Ghost Hunting Tools of the Trade

If ghosts did exist, what would be their chemical composition? Ektoplasm? They would have to have matter, by which cannot appear and reappear. Matter cannot propogate then vanish into nothing (law of conservation). Ergo ghost existance is most highly improbable (not 100% impossible),even the earth turning into cheese is not 100% impossible.

Rick VanHuss, Arlington, TX
January 02, 2008 9:11am

Sir,

If IR thermometers work exactly like our vision then why are they limited to surface detection? Eyes can detect light directly from non surfaced sources like a flame or the Aurora Borealis. They can also detect variations of air temperature via differences in refractive indexes. A very 'cold spot' in the middle of the room can be perceived by the way the light path behind it is altered. I am sure the thermometers could at least be able to detect hot air from demons if they existed.

By the same measure, IR motion detectors could be triggered by IR light altered by bubble like diffraction.

Particle detectors might be useful for finding radioactive alien ghosts.

EMF meters. Your assumption that hunters use 'more affordable units' is not the best of arguments. They could have hired expensive units from the radioactive alien ghosts that can be waived around willy nilly!

Ion detectors. You got me there, they are completely useless in ghost hunting.

Cameras. If they didn't bring any them, would you accept signed affidavits of sightings of the opaquely challenged they may have? I think not.

Dowsing rods. You say "they move only when the dowser wants", but the invisible goulies might be mucking about with the sticks against the dowser's will.

And finally, the audio gear might pick up ghost whispers that can only be heard an inch away from the microphone. Are you suggesting that all ghost hunters have super hearing? Now that's just plain silly!

Marco Bresciani, Melbourne Australia
January 05, 2008 9:40pm

Quote:-

"Now that's just plain silly!"

Couldn't put any better....!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 08, 2008 3:25pm

true that

ghost hunter, augusta, georga
January 13, 2008 1:42pm

i prefer to look at ghost hunting like the movie van helsing. you can have all of the lore in your head, bring all of the equipment that you can think of, and just keep trying different things until something works. after all, there is no definitive proof ghosts exist, so the more people that try, maybe someday something will show up.

j, albany, ny
January 13, 2008 6:37pm

"science would have discovered it long ago"

That's a pretty bold statement, one that I doubt you can prove.

I'm pretty sure there are things that science has yet to discover.

T. Smith, Waukegan, IL
January 19, 2008 2:25am

I thought this site was about being a skeptic, not about having a closed mind....

T. Hartman, Millersville, Pa
January 21, 2008 2:10pm

Being a skeptic is being totally open minded. Questioning, examining critically methods and evidence. What we have here is a critical examination of the tools being used. You can't discount that the measurement being made may be inappropriate usage of the tools. Like all engineering and science, garbage in gives garbage out.

And business would have spent the money for science to find a way to capitalize on ghost hunting long ago. Making a buck is a big incentive. But if there isn't convincing evidence the money would be well spent, it isn't going to be.

Tom Hail, Ben Lomond, CA
January 23, 2008 12:24pm

Yeah,'Science' has scoffed and laughed at quite an impressive list of fools and dreamers over the years :Einstien,Pasteur,Edison..the list is long and distinguished by forward thinking vision and a complete and utter lack of regard what sniffy little prigs thought of them or their Ideas!What a biased,small minded, hateful little catbox of an article that was!Does 'Niles' from Frasier write these or what?

Barry, Atlanta
January 23, 2008 7:44pm

And then the scientific method convinced itself that Einstien, Pasteur, etc... were correct. That is the process of the method. Take a theory apart, beat it up, question, critique, test, test, test. If it is a good theory it will stand up. Ghosts, homeopathy, ESP, don't stand up to the scrutiny. Too bad. Get over it. Scientists eventually embrace new theories that stand up, reject those that don't. The initial critique is necessary. Remember the cold fusion scam? The Korean stem cell researcher? That is the method weeding out the bad science and scams. It isnt' being small minded, it is being critical and testing the ideas. It happens all the time and is absolutely necessary.

T Hail, Ben Lomond, CA
January 23, 2008 9:51pm

The fact is, those people you mention, were never scoffed at and ridiculed.

Edison began his carreer as an inventor with a usefull handfull of inventions (phonograph, telegraph repeater).

Pasteur came into public view when he first demonstrated his proof of germ theory, proof that was repeatable and testable, thereby disproving Spontaneous generation.

But that's all besides the point. If anyone brings forward a theory, without offering any actual proof, or even a testable hypothesis should be laughed at. Especially when there is an actual, tested and proven alternate hypothesis that perfectly explains the phenomenon.

And ghost hunter should continue to be mocked and laughed at, until they can reproduce their 'proof' in a controlled environment. Heck, i'd be impressed if they could produce any kind of testable theory or proof that cannot be explained by a far simpler theory.

Alcari, the Netherlands
January 24, 2008 11:20am

Perhaps this article could be better reviewed if it were based in fact. The typical paranormal investigator does not use these tools in the manner portrayed. Most mindful investigators use them for what they were designed to do. It is the physical effects of high EMF that are up to scrutiny. Not ghost energy. Most of us are aware that ir temp records the surface temp of a solid object. Motion detectors are used to keep the area from being compromised by humans, not ghosts. Dowsing rods.....I'm with you on this one, lame. Just a few examples of how the average paranormal enthusiast is misrepresented by the media. Come on intelligent skeptics, don't believe everything you see on t.v.

Matt, Chicagoland
January 24, 2008 7:43pm

While I agree with some of this, the infrared camera was inaccurate. It is not based on light reflections. Then it would be just a regular camera. This is heat so you could very well if such a thing exists see a mass or some paranormal being that has a temperature different than the area.

Also while I do not believe in EVP's the actual occurrence is not picked up by the microphone. It's actually supposed to be some sort of manipulation/vocal imprint if you will onto the set medium be it tape or digital. If you have actually heard one it's not the frequency that is the issue it's the amplification.

The only sound I can think not in human range that can be on a recording and successfully be played back is infrasound which also some believe is the cause of a lot of paranormal events. Be it as it may when you play it back you still can't hear it , cause the frequency is still out of the human ears range.

guy, minnesota
January 25, 2008 4:18pm

well, actually, unless you're using a rather expensive recording device (not the kind you can carry around) you're unlikely to play and very unlikely to record any infrasound.

Most speakers go as low as 20hz, and all but the most expensive struggle below 40hz, and every microphone i've seen gives up around 30hz, which doesn't really matter, as our hearing doesn't go lower then 17hz.

That is, if you're willing to spend hundreds of dollars, not a 20 dollar Walmart dictation machine.

Alcari, the Netherlands
January 28, 2008 8:00am

Human hearing works on air pressure changes which also happen to move the mechanism inside the microphone. But the microphone will also move in response to other things, such as a changing magnetic field our hearing is unaware of.

As for my own experiences, I've recorded well over a hundred EVPs in the course of performing paranormal investigations. To me that's proof enough there is more going on then we currently understand. But for people to disbelieve based on personal ignorance is a real shame.

Get out and try it yourself, learn something, before you bash something you clearly don't understand.

Chuck, Santa Clara
January 29, 2008 7:57am

Chuck, I would offer you the exact same advice you post in last paragraph.

I would agree there's more going then currently understand, but realise that (not meant as an insult) your knowledge, or mine, isn't exactly the pinnacle of human understanding.
I'm asuming you're not a professor in electrodynamics or the like, please correct me if you are.

Please, I would like to know under what circumstances you record these EVP's, being somewhat of an audio enthusiast.

What equipment do you use? What settings do you use? Do you filter or edit it? What does it sound like? Under what circumstances did you record them? Where do you record such things? How long are the recordings and EVPs? Do you have a sample you could send?

Because, I have tried for myself, and I've never, ever recorded anything unexplainable. I've got hundreds of hours of audio, both digital and analog and not once have I heared anything strange and unexplainable.

Alcari, the Netherlands
January 30, 2008 1:29pm

Brian:

Before I listened to this episode, my nine year old and I were watching Ghost Hunters - a program where they send kids into so called haunted locations. I did exactly as you had suggested. We laughed at how the kids kept grabbing for their instruments that told them nothing of value (except that the temperature drops near the window, surprise!). The best part of these shows is how obvious it is that the kids scare themselves. It happens in every show of this type. The participants come in with preexisting notions, primed with expectation. I'm pretty sure she learned a lesson from this. Now, we laugh at it.

Congrats on your book. I'll be sure to purchase it.

Sharon, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
February 14, 2008 8:21am

I've heard so many stories about people having ghost encounters that I'm tempted to believe in them. On the other hand I myself have never had a ghost encounter there fore I would have to take my belief in ghosts on faith.

I've observed many people try to "prove" religion is true, I've observed people trying to convince others the republican party is right, other that the democrats are right. It is all based on what you believe. The folks that believe in something like ghosts, such as Chuck from Santa Clara, are not going to be convinced otherwise...ever. He is a firm believer.

I don't currently believe in ghosts, but if confronted with rock solid evidence I could change my mind.

Rob E., Memphis, TN
February 29, 2008 6:22pm

I must say alot of what skeptoid has said is true but he is only commenting on what he has seen on tv and the groups that have been influenced by such programs! Actually most of the tools mentioned are usefull and are used by scientfic groups who use them to measure natural phenomina that we believe can cause a person to believe that they have had a paranormal experiance! If we can eradicate these from a supposed haunting it will make the case that more interesting! Equipment is only one part of a propper ghost investigation!

The Greenghost, wales
March 08, 2008 8:36am

After the very recent "confirmation" of ghosts/spirits/"presences" in the Middleborough, MA town hall, I came across this skeptoid site to read more. Links to the "voice recordings" [two separate recordings, one by two ghostbusters, the other by a newspaper reporter with a different recorder, but at pretty much the same time and place] are below. I've personally never encountered anything I'd call a ghost, but place more credence on first-hand reports than these instrumental methods of evidence. A very good friend, whom I have absolutely no reason to doubt or infer mischievous intent, has had up close and personal contact with spirits, and her story is much more convincing, and hair-raising, than anything else I've come across.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/031108_middleborough/


http://graphics.boston.com/multimedia/2008/03/11super/noise1.mp3

Mike S., Massachusetts
March 13, 2008 7:34am

Without knowing how the recordings were made, without knowing the equipment, or the settings, or editing, or the conditions in which is was made, without a longer recording of no-noise, it's utterly impossible to tell the source of that noise.

Seriously, how can someone holds a 2-seconds audio clip as evidence of anything?

Mike, your friend may very well think she has seen a ghost, but that does not mean she actually did.

Alcari, Reykjavik, Iceland
March 14, 2008 3:39am

Look at these shows for what they are, just entertainment for the people that enjoy them and nothing else!
If people want to look for ghosts with whatever equipment they want to use then let them.
Why be critical on everything when in reality nobody cares, because we each believe what we want to and whether sceptic or believer either one can't prove or disprove the other on the subject of ghosts!

Jon, atlanta/ ga
March 16, 2008 9:23pm

This is certainly a case that's subjective and the believe and truth often do not tangent one another.
I've personally monitored in real-time and heard my first and last name said by a woman at 3:15 in the morning without anyone in the house.
There was little doubt left in my own mind that I did hear it without a second thought as to what was said.

I also have it recorded. Whether this is a spirit or my own psychokinetic energy I'm unsure but as the saying goes "No amount of proof will ever be enough to those that aren't open"

H Hall, Torrington/ CT
May 06, 2008 5:07am

OK you have some valid points. However spend a day or two in my house, with or without these gizmo's and Ill bet you will believe something extraordinary is going on here. Ghost, demons, poltergeist or just something unexplained. I'm not sure what it is but it makes for great fun when company is over. A few examples are: The back bedroom, no mater what color you paint the walls within a week they are white again. You get up in the morning and all the radios are tuned to the same channel. All t.v. channels are set to channel three. The shower turns itself on and off, the water that comes out is always the cold water. There are other things that happen too many to list here.

Keith C., Fountain Co
July 26, 2008 10:11am

Im so glad you covered this on skeptoid.

I had a ghosthunter on my forum and this helped him on his way off my site

Regards,

Dennis_thompson

founder [url=www.sceptic.darkbb.com]British Sceptic Community [/url]

Dennis_thompson, UK
July 28, 2008 12:15pm

I WANT TO KNOW THE SINPLE NON EXPENSIVE WAYS OF GHOST HUNTING IF ANY ONE HAS PLEASE MAIL IT TO:
tanujvaidya373@yahoo.com

TANUJ VAIDYA, DELHI/INDIA
August 03, 2008 6:48am

Tanuj,

It's very simple. Get a consumer level microphone and tape recorder. Leave it out all night. Listen to the sounds. Anything you hear is ghosts.

Morgan Z., Tracy, CA
September 04, 2008 2:10pm

I think your article is a gross overstatement of the ghost hunting community. Yes, there are those of us who will say every crackle of a microphone and flash of light is a ghost. Those excluded, I don't see how discovering something unexplained in one area doesn't constitute something "paranormal." After all, that is the definition of the word, something not normal. The detection devices used are misused at times I will give you that as well. Yet again, that is not ALWAYS the case. There are those of us who use their equipment properly and to detect exactly what it is supposed to detect. Yet when nothing is detected in one area yet suddenly a meter spikes unprovoked, unless a wire jumped toward the device, I don't see any other way to explain such phenomena. This is does NOT explain the presence of ghosts. What it DOES explain is the presence of something that is not perceived by us.

John, here
September 11, 2008 11:25pm

paranormal - adj. Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation

Something you can't explain does not mean it's unexplainable.

Are all electromagnetic fields constant? If I turn on a light upstairs will you see a "wire jump out at you" downstairs? Who proved rogue EMF's were even anomalies, let alone paranormal, let alone ghosts?

I don't "perceive" radio waves, yet I don't declare my radio to be possessed because it seems to be sentient of all the latest pop music.

Besides, people claim to have seen and heard ghosts, why would you need an EMF detector for that?

I submit to you that the only reason you people use EMF detectors at all is because they so easily find "anomalies." Rather than think about the fact that you seem to find five such anomalies everywhere you go, and thus they aren't anomalies at all, you declare each and everyone paranormal.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 23, 2008 3:21pm

With all due respect to all of you, I wish I had the answers to your questions of Why? Just last year, I went to Jailer's Inn in Bardstown, KY for my first time with a group of Ghost Hunters. I was not expecting anything to happen, but things sure did for me and only me. I spent quite a bit of money on a good recorder and found the next day a voice recording of a man repeating the words" I'm Back" very clearly. No one was with me "so where did the voice come from"? Weeks later, while in my home, I was sitting in a rocking chair and a knife flipped up in the air by itself along with a pencil that was across the room on my dining room table. How can I explain this to anyone without them thinking I am crazy. I can't! Odd things happen all the time in this house, not normal things, fans turning on in rooms, a comforter on my bed being completely turned upside down and tucked in while my daughter is sleeping in her bed and on and on and on. My husband is one to tell you that ghosts do not exist. However, I believe he has recently changed his mind due to living in this house to "well maybe they do"...

Darlene, Cincinnati, Ohio
October 04, 2008 6:11am

I think people try to use these tools because thay are wanting to see something. I will say that i do not need the tools to do paranormal hunts, but it is nice to have it there to back up what you are seeing or hearing. I started 7 years ago not having anything but a camrea. Love to hear your feed back from skeptiod. brian@paranormalohio.org.

Brian Edwards, zanesville Ohio
October 04, 2008 9:43am

Where can I buy such stuff?

Michelle Campbell, Hopewell NJ
October 12, 2008 6:18am

Once again you as a skeptic on the paranormal bring to the table no substance in your agruement. First learn the definition of being a skeptic. That is to doubt something, not dismiss something. Your piece here pencil's you as a non-believer..not a skeptic.

Here is your first ridiculous statement "but it's much harder to disbelieve the lack of interest from greedy corporate America" Brian "Ghosts" are a multi billion dollar industry in itself and the first band wagon jumpers is the major media outlets...so what you said is silly

Here is another silly statement "The use of any kind of measuring equipment to detect ghosts is fundamentally, and completely, bogus" Who says? You...okay prove it.. Your rantings on each piece of equipment showed nothing and no real proof, just your opinions.

What you see in the on TV represents 1% of the paranormal community. Most investigators believe in the possible science of ghosts. You can't just dismiss something without evidence. Science in its purest form is looking for patterns, trying to measure and substantiate. Most ghost hunters understand this and use equipment merely as a measure of environment and understand the equipment was never designed for the application of ghosts. History has countless moments of situations quickly dismissed by "skeptics" because it didnt fit their paradigm of the universe. "It cannot be, therefore it isnt". My opinion is unless its proven either way, we cannot discount the idea of probability.

Tim, Chicago
October 19, 2008 6:36pm

I have read with some amusement the replies to Brian's item on Ghost Hunting tools.

Admittedly, I am a skeptic of the very first order and would rather rely on empirical scientific evidence than invention and supposition.

Indeed, television series like Ghost Hunters are aired (appropriately) on the SciFi channel for a reason. They are science fiction.

I find their little gadget, the K-2 meter particulary amusing. This device which I have labeled the Ghostometer is highlighted by a series of blinking lights said to represent responses from spiritual entities. There is absolutely no science involved here. It is utter nonsense.

For those who claim that there is no proof the devices cited in Brian's article do not do what the ghost hunting users claim, I have one question: Do you have any empirical scientific evidence they do? You are making the claim, you have the burden of proof.

That none of these devices were designed to detect ghosts and that a number of claims they do border on the absurd should be obvious even to the most accepting ghost believers.

To me, these claims are about as cridible as those of psychic ghost hunters who are reserved for the especially gullible.

For those entertained by these shows, enjoy! They are intended to be amusing and entertaining. They are not science or anything resembling it.

Dave, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
November 13, 2008 10:39am

Just was wondering out all the tools used in ghost hunting...which do believe are usefull and how would use them to prove the exsistance of ghosts...I'm not sure if your sayin you believe but there are better and more scientific ways of proving of ghosts hunting is real...

Chad, Albany,NY
November 21, 2008 2:56pm

Chad,

If it cannot be tested empirically, then it isn't science, it's science fiction.

I have yet to see one shred of empirical scientific evidence that any of these ghost hunting tools detect anything other than what they were designed to detect.

None were designed to detect ghosts and none do.

Dave, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
November 28, 2008 3:17pm

No device listed is made to detect ghosts, if you pay attention the reason they are used you would see that it is not proven but believed that when an entity per say trys to manifest or do something it uses energy around it messing with the energy in the room or area can effect a wide variety of equipment (electrical,magnetic,etc.) which is where the devices listed come in handy.

Jude, Buffalo,NY
December 13, 2008 8:00pm

What energy in the room are we talking about? is this ghost thing pulling electrical current from a wall socket or converting heat energy to do some task?

Let's say that the energy is being "messed with" in the room. I don't know what messed with energy is but we'll leave that alone for now. How do we know that what's causing the energy to be messed with is a ghost? If something in the EM spectrum is "messed with" why do we think it's a ghost and not some of the normal things that mess with EM? That fact that something is happening with "energy" in the room doesn't mean it's ghosts until you produce evidence that the messing relates to ghosts.

I think you need to spend some more time studying energy before you start making claims about how it's messed with.

Craig, Washington DC
December 14, 2008 2:24am

I never said it was proven I just said it was a belief. And yes it could very well be something "normal". An example of where the belief comes into play is an asking a question letting whatever know it can answer using the EMF detector and then getting an EMF spike for no aparent reason. I have no proof of ghosts but I must say there is allot of evidence that has no explanation so until proven other wise how do we no there is no such thing as ghosts?

Jude, Buffalo,NY
December 18, 2008 10:16am

Ah yes, belief, I've heard it well spoken of.

So you tell the ghost to answer by making an EMF spike? Ever try asking it questions and having it make two spikes for yes and three spikes for no? Don't ask for one spike because that won't rule out random individual spikes. You could just ask it to throw a brick at you (bring bricks of course so the ghost isn't going "where the Hell am I supposed to get a brick"). If you aren't really committed, use tennis balls. That would be impressive.

Are you doing anything to rule out the normal things that cause EMF spikes?

Until you can tie the needle moving to the ghost your belief is just an unsupported superstition.

You know, the universe is already a pretty cool place. You don't have to play around with this made up nonsense to make it interesting. Buy a telescope, learn to SCUBA dive, get some pond water and a microscope. There's really fascinating and cool stuff out there that you're missing while you're looking at the needle on your EMF detector and talking to the air.

Craig, Washington DC
December 18, 2008 11:32am

LOL I agree the universe is a cool place. All im saying is no one knows if ghots are real or not there is no proof supporting either side. Put it this way back in the day no one believed in electricity until one day BF is "messing" around with a kite in a thunder storm. So until proven otherwise don,t claim that ghosts are not real when you don't know anymore about than the next guy.

Jude, Buffalo,NY
December 18, 2008 6:08pm

(sigh) Jude. I cannot prove that ghosts do not exist. I admit that. I also acknowledge that the most be-spectacled, be-pensinthelabcoatpocketed scientist with more degrees than a protractor cannot prove that ghosts do not exist either.
There are an infinite number of things I cannot prove. I cannot prove that there is not a fully functional Disneyland replica staffed by four foot high robotic pink bunnies on the far side of the moon.

Do you understand what I am sayin'? You cannot prove a negative.
You are certainly correct in saying that there is no proof positive of the existence of spookies. Absolutely none.

It boils down to what is likely, given our best understanding of how the universe ACTUALLY works, not how we would like it to.

Ghosts and all that are very, very, very, very, very unlikely.
The lunar fun park is far more of a possibility, given that you could actually do it, given the will and a mountain of moola. (Whaddabout it, Obama?)
Thats not to say that we as rational thinkers are not open to new evidence. Provided it withstands the harsh blowtorch of inquiry using the most high levels of scientific rigor.
So far, not so good.

As for not knowing anymore than the next guy, well, that depends on how you go about not knowing.
Just because you cannot explain something, doesn't automatically mean that someone else cant, or that it is ghosts/aliens/god/easterbunny/toothfairy.

Perhaps it really is just a cigar, Sigmund.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
December 19, 2008 2:54am

I don't know that there isn't a hermaphrodite ninja assassin in my kitchen waiting to kill me. However, it's so unlikely that I'm not going to let the infinitesimally small chance of it keep me from going to get another beer. The inability to prove a negative isn't evidence.

I do know you haven't been able to tie the EMF needle moving to a ghost. You think it's a ghost it's up to you to provide the evidence.

Craig, Washington DC
December 19, 2008 9:26am

Let me say that based on my personal experiences, I SUSPECT human survival is possible. I also admit to having an emotional want for such a thing, but rather than excusing skepticism, it's increased it severalfold. Now, whenever I witness something hinky, I scrutinize the data even more intently because I know I have the potential for dis-useful filtering. I think I'm fairly literate and I'm up to date on most scientific advances. I'm a trained audio engineer with thirty years professional experience in the field (working with some of larger artists in the music industry).

So apologies and credentials having been stated, I still see value in using some of the tools described in the piece.

Yes, it's true that measurement devices exist to measure what humans have already partially observed; a telescope amplifies the light we can see but does it to a degree that human eyes simply can't.

But I'll stick with my discipline: audio. One of the reasons digital recordings sound "cold" to some is (most recordings) lack the presence of inaudible ultraharmonic frequencies. While we can't hear them directly, their presence shapes the frequencies we CAN hear and their absence creates a signal that sounds "wrong".
Is it not possible that some of the listed devices might be useful in detecting such aberrations? What is NOT present can sometimes be as useful as what is: we can determine a theft by measuring the LACK of an object. That seems to me a valid starting point for investigation.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 05, 2009 9:44pm

The problem isn't that the equipment isn't detecting anything (setting aside the dowsing rods) it's that there's no evidence to associate the readings with ghosts. You can't simply jump to the conclusion that since my gear picked up or didn't pick up this signal ghosts are present. You have to tie the ghosts to the readings in a way that is repeatable by anyone using the same equipment first. So far that has not been done.

Craig, Washington DC
January 09, 2009 7:21am

I have a cell phone that keeps dragons and unicorns away. It works on a global level.

It uses Verizon as a carrier.

Bebarce El-Tayib, Clifton, NJ
January 12, 2009 6:56am

so basically what we have here is someone very opinionated in this world trying to lecture people about ghosts. Ok firstly i want to make a point about the infrared thermometers... now if you truly believe what you say then argue back at the following...infrared thermometer / thermal you say is limited to surface temperature well ok lets delve a little into this if there was a ghost there and they gave off a slight temperature then why shouldn't a thermal imager pick it up, see personally i would have thought that when a radiator gives off heat that well personally i cant see the temperature differences in the air can you??? also the emf meter the human body gives off an electromagnetic field so why cant a human spirit do the same see you trying to disprove all this equipment but to me it seems like some old fools opinionated thoughts on a subject he probably doesnt know a great deal about and probably sits at home exclaiming everything but science proved (which i might add science has been disproved countless times and is always open so change). So all i have to say to you is get a life and find something better to do than give lectures on the internet discrediting things. Ever heard of getting a qualification and lecturing in a college where you get paid to complain about everythign

craig parkes, douglas
January 12, 2009 2:21pm

"You can't simply jump to the conclusion that since my gear picked up or didn't pick up this signal ghosts are present."

You're absolutely correct and I agree with you. That's why I suggested that aberrations of data might be a good place to START a direction of investigation, not conclude one.

The burden of proof is on the folks making claims, but this cuts both ways. Since it's been noted that you can't prove a negative, if a tool begins to detect something anamolous, saying "that's NOT a ghost" is claiming a negative and is unprovable. Since any good scientist would do the opposite, the logical argument would be to determine what it is. If no clear cause can be determined than an investigator should probably leave the event as undetermined. Unfortunately, many skeptics will say "it may be undetermined but it's NOT a ghost".

That's not skepticism ,that's scoffing. It COULD be a ghost. It could also be the Dong with the Luminous Nose, but until enough data can be collected with which a conclusion can be reached and tested, no conclusion should be reached at all.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 12, 2009 7:28pm

"why cant a human spirit do the same"

That is a question, not evidence. You need to provide evidence in the existence of ghosts. Then, you need to provide evidence that ghosts emit whatever it is your meter is reading. Then you might have some credibility is saying that your meter is picking signs of ghosts. So far all we have is some kind of meter picking up whatever it's designed to detect. I'm not saying the meter is not picking up a ghost. I'm saying that there's no evidence to support that claim that it is a ghost.

Craig, Washington DC
January 13, 2009 1:39pm

Hi. about your ir thermometer bit, not all ir thermometers are like the ones you described. they do infact make ir thermometers that have a "k" type probe port for a "k" type probe, which measures ambient air temperature. which is also air temperature. that is what is used for ghost research, not the surface temperature type

Dean, Kentucky
January 14, 2009 2:59pm

I love how nerds with nothing better to do than follow the nonprofit "science" of ghost hunting are telling anyone else to "get a life".

Rob, Memphis, TN
January 14, 2009 4:51pm

i think there is ghosts, but i dont think a machine is going 2 pick them up. go back 2 the old way and leave the machine's 2 the 'ghost busters: who u going 2 call'.

m, ireland
January 14, 2009 6:09pm

Yes Dean and all a k type thermometer will tell you is what the temperature of the air is. What is your evidence that indicates that, a) ghosts exist and b) they can change the air emperature? Until you provide evidence for those two things, there's nothing to tie the thermometer readings to a ghost.

Craig, Washington DC
January 15, 2009 10:39am

And there may never be, but a large number of supposedly paranormal events are accompanied by sudden drops in temperature. If by measuring one someone is able to predict the other, then maybe, MAYBE we can start to find patterns of cause and effect (assuming any exist).

Until someone invented the seismometer, a lot of primitive tribes probably freaked every time there was an earthquake, especially since there was no way for them to correlate cause and effect. No doubt they'd look at whatever was happening right before the quake occurred and attach significance to it: "Don't touch rock! Rock make earth move!! Don't say god's name! God make earth move!!"

Yes, the tribes were wrong and science eventually explained what was REALLY going on (though we still can't predict earthquakes with any reliability) but at least it was an attempt at understanding the event. The ghost hunters may ALSO be wrong, and so far, you're correct there is NO cause and effect between the reports of low temperature and phenomena. But folks DO seem to report both so it seems to me potentially of value to continue using thermometers.

Though what I'd really like to see is the average ghost hunter admit that just because they have a scientific instrument, that does NOT make them a scientist.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 16, 2009 12:38pm

Great. Tie the paranormal event to a drop in temperature and then use the thermometer.

You are right though. A complicated instrument doesn't make you a scientists. Neither do letters and periods behind your name. An evidence based world view, curiosity and an understanding of the scientific method make you a scientist.

Craig, Washington DC
January 17, 2009 11:53am

You're right, circular logic and strange loops serve no purpose but to perpetuate conceptual stagnation. But I have no problem with someone starting off with "Hmmm...I'm investigating a haunting and the temperature suddenly dropped. It COULD be a ghost" and proceeding to investigate the data from there, if the conditions were appropriate. I DO have a problem with them either A.) discovering a more reasonable cause and ignoring their findings, or B.) discovering no cause and sticking with their first assumption instead of saying "The cause is indeterminate."

Tying the temperature variant to a potential paranormal event doesn't bother me any more than does tying a seismic reading to an earthquake. All you have is a squiggly line that says "something shook". It could be an earthquake. It could be an explosion. It could be a truck driving by. If you're in a geologically stable area, the odds are it's not an earthquake so you adjust your investigation accordingly.

Same with a drop in temperature. If I'm in my basement and the temperature drops, I'll check the AC and I won't even consider anything paranormal. If I'm in a haunted location and the temperature drops, I'll think more towards the paranormal, but I'll still test for normal variants first.

I'm not sure that investigators are currently using the best tools, any more than the first aviators who stitched wings together from flaps of leather and jumped off of cliffs were either. But it's a first step.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 17, 2009 10:10pm

Your problem is that you're investigating hauntings. You should be investigating a drop in temperature. It doesn't matter that you're in a haunted building. You need to research the cause of the drop in temperature. Even if you rule out the obvious causes that still only means you've ruled out the obvious causes.

This of course goes for all the devices ghosts hunters use except dosing rods which have been falsified so many times they are hardly worth consideration.

Craig, Washington DC
January 18, 2009 9:21am

No, I'm AT a haunting investigating a drop in temperature that MIGHT be connected to a paranormal event. That's it. No more, no less. The existence of one does not confirm the existence of the other. But a significant number of folks who investigate such phenomena have found one often precedes the other so it's used as a POTENTIAL starting point. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that one proved the other. There is no proof. But the patterns have been consistent enough that many folks see the value in starting from the cold spot and investigating from there.

I understand your skepticism. I consider myself more a skeptic than a believer. But I've also observed things I have no explanation for. And that's where I leave my descriptions: indeterminate. But lack of explanation for my experiences does not nullify my observations, only any useful conclusions I might make from them. Still, I want answers (pro or con) so I keep looking.

I do feel compelled to ask two simple questions, of you:

1.) have you ever participated in an investigation and observed the conditions we're discussing? Are your arguments from personal experience or are they assertions along the lines of "because we don't know of a connection there can't possibly be one"?

2.) Do you think that because no connection has been found that there can't be one and therefore no one should look?

I'm not trying to be emotionally argumentative here. I genuinely enjoy such "spirited" debates and I'm enjoying this one!

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 18, 2009 1:46pm

The problem with your methodology is that you are AT a haunting. You are really at the site of an unexplained drop in temperature (sticking with temperature for continuity but pick any measurement tool) . It's not a haunting until there's evidence of a ghost.

These ghosts, you assume they have an intelligence right? Design an experiment where the ghost responds to requests in such a way as to rule out random chance and then repeat it at a bunch of times. Then, study the environment around ghosts to determine what if any effect the presence of a ghost has on air temperature.

I've seen the show and so far all I can say is that they make looking for drafts very dramatic.

Other than an impromptu bigfoot siting I once investigated while camping I've never been involved in any paranormal investigation or had any paranormal experience. My experience there involved saying, "hey look it's a bear".

I'm not saying that ghosts don't exist. I'm saying there's no evidence ghosts exist.

Craig, Washington DC
January 22, 2009 9:59am

Although Craig's point seems nit-picky, I believe that it is a very important point to make. By stating that you are at the site of a haunting, you are implying that there is definitely a ghost present. You cannot assume that there is a ghost present and then try to prove it, you must take each anomaly at face value and investigate it properly. Sure a drop in temperature and an odd Gauss meter reading could suggest a ghost. It could also suggest that there is a draft and that the building is wired poorly. You cannot start with the assumption of a ghost and link all evidence to that assumption. That is completely backwards.

Consider this as a more concrete example.

If you enter a house convinced that it is a murder scene with inadequate evidence, then your conclusions could become skewed. A red spot becomes evidence of a body when it could be Kool-Ade or blood from a paper cut. Scratches on the wall become evidence of a struggle when it is really just a poorly behaved pet. Until enough evidence is gathered to convincingly prove that a murder took place at the location, you are investigating a site, not a murder site. Until enough evidence is gathered to convincingly prove that a ghost is present, you are investigating a building, not a haunting.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
January 22, 2009 11:39am

Both of you gentlemen make excellent points and I suspect we have more in common than my observations have suggested. 1.) There is no proof of survival. 2.) Many (if not most) investigators start with a proposition and then collect evidence to support same, ignoring or minimizing contrary findings. 3.) Low temperatures do not mean a ghost is present. It only means that the temperature is low. Investigating the cause might reveal the cause of the cold spot, but if no cause can be found, that only means the cause is indeterminate.

Also, when I wrote "I'm AT a haunting" I originally wrote "I'm AT a (purportedly) haunted location" but I cut it back to fit in that darn 1500 character limit *grin*. Clearly, the edited phrase was a statement of certitude that is inappropriate when investigating anything.

But I still feel comfortable with my arguments overall. For anyone to say "this phenomena CAN'T exist" strikes me as just as unscientific as those who say "this phenomena DOES exist". Neither position is supportable (the first because you can't prove a negative and the second because no reliable evidence has been collected).

Rather, I think the only valid statement that can be made is "a number of individuals have made observations that they can't explain. They have put forth an hypothesis based upon those experiences but at this time can offer no proof or theory to explain their observations. Further study and investigation (if possible) is needed."

And I'm out of space again!

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
January 23, 2009 5:17pm

Well if you have a random temperature drop of over 20 degrees, how can you explain it? Its hard to. Usually if you cant explain something you can consider it paranormal.

Dean, Kentucky
January 24, 2009 5:20pm

No, if you can't explain something you can't explain something. Your example doesn't even indicate anything "paranormal" because you haven't produced evidence that ghosts exist and that they can cause a drop in air temperature.

Craig, Washington DC
January 25, 2009 1:43pm

Craig -

The definition of "paranormal" is "above normal". Hence, if a phenomenon has no "normal" explanation that can be found, then the inference is that it is "paranormal". This doesn't mean there's a ghost, just that there's a cause outside of our normal experiences. Yes, I'm splitting semantic hairs here.

As for the original posting... While I understand where you're coming from, the fact is that these pieces of equipment are used because they DO detect anomalous readings, or strange images. The "connect-the-dots" mentality that leads people to assume this is evidence of ghosts notwithstanding, the fact is that something unusual is detected, it's not something that can be explained by "normal" experience, and hence it is "paranormal".

I do think that, with the right equipment, you can sometimes capture *something* out of the ordinary if you are in the right place at the right time. I'm *not* saying that it's proof of ghosts.

However, just about every major advance in science has been precluded, not by "Eureka!", but by "That's strange..."

G, Toronto, ON
February 16, 2009 7:39pm

Craig,

Give us the evidence that Ghosts dont exist.

The belief in ghosts goes back centuries before modern science.

You say that science needs to prove they exist. Based on my knowledge, I say science needs to prove that they dont exist.

Whoever started this thread was a poop-stirrer who was clueless about most of the equpment used by modern ghost hunters. That wasn't skepticism, that was pessimism based on lack of knowledge.

Tom K, Newark Ca
February 25, 2009 10:00pm

Ah yes, belief I've heard it well spoken of. I don't have a hypothesis here, you do. You're saying this equipment detects the presence of ghosts. What is your evidence that a) ghosts exist and b) they change temperature in rooms or emit EM radiation or trigger responses from any of the other tools? The fact that something caused a needle on a meter to move or a temperature reading to change doesn't mean there's a ghost; it means that something caused that reading. Now because you've already used the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance before I'm going to guess that you're going to say "well you explain it". I don't have to. I offer no opinion as to the explanation of a particular reading on a meter.

You're making the claim that it's a ghost not me.

That fact the belief in ghosts is old doesn't mean anything.

Craig, Washington DC
February 26, 2009 12:25am

G - I'm not sure I accept that definition of paranormal. It seems to me phenomena should only be classified as "paranormal" if there is no known possible explanation, not simply if there is a currently unknown direct cause.

There are many plausible explanations for anomalous readings, temperature drops etc... that don't involve positing supernatural entities. This is Occam's "unnecessary multiplication of entities".

Tom - your statement "I say science needs to prove that they dont exist." is nonsensical. There is no way to prove non-existence, this is not how science works. Science as a process can only assess and weigh the balance of evidence. In cases like these supposedly paranormal phenomena, there are plausible explanations that don't involve supernatural entities. Also, there is no a priori positive evidence for the existence of said supernatural entities.

The idea that ghosts cause said phenomena is then rejected on two fronts: 1) there is likely a good explanation that doesn't involve extra suppositions (therefore no need to add anything extra) 2) there is no prior evidence for the existence of ghosts.

In this circumstance, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that something extra is needed.

Joe

Joe Duncan, Kingston, ON, Canada
February 26, 2009 5:59am

i know spirits exist, i am a spirit investigators and yes spirits go back for centuries.
thanks, spirit investigators of north alabama.

misty wallace, athens alabama
February 26, 2009 9:46am

To Tom,

You can't logically prove that something doesn't exist (a negative). It's up to the person who claims something to prove it, not to others to disprove it.
Can you prove that God isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can you prove I'm not God? Can you prove there isn't an invisible, intangible gremlin sitting next to me as I type this?
"The belief in ghosts goes back centuries before modern science." So does belief in witches, vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, and dragons." Can you prove any of these DON'T exist? Do you believe that these do exist, just because no one has ever proven they don't?
Faith in belief is really just an admission of ignorance. Belief what you want, but trust in the evidence. Just my two cents. Sorry if I sound a little accusatory.

Billy Kang, Long Beach, California
February 26, 2009 10:07am

So you you would have evidence to back up your claim that ghosts exist then right? What would that be?

Craig, Washington DC
February 27, 2009 8:18am

The issue is faith. I am a scientist and believe in the scientific method. I also have faith. This faith does not lye exclusively with God but encompasses every aspect of my life. Faith in family, friends, the love of a pet. These are things that cannot be explained by science.
Does this mean that they do not exist because you cannot prove them? No. It only means that there are things in the universe that are not yet provable but we have an idea about them. That is why they call them theories. You use the scientific method in conjunction with the technologies at hand to try to prove or disprove the theory.
To simply say that the use of ghost hunting equipment is "bogus" is irresponsible. If you are not able to take somethings on faith while still having a scientific mindset I fear for you and where your attitude may lead others.
You say to tell our children that there is no faith but only lack of science in the television shows. This is also irresponsible. A good parent would except that their children are intelligent enough to hear both sides of the controversy and allow them to make the judgement on whether or not what they are watching is believable or not.
If you cannot handle this point of view and decide not to post it I will understand. I will have faith that you will some day find what you have lost.

Jay, Grand Rapids, MI
March 12, 2009 12:12pm

The difference is few folks seem to be trying to prove God or the FSM exists in any scientific sense. They ARE trying to prove ghosts exist but they aren't using the proper scientific methods.

"Faith" is defined as certitude without evidence. That's not terribly scientific. In fact, I can't think of a more unscientific position. Perhaps when dealing with attempts to prove (or disprove) instances of cause and effect we might be better suited in using the words "suspect" and "suspicion"?

"I suspect ghosts exist" seems more scientific to me than "I have faith ghosts exist". The first statement implies experience but no cause confirmation. The second statement suggests certitude. Scientifically, certitude requires testable, replicable data. And as far as survival is concerned we just don't seem to have that yet.

Should we give up trying to find some? I don't think so. I've had too many experiences I can't explain to just shrug and walk away. But until I (or someone else) can demonstrate proof of survival, my experiences (and those of others) are little more than anecdotal trivia. Interesting, but not evidence.

Faith is a deeply personal thing and if it gives you strength, great; have at it. But your faith is not my proof.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
March 13, 2009 12:08am

i want to start gost hunting but where do i start please help

tom, belfast northen ireland
March 13, 2009 7:42am

There you people go, using only one definition of a word to try to prove a point. How about these definitions that you obviously left out to make people think your opinion is correct:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

complete confidence in a person or plan etc.

If you had included these definitions you would have no argument or point.
Faith is not a just a religious or a scientific element, but rather lies somewhere in between, just as the supernatural, paranormal and others.

Tom in Belfast, search the web for ghost hunters and many of the sites that pop up will get you going.

Jay, Grand Rapids, MI
March 17, 2009 5:58pm

Okay, let's look at those definitions also.

"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

Honestly, I don't care what you believe, I care what you can prove. Until you can prove these supernatural powers exist your belief is only an assumption based upon your personal set of past experiences. They're anecdotal and can't be tested.

Belief and faith have the same definition. Lots of people believe they'll win the lottery. Most of them don't. Many people believed the earth is flat. It's not.

Belief in the existence (or non-existence) of a Thing has nothing to do with the Thing itself, it's merely a personal opinion on that Thing and is useless in evaluating communal worth. Many radical Muslims have faith that all non-Muslims are evil and should die. They are confident this is true. I would argure that their faith and confidence is probably not terribly useful and the motivation for their position is impossible to prove. But they still use it to blow a lot of stuff up.

"complete confidence in a person or plan etc."

Many people are confident they'll win the lottery. Most of them don't. Many people had confidence the earth is flat. It's not. See the pattern here?

I never said you should ditch faith, beliefs or confidences, I only said that such such positions are NOT scientific. I don't care how much faith or confidence you may have that you can levitate, until you can demonstrate this ability I don't share your beliefs.

Desdinova, Gaithersburg, MD
March 17, 2009 9:29pm

Something to think about that MIGHT put this into a different perspective using an already proven concept.

Prove air exists

"It took mankind tens of thousands of years to figure out that air existed, let alone that it was matter. It was only in recent human history that we figured out anything about air. Proving that air is matter is analogous to today's physics experiments where you cannot see the object of your study, but have to define its properties and its existence from indirect evidence. " - source: http://education.jlab.org/qa/matter_03.html

Now substitute 'air' with 'ghosts' and you will see a common problem.

The point is that ghosts (if they are to be ever explained to satisfaction) will also need to be defined and / or proven (or dis-proven) from indirect evidence. This is where the tools (dowsing excluded) come into play. While each tool measures individual items that MAY have alternate explanations, you can combine the data from multiple devices and look for patterns in multiple locations (those with reported experiences and not) to see if a pattern can be discovered (and if said pattern is notably absent in non-hot spots). When a pattern is discovered, you then have a premise from which to start testing.

I am sure many debated what air was or even that it existed until enough was learned about its indirect evidence that support its existence. Using tools to collect indirect evidence is not wrong if done correctly.

psiEnergos, Phoenix, AZ
March 23, 2009 4:43pm

We have some "Ghost Hunters" near Memphis, who do this "High Tech Ghost Hunting". They have posted a video to youtube, where they claim to be talking to a spirit, using an EMF meter. I recreated this SCAM by placing 3 9 volt batters in my pocket. i then thold the meter near my pocket and starting "talking to the dead". when it's the dead person's time to speak i move the emf meter just a touch closer to my pocket and surprise surprise! the meter alarm goes off! belols and lights say that i am talking to the dead. and this group MIDSOUTH GHOST HUNTERS charges a whopping $250 per person to witness this REAL GHOST ENCOUNTER. and idiots are actually paying for this scam. www.memphisghosthunters.com

Michael David, memphis TN. 38122
April 15, 2009 10:55am

Before you make your harsh opinions on individuals who wish to go forward with their beliefs in the afterlife and spiritual beings, try using some of the equipment TRUE spirit investigators use and do a little "investigating" yourself. It will not take long for you to get results, that I can guarantee you. But even if you don't ever get results, it doesn't mean what we believe in doesn't exist. It just means that the negative energy that your body and mind gives off will not ever allow you to "receive" the proof. I don't care if you strike down the dramatic people who go on television just for ratings, and pretend to be in the presence of "ghosts". 90% of them are doing just that. But take a little time from your life, and put the skeptical views away for a while, and try a little of what you don't think is out there that we can't see. Don't be afraid of them...we may just learn something from the evidence.

Rudy, Houston, Texas
April 21, 2009 5:22pm

Ummmm.. how do you differentiate between a TRUE spirit investigator, and one that merely says they are? And what constitutes a genuine piece of equipment?

I, for instance, could build a ghost detector out of a lamp, a battery, some "mystical coils" (ok, a loop of wire), and a nice box with the words "Ghost Detected" under the lamp.

By pressing the button, I could "detect" a ghost any time I liked...

What are the objective, measureable criteria??

Brenton, New Zealand
April 21, 2009 6:17pm

Rudy,
I would love to see a ghost. That is something that would be cool. I dont think they exist but am open to the ideal they might. But it would take a whole lot to convince me. What negative energy prevents the recieving of the truth? If I wanted to how could I get around the negative energy to recieve the truth? What proof have you recieved? Allthough your story wont convince me alone I would be interested what proof you recieved that convinced you.

Ron Hughston, Mason City Iowa
April 21, 2009 6:19pm

Brenton,
Don't be daft when it comes to understanding what "tools" to use in a spiritual investigation. You know exactly what I'm talking about. You can use any of the basic electronic items that any "ghosthunter" uses and get results. If a person is spiritual (and I'm not talking about being "religious"), you don't even need any material object to communicate with those who have expired on this earth. Use the power of prayer and faith and you will "see" and "hear" those who are on the other side. No "ghost detectors" needed, my friend.

Rudy, Houston, Texas
April 21, 2009 8:33pm

So if you are spiritual than you can see and communicate w/ ghosts? And if you dont you cant? Ah someone like me who yearns for any unambigous evidence of ghosts is screwed I guess. Hey were all picutres of ghosts taken by spiritual people? What is the definition of spiritual that allows you to commune with ghosts? Why dont all people who claim to be spiritual believe in ghosts? If that is the pre-requisite than seems like youd have alot more believers. My brother in law once claimed to see a ghost and he is a pot smoking fun loving dude. Is he spiritual? Just wondering

Ron Hughston, Mason City Iowa
April 22, 2009 3:00pm

Another moron posts...It's not even worth my time, or anyone else's posting their thoughts and beliefs on a forum when there are too many different views on a particular subject. There will always be those who think they they can "top" someone else's theories. I only posted one time to tell my view, not to create freaking arguments. Those who want to argue over this, apparently have closed minds and are impossible to try and understand there could be other reasons to how this world evolves...rather than thinking like those ignorant scientist who think they hold the key to evolution and science. This will be my last post, so all you kids can have fun "tossing the ball" around more for others to see.

Rudy, Houston, Texas
April 23, 2009 11:09am

Usually a statement is held up by arguments, so I was wondering about what your underlying arguments were that held up staments you made in your posts. Special pleading and ad-hominum attacks do nothing to answer theses questions. I was hoping for a dialouge not a personal attack. But this no longer has anything to do with the episode topic so I will also no will no longer post under this episode and let people get back to talking about ghost detection

Ron Hughston, Mason City Iowa
April 24, 2009 7:19pm

Gentelmen....

It is sad that the actions of a few may give others a bad rap.

With well over 500 paranormal investigations under my belt; 98% for everyday people just like you and I, we have seen, heard, recorded with video and audio, events that will make you wonder what is the real truth.

We use all the tools that have been talked about and more. All our findings are confidential and will not be shared with anyone.

We are strictly scientific with what we do.

It is the places you will never hear about that may have "real" paranormal activity.

So I suggest, unless you have been on as many investigations as I, please keep an open mind.

When you receive a call at midnight from a mother alone with her child, terrified out of her mind.... this is what we are all about.

Helping people!

Dan Berger
Founder, IPART
The Iowa Ghost Hunters

Dan Berger, Des Moines, Iowa
April 28, 2009 6:27pm

Dan, have you considered taking your abilities to JREF and applying for the million dollar prize for demonstrating paranormal behaviour?

My belief is that you are recording something completely mundane and interpretting it as supernatural, but what the hell - if you can convince them you are seeing or recording spooks, you will be a million bucks better off.

Why not put your claims on the line, and have them assessed objectively?

Brenton, New Zealand
April 29, 2009 8:03pm

THANKS. THIS HELPED WITH MY REPORT

NIX, Washington
May 18, 2009 11:31pm

And ghost hunter should continue to be mocked and laughed at, until they can reproduce their 'proof' in a controlled environment. Heck, i'd be impressed if they could produce any kind of testable theory or proof that cannot be explained by a far simpler theory.

If spirits exist, as many believe they do, then for a researcher to reproduce their "proof" in a controlled environment would be impossible. To do that the researcher would have to have physical control of the spirit and the ability to make it do what they wanted it to. I don't see that happening if spirits exist.

If science only accepts what it can control, then it can't ever expect to grow and discover new things. There's a great big world out here. Take a look outside the lab sometime.

Linda, Kentucky
May 20, 2009 7:29pm

Occam's Razor, kids. Learn it, live it, love it.

Davin, New York CIty
June 11, 2009 12:31am

I have a HUGE problem believing in any EVP, especially after listening to the "When People Talk Backwards" episode.(http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4105)

For the orb fans, I can't sway their belief here. But for those who disbelieve in orbs, but believe in EVPs, just try to drop your belief for a few seconds:

An orb is usually a dust particle in the flash. Why can't an EVP be a stomach gurgling, or the wind as a person walks by, or even the general creaks of the human body and the shuffle of clothes? I remember silently hiccupping while recording a video, only to hear the hiccups loud as day on the replayed tape.

What if the reason EVPs only supposedly are on one mike is because that's where the little burst of wind was?

PLEASE go listen to the "Backwards" podcast and think about all your EVPs - all your proof. Isn't the proven scientific phenomenon of pareidolia give you pause on your proof? Can you say that you have carried on a real conversation with someone in an EVP? Or did "they" just kind of respond to a single question and the effect sounds logical (again, see pareidolia)?

Now, I'm not trying to insult you, but now think about the dogs on Youtube and various home video shows that can "say" "I love you."

Do you believe they are REALLY saying those WORDS? Or is it just that their owners have reinforced the behavior of that specific whine of theirs and now have them do it as a trick?

I still want to believe in ghosts, but the evidence is against me.

Scott, California
June 12, 2009 10:32am

Some people try so hard to prove ghosts they will take the recording of wind escaping someones back side along with a cold spot or stray EMF field and say it's proof. Granted, those people need to be made fun of. Others, like myself though, actually try to do paranormal investigating with some intelligence and only after we go over evidence with a fine tooth comb several times, and subject it to others for advice, and then go through it again and try our hardest to prove it ISN"T paranormal, do we present it to the world as a POSSIBILITY of ghosts. For every one person who may actually listen with an open mind and consider it, there are 3 or 4 others like some of you on here that will refuse to even consider it.
I find it funny how many people wish to try to discredit paranormal investigating, talk like you know so much, yet I bet most (if not all) of you have never actually tried it to see for yourselves if there is actually anything to it. At least a possibility of there being ghosts.If you don't actually have the experience from both sides of the issue, then I think it is kind of hard to act like you know for sure one way or the other. In fact, dare I say, it's kind of moronic to even open your mouths.
Seeing as I have actually had experiences, I can actually say that there are ghosts. If you want to argue about it fine, but if you have never tried to prove there isn't, other than making fun of Ghost Hunters, you are hurting your cause more than helping it.

Chris, Indiana
June 12, 2009 7:12pm

I completely agree with the comment above. We could capture Bigfoot, and still sceptics would find something to cast doubt. It is absolutely rediculous that every time a Ghost Hunter comes up with any kind of evidence, it is immediately attacked.
To say that the equipment we use does not help produce evidence because it is not mass marketed, and thay we don't know how to properly use it, sounds like something a politician would say. Perhaps you should use the equipment for yourself in a paranormal setting, or read up on how it's made before you cast judgment.
First of all EMF stands for Electromagnetic Fluctuation, not "Field"...we are not measuring "Fields" in the paranormal but "Fluctuation", which is what an EMF Meter does. Second, to say that a digital voiced recorder picks up harmonics that the human ear can't hear is not correct. There have been many EVP's that I have captured I could hear at the time of recording. In fact, it's the inner electronic sounds that all recorders produce that enable a spirit to communicate, not the misconception it is picking up frequencies we can't hear. Any electronic device can be used for an EVP to come through..the recorder simply picks up these sounds better, and if you look at any popular recorder's schematics, you would see an amplification chip in the dynamic microphone circut, which makes this possible.
We can go back and forth all you want, but perhaps you should try it for yourself before discrediting the work of others.

Scott Trulove, Nevada
June 15, 2009 4:55pm

That's nice. So, got any evidence that your equipment shows evidence of ghosts?

Craig, Washington DC
July 08, 2009 8:44pm

the idea that an inaudioble frequency cannot be recorded and become audioble is a lie, basic electromagnetic principles can be employed to prove it can in theory work, for instance playing a sound through a coil which produces no audioble sound (doesnt cause any compression and rarefractions of the air) can be picked up by a normal microphone and recorded as sound, this iis done as the coil which the sound is played through will radiate a alternating magnetic field this field will induce current in the microphones diaphram coil and it is that signal that is recorded, i have personaly done this experiment and it works every time, results vary depending on distance and position of the coil and he microphone
so we know it is theoretically possible, do ghosts employ electromagnetic fields to speak? who knows
another point id like to make on the article, he states that people who use infra red alarms wont catch ghosts... well the way most invvestigators i know use them isnt to catch ghosts but to catch out any unwanted human manipulation from thier experiments, no one i know tries to catch ghosts with them!

paul, essex
August 06, 2009 2:45pm

Yes, none of which establishes that any of this equipment finds evidence of ghosts. One would first have to establish that ghost exist, and that they cause whatever effect the device measures.

So, you don't know if ghosts are capable of using the electromagnetic to speak but you use equipment to measure the electromagnetic spectrum to find ghosts? It's pretty arrogant to call someone doing that an investigator.

Craig, Washington DC
August 07, 2009 11:28am

Craig,

I applaud your efforts to extricate plausible mechanisms from all who use these "tools of the trade."

Unfortunately, you will never achieve a minimal level of acquiescence with anyone who presents an argument with a metaphysical world view.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 17, 2009 7:35pm

I cannot help but wonder if Galileo had the internet would he have had a similar conversation with the Vatican regarding whether the Earth revolved around the sun or the other way around? You ask for proof that the equipment described above detects the presence of ghosts, I ask for proof that it doesn’t. Many modern day wonders were discovered by accident. X-Rays, Telephones and Microwaves to name a few. Prove to me that paranormal investigators are not spear heading a new branch of science using the only applicable equipment available to them.

Vincent Woods, Auburn Hills, MI
August 18, 2009 6:20am

Vincent,

You posit a well-thought perspective.

The best way that I could answer your question is this...The equipment does not detect the presence of ghosts because of the following:

We can only use the preponderance of the evidence thus far to validate what the paranormal "tools of the trade" can detect; meaning that main-stream physical and biological science and the use of the scientific method cannot associate a cause-effect relationship between EM transients, white noise, photographic anomalies, or temperature fluctuations with paranormal activity. I am not trying to bombast the question here: but I will mention a few scientific laws/theories/principals that can be granted a testable cause-effect relationship.

What can be associated with the above is: static geomagnetic fields, magnetic transients due to alternating current, Columb's Law, Faraday's Law, photographic distortion due to narrow aperture, slow exposure, low ISO, narrow depth of field, CCD smear, paredoila, apophenia, figure-ground separation, amplitude modulation, cross modulation, and blackbody radiation.

For what the perevious is worth, I fear that too much attention focused towards the study of paranormal phenomenon (is) deeply enamored in pop-culture. Any serious, but "accidental" discoveries that may some day become facets accepted by the scientific community are stigmatized at the present.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 18, 2009 5:38pm

Brett,

So if I understand your position, and put it into my own words, the "problem" with paranormal studies using the test equipment discussed is that we don't really know what they are recording. They could be showing the shadow on the back wall, the light source that creates the shadow or even something completely removed from the subjet being studied. Is that essentially correct?

Vincent Woods, Auburn Hills, MI
August 19, 2009 5:05am

Vincent,

I appreciate your feedback and continued discussion.

To better elaborate my position, I would say that the current study in the field of paranormal investigation is foreshadowed by a stigma of pop-culture mysticism that willfully eschews mundane, worldly explanations. More credence would be given to their (the paranormal investigators)work with the "tools of the trade" if acceptance of the most basic principles of the physical, biological, and medical sciences became the norm. The equipment used does exactly what is is supposed to do, but correlating any associated reading/recording/picture, etc. while attenuating the mundane variables is a post hoc error.

Without these basic tenets, the basis for their claims become subjective/emotive personal insights rather than a new theory that can be found by accident.

The Pons/Fleischman event is exemplary of my position.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 19, 2009 6:56am

Brett,
Okay, I think I get it now. If I understand correctly you’re not saying that a scientific study of the paranormal is not possible but rather that it’s not what we see happening on TV. If this is true then probably I just misunderstood your article. Furthermore, if this is the case then I can sympathize with your position because it parallels a similar discussion I've participated in regarding the merit of TV Survival shows compared to their real life counterparts. If this is not the case then I don’t know what to say. I cannot see how anything could not be the subject of a valid scientific study and in the study of the paranormal the “tools of the trade” seem a reasonable place to start because what else is there?

Vincent Woods, Auburn Hills, MI
August 19, 2009 10:21am

Vincent,

The best tool(s) that I can think of are knowledge/expertise in social psychology, empathy, and vast amounts of active listening on the part of the investigator/observer.

If I was to become a paranormal investigator, I would bring all of these things and a notepad; the problem is that none of this is "sexy" by pop-culture standards.

Enjoyed the discussion!

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 19, 2009 2:04pm

Erm actually a lot of what you said represents your misunderstanding of the use of the equipment. A large majority of it is used to determine the conditions of a supposedly haunted location not actually detect ghosts themselves. As for the validity of the results, that will always be open to speculation as there is no such thing as "proven methods". We work with and adapt various tools we have to help explain what is going on and a professional investigator will always be sceptical of thier own findings.
For example we use infra red alrams to seal an area, not to try and detect a ghost moving past it. The effects of exposure to EMF feilds is widely known (except to you apparently) so we use EMF meters to ascertain if the "haunting" is a symptom of that exposure. Ion detectors, thermometers, static meters, infra sound devices are all use to monitore environmental conditions NOT to detect any "presence".
EVPs are subject to relevance to questions asked during EVP sessions and without a direct corrolation are simply sound anomalies. I have never seen such a badly written article on scepticism, please do some research before you try again ;-)

KeeF, Dover UK
August 21, 2009 3:16am

KeeF,

You mention openness to speculation and no such thing as "proven methods." Your inferences are purely dogmatic.

More regurgitation of the purported detection capabilities typical ghost hunting tools of the trade is what I was trying to get away from.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 22, 2009 5:52am

I agree that psychological factors of the client need to be taken into account, however I stand firmly by my statements regarding the misconceptions of the application of technology during investigation into paranormal phenomena.
Your reply to my comments simply reflects the misunderstandings and agreed often misrepresentations via public media of thier use to which of course this topic is orientated.

KeeF, Dover, UK
August 23, 2009 7:03am

KeeF,

Far from misunderstanding, as you will read.

Like I said before, I was hoping to refrain from the same regurgitation of these items.

O. K., I see how I have misunderstood. It’s all about measuring the environmental conditions of a haunted house, not detecting ghosts. Then you simply speculate on the readings from your instrumentation to determine “what is going on.” In other words, your equipment detects haunted houses, but not the residents?

Please enlighten me on the “widely known effects of EMF fields.” Are your “widely known” effects congruent with this website?

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index3.html

As far as research on the “widely known effects of EMF” goes, I’ll use the W.H.O, the N.I.O.S.H, the N.S.F., and a basic Physics textbook to get my data. The textbook Inquiry into Physics by Vern Ostidek would be a good starting reference for you if you really want to get scientific. I’ve tried to find a numerical magnetic transient histogram that displays the minimum and maximum levels of magnetic flux measured in both milligaus and micro teslas to confirm of debunk the presence of “hauntings” when compared to ambient, baseline readings of a purported “haunted” location. I need your help in this area. I’ve searched the Web, InfoTrac, Lexus Nexus, and the Library of Congress to no avail.

You use the words “validity,” “speculation,” “work-with,” and “adapt.”

I have more, but I'll wait for your reply.

Brett

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 23, 2009 5:58pm

I'll be easier on you than Brett. Just present some evidence that ghosts have some influence (any influence) on the electro magnetic spectrum. I'm not particular. Any evidence that they impact the spectrum in anyway will do.

Of course when I say evidence that means well designed studies, not your run of the mill "hey this needle spiked there must be a ghost" sort of thing.

Craig, Washington DC
August 27, 2009 1:28pm

Brett, you never base your opinion on anything but facts, and a spike on the emf meter does not mean there is a ghost present. Now if you are in building with no elctricity to it and lights go on and off, and you get an emf meter that fluctuates I am still not gonna say it is a ghost, but if I get clear EVPs along with some photograpic proof and maybe flucutating temperatures I cant explain, then you get intelligent answers to your questions, we say then there (and i stress the word) MAY be some sort of Paranormal activity going on at that location. You guys watch too much TV. It really in real life scientific situations is not done for thrills like they do on tv. It aint scary, it is not fun most of the time, and it can take long hours of getting nothing you need to go out on a hunt with a reputable paranormal group. That I can arrange but cant promise we will find anything most of the reliable groups strike out 60 percent of the time. You also dont find ghosts usually at the morgue, hospital, or even the graveyard! i know you read about groups all the time doing these things but it is silly. Now if you are an itelligent ghost and want to come back to earth where would you go. Maybe you old highschool, the house of family, church, maybe to see your old ball club play, anight at the opera. Who would want to go to the cold graveyard where you are burried. silly!

paladin, kalamazoo michigan
September 13, 2009 7:31pm

Paladin,

I respect your use of the word "may."

That takes the dogmatism out of this subject.

Too many times correlation and causation become synonymous; along with probability and possibility. There are clear, distinct meanings when the context and true definitions of these words are considered.

Again, when applying "science" to paranormal, social psychology would be the best tool. So much could be gained by analyzing peoples' attributions, belief systems, values, etc. No batteries required, just concentrated thought.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
September 15, 2009 5:42am

as a well educated adult that has dived fairly deep into the world of psychology, philosophy, and other fields through numerous degrees of education, i have found ghost hunting to be an interesting concept and have went into it not as a skeptic or a believer but as an interested bystander of the subject. my experiences do not tell me they exist or don't exist; they do however tell me there is something going on that we as humans cannot and will not ever understand. this website seems to be quite bias in my opinion. not cool at all. that is no way to approach research. if you are going to research something, do it right and not base it on what you want it to be. someone who writes articles on daylight savings time and detoxification should not be an authority on something as controversial as ghosts. i hope no one takes this site seriously.

Mr. Nook, East Coast USA
October 15, 2009 9:37am

I AM A PARANORMAL INVESTAGATOR. I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD THINGS I CAN ONLY EXPLAIN AS PARANORMAL.THAT IS THE MAIN WORD HERE PARANOPRMAL SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NORMAL.I DONT USE THE PHARSE GHOST HUNTER.I HAVE HAD THINGS TOUCH ME THAT I COULD NOT SEE, THINGS TALK TO ME I COULD NOT SEE, AND HAVE SEEN THING I CAN NOT EXPLAIN.MAYBEY SOMEDAY SOMEONE WILL HAVE THE ANSWER YOU AND I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE PARANORMAL.BUT I DO RESPECT YOU VIEW I ONLY HOPE YOU RESPECT ME FOR TRYING TO GET YOU THE ANSWERS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME D.H. NOV 08 2009 9:15pm

DON, MIDWEST
November 08, 2009 7:16pm

The field of Paranormal Investigation is not just about proving or disproving the exsistance of ghosts...it is wholly about investigating the paranormal. The paranormal is anything not normal, and almost everyone has experienced something they could not consider normal and could not explain, even those who say thay dont believe. If these television shows had people going in and investigating using only their senses the skeptics would be fired up about them not using tools. We can not use tools to prove or disprove the exsistance of God but yet over 2 billion people believe. You can not discount a persons experiences, and their desire to use all the tools they can to understand those experiences and expose them to others.

Amber, Tehachapi
November 17, 2009 9:26am

Amber,

"Paranormal" defined according to Webster is "not scientifically explainable."

If you cannot use "tools" to prove or disprove the existence of God, then why do so many paranormal investigators use "tools" to prove or disprove the existence of [any] spirit entity?

How can {quote} "...using all the tools they can to understand those experiences and expose them to others..." follow your argument?

Your mind, your intellect, your emotions, and your empathy are the only "tools" that you have available when you desire to seek understand.

Brett

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
November 20, 2009 5:41am

I find it very funny. Skeptics, in this setting, are usually Athiest.
The funny part is that I know many many fundi Christians who feel the exact same way but for different reasons.
Both Athiest/sceptics and Fundi Christians think that ghosts and ghost hunters are full of bunk.
I absolutely love it.

Chris, Purcell
November 23, 2009 12:05pm

This is one of my favorite Skeptoid topics. I feel that people like a good ghost story (or investigative TV show) for the same reason they like roller coasters, they like to be scared. People like to allow themselves to be scared albeit in a safe way. We know the coaster is fundamentally safe but will serve to frighten the crap out of us for a few minutes. We also know deep down that ghosts are not real (at least that we have proven scientifically) but allowing ourselves to believe in them permits us to be frightened to the extent that it is entertaining. It is all about suspension of disbelief.

Does anyone else find it to be ironic that ghost hunters are using tools of science to forward the purpose of their pseudoscience?

Guy, FL
November 23, 2009 2:04pm

""The field of Paranormal Investigation is not just about proving or disproving the exsistance of ghosts...it is wholly about investigating the paranormal.""

Ie. ghosts.

""The paranormal is anything not normal, and almost everyone has experienced something they could not consider normal and could not explain, even those who say thay dont believe.""

Just that you can't explain something doesn't support the idea of ghosts one bit, more than it supports the existence of elves, unicorns, trolls, dragons or other things people have used as explanations for mysteries in the past.

""If these television shows had people going in and investigating using only their senses the skeptics would be fired up about them not using tools.""

The problem isn't that they use tools, the problem is that they use the wrong tools for the job and don't know how to properly use them.

""We can not use tools to prove or disprove the exsistance of God but yet over 2 billion people believe.""

Which is immaterial because it says nothing about whether or not God actually exists.

""You can not discount a persons experiences, and their desire to use all the tools they can to understand those experiences and expose them to others.""

No one is "discounting personal experiences", we're trying to explain them in a rational, empirical manner. Walking around in the house with a Geiger counter is as meaningless as trying to use a compass to detect wolves.

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
December 28, 2009 4:04pm

The study of the paranormal does not only mean the study of ghosts. It's a wide gulf of the unexplainable, or the yet to be explained.

Brett- "Paranormal" defined according to Webster is "not scientifically explainable." Well, science is not law, it is a constant update - what we call fact one day can be falsified the next or embellished upon for further understanding. Much of what we explore and/or take for granted today in a number of scientific studies was once paranormal as there was nothing more than hypotheses to account for the subject matter.

You went to great length to list the "tools" of ghost hunters and say that the items are misused and that each instrument is useless for such a field of "research."

First, misuse, well that can be debated depending upon circumstance and the awareness of the "researcher" in how the instrument is meant to function. I won't dispute that a number of people purchase these devices and lack the knowledge in utilizing them properly -- but that cannot account for an entirety.

Secondly, if you are absolutely steadfast in your assumption that the devices are useless, then please, by all means, provide a list of possibility and under what context/use they can be managed.

If spirits exist and can possibly be measures or registered legitimately by some fashion, until we know what defines them we must allow for trial and error in researching them. Much like all sciences, it is a progress report which evolves through study.

Sheri, Seattle, Wa
January 01, 2010 4:30pm

Paranormal investigations are more psychological than scientific. The use of these "tools" only stimulates the subjects into fear, a basic primal instinct. They are also feeding off each others fears and then label their unexplained "research" as ghosts. It would make just as much sense to call their findings as an alternate reality or dimension or voices from an alien life form on another planet. (sound, radio and emf waves do travel through space) People believe what is being told to them, because they have a device designed for something completely different telling them this is so. I am suprised they haven't implemented radar into "ghost hunting" yet. Just think about all of those ghosts that are flying through our skies.

Melissa, McKinney, TX
January 02, 2010 9:46am

Sheri,

I cannot agree with you more on your introductory paragraph to your posting. However- on the subject of use/misuse...

How much use (or misuse) of the aforementioned "equipment" necessitates falsifiability with regards to the detection of paranormal activity? Will the same [experimentation] that has zero plausible mechanisms [to detect] that fails today to show results... provide for astounding, revolutionary discoveries tomorrow?

There is a laundry list of industries that use these instruments to measure dosimetry, noise, safety tolerances, etc. Food service, medical services, power generation, telecommunications, aerospace...the list goes on.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
January 03, 2010 5:17am

Your statement about ghosts emitting EMF is incorrect. Previous experience suggests that an energy or spirit may cause fluctuations in a location, but as far as I know no one has ever said "Ghosts emit EMF".

Ion & Radiation. No one has ever claimed that a high ion count is a ghost. That tool is used to debunk a haunting because a high ion count will cause hallucinations.

EVP. Contrary to you claim, Audio recorders DO pick up sounds from frequencies that are indetectable by human ability. Most EVP`s are under 500 hertz & normal human voice is above 500 hertz.

Cameras. Although 95% of all orb photos are camera artifacts & flaws, some ore simply not explainable with logic. I suppose you`re going to emply that apparitions & shadow images caught on film are camera errors too? Not!

ir thermometers. Yes it`s true that they measure surface temperatures, but some research has suggested that a mass of energy between the surface & the device will cause changes in readings. Plus, some devices are limited in range & cannot always pich up a surface, so what would be your explanation for fluctuations with that?

You approached this with scientific theories, but science has never agreed with subjects of this matter & to date has never been able to explain nor debunk the abnormal readings. Clumping everything into one category like you did is both convenient & a cop out. You must examine each case infividually & study the evidence. then lets see you explain it.

Blair Jett, Cullman Al
February 12, 2010 7:45am

""You approached this with scientific theories, but science has never agreed with subjects of this matter & to date has never been able to explain nor debunk the abnormal readings.""

So if a given method doesn't "agree" with you, it's automatically useless?

I also disagree with your statement that "science never has explained or debunked abnormal readings". It has. For every "inexplicable" ghost story out there, there's a ghost story explained in perfectly rational ways by sceptical inquirers. See this very site for several examples.

""You must examine each case infividually & study the evidence. then lets see you explain it.""

Don't be ridiculous, of course we mustn't. The burden of proof is on you to prove ghosts exist, not on us to prove they don't.

Safe-Keeper, Norway
February 25, 2010 1:58pm

The mystery would be solved once and for all if the Ghost Hunters would just test the pH of the tap water of the haunted location that they are investigating. No one has explained or debunked abnormal pH levels. We must examine each pH level individually & study the evidence. Some research has shown that a mass of energy between the faucet and the glass will cause changes in readings. What would your explanation for fluctuations with that?

Baba O'Reily, Miami, FL
February 26, 2010 4:33am

You fail horribly to mention that any investigator worth their salt knows exactly what their equipment will detect. When they get an anomoly, it is because their equipment is detecting things that should not set them off. Just because they do not go into great detail about their equipment on T.V. does not make them not credible. Television shows have strict time limits. So going into detail about the equipment would be pointless as there would not be enough time to describe each piece of equipments functions. Television producers want to spend more time on the spooky aspects. So in closing I find this verbal vomit you are spouting absolutely ridiculous, and if anyone donates to this crap then they are just as ignorant, and blind as you.

justin, cheyenne, wy
February 27, 2010 12:14pm

"Any investigator worth their salt knows exactly what their equipment will detect."

And that is...? And is directly plausible to...?

"When they get an anomoly, [sic] it is because their equipment is detecting things that should not set them off."

And the anomalies are...? And they are directly plausible to...?

Did you have any insight to this or are you just expressing your apathy to the author?

Baba O'Reily, Miami, FL
March 01, 2010 3:36am

I love it when people say "Disprove my ghost in the closet theory, and if you cant then I'm right" rather then say "Heres the solid repeatable evidence i am showing that proves whats going on. Provide me with alternate explanations and I shall show you why the evidence rules these more mundane explanations out". When is the last time a ghost hunter said that? An old but excellent reading is Carl Sagans "Demon Haunted World". Woth its weight in gold I think.

This episode reminds me much of the Norway Sprial Lights. People were saying "prove to me conclusively its a rocket malfunction and not HAARP and if you cant then it was HAARP making a black hole with Scalar technology". I provided rational explanations and even basic simulations and then challenged them to do the same showing me why it was HAARP and Scalar stuff and all I got was "you havent convinced me it was a rocket, you lose". Brian if you want to tackle an utter load of conspiracy drivel, I suggest you put that one up. That episode alone should make for another listener feedback episode all its own lol! Excellent work as always!

Cam, Thunder Bay, ON.
March 01, 2010 8:01am

I am a confirmed skeptic.BUT...on a ghost hunt last week,my first incidentally,I found a stool levitating before my eyes.How? I went with the intention of disproving happenings.No tricks involved,stool wooden,no strings attatched literally.Explanations please!

John Duncan, Southampton
June 09, 2010 3:14pm

as a newly certified level thermographer, i can tell you with some confidence there are many tricks these guys can employ by use of thermography that you cannot see visibly(ie creative,use of reflectivity) that can give ghost like effects.infrared thermography requires a carefully calibrated spot angle for which to read accurately.as the author said it reads suface temps and is very easy to misuse or get an inaccurate reading if you do not know how to read your spot.thermography captures an image based on radiated heat surfaces, and the so called ghosts have run from cold to hot, with the right material and angle very easy to fake w/use of infrared. it's not point and shoot as some may be led to believe.justin you do not know the facts behind this technology don't assume theyre being honest with you because they can afford this stuff( can run up to75grand for on camera)shows are made to make money and entertain," dont be fooled again"

mario, bethpage
June 12, 2010 2:05am

@ John Duncan

Remember what Carl Sagan and others like Brian here say: Nature may make you struggle to unlock her secrets but she fights fair (sort of what Carl Sagan was find of saying). Most scientists and sceptics are not prepared to spot purposeful deception, especially on premade ghost tours and magic shows. Ask James Randi and see what he says. Give him a day or two alone unobserved in a room and I guarantee you he'll show you the same thing and you wont be able to spot how he does it. While I always have, and always will have a suspicion there may be a "something more" to this life that we dont know yet, I wont trust anyone to be the purveyer of that "something" be it religion etc because I refuse to be led around by the nose and give up my power to follow either another blind man or a cynical charlatan.

Cam, Thunder Bay
June 14, 2010 8:31am

My favorite is the EVP session. Two investigators sit down in a room with a camera operator and a sound person and ask a potential ghost questions. Of the two recording devices in the room, the hand-held digital recorder with a built in microphone(which likely generates a lot of self noise)and the expensive, and more sensitive microphone of the sound tech, the hand-held finds the ghost.

Another entertaining watch these shows is imagine they are hunting trained monkeys wreaking havoc on a house or building.

Brian Sullivan, Portsmouth, NH
July 09, 2010 10:44am

Very funny guy ! So where is the article about EVP? I'd be very glad to see what you have to say about that. I'd gladly get an explanation on how is it that a light is turn on "on command", EMF is ON and OFF while on the floor ON COMMAND. The only explanation you have is : they are a fraud.. What about the International Spirite association in Paris in the 30's and the thousands and thousands of page of report about their experiments? They were all Medecine doctors from all over the world. Bozzano,Denis etc were they all crazy? It's a shame to see people that refuse to admit they just dont know !Science is not a religion and cannot explain everything. And those doctors from the past they were scientists they were trying to debunk to see to test with open minds! Telling children ghost for sure dont exist because you decided it is such a shame. You don't believe in God, ok but who you think you are to tell people they are wrong not thinking like you !

Ted, Paris
July 25, 2010 6:16am

I always like to check so called "expert" skeptics references. And when the are specifically selected to prove only one point, that becomes a case for what is termed "bias" reporting. I would strongly suggest you get your ass up out of your easy chair by the computer you type in, and venture out with a professional paranormal group. I know its very convenient for you to sit and deduce your claims from watching a TV show. But sometimes, if your really going to make valid claims about a subject, it pays to go in the field and experiment for real; then write your paper. Otherwise, it just looks like a well written term paper with the minimal research of five sources. That will take away some of the amateur look of your writing.

Steve Edwards, Sheridan/Indiana
July 26, 2010 4:37am

well 1st you show your loack of knowledge with the temperature gauge, Any paranormal person will tell you such as will tell you there are 2 types one like you talk about and the one we use in the field it is a ambient gauge. What it does is the air around the probe. See you are the phony "expert" learn what you are talking about before writing. 2nd like the said go out with a group most have a place they go to regularly because of the activity. Just because yousay its not real does not mean it isnt. and If you believe in God and Jesus then you believe in ghosts ie: The Holy Spirit. or is Jesus the only one that can live on???

so in this experts opinion you are a fraud and a liar and stop trying to tell people what to think and believe till you go out and do it for yourself.

Mike, Pennsylvania
July 26, 2010 5:27am

You guys want to have me trust a paranormal tour or conference whos agenda is to promote the existence of the supernatural, using tools that have effects that can be easily explained away by mundane causes?

None of you have shown me proof that removes the mundane explanations. One of the reasons I trust and USE the scientific method over others is that I continually test what I know or want to know. I get an idea and I see if evidence exists that rule out more mundane explanations. I dont just take the word of a good podcaster, I use the method myself. And when the evidence cannot rule out other explanations then I do not put much credence in the idea.

I refuse to be led around the nose by guys like these "researchers" using dubious methods, making unsupported explanations using technology intended for specific uses not associated with these ghost hunts.

You may want to ask yourself if you want to do that same. Sceptics want as much as ANYONE to believe, but do not give up their credulity until shown very good reason to do so. I would encourage you guys to do the same.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 26, 2010 7:13am

SERIOUSLY??? How in the world can someone JUDGE something they have NEVER experienced themselves. I am sorry Sir but this article is the MOST MISINFORMED thing I have EVER read. In order for someone to have a REAL UNBIAST Opinion they have to ACTUALLY experience it. Im APPUALED by this so called EXPERT opinion, I have been a Paranormal Investigator for going one my 7th year. I cant BEGIN to tell you the things I have EXPERIENCED. I would HIGHLY suggest you actually EXPERIENCE an Investigation BEFORE you form opinions. I do applaud you exersizing freedom of speech...but thats the ONLY thing I applaud!

Wanda Stone, Durham, NC
July 26, 2010 9:00am

It's one thing to be a skeptic; which is completely fine, since most of us paranormal investigators have at LEAST some part of a skeptical nature about it in us (or should), but it's another thing to type up an article like this to only prove to others that you've never even attempted to use any of the equipment that you've mentioned. It only enabled the public to view you as the know-nothing, armchair television-viewer that you obviously are... trying to make a name for yourself.

If we, as a society, only used things for which they were intended most people who are on medications for their illnesses would be suffering a great deal more than they are now. I suggest you look up all that just simple aspirin can do, even though some think it's just for pain. It's a damn good thing that a lot society isn't as narrow-minded as you are, and I pity the ones who are.

You fail to understand that any paranormal researcher worth their grain of salt is a skeptic FIRST. We do not believe that every little thing is paranormal. Debunking is first and foremost... always. I highly suggest that you either quit watching the TV shows that you're watching or keep in mind that it's TELEVISION. It's meant for entertainment.

I HIGHLY suggest you link up with a respectable team and go out on a few investigations. Maybe THAT will enable you to pull your head out of your derrière.

By the way, there's no money to be made from ghosts; which is why there's no industry behind it. ;-)

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 26, 2010 10:25am

Wanda, CAPS LOCK tends to turn most people away from your posts to begin with. Now, if you are a competent investigator, show us the methods by which you ruled out more mundane explanations through your investigations. How have you ruled out confirmation bias, misidentifications, spurious data, hallucination, poor lighting, random noise, etc? What measures did you use? What controls? Or did you set out with the goal of finding something and dismiss any contradictory evidence, because you want to believe?

Also to be a competent investigator, one always should use the spell check option (as well as grammar check for my own poor writing skills).

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 26, 2010 10:35am

I recommend using Safari as your browser; there's one for Windows as well as OS. It has a built in check as you go spell check.

So, you have proof of ghosts. May I see it? It's not misinformed to demand evidence. Skepticism is an evidence based world view. You're making the claim therefore the burden is on you to provide evidence of ghosts.

Try finding a haunted house. Now, design an experiment that has controls necessary to prevent tampering with the outcome. Now find the ghost. Then, have someone else use exactly the same methods you used to find the ghost. Then you need to go to a bunch of other haunted houses and use the same methods and find more ghosts. Other investigators need to use those methods to find the ghosts. That would be evidence. There are other ways to skin this cat but that's a pretty good start.

Craig, Washington DC
July 26, 2010 11:06am

Craig? That's all been done though. Many of us have been to the same locations, and have gotten the very same results. Sometimes we don't always get the same results, because it's not as though spirits act on cue. Sometimes we don't get any results whatsoever.

You ask for proof. There's tons of it. But, let me make a suggestion to you. Get a digital voice recorder and set it to record while you're in your home, while you're making dinner with your family or having a dinner party. Then, when you're alone and in a quiet area, lay down with a set of headphones on and just listen to what was recorded. Do your own little experiment. Spirits aren't just in haunted houses.

(I suggest doing that little experiment when there's more than just you in your home. Collective energy is a wonderful thing. ;-) )

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 26, 2010 11:31am

All I can say Anne-marie is if thats your standardized scientific measure, then you have left an enormous number of questions unanswered.

To repeat my last post: "How have you ruled out confirmation bias, misidentifications, spurious data, hallucination, random noise, etc? What measures did you use? What controls?" What was you operation definition for an EVP and for what supposedly uttered it, and where is the base you drew it from?

How have others come to a similar evidence based conclusion and what controls did they use to rule out alternative explanations?

Visit haunted houses if you wish, and call them investigations if you wish, but to be taken seriously you have to answer sceptical inquiry a tad more strenuously.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 26, 2010 12:07pm

Perhaps you should do that little experiment too then, and then come back and tell us all that you got on your recording and explain to US how the things that were said but not heard at the time got there, if you get anything. As I said, if you read correctly, it's just a little experiment... nothing more.

We don't know everything about the paranormal. No one does. We all have our own theories about things. Some of us agree with one another, and sometimes we don't. We try different things, use different methods. None of us are experts. What works for some may not work for others. But, as far as the gadgets we use, they work.

I'd answer your question about how we've reached similar evidence-based conclusions, but according to the things you've typed I wonder if it would be a waste of my time, since you've obviously made up your mind in what you believe... or shall I say don't believe. If you truly want to know, link up with a respectable group and go out on a few investigations with them and see for yourself. I could type up every explanation that I know, but for someone such as yourself I think the experience would be well worth it.

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 26, 2010 12:37pm

I am asking for independently verified evidence.

You made the claim, you provide the proof.

Is this making my mind up to turn everything you say back? Not in the least. Will I turn back spurious evidence that can be explained easily by many different causes? Every time.

Will I turn back evidence that rules out all those other alternative explanations? I will be the first to applaud it and be its champion.

Listening to a single recording with all kinds of fuzzy various sounds doesnt constitue solid evidence. But if you do have controlled studies, link them and I'll look them over. Perhaps there is something there? perhaps not. Let me see what you have to offer.

I promise you that again, if you can give me a body of evidence that rules out the alternative explanations, I will be its champion. Is that a lot to ask for? yep. But then any serious science steps up to the plate and provides it every day.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 26, 2010 1:13pm

Okay. I'll step up. I've a picture that I think may interest you. EVPs are a dime a dozen. Any of us can provide you with a multitude of them.

I took this picture in Mineral Springs Mall, in Alton, Illinois. My husband and I went antiquing with friends of ours at the time. I had wandered off and went upstairs to where the offices were. I was just walking around taking pictures. The second floor; which is where I was, was empty, due to the fact that it was a Saturday, and all of the offices were closed. As I was walking around, I noticed that I WAS indeed alone... all of the offices were empty, until my husband came to track me down.

I snapped this picture, while my husband stood next to me. I was just hoping to capture something in the hallway. It wasn't until the next morning, as I was having my first cup of coffee, that I noticed there was something in the office at the very end of the hallway. As I enlarged and cropped it, I thought, "Holy crap. Really?!?"

My husband is a diehard skeptic. When I showed him the picture, I didn't tell him what I was seeing, and has asked him if he saw anything. He looked and said, "Looks like a little girl", shot me a look and walked away.

<a href="http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/Redheaded_Peach/?action=view¤t=Original.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/Redheaded_Peach/Original.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 26, 2010 3:38pm

Your photos show a glass door with a camera flash at about head level, as well as sunlight streaming in from behind. Even the red rectangle meant to focus my eye didn't help. It still looks like reflected flash and ambient light. Nice try, though.

Did YOU see the girl standing there before you took the picture? No.

"It wasn't until the next morning, as I was having my first cup of coffee, that I noticed there was something in the office at the very end of the hallway. As I enlarged and cropped it..."

Because she wasn't there. A camera can only capture something in the visible spectrum (unless it's designed otherwise). If your eyes didn't see a 'girl,' neither did the camera. That's why you had to enlarge it and crop to even see a hazy blur.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
July 26, 2010 5:40pm

Sorry, Anne-Marie, Illinois.

Yet another example of our old pal paredolia.

Marius vanderlubbe, NNullabour Plain, Australia
July 26, 2010 5:50pm

I'm really sorry, but if that's a girl, it's an incredibly alien one. Open the enlarged picture in Paint or something and zoom in close. Not only is the anatomy (especially of the head) all wrong, but there's a more convincing "face" above the girl. He appears to be wearing some kind of helmet, actually.

Øyvind, Bergen, Norway
July 26, 2010 9:13pm

Lewayne,

If we could see spirits with our eyes, as we see one another, we'd have no problem taking their pictures, and they'd not be so difficult to get photographs of.

It's blurry, due to the fact that the office door is made of some type of frosted glass. It's an old door, in an old building.

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 27, 2010 7:33am

Or there just isn't a ghost. I see nothing here that qualifies as evidence of ghosts.

This isn't a well designed studies, no controls, no repeatability. There isn't even anything in the picture by reflected light.

Craig, Washington DC
July 27, 2010 8:48am

*Chuckle* As I said, I was just hoping to capture something in the hallway. Repeatability? So, let me get this straight... if I ever DO see a spirit, I should say, "Stay there. Do NOT move. I need to take ANOTHER picture of you"? Surely, if that were to happen, I'd get a picture of the spirit holding up his/her middle finger. LOL! Too funny. Repeatability... well-designed study... this was a picture that I snapped off in a hallway of an old building.

No matter what you or anyone else thinks, I know what's there. The thing is: I could have posted a perfectly clear picture of a spirit and you would have STILL shot it down... found something wrong with it. Why? Denial, closed-mindedness.... whatever you want to call it in order to make yourself feel better about YOU.

I'm thrilled the people who have done really wonderful things haven't listened to people such as yourself and believed them when they said things were impossible and couldn't be done. Where would we be now?

Anne-Marie, Illinois
July 27, 2010 4:12pm

Anne-Marie, we ask for unequivocal evidence and you reply with "Denial, closed-mindedness.... whatever you want to call it in order to make yourself feel better about YOU"? Not quite sure if thats a good place to start.

Thing is, ghosts may or may not exist. Personally I have no idea although if real would be great. However, the means by which most ghost hunters and so forth put forward to prove it falls far short of constituting evidence. Many scientific types have explored the idea so far in a myriad of ways and quite frankly have never come up with anything that does not clearly rule out alternative explanations.

Let me repeat that last bit: "clearly rule out alternative explanations". You certainly have strong beliefs and are welcome to them and subject them to whatever rigor or lack of that you choose, but to convince others requires that you provide evidence that lives up to the quoted statement just above. The thing is, ideas and evidence that survives rigorous questioning is something we can rely on. Thats why when people present radical ideas, we ask them to provide evidence for it, then test that. Relativity for example was as radical as it got, and it was tested to the hilt for that. it survived with flying colors

That way we get something we can rely on. A hazy fuzzy picture that can be seen in many different ways, however special it may be for you, does not constitute that.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 27, 2010 5:13pm

@Cam of Thunder Bay
Question?? Have you yourself, ever with your own digital recorder, under your controlled experiment; tried to collect and EVP sample? If so, give some details of your experiment and results. Very curious as to your answer.

Steve Edwards, Sheridan, IN
July 27, 2010 6:25pm

Anne Maria:

It's you're claim. Using the scientific method, the burden of substantiating that claim is on you. Come up with a well designed experiment with rigorous controls to prevent anyone from effecting the result. Do it a bunch of times. Have other people do it a bunch of times and see if they get the same results. Pictures on web pages just don't cut it.

Craig, Washington DC
July 27, 2010 10:10pm

"If we could see spirits with our eyes, as we see one another, we'd have no problem taking their pictures, and they'd not be so difficult to get photographs of."

But, the 'fact' that you have a 'picture' of a 'spirit' indicates they should be theoretically corporeal enough to be seen with the naked eye, else the camera couldn't have captured the image. So, if there was actually something physically there, you should have seen it. You didn't, because there was nothing there.

"It's blurry, due to the fact that the office door is made of some type of frosted glass. It's an old door, in an old building."

Which is our point. You 'see' a 'spirit' image. Everyone else sees light reflecting off/filtered through glass with a textured surface. As Marius put it, it's our "old pal paredolia."

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
July 27, 2010 10:19pm

@ Craig, Washington DC: Question?? Have you yourself, ever with your own digital recorder, under your controlled experiment; tried to collect and EVP sample? If so, give some details of your experiment and results. Very curious as to your answer as well.
@ Cam, Thunder Bay: You speak of relativity. Funny you should mention that subject. Relativity hasn't exactly survived with flying colors. There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity. It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit". The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation. Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions (aka black holes). Science is nothing but theories that hold true until a new one can replace it.

Steve Edwards, Sheridan, IN
July 28, 2010 5:02am

Well Steve, I did do a silly 'control experiment' back when I was into ghost hunting with EVP. I did several recordings in what was supposed to be the most haunted graveyard out in the middle of the woods and several control recordings at work after closing (a Sam's Club) and at school, neither place reported to be haunted. Guess what? People found more 'ghosts' at the fifteen year old Sam's Club than at the two hundred year old graveyard. Ghost hunting is what led me to skepticism.

However, your suggestion that people should have actually had personal experience performing EVP to debunk them is a bizarre fallacy. I don't need to have attempted to build a perpetual motion machine to tell you why it won't work, or have stared at the sun for hours without food until I've died to criticize those either.

Brandon, Falconer
July 28, 2010 7:42am

@ Steve Edwards

Relativity has been one of the most robust theories in science ever. It led directly to the discovery of quantum physics and these theories are a fundamental part of most of our modern technology today. You obviously know this so dont parse out my statement in an attempt to diminish it. Any physicist will also tell you as well that any branch of science are developing fields so the idea of an "absolutely correct theory", especially in the burgeoning area of quantum physics is just simply not there yet and may not be for a long time yet. The universe keeps revealing new and profound secrets every day, and how could anybody ask for any different?

As for performing an EVP session? Have you read my earlier posts and considered the flaws in these mini experiments, and why they dont qualify as controlled repeatable independently verifiable experiments? Read Brandons statement just above mine to see my point of view on the matter of mini experiments.

Are we asking for higher standards? Absolutely. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 28, 2010 8:30am

@CAM If we considered mini-experiments as "flawed", then Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and hundreds of other scientist's work would never had been considered. Just because the work is small nor related to a university or corporation label; does not make it flawed. Granted not everyone here has made valid claims. But,I do agree with you on two principles you've stated above: The universe keeps revealing new and profound secrets every day, and how could anybody ask for any different?"
Why are "YOU" so objectionable to conducting your own test of the claims? Surely with your heightened skeptical logic, your own test and results might be the answer to all the posts above. Being skeptical in an armchair is an easy approach to answering questions.But it is neither the scientific way or the logical way! You keep throwing out the word "controllable" like its some magic spell that dissipates all claims. Though few, true enough, some researchers are working on these phenomena in very control ways with repeating results. Starting as skeptics, most started above with the simple little experiment that they controlled. Self experimentation is the first step to test a skeptical viewpoint. I'll address Brandon later. There are a lot of scientific details missing from his description of what he did. Since it was silly (his words), one can believe it was not well planned.

Steve Edwards, Sheridan, IN
July 28, 2010 10:25am

Steve, all good suggestions, however yourself Anne and others are proposing the provable existence of ghosts. And then you are telling other to go out and prove it for you. No. Call me an armchair sceptic, but I worked for a masters degree and am going for my Ph.D. I have in fact gone out and done field work and actual research. I know about controls, i know how easy it is to fool ourselves, i know the hard way how hypotheses touted as theories flop when you dont have multiple line of supporting evidence saying the same thing about a phenomenon, and then people properly shoot you down for it. I know the value of operational definitions and the metrics behind developing valid applicable measures to be sure you are in fact measuring what you claim to measure.

The mini experiments of the men you talked about ended up providing empirical, testable verifiable data that anyone could go back in and pore over and confirm or refute. They followed all the strict guidelines above to rule out as much as they could alternative explanations. And even then people built on what they did, or discarded it and used the old theory as a new place and built so much more. Where have I seen you provide any of these strictures or controls? I have actually done it in the fields of public health, education and psychology over hundreds of hours. We can only be sure the universe produces new things after its been verified to death and lives through scrutiny. Ghost hunting does not yet.

Cam, Thunder Bay
July 28, 2010 11:38am

Sound-

a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium, (solids, fluids).

Could anyone please tell me how an ethereal, discarnate, spiritual entity can produce sound waves that can be audibly recorded on any device whether it is captured on digital medial or magnetic tape?

Before we get in to the scientific method with testable and repeatable results, I'd like to just hear some basic physics about E.V.P.

To the proponents of E.V.P.- What produces the sound you are recording? It can't be air traveling from the lungs through the vocal cords, and I don't think anything ethereal contains a radio transmitter.

You have these recordings, how did they get there?

Please, no quantum physics. Keep it simple.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
July 31, 2010 8:43am

PEOPLE MAKE COMMENTS THAT ORBS AND MIST ARE JUST GASES OR FOG BUT I'VE THING SEEN THINGS HAVE PROOF THAT GHOST ARE REAL. BUT WHEN ASK SOMEONE TO GO HUNTING WITH YOU THEY WILL NOT GO CAUSE THEIR SCARED TO GO SO MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU AFFRAID OF THE DARK.

GHOST MAN, WABASH, IN.
August 08, 2010 1:06pm

"BUT WHEN ASK SOMEONE TO GO HUNTING WITH YOU THEY WILL NOT GO CAUSE THEIR SCARED TO GO SO MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU AFFRAID OF THE DARK."

Okay, fear of the dark is one possible explanation. I'd consider some others. Just saying.

Craig, Washington DC
August 10, 2010 11:45am

Another explanation is that it could be aliens.

Brett Hansen, Chicago, IL
August 10, 2010 4:17pm