If it was real, the news would cover it. Do you not agree with that?

Of course I wouldn't agree with that. Mainstream news does not cover ghost stories. Morning shows and tabloid-esque news sources do, which is exactly who has covered this story.

A mainstream news source automatically would assume anything having to do with ghosts or the paranormal would damage their credibility no matter how compelling.

This is common sense.

And I did provide an explanation. They want attention.

No - you said fake and provided no reason why (even though you said it was confirmed - and then declined to provide a source in which it was confirmed).

Then you POSTULATED it's fake because of "attention" for the simple fact it's because the guy is on a popular social media platform.

That makes no logical sense.

But hey, I'll prove to you it's fake. Do you know James Rand? He is offering a million dollars to anyone that can prove paranormal or psychic abilities.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. So because this thing that just happened (and is ongoing) has not - as of yet - been submitted to a guy named James Rand and won a million dollars - it's now fake?

That also makes no logical sense. In what way do you PROVE it's real? What is the criteria?

The better mode of operation would be to PROVE it's a hoax...which nobody has yet to do.

But since it's not fake, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

But you've provided literally no explanation or reasoning behind why it's fake beyond "I think it's fake because I assume he wants attention because he's on Twitter and hasn't submitted it to James Rand."

The entire way your reacting to this flies in the face of all conceivable modes of logic and critical thinking.

You sound like a fucking moron.