My ex mentioned at one time that he and some of his friends went into a cemetary. They saw a dog with glowing red eyes and it chased them until it ran straight into a building and disappeared.
They should’ve just given it a Milk Bone.
Pupperoni? Beggin’ Strip, anyone? lol
Reminds of me of something that I read a long time ago about this guy and his group friends claiming that they had seen a gargoyle flying around in Chicago back in 1985. Well the guy said he had say the thing land on a campus buliding and he went to go investigate and the gargoyle just turn to look back at him and it flew off during the night. He had reported this to a preacher and the preacher,himself opened up a church that is deticated in studying the sighting.
I kind of expected to see a thread like this somewhere in the forums. And although I could write a ton of stuff on it, I’ll just say that I’ve been exposed to things that I still struggle to accurately describe. I understand that many have never been “lucky?” enough to experience something that could really be labelled paranormal, but I’ve been doing research and investigations at a single location for some six years. Two things happened that will never be fully explained for me. But on both occasions, I was not alone (with additional witness(es)…thank god.
I’ve written a couple of books, lectured at various events and continue working rather low key nowadays finding newer and newer methods for people who work in this field to help get them determine whether a place may be haunted.
In any event, I’ve flipped the coin and turned to THIS place to enjoy being not so serious about my passion for ghostly hauntings and have some fun.
Paul Browning (Team Browning)
Since you’re a self-described paranormal researcher, perhaps you can answer some questions I’ve had about this field.
How would you respond to criticism that paranormal research attempts to be a science in its own right, yet falls short and is instead a pseudoscience; that its findings aren’t testable, verifiable, reproduceable, and that unlikely conclusions are drawn from very limited evidence?
Do you feel that paranormal investigators should employ scientific methods in researching supposedly paranormal occurences, or do you feel that science is simply unable to explain “paranormal” phenomena and that paranormal investigators should operate outside of scientific conventions and procedures?
How would you respond to criticism that paranormal research is little more than confirmation bias? That is, paranormal researchers enter an allegedely haunted locale expecting to find “ghosts,” collect data, then twist their findings to support the hypothesis rather than impartially intepreting the data.
Do you feel that many in your field are, indeed, little more than charlatans out for the thrill of experiencing something “spooky,” while employing sloppy investigative methods and coming to some shaky conclusions?
This one time I turned into a God and Boots helped me.
I like Jairus’s post. Personally, I’ve met many so-called paranormal investigators who had no idea why the meters they use were originally made nor what they actually do. It can go so far as to be reckless. At one event, our GB table was put next to some local “real ghostbusters” (I actually get slightly offended when they call themselves that as if they were somehow better than us) who had a Geiger counter from the Soviet Union. THEY DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT WAS. They just bought it because it looked cool (and told me that) yet for some reason, they seemed earnestly to believe it told them where there were ghosts. In fact, they had gotten “ticking noises” from it in a few basements. Radon leak, anyone?
The point is that, while I am all for an interest in hauntings and ghosts and ABSOLUTELY in the history of buildings, I feel that the “science” of it is worse than shaky. Most of it is just a bunch of technobabble that gets passed person-to-person or from the television to a newly-inspired ghost hunter in his living room. Feel free to believe you have a sixth sense or that you have dealt with a ghost. I have a couple of odd experiences I cannot rationalize yet. But don’t pretend it’s science. That’s my two cents.
i have seen some wild things in my life. i have seen stuff move, doors that would open and close on command even. i have even seen a form of possession if you will. i do strongly believe in the paranormal. not everyone does tho. everyone has the right to there own opinion and not everyone is a believer. i am also a paranormal investigator and have been doing it for quite a few years. not every so called haunted place is haunted tho. there are alot of reasonable explanations for what goes on but in some cases there is no explanation for what happens and i don’t think that our science as of today is capeable of explaining it yet. i feel that the ppl that don’t believe in the paranormal are like that because they have not had a real experience involving the paranormal. i also do feel that alot of paranormal groups out there don’t have a clue on what they are doing. just because you have alot of fancy equipment doesn’t make you a great ghosthunter. and i DO NOT mix ghostbusteing with ghosthunting.
Oh goodness, this is possibly the ONE thread I’ve made I wish I wouldn’t have…now I will go necrobump the greatest thread ever on this board, one that I created, the word association thread!
Well now…although this whole thread is about experiences, I don’t mind answering these a bit. In fact, you reflect a bit of my own thoughts on the subject in general. But moreso nowadays as opposed to the early days of my initiation into “the field” back in 2005…
To answer your first statements about science or pseudo-science, you have to understand that first, you have to bring the lab to the location, not the location to the lab. And since I’m currently working with a gentleman who does just that (Please take a moment and look over the SPIRIT Lab, David Rountree and his work. He does just what you’re talking about. http://spinvestigations.org ) David has shown some really interesting things using an oscilloscope, certain microphone arrangements, and datalogging gear. He SWEARS by datalogging gear.
David shows all his experimentation and invites others to try things for themselves as well as encourages others to build on his ideas and is completely comfortable with peer review (which I think is highly lacking in this line of work). Pay close attention to his Experiments link, his Equipment link, and his Research link. This won’t be the usual fodder you probably read about.
As to your second inquiry concerning investigators employing scientific methods…absolutely they should! I’m not a psychic and don’t really feel that I could ever fully take a psychic’s word until we can prove how psychics operate (with a full understand of psychic abilities and the whole gamut). I think groups tend to throw around the “scientific approach” when in fact, they should be using the phrase “technology based” which is far closer to what they’re claiming. I never hear of them coming up with hypothesis or moving forward with facts in general. Ironically, I also go with a “psychological approach” which resulted in the first book I wrote. And as for investigators strictly operating on a scientific approach with scientific procedures, I don’t think that will ever FULLY happen. TV shows have (in my opinion) poisoned the field and made it DANGEROUS for someone to THINK they know enough to tell a family to vacate a location because of a DEMON…when in fact, they know little to nothing. And overall, we STILL know little.
Now, as to why they don’t necessarily emply the scientific method is probably based on the fact that most cannot purchase all the equipment to properly do that. Meters and meters and testing equipment, oscilloscopes, and detectors for specific reasons. In order to know what a ghost is, one has to figure out first what it has to look for. And without the proper equipment, you have to have basically EVERYTHING to get to the answers faster than without that equipment.
As for confirmation bias in research? Depends on who you ask. I’d bet over 98% in the field let that happen. But then again, we’re talking about those who also watch the TV shows and learn from them instead of trying to grow and reach out to others in the field who are trying to make a difference. NOT the 15 minute fame hounds. I’ve been doing this for SEVEN YEARS. And so far, I have NOTHING on video that I would stand behind, only ONE photo that I feel is more UNEXPLAINED and not necessarily PARANORMAL (people often confuse the two highlighted terms), but in the audio arena, I have a few voices that I really am impressed with. And that’s still isn’t many.
To put this in a LITTLE bit more perspective…I don’t buy “the flashlight trick” or “ghost boxes” or using standalone digital audio recorders for EVP capturing or anything that really doesn’t do any datalogging. I can think of only maybe about a handful of locations that I would say were haunted. One of which I used for developing the methods for my first book.
Charlatans? I’m SURE there are those who could be called that. Thrill seekers? Absolutely! Investigators who THINK they know what they’re dealing with and can tell you FACTS which really AREN’T facts? Oh, more than you probably know. And I really blame television for this.
Oh yes, before I forget…the total number of DEMONIC CASES I’ve handed since getting into this field? ZERO
But why not? I’d actually like to have a good discussion of why ghosthunting is not actually science. I’m glad this thread got necro’d because I’d been wanting to talk about it.
See, I LOVE paranormal investigation, but my kind is the “go to a ‘haunted place’ and learn it’s history; explore the building’s character; come back at night with a flashlight and hope something weird happens” which I do not in any way believe to be scientific. There is no scientific method of finding ghosts because no scientist using THE scientific method has ever succeeded in measuring a ghost. In fact, no current theory accepted by the scientific community even allows for ghosts. Maybe it will happen someday, but that will be after real research has been done. Research will require observable evidence, and so far, the observations made have either been anecdotal or explained using going theories.
I like your way of going about this a lot better than most. What people really need to know is what these meters are for. What is that oscilloscope showing for example? What setting is it on? (Questions are rhetorical at this point.)
What Jairus means by “confirmation bias” is that paranormal investigators generally go in with the idea that ghosts exist and give off certain signals. They then say a ghost is in the area because those signals (EVP, cold spots on infrared, EMFs) are present. They come in with an idea and accept only the evidence in favor of the idea, BUT it extends further in paranormal investigation because they not only come in with an IDEA but with equipment that is supposed to measure signals people have collectively decided indicate paranormal activity. Personally, I’ve never heard an EVP that I didn’t believe to be either fake or mass pareidolia.
The other part of confirmation bias in paranormal investigation is that it’s always claimed that the evidence of ghosts cannot be found in a controlled environment. The “bring the lab to the location” idea is touted by a lot of paranormal investigators, and often they compare it to portable tornado observatories. This is a way of shutting someone up when they say this “science” needs done in a lab. While there are similarities, they end with the fact that someone is going to a location with some instruments. Beyond that, there’s a split in both intent and observable evidence. Tornadoes are still something of a mystery BUT we know that they do happen. They are recordable, observable, and even recreatable in computer simulation, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about them. Remember the movie Twister? Well, they actually do that, releasing portable laboratories into tornadoes in hopes of understanding why they change course, how they form, and how they dissipate. Those meters in tornado labs measure specific aspects of the tornado - wind speed, direction, rotation, GPS, temperature. We release the labs not because we don’t know what a tornado is or anything about how it’s formed but because we cannot get up inside the tornado with our instruments otherwise. Another thing paranormal investigators compare their work to is little-understood phenomena such as ball lightning or earthquake lights. We’re getting closer here. Ball lightning is generally thought to exist. It has been observed anecdotally for years. But lightning is known to exist (though the theory of its formation has changed several times in the past 30 years), and ball lightning would be a type of lightning. It can be measured if it IS observed by a scientist with the proper equipment, and it has also been recreated, to some extent, in a lab. Earthquake lights are the most like ghosts in the sense that they have only been observed a few times by a relatively small number of people. They are associated with earthquakes but have no known cause nor currently testable hypothesis. Still, the USGS and other seismologists acknowledge that they have occurred with at least a few earthquakes. They don’t fall outside of the current theories on earthquakes, but they are also not accepted by all seismologists anyway because they cannot so far be observed scientifically.
Overall, most of the notions that the 95%+ investigators out there are doing is nothing more than taking what someone has either written in a book (and self publishing has its drawbacks, obviously) or has seen on television (typically spouted by whomever are the latest, most popular ghost hunting stars and are skipping all the research. They think that they’re building on or “doing” what is (in their own mind) expected to be done to do work in this field. Which is a very bad thing.
But as for your EVP statements, I have a bit of two sides to my answer. First, we’re probably very close in that I think that the statistic isn’t very far off if I were to say that over 95% of all EVPs are NOT EVPs. They more probably explainable sounds that people twist too hard into words that aren’t really being spoken. Sounds of resonance when one moves their fingers over the surface of an audio recorder or something similar. Perhaps the sound of fabric on a sleeve, or shirt that brushes the device creating sounds that are no where NEAR what people claim they are. And upon suggesting such to them can create an immediate argument without their ever knowing that anything they claim to be legitimate must pass peer review.
The other side of that coin is that I, myself have clearly heard people talking RIGHT NEXT TO ME. Clearly. And in a building that only has myself, and another gentleman standing in the same room. That of a child or woman. Again, this location was my prime candidate for working on methods to be used in the field. (Unfortunately, today, it has become a cash cow by its executive director who cares nothing about the paranormal as much as making money in my opinion.
The fact is…at this point, the lab HAS to be taken to the location. Because in order to BEGIN doing the work to define just what it is we’re dealing with, you have to go WHERE IT HAPPENS. It’s not an excuse for anything. It’s the first step. And until those first steps are taken, you’ll never get anywhere. We have a great deal of information gleaned about tornadoes. FAR more than we have on ghostly phenomena. Measuring specific aspects of a tornado IS still something we CAN do. But you have to admit…we know SOMETHING about tornadoes. And I’d really LIKE to know at least as much about ghostly phenomena. In fact, David Rountree has discovered things in his research that makes him hypothesize that we may be dealing with a wormhole type of phenomena. It may be completely different than what most think might be happening. But he continues to work, building machines and testing ideas, using a plethora of devices. Costly options that most of us can’t afford. (He even uses a triangulation device to pinpoint where a “voice” is coming from when he’s recording voice signatures coming through in the audio spectrum using “mu” metal receivers and sophisticated software. The voice signatures are actually EMF, documented with an oscilloscope using a Magcheck 95 sensor attached to it that’s configured to record EMF in that audio spectrum, specifically.)
For myself, I don’t have to question whether there ARE paranormal experiences taking place in the world. I’ve experienced two that cemented my position. The idea that we’re dealing with an intelligence is my foremost thought. Is it of a deceased individual, possibly. Am I 100% on that? I don’t think anyone is. But I am willing to admit that intelligence is involved.
The Randi Foundation will give you $1,000,000 if you can prove the paranormal.
David knows all about Randi. And David also knows that having or understanding a piece of the puzzle isn’t enough. But if anyone I knew might be able to get that prize…it would be him. He is all too aware that he has to get to the "source¨ of the events that take place. IE: He understands the nature of what an EVP is as well as some of the environmental changes that take place right before and EVP emerges into “our space” but he hasn’t figured out what that other space exactly is. Let alone replicate the effect so that he could send emf signatures back through that doorway or wormhole. Make sense?
No, but “paranormal research” never makes sense.
I doubt someone with the scientific background to prove the existence of paranormal activity with empirical evidence and be able to repeat the results would bother posting about it on GBFans.
I’d blame overactive imaginations and group hysteria (maybe a crumb of cheese) before I’d claim that background radiation and such is actually a portal or some such.
There’s no question that he wouldn’t post it on these forums. But for those who have a serious interest in his research, can find him. His background and education, etc are easily obtained if one cares to know.
I enjoy hearing skepticism about the field but find those same people learning a bit more just by talking to Mr. Rountree. He knows his stuff and has no problem talking it.
Oh yes…here is his book that I recommend.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/awd//1450253563?tag=gbfans-discourse-20
Links in this post may be affiliate links. Purchases made through them help support this site at no additional cost to you.
1 Like
i really think it’s in bad taste to mix ghostbusting and ghost hunting together, those of you that do both and keep them separate have a larger understanding about the attempts to legitimize research that there is evidence of the paranormal.
there are groups that put ghostbuster logos all over their ghost hunting cars, uniforms, and equipment, and as usual for those types of people they end up doing more harm than good for both hobbies and disappearing after a short time.