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.

Those Odious Orbs

I submitted "Those Odious Orbs"to The Bent Spoon Magazine and they were very kind to use it.  Check out the entire issue here:  
http://thebentspoonmag.com/2012/09/01/issue-12-at-last/


Recently my friend Wes Forsythe invited me on his show "Paranormal Filler" to discuss the never-ending battle with those who believe in "spirit orbs".  He posed the question, "How the hell did we end up losing the orb debate?"

At first, I wasn't so sure we (meaning those of us who don't accept that orbs are paranormal since there is no supporting evidence) have lost the debate.  After all, many more paranormal teams are now dismissing orbs in photos or videos, recognizing them as airborne particles.  People are actively calling out teams who post them as "evidence".  Some paranormal sites won't allow orbs photos at all.  For example, MyPara.net enforces a strict no-orb policy.  And thanks to experiments conducted by credible researchers,* there is plenty of available evidence showing what actually causes orbs in photos and video.  But the fact that we're still having the debate, despite all the information listed above, indicates we haven't exactly won, either.

So, why?  There are many people who want to believe in ghosts so badly that they will cling to any "evidence" that will support their beliefs - even after it has been soundly disproved.  There also those who are emotionally invested in catching "evidence" because it somehow feeds their egos or agendas.  They create justifications of how "their" orb is the real deal.   How many times have we heard the following: "But there was no dust when I took the picture."   "But I recorded an EVP in the same spot we caught the orb."  "But I felt a cold spot, when I took a picture, there was an orb."  "But this orb is real because it is more opaque than dust orbs".   Of course, all of these have also rational explanations, which people either don't bother to learn about or choose to ignore. Then there is my personal pet peeve:  "99% might be dust but there's the 1% that are paranormal."  Who came up these numbers and where is the data to support them?  There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim!  Yet, it has been repeated so often that some people accept it as fact.

There are also claims that some orbs have been seen with the naked eye.  There is no evidence that these are paranormal either.  There are known phenomena to consider first, including ball lightning, electric discharge, piezoelectricity, bioluminescent matter, as well as visual misperceptions due from physiological and environmental factors.  Before we call something supernatural, we should try to better understand the natural world first.

One of the biggest criticisms of paranormal investigating is that most people in the field fail to educate themselves about their equipment or scientific methodology before they go traipsing around with cameras, recorders and EMF meters.  Many spend much more time coming up with nifty team names and logos and collecting "likes" on Facebook than they do learning the simple basics of how their cameras work.  Even some "seasoned" investigators who boast they have been in the field for a decade or two are still presenting common false positives such as lens flare and long exposures as evidence. In today's world, where information on basic photography is widely and easily accessibly, there is no acceptable excuse for this.

Business-minded people recognize these issues and exploit them for profit.  That is why we still have paranormal themed TV shows portraying orbs as evidence.  Some try to be clever by changing the terminology from "orb" to "light anomaly", but it's just the same camera affect caused by the same conditions.  Unfortunately, bogus evidence attracts more viewers than does rational explanations.  And viewership equals advertising revenue for the network, so I doubt they have any burning ambition to set the record straight.

In addition, many historic cities have least one ghost tour.  Again, the owners of these tours are in it for profit, so they promote false positives as "proof" to attract naive tourists.  They also know these customers will share their "ghost photos" that they captured on these tours with friends and family.  It's great free advertising.  And other businesses are cashing in on orb photos: for a fee, you too can "investigate" and "catch evidence" at so-called haunted hotels, restaurants, and abandoned hospitals. These owners are invested in continuing the promotion of spirit orbs.  Not a lot of people are as willing to fork out the money if all they know that they are only photographing dust.

To be honest, I like to keep an open mind.  After all, I used to be a believer myself before I took the time to do a little research.  Maybe there are spirit orbs floating about.  But until somebody comes up with technology that can provide objective data to differentiate them from the orbs caused by all the other known factors, I will remain skeptical.

So moving forward, how do we "win" the debate?  My answer:  inform and educate.  If you have a voice, a webiste, or blog, then you have the power to counteract the misinformation being pushed onto the public by TV shows. Make paranormal investigators and business owners accountable for any "evidence" they promote.  If you spot someone presenting orb photos, contact them directly and provide relevant resources for them to learn from.  If they persist after that, then either call them out publicly or notify someone who will.**  The notion that orbs are ghosts didn't pervade populate culture overnight.  It was repeated as "fact" for a while before it took hold.  With a little time and a lot of persistence, the truth will prevail.

*Kenneth Biddle:  Orbs Or Dust:  A Practical Guide To False Positives
Craig Telesha:  Strange Frequencies
Midnite Walkers Paranormal Society:  http://midnite-walkers.com/experiments-false-orb-experiment.php
Association for Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena: http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Orb%20Zone%20Theory.html

** Worst Paranormal:  http://www.worstparanormal.com/
VIPER Paranormal:  http://www.viperparanormal.com/
Debunk Paranormal:  http://wwps.grou.ps/home

The Evocative EVP

By now, many of us in the paranormal field have been exposed to natural explanations of orbs caught in photos and videos.   Some of us have even repeated various experiments to replicate all kinds of orbs in order to validate these explanations.   So naturally, informed investigators set out to educate others to dispel the unsubstantiated claim that orbs are evidence of the paranormal.    This is a good thing.

However, while more investigators are being hyper vigilant over orbs and other photo/video artifacts, other common forms of "evidence" are not receiving the same level of scrutiny.  Perhaps this due to the level of subjectivity.   It is relatively easy to recreate orb photos and therefore offer objective data for people to study.   But other "evidence" is much more subjective, and harder to convince blind believers otherwise.  An example, and my focus here today, is EVP.

EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) is often touted by paranormal groups to be evidence of the afterlife.   While that may be, the problem is that like photo and video, the potential for misidentification due to poor protocols, poor controls, poor equipment, misuse of equipment as well as pareidolia, is quite high - perhaps even higher.

It is disappointing to see investigators who passionately criticize orb photos become overly defensive over their own evidence, including EVPs.    They preach to others how to properly use cameras, but then they fail to take a good look at their own audio equipment and recording procedures.

Part of the problem is people don't want to learn about anything that might challenge the validity of their beloved EVP collection.  Not long ago, I had a conversation with an investigator who was a cast member of popular paranormal TV show for a while.  We discussed EVPs and how he claimed to capture more using cheaper recorders.  He even anticipated my arguments against cheaper recorders because he'd heard them before.  Yet, he stuck fast to his belief, despite substantiated facts to the contrary.  While he's a nice guy, what he is doing does not fall under my definition of investigating or research.  It is simple wish fulfillment.

There are two primary flaws using cheaper digital recorders to capture "authentic" EVPs.  First, they do not provide sufficient shielding from radio frequencies.  I've talked with professional audio engineers and radio techs who confirmed that recorders can and do pick up radio frequencies.  I also recently read about an interesting experiment conducted by Modern Age Paranormal which supports their hypothesis that EVPs are ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) radio waves.  The second issue is that cheaper digital recorders compress and distort what you record, resulting in missing data.  Therefore, upon playback, you do not get a complete or true representation of the sound.    Keeping this in mind, here's a visual example to consider:

On the left is the infamous "Face On Mars" taken in the Cydonia Region on Mars in 1976 by Voyager.  On the right is an image from 2001 of the same formation, at a much higher resolution.   As we can see, with lower resolution, crucial information is missing, causing a misinterpretation of the what the formation actually looks like.  Add a little matrixing to the the mix and you get this guy:

Even if one can rule out the issues I've mentioned, there is the problem of how the brain misinterprets sounds.  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.  As I've discussed before, ambient sounds can easily be misinterpreted as voice, especially 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.

Then there is another controversial possibility:  psi activity.  Some parapsychologists hypothesize that living, breathing humans can somehow imprint our thoughts on electronics via psychic means.  Before some readers roll their eyes and dismiss this outright, if you think about it, it's just as plausible (if not more so) than the idea that we are recording ghosts.  There are even more assumptions to consider with the latter:  if ghosts even exist,  if ghosts can hear us, if ghosts can understand us, if ghosts are willing to communicate, and if ghosts' "voices" can be recorded.  

Since the burden is on us to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, ALL evidence must be met with the same high level of scrutiny, even when it is harder to explain than orbs.  Going back to my title, "The Evocative EVP", evocation is defined as the act of calling or summoning a spirit, demon, god or other supernatural agent.   In a way, some investigators are indeed summoning false spirits by misidentifying EVP.

Links:
http://www.modernageparanormal.com/kb/the_science_of_evps.asp
http://www.jimsdestinations.com/pgststrt.htm

How to Find a Legit ParanormalTeam

So you think you might be experiencing paranormal activity. You want some validation that you're not going nuts and an explanation for some odd things that are happening. You might even be frightened to the point you're uncomfortable in your own home or business. How do you find a reputable group?

I'll be honest: it's a crap shoot. Unfortunately, there are a lot teams in the field who claim they are in it to help people when in reality they are in it for the "thrill" and to get attention for themselves in a "fringe" field. It takes some research on your part to find someone reliable who will help you find answers to give you some piece of mind.

AVOID TEAMS WHO:

Charge for services. This field is based on theory and speculation only. At this point, investigators are just gathering data. There is no accredited training nor certification for ghost hunting, so it is unethical to charge for an unsubstantiated opinion.

Claim they are "certified": See above. If they claim they are certified, they were either scammed or are trying to scam you. All it means is they took a seminar from someone who doesn't have any more formal credentials than you or I.

Claim they can certify a place as "haunted". No one has proven ghosts exist, let alone what they are or how they behave. There are diverse theories out there - none proven - as to what makes a haunting: spirits of the dead, residual energy, time slips, psi activity, etc. If you want a certified haunted location, go to an office supply store and make yourself a certificate. It carries the same validity.

Use psychics in investigations: In today's search engine world, there is just no way to trust any "hits" are genuine. Also, a false hit, generated from a psychic's overactive imagination, can create unfounded fear. It makes for good theatrics on TV, but if you truly want answers, skip this side show.

Post photos of orbs, streaks of light, or mists as "evidence": Any sincere investigator will have done their homework on how cameras work and what causes these common photo/video artifacts. So groups who post such are either ignorant or are trying to fool people with false evidence.

Claim they get a lot of evidence: Most seasoned investigators will tell you valid evidence, captured using strict protocols in a controlled environment, is rare. So either these groups are misidentifying false positives or they are being untruthful.

Claim they can "cleanse" a location: No one can back such claims with any proof. In fact, there are many anecdotal claims where such attempts made things worse for the client. There are only two types of people qualified to handle such cases: medical professionals or trained clergy.

Who "name drop": Just because someone met or got pictures taken with TV paranormal investigators does not make them a better investigator. (I have a few such pictures and it doesn't make me special, trust me). And with bad protocols and misidentifying obvious false positives being shown on many of the shows, it's not something I'd advertise. Also, just because a group is part of a team "family" that is profiled on TV does not guarantee anything. Such team families are huge and therefore hard to monitor and manage individual groups or members.

Who pad their "stats": Experience is important, no doubt. But it doesn't necessarily guarantee a better investigator. For example, if someone has been investigating for over a decade and they still present light streaks due from long exposure as evidence, that experience is pretty much null and void.

Other things to consider: Don't be afraid to do a background check on members or ask for a criminal screen. You want to be sure who you are inviting into your space and around your family and possessions, is trustworthy.

LOOK FOR TEAMS WHO:

Look for logical and natural explanations for claims first. We cannot identify and analyze valid paranormal experiences if we don't rule out all other explanations first. Sometimes, it's a safety issue. High EMFs and carbon monoxide levels in a home can not only cause people to have seemly paranormal experiences, but are dangerous.

Use use objective means of collecting data: Anyone can walk in and say they feel a presence or an energy. Doesn't mean it's there. But when there is other measurable data, through pictures, or audio or EMF readings to back it up, then you have something to properly analyze.

Are very selective about what they will consider and post as evidence: Quality over quantity. Who do you think could better figure out your claims? A group who has 100 dubious pictures that can be easily explained or a group with one picture that no one has been able to debunk?

Do not make unsubstantiated claims or promises: As mentioned before, this field is based solely on speculation and theory. There are no absolute facts or answers at this point, so no one can guarantee any conclusive outcome. Valid investigators collect data, offer their opinion on their findings and and advise clients with possible solutions.

Who respect your privacy and will keep your case confidential: Investigators should be more concerned about assisting their clients than their own egos.

Who tell you what to expect from them during and after the investigation: It's your space, and you are entitled to know what the process of an investigation will entail.

Who invite you to participate in the investigation: Some teams ask clients to leave the location altogether and it may be for honest reasons: to prevent noise contamination, etc. However, it is your space and you have every right to be there. A good team will teach you protocols to follow so you won't impede the investigation.

Who are happy to answer your questions: Valid teams value educating the general public about the paranormal, as well as the equipment and techniques they use for investigating.

Who are easily accessible by phone or email: This is self explanatory. If they are hard to contact, they might not be the most reliable people for your investigation.

Remember, you are the client and it's your space. If investigators show up who act unprofessional or if you feel uncomfortable with them, ask them to leave. You have more to fear from the living than the dead.

Picture Gallery!

Life is a learning experience and in the field of paranormal investigating, we all have to start somewhere. When starting out, it is easy to get excited and misidentify things as paranormal. I'm no exception.

A) We stopped in front of a notorious haunted house. Obviously,

we were not alone, as this ghostly mist shows.

No, we weren't alone. Someone in our group was smoking.

B) I took this picture in an area where allegedly a Native American burial ground was located. Clearly, I disturbed their rest.

Maybe, but if so, this picture isn't any indication of it. Actually, it started raining.

C) You can see two orbs. They cannot be dismissed as dust or moisture since they emit their own light source.

They emit their own light source because they ARE lights. The graves are at a crest of a hill, the lights are down below, so they look close to the ground.

D) I took this picture of a cat asleep on a table in an antique shop. The residual ghostly energy is very apparent.

This is one of my favorites. I took this picture up against the window from the outside of the shop on a misty evening.

These pictures are similar to pictures posted on some paranormal teams' websites as "evidence". As you can see, it is very important to recognize common causes of photo anomalies!!!