|
I had a conversation a couple days ago with a fellow 'paranormal enthusiast', as I call myself, about a number of what essentially amount to pet peeves of mine. Unfortunately, these pet peeves are so prevalent in the paranormal community that nobody seems to understand why they are wrong or pet peeves. He suggested that I post them online someplace in the (likely vain) hopes that somebody might read it and correct some of their mistakes. First off, let me start with “Paranormal Investigator” versus “Ghost Hunter” versus “Paranormal Enthusiast”. This one is, in all honesty, just a personal preference thing. What's wrong with calling yourself a ghost hunter? Because you don't actually hunt ghosts. I don't go out with my proton pack, blast myself a 12 point slimer, and mount the spectral head on my ethereal wall. Well, okay, but what's wrong with “paranormal investigator”? After all, that is what we do, right? Investigate the paranormal? Here's the test: Can you call yourself that with a straight face in front of a crowd of people? To me, people who call themselves “paranormal investigators” seem to be trying too hard to make themselves sound smarter and better than they probably really are. Besides, if you need a title to make yourself feel important, you have bigger issues than any title will ever fix. This is why I have gone to using 'paranormal enthusiast'. Because that is what we all are. We are people who have other jobs, but we have interests in the paranormal (and this is key) as a hobby. The first actual error (and not just personal preference) that bothers me is 'paranormal' versus 'ghostly'. They are not the same thing. It seems that they have come to mean the same thing. Paranormal simply means 'above normal'. Anything that cannot be scientifically explained at this time is paranormal. One hundred years ago, a cell phone would have qualified as 'paranormal'. Now? It is just normal. In a similar vein, we have 'ghost' versus 'unknown'. This is, to be honest, largely a matter of preference. It is rare that you will see me use the words 'ghost' or 'haunted' to describe something. Why? Because neither of these things are scientifically provable at this time. If I can explain it, then it is obviously not paranormal. If I cannot explain it, then it is simply unknown. Somebody else may be able to explain it. If not now, then at some point in the future. Then we have 'experts'. I can spend a lot of profanities on people who claim to be 'experts' in the paranormal. Tell me; how can somebody be an expert in the unknown? That is not to say that there is nobody in the field worth listening to. There are people with a lot of experience. People like John Zaffis or Keith Johnson have been involved in the field for a long time and have a lot to share with other enthusiasts. “But what about Parapsychologists?” Once upon a time, you actually had to have some form of training to be considered a parapsychologist. Quite often it was a licensed psychologist that specialized in the paranormal. These days, though, just about anybody can call themselves parapsychologists with impunity. Why? Because there is no regulation. Next on the list is proof versus evidence. I hear this all the time. “We found proof.” “This picture proves...” “This evp proves...” This just makes me want to Gibbs them and scream “No it doesn't!” At best, it might be evidence. Let me start with the differences between the two. Evidence is an outward sign, an indication that, when collected with enough indicators, may lead to proof. Proof is the collection of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact. If you have an issue with that definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster. It is the one that everybody in the scientific community, you know - actual scientists, use. So, what is 'evidence', and what is 'proof' in the paranormal field? Let's start with some of the more popular devices and the data that can be garnered from each. EMF Detectors: The emf detector does pretty much what the name says, it detects electromagnetic fields. This is a tool that electricians have used for quite some time now and is generally used to find unshielded or poorly installed wiring. A lot of “Paranormal Investigators” walk around with this gauge, most not even really understanding what it does, and think that any spike or change automatically means they found a ghost. Did you try tracing it back to an object? “But (such and such) object is turned off.” That doesn't matter. Pretty much all electronics these days emit a small amount of emf radiation, even when off, so long as they are plugged in. This is especially true if the object in question is old or in the process of breaking down. My tv, for example, normally kicks out 1.2 milliGauss of emf, but has recently started kicking out 3.1 milliGauss. What does that mean? It doesn't mean my apartment is haunted, it just means I will need a new tv in the near future. Still, lets assume for a minute that you have traced the emf anomaly and there is no obvious source. Now what? Is that proof yet? Nope, just evidence, and pretty circumstantial evidence at that. Even then, just emf alone can be dismissed. Most (or, really, all) emf detectors are extremely sensitive and sudden, sharp movements (even if slight) can and will give false positives. In all reality, all emf detectors will likely find for you is a source of unshielded emf in the area, be it from wiring or a transformer on a power line outside. That is still good, though. The one emf-related thing that popular paranormal groups got right is that high em fields can really screw with the human body and mind. Scientific studies have actually been done that show this, so finding sources of high emf in a house could (and should) spur a homeowner into finding a qualified electrician to correct the problem. K2 Meter: The K2 is basically little more than an emf detector that has been ruined and can never be used for actual electrical work ever again. It actually works by detecting fluctuations in the magnetic field. Any fluctuation. The problem is that pretty much anything can set it off. If you are holding the button down with your thumb, and your thumb moves ever so slightly, the lights will go off. A lot of groups know this, so they use a coin to wedge the button down. That should make it reliable, right? Not even close. You can move around a magnet underneath it and get a false reading. Remember, it reads any fluctuation in the magnetic field. Too obvious? Your 2-way radios can set them off. If you have a K2, try this little experiment. Turn your K2 on and set it down. Grab your 2-way and hold the transmit button in. Now move the 2-way around with the transmit button down and watch the lights dance. But you are not carrying magnets or 2-way radios, you say? A car driving down the road outside the house can set it off by simply changing the radio, or even just having a cb in their car. Cell phones changing towers? Yeah, that can set them off, too. Same with the neighbors plugging something (anything) in, somebody in the area turning anything on, and pretty much anything else that you can think of. But doesn't that make the K2 completely worthless, you ask? Abso-freaking-lutely! They are not worth the plastic they are made out of. If you are looking to buy one, send the money to me, instead. It will be better spent, as I will put it towards something that actually works. Already have a K2? Save it for Halloween and set it up by the door. You can use your 2-ways to set if off as kids come up. Enough people watch those shows on tv that people will start to think your porch is actually haunted. I understand they also make good, if relatively expensive, paperweights. EVPs: Surely EVPs have to be proof, right? Nope, sorry. First you have to try and rule out any of the things that can cause an evp. Is it somebody in your group speaking softly, or in another area and being muffled by walls/doors/distance? Is it a fake (recording run by remote to try and fool you – I have actually run into this)? Is it simply somebody's voice not from your group that carried over? Even a muted tv still produces some sound, and most recorders will pick it up. Those are all things you can look for and prove/disprove. There are a few others, however, that are extremely hard to remove as possibilities. Radio waves from 2-ways, cordless phones, CBs, even some cell phones can and have been picked up on audio recorders. Also, don't filter it. At all. If you have to filter and alter it a lot to get anything out of it, then it is not an evp. It is nothing more than wishful thinking. Every time you filter an evp, God kills a kitten. So, for God's sake, stop filtering! What are you, some kind of sociopath! Kitten-killer! Okay, so you want to filter your audio anyway. Congratulations, you have just altered your evidence. Do you know what that gets you? Besides fired from every investigative organization in the world, that is. It gets you taken less seriously. If you alter your evidence, then why should anybody believe it? But, let's assume for a moment that you have removed every possible explanation that you can. The evp even appears to be in response to your questions. Does that make it proof? Sorry, at best, it would be evidence. Photographs: There are way too many things for me to bring up here, from Photoshop, to false positives, to 'orbs', so I will just hit a few of the more popular ones, starting with orbs. Let me start by saying orbs are not ghosts! Having gone through literally thousands of pictures over the last 20-plus years, I can honestly say I have never seen a paranormal orb. Most often, orbs are nothing more than dust or bugs that do not hold up to any form of close scrutiny. “The orbs love it when we run up and down the (dirt) road!” No kidding? Really? Another popular source of 'orbs' is rain. “We caught these orbs while it was raining.” Hmm... Let's see... You took a picture, with a flash, into an area that is being pelted in small droplets of reflective material, and you got 'orbs'. A real mystery to that one... There is one type of orb that I can understand why people might mistake it for something ghostly, even though it is not. Ball lightning. Yes, it is real. Yes, it is rare. Yes, by the actual meaning of the word, it is paranormal. No, it is not ghosts. If you don't understand the difference, please go back to the beginning of my rant and start over. They are paranormal only because science cannot currently explain how they exist in nature, even though they can reproduce them in the lab. There are a number of theories, like the vaporized silicon theory (vaporized silicon burning through oxidation) or the nanobattery theory, but none have been proven yet. The Max Planck Institute reproduced a ball lightning type effect by discharging a high-voltage capacitor over a tank of water. You can even make some in your microwave oven. I will not tell you how, for legal reasons, but it can be done. Then you have things like 'plasma strings', which are nothing but a light source or reflection caught in a shaky picture. Plasma trails is one of my personal favourites. These can generally be explained as smoke. I actually saw one on a web site where they had a picture of 'plasma trails' that mystically appeared over a person who had a cigarette in their hands in the picture. Oooh, spooky that... But I think you get the point. Nothing you gather, by itself, is proof. In many cases, I would not even count it as evidence. It does not really become evidence until you have more than one of the above working together. You have an emf reading with no source that coincides with an unexplained evp at the same time as you have video or even stills of the gauges to show that there is nothing external influencing them. Preferably, you would have the trifecta – audio, emf, and video of an event. Then you have evidence. That's right, even then, you don't have proof. Proof requires not only a preponderance of evidence, but test results that are repeatable. Video: Video has a number of the same complaints against it. With today's technology, faking evidence is easier than ever. Even with video. Especially with video. Just to be clear, I am not accusing anybody specific of faking evidence. However, the ease with which it can be done these days needs to be kept in the front of your mind when going through evidence, even your own. If you can think of ways that the video could be faked, then so will pretty much everybody else. Basically, what I am saying is that you have to put your own video through more criticism than anybody else would just to make sure that what you put out actually is what you think it is. Or, at the very least, not something other-wise explainable. Digital versus Analog: This is a debate that has raged for a while now, and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future. To be honest, I can see parts of both sides of the argument. Analog pros: Analog boasts higher quality in terms of thorough examination. Analog images are easier to blow up and zoom in while (and this is the important part) maintaining integrity of the original image. They also have the benefit of having negative proofs that can be analyzed. The last, but arguably the most important, is that analog film does not go through the filters that digital film automatically does. Analog audio has the benefit of being able to be recorded unfiltered. As with the analog film, there are those that believe that the filters required for digital decrease the likelihood of capturing anything paranormal. Analog audio also has the benefit of a distinct absence of aliasing distortion and quantization noises. Analog cons: The developing techniques used for analog film can often result in false positives. You also need to have specialized hardware to transfer many forms of analog to a digital format, such as mp3 or mp4 files. Still pictures are easy, all you need is a scanner. You can just use a wire with two male ends running from from the headphone jack of the device you recorded with to the mic jack of your computer, but the quality will be pretty sloppy. I honestly cannot tell you what the proper device to use is, but I would be willing to go out on a limb and say it would not be cheap. Digital pros: It is easier to record and quite often can have higher over-all quality than analog. It is generally cleaner with more sensitive responses to mics. There are also generally fewer unintentional false positives that cannot be readily explained than in analog. Digital cons: The fact that it is far easier to manipulate than analog is a majour con. Combine this with the lack of any original proof (such as negatives or tapes) and it makes digital format far harder to verify. Then you have the filter issues. Digital photography, both stills and video, have infrared filters built into them that their analog counterparts do not. Digital audio has built in filters that restrict the ranges it can record that analog audio does not have. Many critics of the digital recorders will point to these as reasons why there seem to be fewer 'paranormal events' recorded with digital than with analog. Scientific Method versus “Scientific Method”: We have all heard this: “We use the scientific method of paranormal investigation.” Good for you. Now that you use it, what is it? Most people don't even know, they just use the methods they see used on tv and think 'well, they're doing it.' My favourite response is probably where they try and tell me that they are using different devices to measure things, therefore it is the scientific method... Excuse me while I go get my sledgehammer. Let me start by sharing with you what the actual scientific method is. It is the '8-step' process of testing and determining scientific theories. The 8 steps are: 1: Define the question 2: Gather information and resources (observe) 3: Form hypothesis 4: Perform experiment and collect data 5: Analyze data 6: Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7: Publish results 8: Retest (frequently done by other scientists) At best, the majourity of 'paranormal investigators' barely make it to step 5 and call it proof. Honestly, a lot don't even seem to bother with anything but steps 4 and 7 and hope they get their own show out of it. The question I get a lot when talking about this is about my 'scientific method'. I decry people misusing the phrase, so why do I use it? To be perfectly honest, I am about ready to drop all use of the word 'scientific' from my group. But I actually do use the scientific method. Here is where I am so far: 1: Define the question – What is the cause of 'ghostly' or 'spirit' activity? 2: Gather information and resources (observe) – Fortunately enough for those of us who can read, there has already been tons of evidence collected by people like John Zaffis, Stephen Hawkings, and Micho Kaku. “Wait... Hawkings and Micho Kaku?” Please see step 3 to see how they fit in. 3: Form hypothesis – Weak or thin spots in dimensional divisions (see MWI theory) allow for 'bleed-through' effects from other dimensions. 4: Perform experiment and collect data – Unfortunately, there is not much scientific experimentation that can be done at this point in this area, short of the quantum suicide theory. We are still collecting data, looking for that little something that can give us testable results. Unfortunately, we are not really past point 4 yet, and probably will not be for many, many years to come. That is something most people do not seem to understand. True scientific method can take decades, possibly even centuries. The question is not 'will I unlock the secrets to my theory', it is 'will something I find lead to somebody unlocking the secrets'. There is no sudden 'swoosh' of discovery, just little gusts of 'oh wow, did you see that' along the way.
|