hehe, congrats.

Evidence and proof are two separate things. And yes, personal experience is admissible in court. It is called testimony.

A Question For Anyone who cares to answer:

Let's say you have been called in to investigate a home that has claims of paranormal activity. The exact claims aren't important for this question. But let's say you and a few of your team members all have personal experiences. You are slapped in the face by unseen hands, your hair gets pulled, you see a candle tossed across the room, etc....but you fail to document any of it. Its not on camera.

Now what would you tell your client at the end of the investigation? By your personal experiences, you believe the place ot be haunted, or at least have paranormal activity. But you have no real tangible evidence you can point to. Do you say you couldn't confirm paranormal activity, even though you KNOW what you saw and felt. Or do you tell them there IS a paranormal presence, based off your personal experiences? How would you handle this?

Thanks!

If that were me, I would tell the client everything, including personal experiences. Problem with TAPS, is they are filmed during their experiences, yet the viewers cannot see it, just their responses. The other episode I watched was a residence in Mass, and I know that area. In the attic Jay heard footsteps, as did Grant, and the water turned on in the bathroom etc. So that is evidence because they heard and saw it, as did the viewers, so of course it should be used as evidence. I think it all lies in credibility, and I for one, dont have alot of faith in TAPS any longer, and in reality they have to answer to the client, but also the millions of viewers so they "have" to show tangible evidence for the sake of their ratings and owe that to the client and fans..JMO..JN

I would most certainly tell them of the personal experiences that we had, however, i would not say to them "based on our personal experiences we believe your establisment is haunted" i would say since we have no tangible proof at this point, we would like to do a follow up investigation.

I understand that evidence and proof are two seperate things, evidence would be something that you could literally bring to the table as a piece of the "proof" puzzle. you simply can not bring a personal experience to a client and base your conclusion solely on that. as was posted just a few min ago, if that is all you have, than i would merely tell the client and let them know that you feel the investigation was inconclusive at this point.

and also just to clarify i did not say personal experience is not admissible in court, i said hearsay was not (my point was when jason and grant tell thier clients, "our other members had some personal experiences as well" and go on to note the other members of the team's personal experiences.

maybe i shouldn't have linked those two examples together as it was easy to confuse the point i was trying to make.

It'd be more convincing if they didn't frontload their observations by hearing about the little girl ghost.

If they knew nothing about previous experiences in the place and then experienced things that proved to be substantially similar, and they documented this, then we'd have more reason to think that the experience refers to some real, external cause.

Everyone is suggestible to some degree. So it's best not to give the observers any suggestions.

Just like no investigation is ever closed, unless thoroughly debunked, we cannot deny nor confirm absolutely whether a place is haunted. It is safe to tell your feelings and observations, but my team would never ascertain either way.

And I would hope that our team would not neglect to document!!!

This is what I keep droning on about... subjective vs. objective reporting. I would never say "the ghost slapped me across my face" but I would say, "I felt like my face was slapped". No one can deny what you felt, but a statement such as the first one is definitely up for scrutiny and will only raise more doubt and/or questions.

Well, I'm sure no one (any paranormal groups out there, in particular) wouldn't take offense to anyone wanting more research within the field of paranormal investigations. It's only a suggestion.
But, a group is gonna investigate how they are most comfortable. This doesn't necessarily make them any less qualified by any means. Surely not because someone who is all about research wants them to be more scientific.
So, it boils down to the group itself.. and what they want their investigations to consist of. Each to their own.

Cool answers so far to my earlier question. Thanks everyone!

We had two investigations like that recently (though no one got slapped. ).

Lots of claims of heavy activity, a few personal experiences, but nothing on audio, video or photo.

We told the client when they first contacted us, at the investigations, and later at the reveals: We can only make our decisions based on what we have documented in audio, video and/or photographs. (And not just one single event.) If we can't document activity it doesn't mean there's nothing there. But if we have no hard documentation to present then we can't draw a conclusion. We will present everything that we experienced but can only conclude about haunted or not based on what we record.

They didn't like that approach but it's our standard and we have to stick to it. Another group might based their conclusion off personal experiences, "feelings" etc. We can't. We set the bar pretty high for ourselves in that regard.

I agree with that, and that is exactly what we would do in that situation.

So how would you have handled it, IF someone got pushed or slapped, but still had no scientific evidence? JN

Well, I would do like what TAPS does, and says "we had a lot of personal experiences" but I wouldn't call that documented evidence. That's what I would do, personally, even though I have no group or anything..

LOL So what would you say, to put their mind at ease, if there is a great deal of activity with a family? JN

What kind of activity? I mean if it was aggressive I would ask them their religion and go from there... If it wasn't I'd tell the family that the spooks didn't seem harmful, but they could try living with them, or try telling them to leave.
Depends on what kind of activity we're talking about.. Doors slamming, or faces being slapped?

*add
If the family wasn't happy with the undocumented evidence, to put their minds at ease, I guess I would have to tell them there were things they could do to maybe alleviate the situation.

Thats awesome. I think activity has so many levels its hard to say. Sometimes its just ONE person in the family that takes the brunt of it, while others are sound asleep. Other times its things moving, items gone missing, footsteps, animals are scared etc, babies wake up screaming (could be cause its a baby, or is it?) and yes doors slamming, and the entire family is in turmoil. Yet so many PI teams find no hard evidence, or anything except maybe hearing a door bang, or get an iffy EVP. I think there is a fine line for the most part. I guess if it were me, and I didnt see or hear anything, and the family was upset, I would suggest a Priest or clergy bless the house or something like that. I feel letting the client know they are NOT crazy, and you do believe them, sort of validates their experiences and they dont feel so all alone. I believe a malevolent entity would have no problem showing itself in one way or another, but the darker one seems to hide, until one of the family members are alone..JN

In this particular case in my own opinion that's a tricky one to answer.

These clients, an older couple man and his live-in girlfriend, were already convinced there are ghosts in the house. His gf was totally convinced they have demons!

In this situation, given the high emotion of the couple and how strongly they both were already convinced they have a haunting by something malevolent (demons?) telling them there was an attack (that's what I would consider a slap to be) might do more harm than good.

It's a very tough call. You don't want to withold information from the client, particularly if there is something there that has shown itself to exhibit physical force. OTOH, you don't want to panic them and feed their already heightened paranoia.

Very good points MP..So how did they handle it when you tell them, you didnt get anything? Do they get mad, or relieved? JN

We told them the truth: A few personal experiences but nothing on audio, video or photo.

They weren't happy people especially the gf. She ripped into us. Made all kinds of accusations. Tried to grill us on our faiths but I wasn't bighting! Kept trying to corner us into say that personal experiences proved it was haunted but we stuck to our policy. Said her "priest" had come after we were there and immediately 'felt' spirits in the house including at least 3 demons. He recited the rights of exocism and after several hours was able to expell 2 of the 3 demons.

It was an experience. That's all I'll say.

LMAO Yea and the checks in the mail..JN..

Wow MasterPo!!! That story sounds so familiar!!!

MP..tell them..."Go ahead, say what you will. You won't talk so much crap when I send you the bill."

I didn't realise paranormal teams charged for their services. I thought it would be out of the thirst for proof that people did a job like this.

Wow, it would be so easy to exploit people in this game.

We don't charge!

But you're right. Some people do. There was an article in a local paper about a Brooklyn paranormal "group" (2 young guys) who charge $25/hr. Then there is a well known group (not going to mention the name, you can easily find them in a search) that charges a whole menu of fees depending on what they do. They list a long justification for why it's proper to charge.

More and more groups are asking for a donation, particularly with soaring gas costs. But even then donations are strictly voluntary.

This is probably best further explored in a seperate thread.

ps- "Exploitation" comes in many forms. While charging IMO is one form another is playing on the client's fears, telling them what they want to hear and not what is, in essence making them dependent on you rather then educating them to stand on their own.

I wouldnt think charging for gas, if the location is far, is unreasonable. If its local thats one thing, it shouldnt be an issue. 25.00 an hour? YIKES!! JN

Glad to hear it MP!

I think it's like modelling agencies, if someone says to have your photograph taken will cost you money, they're a bogus agency. They need your photos on their portfolio to get work that will benefit both the agency and the model. It's the same with these groups, they need haunted places to gather evidence to support their work (hope that makes sense).

I think asking for petrol money and other sundries is fair enough, but charging by the hour

I could imagine that there are some desperate people out there who would pay big bucks to have their haunting dealt with, they'd be in a vulnerable situation - who you gonna call??

I know, I know GHOSTBUSTERS!!! JN

You got it girl

LOL Nice to know I'm still in the loop..JN-



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xsbgBbNK5I

what evidence?

yea me to

This is over a month old, I see...but I'm sure you made the right call. Basically, people call in an investigative group for a lot of reasons, but the main one is to try and help them figure out just what the hell is going on. Even if the client is convinced already, we have to go in without prejudice or bias. And whatever happens, happens. We have to tell them, even if we don't have the evidence to back it up.

It can be a tough call at times, but it is usually better to err on the side of truth if you must err at all.

Good stuff.

I have no idea if anyone brought this up before, I didn't read the 43 pages, but I have a thought. Are we questioning GhostHunters or TAPS?? In my opinion, they're two different groups. GhostHunters is a show, which means that they're definitely going to add and twist stuff. But the group TAPS themselves may very well be legit. Know what I mean?

I'm sure that the temptation is there to falsify the data.... and I am absolutely sure that every now and then they script out portions of the show... But, if they were actually faking their evidence, I would think they would get better reveals...

TAPS is like Myth Busters, they make wide and sweeping conclusions from very little evidence.

I don't watch it that often. But in one episode they set up a still camera and caught a door opening. So next day they look at it, concluded that there was no explanation other than a ghost. What the...? Maybe set up the same camera the next night, but this time put a 2nd camera on the *other* side of the door. You know, to rule out the million and one things that could make a door move. Of course this was the last segment of the episode. The problem is that they are not real scientists, they're making a TV show. They have a limited time and budget to make an episode, and like Myth Busters, they have to make sweeping conclusions regardless of the lack of data for fear of losing viewers.

There is also a bias (need to make a TV episode that is entertaining) which completely ruins any credibility. This is the first thing you check for. If a guy says he saw bigfoot, then in the next sentence says he sells bigfoot tours, your 'conflict of interest' alarm better be going off. If these guys don't deliver spooky content, they stop getting a paycheck and will be replaced (or cancelled). You would need a 3rd party, completely unbiased and not associated with the sci fi channel, to verify all data they collect, none of what they're collecting now would have any scientific validity.

I think to claim a well respectable team as TAPS to fake evidence is pretty bold to state itself. They have been around a long time, way before they got signed onto a show. They are knowledgeable through their experience.

Thats like saying the government doesn't lie because they been around for a long time.

Dude, that's great. It sounds like something I would say.

I know what you mean, and yes, it's a good point. On this same thread there have been discussions on how it may not be TAPS faking evidence as much as it is Sci Fi editing the show a little too well, ya know? To make it seem like there's more to certain things that there really is.

Though, there has also been conversations on this thread about how TAPS, while respectable, has been a little lax when it comes to their evidence review over the past season or two, especially. They seem to be including things here and there as evidence that should have been ruled out or flat out debunked.

I can certainly understand why one would think that. I have thought that as well. But the skeptical nature I have would say they can find more evidence, but they can't make it seem too obvious. They cant have a full bodied apparition or an insane evp or video footage of an object being moved on every single episode. Because then people WOULD start to get more and more suspicious and begin to question them the way shows such as Most Haunted are questioned.

I agree with you. For one thing, the door closing could have been caused by a draft. Ive seen too many episodes of paranormal shows where the investigator just puts his hand out and says "there's no draft here." When, really, there probably IS a draft. You can get drafts so weak that they are imperceptable to people, but they still would have the power to slowly close a door over time, for instance. If the investigators used a hot-wire anenometer, they wouldnt make this mistake. Or, they could just do the next best thing and not just assume there is no draft simply because they don't feel it on their hand.

As far as 3rd party verification goes, that is another point hardcore skeptics will always be able to have a winning point on. Scientific approach allows for peer review of evidence, and conclusions, etc. All footage on Ghost Hunters is property of Sci Fi, and they dont let anyone see it. Maybe there's a good reason and maybe theres not. I cant say. But as long as they dont allow for independent review, there will always be enough room to question their findings. Sorry, but thats just the breaks...

I agree with you on most of that. But, if you watch the show you will notice that the most dramatic portions of it are the soap opera like interactions between the people. I have a feeling that much of that is purely scripted... Just as I think that any so-called "Reality" show has portions scripted. The evidence, on the other hand, is a different proposition. I really don't know about that... of course, it's the same exact question that is brought up in any good skeptics mind when they are presented with evidence - is there a chance that this was faked?

So far I haven't seen much that looks like it was faked. I have noticed some things that could be explained away that they did not debunk - but that may be more of a fault in the line of thinking of that particular person rather than a conscious act of falsification. So I would say that they have made mistakes and not come to some conclusions that they could have, but I don't think they have went out of their way to manufacture evidence...

Ill agree with you here. The "reality" portions are scripted. Doesnt surprise me though. I even understand why they do it.

As far as the stuff they should have debunked, yeah...Im not saying they pushed it through for the sake of gaining a piece of evidence. I actually just think they make mistakes. And I dont blame them for a mistake, since they are human. But when its a pattern of seeming to push through more and more personal experiences and/or evidence that should have been debunked....I think they are relaxing their standards a bit too much. They're doing things and making mistakes I dont think groups with their amount of experience should do or make.

As far as faking evidence goes, or perhaps it being tampered with (not necessarily by TAPS, but by Sci fi or Pilgrim) check out my OP back on page one. There's just a few examples of stuff that appears tampered with, or should have been debunked. Actually, the examples I showed on the OP were just a few of dozens I found online where people had broken down the footage.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

I have never actually watched the show since I can't afford cable, but I have watched most all of their videos on YouTube. Frankly, I don't care for their methods of trying to contact the spirits-ghosts. The way they fuss and argue among themselves during investigations, probably scares the poor things away!

what irritates me the most is all the damn background music they add. i'm sitting there trying to watch and listen and suddenly there is freakin music playing. and i have no doubt that the shows ghost hunters and ghost hunters international, are in some way altered. there is no way to know unless you are working on the show if things are altered but there is also a point where it becomes too good to be true. they compress lots of time doing an investigation into a small time frame. what else could they do? especially with a dud episode. just my humble opinion.

From my understanding they are dropping the background music in the start of the new season.

To bad SciFi channel didn't drop the show.

I'm inclined to think those evps they recorded in the "manson" case, was a fraud --

Well, that's a step in the right direction. But only a step. Now they gotta clear up the whole business of someone tampering with evidence and/or making it appear faked, as well as being a little more stringent with their standards.

Its a TV show...TV shows need ratings. Everyone would stop watching if they never found anything. 2+2=4