Ghosts and Sodium Chloride

Halloween has come and gone once again.  And with the season, there was a flood the obligatory pieces written by reporters who went on a ghost hunt with their friendly neighborhood paranormal group and got creeped out.  Overall, at least the ones I perused, the articles were pretty cliche: "skeptical" reporter gets assigned to go ghost hunting with paranormal "experts".   Equipment with blinky lights are used, "unexplained" shadows are seen and eerie noises are heard.  So at the end of the night, the reporter believes they experienced something paranormal.   While these make for entertaining seasonal reading, they should be taken with a grain of salt.

I will break down one such article here.  I won't link to it because it was fairly typical of other such articles and I don't want to bring attention to the ghost hunting group.  It describes the same tired ghost hunting "formula" we've seen (without any breakthroughs) for the past several decades: ghost hunters with a bunch of blinky technical gear, a psychic or two coming along, all wandering around in a dark building looking for signs of ghostly activity.  (For more about the formula, please see: http://carolynscreepycorner.blogspot.com/2015/06/stop-insanity.html)

A reporter was assigned to go to a haunted location with a local ghost hunting group.  While the reporter claimed she was skeptical, that was the last indiction of any skepticism in the story.  She described the ghost hunters as "paranormal experts".  Here's problem number one: If the reporter was a true skeptic, she would investigate and provide information on what the heck makes these folks "experts".  Formal education? Training? Professional experience?  Just because they said so?  As I've said before, as far as I'm aware, there is no degree or certification from any accredited institution in ghost hunting.  Unlike real professions, there is no licensing nor a governing body through any state department of education monitoring those in the paranormal field.  Anyone can put up a website, print up nifty tee shirts and call themselves ghost hunters, paranormal investigators, etc.

The reporter went on to say this group uses both psychic and scientific methods in their investigating.  Readers know by now how I feel about psychic methods and how subjective and even misleading they are.  As one who promotes critical thinking, I'm all for scientific methods.  But there was no description from the reporter of any scientific methodology.  Not a peep about hypotheses, independent testing of validity of claims, or any known scientific reasons how people mistake a situation for paranormal.  No mention of environmental, physiological or psychological issues that create misperceptions of seemingly paranormal events.   She did talk about them using EMF meters with flashing lights that lit up from time to time.  No explanation though of electromagnetic fields, nor what can affect them.  No description of the specific meters and what environmental factors can influence them such as EMFs from other equipment, cell phones, certain metals, etc. In fact, she describes the team using a ghost app on their cell phones while using the EMF meters.  For those who don't understand why this is a problem: EMF meters can pick up radio frequencies, including those from cell phones.  Other equipment used by the team included infrared cameras and voice recorders.  Again, no word from our supposed skeptical reporter on how these devices work, why they were being used, or how useful they really are on a ghost hunt, or again, what factors can causes glitches and false positives.

The location for the ghost hunt is a historical hotel and, according to one of the ghost hunter's research, women were beaten and murdered there and their bodies dragged out from a fire escape.  Unfortunately, as we have seen, well-known stories from some of the most famous "haunted" locations are complete fabrications. So... did this really happen?  Is there an official record of this story in some dusty archives somewhere?  You would think a journalist would do some research to verify such claims, since they seemed provide an origin of why folks think the place is haunted and who might be haunting it.

The article goes on to describe how they wander through the building in the dark.  Mostly, the reporter describes how one of the ghost hunters used dowsing rods and could "sense" ghosts.  Throwing any objectivity out the window, the reporter seemed to buy completely into this.  So there was no explanation of how priming can influence what we perceive, nor any mention of how the ideomotor affect has been attributed to dowsing rods.  This "sensitive" ghost hunter kept describing feelings of heaviness or lightness in the air and seeing shadows here and there. No questioning of what else could cause such sensations in the environment, such as infrasound. There was no mention of the shadows being captured on any of the cameras.  Because of this, if I was a skeptical reporter, I might look into the possibility of visual misperception.  But there was nothing to indicate she had done so.  If she had, she would have found that our eyes do not see well in the dark, and how misperception of seeing shadows peripherally are fairly common in low light conditions.  (See an older post of mine, "Ghosts and Misperceptions": http://carolynscreepycorner.blogspot.com/2010/11/ghosts-and-misperception.html ) By the conclusion of the article, the reporter too had seen a shadow out of the corner of her eye and had the sensation that the room felt "lighter" after the shadow was gone.  The ghost hunters "confirmed" this as a paranormal experience and now the reporter has gone from supposed skeptic to believer.

But in my opinion, the reporter was never truly skeptical to begin with.  Approaching claims from a skeptical approach is active, not passive.  It requires one to question claims and test their validity, not take them at face value.  Granted, this was a fluff piece done in the spirit of Halloween but the problem with this, and others like it, is that was written by an actual journalist, a professional we are generally led to believe is impartial and strives to report facts.  But there was no fact-checking at all here.  These types of stories not only mislead the general public, but also inexperienced paranormal enthusiasts in particular, that such ghost hunts are scientific investigations, producing evidence of the paranormal when they are not. They perpetuate misinformation and detract from actual science and the pursuit of valid answers.  I think it would be wonderful to find authentic evidence of the paranormal.  But as long as many ghost hunters continue to ignore scientific methodology and stick to subjective means because they are more fun (and popular), I doubt they can reach that goal.

Devil in the Details

A while back, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a true believer of the paranormal realm.  We were discussing a paranormal team's claim that they may have encountered an evil entity on a case.  An investigator suddenly experienced strong emotions that didn't feel like they were coming from him:  overwhelming anxiety, apprehension, sadness, overall discomfort.  The other team members said he tends to be skeptical and this was not typical behavior from him.  My friend discussed possibilities that are based only on spiritual/religious belief systems such as demonic oppression and possession, and I discussed real-world possibilities like extremely low frequencies and infrasound.  These are known (meaning, they have been observed and replicated in experiments) to cause the same sensations in some people as those described by the team member.  I went on to voice my concern over how this team discussed their suspicion of a negative entity with the homeowner, even though they admitted that they had not reviewed all of the data they collected on the investigation.  In my opinion, it was irresponsible.  My friend agreed that they should not have influenced their client, but then asked:  "But what if you're wrong?"

This simple question addresses why I choose to approach paranormal claims from a skeptical approach.   I, like every other person on this planet, am flawed.  I carry around my own biases and preferences.  So I concede I could be wrong; perhaps there are demons hanging out, waiting for the opportunity to nab an unsuspecting ghost hunter.  But here's the thing:  there is no objective, verifiable evidence they exist.  The concept of demons is traced to purely religious and spiritual beliefs. Various religions and cultures throughout history have viewed them differently, so there's not even a consensus among believers to what exactly they are, how they behave, or what their motives might be.  The term demon is derived from the latin daemon, which is a transliteration from the greek daimon, from the Indo-European term dai, translated as "distributer of destinies".  The earliest beliefs is that these were neutral beings, neither good nor evil, but were messengers revealing a person's destiny, and it was the perception of the recipient which decided whether it was positive or negative.  Later, Neo-Platonians considered demons to be both good and evil beings.  But as new religions were born, the concept of these beings changed to break with older traditions and fit new spiritual ideas and agendas. For example, as Carol Sagan noted in his book, The Demon-Haunted World, St. Augustine, an early influential Christian theologian and philosopher , assimilated the earlier pagan tradition replacing "gods" by "God" and decided that demons were evil, declaring that though they posed as messengers from God, it was a ruse to lure humans to their demise.

There are various ways, or models, of explaining abnormal behavior.  The oldest is the Demonological Model.  Archeological evidence of human skeletons support that during the Stone Age, people would practice trephining, creating a hole in the skull to release evil spirits.  Most often, it also released the patient's life functions.  In ancient Greece, it was believed that madness was caused by the gods.  Hippocrates was an exception, surmising such behavior was caused by a brain abnormality.  Unfortunately, his idea didn't catch on for another 2000 years. During the Middle Ages in Europe and the early Colonial Period in the United States, it was a common belief that madness, as well as fairly common conditions, were signs of possession by agents of the devil, such as witches. People suffering from nightmares, undiagnosed illnesses, or deformities could be under suspicion.  Fueled by Pope Innocent VIII's endorsement of the Malleus Maleficarum, a treatise on the prosecution of witches, this led to widespread hysteria and the death of thousands of innocent people.

On the other hand, science has given us possible explanations for these same experiences, supporting them with objective data that people can refer to for further study.  For example, in the study of psychology, the medical model views abnormal behavior as a symptom of an underlying disorder, such as a biological or biochemical issue.  While for much of history, auditory and visual hallucinations were believed to originate from supernatural agents, such as demons or witches, a secular movement finally gained traction with philosophers and scientists during the mid eighteenth century.  Visions and voices were now being viewed as having physiological origin, due to overactivity of certain areas within the brain.  The notion of incubi and succubi tormenting sleeping victims has frightened people throughout history.  But we now know this is explained by a fairly common, albeit frightening sleep disorder called sleep paralysis.  At the University of Waterloo, J.A. Cheyne and  colleagues have shown that between a third and a half of the general population has experienced this phenomena.  As the body enters REM sleep, the body is paralyzed, outside of shallow breathing and eye movement.  When this process is disturbed and dreamer awakens during this cycle, they will be unable to move, feel like a heavy weight is pressing down on them, might have a sensation of an evil presence, and are understandably overwhelmed by a sense of terror.  Because the brain is transitioning from a dreaming to waking state, the subject may be seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling things from their dreamscape.   These are hypnogogic hallucinations, and are not always as intense as those experienced in night terrors.  For example, common examples of hypnogogic hallucinations include waking to hearing one's name, seeing a figure by the bed, having a sensation of being touched, and smelling perfume or smoke.  As I mentioned in other posts, I've experienced  these all of my life.  Believe me, they seem and feel very real.

Many times, people react negatively to the term "hallucinations", assuming they are associated only with mental disorders.  This is untrue.  While there are mental illnesses which cause hallucinations, there are also mundane environmental and physiological causes as well.  I already mentioned how infrasound can cause uneasy sensations in some people.  It can also create visual misperceptions, such as seeing gray shadows.  Another example is sensory deprivation.  When deprived of light for some time, mild visual hallucinations such as flashing or colorful lights, can appear.  I often experienced these in my father's darkroom at his professional photography studio.  (I thought they were cool, so I wasn't frightened.)  Another example is hearing voices.  Oliver Sacks, professor of neurology NYU School of Medicine, explains in his book Hallucinations, that many sane people report hearing voices. This phenomenon was recognized in the nineteenth century during the rise of neurology.  Early researchers found such hallucinations were not uncommon in the general population.  The most common auditory hallucination is hearing one's own name, which Sigmund Freud reported experiencing in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life.  According to Dr. Sacks, recent studies confirm it is not uncommon for ordinary people to hear voices, and that most of people do so are not suffering from a mental illness such as schizophrenia.

Separate from audio hallucinations caused by psychosis, various explanations have been proposed as to why normal people hear voices.  Dr. Sack cautions that these subjects need further research since the majority of studies have focused on psychiatric patients, not the general population.  But some research suggests auditory hallucinations may be associated with abnormal activation of the primary auditory cortex.  They also may result from an inability to recognize internally generated speech as one's own, possibly resulting from cross-activation with a auditory areas of the brain or a physiological barrier that prevents us from hearing inner speech as external.

As mentioned earlier, for much of human history, madness has been considered a result of demonic forces.  Consider a person who suddenly becomes withdrawn, hears voices tormenting them, becomes self-abusive, claims there are entities following them, develop bizarre speech patterns, and becomes uncharacteristically disorganized or sloppy.  To some people, these could be seen as supposed signs of a demonic oppression or possession.  But to medical professionals, these are classic symptoms of schizophrenia. This medical illness has been studied more than any other mental disorder because of its seriousness. The symptoms are diverse and vary between patients. The exact cause has not been identified, because it is likely that there is more than one.  The brain of a patients with severe schizophrenia appears significantly different than a normal brain on PET scans and other brain images.  Researchers are studying various factors, such as dopamine activity and another neurotransmitter, glutamate.  Genes are a factor, since one is four times more likely to be diagnosed with it if there is a history of it in their family.  Research has linked certain genes such as CNP and ERBB 4 to schizophrenia as well as OLIG2, a gene associated with brain development and function.  However, since identical twins have only a 50% chance of developing the illness if their twin has it, there are other factors besides genes to consider.  Recent research suggests it may occur, at least in part, due to abnormal brain development during late teen and early years.  During this time, the brain naturally eliminates some connections between cells as part of maturation, but the rate of loss of tissue in the prefrontal lobes and parietal lobes has been observed to be more pronounced and covered a larger area in schizophrenic subjects.

 While ghost hunters and demonologists may be sincere, they typically approach cases from a completely subjective approach.  (It doesn't help that over the past several years, paranormal "reality" shows, which many ghost hunters emulate, have promoted the more sensational "demonic" story lines over average ho-hum ghosts.) On the other hand, psychologists, neurologists and other health professionals publish case histories, studies and medical trials for peer review and further testing and study.  Science is dynamic, it is constantly changing. As new discoveries and information appears, previous conclusions are challenged and reassessed. If the evidence no longer holds up under scientific methodology, it is dismissed. When faced with such a case where people are demonstrating behaviors mentioned above, only a properly trained and licensed medical professional, such as a psychologist, can diagnose, rule out and treat psychological issues.  Most ghost hunters do not have such qualifications, and can run the risk of making a situation worse for a client and their family, even if they have the best of intentions.

Some time ago, while listening to a paranormal web radio show, someone boasted in the chat room that when they use a ghost box to "communicate"with spirits, at least they are "helping" people while skeptics only want to help themselves.  First, fooling yourself and others with extremely flawed and subjective information is not helping anyone.  Secondly, offering real-world explanations and solutions IS helping.  For example, I was contacted by a mother who was worried about her toddler son.  He woke up screaming in the middle of the night saying "bad dream" and "ghost".  He was so upset, the mother had a hard time getting him back to bed and asleep.  He was still scared and agitated the next day, and said the ghost had been pinching him.  So I sent her links to scientific articles about hypnagogic hallucinations, as well as articles by psychologists explaining how it is common for young children not to be able to separate fantasy. I went on to suggest that she reinforce it was only a dream as to not feed his fear, and if it continued, to contact her pediatrician.  She thanked me because she had never heard of this fairly common sleep disorder, and said she would follow my advice and talk to his pediatrician.  Pardon me if I think it's more helpful to inform a worried parent about a documented condition that can be addressed by a qualified health professional, than using a broken radio.  One can imagine the possible damage that could be done to that little boy if Ghost Box Lady, or someone like her, provided their idea of "help" in that situation.

It is not my purpose to judge or criticize others' spiritual or religious beliefs, especially since I was raised in a religion that supports the existence of demons.  But it is presumptuous and even irresponsible to make claims or present "evidence" based solely on those beliefs.  If paranormal investigators are truly interested in helping people, I urge them to take a step back from their own beliefs or agendas and consider what is in a client's best interest.  Does anyone really want to risk making a situation worse by feeding a delusion?  Does anyone really want to risk creating unnecessary and unfounded fear in a family?  By approaching a claim objectively and using critical thinking, we help reduce being blinded by our biases, deceiving ourselves and most importantly, misleading those seeking help.  Science may not have all the answers, but as physicist Brian Cox says, it differs from other traditions because it can be checked to see if it is true.

Sources:

Joni E. Johnston, PhD,  Complete Idiot’s Guide to Psychology,
New York: Penguin Group, 2009

Oliver Sacks, PhD, Hallucinations
New York, Toronto,: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012

Carl Sagon, The Demon Haunted World
New York: Ballantine Books, 1996

Spencer A. Rathus, Psychology: Fourth Edition Annotated Instructor's Edition
Philadelphia: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990

Vic Tandy, "The Ghost in the Machine"
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol.62, No 851 April 1998
http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/ghost-in-machine.pdf

Stop the Insanity

This article first appeared in Paranormal Enlightenment Magazine: http://paranormalenlightenment.com/stop-the-insanity/ 

A popular saying goes, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."  In the decades I've watched ghost hunters featured on TV shows and read about them in books, I've seen the same formula, with no new groundbreaking results.  The formula has been ingrained in our collective consciousness for decades thanks to popular culture.  Ghost Ship from 1952 is an example.  Ghostly goings-on prompt the owners to contact a scientist who studies the paranormal.  He brings equipment that can detect "vibrations" as well a psychic (the "real deal") and they discover the secret that helps the ghost "move on".

This formula, in various incarnations, is still featured on popular TV ghost hunting "reality" shows and copied by ghost hunting teams today.  And yet, there have been no headlines announcing any breakthroughs in paranormal research.  Maybe that's because it's not working.  If we want paranormal research to make any real progress, perhaps it's time to retire some of the counter-productive notions and practices commonly seen in the field.

Investigating in the dark:
There is no logical reason to investigate paranormal claims in the dark.  Yes, many paranormal reports occur at night, but many people report experiences during the day as well.  As outlined in my article, "Believing is Seeing", http://carolynscreepycorner.blogspot.com/2015/03/believing-is-seeing.html there are plenty of issues with visual perception in well-lit conditions.  Investigating in dark sets one up even more for misperception and misidentification, because our eyes are not designed to see well in darkness.   Since our retinal cone cells don't function well in the dark, our central vision will be poor and we must rely more on our peripheral vision, which is lacking when it comes to processing details and color.  In dark or low light conditions, we don't interpret the shape of objects accurately or see color well enough,  causing objects to look like shadows or even lights.  Another optical illusion occurring in dark conditions is autokinesis.  If you stare at objects or light sources long enough, they will appear to move.  Our peripheral vision's strength is detecting movement.  But without our central vision functioning well in low light, our ability to see what is moving, or how, is poor.  It is not difficult to understand how this causes misperception.   Also, another common issue is that sitting in total (or near total) darkness for a period of time is a form of sensory deprivation that causes some to see lights or colors (phosphenes).  This is something I experienced in my father's dark room in his professional photography studio.

Putting visual misperceptions aside, investigating in the dark causes misidentification in video and photographs.  Slower shutter speeds due to the low light causes light streaks, motion blurs (which can make objects and people look transparent), and grainy, pixilated blobs that can be misinterpreted into just about anything.  In video, "shadows" can form from the autofocus trying to work in low light conditions.  Night vision video not only is often grainy, but sometimes there are "hot spots" where parts of the picture is blurry.  Another common issue is that sometimes reflections from surfaces are amplified, making it appear there is a light that really isn't there.  FLIR cameras, if you can afford them, also have false positives with reflective surfaces and residual heat signatures.

Then there are common sense safety issues.  Many ghost hunters like to investigate deteriorating old buildings, which present dangers in bright daylight, let alone hazards hidden in darkness.

Orbs, ectoplasm, vortices, and other photographic effects:
It amazes me that 10 years after the most popular ghost hunting TV show explained orbs are airborne particles, there are still paranormal investigators who go into people's homes, declaring orbs are paranormal.  The orb craze gained traction after the popularity of early digital cameras.  While it is possible to capture orbs with 35 mm cameras, it is far less common. The point and shoot digital cameras had a greater depth of field compared to 35mm cameras, because of a smaller focal distance, and with the flash source closer to the lens, it made capturing airborne particles much easier.  Despite explanations from camera manufacturers, professional photographers and videographers and mountains of experiments demonstrating how orbs are photographed and videoed, there are those with an agenda, who cling to and promote the false notion they are proof of the paranormal.

Some argue dust or moisture can't "move that way".  Well, yes it can and it does.  The air is not static.  Even without an obvious source like an open door or window, there are air currents.  Some are caused by change in air pressure, humidity, or the difference between temperature on the inside versus the outside of the building.  Even if we could rule out currents, there is Brownian motion to consider. Air is a mixture of gases. If a larger particle (such as a dust particle) collides with a large set of smaller particles (molecules of a gas) which move with different velocities in different random directions, it can change direction.

Others argue they have seen orbs with their own eyes.  As explained above, there are faults visual perception.  But even if an orb is visible, it is a huge leap of logic to conclude it is the spirit of a dead person or anything paranormal.  There are other natural explanations to consider first.  For example, despite it being a rare phenomena, I know a few people, each at a different location, who witnessed ball lightning indoors.

Another common misidentification in photos are "ghost mists", AKA ectoplasm.   These can easily be replicated by breath, cigarette smoke, ground fog, humidity or dust.  Some have argued with me that they were inside a building, so it couldn't be cold enough.  This is false.  I have been in plenty of buildings (including the same ones in some arguments) that get cold enough to produce breath mists. Even if you don't see it with the naked eye, the camera can.  Incidentally, ectoplasm is a term manufactured by mediums during the spiritualist movement.  Mediums would hide cheesecloth or gauze (or in some cases, swallow it) and produce it during a seance.  Even though ectoplasm was debunked at the time, over a century later, some people still believe in it.

Thanks to popular paranormal shows, bleached out photos of hair have become known as energy vortices.  Never mind that energy vortices have yet to be proven and these photos are easily recreated with hair, thread, string, spider webs, etc., there are still ghost hunting groups promoting them as something paranormal.

In my opinion, those who still promote orbs and other explainable photographic "anomalies"as paranormal, are either supporting an agenda (like profitable ghost tours or TV shows) or are so desperate to have "proof" that they abandoned common sense for wish fulfillment.

Psychics:
While it makes for dramatic entertainment to have someone walk in, roll their eyes back, and claim, "There's a presence here", it doesn't do a thing to further paranormal research.  First off, there is already the assumption there is ghost at the site, or else ghost hunters wouldn't be there.  Secondly, there is no way to validate a psychic's "hits" during an investigation.  Are they truly in communication with the "other side", or, as has been duplicated by mentalists, magicians, psychologists and a philosophy professor I know, is it a product of cold reading?  In today's search engine world, it is too easy for anyone to access prior information about a location and its owners.  A psychic's ability, even if genuine, is too subjective to be considered evidence.

This leads into another unsubstantiated notion:  that someone can "clear" a house of paranormal activity or convince a ghost to "move on".  Again, there is no objective way of validating this.  While some have claimed activity stopped after a so-called cleansing, many others have reported their situation became worse afterwards.  Not long ago, there was a client who thought they had a negative entity, thanks to "signs" promoted on some paranormal TV shows:  headaches, fatigue, moodiness, trouble concentrating, etc.  The client had a team come in to cleanse the home, and not surprisingly, it didn't work.  Finally, a team who looks for rational explanations came in and found there was a faulty furnace that was causing a build up of fumes - which cause the same symptoms as a supposed negative presence.  Professionals were called, furnace fixed, no more "signs" of an entity plaguing the family.

If we truly want to help people, as so many paranormal investigators claim, then we should do so with something that can be backed up with objective, verifiable information instead of something that could mislead them, ignore a real danger (as described above) or feed a troubled mind, making a situation worse.

Ovulus, spirit boxes, flashlight "communication":
There are a lot of gadgets out there that are used to supposedly communicate with the dead.  The problem with them is they are highly subjective, with priming and suggestibility increasing the misinterpretation of "hits".  To me, they are high tech versions of an Ouija board.  The Ovulus and other such gadgets are not magic.  They are random word generators built using an algorithm.  Since they are designed for ghost hunters, and even the makers say they are "for entertainment only" it is not surprising that overzealous investigators find seemingly relevant words.

Spirit boxes and "Shack Hacks" are manipulated radios. There is no scientific evidence that ghosts, if they exist, can anticipate radio broadcasts and manipulate them to communicate. Again, this is a highly subjective methodology, with priming and suggestibility heavily influencing what people perceive.  A while back, I attended a session hosted by a well-known TV demonologist.  Even though he said he didn't put stock in these devices, he clearly encouraged the group when they thought they got relevant words. The word "soldier" came up a couple of times.  We were in a train terminal where soldiers were transported during WWII, so they thought this"proved" a ghostly soldier was trying to communicate.  I argued that since it was Memorial Day Weekend, the probability of the word "soldier" being said on the radio was quite high.  (I did not win any popularity points for this.)  Even if a word or phrase is clearly heard, it is impossible to prove it came from a ghost, especially using a machine designed to pick up radio.

Another entertaining method to communicate with the dead is using manipulated flashlights.  This became popular after a TV show (which is edited) featured it.  Again, it's highly subjective.  Many ghost hunters seem to focus on the 1 "hit" out of 10 questions, ignoring the 9 misses.  More importantly, scientific experiments have shown thermodynamics are behind the flashlight coming on and off.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqNwGeXTQJk  So even if a manipulated flashlight going on "by itself" seems to correlate with specific questions, again, it's impossible to prove a ghost is behind it, especially when there is a scientific explanation that can be demonstrated.

Ghost detectors:
Many ghost hunters use EMF (electromagnetic field) detectors, ion detectors, Geiger counters, etc. to "detect" ghosts.  No one knows what ghosts, if they exist, are comprised of, nor how they interact with the environment (or even if they are able to).  Many ghosts hunters do not fully understand how these various gadget work, or fully understand the fields they are designed to measure, or what can cause false positives.  For example, EMF detectors, a favorite among ghost hunters, can also pick up radio frequencies including ELFs (extremely low frequencies).  Moving metal, static electricity, our own natural biological fields can also generate a "hit".  I get a kick out of groups who turn off all the power in a building so there are no fields.  Yet, they use cameras, recorders, various gadgets, which all throw off EMFs.  Not to mention EMFs are not static, they bounce around.  They don't honor boundaries, so something outside of the location can create a spike. And again, even if someone knowledgable picks up an "anomalous" reading, how can they prove it was due to a ghost?  As I've said before, it is a huge leap in logic to conclude something we don't have an immediate explanation for is a disembodied spirit of a dead person.

Cheap recorders and poor recording techniques:
As I've said in an article I wrote for The Bent Spoon Magazine, "EVP and the Voice of Reason" http://thebentspoonmagazine.com/2013/03/24/evp-and-the-voice-of-reason/, there are too many factors for me to accept people are recording voices from beyond the grave.  However, I recognize EVP (electronic voice phenomena) is the favorite "evidence" for ghost hunters and very few are going to be convinced to let go of it.  So instead, I encourage investigators to at least do everything possible to reduce false positives.  The truth is, it takes more time, money and effort.  While I understand not everyone has a big budget put aside for their ghost hunting, it is frustrating to witness teams skimp on the time and effort, which are free.

Inexpensive recorders produce false positives due to their poor frequency response and low sample rates.  So ambient noise is even more prone to sounding like a voice or word.   Lower-end recorders also have poor shielding, so they can be affected by radio frequencies or pick up static from other electric devices.  I advise those who are serious about EVP to invest in higher-end recorders, if possible.  I also advise to invest in more than one because of acoustics and how the microphones pick up sound.  What one picks up on one side of the room might sound differently on the other side of the room, so what may sound like a voice or whisper can be crossed referenced.   Let me share an example of how sound resonates differently in the same room:  during one investigation, two of us were sitting in the center of a room in a very large building.  We suddenly heard footsteps running up the stairs and quickly went to see who there.  The third investigator, who was sitting against the wall by a window, thought we lost our minds.  He heard the ka-thunk, ka-thunk of a skateboarder zipping by on the sidewalk (who he saw as well).  But the way it reverberated in the center of the room sounded exactly like someone on the stairs - and it recorded that way as well.

One of the worst ways to use recorders is often seen on TV ghost hunting shows:  holding it and walking around with it while recording.  This is one of the best ways to create false positives.  The mics pick up the investigator's breath, the movement of their clothes as they walk, the sound of their hands rubbing agains the recorder, etc.  The best way to reduce these issues is to set a recorder down a few feet away, and have investigators sit still during a session.  I personally encourage to have as few investigators as possible in the room, and instead utilize video to monitor the location and use as cross reference if something odd comes up on playback.  You would be surprised upon video review of how many "EVPs" turn out to be from investigators shifting positions, scratching an itch, yawning, etc.

Another technique I learned from Midwest Preternatural Research is controlled silence.  They spend at least 30 minutes recording the ambient sound of each room they are going to investigate.  Yes, it takes time out of the more fun "Is anybody here with us?" part of the EVP session, but it provides necessary data to use as cross reference.

A common mistake investigators make is priming and influencing others when they present their "evidence".  When you label an EVP "female voice saying help me", you primed your audience to hear exactly that.  There have been studies where researchers primed subjects to hear specific words or even phrases in white noise, and many of the subjects indeed heard them.  In order to get more objective reviews, it is more constructive to just label it "possible anomaly - what do you hear?" and ask people to give their answers in private messages, as to not influence each other. When investigators post in this manner, they more often get varied responses, demonstrating how subjective the EVP technique is.

Being snap-happy with cameras:
I don't know how many investigations I've been on where people just randomly point and shoot their cameras, without any methodology or protocols whatsoever.  Then they get upset when skeptics don't take their photos seriously.  Just like EVPs, it takes much more time and effort to get the most benefit from taking pictures on an investigation.

Like recorders, the better the camera, the lesser the chance for false positives and misidentification due to poor resolution. But even with the priciest camera, without implementing some basic protocols, you are wasting your time.

First off: control shots.  Take well-lit shots of every area you are going to investigate.  Cover every angle, wall, ceiling and floor.  This ensures you capture every surface for cross-reference for your pictures during the investigation as well as video you record.  You will be surprised how many surfaces can reflect light and cause a seemingly paranormal glow.  But by referencing the surfaces and angles, many mysteries are soon cleared up.

Invest in a good tripod.  This reduces the chances for blurring, light streaks, shadowing etc.  On one of my first investigations, I was using a cheaper camera without a tripod, so even though I was taking several pictures from the same spot, the slight movement between each picture made it look like a shadow was growing.  Take a series of comparison shots.  If you have a claim of an apparition in a particular spot, take a series of at least 5 - 7 shots versus one click.  Adjust the tripod higher and repeat.  Adjust the tripod lower and repeat.  Move the tripod from a different angle and repeat the previous steps.   If there is a weird blob in only one picture in a series caught in the same conditions, that would be of more interest that one shot taken randomly.  I'm not suggesting it means you caught a ghost, but it would be something interesting to investigate further.

Practice with your camera outside of investigations, in various conditions.  This will help you become familiar with, and recognize common things often mistaken for anomalies.

This should be obvious, but know where other investigators are at all times and plan your photo session accordingly. (This is why I strongly encourage video surveillance.)  I don't know how many times I caught a shadow or an "unexplained" light that really was from someone not following directions and wandering off aimlessly.

Accepting the history and claims of a location at face value:
There have been several examples of investigators doing their own in-depth research into the background of famous "haunted" locations and finding the history presented and stories associated with ghostly claims have been either manipulated or outright fabricated. This has caused some discontent in the paranormal community for some who didn't like their illusions challenged.  To be fair, sometimes the owner is just passing on what they've been told.  But in many cases, the stories crop up as a business opportunity.  One example in my area is an old hotel, complete with a ghostly soldier.  It's been featured on TV and is a hot spot for local ghost hunters.  However, the former owner's daughter has been known to say it's all nonsense and her family, in all the years they ran the hotel, never had any paranormal experiences. I have been to a few well-known haunted locations and heard the very same stories on the tours that have been presented on TV, only to later learn they weren't true.  On the other hand, there was a private case where an owner told us someone had been murdered at the location.  The story was pretty cliche, so I admit I had some doubts, but I contacted the county historian who confirmed it  happened.  If we call ourselves paranormal investigators, more of us need to do actual investigating, which includes fact checking.

During a training session for my former team, the lead officers conducted an experiment on claims and expectations.  We brought our team to a location, told them the actual claims reported by the client, but also made up a claim about a murdered little girl.  Not surprisingly, some of our members claimed to hear a voice of a little girl, and others saw shadows about the size of a little girl.  When we told them there was never any murdered little girl at the location, they weren't thrilled with us, but it did demonstrate to them the power of suggestion and how it influences what we think we see or hear.


SO... after we ditch some of these things that haven't been working for us as paranormal investigators, how do we move forward?  In my opinion, it is by changing the common approach to investigating. Many ghost hunters use scientific terminology and science-y gadgets, but fail to apply scientific methodology.  A lot of paranormal investigators go into a case assuming there are ghosts, and try to find evidence of them.  But in order to benefit both the clients who call for assistance and to contribute to valid research of paranormal claims, we should instead be challenging our own assumptions and beliefs and look for rational causes first.  We need to study and explore environmental, physiological and psychological factors that can contribute to seemingly paranormal experiences. When something is out of our scope of education or experience, we need to solicit the help of experts in relevant fields. Finding natural causes may reduce our "evidence" to present from an investigation, but it is a positive thing for the field, because we all learn from it and can apply it to future cases. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  I'd like to add it requires extraordinary effort. To satisfy science, only after we've exhausted all natural possibilities can we consider something paranormal.  And if that day ever comes, what a remarkable payoff it will be.

A New Religion?

This article was originally posted in Paranormal Enlightenment Magazine http://paranormalenlightenment.com/

Recently, I watched "Houdini", a mini-series based on the magician's life.  In one scene, a supporter of of the Spiritualist Movement and the fledgling field of Parapsychology declares to a skeptical Houdini, "It is science".  Houdini counters, "It is religion masquerading as science."  Similar notions and pseudoscience that were seen over a century ago are still being applied under the guise of "paranormal research" today.  The only real difference is that gadgets have changed, equipped with more flashing lights and the venues have moved from private parlor rooms to national television.  There are still believers taken in by unscrupulous con artists such as cold readers and pseudoscientists and are blinded by their own biases.  They cling to the words of their favorite para-celebrities as gospel, and cannot be dissuaded by reason.

A few weeks ago, during a conversation on Facebook about how the paranormal community should strive find new "heros" to worship, religion was brought into the discussion.  The point was made that there are strong parallels between religious fanatics and paranormal fanatics, and I agree.  The concepts of an afterlife and a soul are rooted in various religions throughout human history.  According to a 2009 Harris Poll of religious beliefs, 71% of respondents believe in soul survival after death.  This is relevant to paranormal researchers, as we explore claims and try to understand why some people believe an experience might be paranormal and why others resist or even reject rational explanations for their experiences or "evidence".  As Michael Shermer explains in his book The Believing Brain:

"Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.  I call this process belief-dependent realism, where our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it."  

Later, he discusses cognitive bias:

"Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive heuristics that guarantee that they are correct."

Despite the title at the top, I'm not really asserting that zealous paranormal enthusiasts are forming an actual religion, but there are strong parallels to consider. Ninian Smart, a pioneer in secular religious studies, suggested in his book The Religious Experience of Mankind, that there are six dimensions to a religion:  1) The Ritual Dimension, where believers congregate in sanctified spots to pray, worship, or give offerings. 2) The Mythical Dimension, where believers are taught and share stories of the origin of their deities and creation. 3) The Doctrinal Dimension where doctrines are created to explain and give a system of belief to the stories.  4) The Ethical Dimension where a code of ethics is incorporated, and often used to determine a believer's fate after death.  5)  The Social Dimension, in which a religion is more than systems of belief, but are organizations with communal and social significance. 6) The Experiential Dimension in which believers hope to have contact with the spiritual through ritual, and ultimately, experience that world.

I see similarities in these dimensions and the paranormal community.  For example, The Ritual Dimension could be seen in paranormal conventions, where like minded enthusiasts gather and reinforce their beliefs and pay homage to their "leaders", the para celebrities they watch  on TV.  In the Doctrinal Dimension, where people share unsubstantiated ideas which reinforce their larger belief, such as 1% of orbs are paranormal, ghosts disrupt electromagnetic fields, children and animals are more perceptive to ghosts, etc. The Social Dimension can be seen in paranormal social media groups, paranormal teams forming "families", fans bonding over their favorite paranormal TV shows and para celebrities.  Finally, and this is probably the strongest parallel, The Experiential Dimension, where believers desire to and attempt to contact the other side, and capture proof of it.  Many paranormal enthusiasts become upset or even hostile when their beliefs, their "evidence", or their "heros" are challenged.  Some, to the point of fanaticism.  

During the several years I've been an administrator for paranormal sites and been writing my blog, I've encountered people who, even though they asked for opinions, got angry with me when I offered rational explanations for their claims or evidence.  Some of these kind loving folks responded that they hoped I get pushed by an unseen force or tormented by negative entity so "then you'll believe".  (Happy to report it hasn't happened.)  These kinds of responses are not unique to me.  I have several friends who have been stalked, harassed and threatened just for giving educated opinions challenging a paranormal claim or supposed evidence.  This behavior reinforces how for some, these beliefs are deeply entrenched and serve a bigger purpose for the believer, to provoke such anger and even hatred toward anyone who might contradict them.

One disturbing example of this is when Military Veterans Paranormal did extensive research on a famous haunted location and discovered that the history and ghost stories told on tours, TV, and books over the years, were false.  This prompted a harsh backlash from some zealots in the paranormal community who went so far as to state they wished their members had been killed during their military service.  Let's step back and look at this: people wished harm on other people over debunking a ghost story. I could see anger for those who perpetuated the false stories, but not for those who uncovered the truth.  If anyone had a reason to be angry, it would be the owners who might face a loss in revenue.  But according to the group, the owners were supportive of their findings.  While discussing this situation with Kenny Biddle and Lou Castillo on their show "Geeks and Ghosts", Lou, a military veteran, likened those critics to terrorists he fought in combat.  At first glance that might seem extreme, but really it isn't.  The only difference is that terrorists act on their beliefs, but the same unreasonable anger and unjustified hatred is there.

Another disconcerting example is when serious discrepancies surfaced concerning one para-celebrity's education and military credentials he has been presenting in his bio on various sites over the years.  Naturally, this upset people who honestly earned their degrees and is disrespectful to military veterans who have put themselves at risk to serve our country.  Instead of striving to set the record straight and producing evidence to disprove the accusations, this person went on the offensive and made "hit lists" of his "stalkers", even posting a woman's home address on his Facebook page.  As disturbing as this behavior is, what's more unsettling is how some of his fans defended him and joined in on the attacks of his perceived "enemies".  From an early age, most of us were taught lying is wrong, so why would people who most likely never met this man, or at the most snapped a picture with him at some convention somewhere, defend his behavior and attack the people who simply exposed the discrepancies?  This is speculation,  but it is possible that the ideas he promotes in his book and TV show may reinforce a larger belief system for them, and anything that weakens one link threatens the chain as a whole.

My purpose here isn't to judge or criticize religious or paranormal beliefs, since I harbor a few of my own.  We all carry our own biases, and it is easy to let emotions override reason when it comes to anything we feel passionate about.  But it doesn't get us any closer to answers we claim we are seeking if we label ourselves investigators.  That is why I encourage critical thinking in paranormal research, to help us keep our biases in check and distinguish fact from fantasy.


Sources:  

Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies - How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
New York: Times Books 2011,  5, 258

Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind
New York, Charles Scribner's Sons 1969

EVP and the Voice of Reason

This is an article I wrote for The Bent Spoon Magazine a couple of years ago:


Once upon a time, there was a wannabe ghost hunter.  She watched TV shows featuring paranormal investigators going into haunted locations and capturing real ghost voices on their recorders.  Finding this incredibly cool, she visited websites where ghost hunters from all over uploaded creepy recordings of spirit voices.  She bought a digital recorder like the ones she saw on TV and did her own EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) experiments.  She lived in a house where a previous owner died on the dining room floor.  Lights went on and off by themselves, faint disembodied voices and footsteps were heard and unexplained shadows were glimpsed out of the corner of the eye.  So obviously, it had to be haunted.  She wanted to prove to others that the ghosts were actually there, and she also wanted to hear what they had to say.  Why were they there?  Were they "stuck" from unfinished business?  Were they attached to the house or something in it?  So, just like the investigators on TV, she held her inexpensive recorder and asked questions.  On playback, she was excited to hear responses.  It was hard to make out the words, but as ghost hunting experts will explain, sometimes the spirits just don't have enough "energy" to speak clearly.  One night, she got a reply which sounded more like a snarl.  It scared her, and after stinking up the house with burning sage, she stopped doing sessions in her own home.

Yep, that was me several years ago. Back before I took the time to learn about recorders, recording techniques, what environmental factors can affect recorders, and what physiological and psychological factors affect how a person can misinterpret sounds.  Luckily, I can laugh at myself now.  But what isn't funny is the fact that there are paranormal investigators going into people's homes or businesses and, because they are making the same mistakes I once made, presenting frightened clients with false positives and calling them ghost voices.  As I mentioned in my article "The Evocative EVP" (http://carolynscreepycorner.blogspot.com/2012/06/evocative-evp.html) while more ghost hunting groups are finally acknowledging that there are natural explanations for orb photos, many of these same people are still clinging to their EVPs with a death grip.  I believe this might be because listening is more subjective;  you can easily see how orbs are recreated, but replicating false positive EVPs may be more complicated due to various factors.  There have been reliable scientific studies showing that people hear things that are not there.   One study, discussed in Mary Roach's book Spook,  illustrates this and is relevant to EVP review.   Subjects were asked to transcribed a poorly recorded lecture.  Many were able to hear words and even complete phrases.  However, in reality, the recording was nothing but white noise.  Ambient sounds can easily be misinterpreted as voice, especially with priming and when they are within certain frequencies and rhythms causing the brain to automatically switch to speech mode.  Personally, I've participated in many audio reviews where people swore they heard a meaningful response when all I heard was something akin to "Glarmpht".  So even if something sounds like a voice or a phrase, it doesn't mean that it is.  And even if it is, you still have are left with the task of proving that it belongs to a ghost.

Let's address some basic recording protocols that many paranormal teams fail to implement.  If the idea is to capture proof of ghosts by recording their voices, one would think every measure to prevent false positives would be considered and used.  But unfortunately, this often not the case.  In some cases, it is due to inexperience and lack of knowledge, and in other cases, it is plain confirmation bias.  I've personally observed investigators continue to use poor recording techniques, even after explaining to them how they create false positives.  I'm not entirely sure if it is because of a egotistical defiance ("Shaddup, I know what I'm doing!") or they subconsciously sabotage their efforts to continue to capture "evidence" and satisfy their wish fulfillment.   When I wanted to become a paranormal investigator, I started to network with people who have some experience in audio engineering. I quickly learned why some teams get a bunch of EVPs every investigation, but others capture only one or two possible EVPs a year.  I'm sorry to say it wasn't because ghosts like some people more than others.  It is simply because some teams use common sense to reduce false positives.

Conducting an EVP session while holding a recorder and walking around is one of the best ways to create false positives, yet it is commonly seen on ghost hunting shows.  Setting a recorder a few feet away and sitting as still and quietly as possible during a session makes much more sense.  The fewer investigators participating, the smaller the chance of recording noises made by living people.   Investigators should be aware of and note their surroundings and ambient noise, since it can be mistaken for speech. This goes beyond merely tagging every sound.  One tip I got from Midwest Preternatural Research is that before each EVP session, conduct a controlled silence session to listen and record the ambient sound for later reference.  Investigators should have a notebook at all times.  If an anomalous sound is heard, document the time to cross reference other audio, video and notes of other teammates.  Many teams invest in video cameras in hope of capturing a full-bodied apparition holding a sign saying, "Hi, I'm a ghost".  However, video is better put to use to record investigators while they are doing an EVP session for cross reference.  It is amazing how shifting positions can sound like a whisper, a bored sigh can sound like a "hey", etc.  Surveillance cameras should be recording in other areas, again to cross reference "responses" or anomalous sounds.   The problem is, most teams don't have enough cameras to cover an entire building and its immediate surroundings.

In the unlikely event that there are cameras covering every angle at all times, does that mean an EVP is really a ghost?  Nope.  One issue is radio frequencies.  Cheaper recorders have less shielding from RFs.  I have mentioned this elsewhere before, only to have testy ghost hunters tell me it is "impossible" for recorders to pick up radio frequencies.  Since I'm not an expert in recorders or radio, I've talked with radio technicians, audio engineers, and a forensic scientist, who assured me that yes, recorders can indeed pick up radio frequencies.  Some people have hypothesized that some EVPs are actually ELF (Extremely Low Frequencies) picked up by a recorder. ELFs are frequencies ranging between 3 and 300 Hz and natural sources include lightning strikes and disturbances to the earth's electromagnetic fields.  Alternating currents in electric power grids fall within this range and electromagnetic interference from high voltage lines are around 50 - 60 Hz.  These EMIs are unintentional sources of ELFs.  (Other sources of EMIs include computer servers, medical systems, robotics found in industrial use, and faulty wiring.  EMIs can be picked up by recorders.) One anonymous reader of my blog sent me an email stating he or she could rule ELFs out because they built a Faraday cage for their recorder.  A week or so after getting this message, I tuned into a web radio show where in the chat room, listeners were arguing whether Faraday cages can block natural electromagnetic fields and ELFs.  So I was prompted to contact a physics professor at a local university for an answer.  He sent me this reply: "The "skin depth" decreases with the frequency of the wave and increases at lower frequencies. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to completely block very low frequencies as you need infinitely thick material. You need to find a balance between how much of the low frequency wave you want to block and the thickness of the Faraday cage you can afford."   So a basic home-made Faraday cage may block some radio waves, but not ELFs. 

On a side note, I recently heard a ghost hunter on web show state that microwave ovens can be used as Faraday cages. After conducting an informal experiment involving cell phones, various microwave ovens and some stink-eye looks from a home improvement store employee, I have concluded that this is false.  While the metal screen in the door may block AM and even FM radio waves, the cell phone signals are sneaking through.  According to the electromagnetic spectrum chart, the AM radio frequency band is between 535 kHz - 1700 KHz, the FM radio frequencies run between 88-108 MHz, cell phones are higher up the spectrum at 824-849 MHz.   The metal grid in the glass door is ineffective from blocking these smaller wavelengths.

Source: www.skyscan.ca

Now let's consider paranormal investigators who claim they can identify an authentic EVP from a human voice by using spectral analysis software.  Doing a brief search, I find many of them are using free downloaded software for their analysis.  Because of the poor track record of photographic analysis from ghost hunters in general, I wondered if there was a chance there could be some misinterpretation and misidentification in some of this analysis as well.  I have seen audio experts on TV who analyze audio for court cases.  I was certain there had to be some formal education and training involved.  So I searched for such an expert and found Dr. Stevan Pausak.  His occupation is listed as a Forensic Scientist - Applied Physics and Physical Chemistry. His areas of work include: audio examinations, video examinations, electric and electronic examinations, evaluation of the forensic reports and interpretation of their findings and court testimony in the above areas.  (For a full list of his education, training, and publications please visit: http://www.forensicservices.ca/cv.html).  I sent him email, along with links to various paranormal teams' websites and YouTube videos on spectral analysis.  He sent this reply:  "The spectral analysis is a mathematical tool used by physicists, astronomers, chemists and other scientists and engineers in their basic studies and practical applications. This analysis is applied to mechanical phenomena as sounds and vibration and electromagnnetic waves as light, microwaves,radio waves, x-rays, gamma-rays and so on. The mathematical aparatus, called FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) is at the heart of the modern spectral analysis.  To fully understand and apply the spectral analysis one needs special courses in mathematics and physics provided at the university level.  The MRI, Ultra Sound, CAT scan and some other medical imaging devices as well as radars, sonars, spectrographs (for different parts of electromagnetic spectrum), sound spectrographs and so on, all have the use of spectral analysis. It is not necessary to understand spectrum and spectral analysis in order to operate these equipment or even to interpret the results. Thus the technicians that operate them in general do not have an understanding of a spectrum and spectral analysis. Even MDs that interpret the MRI and other medical imaging results do not have understanding of the spectral analysis.  The so called 'audio engineers' are, in general, technicians with some understanding of the sound spectrum but not the spectral analysis. There is a lot of room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the sounds and its sources."

He generously invited me to call him so he could answer any further questions.  During our conversation, he stated that in his opinion, the average ghost hunter, without specific education and training, is not qualified to properly analyze spectrographs.  More importantly, even if they are able to identify a human voice, all they have is evidence that they recorded a human voice - not proof of a ghost.  Leaping to such a conclusion does not follow valid scientific methodology.  He explained that acoustics play an important part of what and how sounds are recorded as well as what we may (or may not) hear at the time.   Sounds (including voices) can carry through pipes and ducts.  He went on to explain that sound propagates differently through different materials.  It does not propagate through air as well as it does solids, such as soil and rock.  An example of how well sound can travel for miles is railroad tracks:  if you stand by the track, you won't hear a train if it is miles away.  But if you put your ear to the rails, you can.  Another example is water.  It is possible to hear someone whisper from the opposite side of a river that is a kilometer wide - as long as you're close to the water.  So during investigations, it is possible to record a living person's voice that has travelled from a different area.  It may be faint, and while investigators may not hear it at the time, the microphone on a recorder is able to pick up and record it.  This information is supported by an article "Analysing EVP and Paranormal Sound Recordings" by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena: http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Analysing%20audio%20EVP.html

The article also describes how the "Cocktail Effect" can explain how some investigators may hear a sound at the time while others do not. People get used to background noses at various rates. So while some may have already "tuned out" some of the ambient sound, others may not.  In addition, if a faint voice is "buried" in the ambient sound, it may not be noticed by investigators at the time, whereas a microphone can detect it.  On the other hand, because many microphones are directional, they can also miss sounds that investigators did hear at the time.  This explains away one of my own audio clips that puzzled me for a while. During one case, I heard voices from an unknown source.  The other investigator with me in the room also heard them.  The other two investigators at the location were in a different room.  When I called them, they said they hadn't been talking, nor did they hear the unidentified voices.  I had two recorders operating in different areas in the room at the time.  One picked up the voices (faintly), the other did not.  For a while, I mistakenly thought this was an anomaly and possibly paranormal.  But based on the information about acoustics and microphones above, there is a natural explanation for this phenomenon.

Are people recording ghosts from beyond the grave? I want to believe it is possible. But wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.  Until all other possibilities can be methodically ruled out, I'm not convinced that EVPs are really voices of the dead.

Ghosts and Pop Culture

I haven't forgotten about this blog, but have been busy with other projects.  Meanwhile, here is an article I wrote  for the last issue of The Bent Spoon Magazine:
 http://thebentspoonmag.com/2012/12/21/its-back-volume-2-issue-01-is-here/ 



While visiting a couple of historic cities recently, I went on some ghost tours.  I like history, I like folklore and I like ghost stories, so these tours are something I enjoy.  I view them as entertainment, and as long as the tour guides don't try to pass themselves off as "paranormal experts" or "professional ghost hunters", I typically keep my opinions to myself - even when orbs are mentioned (believe it, or not.)  I particularly appreciated one tour guide's introduction.  He said ghost stories are like fish stories:   just as the fish keeps getting bigger every time the tale is told, ghost stories also tend to become more embellished and elaborate with each telling.  I agree.  By the time we hear a version years later after the original event, the facts have become diluted, and all that is left is based mostly on imagination.

Because I am one of those "early bird" types, I usually spend some time waiting for the tour to start, so I listen in on conversations from other tourists.  I paid closer attention on these recent tours and heard people say things often repeated in the paranormal community:  ghosts linger because of unfinished business, places where a lot of deaths or tragedies occur become haunted, children are more sensitive to the "other side", some ghosts are confused and need help "crossing over".   Because some of these good people were making these statements with such conviction, I asked if they did any ghost hunting or watched the TV ghost hunting shows.  To my surprise, most said they did not.  This got me thinking: if they are not watching these shows, where are they getting these ideas?  Some said they had friends who were "into that stuff".  Others said they had gone to psychics who told them these things.  And others explained that's what they've always heard.   But from where?

These ideas are not just limited to people interested in paranormal investigating, they are ingrained in our cultural consciousness.  I looked back at popular movies that I watched as a kid.   There.  Woven into carefully crafted dialog to move the plot forward, are the seeds.  Even though consciously, we know we are watching fiction, the suggestions are planted.  Later, when we hear these same ideas in a different context, they "ring true" for us and are further reinforced in our beliefs.

Let's look at some well-known examples:  The Shining, Ghost Busters and Poltergeist.  These movies have become iconic, spawning catch-phrases and other references in our popular culture.

The Shining, based on Stephen King's novel, was released in 1980.  It started slow at the box office, but then gained momentum earning a profit and over the years, it has attained cult status as well as belated critical acclaim.   The following is a conversation between the characters Dick Halloran, a worker for the Overlook Hotel, and Danny, a little boy with psychic powers whose "imaginary friend"Tony, shows him disturbing images.
Dick Halloran: Has Tony ever told you anything about this place? About the Overlook Hotel?
Danny Torrance: I don't know.
Dick Hallorann: Now think real hard now. Think.
Danny Torrance: Maybe he showed me something.
Dick Hallorann: Try to think of what it was.
Danny Torrance: Mr. Hallorann, are you scared of this place?
Dick Hallorann: No. Scared - there's nothin' here. It's just that, you know, some places are like people. Some "shine" and some don't. I guess you could say the Overlook Hotel here has somethin' almost like "shining."
Danny Torrance: Is there something bad here?
Dick Hallorann: Well, you know, Doc, when something happens, you can leave a trace of itself behind. Say like, if someone burns toast. Well, maybe things that happen leave other kinds of traces behind. Not things that anyone can notice, but things that people who "shine" can see. Just like they can see things that haven't happened yet. Well, sometimes they can see things that happened a long time ago. I think a lot of things happened right here in this particular hotel over the years. And not all of 'em was good.  
(Source:  imd.com)


There is even a reference about the dangers of desecrating sacred ground.  In a conversation with Wendi (Danny's mother), the hotel's manager, Mr. Ullman, reveals the Overlook was built on Native American burial grounds.  


Poltergeist was released in 1982.  Written and produced by Steven Spielberg, it was a world-wide box office success.  We see a familiar formula that was actually practiced in parapsychology:  scientists working with psychics on cases of paranormal phenomena.

Diane's daughter, Carol Anne, was taken by spirits haunting their home.  Diane talks to Dr. Lesh, a parapsychologist, and her assistant:
Diane: You were saying about poltergeists. 
Dr. Lesh: Poltergeists are usually associated with an individual. Hauntings seem to be connected with an area. A house usually. 
Marty: Poltergeist disturbances are of a fairly short duration. Perhaps a couple of months. Hauntings can go on for years. 
Diane: Are you telling me that all of this could just suddenly end at any time? 
Dr. Lesh: Yes, it could. Unless it's a haunting. But hauntings don't usually revolve around living people. 

The scientist goes on to explain why some ghosts linger:
Dr. Lesh: Some people believe that when you die there is a wonderful light. As bright as the sun but it doesn't hurt to look into it. All the answers to all the questions you want to know are inside that light. And when you walk to it... you become a part of it forever. Now, some people die, but they don't know they're gone. 

Tangina is the psychic the scientific team brings in.  She explains:
Tangina: There is no death. There is only a transition to a different sphere of consciousness. Carol Anne is not like those she's with. She is a living presence in their spiritual earthbound plain. They are attracted to the one thing about her that is different from themselves - her lifeforce. It is very strong. It gives off its own illumination. It is a light that implies life and memory of love and home and earthly pleasures, something they desperately desire but can't have anymore. Right now, she's the closest thing to that, and that is a terrible distraction from the real LIGHT that has finally come for them. You understand me? These souls, who for whatever reason are not at rest, are also not aware that they have passed on. They're not part of consciousness as we know it. They linger in a perpetual dreamstate, a nightmare from which they can not awake. Inside the spectral light is salvation, a window to the next plain. They must pass through this membrane where friends are waiting to guide them to new destinies. Carol Anne must help them cross over, and she will only hear her mother's voice. Now hold on to yourselves... There's one more thing. A terrible presence is in there with her. So much rage, so much betrayal, I've never sensed anything like it. I don't know what hovers over this house, but it was strong enough to punch a hole into this world and take your daughter away from you. It keeps Carol Anne very close to it and away from the spectral light. It LIES to her, it tells her things only a child could understand. It has been using her to restrain the others. To her, it simply IS another child. To us, it is the BEAST. Now, let's go get your daughter. 
(Source:  imd.com)

Later, Tangina declares the house "clean" of spirits, reinforcing the notion that psychics can "cleanse" homes.

Ghost Busters was released in 1984 and was both a critical and box office success.  It had a hit song from its soundtrack and later a cartoon was produced. There is an array of Ghost Busters merchandise available.   While a comedy, it referred to the fact that parapsychology was studied at esteemed Universities and helped instill the notion there are "professional" ghost hunters who can help people with their haunts.

Dr Ray Stantz: [astounded] Wow! Talk about telekinetic activity, look at this mess! 
Dr. Egon Spengler: Ray, look at this. 
Dr Ray Stantz: Ectoplasmic residue. 
Dr. Egon Spengler: Venkman, get a sample of this. 
Dr Ray Stantz: It's the real thing. 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Someone blows their nose and you want to keep it? 
Dr. Egon Spengler: I'd like to analyze it. 


Dean Yeager: This university will no longer continue any funding for any of your group's activities. 
Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us! 
Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! 

Walter Peck: Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr. Venkman? 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Well, I have a PhD in parapsychology and psychology. 
Walter Peck: And now, you catch ghosts? 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yeah, you could say that. 
Walter Peck: And how many ghosts have you caught, Mr. Venkman? 
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm not at liberty to say. 

Dr Ray Stantz: Are you troubled by strange noises in the middle of the night? 
Dr. Egon Spengler: Do you experience feelings of dread in your basement or attic? 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Have you or your family ever seen a spook, spectre or ghost? 
Dr Ray Stantz: If the answer is "yes," then don't wait another minute. Pick up the phone and call the professionals... 
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Dr. Peter Venkman: Ghostbusters. 
Dr Ray Stantz: Our courteous and efficient staff is on call 24 hours a day to serve all your supernatural elimination needs. 
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Dr. Peter Venkman: We're ready to believe you.
(Source:  imd.com)

Many other films have depicted similar ideas about psychics, the afterlife and the nature of ghosts.  Some of my favorite include: The Changeling (1980), The Entity (1982), Ghost (1990), The Others (2001).   Before my time, there was The Uninvited (1944), Carnival of Souls (1962), The Haunting (1963).

Stories about ghosts and hauntings are not limited to the big screen.  I grew up watching various TV shows that examined the paranormal:  One of my favorites was In Search of.... (1976-1982) hosted by Leonard Nimoy.  (I knew him as Mr. Spock on Star Trek, so to me, he was obviously an authority on whatever topic discussed.) The introduction from an episode about ghosts in 1976 included this statement:
"Those who have studied ghosts claim to have discerned patterns in their behavior.  For example, a ghost might be thought of as a spirit of someone who died in emotional turmoil.  Further, it seems the spirits remains close to the place associated with the turmoil.  Finally, it wanders in its restless limbo until relived of whatever burden it is."

Hans Holzer, noted parapsychologist and one of the most recognized names in the paranormal community even today, was featured in the episode.

Another popular show I watched regularly was Unsolved Mysteries (1987-2002). It often profiled stories about ghosts and speculations on why places were haunted.  For example, a couple of homes featured had been built upon forgotten cemeteries, one family's ghostly problems began when they brought a second-hand bunk bed into their house, or some experts suggested people weren't seeing real ghosts at all, but having psychic experiences.  Experts including parapsychologists Dr. William Roll, Dr. Barry Taft and Dr. Andrew Nichols as well as paranormal investigator John Zaffis were often profiled in episodes.  In one episode discussing the nature of ghosts, one person offering an explanation had the title "registered nurse".  I'm not sure when or where ghosts were a part of nursing school curriculum, but I guess the title made her seem more credible than "Random Woman with an Opinion".

Other, lesser-known TV shows focused on the paranormal as well, including Sightings (1992-1997), The Extraordinary (1993-1996), and Unexplained Mysteries (2003-4).

The ideas from these movies and TV shows nestled themselves into many viewers' brains and beliefs.  Years later, when we watch a ghost hunting show or take a ghost tour and hear them repeated, they sound "right" even though there are no facts to substantiate the ideas.  According to psychologists, we humans like our beliefs; we are actually more comfortable believing than not.  Michael Shermer, psychologist and author of The Believing Brain explains this is due to our brains being hard-wired to finding patterns in random data.  In addition, when we feel uncertain or less in control (perhaps like when we experience something "unexplained"), we tend to see non-existent patterns even more.  So when skeptics tell us there is no evidence for these beliefs and they're not the best foundation on which to base a paranormal investigation, we don't like it.  And experiments on confirmation bias show that people prefer to believe an earlier notion, even after presented with evidence contrary to that belief.

This is the source of much frustration with the paranormal community.  Investigators who claim they want to "help others" or "prove there are ghosts" can do neither if they are unable to recognize that most of the popular assertions about ghosts have no basis in fact.  Physicist Stephen Hawking said, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." It is a disservice to  research, as well as clients seeking answers, to cling to "evidence" that only fit our beliefs while ignoring alternative logical explanations.  The truth might indeed be out there, but we're much more likely to find it though critical thinking rather than pop culture.

Don't Dream It, Be It

"We spend too much time in our heads and not enough time being productive, working, contributing to society, building community. Instead we shake off the thoughts with trivial pursuits and entertainment hoping for relief from our own haunts when all the time our forefathers, though tough, had it right. We need to step away from distraction and embrace one another, grab hold of life and quit living vicariously through entertainment, fantasy. Reality is just outside our door and it is nothing to be afraid of." ~ William James (Psychologist, Society for Psychical Research)

The New Year prompts me to reflect and reassess what is working to enrich my life and what isn't.  I strive to foster pursuits that serve a positive, constructive purpose and eliminate those which don't.  This includes my interest in the paranormal.

Several years ago, I was as a blind believer in the paranormal.  I was a faithful fan of paranormal "reality" shows and I enjoyed going to creepy places and watching my KII meter light up. But the more I learned from people with expertise in various sciences and technology, it slowly dawned on me that what I watched on TV and saw emulated on "ghost hunts" wasn't working.  It wasn't bringing me any closer to finding the truth in paranormal claims.  I began to ditch false and/or counterproductive "theories", equipment, and methodology.  Of course, along with that, came the realization that authentic "evidence" of the paranormal, if it exists, remains frustratingly elusive.

During the past year, I have been lucky to meet or network with a number of interesting people within the paranormal community, from true believers to staunch skeptics.  I've been introduced to informative web radio shows, books and articles.  The more I listened and learned, the more it reaffirmed for me that there is a need to promote critical thinking when considering paranormal claims.  Many paranormal investigators are still clinging to baseless notions and resisting scientific facts that may challenge their beliefs. Some of them go into people's homes and businesses and spread misinformation, which is not only a disservice to the people they want to help, but also continues to hinder any valid research in the paranormal.  But I also know there are some who are genuinely looking for answers, whether they turn out to be paranormal or not.  It is why for now, I will continue with this blog.

Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”  While reading books by actual scientific investigators like Joe Nickell and Ben Radford, I am acutely aware that I have much more to learn.  I have become concerned with my own role as a paranormal investigator.   For example, I am no longer comfortable doing residential cases. First, because of the popularity of paranormal TV shows, many clients have unrealistic expectations and have already formed strong conclusions, and therefore, reject common sense explanations I might offer. Also, something that has been bothering me for a while, is that many well-meaning paranormal investigators (myself included) go into people's homes and offer advice in areas in which they have no academic or professional credentials. I've come to realize that even though I am careful to explain I am not an expert and my conclusions are based only on opinion, clients still had the perception that I had answers that I, and most ghost hunters I know, do not have the qualifications to give. As I've said many times, I don't want to risk misleading people, especially if I am invited into their home to "help".  In my opinion, investigators who boast "expertise" and advise in specific areas when they have no such accredited education and degree, are akin to those who present false positives like orbs as paranormal evidence.

Many of us grew watching shows like In Search Of... and Unsolved Mysteries which profiled parapsychologists with scientific degrees exploring the realm of the supernatural.  I thought it would be a pretty cool occupation.  But unlike some of the parapsychologists I admired, I never got around to getting an advanced degree in a relevant science like psychology, physics or anthropology. Then a TV show called Ghost Hunters profiled a couple of plumbers who did ghost hunting, making paranormal investigating accessible to everyone.  The problem was, it made it accessible to everyone - regardless if they had any clue of what they were doing or not. This reminds me of something the character Dr. Ian Malcom said in Jurassic Park: that the researchers were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.  We all know how that turned out:

This observation is not limited to paranormal investigators, but to some skeptics as well.  There are some who have no more qualifications than the ghost hunters they criticize, who have spread misinformation too. An example, I've seen is some armchair skeptics dismissing paranormal claims as products of Fantasy Prone Personalities.  While FPP may indeed be a factor in some cases, there are other physiological, environmental and psychological factors that can cause people without FPP to experience misperceptions and mistake some experiences as paranormal.  For example, people with FPP may be prone to experience hypnagogic hallucinations, but according to medical doctors who study these sleep disorders, other factors, including certain medications, stress, disrupted sleep patterns, may also cause them in people without FPP.

"I'm here to help" is a common slogan among ghost hunters.  It's even one of the reasons I wanted to become an investigator.  While I think most have best of intentions, I'm not sure if many of them have stopped to consider what this really means or the responsibility this carries.  We still see many investigators present false positives as "evidence" and making claims that they cannot validate.  The result is they are misleading the very people they pledged to help.   To be crystal clear: I am not telling ghost hunters to give up their hobby.  But I am asking them to be more honest and mindful of how they promote themselves to clients.  If teams are unwilling to conduct investigations from a truly skeptical  approach (which does not mean if you can't debunk it, then it must be a ghost), then I request they ditch the term "scientific".  If teams use unproven theories and/or equipment to draw their conclusions, again, ditch the term "scientific".  A more fitting description might be "experimental" or "exploratory".  If teams go in with the foregone (and unproven) conclusion that ghosts are everywhere and they can communicate with them and even help them "move on", then these teams, no matter how much technical gear they tote around, are metaphysical-based, not scientific.

I am asking teams who are committed to being science-based to educate themselves and seek knowledge from people with relevant expertise.  One of the most common mistakes - one I've been guilty of myself - is that many fledgling ghost hunters seek their "education" from other ghost hunters (or paranormal TV shows) instead of: 1. people who have a sound foundation in scientific methodology to reduce confirmation bias and subjective data/techniques 2. people with professional expertise in environmental, physiological and psychological factors that can contribute to misperceptions, and 3. people with professional expertise in equipment used on investigations to reduce false positives.

Going back to William James's quote at the beginning:  "... grab a hold of life and quit living vicariously through entertainment, fantasy." if paranormal investigators want to present themselves as "experts", then I encourage them to go out and earn it.  They either can get a degree in a relevant science from an accredited college or gain professional experience that can be applied toward paranormal research.  (Sorry, bogus on-line degrees or certifications don't count.)  If they truly want to help others, then after looking for ghosts in old battlefields, abandoned hospitals, asylums, orphanages, etc. they might also consider becoming a volunteer for the living.  There are a lot of people in veteran's programs, youth programs, hospitals, homeless shelters, etc. who could use assistance.   I've heard a lot of investigators declare that they want to "help" ghosts find their way in the afterlife.  Right now, there is no evidence that anyone can do that.  So perhaps they could also consider helping people who are still with us in this life, by pursuing a service-orientated profession such as nursing, counseling, teaching, or police work.

I wish you a Happy New Year.  I hope you will step out the door and continue this journey with me. Out there, we just might find the answers we're looking for.