What gear for ghost hunting?

Soapy Sam said:
Absolutely.
Indeed. I don't blame Lodge et al for thinking wierd things lurked in the unknown. Wierd things did- and then as now it was physicists / chemists who were finding them. Ectoplasm and X-Rays were equally odd. One proved real, one not, but the only way to find that out was research.
What is interesting is how gullible these eminent scientists were when presented with deliberate or accidental fraud- which is basically Randi's First Law.
Click to expand...

Though not as gullible as one might think in some cases. Having read the PSPR & JSPR from 1882 to the present, something I doubt many people have (I was sleeping on boxes of them at the time, as there was no room for a bed in my landlords house!) I think a lot of them were far more sceptical than we realize. Frank Podmore for example was a pretty hard core sceptic, and the great nay sayer of the early SPR.

Soapy Sam said:
Spot on. What interests me here is how witnesses mislead themselves and each other unconsciously. I do not believe in spirits at all - but I do believe some people honestly see things (which I take to be internally generated) and that other people, knowing those people to be honest, themselves believe in the reality of the hallucinations they have not, themselves, seen.
Click to expand...

Quite often there is an external stimuli. One famous British haunt has a grey lady who walks down a spiral staircase. I have footage of her. The fact I stood my ground and her spectral embrace was clearly the smell of wood smoke gave me the clue - when a fore was lit downstairs, the kindling aand newspaper caused a nice cloud of grey smoke, driven up the chimney, but then some of it disperses through a blowhole in to a room half way up the stairs. The smoke gathered, and was pulled down the stairs by the roaring fire at the base of the stairs (no door), and formed a rather nice cloud which having passed through the room door did look vaguely humanoid - well cylindrical! Another time I was in a car driven by a friend taking another firnd (a Most Haunted star as it happens) to a shoot, and on the way back we suddenly saw an old lady step out from some woods. Our driver braked sharply, and we were able to tell it was a detached piece of ground mist - the nearby pond provided a good explanation -- and so forth! Yet the context and discussion had prepped us for "spook" - though the driver said he woud have braken anyway. and then there was the black blob with many eyes taht terrified a well known UK sceptic in to screaming one night when we driving her through the Forest of Dean - and after alsmot crashing, the headlights clearly showed a huddle of black sheep whose eyes the headlights had picked out as we rounded the bend, not a Lovecraftian shoggoth! I could go on and on, about causes of all kinds of odd phenomena, from footsteps every night at the same time to teh time i was presenting a ghost night with MH star Richard Felix and a glass shot across the bar between us - water on table, the usual. Imagination explains some cases, but most begin with a number of discrete happenings, and then as you start to classify them together you end up with the ghost explanation, while each individual incident is fairly easily explicable. I wrote a little article about this in the JSPR for June 1996 as I recall.

Soapy Sam said:
Much other witness evidence is simply due to inattention or nervousness. Some is due to investigators misusing equipment they are unfamiliar with and again producing anomalies, but this time electronically. This includes the old issue of battery failure- which is so often seen as proof of spirit activity, instead of proof that batteries drain if overused by excited people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did a threa don this a few weeks back as I recall. My friend has sone a wonderful research project on a haunted hotel, and this kind of context sensitive observation came up again and again "crisp packet rustled" was ana mazingly common experience reported as ghostly!

Soapy Sam said:
I have no TV and have never seen any of the "Most haunted" series.
Click to expand...

I deeply deeply envy you. I have spent most of my life without a tV as well as it happens, and a couple of years I can honestly say I made more than I watched. I get bored easily with passive entertainment, preferring places one can engage in dialogue and participate - like forums! However I always rate MH by how many diazepam it takes me to sit through an episode, and bear in mind i know almost every one involved and worked on the show, albeit as a researcher. I just have a very low tolerance for this sort of thing.

Mind you I love the US show A Haunting. Awesome. Last night they had some northern British people, with strong tyneside accents, and the actors who played them in the reconstructiosn all sounded like old Etonians, sort of Hugh Grant (actually a bit more like me, embarassingly.) I was in hysterics -- not least because i was sure that when the actor went looking for the ghost with the cricket bat he was going to say "I say, the bally ghost went this way, I'll see if I can whack the blighter!" Sadly he did not, but it really was superb - because they would then cut bac tot he real guy, with a serious Northern accent. :) I started to watch it after one episode began with the discovery of bones in a basement, and the revelation an "the house was built on an ancient indian burial ground." So the householder went out to buy a book on necromancy, and bought an old book and tried his hand at Goetia. Priceless! WHy do I never get cases like this? I was nealy incontinent, and my screaming attracted the neighbours attention - sadly they thought I was being murdered. No I was just amused!

Soapy Sam said:
It sounds to me that your approach makes far more sense. While I do not believe paranormal phenomena occur, I do think research into why people think they do is important. Sadly, I find those who feel this way tend to be mostly believers by definition. What the SPR and SSPR need, is more honest sceptics- but the believers tend to view sceptics as well-poisoners (which seems to echo your experience).
Click to expand...

I hav enot been to an SPR event in a decade, but most of them were pretty hard sceptics in my day? Sue Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Matthew Smith, Louie Savva, Ciairan O Keefe - none of them remotely credulous. Even the few I knew who were seriously interested in spontaneous cases - Tony Cornell, Alan Gauld, etc were pretty hard headed.

I'll have to reply to the rest later. Need to go watch "A Haunting!"

cj x
 
Old Paint and I feel that you can never be too prepared. Here's Paint just before we tackled the Ghost of Mornington Crescent. Our most difficult case, but we got 'im.





ETA: Sorry. I just can't resist any opportunity to show this ridiculous picture.
 
Just to conclude my response to Soapy Sam - and I think we agree on a great deal on these issues, far more than any disagreement despite our differing conclusions on the possibility of the phenomena themselves --

Soapy Sam said:
In addition- and this is rarely discussed - many people who report or complain of hauntings are emotionally or mentally disturbed to start with- and their belief does nothing to help. Such individuals must be handled with delicacy and compassion, - not as lab rats.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and we should discuss it.The one thing that leaves me worried, as I have remarked earlier on this thread when discussing medical issues that arose in a few of my investigations, is unqualified individuals exacerbating existing medical conditions or even worse making diagnoses. I loathe quack healers, and ghosthunters who decide to play social worker or support the belief structure of someone with major delusions - well...

Thing is according to Ciairan (caveat: conversation a couple of years ago, so I could be misremebering) there are over 600 ghost groups in the UK. I'm pretty level headed, but I have found myself several times in situations I really did not want to get involved with -- and I was lucky in that I always work with a wide cross section of skilled associates. Fortunately most of these groups do NOT deal with private inbdividuals, but trek round the "stately homes of England" (as in the Noel Coward song, which I wanted minus one verse to be used as the MH theme music! :) ) exploring ye olde tourist trappe, and am therefore no real risk ot the public.

Actually, mental illness in percipients is fairly rare in my experience - more on this later as I have to go work :(

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
'tis fantastic! What is it from? :)

cj x
Click to expand...


Can't even now recall where I found him. And I swore I'd remember that site just because of the pic!

Old Paint makes the rounds. I just love the exasperated look on his face.... seems to be saying to his owner or handler, "I wish I was a cat. I'd claw up all your wife's stockings and leave a dump in your favorite chair!"(Last month, I sent him to our 22 managing directors in Asia, announcing that head office in Switzerland had proscribed new mandatory tools for handling this season's budget discussions.)
 
In my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111061about the ghost hunters that wanted to do an investigation, I quoted the materials they intended to use:



This sophisticated team is prepared to finally record and preset to the world the science-shattering discovery of the paranormal using this equipment (and I quote):

1) VOICE RECORDERS
2) CELL SENSOR EMF DETECTOR
3) DIGITAL CAMERAS
4) VIDEO CAMERA
5) REMOTE CAMERAS
6) Other assorted equipment to include drop cords and external microphones
7) 1 Dell Laptop Computer

In other words, basic cheap stuff you can pick up at your local Radio Shack--except for that 1 Dell Laptop Computer, which you would have to get from Dell.



So that is what you need to be a ghost hunter. Actually, all you really need is a video camera. Or even just a camera. And a ghost.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
In my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111061about the ghost hunters that wanted to do an investigation, I quoted the materials they intended to use:



This sophisticated team is prepared to finally record and preset to the world the science-shattering discovery of the paranormal using this equipment (and I quote):

1) VOICE RECORDERS
2) CELL SENSOR EMF DETECTOR
3) DIGITAL CAMERAS
4) VIDEO CAMERA
5) REMOTE CAMERAS
6) Other assorted equipment to include drop cords and external microphones
7) 1 Dell Laptop Computer

In other words, basic cheap stuff you can pick up at your local Radio Shack--except for that 1 Dell Laptop Computer, which you would have to get from Dell.



So that is what you need to be a ghost hunter. Actually, all you really need is a video camera. Or even just a camera. And a ghost.
Click to expand...

Alternate Resource List

Vivid Imagination
Gullible Audience
No Sense of Shame
 
skeptigirl said:
In real science you have to show that your measuring tool actually measures what you say it does. I haven't even seen any attempts to do that with the ghost hunting devices. Someone just decided that cold spots and EMR were evidence. No one has made any attempt to test if one gets the same readings in locations one does not believe there is evidence of ghost activity.
Click to expand...

I never got why an EMR machine "measures ghost activity"... I mean, supposedly, how does a "disembodied spirit" supposed to produce a magnetic field? I don't get the connection.

I'm with the people who say that the only tool you need to "hunt ghosts" is an imagination....not even an overactive one is needed.......
 
EMF

JFrankA said:
I never got why an EMR machine "measures ghost activity"... I mean, supposedly, how does a "disembodied spirit" supposed to produce a magnetic field? I don't get the connection.

I'm with the people who say that the only tool you need to "hunt ghosts" is an imagination....not even an overactive one is needed.......
Click to expand...

I'll tell you the theory, but that's all it is...

Electromagnetic fields are a constant. Less-noticeable levels are caused by the Earth's natural electromagnetic field, but most of the time these levels are increased significantly by electronics or man-made devices such as wiring, electrical outlets, etc. Some investigators believe that in order to manifest, a spirit/entity/ghost will need to capture energy to use. Fluctuations in the electromagnetic field are theorized to possibly be a ghosts' way of harnessing that energy so that they can manifest. Likewise, cold spots are theorized to occur due to a spirit using up the heat (energy) in the air in order to manifest. Same idea here.

Nothing proven of course, all theory and speculation. EMF detectors detect just what they say = electromagnetic fields (not ghosts). Investigators who think otherwise are ignorant, frankly.

It's also important to note that it has been proven that very high levels of EMF can cause headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, hallucinations and even skin irritations. Of course, these EMF detectors could be used in the ghost hunting field to essentially debunk claims of paranormal activity because the person may simply be suffering from unusually high EMF (usually caused by old, unprotected or faulty wiring in the house). For that reason, the EMF meter could be seen as more of a debunking tool than a tool for finding ghosts. In my opinion, that's the only thing it should be used for.


-Nate

<Edited for spelling>
 
Last edited:
I recently did a series of blog posts a blog I contribute to called Evidence Based Thought (www.evidencebasedthought.wordpress.com) that looked broadly examined Ghost Hunting groups in New Zealand. In the final post (http://evidencebasedthought.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/paranormal-investigation-in-new-zealand-part-three/) I threw out some ideas as a postscript about how these groups could improve their credibility:

People all over the world believe that their homes are haunted or subject to paranormal influences. They often do seek explanations for the phenomena that they experience, so to just write off paranormal investigation groups is not a constructive approach. However, like any field there is always room for improvement based upon constructive criticism. So how could such groups improve the robustness of their investigations?

An open mind is important and one should start at the position of not knowing what has caused the phenomenon rather than going in as believing the location is haunted or being a hardline debunker.

The background research of the address is very important. Interviews with witnesses need to be detailed and only open ended questions should be used. It may be very tempting to use leading questions (particularly if you are trying to angle towards a preconceived bias). Ideally they should be interviewed as soon as possible after an event, and the facts of the event should be focussed upon, not the witnesses opinion. Interviews should be recorded with an audio device and then transcribed. If appropriate, the witness should be questioned about any medication they are taking and also whether they are suffering from any medical or psychological illness.

There are a number of psychological considerations when interviewing that relate to the tainting of memory through the repeated telling of the narrative, the impact of ones worldview, and how an event fits into the popular culture. Corroboration, where possible, of a witnesses account is important as it provides a little more weight to their anecdotal account.

If particular myths are identified then they should be thoroughly researched to establish their veracity. It is not unusual to find in cases of alleged hauntings where the person who was supposed to be the ghost either never existed or did not live at the location in question.

The investigation needs to focus on replicating as closely as possible the environment and circumstances that a paranormal event was witnessed. Then the goal of the experiment would be to see if the paranormal phenomenon as described by the witness occurs as they described it (i.e. replication is being sought). This is where items like cameras or temperature gauges could come in handy depending on what is to be observed. For example if it is alleged that there is a cold spot in a certain location, then this could actually be measured.

If a phenomenon is identified, then ideally it should be independently replicated (where possible) to boost the probability that there was an unexplained event initially observed or measured.

Depending on the paranormal event being measured, baseline measurements should be taken. Continuing with the cold spot example, then the temperature should be measured at a range of times throughout the day and night, not just at the time of the replication of the environment.

There should be standardized note taking to assist with the comparison of investigations.

When weighing up results, do not fall into the trap of deferring to a paranormal conclusion simply because it cannot be explained. If a phenomena cannot be explained, then the conclusion should be that it is unexplained. The conclusion that a phenomena is paranormal is going to require positive proof or evidence.

Finally, do away with EMF meters, dowsing rods, EVP’s, infrared cameras, and temperature gauges, unless they are going to be used to assist with measuring or recording of the replication of a previously described environment.

Happy ghost hunting!
Click to expand...

Does anyone else have any further ideas about how to develop methods of skeptical investigation or know of any websites that may assist. I have had a look at Benjamin Radfords site and the SAPS site, and perhaps I am just blind, but I could not find any information that related only to the methods of skeptical investigation.
 
Soapy Sam said:
So, Beanbag, what do you think based on the responses to your OP?
Click to expand...
It has reinforced a few perceptions I had, namely that ghost-hunting is a lot like other semi-technical endeavors I've been involved with. There are people who rush out and acquire an impressive array of gadgets that may or may not actually be useful for what they're doing (but they look neat). There are people who head out with very minimal equipment. There are people who record reams of data that, while accurate, may or may not apply to what they're looking for.

It has also reinforced my suspicion that no one really knows WHAT to look for in ghost hunting, so if you don't know what to measure, you don't know what equipment to pack. I suspect UFOlogists have a similar problem.

I don't believe in adding complications to any experiment unless there's a good reason. One of the people I truly admired (but never met) was Paul MacReady, of the Gossamer-series human powered plane series. When something wasn't working right on one of his planes, he hitched a line to the plane, attached a spring scale, and hopped on the back of a motor scooter and towed it airborne. The simple reading on the scale gave him enough information to diagnose and fix the problem(s). I also liked his philosophy for safety factors -- if it broke, make it stronger; if it never broke, make it lighter; if it occasionally broke when you were at the extremes, then you've just about got it right.

Useful information has been obtained from this thread. I just need to mull it over for a while before drawing any conclusions.

Beanbag
 
I see many people talk about ghosts but what is a ghost? Until you know what you are looking for, how can you begin? I have no idea what a ghost is.
 
Beanbag said:
It has also reinforced my suspicion that no one really knows WHAT to look for in ghost hunting, so if you don't know what to measure, you don't know what equipment to pack. I suspect UFOlogists have a similar problem.
Click to expand...

For a skeptical investigative position I would have thought that you need to evaluate the specific paranormal claim (chains clanking in the basement, cold spots in the bedroom, books moving around the library) and then look to replicate the conditions as closely as possible to the the described event and observe it. If a phenomenon is identified it can be thoroughly examined to rule out any earthly explanations - but even then you could not say it was paranormal, just that it was not explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom