Matt Haas

Technology or methodology ?

July 8, 2008 |  1 comment
Image Credit: sxc.hu The Paranormal Field has come a long way in a short span of time hasn't it ? The library for Paranormal Evidence has grown immensely putting even more question marks behind the whole thing. However, I believe we have only just touched the surface. We have only cut the tip of the iceberg. Our technology has gotten very advanced and our methodology is bringing Paranormal Investigators pretty good results. But yet, its still not enough to say for sure or prove the existence of ghosts. Why is our evidence not enough? For years people have been saying the holy grail is to capture a full blown body apparition on photo or video. When people claim they have the holy grail its always scrutinized and chewed up by skeptics or scientists. We can all admit and safely say to ourselves no thanks to people who hoax or forge evidence, that is why it is so hard to prove hard clean evidence.

What is it going to take to prove the existence of ghosts? I say that its going to take for a scientist and skeptic themselves to experience it first hand in order to believe it. That's what a skeptic is. They need hard proof. IMO there is enough proof out there to say there is definitely something out there. I think we have too many people labelling things and jumping the gun. A good investigator will never say for sure or put 100% behind a good piece of evidence.

What area needs more improvement? I don't care who you are or the quality evidence you have captured through the years, there is always room for improvement. Nobody is perfect. The paranormal community is still brand new to science. That is why scientists have called it paranormal. Is it technology or methodology that needs improvement? I think its both. In time technology will eventually improve as will methodology. Investigators are doing great and getting amazing results, but I feel like we are at a stand still. As much great results we get, it is still not enough to call it hard proof.
I feel like a broken record out there when I give my opinion. The definition of paranormal is something that you cannot explain. If you can re-create a paranormal event or even come close, you have to dismiss it. Rule out all possible logical, natural or scientific explanations. If you still can't explain something, then it has the alternative possibility of being paranormal. That is why it is extremely important to disprove or debunk on an investigation. Clients may not like that idea, but there are scientific reasons behind that method. Still, even if you cannot explain an event, that doesn't mean someone else won't. I also believe it is important to share evidence among investigators in our community. Let is be scrutinized. The less logical, natural or scientific reasons we can find the more of a chance it becomes paranormal. Someone else might figure it out if you can't. I do not doubt your skill as an investigator but I have always said we are stronger in numbers. Perhaps that's what it will take to prove there are ghosts.

As investigators instead of hunting and worrying about group dynamics we need to start answering the why questions. Why is it this, why is it that? Put the theories to the test. We all know how to investigate and there are investigators with some awesome talent out there. Let's use that talent and start figuring it out together. Theory this, theory that. Well... if its an idea that seems realistic enough to try out. Let's do it!

LIGHT Paranormal Research
Founder - Matt Haas (631) 732-8336
http://www.lightparanormal.com Comments (1)

 Total Posts: 7,607,324    Topics: 316,436    Members: 201,853

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!