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.”

One thing I’ve seen asked numerous times on the Ghost Hunters forum on the SciFi boards is “Why do they go dark?” The main answer I’ve heard is that it will be easier to see the faintest of light sources. A sound reason, but it’s not what is actually observed when seeing how paranormal investigators implement the plan. What I always see is an IR camera with an IR illuminator spot light that does nothing more than illuminate an area that is similar to the lighting a flashlight produces; only in this mode it is monochromatic, making it far worse.

Here’s what I see:

Out of all the reasons I’ve heard, the most plausible is to catch the faintest of lights. That’s all and good until you look at how the investigators execute the method. First they turn off all the lights, which is expected. Then they setup an infra-red camera and turn on an IR illuminator. Here’s where I start scratching my head and ask, “What are you doing?” If the purpose of going dark is to catch the faintest of lights then why are we adding an IR illuminator and setting the camera in a mode that reduces its ability to record visible light?

Basically, all any investigator does by going dark in such a manner is to cripple a camera and make it so it’s no better than strapping a flashlight to a camera and turning out all the lights. In fact, strapping a flashlight to a camera would produce better video than being in IR mode, since IR mode reduces the camera’s ability to see in the visible spectrum of light.

One argument I’ve heard for shooting in IR is that the ghosts aren’t aware of it. Again I have to ask myself, where is the data to support this? If ghosts do exist, then how do we know what they are aware of and what they aren’t aware of? It seems to me that if a being is no longer bound by its organic body then it must be sensing things without the use of eyes, ears, nose, or touch. Therefore, how can anyone assume what a ghost can or cannot sense? If that’s the case then who’s to say it isn’t aware of IR illumination? Without proper data to support such an idea then it’s just as easy to say that ghosts can’t see anything other than people, including visible light.

I’ve also heard investigators claim that they get better results when using the IR method of going dark. Many of them claim that there are more shadows that manifest, which is true to a point, but when looking at their video what I see is a camera that is struggling in a low light situation. Putting cameras in such a situation isn’t much different than putting a person in the same setup. Neither does well to interpret images in low light and both will exaggerate minor differences in light levels, giving the impression there is something there when it’s not. For a person, this effect is further exaggerated by the composition of the human eye and how rods and cones affect vision. But at the moment we’ll stick with the camera, as that is our subject.

Basically, what this all boils down to is failed implementation. If investigators go dark so they can see the faintest of lights, then they need to abandon the IR mode and illumination on the camera and simply stick to shooting in the dark.