Taking Ghost Research To The Next Level

IT’S FRUSTRATING BEING a ghost researcher. At least it is for me at times. With all the ghost research societies, ghost hunter groups, and ghost investigative teams that have materialized in the last several years, there are more people examining the realm of the haunted than in any other time in history. We also have an array of technologies to help in the hunt, from digital recorders and EMF meters to infrared cameras and ghost boxes. There are even scientists and universities trying to find rational explanations for ghost phenomena.

For all that, however, we are no closer to really understanding what ghosts are than we were 100 years ago. We’ve gathered more evidence, developed new tools, and offered revised theories, but we still don’t know with any certainty what the ghost phenomenon is, what causes it, or how and why it manifests. We have evidence, perhaps, but we have no proof.

So why isn’t the evidence we have good enough?

THE EVIDENCE

Photos – There are some compelling photographs. The skeptics dismiss them as tricks of light and shadow, double exposures, reflections, natural phenomena, photographic errors, or outright fraud. Ghost researchers are more open-minded about them, of course, but without highly detailed information about the circumstances under which the photos were taken, we cannot in all honesty determine what they show either. And in today’s age of digital image editing capabilities, we can’t trust photos at all. Yes, they could show genuine ghosts, but we cannot prove it.

Anecdotes – Reports of ghost sightings are plentiful. In fact, they have been reported since the beginning of recorded history. This website alone receives hundred of such reports every month. Many of those are compelling as well. We can only assume that there are thousands of alleged sightings every day around the world. The phenomenon is part of the human experience. The skeptics say that people are notoriously bad witnesses, and that the senses are easily fooled by illusions of light and shadow or electrical fields. For those who have seen ghosts with their own eyes, however, no amount of “reasoning” can dissuade them from their conviction about the reality of their experience. While the sheer volume of sightings strongly suggests ghosts are out there in the dark, these experiences, unfortunately, don’t give us anything to look at, listen to, or touch. The stories are as ephemeral as the spirits themselves.

Film and video – A moving image can often be more revealing and convincing than a still image. But film and video suffer from the same drawbacks and doubts that photos do. Seeing is no longer believing. Additionally, really good videos of ghosts are exceedingly rare.

Physical effects – Objects disappearing and later reappearing without rational explanation. Lights and appliances turning on and off by themselves. A vase flying off a shelf and crashing 12 feet across the room. They are puzzling and sometimes scary occurrences. Skeptics wave them off as the products of overactive imaginations. For researchers, such activity is not only relatively rare, it’s nearly impossible to document since, like almost all ghost phenomena, it cannot be produced on demand; it happens spontaneously, seemingly on its own whim. So most of this type of activity falls into the category of “anecdotes.”

Even on the extremely rare occasions such activity is caught on video, can we conclude it was caused by a ghost? This kind of physical phenomena is often called poltergeist activity. Although “poltergeist” literally means “noisy ghost,” a large number of paranormal researchers think that it is not attributable to ghosts at all. Because the activity almost always centers around an individual, it is theorized that poltergeist craziness is psychokinetic; that is, caused by the minds of the person or people involved. So as dramatic as it may be, it may have nothing to offer in the way of ghost evidence.

EVP – Electronic voice phenomena might be the strongest stuff we have in the way of evidence for ghosts. All of the skeptics’ explanations of EVP being nothing more than stray radio programs, cell phone calls, ham radio conversations, et cetera have been disproved. But what these disembodied voices are remains quite a mystery. Are they the voices of ghosts? Could they be from other dimensions? Or, like poltergeist activity, do they arise out of the minds of the participants? Yes, the variety and textures of EVP (I’m talking about the Class A EVP here) are of astonishing variety, from those that sound like old men to those that sound like children. But if the human mind can cause heavy objects to levitate and sail across a room, could it not also imagine into reality such voices? Again, EVP could be very strong ghost evidence… but we’re not quite sure.

Ghost box – The ghost box is the latest tool in the arsenal of the ghost investigator. The group I belong to has several that we experiment with. But in my mind the jury is still out when it comes to these ghost boxes. They work by scanning broadcast radio frequencies, and when you listen you can hear snippets of phrases here and there, what sound like names, and other information. The theory is that those on the “other side” are able to pull the words and phrases they want from these broadcasts to communicate with us. That they have this ability, of course, is a huge assumption.

In my experience with these ghost boxes, I have to admit that some of the stuff that comes across seems relevant. For example, in one session we asked, “How many people are sitting at this table?” There were six. Very shortly, the ghost box said something that sounded like “Six.” And we were astonished. I have to wonder, however, if there were five at the table, would we have waited until we heard something that sounded like “five” from the ghost box? Likewise, when it names people, are we just pulling out from the garble of words the names of those present or that we know? In other words, how much are we projecting onto this tool? How much is sheer interpretation and hearing what we want to or expect to hear?

Yet, other examples are not so easy to explain away. At the same session, we asked questions about a man who once worked at this particular location many decades ago, now thought to be haunted. We kept hearing, over and over, what sounded like “horse” and “horses.” We had no idea what connection there might possibly be. When we later asked a person who knew the history of the location and about this man, she revealed that he was a horse trader – a fact that none of us at the table knew. Very interesting indeed.

Much more experimentation needs to be done with these ghost boxes before I am totally convinced. I suspect there is a psychological component here and that much of the information is the result of hearing what we want to hear – or “matrixing,” as some call it.

Ouijas and séances – These were the tools of choice for ghost communication for over 100 years before all the electronic gadgetry came along. Most ghost researchers shy away from them nowadays, however, because of the idea that they attract demonic forces. (An idea I disagree with.) The results of these practices, too, are far from great evidence. They are subject to the same psychological interpretations and trickery as many of the above methods.

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

Individually, all of the above methods have their weaknesses. Collectively, however, they produce enough tantalizing evidence to indicate that, yes, there is something out there; there do seem to be intelligences on the “other side,” and they can and do occasionally materialize or otherwise make themselves known. It’s enough to keep the investigations going.

Yet we need better evidence. We need something more concrete, more solidly convincing to break us out of this 100-year rut. We need a breakthrough in ghost research.

I’m not sure how that breakthrough can come about. Through a new high-tech tool? Through a psychic breakthrough of some kind? And what would that breakthrough be? What would unambiguously convince us of the reality of ghosts and life after death?

Perhaps it would be a tool that would finally allow real-time, unambiguous communication with the other side. Not snippets of words and phrases, but a real conversation in which these spirits can talk to us, tell us what it’s like on the other side, can convince us in no uncertain terms who they were in life. Or perhaps it would be a psychic methodology that could produce – with consistency – materialized spirit forms that could be recorded and examined.

That’s a lot to ask for, I know. It’s the Holy Grail of ghost research that psychics, mediums, and other paranormal researchers have been seeking for the past 100 years. Ultimately, however, that’s what we need. Otherwise, we’re just stumbling around blindly in the dark.

Perhaps such a breakthrough isn’t even possible. (And maybe we wouldn’t even want it. What would it be like if we could have conversations with our deceased relatives any time we wanted? How would that change the world?)

I put out this challenge to every paranormal researcher and every ghost hunting group out there – even the nationally known ones: Let’s find that breakthrough. I don’t know what it will take or even where to start. But maybe you do. Yes, it’s fun to go out into haunted locations and collect EVP, take photos, and listen for raps on the walls, but it’s not really advancing the research. Let’s not be satisfied with that. Let’s take it to the next level. Spread the word. Share this article with everyone on your ghost hunting team; send it to other organizations. Let’s get some serious churn out there.