Post by aneaglesangel on May 10, 2011 12:08:48 GMT -5
Sorry, this is very long. After reading the paper that Benjamin Radford had on his site, I couldn't help but put my two cents worth in. I believe we have many who ARE working in scientific ways, and even if they're not, some are doing good work and belong in the field. You can spout science until the cows come home, but I still don't believe we even have the science to explain this phenomena, as of yet, at least. Hope you enjoy! 
1. Assuming that no specialized knowledge or expertise is needed to effectively investigate ghosts.
One of the most common assumptions among ghost investigators is that in the paranormal field “there are no experts.” If there are no experts, then of course anyone can effectively investigate ghosts. Almost all ghost hunters are amateur, part-time hobbyists from all walks of life, and thousands of them investigate ghosts (apparently with some success). On the hit show Ghost Hunters, two ordinary guys who work as plumbers during the daytime are touted as experts on ghost investigations, though none of the team has any background or training in science, investigation, forensics, or any other field that might help solve mysteries.
Why it’s a mistake: Paranormal investigation requires no certificate; anyone can do it with no
training, knowledge, or expertise whatsoever (though of course there are people who will try to sell you a “ghost hunter” certification). Whether they are effective or not—actually solve any mysteries—is another matter entirely. Despite their name, ghost investigators do not investigate ghosts; rather, they investigate various phenomena that might (or might not) be related to a ghost. Effectively investigating claims and solving mysteries, on the other hand, does require some experience and expertise—specifically in logic, critical thinking, psychology, science, forensics, and other areas. And there certainly are experts on that subject, people who have researched and investigated phenomena claimed to be evidence for ghosts. I’m one of them, and I can name a handful of others. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Ordinary people hire specialists all the time to explain or handle things that seem too arcane or mysterious for us layfolk. People don’t assume that a person without
training can be a good mechanic, doctor, or athlete, yet when it comes to the supposedly “unexplained” mysteries—ghosts, crop circles, psychic powers, and so on—people often assume that no expertise or specialized knowledge is needed to successfully investigate the phenomenon. One thing that distinguishes an expert from an amateur is that experts get better. They improve their tools and refine their techniques as they gain knowledge and apply their experience to future investigations. Many ghost hunters, on the other hand, repeat the same mistakes over and over, investigation after investigation, year after year.
Rebuttal: Now I do agree that some technical and scientific knowledge is necessary to investigate the paranormal, I don't think it is necessary to have a “certificate” or a degree in a scientific field to be a paranormal investigator. At the same time, I do think science is the most important foundation we have in order to investigate the phenomena. I also think it's important to work with the scientific, medical and psychological fields in the pursuit of answers. Now, myself, I hold a degree in Accounting and English. At the same time, I have always had interests in science, physics, mechanics and nature. I pursue knowledge in these fields on a regular basis and am now studying chemistry in my spare time. (Though I admit, I can't do the experiments listed in the book, LOL!) I also am very interested in the medical field, for I believe that there are some answers, for some of us, who experience the paranormal on a regular basis. One of the members of my team is actually a real scientist every day as her career, and I consult regularly with her. We use a simple form of the scientific method to investigate. We use methods that are original at times, and older, more widely used methods but it all comes back to our hypotheses. I figure the simplest way to solve puzzles is the simple scientific method that I learned in elementary school. Form a question in your mind that has to do with the question in mind, such as, “Is this place haunted?” or “Is this place not haunted?” Very simple, but as you go along on the investigation, you add answers to the questions. You add weight to the scale. Either you have more evidence of a haunting, or you don't.
But what is evidence? And how does one gather it? Without a certificate (which certificates to me are just another way to put money in someone's pocket who really isn't qualified to teach me in the first place) I have devised a simple way of putting an investigation, which at times, may or may not seem scientific, depending on circumstances, into a simple provable or un-provable hypothesis and then proving or disproving it. Simple, yet scientific at the same time.
By working with other amateur scientists, I am now working on a way to make a statistic that will prove paranormal activity. It's going to take some time, and a lot of math, but I'm hoping that once we have a formula, we can come to a conclusion. You see, amateurs can be pretty dang smart as I found when I met the founder of a new team in the area. So I may not be a scientist in real life, but I eat, breathe and sleep science. And I know I'm not trained to be a scientist. But what I see is science that lacks the science we need to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts. I believe that if we cut out some of these thinking minds, minds like my own, and the other members of my team, that we will lose quite a lot. For you see, my ideas come from my own personal experiences. From 40 years of experiencing paranormal activity, and using these experiences in the field, I think I can go a bit further than most scientists. I can see possibilities, I can see what science lacks, and I can wonder at how to fit the pieces together. I think it would be a shame to lose all those other minds out there, a shame not to experiment with psychic phenomena and not to try to get a “big picture” out of the deal. Maybe we lack the formal training, maybe we're not educated formally, but we have heart and determination, and I know that if you took myself, and others like me, out of the field, you would lose a piece of the field that is extremely valuable.
I can see the point of having a bunch of people who have no clue what they're doing out there in the field. But you see, these fly by night teams don't last. It's us, the ones who are out in the trenches, on investigations, thinking, wondering and dreaming ideas. And who's to say what is right or wrong. You can say things aren't proven. But if we continuously make note of things, say, we get an EVP at the same time an EMF meter goes off, and it happens every time, then maybe we can say that EMF and ghosts do have something to do with each other. But it's going to take people, lots of people, to keep consistently making note of such factors. It's up to people to discover new ways to measure ghostly activity and it's going to be renegades like us coming up with new and improved ways to prove our theories and hypotheses. I for one would never take away the individual thinking and plotting that goes on in my teams' heads.
So, I'm sorry, I disagree. For one, that would take me out of the field. I have ideas and theories I'm trying to prove. And I haven't been sitting on my butt for the last 25 years either. Just like many of the people I know and love in this field, we work hard, harder than the scientists, for we, in our own little ways, have more to prove. And mistakes? Well, to me, sometimes mistakes lead to the biggest lessons, and sometimes, real science happens because of mistakes!
2. Considering subjective feelings and emotions as evidence of ghostly encounters.
Members of ghost hunting groups (and TV shows such as Ghost Hunters) often report descriptions of personal feelings and experiences like, “I felt a heavy, sad presence and wanted to cry,” or “I felt like something didn’t want me there,” and so on. They also describe in detail how, for example, they had goose bumps upon entering a room, or grew panicked at some unseen presence, assuming they were reacting to a hidden ghost.
Why it’s a mistake: Subjective experiences are essentially stories and anecdotes. There’s nothing wrong with personal experiences, but by themselves they are not proof or evidence of anything. Most people who report such experiences are sincere in their belief that a ghost caused their panic, but that belief does not necessarily make it true. The problem, of course, is that there is not necessarily any connection between any real danger or a ghostly presence and how a person feels. Many people suffer from irrational phobias and panic attacks, terrified of any number of things such as insects, airplane travel, and crossing bridges. Their fears and panic are very real—they truly are sweating and terrified. But it’s all psychological; it has
nothing to do with the outside world. In the same way, the power of suggestion can be very strong, and a suggestible ghost hunter can easily convince herself—and others—that something weird is going on. There is of course no objective, scientific way to test these sorts of claims, no test for fear, uneasiness, panic, a sense of dread, a “spooky” feeling, or other subjective sensations. Even if a person is sweating, or his skin feels clammy, there could be any number of things that caused it. Most ghost hunters recognize that their personal feelings can’t be considered good evidence, yet they often report these experiences along with the rest of their evidence. Investigators should make an effort to learn about psychology (especially perceptual processes) and human behavior so that their investigations
aren’t sidetracked by these distractions.
Rebuttal: OK, part of the reason I'm in the paranormal field is because of personal experiences. During my life, I've probably had more paranormal experiences than you can count. But not all of them were entity related. Some of them would be considered psychic experiences, but to me, still paranormal. Now just so you understand my ways of thinking, I'm working to find if certain people, people with medical problems, and psychic abilities are more prone to have ghostly experiences. I've also worked with many psychics over the years, experimenting with their abilities. I see a connection between psychic senses and ghostly interactions. I'm also looking at medical ideas for I have an idea that part of my “problem” is a birth defect of my spine which without going too far into detail, interacts with my nerves in strange ways. I also think it makes my body somehow interact with the unseen world of spirits, and maybe even relates to string theory and multi-dimensional theories.
Recently, I put a team psychic on my team. Why not? It will either prove or disprove psychic abilities, if you ask me. She speaks to me during investigations, and I frame my questions around what I hear. So far, she has been on two investigations, and on both investigations, I have reason to believe that her senses were true. One example is, when asked what a little boy spirit's name was, she hesitated, concentrating for a moment, in our recording, you hear us, then a little boy says, “Michael” and then she replies, “My first instinct is Michael.” Along with picking up on a lot of other things that have gone on in the house, I find it interesting. Not proof by itself, but another piece to add to a giant puzzle I've had on the table for over 25 years. At another investigation, she once again proved her worth. When she hears a woman screaming, I pick up a woman screaming in my recordings. Again, not solid evidence, but a puzzle piece. When you keep adding pieces, you start to see that big picture again. I'm not just investigating dead people, I'm investigating the human soul. And the wonderful possibilities that is encompasses. And to defend psychic abilities, how many dreams have I had that have come true? Well, I could never count them, for I've had so many ranging from every day things, to the death of my father, and a loved one. How many times have I been on investigation and been physically touched, but also had the EMF meter go off at the same time? That, I might be able to count by going through my files, but let's just say many times, for argument's sake.
We're dealing with something that is not physical in the way we understand it. I do think it's important to record and note the way our physical bodies react to that. But if we keep recording these things, instead of ignoring them, we may see a pattern. Or another piece of the puzzle may just fall into place, for all we know. But we can't set ourselves to doing the same things, over and over again. We have to reach out, try things, experiment. You said it yourself, methods aren't proven, equipment isn't proven. But if we record and note, well, maybe things can be proven. But we all have to get on the same page, we all have to be willing to experiment, and to share our results with others. Or we're all just wandering in the dark, and all our batteries are dead!
3. Using unproven tools and equipment.
There are two basic types of equipment and tools that ghost hunters use: metaphysical ones (psychics, dowsing rods, pendulums, séances, etc.) and scientific ones (electromagnetic field detectors,thermometers, FLIR cameras, etc).
Why it’s a mistake: In their work, real scientists and investigators only use equipment that has been proven to work and is designed for the purpose for which it is used. Police detectives don’t use dowsing rods to identify suspects, and doctors don’t use EMF detectors to test for genetic diseases. It’s not that EMF detectors aren’t useful—they very much are, in certain fields—but they have nothing to do with what the doctor is investigating. The same holds true for these unproven tools. Some investigators claim that they don’t use the equipment to detect ghosts; instead they use it to rule out natural explanations for a ghostly phenomenon. The problem is that the naturalistic “explanations” they claim to be ruling out often have nothing to do with the original ghost claims. For example, let’s say that a person believes his house is haunted because he hears faint voices at night, an odd glowing form appeared in a photograph of the house, and small items have inexplicably fallen
off a kitchen shelf. Ion counters, FLIR cameras, and EMF detectors are of no benefit in addressing these claims. They cannot reveal the true identity of a glow in a photograph, nor will they explain the origin of the voice-like sounds, nor what caused an item to mysteriously fall off a shelf. The ghost investigators are not “ruling out” any natural explanations with this equipment, because the gear has nothing to do with the claims. Establishing the location of an electromagnetic field is of no value; it doesn’t “explain” anything.
Metaphysical Tools
Psychic abilities have never been proven to exist. Some people—especially those who claim to be psychic or “intuitive” —may disagree, but the fact remains that such powers have never been scientifically validated. This is not the place for a lengthy discussion on the reality of psychic powers; the scientific evidence can be found elsewhere. But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that psychic power exists, and that some psychics have some unknown, unprovable ability to provide unique in-formation about a haunted location or spirit. This would still be of little or no value to a scientific paranormal investigator. To see why, let’s examine some claims. In the book The Other Side: A Teen’s Guide to Ghost Hunting and the Paranormal, authors Marley Gibson, Patrick Burns, and Dave Schrader write, “Certain studies suggest that even the best psychics are accurate only 30 percent of the time... Remember again that a lot of psychics will be wrong more often than they are exact” (p. 49, 51). I don’t know where the authors—who, by the way, all believe in psychic ability—got the 30% figure (instead of random chance), but let’s assume they are correct. If the accuracy rate of psychic power is 30%, this is a horrible success rate! No scientific test is accurate 100% of the time, but any investigative tool or technique that was wrong 70% of the time would never be used by a responsible scientist or investigator. Can you image going to a doctor for a cancer screening and being given a test that was wrong almost three-quarters of the time? Any result from the test would be worthless; you’d have to take the same test many times to overcome such a low accuracy rate. If you were smart, you’d use a tool that had been proven to be
valid and reliable most of the time. And remember: that rate is for the best psychics. If the ghost-hunting psychic isn’t one of the best, the accuracy rate would presumably be lower—twenty percent? Ten percent? Zero percent? Who knows?
Imagine if, during the course of an investigation, a ghost hunter used a psychic who gave 30 different pieces of information about the haunting or spirit. Assuming your psychic is one of the best, she will be wrong about 21 pieces of information, and correct about 9 of them. Making matters worse, there’s no way to know which 9 clues she is correct about. To find out, each piece of information would have to be investigated, and three out of four will be wrong.
It’s an incredible waste of time and resources—and that’s assuming psychic powers exist! No scientific investigator in his right mind would use a psychic. Steve Gonsalves, of the Ghost Hunters TV show, wrote in the February 2007 issue of the TAPS Paramagazine that “the legitimacy and findings of remote viewing [psychics] are obviously questionable,
but... if you believe in mind power and ESP, then I say, ‘Why not?’ It certainly won’t hurt...” Gonsalves’s answer reveals a very shaky grasp of both science and investigation. Real investigation requires knowing that the tools and methods you use to gather information are valid, and that the information from those sources is accurate and useful. To an investigator who wastes hours trying to verify wild leads provided by psychics who can’t validate their powers scientifically, it certainly can hurt!
The exact same problem occurs with the use of dowsing rods, pendulums, Ouija boards, and
other metaphysical and New Age items: they may be fun to play with, but they have never been scientifically proven to work. There’s no evidence that dowsing rods can detect water, much less ghosts. Any readings that these devices provide are far more likely to be red herrings than valid evidence.
Scientific Tools
Many ghost hunters consider themselves scientific if they use high-tech scientific equipment
such as Geiger counters, Electromagnetic Field (EMF) detectors, ion detectors, infrared cameras, sensitive microphones, and so on. Yet the equipment is only as scientific as the person using it; you may own the world’s most sophisticated thermometer, but if you are using it as a barometer, your measurements are worthless. Using a calculator doesn’t make you a mathematician, and using a scientific instrument doesn’t make you a scientist.
The use of these devices rest upon nothing more than assumptions and pure speculation. For
any of these pieces of equipment to be useful there must be some proven connection to ghosts. For example, if ghosts were known to emit electromagnetic fields, then a device that measures such fields would be useful. If ghosts were known to cause temperature drops, then a sensitive thermometer would be useful. If ghosts were known to emit ions, then a device that measures such ions would be useful. And so on. The problem is that there is no body of research that shows that any of the things these devices are measuring have anything to do with ghosts. Many things are known to emit electromagnetic fields
and cause temperature drops; ghosts are not among them. There has not been a single study that shows that these things can detect a ghostly presence. Until someone can reliably demonstrate that ghosts have certain measurable characteristics, devices that measure those characteristics are irrelevant. Every single reading, whether a fluctuation in a field or a drop in temperature or anything else, can always be attributed to something other than a ghost: even if an investigator gets an “anomalous” reading, there’s simply no way to prove it was caused by a ghost. The evidence gathered by these devices will be inconclusive at best—and always has been.
There is no reason for any scientific investigator to possess or use these devices, since there is no evidence that they detect ghosts. Using a tool or device without being certain it works to find what you’re searching for is illogical and unscientific. What’s the point in using a tool that—even if it works as you think it does—can’t prove anything one way or the other?
Many ghost hunters, including the T.A.P.S. team, use EMF detectors to search for electromagnetic fields because they believe that intense magnetic fields can create hallucinations, which in turn might create the illusion of ghosts. The basis for this theory comes primarily from research done by a Canadian cognitive neuroscientist, Michael Persinger. He found that hallucinations (such as outof-body experiences) could be triggered by stimulating specific areas of the brain with fixed wavelength patterns of high-level electromagnetic fields. He suggested that EMFs might therefore be responsible
for everything from UFO sightings to religious apparitions to ghosts. It’s an interesting idea. Unfortunately for the ghost hunters, it’s just a theory—not a proven effect. There’s little or no evidence to support the idea that EMFs create ghosts. Ghosts are not being seen in Persinger’s experimental laboratory in Ontario; they are being seen in abandoned hospitals
and suburban basements. There is simply no evidence that electromagnetic fields generated by common household appliances can generate EMFs of the frequency and power that induce hallucinations in a clinical setting.
Indeed, Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella says that the theory of EMFs as an origin for ghosts is “speculative at this point.” The electromagnetic stimulation used by Persinger “has to be focused, and at a certain frequency in order to have this effect. It seems unlikely that environmental electromagnetic fields would be fine-tuned just enough to cause this effect... It’s an interesting idea, I just don’t think it’s terribly plausible. At present, while we can certainly duplicate it in a lab, I’m not aware of any evidence to suggest it actually happens out there in the world” (Novella, Steven. 2010. Getting into the Spirit of Things. MonsterTalk podcast, March 2). In their rush to accept this “scientific” explanation for ghost sightings, investigators extrapolated far beyond the evidence. Until it can be demonstrated that generalized, non-clinical EMFs can create the psychological perception of ghostly phenomena, there
is no investigative value in detecting such fields.
Is it theoretically possible that, if ghosts exist, EMF detectors might find a sign of them? Of course it is; anything is possible, but there’s no evidence for that. There are hundreds or thousands of other devices or tools that could possibly do the same thing. Without knowing what specific characteristics define a ghost experience, it’s based on nothing more than guesses. There’s no logical reason to think that an EMF detector would be any more useful
in detecting ghosts than a snow globe, a broken inkjet printer, or a fuel gauge from a 1983 Buick. I’ve been investigating ghosts for over a decade now, and I don’t use EMF
detectors to find ghosts for the same reason I don’t use a toaster to clean my laundry.
This is not to say that cameras and other recording gear cannot be useful in an investigation.
They can, but it all depends on the purpose, on what the investigator is using it for. A camera set to record the entrance to a door might be very useful in making sure that no one enters unnoticed to pull a hoax or prank. If there is a specific claimed phenomenon that is said to occur, the camera may be a useful tool to record the event if it happens. But simply setting a camera up to record for hours on end with no particular purpose is an easy way to collect bogus evidence. Why do so many ghost hunters use these high-tech devices, even though there’s no evidence they detect ghosts? Part of it is because that’s what they see on TV, so they assume that must be the “scientific” way to look for ghosts. And partly it’s because there are dozens of “ghost equipment” outfitters who make a lot of money selling this gear to amateur ghost hunters. They can make hundreds or thousands of dollars by selling this equipment to people who don’t know any better.
Rebuttal: You say scientists use equipment that is “proven” to do the job in their work. I have to ask, how did they “prove” these things worked for the jobs they purported to do with them? I think they probably tested them, recorded results, and after many successful tries, decided that the devices worked for their intended uses. I have to ask that devices be given the same chance in their paranormal uses to be tested as these “scientific” devices were given. How do we know these devices work? Well, at this point, we don't. But how do we decide if they work for their intended uses in our field? I'd say, we test them, record the results, and decide in the end if they are doing the job we intend them to do. At the same time, I admit, I tend to go for simple equipment such as cameras or recorders. But I also note and record the devices my team members are using and familiarize myself with their uses and intended purposes. I can't prove or disprove that such things as EMF detectors work, but when the readings are recorded, they may show a pattern that helps us determine if they're worth their salt or not.
I am also interested in trying new equipment and have found that some things can be remarkable. Some things aren't worth the money they cost, I have to be honest. But how do we know if things work or not, if we don't test them in the field. A single EMF is not conclusive of anything, but if it accompanies other things, such as physical touching, manipulation of objects, EVP or other phenomena, then it just might be recording something after all. But we don't know if we don't test. Did Newton just drop one apple and say, “Ah! Gravity!” Nope, he kept dropping things and noting their rate of descent, that objects that were light, such as a feather, fell more slowly than something heavy, like say a rock. Just as we can't turn on an EMF meter and say, “Ah! A ghost!” Years of testing and recording results will tell us more than anything can.
As for “metaphysical” tools, well, to me, it's the same thing. Do you know the capacity of the human brain? Nope, neither can I. But I can imagine it being pretty amazing and mind blowing. So, yes, I experiment with these things. I log the results and when I go through some of them, those puzzle pieces seem to fit together in my mind and I want to go further. Learn more. Think. Dream. And to me, that's an important part of the field. We'll always have people who don't record, who don't share their findings. So a large part of the picture may always be hidden to us. But if we're not willing to expand our thoughts we might not ever find answers.
Still to me, it's that openness, the ability to think beyond the box that is going to take us further in the paranormal field. It's not that science can't explain the paranormal, I just don't think we have the science yet. But if we keep pushing those barriers, maybe someday we will have more answers.
You don't have to accept things at face value. Test them, try new things, record results. Answer those hypotheses. But try. Don't say these things aren't proven. Go out and prove and disprove them. Maybe you'll be surprised at the answers.
4. Using improper and unscientific investigation methods.
In addition to misusing scientific equipment, ghost hunters often misuse (or ignore) good sci-
entific research methods.
Why it’s a mistake: Examining all the errors in ghost investigations would take an entire book; instead I will highlight the three most common mistakes I have encountered, drawing from personal experience and TV shows like Ghost Hunters.
Investigating with the lights off
Nearly every ghost-themed TV show has several scenes in which the investigators walk around a darkened place, usually at night, looking for ghosts. Purposely conducting an investigation in the dark is the equivalent of tying an anvil to a marathon runner’s foot. It intentionally hobbles the investigation and is completely counter-productive. It also violates common sense and logic; think about it for a second: if you are trying to identify an unknown object, is it better to look for it under bright lights, or in a darkened room? There are no other objects or entities in the world that anyone would think are better observed in darkness instead of light; why would ghosts be any different? Humans are visual creatures, and our eyes need light to see—the more light the better. Darkness, by definition, severely limits the amount of information available. Searching at night in the dark puts investigators at an immediate and obvious disadvantage in trying to identify and understand what’s going on
around them. If limiting the investigator’s ability to detect things around them helps find ghosts, why not take it a step further and use blindfolds and earplugs on the ghost hunters?
Furthermore, this strategy fails on its own terms. While some report seeing ghosts as glowing
figures, many people report them as shadows or dark entities. Searching a dark room for a shadowy figure is an exercise in futility. If it was an established fact that ghosts emit light, there would be some logic to looking for them in a dark room. Unless a ghost or entity has been specifically and repeatedly reported or photographed emitting light, there’s no valid, logical reason that ghost investigators would work figuratively (and literally) in the dark. Some ghost hunters believe that darkness helps to draw out ghostly entities. Yet even a casual review of ghost reports shows that this is not true: most sightings do not occur in darkness. People have reported seeing ghosts in broad daylight, in the morning, and at all times of the day. It is true that people are more likely to report seeing a ghost in the evening,
but it does not logically follow that ghosts must be more active after sunset.
There are several non-supernatural reasons why ghost reports would occur more often at night, especially in homes. For one thing, there’s a sampling bias: most people are not at home during the daytime, and most of their waking hours while at home occur in the evening. Obviously, people are more likely to report potential ghostly activity at night in their homes instead of during the day at an office job or assembly plant. Furthermore, people are more likely to be in psychological states that can induce misperceptions (and even mild hallucinations) in the evening. The evening hours—which of course coincide with the darkness hours—are when people get off work to relax; sometimes they drink alcohol or use recreational drugs. Even those who don’t succumb to another mental state that has been clinically proven to greatly increase misperceptions and hallucinations: ordinary fatigue.
This of course does not mean that everyone who is tired after a long day will necessarily see or hear things that aren’t there, but fatigue is a real and significant factor that cannot be dismissed. Ghost hunters who are quick to attribute hallucinations to EMF fields often overlook fatigue as far more obvious (and proven) cause. Ironically, ghosts are almost never reported under the conditions that most ghost hunters search for them: late at night, in near-total darkness with flashlights and EMF detectors. The reason it’s often done for television shows is obvious: it makes more dramatic footage. It’s spookier and more visually interesting to film the ghost investigators with night-visionor infrared cameras.
Sampling errors
Elsewhere I explain why a ghost stakeout or overnight investigation is a bad idea, but there’s another, less obvious basic scientific mistake. Usually ghost hunters will begin their stakeout by taking readings from their high-tech equipment. While a thorough investigation into specific claims or phenomena (such as why a door opens on its own, or the source of a strange noise) can be conducted in a matter of hours, a complete investigation into a haunted location can’t be done in a few hours, or even during an overnight stay. The reason is very simple: a few hours or overnight is not enough time to gather enough information to establish a valid set of baseline (or control) measurements for what “normal” (i.e. presumably ghost-free) conditions are at the location. To know what is extraordinary for the area, an investigator must first determine what is ordinary. Many ghost hunters understand this general principle, but greatly underestimate the importance of valid sampling. In environmental science, measurement sampling, for example checking for water or air contaminants, is a very complex process: choosing how to sample, where to sample, what to sample, how often, with what tools, etc. is critical to getting useful measurements. This is why for valid experiments, scientists must take dozens—sometimes hundreds—of independent measurements, and analyze the results to derive a statistical average (along with a range of normal variation),which can be used as a basis for research. The timeframes and number of samples that ghost hunters use are far too
short to yield any scientifically meaningful baseline numbers.
There’s also the logical problem of comparing readings (EMFs, temperatures, etc.) taken at different times. As any scientist or statistician can tell you, two data points are meaningless. All you can tell from two sets of readings is that either the number has changed or it hasn’t. How can the investigator know that the baseline readings they got “before” the investigation started were not detecting ghosts? Think of it this way: Just because Measurement A was taken a few hours before Measurement B does not mean that Measurement A is the “normal” one (the control) and Measurement B represents an anomaly. Maybe Measurement A was the anomaly; or maybe Measurement B was the anomaly; or maybe both Measurements A and B were within the ordinary range of variation and if the investigators took Measurement C they would find that to be the anomaly. There’s no way to tell which of these interpretations is correct without many more samples (data points). It gives you no information about which number (or set of numbers), is the “normal” condition and which is the “anomalous” one. It gives no information on correlation or causation (such as noting that a higher temperature reading was taken in a room that had just been occupied by a dozen warm-bodied investigators). It gives no information about anything, yet it is a standard procedure among
many ghost hunter groups, who have convinced themselves and others they are doing good science. A scientific ghost investigator would have to make at least a dozen separate visits to the location (at different times of the day and under different conditions) to carefully measure and record whatever variables (temperature, humidity, light, vibrations, sounds, electromagnetic fields, etc.) they will be measuring during their stakeout. The more times an investigator samples the location, the more complete and more accurate the information will be. It’s easy to understand why ghost hunters don’t follow scientifically valid sampling methods. First, it requires learning about basic scientific and sampling methodologies. This doesn’t require a college education; there are plenty of books that can help investigators learn about this. But ghost hunters need to “know what it is they don’t know” and be willing to study and use correct procedures. Second, there is the time commitment and “fun factor.” From my experience, most ghost hunters aren’t really interested in the science; they want the fun. Taking measurements and creating a data set in preparation for an investigation is neither interesting nor spooky; it is boring, tedious, mathematical drudgery. Why bother spending weeks with equipment and silly old numbers and textbooks when you can be walking around an abandoned hospital with flashlights, spooking your friends and jumping at shadows?
Ineffectively using recording devices
As we have seen, devices such as EMF detectors and ion counters have no use in ghost investigations. Ordinary cameras and audio recorders, however, can be helpful if used correctly. Unfortunately, many ghost hunters (including the Ghost Hunters) don’t know how to use the equipment effectively. For example, in Episode 401 (airdate March 5, 2008), the TAPS crew investigated Philadelphia’s Fort Mifflin. While there, lead investigator Grant Wilson acted startled on camera while looking through a crawlspace (in near-darkness, of course). He claimed he saw a human face staring back at him only a few feet away, but predictably the television crew trailing him didn’t capture it on video. This type of incident has happened dozens of times over the six seasons of the Ghost Hunters television Show: One or another ghost hunter claims to have seen or heard something just off-camera, and therefore without any proof. Was it real, a hoax, an illusion, or hallucination? Without some recorded
evidence, it’s just another personal story. The solution is obvious: head-mounted wireless digital cameras. They were finally used occasionally in a few recent episodes (though not consistently by all the crew), and it’s odd that it took five years for the high-tech TAPS crew to realize they were a good idea.
Another example is the use of voice recorders. Most ghost hunters, including the TAPS team,
use handheld voice recorders in an attempt to capture a ghost voice or EVP. Often the ghost hunter holds it while standing in the middle of a room while addressing the supposed spirit, or while walking around. Sometimes a voice-like sound or noise will be heard at the time; if so, the ghost hunter(s) will ask more questions, and if not the sound or EVP will be saved for later analysis.
Unfortunately, this is not an effective protocol. To identify the nature of the sound (human,
ghost, cat, furnace, etc.), an investigator must first determine its source, and that in turn involves locating the sound’s origin. This can be very difficult for a ghost hunter to do, especially in a darkened room. If the sound came from an open window, that would suggest one explanation, while if the sound’s origin could be located to the middle of an empty room, that might be more mysterious. Locating the source of a sound is nearly impossible using only one recording device. The way to scientifically determine the source location of a sound is with more than one microphone—at least three, and the more the better. By placing sensitive microphones throughout the location (and certainly in the four corners of a room and outside), the signal strength of the sound can be measured at each microphone. Sound is created by longitudinal compression waves in the air, moving away from the source of the sound. Furthermore, soundwaves have several measurable characteristics, including frequency, amplitude, speed, and wavelength. Along with a basic knowledge of acoustics and math, these characteristics allow the investigator to triangulate within a few feet where
the sound came from. Ideally this should be done in real time so that the ghost hunters can immediately investigate. Methods of triangulation have been used by engineers and sailors for hundreds of years-- and are widely used in GPS equipment---but for some reason are not used by the T.A.P.S. Crew.
Rebuttal: I have to admit, there is a lot of good information here. The only thing is, you have to remember, not all investigators are TAPS, and not all of us are worried about our TV ratings. I do not go “dark” unless I have to, in some circumstances, such as outdoor sites or places that have no electricity such as attics at times, we usually have lights on during our investigations. Or, in some cases, as close to a normal day in the home or building as can be. But again, as before, with the equipment rebuttal above, I say we have no clue what works at this point and the only way to do this is through testing and recording our results.
Just as with the “baseline” readings and such. How do we know? We don't. Not at this point we don't. But rather than throw them out the window, I see that it is within reason to keep working with them. We don't know if they are measuring ghosts, but if we completely stop using them, how will we ever know? No, I don't go dark, I guess I have that on my side. I do try to learn as much as I can about the equipment I use personally and the equipment my team uses. My team is welcome to use any equipment they feel they want to try, and they are also welcome to try new ideas that they may have. All I ask is they do it consistently and record their results. How do I know that one of them might have a brain storm that eventually helps to prove the existence of ghosts? I don't know, for at this point, nothing is proven and we are wandering in the dark. The only way we can get closer is by being consistent, and well, maybe by learning that TV isn't always the best model for real life.
I do actually like the idea of triangulating my microphones. I've gotten some great EVP with my team on investigation and it would be nice to take it one step further. But as you see, I take a different approach to investigation. I can't say if I'm right or wrong. I can't prove the methods we use, but I can use them consistently, and hope that in the end, I've done something right. For NONE of us are experts, I don't care what anyone says. But just because we're not experts, or don't have a scientific degree, doesn't mean we aren't doing a few things right. Being open to new things, trying old things over and over, recording, noting differences and similarities. That's what I think will bring us forward. Not closing the door to new ideas and possibilities. In every idea, in every new method I see progress. I see minds working together for one end. If we close off one part of this and don't see it as a big picture, then I think we end up losing something in the end. To me, that's not good science. For, do I have all the answers? Hell no! But I have the ability to question and to think, and to form new ideas in my mind. And I know that someday, science will catch up with us!
To me, investigation isn't being in an old abandoned building scaring my team. It's facing the unknown and facing it with wisdom and courage! And sorry, I haven't run from a shadow since I was just a kid, facing the unknown all by herself. This is not about being spooked out, if I want to do that, I can stay home and wait for it to happen. For me, this is about answers, and why it happens to some more than others. For me, in the end, it's a life's journey, one I couldn't do without. For me, it's personal. I want answers as to why I've had such a paranormal life. I've gone down every alley. Been psych tested, been medically tested, done it all, and to tell the truth, after all these tests, I ended up with some doctors who are on board, and believe in me and what I'm doing fully. Means a lot to me, just like everything in this field. I hope to see things open up, and maybe this is where it all starts!
5. Doing a stakeout or “lockdown.”
This is typically an overnight “investigation” into a haunted location, usually with a half dozen
or more people wandering around the location, setting up cameras and other gear, etc. This is one of the most common and basic mistakes made by amateur ghost investigators. Nearly every ghost themed “reality” television show features this, and it’s a staple of most ghost-hunting groups, and a particular favorite of the cast of Ghost Adventures TV show. It’s also a huge red flag, warning of bad science and amateur investigation.
Why it’s a mistake:
As an investigative procedure in ghost hunting, the stakeout (or “lockdown,” as it’s sometimes
melodramatically called) has a 100% track record of failure; out of the hundreds of stakeouts conducted by ghost hunters, not a single one has yielded any significant proof of ghosts. (As I noted, they might have better success if they left the lights on.) Every stakeout gets more or less the same results: a few ambiguous—yet supposedly mysterious—noises or lights or shadows, but never anything scientifically useful or definitive. Scientists and investigators abandon tools and techniques that don’t work, help solve mysteries or explain phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that their evidence never gets any better using this technique, amateur ghost hunters keep doing it. There’s a certain entertainment value in walking around a supposedly haunted location and scaring each other silly.
A stakeout is essentially a scientific experiment without the science. Scientific experiments are carefully controlled by the investigator or experimenter: he or she controls some variables or conditions, and measures the variation. To use a basic example, if a scientist wants to see if one potting soil helps plants grow better than another potting soil, she can set up a simple experiment to test this. But she would need to establish careful controls over the experiment to make sure that the results she gets are valid. She would take two identical plants (ideally cuttings from the same parent plant to control for genetics) and expose them to identical sunlight, water, temperature, and so on—essentially controlling a dozen or more variables, so that she can be sure that any difference in growth between the two plants is a result of the dependent variable, the different potting soil. This careful control of the environments is absolutely critical to conducting a valid experiment. If one of the plants was given more sunlight or more water, then that could be the reason it grew better, regardless of which soil it was planted in. Without careful control over the variables and conditions, the experiment
is invalid and any results from that experiment are worthless.
Some ghost hunters and paranormal investigators believe they are using good science and controls when they conduct tests, for example setting out “trigger” or “control” objects (teddy bears, balls set on tables or chairs, and so on) that ghosts are invited to move to demonstrate their presence. The problem is that there is no scientific control group to compare any result to. For example, let’s say that a child’s ball is placed in the center of a table in a reputedly haunted room and recorded on camera overnight. Even if the ball begins to move or roll for some reason, it is not a valid experiment. The investigator would need to have a control condition—one or more identical balls set up in comparable conditions and locations that are supposedly not haunted. It might be, for example, that slight vibrations from a passing train a few blocks away would be enough to move the ball, and that any ball placed on any comparable table anywhere in the neighborhood would act the same way. If the investigator only tests that one ball on that one specific table in the suspected haunted location, it’s impossible to know if any movement was caused by a circumstance unique to that place. Without a control group, there is nothing to compare any result to. It is classic pseudoscience. This is directly relevant to ghost investigations, because in a stakeout the experimenter by definition cannot control all, or even the most, of the variables and conditions in the
experiment he’s conducting.
In a recent issue of Haunted Times magazine, ghost experts Christopher Mancuso and Brian J. Cano suggest searching for ghosts in urban areas such as abandoned hospitals, institutions, and factories. This, of course, is a textbook example of a completely uncontrolled location with an untenable signal-tonoise ratio. It’s difficult to understand why Mancuso
and Cano would think that their “urban exploration” would be a productive setting for an investigation. A serious investigator wants fewer variables and distractions,
not more. You might as well try to record EVPs during a rock concert. How, exactly, is an investigator supposed to tell the typically subtle signs of a ghost in a place that is not only decaying (and likely infested with rodents, insects and other animals), but also surrounded by the typical lights, smells, and noises of an urban area? There are likely to be ordinary sounds and drafts all over the place that would duplicate or mask any supposed ghostly phenomena. (Not to mention the potential problems of running into vagrants, drug users, and police enforcing trespassing laws.) It’s hard to think of a worse place for ghost investigation—or one that would be more likely to create false-positive evidence. An investigator’s inability to reliably distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary phenomena renders these “investigations” a joke.
Making the problem worse, ghost hunters often have little or no training in proper investigation
procedures and usually create as much “evidence” as they uncover. I have witnessed many cases where ghost hunting groups waste time investigating “evidence” that they themselves created because of sloppy technique and carelessness. It’s very much like a dog chasing its own tail, and it would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious problem. It’s important to remember that nearly anything anyone thinks is odd for any reason can be offered as evidence of a ghost. There is an impossibly broad spectrum of phenomena that have been claimed as signs of ghosts, including lights, shadows, noises, silence, heat, cold, moving objects, smells, uneasiness, and so on. If the presence of a ghost could be narrowed down to a specific phenomenon—for example, if everyone agreed (or it had been proven) that ghosts give off red light, or a certain high-pitched sound—then the problem of not having a controlled
location would be greatly reduced. An investigator wouldn’t need to rule out every possible
source of sound, smell, light, etc. but instead rule out merely any sources of red light or a high-pitched sound. But because just about any phenomenon can be attributed to ghosts, there is no way to rule out or control for the conditions. A ghost stakeout or lockdown is completely unscientific, and a waste of time.
There is one limited exception when a stakeout is warranted: if there is some claim or specific
reason to believe that the ghostly phenomena will appear at a certain time, or under certain conditions. This can help establish or refute a cause-and-effect link. For example, if a mysterious sound or light is claimed to happen at a specific time (say, around midnight), or under certain conditions (such as a full moon or the anniversary of a death), then it is reasonable to be present and ready to investigate should the phenomenon present itself. However, simply sitting around waiting for some unspecified event to happen is non-scientific and almost guaranteed to create false positive evidence. To be fair, some of these techniques may be useful in doing demonstrations for the public as to how not to scientifically investigate ghosts (for example using EMF detectors to explain to the public why they can cause false readings). Similarly, if ghost investigators are not claiming to be doing good
science or real investigation but merely having spooky fun, there’s no harm in these techniques. These are mistakes only if the goal is to understand the phenomena using science and logic.
Rebuttal: Again, this is a good point, and I agree. I do not think a lock down is necessary to investigating the paranormal. But at the same time, I understand that a “control” is difficult to achieve in the paranormal field. Some of the cases I'm working on are long term and have been going on for many years. I can not create a control for most of them. Many factors are unknown about the paranormal. It makes sense to me that maybe environmental conditions can cause or inhibit activity. I note weather conditions, moon phase, solar x-rays and geo-magnetic fields when I go on investigations. But I can not control most of these environmental conditions. I can only make note of them, and after time, I hope that maybe I will see some pattern or a similarity between all of the readings taken over the years. I also can not know what effect things such as pollution or location can have on a haunting.
But I also think much of this argument is based on what you've seen ghost hunters do on TV. These are TV shows and they do things to get ratings. If these guys sat in a well-lighted room and did scientific experiments, no one would watch them, would they? Well, maybe paranormal investigators would, but not the average Joe out there. They don't care about readings, or results, they want to see action. So the TV shows give it to them. It may not be correct, but it sells shows.
I also have to agree with you about the suggestion by Haunted Times to trespass upon urban buildings. I think it's wrong and very unscientific. I admit, there are locations that I investigate that are very hard to do, such as outside locations, and we do our best with those. But these are public locations, accessible to anyone, and after dark, if you ask permission. I think it's very important to have permission and to be safe, whether you're into this for scientific reasons, or for the spook factor. Whether you're a person who does it for fun, or if you're a serious investigator, it's always been wrong to trespass!
One thing I can say, my team is excellent at being careful. Everyone always notes noises they make inadvertently, conditions that occurred, and when something does happen, they search, experiment and try to recreate what happened, or find a source. To me, logic is using my intelligence to help me find explanations for the things I experience. I have to say, my team does it well, and I know many others, some of whom are just hobbyists who do it quite well, too! Just because you see something on TV, doesn't mean we're all putting it into practice. Some of us don't need television to decide how we should act.
But all in all, though I do agree with many of the points you've provided here, I have to disagree with a lot of this. We're not TV ghost hunters running around in the dark, we're serious about what we do. The way I see it, is yes, we have a lot of trial and error to do here. But in any case, especially in dealing with things of a non-physical nature, we have to keep poking, experimenting and trying different things to see what works. Above all, we have to record our findings and share. For maybe some don't do things the way we think they should be done, but maybe, they're doing something right, and the evidence, in the end, will show us credible information we can use. Maybe it won't, but as I've said, there are no experts in this field. Someday there will be, but it will only be because so many dedicated people kept plugging away until they found the right tools, the right methods, and the right science to do it! Until then, we just have to try to get us all on the same page, and we have to be accepting of others methods. For now, we lack the science, and the numbers of people consistently working together to get there. But I know it will happen some day!
1. Assuming that no specialized knowledge or expertise is needed to effectively investigate ghosts.
One of the most common assumptions among ghost investigators is that in the paranormal field “there are no experts.” If there are no experts, then of course anyone can effectively investigate ghosts. Almost all ghost hunters are amateur, part-time hobbyists from all walks of life, and thousands of them investigate ghosts (apparently with some success). On the hit show Ghost Hunters, two ordinary guys who work as plumbers during the daytime are touted as experts on ghost investigations, though none of the team has any background or training in science, investigation, forensics, or any other field that might help solve mysteries.
Why it’s a mistake: Paranormal investigation requires no certificate; anyone can do it with no
training, knowledge, or expertise whatsoever (though of course there are people who will try to sell you a “ghost hunter” certification). Whether they are effective or not—actually solve any mysteries—is another matter entirely. Despite their name, ghost investigators do not investigate ghosts; rather, they investigate various phenomena that might (or might not) be related to a ghost. Effectively investigating claims and solving mysteries, on the other hand, does require some experience and expertise—specifically in logic, critical thinking, psychology, science, forensics, and other areas. And there certainly are experts on that subject, people who have researched and investigated phenomena claimed to be evidence for ghosts. I’m one of them, and I can name a handful of others. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Ordinary people hire specialists all the time to explain or handle things that seem too arcane or mysterious for us layfolk. People don’t assume that a person without
training can be a good mechanic, doctor, or athlete, yet when it comes to the supposedly “unexplained” mysteries—ghosts, crop circles, psychic powers, and so on—people often assume that no expertise or specialized knowledge is needed to successfully investigate the phenomenon. One thing that distinguishes an expert from an amateur is that experts get better. They improve their tools and refine their techniques as they gain knowledge and apply their experience to future investigations. Many ghost hunters, on the other hand, repeat the same mistakes over and over, investigation after investigation, year after year.
Rebuttal: Now I do agree that some technical and scientific knowledge is necessary to investigate the paranormal, I don't think it is necessary to have a “certificate” or a degree in a scientific field to be a paranormal investigator. At the same time, I do think science is the most important foundation we have in order to investigate the phenomena. I also think it's important to work with the scientific, medical and psychological fields in the pursuit of answers. Now, myself, I hold a degree in Accounting and English. At the same time, I have always had interests in science, physics, mechanics and nature. I pursue knowledge in these fields on a regular basis and am now studying chemistry in my spare time. (Though I admit, I can't do the experiments listed in the book, LOL!) I also am very interested in the medical field, for I believe that there are some answers, for some of us, who experience the paranormal on a regular basis. One of the members of my team is actually a real scientist every day as her career, and I consult regularly with her. We use a simple form of the scientific method to investigate. We use methods that are original at times, and older, more widely used methods but it all comes back to our hypotheses. I figure the simplest way to solve puzzles is the simple scientific method that I learned in elementary school. Form a question in your mind that has to do with the question in mind, such as, “Is this place haunted?” or “Is this place not haunted?” Very simple, but as you go along on the investigation, you add answers to the questions. You add weight to the scale. Either you have more evidence of a haunting, or you don't.
But what is evidence? And how does one gather it? Without a certificate (which certificates to me are just another way to put money in someone's pocket who really isn't qualified to teach me in the first place) I have devised a simple way of putting an investigation, which at times, may or may not seem scientific, depending on circumstances, into a simple provable or un-provable hypothesis and then proving or disproving it. Simple, yet scientific at the same time.
By working with other amateur scientists, I am now working on a way to make a statistic that will prove paranormal activity. It's going to take some time, and a lot of math, but I'm hoping that once we have a formula, we can come to a conclusion. You see, amateurs can be pretty dang smart as I found when I met the founder of a new team in the area. So I may not be a scientist in real life, but I eat, breathe and sleep science. And I know I'm not trained to be a scientist. But what I see is science that lacks the science we need to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts. I believe that if we cut out some of these thinking minds, minds like my own, and the other members of my team, that we will lose quite a lot. For you see, my ideas come from my own personal experiences. From 40 years of experiencing paranormal activity, and using these experiences in the field, I think I can go a bit further than most scientists. I can see possibilities, I can see what science lacks, and I can wonder at how to fit the pieces together. I think it would be a shame to lose all those other minds out there, a shame not to experiment with psychic phenomena and not to try to get a “big picture” out of the deal. Maybe we lack the formal training, maybe we're not educated formally, but we have heart and determination, and I know that if you took myself, and others like me, out of the field, you would lose a piece of the field that is extremely valuable.
I can see the point of having a bunch of people who have no clue what they're doing out there in the field. But you see, these fly by night teams don't last. It's us, the ones who are out in the trenches, on investigations, thinking, wondering and dreaming ideas. And who's to say what is right or wrong. You can say things aren't proven. But if we continuously make note of things, say, we get an EVP at the same time an EMF meter goes off, and it happens every time, then maybe we can say that EMF and ghosts do have something to do with each other. But it's going to take people, lots of people, to keep consistently making note of such factors. It's up to people to discover new ways to measure ghostly activity and it's going to be renegades like us coming up with new and improved ways to prove our theories and hypotheses. I for one would never take away the individual thinking and plotting that goes on in my teams' heads.
So, I'm sorry, I disagree. For one, that would take me out of the field. I have ideas and theories I'm trying to prove. And I haven't been sitting on my butt for the last 25 years either. Just like many of the people I know and love in this field, we work hard, harder than the scientists, for we, in our own little ways, have more to prove. And mistakes? Well, to me, sometimes mistakes lead to the biggest lessons, and sometimes, real science happens because of mistakes!
2. Considering subjective feelings and emotions as evidence of ghostly encounters.
Members of ghost hunting groups (and TV shows such as Ghost Hunters) often report descriptions of personal feelings and experiences like, “I felt a heavy, sad presence and wanted to cry,” or “I felt like something didn’t want me there,” and so on. They also describe in detail how, for example, they had goose bumps upon entering a room, or grew panicked at some unseen presence, assuming they were reacting to a hidden ghost.
Why it’s a mistake: Subjective experiences are essentially stories and anecdotes. There’s nothing wrong with personal experiences, but by themselves they are not proof or evidence of anything. Most people who report such experiences are sincere in their belief that a ghost caused their panic, but that belief does not necessarily make it true. The problem, of course, is that there is not necessarily any connection between any real danger or a ghostly presence and how a person feels. Many people suffer from irrational phobias and panic attacks, terrified of any number of things such as insects, airplane travel, and crossing bridges. Their fears and panic are very real—they truly are sweating and terrified. But it’s all psychological; it has
nothing to do with the outside world. In the same way, the power of suggestion can be very strong, and a suggestible ghost hunter can easily convince herself—and others—that something weird is going on. There is of course no objective, scientific way to test these sorts of claims, no test for fear, uneasiness, panic, a sense of dread, a “spooky” feeling, or other subjective sensations. Even if a person is sweating, or his skin feels clammy, there could be any number of things that caused it. Most ghost hunters recognize that their personal feelings can’t be considered good evidence, yet they often report these experiences along with the rest of their evidence. Investigators should make an effort to learn about psychology (especially perceptual processes) and human behavior so that their investigations
aren’t sidetracked by these distractions.
Rebuttal: OK, part of the reason I'm in the paranormal field is because of personal experiences. During my life, I've probably had more paranormal experiences than you can count. But not all of them were entity related. Some of them would be considered psychic experiences, but to me, still paranormal. Now just so you understand my ways of thinking, I'm working to find if certain people, people with medical problems, and psychic abilities are more prone to have ghostly experiences. I've also worked with many psychics over the years, experimenting with their abilities. I see a connection between psychic senses and ghostly interactions. I'm also looking at medical ideas for I have an idea that part of my “problem” is a birth defect of my spine which without going too far into detail, interacts with my nerves in strange ways. I also think it makes my body somehow interact with the unseen world of spirits, and maybe even relates to string theory and multi-dimensional theories.
Recently, I put a team psychic on my team. Why not? It will either prove or disprove psychic abilities, if you ask me. She speaks to me during investigations, and I frame my questions around what I hear. So far, she has been on two investigations, and on both investigations, I have reason to believe that her senses were true. One example is, when asked what a little boy spirit's name was, she hesitated, concentrating for a moment, in our recording, you hear us, then a little boy says, “Michael” and then she replies, “My first instinct is Michael.” Along with picking up on a lot of other things that have gone on in the house, I find it interesting. Not proof by itself, but another piece to add to a giant puzzle I've had on the table for over 25 years. At another investigation, she once again proved her worth. When she hears a woman screaming, I pick up a woman screaming in my recordings. Again, not solid evidence, but a puzzle piece. When you keep adding pieces, you start to see that big picture again. I'm not just investigating dead people, I'm investigating the human soul. And the wonderful possibilities that is encompasses. And to defend psychic abilities, how many dreams have I had that have come true? Well, I could never count them, for I've had so many ranging from every day things, to the death of my father, and a loved one. How many times have I been on investigation and been physically touched, but also had the EMF meter go off at the same time? That, I might be able to count by going through my files, but let's just say many times, for argument's sake.
We're dealing with something that is not physical in the way we understand it. I do think it's important to record and note the way our physical bodies react to that. But if we keep recording these things, instead of ignoring them, we may see a pattern. Or another piece of the puzzle may just fall into place, for all we know. But we can't set ourselves to doing the same things, over and over again. We have to reach out, try things, experiment. You said it yourself, methods aren't proven, equipment isn't proven. But if we record and note, well, maybe things can be proven. But we all have to get on the same page, we all have to be willing to experiment, and to share our results with others. Or we're all just wandering in the dark, and all our batteries are dead!
3. Using unproven tools and equipment.
There are two basic types of equipment and tools that ghost hunters use: metaphysical ones (psychics, dowsing rods, pendulums, séances, etc.) and scientific ones (electromagnetic field detectors,thermometers, FLIR cameras, etc).
Why it’s a mistake: In their work, real scientists and investigators only use equipment that has been proven to work and is designed for the purpose for which it is used. Police detectives don’t use dowsing rods to identify suspects, and doctors don’t use EMF detectors to test for genetic diseases. It’s not that EMF detectors aren’t useful—they very much are, in certain fields—but they have nothing to do with what the doctor is investigating. The same holds true for these unproven tools. Some investigators claim that they don’t use the equipment to detect ghosts; instead they use it to rule out natural explanations for a ghostly phenomenon. The problem is that the naturalistic “explanations” they claim to be ruling out often have nothing to do with the original ghost claims. For example, let’s say that a person believes his house is haunted because he hears faint voices at night, an odd glowing form appeared in a photograph of the house, and small items have inexplicably fallen
off a kitchen shelf. Ion counters, FLIR cameras, and EMF detectors are of no benefit in addressing these claims. They cannot reveal the true identity of a glow in a photograph, nor will they explain the origin of the voice-like sounds, nor what caused an item to mysteriously fall off a shelf. The ghost investigators are not “ruling out” any natural explanations with this equipment, because the gear has nothing to do with the claims. Establishing the location of an electromagnetic field is of no value; it doesn’t “explain” anything.
Metaphysical Tools
Psychic abilities have never been proven to exist. Some people—especially those who claim to be psychic or “intuitive” —may disagree, but the fact remains that such powers have never been scientifically validated. This is not the place for a lengthy discussion on the reality of psychic powers; the scientific evidence can be found elsewhere. But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that psychic power exists, and that some psychics have some unknown, unprovable ability to provide unique in-formation about a haunted location or spirit. This would still be of little or no value to a scientific paranormal investigator. To see why, let’s examine some claims. In the book The Other Side: A Teen’s Guide to Ghost Hunting and the Paranormal, authors Marley Gibson, Patrick Burns, and Dave Schrader write, “Certain studies suggest that even the best psychics are accurate only 30 percent of the time... Remember again that a lot of psychics will be wrong more often than they are exact” (p. 49, 51). I don’t know where the authors—who, by the way, all believe in psychic ability—got the 30% figure (instead of random chance), but let’s assume they are correct. If the accuracy rate of psychic power is 30%, this is a horrible success rate! No scientific test is accurate 100% of the time, but any investigative tool or technique that was wrong 70% of the time would never be used by a responsible scientist or investigator. Can you image going to a doctor for a cancer screening and being given a test that was wrong almost three-quarters of the time? Any result from the test would be worthless; you’d have to take the same test many times to overcome such a low accuracy rate. If you were smart, you’d use a tool that had been proven to be
valid and reliable most of the time. And remember: that rate is for the best psychics. If the ghost-hunting psychic isn’t one of the best, the accuracy rate would presumably be lower—twenty percent? Ten percent? Zero percent? Who knows?
Imagine if, during the course of an investigation, a ghost hunter used a psychic who gave 30 different pieces of information about the haunting or spirit. Assuming your psychic is one of the best, she will be wrong about 21 pieces of information, and correct about 9 of them. Making matters worse, there’s no way to know which 9 clues she is correct about. To find out, each piece of information would have to be investigated, and three out of four will be wrong.
It’s an incredible waste of time and resources—and that’s assuming psychic powers exist! No scientific investigator in his right mind would use a psychic. Steve Gonsalves, of the Ghost Hunters TV show, wrote in the February 2007 issue of the TAPS Paramagazine that “the legitimacy and findings of remote viewing [psychics] are obviously questionable,
but... if you believe in mind power and ESP, then I say, ‘Why not?’ It certainly won’t hurt...” Gonsalves’s answer reveals a very shaky grasp of both science and investigation. Real investigation requires knowing that the tools and methods you use to gather information are valid, and that the information from those sources is accurate and useful. To an investigator who wastes hours trying to verify wild leads provided by psychics who can’t validate their powers scientifically, it certainly can hurt!
The exact same problem occurs with the use of dowsing rods, pendulums, Ouija boards, and
other metaphysical and New Age items: they may be fun to play with, but they have never been scientifically proven to work. There’s no evidence that dowsing rods can detect water, much less ghosts. Any readings that these devices provide are far more likely to be red herrings than valid evidence.
Scientific Tools
Many ghost hunters consider themselves scientific if they use high-tech scientific equipment
such as Geiger counters, Electromagnetic Field (EMF) detectors, ion detectors, infrared cameras, sensitive microphones, and so on. Yet the equipment is only as scientific as the person using it; you may own the world’s most sophisticated thermometer, but if you are using it as a barometer, your measurements are worthless. Using a calculator doesn’t make you a mathematician, and using a scientific instrument doesn’t make you a scientist.
The use of these devices rest upon nothing more than assumptions and pure speculation. For
any of these pieces of equipment to be useful there must be some proven connection to ghosts. For example, if ghosts were known to emit electromagnetic fields, then a device that measures such fields would be useful. If ghosts were known to cause temperature drops, then a sensitive thermometer would be useful. If ghosts were known to emit ions, then a device that measures such ions would be useful. And so on. The problem is that there is no body of research that shows that any of the things these devices are measuring have anything to do with ghosts. Many things are known to emit electromagnetic fields
and cause temperature drops; ghosts are not among them. There has not been a single study that shows that these things can detect a ghostly presence. Until someone can reliably demonstrate that ghosts have certain measurable characteristics, devices that measure those characteristics are irrelevant. Every single reading, whether a fluctuation in a field or a drop in temperature or anything else, can always be attributed to something other than a ghost: even if an investigator gets an “anomalous” reading, there’s simply no way to prove it was caused by a ghost. The evidence gathered by these devices will be inconclusive at best—and always has been.
There is no reason for any scientific investigator to possess or use these devices, since there is no evidence that they detect ghosts. Using a tool or device without being certain it works to find what you’re searching for is illogical and unscientific. What’s the point in using a tool that—even if it works as you think it does—can’t prove anything one way or the other?
Many ghost hunters, including the T.A.P.S. team, use EMF detectors to search for electromagnetic fields because they believe that intense magnetic fields can create hallucinations, which in turn might create the illusion of ghosts. The basis for this theory comes primarily from research done by a Canadian cognitive neuroscientist, Michael Persinger. He found that hallucinations (such as outof-body experiences) could be triggered by stimulating specific areas of the brain with fixed wavelength patterns of high-level electromagnetic fields. He suggested that EMFs might therefore be responsible
for everything from UFO sightings to religious apparitions to ghosts. It’s an interesting idea. Unfortunately for the ghost hunters, it’s just a theory—not a proven effect. There’s little or no evidence to support the idea that EMFs create ghosts. Ghosts are not being seen in Persinger’s experimental laboratory in Ontario; they are being seen in abandoned hospitals
and suburban basements. There is simply no evidence that electromagnetic fields generated by common household appliances can generate EMFs of the frequency and power that induce hallucinations in a clinical setting.
Indeed, Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella says that the theory of EMFs as an origin for ghosts is “speculative at this point.” The electromagnetic stimulation used by Persinger “has to be focused, and at a certain frequency in order to have this effect. It seems unlikely that environmental electromagnetic fields would be fine-tuned just enough to cause this effect... It’s an interesting idea, I just don’t think it’s terribly plausible. At present, while we can certainly duplicate it in a lab, I’m not aware of any evidence to suggest it actually happens out there in the world” (Novella, Steven. 2010. Getting into the Spirit of Things. MonsterTalk podcast, March 2). In their rush to accept this “scientific” explanation for ghost sightings, investigators extrapolated far beyond the evidence. Until it can be demonstrated that generalized, non-clinical EMFs can create the psychological perception of ghostly phenomena, there
is no investigative value in detecting such fields.
Is it theoretically possible that, if ghosts exist, EMF detectors might find a sign of them? Of course it is; anything is possible, but there’s no evidence for that. There are hundreds or thousands of other devices or tools that could possibly do the same thing. Without knowing what specific characteristics define a ghost experience, it’s based on nothing more than guesses. There’s no logical reason to think that an EMF detector would be any more useful
in detecting ghosts than a snow globe, a broken inkjet printer, or a fuel gauge from a 1983 Buick. I’ve been investigating ghosts for over a decade now, and I don’t use EMF
detectors to find ghosts for the same reason I don’t use a toaster to clean my laundry.
This is not to say that cameras and other recording gear cannot be useful in an investigation.
They can, but it all depends on the purpose, on what the investigator is using it for. A camera set to record the entrance to a door might be very useful in making sure that no one enters unnoticed to pull a hoax or prank. If there is a specific claimed phenomenon that is said to occur, the camera may be a useful tool to record the event if it happens. But simply setting a camera up to record for hours on end with no particular purpose is an easy way to collect bogus evidence. Why do so many ghost hunters use these high-tech devices, even though there’s no evidence they detect ghosts? Part of it is because that’s what they see on TV, so they assume that must be the “scientific” way to look for ghosts. And partly it’s because there are dozens of “ghost equipment” outfitters who make a lot of money selling this gear to amateur ghost hunters. They can make hundreds or thousands of dollars by selling this equipment to people who don’t know any better.
Rebuttal: You say scientists use equipment that is “proven” to do the job in their work. I have to ask, how did they “prove” these things worked for the jobs they purported to do with them? I think they probably tested them, recorded results, and after many successful tries, decided that the devices worked for their intended uses. I have to ask that devices be given the same chance in their paranormal uses to be tested as these “scientific” devices were given. How do we know these devices work? Well, at this point, we don't. But how do we decide if they work for their intended uses in our field? I'd say, we test them, record the results, and decide in the end if they are doing the job we intend them to do. At the same time, I admit, I tend to go for simple equipment such as cameras or recorders. But I also note and record the devices my team members are using and familiarize myself with their uses and intended purposes. I can't prove or disprove that such things as EMF detectors work, but when the readings are recorded, they may show a pattern that helps us determine if they're worth their salt or not.
I am also interested in trying new equipment and have found that some things can be remarkable. Some things aren't worth the money they cost, I have to be honest. But how do we know if things work or not, if we don't test them in the field. A single EMF is not conclusive of anything, but if it accompanies other things, such as physical touching, manipulation of objects, EVP or other phenomena, then it just might be recording something after all. But we don't know if we don't test. Did Newton just drop one apple and say, “Ah! Gravity!” Nope, he kept dropping things and noting their rate of descent, that objects that were light, such as a feather, fell more slowly than something heavy, like say a rock. Just as we can't turn on an EMF meter and say, “Ah! A ghost!” Years of testing and recording results will tell us more than anything can.
As for “metaphysical” tools, well, to me, it's the same thing. Do you know the capacity of the human brain? Nope, neither can I. But I can imagine it being pretty amazing and mind blowing. So, yes, I experiment with these things. I log the results and when I go through some of them, those puzzle pieces seem to fit together in my mind and I want to go further. Learn more. Think. Dream. And to me, that's an important part of the field. We'll always have people who don't record, who don't share their findings. So a large part of the picture may always be hidden to us. But if we're not willing to expand our thoughts we might not ever find answers.
Still to me, it's that openness, the ability to think beyond the box that is going to take us further in the paranormal field. It's not that science can't explain the paranormal, I just don't think we have the science yet. But if we keep pushing those barriers, maybe someday we will have more answers.
You don't have to accept things at face value. Test them, try new things, record results. Answer those hypotheses. But try. Don't say these things aren't proven. Go out and prove and disprove them. Maybe you'll be surprised at the answers.
4. Using improper and unscientific investigation methods.
In addition to misusing scientific equipment, ghost hunters often misuse (or ignore) good sci-
entific research methods.
Why it’s a mistake: Examining all the errors in ghost investigations would take an entire book; instead I will highlight the three most common mistakes I have encountered, drawing from personal experience and TV shows like Ghost Hunters.
Investigating with the lights off
Nearly every ghost-themed TV show has several scenes in which the investigators walk around a darkened place, usually at night, looking for ghosts. Purposely conducting an investigation in the dark is the equivalent of tying an anvil to a marathon runner’s foot. It intentionally hobbles the investigation and is completely counter-productive. It also violates common sense and logic; think about it for a second: if you are trying to identify an unknown object, is it better to look for it under bright lights, or in a darkened room? There are no other objects or entities in the world that anyone would think are better observed in darkness instead of light; why would ghosts be any different? Humans are visual creatures, and our eyes need light to see—the more light the better. Darkness, by definition, severely limits the amount of information available. Searching at night in the dark puts investigators at an immediate and obvious disadvantage in trying to identify and understand what’s going on
around them. If limiting the investigator’s ability to detect things around them helps find ghosts, why not take it a step further and use blindfolds and earplugs on the ghost hunters?
Furthermore, this strategy fails on its own terms. While some report seeing ghosts as glowing
figures, many people report them as shadows or dark entities. Searching a dark room for a shadowy figure is an exercise in futility. If it was an established fact that ghosts emit light, there would be some logic to looking for them in a dark room. Unless a ghost or entity has been specifically and repeatedly reported or photographed emitting light, there’s no valid, logical reason that ghost investigators would work figuratively (and literally) in the dark. Some ghost hunters believe that darkness helps to draw out ghostly entities. Yet even a casual review of ghost reports shows that this is not true: most sightings do not occur in darkness. People have reported seeing ghosts in broad daylight, in the morning, and at all times of the day. It is true that people are more likely to report seeing a ghost in the evening,
but it does not logically follow that ghosts must be more active after sunset.
There are several non-supernatural reasons why ghost reports would occur more often at night, especially in homes. For one thing, there’s a sampling bias: most people are not at home during the daytime, and most of their waking hours while at home occur in the evening. Obviously, people are more likely to report potential ghostly activity at night in their homes instead of during the day at an office job or assembly plant. Furthermore, people are more likely to be in psychological states that can induce misperceptions (and even mild hallucinations) in the evening. The evening hours—which of course coincide with the darkness hours—are when people get off work to relax; sometimes they drink alcohol or use recreational drugs. Even those who don’t succumb to another mental state that has been clinically proven to greatly increase misperceptions and hallucinations: ordinary fatigue.
This of course does not mean that everyone who is tired after a long day will necessarily see or hear things that aren’t there, but fatigue is a real and significant factor that cannot be dismissed. Ghost hunters who are quick to attribute hallucinations to EMF fields often overlook fatigue as far more obvious (and proven) cause. Ironically, ghosts are almost never reported under the conditions that most ghost hunters search for them: late at night, in near-total darkness with flashlights and EMF detectors. The reason it’s often done for television shows is obvious: it makes more dramatic footage. It’s spookier and more visually interesting to film the ghost investigators with night-visionor infrared cameras.
Sampling errors
Elsewhere I explain why a ghost stakeout or overnight investigation is a bad idea, but there’s another, less obvious basic scientific mistake. Usually ghost hunters will begin their stakeout by taking readings from their high-tech equipment. While a thorough investigation into specific claims or phenomena (such as why a door opens on its own, or the source of a strange noise) can be conducted in a matter of hours, a complete investigation into a haunted location can’t be done in a few hours, or even during an overnight stay. The reason is very simple: a few hours or overnight is not enough time to gather enough information to establish a valid set of baseline (or control) measurements for what “normal” (i.e. presumably ghost-free) conditions are at the location. To know what is extraordinary for the area, an investigator must first determine what is ordinary. Many ghost hunters understand this general principle, but greatly underestimate the importance of valid sampling. In environmental science, measurement sampling, for example checking for water or air contaminants, is a very complex process: choosing how to sample, where to sample, what to sample, how often, with what tools, etc. is critical to getting useful measurements. This is why for valid experiments, scientists must take dozens—sometimes hundreds—of independent measurements, and analyze the results to derive a statistical average (along with a range of normal variation),which can be used as a basis for research. The timeframes and number of samples that ghost hunters use are far too
short to yield any scientifically meaningful baseline numbers.
There’s also the logical problem of comparing readings (EMFs, temperatures, etc.) taken at different times. As any scientist or statistician can tell you, two data points are meaningless. All you can tell from two sets of readings is that either the number has changed or it hasn’t. How can the investigator know that the baseline readings they got “before” the investigation started were not detecting ghosts? Think of it this way: Just because Measurement A was taken a few hours before Measurement B does not mean that Measurement A is the “normal” one (the control) and Measurement B represents an anomaly. Maybe Measurement A was the anomaly; or maybe Measurement B was the anomaly; or maybe both Measurements A and B were within the ordinary range of variation and if the investigators took Measurement C they would find that to be the anomaly. There’s no way to tell which of these interpretations is correct without many more samples (data points). It gives you no information about which number (or set of numbers), is the “normal” condition and which is the “anomalous” one. It gives no information on correlation or causation (such as noting that a higher temperature reading was taken in a room that had just been occupied by a dozen warm-bodied investigators). It gives no information about anything, yet it is a standard procedure among
many ghost hunter groups, who have convinced themselves and others they are doing good science. A scientific ghost investigator would have to make at least a dozen separate visits to the location (at different times of the day and under different conditions) to carefully measure and record whatever variables (temperature, humidity, light, vibrations, sounds, electromagnetic fields, etc.) they will be measuring during their stakeout. The more times an investigator samples the location, the more complete and more accurate the information will be. It’s easy to understand why ghost hunters don’t follow scientifically valid sampling methods. First, it requires learning about basic scientific and sampling methodologies. This doesn’t require a college education; there are plenty of books that can help investigators learn about this. But ghost hunters need to “know what it is they don’t know” and be willing to study and use correct procedures. Second, there is the time commitment and “fun factor.” From my experience, most ghost hunters aren’t really interested in the science; they want the fun. Taking measurements and creating a data set in preparation for an investigation is neither interesting nor spooky; it is boring, tedious, mathematical drudgery. Why bother spending weeks with equipment and silly old numbers and textbooks when you can be walking around an abandoned hospital with flashlights, spooking your friends and jumping at shadows?
Ineffectively using recording devices
As we have seen, devices such as EMF detectors and ion counters have no use in ghost investigations. Ordinary cameras and audio recorders, however, can be helpful if used correctly. Unfortunately, many ghost hunters (including the Ghost Hunters) don’t know how to use the equipment effectively. For example, in Episode 401 (airdate March 5, 2008), the TAPS crew investigated Philadelphia’s Fort Mifflin. While there, lead investigator Grant Wilson acted startled on camera while looking through a crawlspace (in near-darkness, of course). He claimed he saw a human face staring back at him only a few feet away, but predictably the television crew trailing him didn’t capture it on video. This type of incident has happened dozens of times over the six seasons of the Ghost Hunters television Show: One or another ghost hunter claims to have seen or heard something just off-camera, and therefore without any proof. Was it real, a hoax, an illusion, or hallucination? Without some recorded
evidence, it’s just another personal story. The solution is obvious: head-mounted wireless digital cameras. They were finally used occasionally in a few recent episodes (though not consistently by all the crew), and it’s odd that it took five years for the high-tech TAPS crew to realize they were a good idea.
Another example is the use of voice recorders. Most ghost hunters, including the TAPS team,
use handheld voice recorders in an attempt to capture a ghost voice or EVP. Often the ghost hunter holds it while standing in the middle of a room while addressing the supposed spirit, or while walking around. Sometimes a voice-like sound or noise will be heard at the time; if so, the ghost hunter(s) will ask more questions, and if not the sound or EVP will be saved for later analysis.
Unfortunately, this is not an effective protocol. To identify the nature of the sound (human,
ghost, cat, furnace, etc.), an investigator must first determine its source, and that in turn involves locating the sound’s origin. This can be very difficult for a ghost hunter to do, especially in a darkened room. If the sound came from an open window, that would suggest one explanation, while if the sound’s origin could be located to the middle of an empty room, that might be more mysterious. Locating the source of a sound is nearly impossible using only one recording device. The way to scientifically determine the source location of a sound is with more than one microphone—at least three, and the more the better. By placing sensitive microphones throughout the location (and certainly in the four corners of a room and outside), the signal strength of the sound can be measured at each microphone. Sound is created by longitudinal compression waves in the air, moving away from the source of the sound. Furthermore, soundwaves have several measurable characteristics, including frequency, amplitude, speed, and wavelength. Along with a basic knowledge of acoustics and math, these characteristics allow the investigator to triangulate within a few feet where
the sound came from. Ideally this should be done in real time so that the ghost hunters can immediately investigate. Methods of triangulation have been used by engineers and sailors for hundreds of years-- and are widely used in GPS equipment---but for some reason are not used by the T.A.P.S. Crew.
Rebuttal: I have to admit, there is a lot of good information here. The only thing is, you have to remember, not all investigators are TAPS, and not all of us are worried about our TV ratings. I do not go “dark” unless I have to, in some circumstances, such as outdoor sites or places that have no electricity such as attics at times, we usually have lights on during our investigations. Or, in some cases, as close to a normal day in the home or building as can be. But again, as before, with the equipment rebuttal above, I say we have no clue what works at this point and the only way to do this is through testing and recording our results.
Just as with the “baseline” readings and such. How do we know? We don't. Not at this point we don't. But rather than throw them out the window, I see that it is within reason to keep working with them. We don't know if they are measuring ghosts, but if we completely stop using them, how will we ever know? No, I don't go dark, I guess I have that on my side. I do try to learn as much as I can about the equipment I use personally and the equipment my team uses. My team is welcome to use any equipment they feel they want to try, and they are also welcome to try new ideas that they may have. All I ask is they do it consistently and record their results. How do I know that one of them might have a brain storm that eventually helps to prove the existence of ghosts? I don't know, for at this point, nothing is proven and we are wandering in the dark. The only way we can get closer is by being consistent, and well, maybe by learning that TV isn't always the best model for real life.
I do actually like the idea of triangulating my microphones. I've gotten some great EVP with my team on investigation and it would be nice to take it one step further. But as you see, I take a different approach to investigation. I can't say if I'm right or wrong. I can't prove the methods we use, but I can use them consistently, and hope that in the end, I've done something right. For NONE of us are experts, I don't care what anyone says. But just because we're not experts, or don't have a scientific degree, doesn't mean we aren't doing a few things right. Being open to new things, trying old things over and over, recording, noting differences and similarities. That's what I think will bring us forward. Not closing the door to new ideas and possibilities. In every idea, in every new method I see progress. I see minds working together for one end. If we close off one part of this and don't see it as a big picture, then I think we end up losing something in the end. To me, that's not good science. For, do I have all the answers? Hell no! But I have the ability to question and to think, and to form new ideas in my mind. And I know that someday, science will catch up with us!
To me, investigation isn't being in an old abandoned building scaring my team. It's facing the unknown and facing it with wisdom and courage! And sorry, I haven't run from a shadow since I was just a kid, facing the unknown all by herself. This is not about being spooked out, if I want to do that, I can stay home and wait for it to happen. For me, this is about answers, and why it happens to some more than others. For me, in the end, it's a life's journey, one I couldn't do without. For me, it's personal. I want answers as to why I've had such a paranormal life. I've gone down every alley. Been psych tested, been medically tested, done it all, and to tell the truth, after all these tests, I ended up with some doctors who are on board, and believe in me and what I'm doing fully. Means a lot to me, just like everything in this field. I hope to see things open up, and maybe this is where it all starts!
5. Doing a stakeout or “lockdown.”
This is typically an overnight “investigation” into a haunted location, usually with a half dozen
or more people wandering around the location, setting up cameras and other gear, etc. This is one of the most common and basic mistakes made by amateur ghost investigators. Nearly every ghost themed “reality” television show features this, and it’s a staple of most ghost-hunting groups, and a particular favorite of the cast of Ghost Adventures TV show. It’s also a huge red flag, warning of bad science and amateur investigation.
Why it’s a mistake:
As an investigative procedure in ghost hunting, the stakeout (or “lockdown,” as it’s sometimes
melodramatically called) has a 100% track record of failure; out of the hundreds of stakeouts conducted by ghost hunters, not a single one has yielded any significant proof of ghosts. (As I noted, they might have better success if they left the lights on.) Every stakeout gets more or less the same results: a few ambiguous—yet supposedly mysterious—noises or lights or shadows, but never anything scientifically useful or definitive. Scientists and investigators abandon tools and techniques that don’t work, help solve mysteries or explain phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that their evidence never gets any better using this technique, amateur ghost hunters keep doing it. There’s a certain entertainment value in walking around a supposedly haunted location and scaring each other silly.
A stakeout is essentially a scientific experiment without the science. Scientific experiments are carefully controlled by the investigator or experimenter: he or she controls some variables or conditions, and measures the variation. To use a basic example, if a scientist wants to see if one potting soil helps plants grow better than another potting soil, she can set up a simple experiment to test this. But she would need to establish careful controls over the experiment to make sure that the results she gets are valid. She would take two identical plants (ideally cuttings from the same parent plant to control for genetics) and expose them to identical sunlight, water, temperature, and so on—essentially controlling a dozen or more variables, so that she can be sure that any difference in growth between the two plants is a result of the dependent variable, the different potting soil. This careful control of the environments is absolutely critical to conducting a valid experiment. If one of the plants was given more sunlight or more water, then that could be the reason it grew better, regardless of which soil it was planted in. Without careful control over the variables and conditions, the experiment
is invalid and any results from that experiment are worthless.
Some ghost hunters and paranormal investigators believe they are using good science and controls when they conduct tests, for example setting out “trigger” or “control” objects (teddy bears, balls set on tables or chairs, and so on) that ghosts are invited to move to demonstrate their presence. The problem is that there is no scientific control group to compare any result to. For example, let’s say that a child’s ball is placed in the center of a table in a reputedly haunted room and recorded on camera overnight. Even if the ball begins to move or roll for some reason, it is not a valid experiment. The investigator would need to have a control condition—one or more identical balls set up in comparable conditions and locations that are supposedly not haunted. It might be, for example, that slight vibrations from a passing train a few blocks away would be enough to move the ball, and that any ball placed on any comparable table anywhere in the neighborhood would act the same way. If the investigator only tests that one ball on that one specific table in the suspected haunted location, it’s impossible to know if any movement was caused by a circumstance unique to that place. Without a control group, there is nothing to compare any result to. It is classic pseudoscience. This is directly relevant to ghost investigations, because in a stakeout the experimenter by definition cannot control all, or even the most, of the variables and conditions in the
experiment he’s conducting.
In a recent issue of Haunted Times magazine, ghost experts Christopher Mancuso and Brian J. Cano suggest searching for ghosts in urban areas such as abandoned hospitals, institutions, and factories. This, of course, is a textbook example of a completely uncontrolled location with an untenable signal-tonoise ratio. It’s difficult to understand why Mancuso
and Cano would think that their “urban exploration” would be a productive setting for an investigation. A serious investigator wants fewer variables and distractions,
not more. You might as well try to record EVPs during a rock concert. How, exactly, is an investigator supposed to tell the typically subtle signs of a ghost in a place that is not only decaying (and likely infested with rodents, insects and other animals), but also surrounded by the typical lights, smells, and noises of an urban area? There are likely to be ordinary sounds and drafts all over the place that would duplicate or mask any supposed ghostly phenomena. (Not to mention the potential problems of running into vagrants, drug users, and police enforcing trespassing laws.) It’s hard to think of a worse place for ghost investigation—or one that would be more likely to create false-positive evidence. An investigator’s inability to reliably distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary phenomena renders these “investigations” a joke.
Making the problem worse, ghost hunters often have little or no training in proper investigation
procedures and usually create as much “evidence” as they uncover. I have witnessed many cases where ghost hunting groups waste time investigating “evidence” that they themselves created because of sloppy technique and carelessness. It’s very much like a dog chasing its own tail, and it would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious problem. It’s important to remember that nearly anything anyone thinks is odd for any reason can be offered as evidence of a ghost. There is an impossibly broad spectrum of phenomena that have been claimed as signs of ghosts, including lights, shadows, noises, silence, heat, cold, moving objects, smells, uneasiness, and so on. If the presence of a ghost could be narrowed down to a specific phenomenon—for example, if everyone agreed (or it had been proven) that ghosts give off red light, or a certain high-pitched sound—then the problem of not having a controlled
location would be greatly reduced. An investigator wouldn’t need to rule out every possible
source of sound, smell, light, etc. but instead rule out merely any sources of red light or a high-pitched sound. But because just about any phenomenon can be attributed to ghosts, there is no way to rule out or control for the conditions. A ghost stakeout or lockdown is completely unscientific, and a waste of time.
There is one limited exception when a stakeout is warranted: if there is some claim or specific
reason to believe that the ghostly phenomena will appear at a certain time, or under certain conditions. This can help establish or refute a cause-and-effect link. For example, if a mysterious sound or light is claimed to happen at a specific time (say, around midnight), or under certain conditions (such as a full moon or the anniversary of a death), then it is reasonable to be present and ready to investigate should the phenomenon present itself. However, simply sitting around waiting for some unspecified event to happen is non-scientific and almost guaranteed to create false positive evidence. To be fair, some of these techniques may be useful in doing demonstrations for the public as to how not to scientifically investigate ghosts (for example using EMF detectors to explain to the public why they can cause false readings). Similarly, if ghost investigators are not claiming to be doing good
science or real investigation but merely having spooky fun, there’s no harm in these techniques. These are mistakes only if the goal is to understand the phenomena using science and logic.
Rebuttal: Again, this is a good point, and I agree. I do not think a lock down is necessary to investigating the paranormal. But at the same time, I understand that a “control” is difficult to achieve in the paranormal field. Some of the cases I'm working on are long term and have been going on for many years. I can not create a control for most of them. Many factors are unknown about the paranormal. It makes sense to me that maybe environmental conditions can cause or inhibit activity. I note weather conditions, moon phase, solar x-rays and geo-magnetic fields when I go on investigations. But I can not control most of these environmental conditions. I can only make note of them, and after time, I hope that maybe I will see some pattern or a similarity between all of the readings taken over the years. I also can not know what effect things such as pollution or location can have on a haunting.
But I also think much of this argument is based on what you've seen ghost hunters do on TV. These are TV shows and they do things to get ratings. If these guys sat in a well-lighted room and did scientific experiments, no one would watch them, would they? Well, maybe paranormal investigators would, but not the average Joe out there. They don't care about readings, or results, they want to see action. So the TV shows give it to them. It may not be correct, but it sells shows.
I also have to agree with you about the suggestion by Haunted Times to trespass upon urban buildings. I think it's wrong and very unscientific. I admit, there are locations that I investigate that are very hard to do, such as outside locations, and we do our best with those. But these are public locations, accessible to anyone, and after dark, if you ask permission. I think it's very important to have permission and to be safe, whether you're into this for scientific reasons, or for the spook factor. Whether you're a person who does it for fun, or if you're a serious investigator, it's always been wrong to trespass!
One thing I can say, my team is excellent at being careful. Everyone always notes noises they make inadvertently, conditions that occurred, and when something does happen, they search, experiment and try to recreate what happened, or find a source. To me, logic is using my intelligence to help me find explanations for the things I experience. I have to say, my team does it well, and I know many others, some of whom are just hobbyists who do it quite well, too! Just because you see something on TV, doesn't mean we're all putting it into practice. Some of us don't need television to decide how we should act.
But all in all, though I do agree with many of the points you've provided here, I have to disagree with a lot of this. We're not TV ghost hunters running around in the dark, we're serious about what we do. The way I see it, is yes, we have a lot of trial and error to do here. But in any case, especially in dealing with things of a non-physical nature, we have to keep poking, experimenting and trying different things to see what works. Above all, we have to record our findings and share. For maybe some don't do things the way we think they should be done, but maybe, they're doing something right, and the evidence, in the end, will show us credible information we can use. Maybe it won't, but as I've said, there are no experts in this field. Someday there will be, but it will only be because so many dedicated people kept plugging away until they found the right tools, the right methods, and the right science to do it! Until then, we just have to try to get us all on the same page, and we have to be accepting of others methods. For now, we lack the science, and the numbers of people consistently working together to get there. But I know it will happen some day!