2009 Ohio Paranormal Convention

How do you get Bigfoot, Grassman, Mars, a list of authors and paranormal investigators (and an archeologist) into one room? You book a room at the Hara Arena in Dayton.

August 14th kicked off the Ohio Paranormal Convention with a pair of bands (The Goody Two Shoes and Lonesome Tumblers) that rocked the house (and made things a bit hard to hear in the vendor area), lesson learned. It would have been hard to realize, unless they told you, that this was Southern Ohio Paranormal Research's first attempt at a convention. The show was balanced with cryptozoology, UFO discussion and not to mention a whole lot of ghost stuff as well. It had prize drawings, psychic readings, psychic healing, famous faces, and a great audience.

Where was I on this night? Um, driving toward it. I got into town on Friday night to find out that the Hotel I booked back in September of last year had changed ownership (pays to confirm reservations folks). It would have paid if I had booked at the official hotel as well (although Keith Age and some of the other rowdy folks would certainly have kept us awake) but I saved a tiny amount of dough and picked one a bit closer to the venue. Why am I telling you all of this? On to the show...

I had seen Hara Arena in pictures and amazingly, it looked the same in person. I was aware there was a gun and knife show going on at the same time and this proved to be good research. It looked as though there was a report that a Bigfoot was seen in the woods nearby with as many *place-your-southern-person-nickname-here* toting guns filing in to the main area of the arena. It was actually a bit unsettling, but as long as you don't make eye contact or attempt to read their belt buckles you are sure to be fine. One side note to this; When we walked into the conference area there was a sticker on the window "No Firearms Permitted Inside".

My wife and I made our way around the various vendors who were still setting up their goods and began to meet some of the other speakers at the event. I made my way to Joedy Cook's table (Ohio Center for Bigfoot Studies, out of Cincinnati), who was a late addition to the convention and would be speaking on his personal experiences and investigations of Bigfoot. I had thought I was the only Cryptozoology speaker on the bill until late July, but I saw his name pop up on the convention website and began to sweat. I E-mailed him and introduced myself. I was a bit apprehensive when he mailed me back and said to give him a call, I mean, this guy was on Monsterquest for crying out loud. He was laid back and was glad I was going to be there. It turned out to be a good thing there was two of us covering the cryptid angle and it was definitely great to have Joedy there, especially to meet and talk with him and I can definitely say he's a class act who knows his stuff. (Joedy, his decoy and that's me on the right)

I also made my way across the way to say hello to John Kachuba, author of "Ghosthunting Ohio" and many other various books dealing with his personal ghost investigations. I had met him a year ago during one of his library tours and wanted to thank him personally for including my group's name (Ohio Paranormal Investigation Network) in his book, "Ghosthunting Ohio". I was amazed to find that he has uncovered some startling evidence about ghosts, he's actually captured some real ghost poo. You have to see it to believe it. He's another class act and he brings a great blend of healthy skepticism and journalism to his unique approach to covering this field. Never read his books? Shame on you, I recommend his books since he provides a ghost story with some back history while telling the tale through his eyes as he investigates.

We had a late start on Saturday morning as guests were a bit slow to arrive (hey, it's 9 in the morning on Saturday!), but John Kachuba starting things off before 11 with his breakdown of various Ohio haunts that he has investigated over the years. If you like his books you'll love hearing him talk about his experiences, a true professional public speaker.

Next up was Bill Scott who shared some of his knowledge as well as some clips from his upcoming documentary, "Haunted Kentucky: Spirits of the Bluegrass". Keith Age followed with some very interesting pictures of various investigations including many from Waverly Hills. I've seen hundreds of pictures this year sent to me, on the web or ones of my own that were odd, but some of his were downright mingboggling. He announced that there was a sequel coming to "Children of the Grave" coming soon. He's another great personality and down to earth guy who loves to dish out crap to everyone while taking his own beating in return (he fell asleep during Bob Hunnicutt's presentation and was awaken by laughter as his expense).

Sean Feeney , of the Anomaly Response Network, discussed the code of ethics (or lack of) in the paranormal investigation field. He's a well-rounded investigator having knowledge with UFOs, cryptids and ghosts and worked with the legendary Kenny Young. He talked a lot about the missing approach of true science in our field, I looked forward to his speech since I saw it on the convention website and I was not disappointed.

Rie Sadler came all the way from Maryland to share with us some of the haunts of the tiny state known for little other than being the home of the Baltimore Orioles, Ravens and some guy named Edgar (Allan Poe, that is). Some interesting stories were shared about various places formerly owned by famous people (including the home of Poe as well as the bar he is said to haunt).

Bob Hunnicutt reviewed plenty of impressive photographs from his investigations of various locations (Gaither Plantation and Waverly Hills). He also demonstrated ways to evaluate supposed paranormal photos. Again, another great guy who definitely knows his craft. (Below: Bob talks to the crowd during our panel session while I look on)

Then came James A. Willis. Nothing can really prepare you for James. He's weird, and proud of it. He is typically full of energy, but today he came armed with a can of liquid dynamite (one of those ginormous cans of energy drink). During his presentation he was running around so much he had to stop himself and stated if he continued he'd be out in the hallway talking to himself. Probably the best speaker of the weekend with his high energy, comedic presentation and mixed content with paranormal and zany all rolled into one (like the giant marble ball on a headstone that moves by itself or like the world's largest ball of paint, great stories, ask him). James is the co-author of "Weird Ohio" and the founder of the Ghosts of Ohio (click his name, visit his group!). (There was an incident -see photo at right- that happened in the back of booth city near where Willis was set up, he claims no responsibility but the rumors were flying)

Sunday morning came and we got to sleep in an extra hour! 10 A.M. was the start time and it wasn't long until the crowd rolled in. Joedy Cook opened the day with his in-depth look at the Bigfoot phenomena with many photos of purported nests, a look at the Gigantopithecus theory (which he disagrees with and I agree with him), possible pictures of Bigfoot himself, as well as some personal encounters including his first one in Michigan where he was only a few feet away from this legendary creature (and he could have let others shoot it, but chose to protect it, great story and one I'm sure he doesn't regret). He ended by reinforcing that despite reports that the eastern Bigfoot is more aggressive than the western one, they still seem to show compassion toward children and the elderly.

Beth Brown, a battlefield ghost hunter, shared with us a great story as well as a video of a ghost investigation into a battlefield at night as well as shared some EVPs she has collected. Next up was actor/archaeologist/cultural anthropologist John Sabol. John's an intense guy and came across like a professor (well, that's because he was one). He provided his interesting way of "unearthing" ghosts instead of the typical way of waiting (and hoping) one decides to visit. He states that he "participates" in general activity that potential ghosts of that time period and location would have while others observe and record. When progress is made he "performs" for the ghost using specific information and cultural specifics that would make the ghost associate with him (he might act like he's someone the ghost might have known). He claims his encounter rate is much higher than with typical ghost hunting approach (which makes sense since it's part of how Parapsychologists approach spontaneous case investigations). Interesting theory that deserves a closer look by groups. (Above: John Sabol speaks to a guest from his table)

Earl Benezet, former Kentucky Director for MUFON (now the Director for Kentucky UFO Reporting Center) shared some very interesting photographs of the moon as well as Mars. He also shared some interesting theories about what is up there and what some of us know about it.

The last speaker on the list was Brian D. Parsons. A ghost guy for 13 years he came to the show to talk about basic cryptozoology. OK, I can't talk about myself in the 3rd person. Originally I received an invite to come to the event, but I replied asking if I could speak. They were looking for a cryptid guy and I instantly said yes. I discussed the basic definition of cryptozoology and why it is considered "paranormal" when it really isn't. I went over basic history of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and former cryptids. I also briefly touched upon some of the recent stories in the cryptid world as well as investigation basics.

The last part of the event (other than giving out the grand prize of the 4 channel DVR to none other than....Keith age! Who only put in 1 ticket!) was a panel discussion focusing on the crowd's prior experiences with ghosts or to answer questions. The panel consisted of myself, John kachuba, James Willis, Bob Hunnicutt, and Brian Klein (the host and another guy who definitely knows his stuff). We each shared one of our personal stories from our investigations and then fielded a couple of questions from the crowd.

(Above: Brian Klein leads the panel discussion, missing from the photo is Bob Hunnicutt who is at the far left out of frame)

All in all, I would say that everyone had a good time there from the speakers to those in the audience. I am definitely looking forward to next year...

The Science of Ghost Hunting and Paranormal Investigation Part I: The Basics of the Scientific Approach

The word “science” or “scientific” has been thrown around in the field of ghost hunting and paranormal investigation for many years. What does science offer a field that is almost completely philosophic in nature, from the lack of insurmountable evidence to the loose theories that fuel our pursuits?

In my last blog I discussed the beginnings of the Spiritualist movement which was the catalyst behind Parapsychology and the scientific pursuit into ghosts and related phenomena. Psychical Research, now Parapsychology, helped separate the fakes and frauds of mediums, table tipping sessions and man-made spirit photography. Through all of this there have always been amateurs who have worked in the background of the professional organizations and individuals, at no other point since the beginning of the Spiritualism era has the amateur ranks played such an important part of ghost and paranormal research. The Society for Psychical Research (SPR, 1882) and the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR, 1885) still exist as well as other professional arms of paranormal research (Parapsychological Association, Rhine Research Center, Institute of Noetic Science, etc.) though the amateur ranks outnumber the professional ranks as well as the overall exposure and interaction with spontaneous cases.

What separates professionals and amateurs, besides a degree from a University and and/or a professional organization is the interpretation and use of science. The raw form of scientific approach in the historical context of parapsychological study was mere case reports (data collection). This would merely be a collection of firsthand accounts of paranormal activity as well as possible witnesses. This was not enough to make this into a science until they were able to systematically study or replicate experiments with these reports.

This now draws us to the 21st Century and the amateur pursuit of this field using scientific tools. The use of tools in this field (EMF detector, compass, dowsing rods, ion detector, infra-red thermal imager, camera, camcorder, cassette and digital audio recorder, motion sensors, etc.) has seemingly clouded the minds of those who are attempting to verify anomalous phenomena through them. Many people think that the mere use of these tools is science and having anomalous readings with them serves as evidence of the paranormal.

There is no such thing as a ghost detector. No tool in use in the field of ghost research has the ability to determine a ghost is present. The mere use of these tools alone does not constitute a scientific endeavor. These preceding statements are not my opinions, these are fact. These statements have been made by parapsychologists and others in various scientific disciplines.

It seems that the objectivity of the use of these tools has been overlooked since many groups have stated they have collected data that they have detected the presence of ghosts. But the question is, how do they know it has detected a ghost and not another anomalous object or field of energy? If the detection with the instrument was accomplished in addition to an anomalous event happening at the same time then we have a possible legitimate reading on our hands (see Auerbach, (2004, p. 112). Then we have to ask if there were baseline readings done of this area in question prior to and after the anomalous reading (without altering the environment, i.e., turning off lights or power)? Were there witnesses to this event or any other devices that could back up the other? We could wonder whether those who set out to gather this evidence may have unintentionally created the anomalous event. Is this a repeatable event? To many ghost hunters this sounds like an impossible task, but it should to most since this is how real science works. Believe me, I am being generous in my examples here compared to those that would be required for other scientists to have a sliver of belief in what we are trying to accomplish.

The major piece of the puzzle that would come next would be for the group that encountered these readings to go through a formal scientific process and ultimately publishing their findings and have another group attempt to gather the same data (or finding discrepancies with the prior data collection methods) using similar or related instruments. I can already hear some people out there laughing at the premise of a group inviting another one out to confirm or deny their findings, though in fairness I know quite a few that would be happy to do this. The bottom line is that this is true science. Merely wielding tools of science is not scientific, even if you know how to use them, which is my whole point here.

Let me share with you an excerpt from the handbook I designed for the Ohio Paranormal Investigation Network in dealing with the scientific approach as well as steps in a scientific investigation.

The Scientific Approach to Behavior

There are three sets of interrelated goals to turning a hypothesis into scientifically accepted data; measurement and description, understanding and prediction, and application and control.

Measurement and Description- Before a scientist can explain why the world works in a certain way; they need to describe how it works. Science’s commitment to observation usually requires that an investigator figure out a way to measure the phenomenon under study. The goal here is to develop measurement techniques that make it possible to describe behavior clearly and precisely. The attempt is made by using gadgets such as EMF detectors, thermal imaging cameras, etc. The problem lies in the fact that ghost hunters are only concerned with the “what” instead of the “how”. The “how” is how the devices are detecting what they are detecting as well as how they know it is an apparition they are recording. This is also difficult, if not impossible, since most of what they record with these devices is spontaneous in nature as with all Psi phenomena.

Understanding and Prediction- Scientists believe that they understand events when they can explain the reasons for their occurrence. To evaluate their understanding, scientists make and test predictions about relationships between variables. This seems like an easy one, but we have little understanding of what is going on with ghosts. We have been able to predict certain behaviors, but we have yet to learn the causes that lead to these behaviors. Psi phenomena is the same, we do not yet know how (or where in the brain) it exists nor can we predict when it will occur.

Application and Control- Ultimately, Most scientists hope that the information they gather will be of some practical value in helping solve everyday problems. Once people understand a phenomenon, they often can exert more control over it. . Once we begin to understand how ghosts come into existence, or devise a practical means to communicate with them, the World as we know it will become a different place. The same holds true if we are able to utilize ESP or Psychokinesis on a daily basis at any degree.

Steps in a Scientific Investigation

The following example is based upon the “top-down method”. In a further blog I will describe this, as well as other examples of various methods described as “bottom-up” and “Integrated Approach” (Watt, 1994, p. 77), in further detail.

1. Formulate a Testable Hypothesis.

The first step is to translate a general idea into a testable hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. Hypotheses are generally expressed as predictions. They spell out how changes in one variable will be related to changes in another variable. To be testable, scientific hypotheses must be formulated precisely, and the variables under study must be clearly defined. Researchers achieve these clear formulations by providing operational definitions of the relevant variables. An operational definition describes the actions or operations that will be made to measure or control a variable. Operational definitions establish precisely what is meant by each variable in the context of a study. Most ghost groups come up with theories, which are based upon unproven ideas or speculation of how events may hold an answer. A theory can be thought of as merely a guess or assumption and has no application toward science, but can help lead to a more specific hypothesis.

2. Select the Research Method and Design the Study.

The second step in a scientific investigation is to figure out how to put the hypothesis to an empirical test. The research method chosen depends to a large degree on the nature of the question under study. The various methods- experiments, case studies, surveys, naturalistic observation - each have advantages and disadvantages. The researcher has to ponder the pros and cons and then select the strategy that appears to be the most appropriate and practical. Once researchers have chosen a general method, they must make detailed plans for executing their study.

3. Collect the Data.

According to their plans, researchers obtain their samples of subjects and conduct their study. Psychologists use a variety of data collection techniques, which are procedures for making empirical observations and measurements. Commonly used techniques include direct observation, questionnaires, interviews, psychological tests, physiological recordings, and examination of archival records. These methods are broken down below. Collecting research data often takes an enormous amount of time and work.

Direct observation - Observers are trained to watch and record behavior as objectively and precisely as possible. This is where the amateur movement is focused using their instrumentation as a guide (should be using their tools to back up events not merely be the only record or indication).
Questionnaire - Subjects are administered a series of written questions designed to obtain information about attitudes, opinions, and specific aspects of their behavior.
Interview - A face-to-face dialogue is conducted to obtain information about specific aspects of a subject’s behavior.
Psychological test - Subjects are administered a standardized measure to obtain a sample of their behavior. Tests are usually used to assess mental abilities or personality traits. This phase of study includes the use of Zener cards (5 symbols used in guessing experiments) in Parapsychology (which are no longer used) as well as random number generators (used in psychokinetic experiments).
Physiological recording - An instrument is used to monitor and record a specific physiological process in a subject. Examples include measures of blood pressure, heart rate, muscle tension, and brain activity.
Examination of archival records - The researcher analyzes existing institutional records (the archives), such as census, economic, medical, legal, educational, and business records. This is where Psychical research began by studying stories of those who had spontaneous events occur to them.

4. Analyze the Data and Draw Conclusions.

The observations made in a study are usually converted into numbers, which constitute the raw data of the study. Researchers use statistics to analyze their data and to decide whether their hypotheses have been supported. Thus, statistics play an essential role in the scientific enterprise. This is where many groups get lost. It’s not really one case that will bring you answers, it is the specific information gathered by the sum of many.

5. Report the Findings.

Scientific progress can be achieved only if researchers share their findings with one another and with the general public. Therefore, the final step in a scientific investigation is to write up a concise summary of the study and its findings. Typically, researchers prepare a report that is delivered to a journal for publication.

The process of publishing scientific studies allows other experts to evaluate and critique new research findings. Sometimes this process of critical evaluation discloses flaws in a study. If the flaws are serious enough, the results may be discounted or discarded. This evaluation process is a major strength of the scientific approach because it gradually weeds out erroneous findings. For this reason, the scientific enterprise is sometimes characterized as “self-correcting”.

This is why it is critical for ghost hunting and paranormal investigation groups to share and compare data. We are stuck making the same guesses over and over from one group to the next until the data is put out there for everyone to evaluate. Each group feels that they alone will produce a piece of ground-breaking evidence that will set the World on its ear, this is a belief founded in misunderstanding of how the scientific process operates. Groups must work together building upon work to come up with answers. It is possible that one group may eventually hold the key, but this group will be one that uses the scientific approach from work that eventually will be confirmed or denied by others.

Advantages/Disadvantages of the Scientific Approach

The Scientific approach offers clarity and precision. Common-sense notions tend to be vague and ambiguous. The major advantage of the scientific approach is its relative intolerance of error. While possibly not proving anything beyond argument, the scientific approach does tend to yield more accurate and dependable information than casual analyses and armchair speculation do. Knowledge of scientific data can thus provide a useful benchmark against which to judge claims and information from other kinds of sources.

The major disadvantage of the scientific approach (especially in the case of ghost research) is that experiments are often artificial. Experiments require great control over proceedings and researchers must construct simple contrived situations to these their hypothesis experimentally. It is practically impossible to simulate the environment of a haunted location in a laboratory setting, this is why there is no experimentation within the study of the paranormal- not only can we not duplicate this environment we could never possibly control it.

We must rely solely on descriptive research methods. These methods are used when the variables cannot be manipulated. In other words, these methods cannot be used to describe cause-and-effect relationships between variables. This understanding could come with time and understanding and after the use of the descriptive research. Descriptive methods permit investigators only to describe patterns of behavior and discover links or associations between variables. This is where Parapsychology has been stuck for over 130 years. Once variables are introduced the results usually seem to become inconclusive.

Descriptive research cannot demonstrate conclusively that two variables are causally related.

Descriptive research methods include:

Naturalistic Observation
A researcher engages in careful, usually prolonged, observation of behavior without intervening directly with the subjects. The problems with this approach are twofold. First, it is nearly impossible to observe ghost activity for a prolonged period of time, especially when dealing with a specific case. This lack of observation time usually proves the information gathered inconclusive. Secondly, it is nearly impossible to observe the ghost behavior without becoming directly involved with the subjects. We try hard to gather as much as possible and to go in to a location at the last possible second, but with this you risk not being able to observe any activity yourself. Once you are part of the environment you have changed the variables and altered the environment in which the events occur.

Case studies
These are an in-depth investigation of an individual subject. Data is collected for individual cases and compared to that of other cases to arrive at a common explanation. The major problem with this approach is that they are highly subjective. The information from several sources must be knit together in an impressionistic way. During this process one may focus on information that fits with their expectations, which usually reflect their theoretical slant. Thus, it is relatively easy for investigators to see what they expect to see in case study research.

Surveys
Researchers use questionnaires or interviews to gather information about specific aspects of subjects’ behavior. Surveys are often used to obtain information on aspects of behavior that are difficult to observe directly. Surveys also make it relatively easy to collect data on attitudes and opinions from large samples of subjects. The major problem with surveys is that they depend of self-report data. Intentional deception and wishful thinking can distort subjects’ verbal reports about their behavior.

Scientific research is a more reliable source of information than casual observation or popular belief. However, it would be wrong to conclude that all published research is free of errors. Scientists are fallible human beings, and flawed studies do make their way into the body of scientific literature. This is why replication of a study (or observation) is important. Replication of a study may lead to contradicting results. Some inconsistency in results is to be expected, given science’s commitment to replication. Fortunately, one of the strengths of the empirical approach is that scientists work to reconcile or explain conflicting results. In fact, scientific advances often emerge out of efforts to explain contradictory findings. This is very important to keep in mind as we collect data and continually observe findings in the field. We must not always be too quick in search of the answer, or the truth may elude us. Looking at conflicting evidence is very healthy and may lead us to the answers.

Flaws in evaluation of research

A sample is the collection of subjects selected for observation in an empirical study. In contrast, the population is the much larger collection of animals or people (from which the sample is drawn) that researchers want to generalize about. Sampling bias exists when a sample is not representative of the population from which it was drawn. We must be careful to not drawn conclusions until we are able to deal with a diverse array of the public, which will give us a fair sample of the overall population which is encountering these occurrences.

Placebo effects occur when subjects’ expectations lead them to experience some change even though they receive empty, fake, or ineffectual treatment. Placebo, for our concern, may happen if we give them information on the subject, they may conform their observations on the new information given to them or alter what has happened in the past or jump to quick conclusions about natural experiences. The overall effect of the thought of a ghost is interacting with them causes some to distort previous experiences. We must be careful with what information we give them and at what time we give it.

Social desirability bias is a tendency to give socially approved answers to questions about oneself. This could also include conforming your observations by what is popularly known to be ghost activity. Example; someone feels a draft in their house and assumes it is a ghost, they may lump other unrelated experiences with it to draw the conclusion or convince others based on the current social trends of paranormal activity.

Experimenter bias occurs when a researcher’s expectations or preferences about the outcome of a study influence the results obtained. This is a common problem with ghost research on many different levels. The first that comes to mind is that we (like some who experience ghosts) jump to conclusions based on bits of information obtained during the case. We must learn to look at each piece of evidence as separate and not lump everything together immediately and assume every clue adds another piece of the puzzle and help confirms a ghost. Another lies with the popular orb photographs. In this we have a tendency to draw our conclusions from what we see or believe not what we can prove or study. We must not try to “see what we want to see” and look for viable evidence to deny any rational or natural explanations first and foremost.

We must take what the history of science has given us and use it to our advantage, it can only help us confirm or deny what we set out to find.

References

Auerbach, Loyd. (2004). Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal. Oakland: Ronin Publishing.

Irwin, H.J. (1994). An Introduction to Parapsychology, 2nd. Ed. Jefferson, NC. McFarland & Company.

Watt, Caroline A. (1994). Advances in Parapsychological Research, Volume 7. (Making the Most of Spontaneous Cases, p. 77-103). Jefferson, NC. McFarland & Company.

Weiten, Wayne. (1992). Psychology: Themes and Variations, 2nd Ed. Pacific Grove, California. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Ghost Hunters Do it in the Dark. Are They Seeing the Light?

"Did you hear that?" The flashlight beam flares behind the men searching for the source of the sound. "What the hell was it?" The men stand still and quiet, their heartbeats the only audible source filling their ears. They quickly lose patience and turn toward the dark empty hallway...

Sound familiar? It should. This image is replayed in houses, abandoned buildings and prisons all across the country. Why do ghost hunters and paranormal investigators turn off the lights to do their investigations? I heard an interesting theory as to how this might have begun. Parapsychologist Loyd Auerbach stated on the Grand Dark Conspiracy podcast that this practice has its roots during the Spiritualist movement of the mid-1800s.

The Spiritualist movement began in 1848 with the claims of communication with the afterlife by the Fox sisters of Hydesville, New York. This movement of belief quickly spread across the country and eventually in the UK. Along with this spread of belief also came the spread of skepticism. Among the skeptics were people like Harry Houdini who used his knowledge of visual deception to help uncover fakes and frauds that began popping up in reaction to the widespread interest in ghosts. This deception was performed with the lights off in an attempt to thwart those who were looking to expose them during their table tipping, channeling, production of "ectoplasm" (which isn't real folks, it's also born of fraud) or other illusions or ways of tricking the surviving family members.

We are possibly seeing this approach being used today for the same reason. It is possible that some of these television shows are using the dark to mask what they are really up to. Granted, it also adds a touch of drama and added entertainment value which is what television is all about. The culture of amateur ghost hunting has picked up what they have observed and are stumbling around in the dark merely because they think that this is what you are supposed to do. So what's the explanation behind why they do it?

The reality why teams do this is simple; it eliminates false positive readings on EMF (electromagnetic field) detectors. Television shows have glorified this move, But is this necessary, sensible, logical or even scientific????

Turning off the lights for one really does no good. It will eliminate some EMF, but if there is still power coming to electrical equipment you are shutting off the lights for little or no reason. Unless you shut off the breakers (all electricity) to the house there is no sense in going "lights out". A majority of household electronics will still continue to draw electricity and can still provide "spikes" of electricity on occasion depending upon the item. Generally a plug in the wall means power is being used even if the item is off. So, if you are really going to go dark you would have to turn off all of the power from the breakers. Heck, you should turn off the water at the street as well since this can affect your readings...we'll save that for another day.

Yes, my team uses Infra red cameras that "see in the dark" and we use them in the dark only when the case dictates so. Which leads directly to the next point; does the client experience things only when the lights are off and is stumbling through the hallways with a flashlight?

Odds are; no. If you want to be "scientific" you should attempt to recreate the settings that the events happened in. Parapsychologists have been using this approach for over 125 years (yes, ghost hunting is not a new thing despite what you read on the internet) and it works. The best data you will ever get will be found by recreating the conditions in which the client observed them. Ghosts are about interaction and you're not going to be able to sneak up on them in the dark.

I've seen videos (and worked with teams) that utilize baseline readings prior to an investigation. The problem is I've seen many of them doing these readings in normal conditions and then conducting their investigations sans light or power. What good are baseline readings if all you are going to do is change the conditions in which you are investigating?

This approach is scientifically flawed.

There is the popular thought that ghosts are somehow electrical in their makeup. I feel this is a pretty good basic theory. Part of the theory is that ghosts somehow get their "energy" from the living as well as man-made electronics. I'm not so sure about the latter part of the theory, but until we can test various theories who's to say. Some teams use electrostatic (ion) generators to help give a "spark" to the air (also cleans it up as well...less dust orbs...that's another blog) so why would we eliminate a potential power source for a ghost?

Another aspect of investigating the scene under the conditions in which the client observed the original events is to help find logical solutions to the potentially paranormal problems. Good observers who simulate the original conditions will more likely be able to find logical solutions to various events than those who are merely out to verify the events through their own experiences. Faulty power or high EMF may be causing some or all of the experiences. Eliminating these sources for the client should be the first step in helping them. Yes, clients may want validation that what they are experiencing is real, but you owe it to them to eliminate the possible before considering the paranormal.

Going "lights out" also changes the perceptions of the investigator. Sight is the most important sense we use on a day to day basis (though far from perfect). When you eliminate this sense we are forced to rely on other ones that are not as fine-tuned as our sight, which can lead to misperceptions about our surroundings. This setting also sets up for experimental bias by eliminating the objective experience and creating a completely subjective experience by the person involved in the investigation.

Although Parapsychology has investigated claims of ghosts, hauntings and poltergeists for over 125 years, the amateur paranormal investigator field is still in its infancy. Many groups are finding discoveries that make sense, but many of these answers come through ignorance of alternative resources (they would have found these answers had they read about Parapsychology first). A self-correcting approach is what creates the flow of true science and groups experimenting, teaching and learning how to approach investigating these claims we can slowly eliminate the "popular" way of doing things for approaches that are more objective and focused on the client and not on the subjective personal experience.

Hopefully this sheds a little light on the subject. Sorry, couldn't help that.

Meteorology in the Paranormal

I have always been fascinated by the weather and was highly jealous of my best friend when he received a degree in Meteorology from Texas A&M University. My interest in the weather was a small part of my mental tool bag that I used for investigations as I am constantly aware of weather conditions as well as how it can factor in logical explanations of various events.

We all know that a standard tool for investigations is a temperature gauge. Many groups use a contact thermometer, which is not a good idea since it only measures the surface temperature. Though most groups know you get what you pay for and have gone out and purchased non-contact thermometers (which have come down significantly in price) which still have limitations, but are also a necessary tool for finding logical explanations to some potential paranormal problems.

One tool that gets very little recognition, but it discussed by many out there, is the use of a hydrometer. A hydrometer basically measures the humidity of a location based upon temperature and is stated as the relative humidly. Relative humidity is the percentage of water vapor required to saturate the air at the current temperature. The thing to know about relative humidity is that when the temperature increases so does the capacity for the air to hold more moisture. In other words, the relative humidity would appear to drop if the temperature increases (the air can now hold more moisture) and would appear to increase if the temperature decreases (it can hold less water).

What does this mean for ghost investigation?

Bringing various tools to measure the environment is scientific, as long as you know what the results mean and what the cause was to create the effect without jumping to conclusions. In other words, if you have this tool in your bag and have no idea why it does what it does there is no science behind it.

A hydrometer should be used in conjunction with temperature gauges to verify reasons why it would flux. Without this backup the readings mean nothing to paranormal research. Relative humidity may play a part in the appearance of paranormal events and attaching results with a hydrometer is a baby step in this direction. Documentation and experimentation is critical as is creating baseline readings throughout the investigation. Controlling the area of research is also critical. You should be aware of open doors, windows, drafts, sun coming through a window or heating one side of a house or parts of a structure. All of these things can have an effect on the information being gathered.

There is no reason to limit the areas of research as long as there is a benefit from using the tool or methods to a specific aspect of what you are researching. Do the ends justify the means? If you have a situation where the homeowner is scared out of their mind it might not be a good time to experiment with a hydrometer!

I would like to thank Tammy from OKC Paranormal in Oklahoma for looking for information about this subject from others through their Myspace page as well as sharing knowledge and information about this subject. This is how we will all learn and how this field will grow not in numbers, but in direction and valid research and information.