Does the Paranormal field need improvement in our technology & methods? Tell us why and what your choice was in this poll. Feel free to give us an explanation where you think our field needs the most improvement?

Many in our field are always stating "Nothing in our field can be proven". I agree. Nothing is proven and its all based upon theories. However, since nothing has been proven, what do you think could help improve the field in order to gain better quality evidence to help prove the existence of the Paranormal & After-Life? Whether it be improving technology or methods, give us your thoughts?

I think it would be really neat if their was a cam corder that picks up spirits, when we can't see them. Sorta like the cam corders that pics up tempature, but you can actually see the spirit in detail!

No matter how good the equipment, until they start screening out fundamentalist type biased atheists who hold to their agenda like others hold onto a cross, we will keep getting biased and crappy results.

A little healthy skeptical analysis of the findings doesn't hurt either - not everything a group captures is going to be paranormal. Skepticism is NOT a dirty word.

I don't really get the point of the poll - of course the field could use improved equipment and procedures; what field couldn't do with better stuff?

Maybe the useful "tool" we're getting is the growing number of PI's out there and people actively researching the paranormal.

I can't agree with the notion that vast numbers of wannabee ghost hunters is a good thing. How would it be if one day everyone with cable TV thought they were an amateur archaeologist? But somehow it's cool that everyone who watches Sci Fi on Wednesday nights is a Ghost Hunter. All this does is give us an overload of junk "evidence". Of course everyone who wants to should be free to hunt ghosts, but it's not helping the field on the whole.

Likewise, I don't believe we need more equipment. Rather, the users need to educate themselves on how their equipment works. Time could be much better spent on other activities than on painstakingly scrutinizing gigabytes of photos and video of obvious dust or breath. In this regard, one simple act that would help out the field more than any other would be using off-camera illumination. But no one does this, not even the big teams.

"Skeptic" should not be an insult. Without the test of honest skepticism, no potential evidence carries any weight at all. The only way to find the truth is to strip away everything which is not genuine. When you've done that, what you're left with is real. Accepting all "evidence", no matter how weak, brings us no closer to the truth than total dismissal.

Care to elaborate on what I have highlighted here?

I'd like a positive debate here, let's not dis those who are really working hard and making an effort in our field please.

He means using lights that aren't mounted on the camera - as in no flash.

I suppose it would cut down on things that cause false positives like dust, reflections, and breath.

Oh ok... got it.

There are quite a few hard working teams out there who experiment using off camera lighting such as UV lights, black lighting, lasers etc; My team also experiments using different types of lighting. ( In Theory ) People say that spirits are attracted to different types of lights. I have read that very few teams have had success with these experiments.

Note: Keep in mind that we are never going to be able to avoid dust or bugs? Dust is just a natural material. Unless you clean an establishment to become spotless which is nearly impossible. You'll never be able to avoid bugs unless you know there are no bugs and you are in an air tight sealed room that won't let them in? LOL

Wow, you said a whole lotta that I agree with!

I hate to say it, but especially the first paragraph. Unfortunately there are so many of us, myself included that don't know what we are looking for! Even in the case of researching the land of an alleged haunting. Findings will not conclusively supply a reason for the haunting and may even misguide us if we are not careful.

Equipment is, for me, an afterthought (aside from my two audio recorders). I know teams that won't allow people on board unless they have some technical tools. While I do believe in recording everything you can, I believe the one tool that is absolutely mandatory is a pen and paper.

Lastly, I hate when people sling the word "sceptic or skeptic" around as if we are supposed to be affronted by this. I am proud to admit that I look at everything with a cynical eye. To do otherwise would be to just accept everything at face value. Then we just look like a bunch of head nodders...

I don't find anything negative in what Wally said. If you only want people to agree with you, there isn't much room for debate, I'm afraid.

I don't think I "dissed" anyone, but hard work doesn't accomplish much when all it does is turn up bad evidence.

Off-camera illumination is just that. Lighting which is physically separated from the capture device. No evidence, however compelling, carries much weight when you use a pop-up flash because pop-up flashes produce false positives. Most believers know this, and if you can't convince them you'll never convince a skeptic. By removing the light from the camera, and illuminating the field at an angle oblique to your lens, you'll know that anything you catch isn't small particulates near the camera. Why this escapes so many investigators is the real mystery.

The poll at hand is not about convincing skeptics or about skeptics in general.

The poll is about what we could do to help the field improve. Such as suggestions like off-camera lighting.

If your a skeptic, great! To each their own. But we're looking for improvements. Not debates on how we use the term skeptic. It causes heated arguments and discussions among believers and skeptics. Personally I am trying to bring a more positive atmosphere to UM and contribute by being helpful.

I agree that you did not disrespect anyone, but please explain "bad evidence". In my mind, any evidence can be good evidence. And also, a good ghost hunter has to start some where, right? Im just glad theres more and more people showing interest in the paranormal field. Thats just one step closer.

I chose no because the only thing there needs to be improvement on is investigators, not equipment, not technology...but investigators. A lot of people claim to be the Don Magic Juan when it comes to investigating but their methods are laughable at best.

Oh, and being biased on your own evidence. If you can't take someone saying, nah thats not it, you are in the wrong field.

yes i agree, but evidence must be able to not be debunked, so it's gotta some how be unexplainable. But yes everyone has to start some where, i started with a friend in my basement, i've got EVP's of things i cannot explain, especially one that gets me....and yes more people are showing more interest.
of course i also have EVP's of using an ouija board.
here's one. i was using my MP3 player, this was attemped debunking and failed to debunk it. I'm open to sharing, here posted on this topic is my EVP's

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=123216

it's on this site yes i just put the link up for others to easily access, just a little sharing what i think.
Everyone must begin somewhere, and for equipment, i think we could make the attempt to advance in the technology of this field.

I have chose no because the world doesn’t need more delusions, naivety and pathological dread. Imo, the best tech was over 60 years ago, and the belief in Ghosts should have ended also at around that time. I wonder when it will all End.

I voted yes! I think the Paranormal field needs some huge improvements.
The technology is what it is and until something new comes along, that's pretty much what you have to work with.
Some of the best evidence I've ever seen has come from people who were completely unparanormal related, people who were taking a picture of their kid or a video of a new house. They didn't have any high tech equipment and yet they captured some of the best evidence.
I think the main improvement in the paranormal field needs to be the methods of the investigators, and anyone else who's trying to prove that what they've captured is real. Too many times I've seen an orb pic, claimed to be a spirit, and no before or after shot or any other evidence that the orb is a spirit. Too many times I've seen a pic of smoke described as ectoplasm and still, no before or after shot or reason that the smoke would be ectoplasm other than the word of the person posting the pic. I've seen pics of bugs and mist and reflections and people and shadows, claimed to be paranormal by investigators, and yet there's almost never any before or after shots, never any real investigating to try to find out what was really there. Rarely, do I see a vid or a pic taken at night, with some anomaly noted, and then followed by a pic or vid taken during the day to show what was actually there, to compare it to.
When someone asks for the before or after pics, or pics from a different angle or daytime shots, the "investigators" usually get all huffy and start spouting about their experience on the subject.
If paranormal investigators are going to call themselves investigators then they should investigate, otherwise they should call themselves "possible paranormal evidence gatherers".

Wow that turned into a rant , and I apologize for that, I should also say that it wasn't directed at anyone here.
I would delete it, but it was a lot of keystrokes that I hate to waste.
Just skip it if it bothers you.
Good question Pluto!!

hey your welcome to your own opinion as long as it isnt directed towards anyone else. i've had a few rants myself.

As am I. Without a skeptical attitude, we would accept every photo of hair, lens flare, and dust bunnies ever taken without question. We'd have a lot of back-slapping and high-fiving, but little evidence of any consequence. By only presenting real, substantive evidence to the world, we gain credibility, and take ammunition away from those who would shoot us down. Do you really think that the field is better off because of all the millions of "orb" photos on web? The driving force behind the entire field is to find evidence of the paranormal. It's not the believers you're trying to convince.

But in the realm of practical things we can do, I would say only investigating in well lit areas. When IR cameras are used in teh dark, even with extra IR illumination, the footage is always too dark and is grainy because of the high gain used to capture at such low light. Even if you catch something, you can't tell what it is half the time. I'd rather see one piece of well-lit, detailed video, than a dozen poor quality ones that don't stand up to scrutiny. If it's so bad it has to be enhanced in software that's even worse. Use the IR, by all means, but turn the lights on. If you're trying to catch luminous phenomenon, turn the lights out and go completely dark. You'll see any mysterious lights better.

Also, use two cameras to cover the same area. How often have you seen a great piece of footage, and would have given anything to see it from a different angle? Well, you can, you just need another camera. You'll have less unique footage to look at, but in exchange anything you catch will be more solid and compelling. Not only will you have multiple views of the anomaly, but it's way more credible because to fake it you would have to edit two different pieces of footage entirely in sync with each other. No reasonable person can accuse you of that. By including the other camera in the field of view of its counterpart, you present a bulletproof case that neither camera was tampered with. It's about quality over quantity. One solid piece of evidence that absolutely cannot be shot down is worth more than all the rest combined.

One area where an investment in equipment might really pay off is in quality microphones. A lot of the audio out there is truly terrible. The more you do to clean it up in software, the less credible it becomes.

We actually do that. We criss cross cameras so we get the entire room covered.

Totally agree with this, some of the best photographic evidence is the random, old photographs that has taken people by surprise.

I don't think the increase of interest in the paranormal is a bad thing, or the fact that more people are investigating (though I take the point about the quality of investigations being diluted). If more people are putting themselves in a possibly haunted location, videoing, taking photos - is there not more chance of something being captured?

It's a shame there couldn't be some kind of grading of investigators/teams, or like a driving test, so that their work can be assessed. That way, if you're a 5 star team who get evidence, you're more likely to be taken seriously, it would also give investigators a standard to reach for.

I agree Reg!

Whether you are a skeptic or a believer, the field itself still needs improvement in some areas. We all have a common goal. That's studying the unexplained or after-life.

I also agree with Jennie-1

There needs to be more investigating! Most of the people in our field know how to investigate, take pictures, video, and audio? If you get something unexplained, great!? But "WHY!?" How did you get it? Why did you capture it? What were the methods?

I also have preached about "Working Together". Everyone has their own methods, and does their own thing. Which is fine... but I always said our field is stronger in number for our efforts to be taken seriously. Before we get any graded system like Reg suggested, I think we have to prove and show skeptics as well as scientists that we can all work together. We're not being taken serious for quite a few reasons here. Its because of the bickering, arguing, jealousy, animosity among local teams. Then we stray from focusing on the one goal which brought us here. Its all become about the competition to the some, versus really trying to better improve the field as a whole. I feel we are working backwards or at a stand still because of it. IMO...

I voted yes, but wondering why now, because the methodology is as good as anything I could think of and I don't know of any way the technology could be improved - let me explain:

It could be that no matter what the equipment we use, it is just not possible to detect paranormal phenomenon. I remember reading an account some years back of an apparition appearing seated in chair at the foot of a bed. I can't recall the source now, but the writer claimed that on seeing the figure he momentarily closed his eyes whereupon the image remained visible in a sitting position with nothing now supporting it and back on the chair again when he reopened them. This suggested that the apparition was, somehow, able to project it's image, interacting with the real world, directly into the viewers mind. If this is the way that spirits are seemingly able to appear to us, it might help explain those cases where two out of three people see a ghost and the third, less receptive individual, sees nothing. It may also mean it's not possible to capture these entities with any technology currently available.

I'm not a scientist so I don't have the necessary knowledge to take issue with current methodology. What I do have a problem with is a scientific community that entrusts the impartial study of the paranormal to die-hard sceptics like Richard Wiseman. That's not study ! it's just debunking of something that's already been predetermined as fake.

Excellent point of view Mysticfog. I agree with the statements I highlighted here.

I think a lot of it has to do with "Laws of Attraction". Which by the way has been recognized and proven exists by credible philosophers, journalists, and scientists as well. If you go into an investigation only looking to debunk, disprove, ( Whatever term you want to use ) then that seems to me that those investigators are not open minded. Therefore if you go in with an attitude to disprove that it doesn't exist at all, your not going to prove it exists. It won't want to reveal itself to you with a closed mind. I'm not saying their methods are perfect or anything but look at Ghost Hunters ( TAPS ). They go into investigations to disprove or debunk, but I don't think they are skeptics. They still go in with an open mind and still get things while disproving. I truly believe its all about focus, attitude, and what you attract by the "Laws of Attraction". If you were a ghost would you want to come out to a person looking to prove I don't exist? Of course not.

I agree with you Pluto-x, what's needed is some kind of balance between healthy scepticism and open-minded curiosity. It seems that so many parapsychologists are entrenched in the sceptical camp that real enquiry is stifled.

It's all about the right "INTENT".

We're not saying the term skeptic is a dirty word or they are negative. Not all, but some skeptics have the wrong intent when investigating. In the end, both sides are looking to prove the existence of the unexplained or after-life. Honestly I also think our terminology needs to be re-evaluated as I think some things are mis-labeled. I agree with M.F. that there needs to be a healthy balance.

yes i agree with you Pluto-x, there does need to be a healthy balance, like what i do is i keep an open mind about things but then try to talk to them bout what it could be if it dosnt seem that way then we got something on our hands then. Also i do agree the terminology does need a re-evaluation, as said the word skepticism seems like people get mad about it, at first i was like that when i joined then i became more accepting to lots what others are saying.

well, I think that improved gadgets may come anyways in the future,and as far as equipment goes like cameras and what not,it may always be a crap shoot.Furthermore you may get some complete amature who may end up getting the most compelling evidence.You can just never tell, who may end up with what.Are there really any professional investigators?I am sure there are amature and professionals alike,and am sure that not all are very professional,But everyone has to start somewhere.It ends up about responsibility and acountability IMO.

You can have a ghost hunter with many years under his belt, which you might say means experience, but not if he's going about it in the wrong way or a keen beginner who has done his research and goes about it in the right way.

Who would you trust more???

The person who blows me away with their methodology. I have come across people that have been doing this for 6+yrs and either by looking at their website, looking at how they do things, looking at their evidence just tells you right from the get go all about them. If you can look at their photos and instantly dismiss it for something logical, something that really sticks out at you as being normal, then what does that say about the group? I also DISLIKE with a passion those who GRASP on to everything they catch as paranormal. Or look too hard into their evidence with a magnifying glass or other various tools that aren't needed. My suggestion, if you have to look too hard for anything in your files, or listen to something over and over again because you can't quite hear it.....made your mistake already. The most compelling are the ones that jump out at you. Not if someone has to put their ear up to the speaker or need something outlined for them by power of suggestion.

EVPS I take with a grain of salt, its hard to determine what is what in those. I even question my own sometimes but if I can't explain it with all the backups and notes and everything I can possibly find, I will make a note of it and inform the client or anyone that "Not saying these are paranormal, but with everything provided we can't explain it and by being so, we can not throw it out either."

Reg opened my brain up with that post.

Experience under ones belt....To me that is a bunch of HOOPBLAH!

There is experience and then there is "trampling"

Experience comes with those who ACTIVELY research, investigate, and KNOW how to dismiss or KNOW how to accept and KNOW how to take criticism. If you claim to be an investigator and can't take someone else saying hey, it could be this, it could be that and get bent out of shape because you thought it was paranormal and now suddenly its not...why? Isn't that a part of growing to become a better investigator?

I admit when I first started out so many moons ago that everything I picked up I thought OMG, GHOST! When you grow as an investigator, you grow with knowledge and experience. My experience shows me that not everything is paranormal, if it is, it is very very slim indeed. There are a lot of factors out there in the world that are common and can affect someone in a way they may think it is paranormal however not so much.

The seminar we had last night was on types of hauntings, emf awareness and our methodology. We went from our first seminar of having 5 people to having to book multiple nights to fit everyone. We are now at the point of 20-40 ppl attending per seminar by word of mouth. We have little surveys at the end asking, so how did you hear about us, or the seminar and 75% of the time it was from a friend who insisted they go.

We have picked up at least 8 cases, and the ironic thing is, nobody has asked to join. So they are coming with a general interest or simply need help.

The nice thing about all of this, we aren't doing this for ourselves, we are doing this for the public. When you aren't about yourself but about educating and helping, that goes a long way with the general public. Tells a lot about you and the organization you are apart of. We have even picked up 3 possible sponsors through all of this....and we weren't even promoting for it nor asking for it.

What I am saying is, it isn't about needing to improve the the Paranormal Field, it is about how you APPROACH the paranormal field. It is about experience and knowledge gained on the current system that works, not about wanting to try out new gadgets that aren't even related to the field in the first place. Stick with what you know, and learn from that. The minute you try to move forward is the moment you set yourself back. Starting all over from square one.

If you want to improve the paranormal field, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. Don't see it making any kind of impact really....

Oh, I am still on an emotional high with the news I got last night. One of our clients works for the fire department and she said they just purchased a new thermal and her supervisor said we can use the FLIR for our local investigations. How bad freaking ass is that!!!

Trampling investigators are those who hit up cemeteries, or abandoned places, AND those who accept anything to be paranormal. They aren't out there for any kind of service even though they investigate private residences and so on, they are just out for themselves.

I think the terminology needs to be re-evaluated. It also needs to be addressed properly. People in our field are being mis-labeled and misunderstanding what things mean. I don't care who you are, or what you do, but nobody is perfect and nobody is an expert. There is always room for both putting forth a better approach & improvement. I think if all teams ( even though it probably won't ever happen, at least not right now. ) were to work together we'd be taken more seriously. With all of the animosity among local groups, and there's quite a bit out there; skeptics and scientists are just laughing at us right now. With all of the knowledge, skill, and talent everyone has in our field, why not put it to use instead of fighting, bickering, and belittling those who are trying to make an effort and do work hard at learning so they can improve and contribute. There's a lot of people doing the wrong thing, but if we weeded out those people and worked together I think our field would be getting much more respect. Its like high school out there. Blame it on those who are in it for the wrong reasons, but we must all take responsibility for our own behavior too.

When I am wrong or make a mistake... I 9 times out of 10 admit them. What I see going on out there is a lot of belittling, or getting personal with people who are trying and making an effort versus trying to help them to correct their mistakes. Instead of bad mouthing a team, why not extend a helping hand long as their willing to receive the help? It will only strengthen our community.

Though what I wrote sounds like a miracle.

I 100% AGREE WITH YOU THERE PLUTO-X

Agreed.

However, when something new is proposed it has to be supported with evidence (or at least a logical argument) as to why it should be followed. Otherwise it's just an idea like a million others.

Totally agree Reg. Awesome Thread Pluto.