I was just made aware of a show on National Geographic called “Haunted Prison.” While I haven’t had the opportunity to watch a full episode I have checked out a few clips they have on the National Geographic website. This show is shot at Eastern State Penitentiary, and has a team comprised of scientists who exam various aspects of hauntings. From what I’ve seen in the video clips they have posted, investigators should definitely tune in and pay attention to how real science works, as well as getting explanations of some elements of physics.

Next showing is tonight, January 24, 2010, at 9:00PM.

UPDATE: Another showing is scheduled January 31, 2010 at 11:00am

I try to keep track of what the paranormal community, and I have a few sites that I visit as well as a few blogs that I check into from time to time. Some of these sights are pretty good, others are not. Some carry the latest hype about the newest craze that’s gripped that field of the paranormal, some are carrying articles that reveal what’s going on with the ParaCelebs. Most of these sites are pretty good about standing behind what they publish. But there are a few out there that will publish things and then pull the articles later. These ones seem to be turning into attention whores and are no better than the tabloids that have been on newsstands for decades.

Every time I see sites such that fit the attention whore mold I simply shake my head. From what I’m seeing they are worse than tabloids. At least tabloids keep their stories up, and if necessary, they will later print a retraction, but will keep the original article up. But what I see in the paranormal community are sites that will publish articles and then remove them at the request of people mentioned in the article even though the information has gone public. What kind of reporting is that? I know some will defend their actions by saying, “Well, there are some articles that shouldn’t be published,” but that’s a load of bullflop. If that were the case then it should have been clear from the start that the article shouldn’t be published. Not only that, but the information is already out there. Pulling articles in such a manner is nothing but censorship and is poor journalism. What really seems to be key to these types of articles is the site wants attention and traffic. Some it’s obvious that’s what they seek since they will often have created accounts and make posts on their own site. To me, that’s truly pathetic, and what’s even more pathetic is these sites often go after fraudulent behavior of others.

How can a site expect to maintain any integrity if it allows itself to be censored by those it reports on, and has staff that posts comments on it’s site in order to make it appear busy, or to steer a concept that the site wants people to buy into. They are just as guilty of fraud as those they report on. That being said, how can these sites be trusted to be reporting the truth on anything? When I see a site doing this I immediately put it in the same category as those who create false conventions and such, for they are all liars.

I began this blog the other day, being inspired by part of Kim Kowalczyk’s blog about standardizing the field of paranormal investigation on PUG, and today when I looked I see that Karen was inspired as well.

Paranormal Certification has always made me shake my head. How can you be certified in something that has no basis in fact? What gets me more is how many places certify people in paranormal investigation when what they should be certifying them in is pseudo-paranormal investigation since what they are teaching is pseudoscience. But the thing that gets under my skin with paranormal certification is the money that is made by people who are no more expert in the subject that a kid who watches Scooby Doo, Supernatural, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There are no experts in the field of paranormal investigation as it is widely practiced.

I know many will argue with what I say here, but they can argue all they want. It does not change the facts. Just because someone is well versed in folklore and unsubstantiated theories, it does not make them an expert on anything more than folklore. In fact, most of these people who claim to be professional investigators do not understand the basics of critical thought, rules of evidence, or anything remotely close to investigating where facts are established. This is much like those who decree that so-and-so has done more for the paranormal community and advanced paranormal research more than anyone else out there.

What’s really revealing on the last bit is when asked, those who make such a claim can never provide an example where they have really done anything for paranormal research, other than to further perpetuate unfounded and untested theories. Just once I’d like to hear one of them actually cite something that has accomplished what they speak of, but so far I have not heard, seen, or read anything where anyone has made any progress in substantiating the paranormal where ghost hunting is concerned. And yet these people that are so highly revered and charge hundreds of dollars for courses so people can be certified.

“Certified at what?” Is what I always ask. “How to hunt anomalies?” These people can’t even explain the basic principles on how the equipment works. Often courses for certification offer courses in subjects that have been long proven to be nothing paranormal; and have loads of evidence to substantiate that fact, yet they are taught as though they are true. Another type of subject is one that deals with broad results that can easily be interpreted to fit just about any situation. Things such as astrology or tarot card reading fall into this category. How can subjects which can be shown how they work to deceive, as well as being shown to have no paranormal traits, be recognized as part of a certification for paranormal investigation? Unless of course it’s not certification of scientific methods or knowledge.

I see a growing number of groups and “schools” that fall into this category. My advice to those thinking about paying to be certified in paranormal investigation is to take that money and spend it on a physics class, or some other science class at a college. At least that way it will mean something and it is an investment, whereas the other is pretty much flushing your money down the toilet on piece of paper with printing on it. You’ll get way more bang for your buck, and you may wind up applying that knowledge and actually help in establishing facts instead of merely hunting the next anomaly. And, if you still want a piece of paper then I’ll give you certification which is just as credible as the next guy. Click for Certification

One thing that came up in a blog over on PUG (ParanormalUnderground) by Kim Kowalczyk, of GhostBreakers, was a discussion about standardization of methods in the paranormal community. Kim makes some very good points in this blog, and much they say mirrors what I’ve said over the years. One of the things they touch upon is the resistance of groups to want to conform to standards since it makes them feel controlled. I too have seen this in the paranormal community and it amazes me how there are a set of standards that have emerged. EVPs, EMF detectors, and others. While not totally standardized, the basic concepts have become the norm with many groups, especially since ParaTV has made it’s debut.

But these standards are a far cry from the point that Kim is noting. There are no real standards or rules of evidence. Each group has it’s own way that it sets up equipment and collects data. Most of what I’ve seen simply consists of photos, videos, and audio recordings. There really isn’t much in the way of data logging other than some groups are now using EMF detectors that log measurements made by the device, but without any sort of control in place, and much of the time is the only device of its kind. This makes it virtually impossible for groups to compare notes. Without standards of how data is collected you cannot compare what one group found and compare it to what another group found at the same location, especially if the equipments capabilities differ. Take for instance audio recorders. If one group catches an alleged EVP with a cheap voice recorder while another does not this creates a conundrum when it comes to examining evidence. Was the EVP simply created from distortion caused by poor sampling rates and compression that alters ambient sound?

Another good point that Kim brings up is “Who would oversee these standards? There are no experts in this field.” This is very true. There are no experts in the field of paranormal investigation. In order to be considered an expert one has to have vast knowledge about the subject. Considering everything concerning the paranormal is up in the air and no facts have been established, there cannot be any experts. There may be many who claim to be, and they may have a lot of knowledge when it comes to folklore, but for them to claim to be experts in the field of paranormal investigation is a lie. They are simply experts in the folklore associated with the paranormal. So, who would oversee these rules or standards? And again I have to give kudos to Kim for the suggestion of having experts in various fields be those who govern over these rules, and I would go a bit further and say that the rules that the scientific community be the standards. For if those rules are what is used then there will be little reason for them to reject the evidence that an investigator collects.

Kim also notes a key issue in wrapping up his blog, and that is getting buy in from others in the paranormal community. In fact Kim notes something I have often wondered which is why is it so hard to get buy in from the so called professionals, and what’s their motivation to ignoring the issue. I’ll take it a step further and lump the ParaCelebs in there. To me it seems that the experts and ParaCelebs would be out of business if theories were tested, standards were set, and true knowledge were gained. They thrive on being able to spew untested theories and make broad statements that appeal to the masses who are caught up in groupthink. If they couldn’t offer these lofty ideas then I highly doubt they’d survive long since the overwhelming majority of them haven’t a clue as to go about investigating using methods that the academic community would accept. Obscurity is their friend and ally, just as are generalized statements that can be interpreted to fit any situation so they never appear to be wrong. Thus is the world of pseudoscience.

But I digress a bit. I think that there are several ways that a standard can begin to take root. In fact it seems to be. More and more I run into investigators such as Kim, or ones who have stumbled across a blog such as this or Kim’s. More and more I see the light bulbs begin to come on as investigators who have read these types of materials begin to think about what is said and look at their own methods. Granted there are going to be those who will fight tooth and nail to stick with the failed methods they’re currently using, primarily because they feel like they are accomplishing something whenever they capture some unexplained anomaly, but quite frankly I believe it’s because following the rules of academia are tedious, boring, and slow to produce results. Americans don’t like to wait for anything anymore. They want instant gratification, and science generally doesn’t provide that. But I think that if a group were to produce evidence that were accepted by academia, even if it was something small that didn’t provide definitive proof of the paranormal but did provide an answer to whether or not one of the countless theories out there was true or false, we would then see the tide begin to change.

So, in closing I would like to thank Kim and PUG from bringing up the issue. And I ask of those who read this and are paranormal investigators, “What are you going to do. Continue down the path of obscurity and never gain anything from it other than a collection of anomalies, or are you going to be a true contributor and work with others in the community to develop methods and tests to answer questions and gain knowledge? It’s your choice.”

I was laying in bed with my sinuses stuffed to the roof because of a cold; and while laying here I started thinking about past discussions on some paranormal forums and wondered why believers were trying to prove the existence of the paranormal. For one thing, they already believe so why try to prove it’s existence to themselves? The other thing I don’t understand is if they are trying to prove it to the world then why not use methods that are acceptable to those they are trying to convince?

This also made me wonder why many investigators don’t try to figure out what makes the paranormal tick. If they are so convinced the paranormal exists, why do they keep going through the same motions? What could they possibly expect to achieve? After all, they are not gaining any ground or knowledge. Proof of that is in the fact that we don’t know anymore about the paranormal now than we did 100 years ago, which is basically nothing other than the fact that people are still reporting experiences that have yet to be confirmed.

So, what do investigators expect to gain in their efforts? They certainly are providing anything that could be considered proof of the paranormal, and they aren’t testing any of the theories or dogma in a way that could confirm or deny those theories and dogma. So, what do they expect to achieve? If it’s to have a successful spook hunt then I can somewhat comprehend, since spook huntin’ can be fun and exciting. At least for a while. I have to wonder if deep down many of these investigators aren’t hoping to be the next ParaCeleb. If that is true then it is a shame. From what I’ve seen there are a miniscule number of ParaCelebs that have a clue, and those aren’t the ones that investigators seem to try and emulate.

Patrick Doyle gives us another good video on hoaxes, as well as some more sound food for thought. Enjoy!

There have been some interesting complaints going around lately about TAPS ParaMag. This recently came to my attention from the SyFy forum. Several times in the past I had seen people post complaints about not getting all the issues they paid for. Well, I thought that had been resolved, but from what I’m reading, many are still getting shorted as noted in this review of the magazine.

In a discussion on a forum I was part of with the new editor, Scotty Roberts, there were some good things that came out of it, as well as some bad. Mr. Roberts, who’s been editor for two weeks, says that they’re working hard to correct the poor practices the magazine has made in the past. That is a good thing. But at this point it is only words. He also stated that he contacted a couple of people on that forum who had expressed their grievances about not receiving the magazine as promised, and was working to correct that problem. That too is a good thing, and hopefully he follows through. But then there’s the bad.

On the issue of people not getting their issues as promised, Mr. Roberts replied to a poster that they were working hard to get things back on track and that everyone would receive what they paid for, so what’s the problem. Well, the first part of what he said is good. But the “What’s the problem,” statement is highly unprofessional and is skirting the issue that TAPS ParaMag did not fulfill it’s obligations to it’s customers. From the subscription page of TAPS ParaMag (at the time of this article), “Join THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS and stay up on the latest developments by ordering here for one year of TAPS PARAMAG to get the mag delivered to your door every other month.” A professional and ethical manager would have never said “So what’s the problem.” They would know the problem was failure of TAPS ParaMag to deliver it’s end of the deal, and that the “So what’s the problem,” is poor customer relations. What they would have done is to state the first part, but then apologize for the past behavior of the business and publicly announce a way for customers to contact the magazine for immediate resolution. With what he said it gives the impression that the failure of the publication to make good on its commitment is irrelevant and that customers should be happy that they are getting all the issues they paid for. My business professors would say that’s total hogwash and highly unprofessional since the magazine failed to live up to its end of the deal. I wonder how Mr. Roberts would feel about a business that treated him in such a manner? I know in my case if I order something from a company and it’s suppose to be delivered on a routine basis; let’s say every other month just as this magazine, and then skip me over for six months at which time they suddenly dump all of what should have been delivered in that time frame, I am not going to be happy because that wasn’t the deal, and I will not do business with that company in the future. This is a typical reaction from a customer, which is why professional managers who are worth their weight in salt would not make statements such as that made by Mr. Roberts.

Another thing that concerned me was his statement about only being editor for two weeks and to give him time to correct things. Well, people don’t care how long you’ve been in charge. They’ve been screwed, they’re angry, and they want to hear what what’s going to be done to fix the problem. This is one thing Mr. Roberts never divulged. All he said was great things were going to happen with the magazine and that the problem was being remedied, but it will take time. That’s not a professional response and is again, poor customer relations. Customers don’t care if there are great things to come or not. What they do care about is what are you going to do to fix the problem. They want to here specifically what is being done, not just that the magazine is working hard to correct the problem. A professional manager would have announced what they were doing to fix the problem, as well as giving out information on how unsatisfied customers could contact the magazine in order to get that prompt resolution. Also, a professional manager would not be trying to pump up the image of the company in this forum. Angry customers don’t care about great things to come, and to announce how great things will be only grows that anger as they think things like, “yeah right, you’re just going to screw more people”, and, “who cares if you promise great things if we don’t get the product.” To me, Mr. Roberts seems to want a clean slate and that the past performance of the company shouldn’t reflect upon him. I guess what Mr. Roberts doesn’t understand is that’s not how business works. Professional managers who accept such a position know that they’re walking into a firestorm, and know that they now carry the burden of the failures of the prior manager. While it is true that his performance should not be based on the prior managers performance, it is also true that he has accepted the position and all burdens from the prior manager, therefore, stop making excuses and if you’re not ready to give detailed plans of how you intend to fix the problems you inherited then it is best to keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you do nothing more than make a negative impression as outlined, and you appear to be an excuse maker instead of a professional manager.

All in all, I’d recommend to those who have complaints and have not received what was promised to file for resolution through the Better Business Bureau. I’m sure Mr. Roberts would rather you contact the magazine than to do this, but considering that Mr. Roberts has no track record and has already exhibited unprofessional managerial behavior, along with the track record this business has already shown, I highly recommend going the route of the Better Business Bureau since they are a unbiased, third party arbitrator who looks out for both parties involved.

Additional 1/3/09

Since this article was first published there was more discussion about this on the thread with Mr. Roberts. In that thread I noted the unprofessional behavior that Mr. Roberts was exhibiting according to my business professors and that he was digging a deeper hole. His response was to justify his engagement in the thread, which further proves his unprofessional skills as a manager. This only further solidifies my doubt that contacting Mr. Roberts will be able to do much with the magazine, and that if you want resolution then seek that through the Better Business Bureau. Remember, NOBODY is policing the paranormal community so these things need to be brought to light using resource such as the BBB. One statement that cracked me up and further demonstrated Mr. Roberts unprofessional behavior was how he referred to people as “haters”, this after he chastised people for remarks they had made saying that they didn’t have all the information. Pot meet kettle in this case Mr. Roberts. In case you haven’t noticed, people don’t necessarily hate the players, they hate the lies that the players are dishing out.

I’ve been out on a few paranormal forums lately, which is something I do from time to time. While reading through a few threads I read about a few groups out there who say that the science isn’t important, but providing the clients with comforting answers is. In essence, they didn’t care about whether or not their investigation methods were scientific, just that they produce some comforting answers, regardless of whether or not those answers were the truth. I personally think that’s a load of bull flop, and if that’s the purpose of your group then you need to stop claiming to investigate and simply call yourselves what you are: paranormal counselors.

I’m sure this will rile many an investigator, but if so then it’s because they do not want to face the truth. Just like most other counselors, paranormal counselors are not trained psychologists and don’t have to have real answers. They simply need to appease the client and make them feel better when dealing with the issue, just like so many so called paranormal investigators do. They take whatever “evidence” they collect, interpret it however they see fit, and then present it to the client in order to “help” them. They also claim that the client doesn’t want scientific investigations, which says to me the client wants to be lied to since pseudoscience isn’t truth, it’s fiction. Basically, these investigators have found the perfect victim to play out their con. Many will strongly disagree with that statement, primarily on the grounds that the group isn’t making any money. But a con does not require money as the only source of gain. The gain can be from nothing more than the investigators feeling good about “helping” someone. In fact, in this case, the only difference between a professional con and one perpetrated by these type of investigators is that they don’t go after money. Both lie to the client. Both make it look like they’re doing something when they’re not (EMF, EVP, etc), and both will back peddle and use wiggle words to cover up the fact that all they have is a house of cards.

One thing that surfaced in several of these threads were groups that were irritated with other groups “policing” them. It’s funny how these same groups talk about working together to share ideas, but the moment their ideas and methods are criticized they immediately take offense and go into this type of mode of thinking. Some have even had threads shutdown on the more gentile of boards because they begin to get hostile, and instead of the mods/admins letting the conversation continue and reprimanding the person causing the problems, they simply shutdown ALL discussion. Poor form if you ask me. How on earth are people suppose to share information and ideas if threads get closed because someone gets offended? You might as well say, “You can post subjects here that go along with our general group think,” otherwise someone will get bent out of shape and we have to stop discussing it before someone starts flaming another. Most of the threads I saw were pretty tame, and it almost seemed like the threads were closed to silence that topic.

Another thing that some of these threads brought to mind was the lack of “policing” that goes on in the paranormal community, which is why it’s so riddled with fraud. One thing that keeps coming up is that groups shouldn’t denounce other groups methods, or “pick” on other groups. The argument is that the energy required to do so could be better spent on making headway in the field. I nearly busted a gut when I read that because NOBODY is making headway anyhow, yet there is a ton of headway being made in false claims, fraudulent videos posted on youTube, and every group I’ve seen out there is doing nothing more than “Spook Huntin’”. In other words, everyone is in a glass house, so throwing stones will only bring everyone’s house down. So I can see why they’d want to not have the community scrutinized.

So, in closing I ask investigators this: Are you investigating the paranormal in a search for the truth, or are you investigating the paranormal to make the client feel better? If it’s the latter, why don’t you call yourself what you are: Paranormal Counselor.

This is a convention that was originally suppose to be held in October, but was moved to December. I had commented on it back in October, after Loyd Auerbach had blogged about it.

While I had been following it, and as of December 6th, it was still scheduled to take place on the weekend of the 11th – 13th, even though they had no specifics on guests or vendors who would be there. Well, I finally had a chance to get around to checking in again and found that their website (http://www.extremeparacon.com/) has indeed said it was canceled and is offering refunds. I just hope that everyone out there who put money into this convention does indeed receive a full refund.

After all I’ve seen and read, I’d have to say yes. I’d say this is a big reason for the “one theory is…..” type regurgitation of various, untested theories. While there is a lot of disagreement amongst people in the community about which theories are valid and which are not, there is also a number of theories that the majority of the community clings to without ever truly testing. Basically what I see is a number of people who are so inclined to hold to their beliefs about the paranormal for whatever reasons they choose that they often group together to support these theories and will use flimsy evidence to further support their beliefs.

One of the things that I often see that is classical in groupthink is the diminishing of things that are contrary or problematic: “The paranormal does not perform on command,” is something I’ve heard time and time again, which to me is nothing more than excuse, especially when investigators so often command the paranormal to perform a specific behavior and jump for joy when something happens that they interpret as paranormal because it did happen on command. Now I know some will be saying, “Well, it’s not that it doesn’t perform on command, it’s that it doesn’t always perform on command.” To me this is nothing more than further excuse making, and is to do nothing more than support the groupthink and bad testing practices.

Another classic groupthink mentality is justification through effort: “Well at least they’re trying new methods.” I’m not sure how many times I’ve heard groups supported by this type of mentality, but it’s hogwash. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re trying new methods it’s whether or not their methods bare out any truth, or are even founded in any sort of rational thought process. This can be seen with trying to measure cold spots with a non-contact IR thermometer or thermal imaging camera; neither of which can see air temperature. But, because investigators wanted to do something new they started to purchase and use these devices without having a clue as to the limitations of the devices, primarily because they were “trying new methods.” What good is it to try new methods if you don’t fully research those methods, especially if those methods involve a piece of equipment that you have no clue as to how it works, what it’s limitations are, or even understand what the results mean?

I think one of the forms of groupthink that really has me shaking my head is the justification of current methods by using ad hominem attacks on science. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the excuse that “science can’t explain everything, or, science isn’t always right and often has to change what they say about something.” Red herring arguments and ad hominem statements do not change the argument. Pseudoscience has never produced any truth while science has given us much. It’s true that science isn’t always right, but even when science has been wrong it still has shed more light and truth on a topic than pseudoscience could ever hope to achieve.

Today, groupthink is even more of an issue in the paranormal community than ever. With all the Para-TV shows that have hit the airwaves over the last five years, many investigators have jumped on the bandwagon and started mimicking the investigators on these shows because they think that the “evidence” from these shows is proof of the paranormal. So, in classic groupthink fashion, they take what is seen on a show produced for entertainment and without question they follow their methods without applying any critical thought as to whether those methods are truly valid. On big downside to this is that groups will often “enhance” their evidence just so they can “find” something to validate these methods. One that floored me was when I witnessed a group use the flashlight method. For those who don’t know that’s when they loosen the battery contact to where the light can be turned on with the slightest amount of pressure. It is also one rife with fraud as investigators “enhance” their flashlight by rigging an external switch of sorts. With the group I’m thinking of, and use to respect, I saw them do this method which only had me shaking my head in disbelief. Not because they were trying it out, but because of other things I witnessed: the flashlight was on a cardboard box and stood on end without falling over, and there was a slit cut in the box and that flashlight was at the end of that slit. A typical setup for a flashlight rigged with an external switch. Now some will say that I’m being too picky, but this group knows better that to setup something in this fashion, and they know what the implications would be by doing so. But they did just that. And by doing that I would have to conclude that they wanted to be part of the community that finds evidence by whatever means necessary.

Groupthink is definitely prevalent in the paranormal community, and I think Irving Janis would have found it an interesting group to study for the phenomena as it has all eight types of what causes groupthink. To me, this is going to be the biggest hurdle for the paranormal community to overcome before they can get out of the dark ages and enter into an era where truth can be established and the days of “well the theory goes…” comes to an end. Well, that and the Para-Celebs stop milking the cash cow of obscurity and start working to find answers instead of pushing the groupthink mentality.