test protocol that everyone agreed on. The CFIIG was satisfied with the scientific rigor of the test, Natasha confirmed that it was within her power to complete and pass it, and the Discovery channel was happy to get a scientific demonstration on video. On the day of the test, Natasha showed up early. She asked clarifying questions about the organs she was going to look for and spoke up for herself in an instance where she was uncomfortable with the testing environment. She took as much time as she needed to make predictions that she felt certain were accurate.
Ultimately, she correctly identified the people with metal staples from a heart surgery, part of a lung removed, a hip replacement, and no medical conditions, but these four correct predictions fell below the test’s threshold of 5/7 accuracy. In addition, Natasha failed to correctly identify the people with a metal plate in their head, a shortened esophagus, and a missing appendix. All of those conditions should have been extremely obvious and easy to spot if she truly had the ability to see their organs. After learning that she had failed, she asked the test personnel for permission to diagnose them in the hopes of getting an extra chance to prove her powers (Skolnick 2005). When one tester, Andrew Skolnick, consented, she informed him that he had problems in an astonishing eleven different organs and body parts! Skolnick did not have any of these conditions, and amazingly, despite the massive number of his organs that Natasha claimed were diseased, she missed all seven of the medical issues that Skolnick truly had been diagnosed with.
Despite the reasonable test measures, Natasha’s supporters immediately began complaining. The test had been too hard; the winning grade was too restrictive; the CFIIG had intentionally manipulated the protocol to discredit Natasha and prevent her from winning! Natasha herself claimed that four out of seven was close enough and that the test should have been declared a success. The CFIIG responded to these grievances by noting that Natasha and her supporters had co-written the test protocol and agreed that she was capable of passing the test under scientific conditions. Furthermore, since people were relying on Natasha’s diagnoses to make real-life medical decisions (and paying her their real-life money in the process), didn’t she have a responsibility to disclose to her clients the fact that her accuracy was barely higher than 50%? Incorrect medical diagnoses can cause serious harm; people may deal with unnecessary stress and fear, take superfluous medication with unwanted side effects, and undergo invasive tests and even surgeries that they don’t need to. Natasha’s publicly claimed accuracy rates were close to 100%, which no doubt attracted clients and led many people to believe in her powers. Those people had the right to know that her powers had not been proven and weren’t as accurate as they thought.
The complaints also induced the CFIIG to take a closer look at the volunteers whose conditions had been correctly identified and at the test as a whole. On further inspection, the appearance of multiple volunteers whose status had been accurately predicted by Natasha could have served as clues as to their health status. The man with the staples in his heart was the oldest volunteer and looked the most ill out of everyone in the group. In contrast, the volunteer who Natasha correctly identified as having no medical issues was the youngest and looked the healthiest. Furthermore, Natasha and her interpreters and supporters had ignored protocol on multiple occasions during the test. As a result of their early arrival, they had been able to view two of the volunteers walking into the building via a flight of stairs, which could have given Natasha clues to whether either of those people had the hip replacement. Later, during the test, Natasha’s interpreter Svetlana Skarbo announced in front of the volunteers (in English) that Natasha was looking for the person with part of a lung removed. This act increased the possibility of that volunteer giving cues to Natasha, since they would now have known that Natasha was looking for them at that time. Finally, Skarbo broke the rules again by pulling out her cell phone and sending messages during the test despite the protocol’s ban on use of electronic devices in the testing room.
The results of this second look at the test are devastating to the case for Natasha’s powers. The fact remains that Natasha did not pass the test, and now it seems that her accurate diagnoses were not made with the aid of any supernatural abilities. Furthermore, a person very close to Natasha may have tried to cheat by communicating with outside parties as Natasha was deciding on the diagnoses. If Natasha really had X-ray vision, she shouldn’t have needed clues from a person’s appearance or behavior to diagnose them, and would have given correct diagnoses for all seven volunteers. Her complete failure even when given an extra attempt under much looser conditions is the icing on the cake. The most likely conclusion, considering the evidence, is that Natasha either has no superpowers, or her powers are so weak that her diagnoses are no more accurate than a coin flip. In either case, it was disingenuous for her and her supporters to claim near-perfect accuracy with medical diagnoses, and makes the fact that she charged money for her readings look like an outright scam. The irony of all this is that the CFIIG wouldn’t have reexamined the test or allowed her to attempt to diagnose their people if Natasha and her supporters hadn’t tried to force acceptance of her claims despite her failure.
Ultimately, scientific testing of psychic powers is a complicated venture, but a necessary one. Public claims of paranormal abilities currently encourage a wide variety of anti-scientific beliefs and discourage critical thinking and requests for solid evidence. This atmosphere allows people to be taken advantage of by paranormal scams, expensive “psychic” demonstrations, and medical misinformation. Scientific testing of such abilities helps clear the air and establish whether they truly work or not, while demonstrating the principles behind science and showing how facts are tested in the real world. It’s also possible, though not very likely, that there are a few people in the world with genuinely extraordinary abilities. Their existence would be extremely important for science, and experts from a wide variety of fields would be able to learn a lot by testing them and exploring how their powers worked. If this is the case, we can only hope that one of these individuals plucks up the courage to seek scientific acceptance. Will it be you?
References:
Center for Inquiry. (2024, August 9). Sci vs. Psi: Testing Superpowers | Jim Underdown on Skeptical Inquirer Presents. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0139t6nEvs
Higginbotham, A. (2014, November 7). The Unbelievable Skepticism of the Amazing Randi. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/magazine/the-unbelievable-skepticism-of-the-amazing-randi.html
Hyman, R. (2005, May). Testing Natasha. Skeptical Inquirer. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2005/05/testing-natasha/
Kreidler, M. (2011, February). Phillip Lee | CFI Investigations Group. Cfiig.org. https://cfiig.org/phillip-lee/
Kreidler, M. (2012, April 8). The CFIIG Paranormal Challenge | CFI Investigations Group. Cfiig.org. https://cfiig.org/paranormal-challenge/
Underdown, J. (2022, August 26). Deciphering the Dead | CFI Investigations Group. Cfiig.org. https://cfiig.org/deciphering-the-dead/
Underdown, J. (2020, September 15). Top Physics | CFI Investigations Group. Cfiig.org. https://cfiig.org/top-physics/
Wikipedia Contributors. (2025, August 17). 1995 Greater Pittsburgh bank robberies. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikipedia Contributors. (2025, May 22). List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation.
