I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.
The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.
Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.
I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.
Sources:
On-Camera test:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/Test by the United States CIA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/Skeptics in this thread consistently ignore the evidence I posted and it demonstrates that they are not here to learn, instead they like to argue and pat themselves on the back.