The way forward

Hi Guys

I have had a little time to think about a couple of things, i have come to the conclusion that in our day and age the standards of what could or could not be paranormal has increased , the old traditional methods that have been used for years have always failed or always seem to have failed therefore i think that a new approach is needed , its something that we have been practising since we formed GPS but allot of other groups still dont seem to have got the point.

The method that has been used by scientific groups and i use the word scientific very loosly for certain people who may be reading this has never changed , and the main aim is to eliminate all possible natural causes, and the main problem is that these incidents are never investigated to the full extent and i think that thats where most paranormal investigations fail , later when the results of the investigation are written as a report , they are of course challenged by the sceptic community and quite rightly so, often at this point it is to late to go back and investigate the incident further therefore incidents that may have been labelled as being paranormal will more than likley be easily explained .

I think that the way forward is to make sure that people are more aware of the possible causes of so called paranormal happenings, only this way will progress be made in this field .

I have to agree..

And I'm always talking about other possibilities too.
The standard methods as recognised by many aren't quite getting the results we all strive for.

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. There has to be something we are missing or are yet to discover.

Only through talking and experimenting are we going to progress towards the "holy grail" of ghost hunting.

Luckily, we all already do this

You are definitely right, Ian.

The fact that teams, who are claiming to work with a scientific approach don't even know how to analyze their material properly is bugging me since ages. Often their reports are throwing up more questions than they answer and the material presented as evidence is also very often easy to debunk.

Your post reminds me of a thread I read in a German paranormal forum yesterday. The skeptics there were questioning the "right of existence" for so called scientific investigation teams and how they can claim to be able to deal with clients in order to help them. And in a way I have to agree with them. just look at England. There's only a handful of teams out there (if at all) that are capable of it. The rest is mostly wanna-be's.

What does a client want? Does he want the questionable evidence of glass divination and Ouija-Boards, the findings of a medium, who, most of the times doesn't even make the effort to back them up afterwards by researching them? In some cases it might be so, depending of the beliefs of the individual, but in most cases the clients is more than relieved, when a team is capable of finding natural explanations, or, if that is not possible, recordings and well researched history, that might be able to give him an explanation.

But what does a team need to be able to do this?
Proper training, I would say. There don't necessarily have to be scientific experts on a team, although it would be helpful, but the team members permanently have to keep their eyes open for new ideas and techniques of technical investigations. I also think that knowledge exchange with other teams is crucial, because in the end we are all working towards the same goal. The team members have to learn about the how's, what's and why's of their equipment, even if the individuals might find it painstaking because they aren't technical minded at all. It is a MUST!
Nowadays not serious team can survive with that sort of knowledge. If they don't have it, they shouldn't wonder why they are questioned and criticized.

But there lies the problem. Most of the teams are technically not skilled enough, still fiddling around with equipment, that is totally out of date. then there are the teams that have such a big ego, that they are getting extremely aggressive, if their so called evidence is being questioned or criticized.

I could go on and on about this, but in the end to me GPS is what matters and I think that we are definitely doing a great job by wrecking our brains about new techniques etc.

Hella

Quote :

The fact that teams, who are claiming to work with a scientific approach don't even know how to analyze their material properly is bugging me since ages. Often their reports are throwing up more questions than they answer and the material presented as evidence is also very often easy to debunk.

I really hate to have to say this, but we do not really have a scientific approach either!

Let me try to give you an idea of what I mean...

The very fundamentals of a scientific methodology are to approach a problem or anomaly with a hypothesis, i.e. 'EVP phenomena coincides to human interaction...' We have something specific we are now trying to prove...or disprove.

Next we design and test specific and controlled experiments, incorporating predictions.

So here is a very crude and oversimplified experiment: Maybe we would use a sound proof room with just one test subject sat a t a table with a dictaphone running, the subject would ask a series of set questions, relating to any close family members who might have passed on. This test would be repeated with different people every hour or so, for a sustained period of time. EVP 'responses' (EVP which fits the strict definitions set out by the team) are recorded. In conjunction with this group of test subjects, we would also run another group. This group would be told that they are taking part in a linguistic experiment. They would read a series of meaningless sentences...Results are recorded.

If there are statistically higher EVP responses to the first group (attempting to communicate) than with the second, we can conclude that EVP occurrences coincide with interaction, but if the EVP is not statistically higher, or is less or equal, to the second group, we can conclude that EVP occurances do not coincide...

We would then analyse the findings, draw a conclusion- was the hypothesis correct? If not, we go back to the hypothesis and try again... Results would be made available for others to review and scrutinise and hopefully reproduce or improve...

Of course the methodology and experiment I have just described is rubbish in a number of ways- takes much more thinking to construct something that is flawless and will stand up to scrutiny.

I know we want to embrace the scientific approach and we are far better than most other groups, but we really need to start working in the same way scientists in the laboratory would work if we want to call ourselves truly scientific- and actually prove or disprove anything!

It's the scientific process that is so important, its all about hypothesis, scrutiny, control and statistics...

So totally agree with Ian! We need to raise the bar!

Of course, Robb, you are totally right.

I admit, that I didn't state clear enough what I meant.

The way we do our investigations makes it impossible to conduct our experiments they way scientists would like to have it, merely down to the fact, that the locations simply don't allow it due to their layout, the areas where activity was reported etc.

We were voted to be UKs #1 team, which means quite a big responsibility and pressure. That also includes that we have to do our work as precise as possible. The skeptics will always have something to criticize, but we can at least try to give them a minimum of opportunity to do this with us.
You are right when you say, that we have to set the bars high.

Our status and our reputation demands, that we have to give the best examples of how a team should work.

As an 'outsider' I'd just like to say that it's very refreshing to see a group such as GPS look at its methods critically. Ian raised a number of highly valid points and hit the nail on the head IMO.
The ONLY way forward is via science and scientific methodology - no woo - no mediums feeling subjective impressions and no logical fallacies.

The fact that Robb said what he said really IMO gives your group credibility and sets it apart from 99% of the others out there. Arwen added some really good points too about leaving little room for sceptics
like myself to criticise because the methodology is as scientific as you can make it.

Well done guys, I think this is a great group that has the right approach that will ultimately get some significant results.

Occam's Monkey

Hi All
been reading the posts on this and find it very inserting ..i would agree with everything said so far.
Im glad we can be so very opened minded about what we are trying to do here and its great that we can talk about how our investigations are run.
I know Ive said this before but this is a GREAT TEAM!
Regarding how we do our Investigating in areas Robb you touch on having one member of the team only in the room at anyone one time thats a good idea, but im not some sure that we could ever make the ares as safe as a lab i think there is to much to take into account most locations we investigate are old, drafty, dusty, ect...if this was to go ahead (which is a great idea Robb)
We would first have to make 100% sure that everything is taken into account from creaky floor boards to drafty windows and im sure we would do this anyway.
As we know few investigators yields better results.

Hi Phil,

I just made up that experiment as an example of how we might approach specific problems- in the case of trying to determine the nature of EVP, in a controlled environment, it would make sense to have a minimal number of people- ideally 1, or none! This is important because it mitigates or completely removes the human influence on results- i.e. breathing or inadvertent speech and even cheating- so that is a massive variable crossed off the list, which moves us closer to finding out what EVP really is...

I understand that this specifically would not be practical under current investigation methodologies. I'm not suggesting that all investigations should be carried out by one person in a room...

I suppose what I'm getting at is usually paranormal investigators use EVP as a way of proving a haunting, but we don't know what EVP is or what causes it...so how can it be used as proof that a location is haunted?

I think that in conjunction with the current approach to investigating haunted locations, which is based on the assumption that positive EVP and EMF etc can affirm a haunting (which may or may not be true) we should be conducting serious research, scientifically, which involves using methods similar to the process I described (experiments can take any form, as long as they are controlled and measurable) which would enable us to PROVE things...

Think of it like this:

If a very 'normal' explanation for EVP was proven beyond doubt and ghost hunters the world over suddenly realised they had been communicating with nothing but radio waves, not dead people- surely we would want to be the ones who discovered this and put people straight...

Similarly, if we were able to prove beyond doubt scientifically that there is no other explanation for EVP other than communication with non physical entities...

We would want to be that group!

One day these things will become clear... we're in a strong position to take the initiative.

Hi Guys

Barri and myself are working on an experiment that will be held under the strichest condition possible to us that will involve a few aspects of what we have been talking about recently , we will keep you all posted .

Sounds good would love to hear more about it!

Hi
yep sounds good agree with Robb..

Debunk debunk debunk, has always been a key for me! Within that, experiments and recreating, is essential.

Yes, vigils are involved, sitting around and calling out, the basis of investigatoins but what else can teams do? I like to go around a location, find any obvious faults or natural issues that could stir things up and ensure this is noted. Then once the investigation is underway, keep an eye on EMF readings and the temp (base lines are a must on an hourly basis IMO). Once lights are out, sensory deprivation begins, which is always fun! So having the basis noted, is a great help.

Trigger objects are great things, have a fixed camera on them, find something that could be deemed as related to the location or the history. It may or may not work. Keep it simple, I like flour sived on a board, possibly with an object placed with it. Always make plans to return to a location, just incase something happens and at that moment, you couldn't debunk or recreate it (that's if a team wants to return).

Always have 2 forms of data collection, it helps! Voice recorder and cameras are great for that and keep them in time with eachother.

For a team to soley be scientific, no sensitives, mediums should be involved. Knowing the details of a location isn't an issue, as you should be focusing on data collection. A lot of teams have a role within them as approaching with a scientific head. It would be good if a team, like GPS, could get a qualified parapsychologist to attend a location with them.

If it helps, I would look up on terms such as cryptomnesia, ideomotor and memory bias (not saying you guys don't know about them but they are interesting to know).

Hi All!
I couldn't agree with all of you more. But I am torn by 2 facts: the First being that no matter how controlled the test environment is, sceptics will always find a loop hole to discredit your findings. We tried to be as careful as humanly possible on our investiagations, trying to account for every possible cause of paranormal activity in order to verify or debunk it. Our sceptics sit in their easy-chairs in front of the TV and regardless of what we have done in the field, they rip us apart. Personally, I've begun turning the table on these Arm-Chair-Geniuses and said "Prove to me that my results are false. Go to the same site that the paranormal investigation took place, at the same time of day or night, and prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that my findings are false". I have yet to find a sceptic willing to get out of his chair. It places the responsibilty of backing up their critique squarly on their shoulders but they are not willing to back up their slander with facts. At which point, I ignore them. I would enjoy working with a true sceptic. We have 2 on our team and they really help us to perform investigations better and better. They question our procedures and make suggestions on how we could improve them. But they do not sit somewhere and simply say "Your work is crap" and that's it.

Second, how far do we go with our technic before we pass by the experience itself? By that I mean, hauntings have been recorded throughout history long before the invention of cell phones or electricity. Four hundred years before Christ, the Chinese were investigating the problem. The ancient Greeks were also occupied with investigating the paranormal. I can't help but feel that we are missing something. Granted, we need to do environmental measurements to rule out the influence of EMF, faulty insulation causing cold drafts, ELF and ULF, staic electricity fields, etc., etc., etc. But hauntings were occuring loooong before the invention of electricity. What are we missing? What could influence hauntings all those centuries before? And has the modern world simply enhanced the phenomen?

Time for more coffee. This is way too much thinking for a Sunday morning.
Allen

Hi,

Provide findings that cannot be discredited and then you have your proof- skepticism its part of the process. If an experiment can be picked apart, then its simply not good enough!

If someone can point out the weaknesses of flaws in your experiment, say OK and thank-you, then go back and find a way of eliminating those issues...

Criticism isn't specific to paranormal experiments (although I agree we are usually not well regarded) its part of the scientific process of establishing truths.

Of course we are always going to get crap from people who actually don't have a clue, we just ignore them. But don't ignore the real scientists, we should be looking up to them!

Arm chair skeptics find it easy to comment, they need to get out there and experience investigations. If someone wants to find a fault, they will, no matter what you do IMO. Constructive critism is what we all need 'well instead of doing this because such and such could cause this, how about trying it this way' etc.

I think until there is hard evidence, then there will always be an argument. I mean, there are skeptics out there that argument that psychology is a pile of poop, yet they have never studied it, only read what they find on google. Does it mean they are qualified to make that judgement? IMO, no.

I say ignore those idiots out there and keep doing what your doing. Now GPS have doors open to them, since the live show, you guys can do more good in promoting this field, with doing so, it may well help other teams to move forward and they can all work together.

@TLA

I feel the same, Alan, there is still something essential missing, some sort of aspect that we, but also scientists didn't see, yet.

As Rob said, it is always a matter of trial and error.

The problem is, that the circumstances in a location are NEVER the same, because we are not dealing with a stable thing. There are still too many components unknown, for example how spirits (should they exist) recognize our presence, what is their range of possibilities of making themselves known to us, what do they need to do so and and and. To me it is in a way slightly confusing... finding out where to start and not just making random experiments. And GPS is, amongst a few other teams worldwide, one of the few that's actually trying to put an order and a reason to tests and experiments, keeping records of the results so we are able to match them with others, and, actually knowing WHY we conduct these experiments and tests.

This is where I come to JoJoK

The last four years taught me, that there is , sadly, no way of working together with many teams. Not because of their way of work, we all work roughly in the same way, not even because their lack of background knowledge or experience (that's always something that can be learned), but because of the dedication of the individual teams to the subject itself, the drive behind their work.

Saying that, I still think that knowledge exchange is crucial to achieve progress in our research. The problem is how to do it. There are thousands of teams out there, all over the world. Not all of them speak English, so there's the first flaw.

Then there is the fact, that some teams (worldwide) are not willing to share their knowledge and achievements with certain other teams. I've found out that in some countries the paranormal scene is like a snake pit, ruled by paranoia. And the sad thing is that this cannot be changed, simply due to human nature. (I think TLA knows exactly what I am talking about )

The only solution to this is to work in a loose sort of in-official network of befriended teams, keeping permanently in contact with them and keep on sharing and improving ideas.... together.

I am not a friend of networks, plainly because they don't seem to work out and tend to encourage cliques. But working together outside a network seems to work out better.

I am a great believer in joint investigations, because it is always a way of learning from each other watching how others work and talking to each other is always a better way that just writing. Plus it bonds people together. And it is great fun, too!

So, enough yapping from me, now this was my personal opinion and please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Greetz,
Hella

Ohhh Arwen, I understand where you're coming from with the team thing. I've experiened negativity from a team, in the past for no real reason.

I am one for working together, not a fan of netorks, like you said, clique

It only takes 2 mins to be nice to others and it can work out for the best, can't stand negative vibes

I really dont like this JoJok character, who does he think he is?

He's not Local!

Joking of course...

LOL Rob... at the first moment I thought WTH!!!???

@JoJoK

So you are in a team? Which one is it? I would love to know more about the work you've done.

Greetz,
Hella

Ohhh rob! lucky I don't have my glasses on


I'm with the Berkshire Paranormal Group; only a teeny weeny team *looks for blushing emote* . No where near est. as you guys but we like the work you do.

Haha, you know me Arwen, I would never be rude to anyone on the forum!

So JoJok, you are a spy then?

Haha, I'm in a moronic mood...

I had a quick look on your website, it's good to see other grounded teams emerging... nice one!

No spying at all, not my thing. I like the site and forum and people actually reply to topics here

Hi JoJok

nice site that you guys have there , Robbs humour is second to none lol.

Ian wrote:

Hi JoJok

nice site that you guys have there , Robbs humour is second to none lol.

lol now I have visions of Robb dressed up as the pink panther, think I need a coffee!

Thank you Ian x

Actually if you imagined a werewolf dressed in a wedding dress running through the hellfir caves you would be pretty close lol.