There's a huge difference between the belief-based ghost hunting teams you've had come out to the house, and a science-based skeptical team that understands the scientific method...which has not been out. The IIG (the group I suggested) is a science-based, skeptical organization, which is most likely why you haven't heard of them.
Of the two teams from the east coast, I know of one of them...and they are nothing to boast about. In fact, the particular team that stayed at your house for a week, cares nothing for science (her words). This kind of team attitude does nothing to support your claims, your credibility, or the team's credibility.
You do promote the Scientific Establishment of parapsychology (
http://www.sep.moonfruit.co.uk/) and Steve Mera an awful lot. In fact, you seem to be the number one promoter. A Google search on the name "Scientific Establishment of Parapsychology" reveals that you've posted about them on sites such as Reddit, Talk Paranormal, Paranormal Soup, and here...more than they've posted about themselves. This is probably good for them, since there own website which was hosted on "moonfruit"...no longer exists. This is troubling that they claim to have been around since 1996, and the most one can find on the organization is multiple postings from you, a defunct webpage, and news fluff pieces on your house. This simply does not set the stage for a credible "parapsychologist".
Going by the videos (as you suggested) and the report (you weren't supposed to release), I would dispute the claim that they did a "GREAT job", especially when statements in the report include this "Though SEP do collate pre-investigation documentation, we cannot confirm pre-investigation incidents to be credible. However due to evidence obtained during active investigation stage 1 and 2, we have no reason to doubt the client at this time. Pre-investigation disturbances noted below have been considered authentic." This is a prime example of taking things at face-value. I've watched Don's videos, and grew frustrated with the lack of any quality information and outrageous claims.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but "nitpicking" is a part of something referred to a critique/criticism. When making extraordinary claims, as you are, details are extremely important. This is why academics submit papers for peer review, so that their work can be scrutinized by other professionals in relevant fields of study (Sometimes pseudo-academics start their own magazine to get around that). Such "nickpicking" points out flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, and pseudoscience...sometimes even hoaxes.
As for your Ad Hominem comment, "typical knee jerk fashion cling to performing some acts of Ad hominem"...I would disagree. My comments did not try to attack you rather than focus on the topic of discussion, my comments described the interconnection of the situation as a whole.
"If I've one thing about both the paranormal and parapsychology community and I'm being very generous giving them the title of belonging to a community its this. Many are siloed, segmented, cut off and envious of others findings. It seems if the evidence didn't come from them directly the evidence is suspect." I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say in the beginning, but the mid to last lines I understood, so I'll address that. While I agree that there are many within the community that are territorial and just out to be on the next TV show that comes along. Sometimes, people making extraordinary claims will follow the same mentality...looking for their 15 minutes of fame, or lashing out at others because they don't buy into a story without any valid, supporting evidence.
You're assumption that if evidence did not "come from them directly the evidence is suspect" is incorrect. Data that has been collected by unscientific, unreliable sources...is what is suspect. As mentioned above, the process of peer review, in case you're not familiar, involves independent professionals going over and verifying data to point out flaws, errors, etc. The data, or evidence, is not taken at face-value, simply because someone said it was evidence. It needs to be verified under controlled condition and proper experiments...by qualified professionals - not pseudoscientific ghost hunting teams, not self-proclaimed psychics/mediums that live in your house for a week, or parapsychologist that relies heavily on metaphysical woo.
You cannot grow intellectually by surrounding yourself with those that blindly believe your story, and claim that others are "envious" of your findings. I assure, I am not envious of these "findings", since they are of such poor quality and based on belief and assumptions. The paranormal topic is stagnate because of the lack of critical thinking, understanding of science, and belief-based ghost hunts that dominate the hobby...as well as a healthy dose of confirmation bias.
I offered an "olive branch" in the form of suggesting you contact a reputable, scientific-based group such as the IIG. I have a much better understanding of the "weird stuff" than you think, as well as a much better understanding of human behavior and willingness to believe extraordinary claims in spite of a lack of valid supporting evidence.
You claim to have posted a "substantial amount of evidence" on this forum, yet...you've posted nothing substantial. You seem to base what you consider evidence off hearsay, speculation, and belief...rather than "vetting" (a careful and critical examination of). If you're serious when making statements such as "I prefer the staunchest skeptic"...then I suggest you stop entertaining unscientific ghost hunting groups and contact a skeptical organization. If your claims are genuine, those are the people you want to investigate. I would also suggest you stop reading books on poltergeists, etc. (which are only reinforcing your already established beliefs)...and start reading up on literature from science and skeptical organizations. There's a big difference, Keith.