Post by therussiandelegate on May 5, 2012 18:50:59 GMT -5
Okay my review. Overall, I enjoyed the presentation and the parts I could actually hear or pay attention to when Megan wasn't talking to me kept my interest. However, I take issue with some aspects that, while not necessarily the fault of the CRPT, is an endemic problem within paranormal research itself.
First, the idea of using science and hi-tech gadgets like EMF detectors and K2 among others. To refer to ghosts as paranormal and then use normal proven science to try to prove the existence of the former by definition is ridiculous. When something is paranormal, it is outside the realm of explainable science, hence the word. Thus if we are to use science as investigators, we are admitting then, that ghosts do in fact (or can) fall into known principles and laws. In that case, they can't exist, because if science can explain it, it isn't paranormal.
But aside from the semantics, I laughed inside when Karen touched on the careers of investigators. A nurse, a counselor, I think a mechanic, etc. Not one was a physicist. Not one had anything to do with knowing anything about EM fields. So one has to then question the validity of anybody using these devices and if in fact they know how to use them and know what the readings mean. I myself am not a PHD nor a scientist by any definition, but I have had enough college courses and taught astronomy to know enough. That being the case, I can say with near certainty that EMF field detectors of any kind (including trifield, k2) are worthless. This is because there is so much ambient EM radiation, both natural and man made, that to try to come up with a random reading and say it is paranormal is ludicrous. A perfect example was when the ghost box light up during the presentation. It was not going off at any time unless something broke the field it emitted (it encountered a field to disrupt the emission). However, it did begin to light up just before a few flashes of lightning. That is easily explained conventionally. Thus, random occurrences do happen. You can map out a room and establish where fields exist. But sometimes, rogue fields meander into the area because of cell phones, socket leaks, or even lightning. If ghosts were in fact EM fields of some kind, why aren't there stronger readings around a TV or light switch or anything electronic? Why aren't there orbs or ectoplasm surrounding electronic devices? When Rich mentioned the room with a reading of 50 (I'm going to assume milligauss), that too is not paranormal. In fact, fuse boxes, shotty wiring, electric blankets, and even hair dryers can emit radiation this high, however it is mostly localized. The fact the entire room has levels that high is worrysome but cannot be used as a paranormal event. It has been proven that levels around 2.5-3 can cause almost a twofold increase in cancer, long term. The fact the reading was 50, I wonder how nobody passed out? It has also been proven that with increased levels of EM radiation come an increase in the body's production of stress hormones and proteins. Thus it is understandable and likely that when you are in a place reported to be haunted, the psychological impact already affects people. Add on higher EM levels, and its no wonder investigators get excited and possibly afraid during investigations.
A second issue I had was when, I think Rich, said "We go to debunk." This is a sound principle. However, more than once, particularly when going through the pictures, it was said "is it a ghost? is it an orb? we don't know." That is not debunking anything. Debunking means you use science to explain whatever phenomena comes into question. For example, a singular orb plus a high EM reading does not mean paranormal. It could mean dust and random EM spike. While some conclusions reached on investigations are correct using your methods, they cannot be considered valid because of that fact- because there is no real test and because nobody knows enough about science to be able to explain things according to science, and this includes photography. Many, if not most pictures with an anomaly can be explained by simple means. Digital cameras are notorious for being easily tampered with, and it is mainly because of the CCD chip it uses (as opposed to film). When in the presence of higher EM fields, batteries fail, CCD chips flounder, even camera flashes malfunction. And what of smudges on the lens? These may not show up on every picture and it is because of the angle of the light hitting the lens itself. Think of how a prism works. Hold it to sunlight and it will break the light into its spectral colors, mostly evenly distributed. However if you hold it at a different angle, one color may show more prominently. In the same way, if you take a picture straight on and have an anomaly on the picture then take a picture from somewhere else, it can be said that the former picture is paranormal, because it didn't show up on any other picture. Untrue. Perhaps the angle of the first picture provided sufficient light reflection as to illuminate something on the lens while the other pictures did not.
Psychics were also briefly discussed which I too will touch on. If one claims to use science on an investigation, then the use of a psychic, medium, sensitive, or whatever you want to call them completely invalidates everything, because now you are using unscientific methods. I don't buy into their abilities, and in fact, they have failed EVERY scientific test thrown at them- or they just don't bother to participate. Those that know me know that last year (2011) was more than traumatic. During that time, and still today, I experience things that I can only explain as being somehow psychic. However that does not mean I possess any special abilities, because at one point or another, everybody experiences things like this. Because of the randomness and unpredictability, one cannot "develop" this extra sense. Take our other five senses. We did not develop them. I didn't have to practice smelling in order to know what a rose smells like.
EVP's are also sketchy. It was said during the presentation that one EVP was heard by a couple investigators real time while another one couldn't be heard yet was on the recording. Because investigators use portable radios, it is plausible that the unheard ones were nothing more than picking up something on the airwaves, as Rich correctly pointed out. AM radio stations work by transmitting a signal that is bounced off of the atmosphere and then is received by an antenna. Occasionally, you get a random signal because of atmospheric disturbance- and particularly now that solar activity is high in the sunspot cycle. FM radio transmits radio waves in grids, which is why they come in much more clearly and why sometimes an FM station will scatter depending where you are in the room- because in much the same way a ghost box works, an FM radio signal can be disturbed by being "broken" momentarily. If one was able to hear real-time a voice, it should be picked up on the recorder. If it was not, we can use the doppler effect to debunk that premise. Karen had said that the other person was sitting next to her and they both heard the same thing, yet it was not on the recording. Take a firetruck. When you hear the siren coming towards you, it sounds loud because the sound waves are coming directly at you. When it passes and as it goes further away, it isn't as loud. Not because the frequency or tone of the siren changed, but because the sound waves are not pointed toward you anymore. If you have a digital recorder on the floor, and if we have two investigators next to each other, their ears are in roughly the same spot. The microphone is not. So it is plausible that the microphone simply didn't pick up the sound or maybe was not strong enough to effectively amplify the sound that was heard. In any case, EM fields interact with other EM fields. Thus a digital recorder with an EVP cannot be considered irrefutable evidence because the recorder itself is powered by batteries and contains its own EM field. In defense, though, EVP's are much more difficult to explain let alone debunk, which is why I favor these more than anything.
I have to reiterate, I don't know everything about science and my understanding is basic to moderate, so I could absolutely be wrong in everything I said above and I will admit defeat if anybody can pose any plausible explanations that contradict my own understanding. But to that end, THAT is the process of debunking. THAT is being skeptical. THAT is why paranormal research is a joke among the academic community- because they know better. I'm not saying ghosts don't exist. I have had plenty of experiences that convinced me otherwise, especially referring back to last year. But I am taking issue with the techniques used in the field that are seemingly nothing more than continuations and reflections of what everybody else does. And that is why I am skeptical. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it can't be explained. Its just nobody really does, because nobody really has a high understanding (or patience level for that matter) to open up science books and compare their results from the field to what the text says. Again, not the fault of CRPT. What is the fault of CRPT, Ghost Adventures, Paranormal State, Ghost Hunters, Ghost Detectives, and every other paranormal research group in the world, to my knowledge, the techniques are not all that dissimilar. And if you want to invoke the name of scientific research, then you are also admitting that it is not paranormal.
First, the idea of using science and hi-tech gadgets like EMF detectors and K2 among others. To refer to ghosts as paranormal and then use normal proven science to try to prove the existence of the former by definition is ridiculous. When something is paranormal, it is outside the realm of explainable science, hence the word. Thus if we are to use science as investigators, we are admitting then, that ghosts do in fact (or can) fall into known principles and laws. In that case, they can't exist, because if science can explain it, it isn't paranormal.
But aside from the semantics, I laughed inside when Karen touched on the careers of investigators. A nurse, a counselor, I think a mechanic, etc. Not one was a physicist. Not one had anything to do with knowing anything about EM fields. So one has to then question the validity of anybody using these devices and if in fact they know how to use them and know what the readings mean. I myself am not a PHD nor a scientist by any definition, but I have had enough college courses and taught astronomy to know enough. That being the case, I can say with near certainty that EMF field detectors of any kind (including trifield, k2) are worthless. This is because there is so much ambient EM radiation, both natural and man made, that to try to come up with a random reading and say it is paranormal is ludicrous. A perfect example was when the ghost box light up during the presentation. It was not going off at any time unless something broke the field it emitted (it encountered a field to disrupt the emission). However, it did begin to light up just before a few flashes of lightning. That is easily explained conventionally. Thus, random occurrences do happen. You can map out a room and establish where fields exist. But sometimes, rogue fields meander into the area because of cell phones, socket leaks, or even lightning. If ghosts were in fact EM fields of some kind, why aren't there stronger readings around a TV or light switch or anything electronic? Why aren't there orbs or ectoplasm surrounding electronic devices? When Rich mentioned the room with a reading of 50 (I'm going to assume milligauss), that too is not paranormal. In fact, fuse boxes, shotty wiring, electric blankets, and even hair dryers can emit radiation this high, however it is mostly localized. The fact the entire room has levels that high is worrysome but cannot be used as a paranormal event. It has been proven that levels around 2.5-3 can cause almost a twofold increase in cancer, long term. The fact the reading was 50, I wonder how nobody passed out? It has also been proven that with increased levels of EM radiation come an increase in the body's production of stress hormones and proteins. Thus it is understandable and likely that when you are in a place reported to be haunted, the psychological impact already affects people. Add on higher EM levels, and its no wonder investigators get excited and possibly afraid during investigations.
A second issue I had was when, I think Rich, said "We go to debunk." This is a sound principle. However, more than once, particularly when going through the pictures, it was said "is it a ghost? is it an orb? we don't know." That is not debunking anything. Debunking means you use science to explain whatever phenomena comes into question. For example, a singular orb plus a high EM reading does not mean paranormal. It could mean dust and random EM spike. While some conclusions reached on investigations are correct using your methods, they cannot be considered valid because of that fact- because there is no real test and because nobody knows enough about science to be able to explain things according to science, and this includes photography. Many, if not most pictures with an anomaly can be explained by simple means. Digital cameras are notorious for being easily tampered with, and it is mainly because of the CCD chip it uses (as opposed to film). When in the presence of higher EM fields, batteries fail, CCD chips flounder, even camera flashes malfunction. And what of smudges on the lens? These may not show up on every picture and it is because of the angle of the light hitting the lens itself. Think of how a prism works. Hold it to sunlight and it will break the light into its spectral colors, mostly evenly distributed. However if you hold it at a different angle, one color may show more prominently. In the same way, if you take a picture straight on and have an anomaly on the picture then take a picture from somewhere else, it can be said that the former picture is paranormal, because it didn't show up on any other picture. Untrue. Perhaps the angle of the first picture provided sufficient light reflection as to illuminate something on the lens while the other pictures did not.
Psychics were also briefly discussed which I too will touch on. If one claims to use science on an investigation, then the use of a psychic, medium, sensitive, or whatever you want to call them completely invalidates everything, because now you are using unscientific methods. I don't buy into their abilities, and in fact, they have failed EVERY scientific test thrown at them- or they just don't bother to participate. Those that know me know that last year (2011) was more than traumatic. During that time, and still today, I experience things that I can only explain as being somehow psychic. However that does not mean I possess any special abilities, because at one point or another, everybody experiences things like this. Because of the randomness and unpredictability, one cannot "develop" this extra sense. Take our other five senses. We did not develop them. I didn't have to practice smelling in order to know what a rose smells like.
EVP's are also sketchy. It was said during the presentation that one EVP was heard by a couple investigators real time while another one couldn't be heard yet was on the recording. Because investigators use portable radios, it is plausible that the unheard ones were nothing more than picking up something on the airwaves, as Rich correctly pointed out. AM radio stations work by transmitting a signal that is bounced off of the atmosphere and then is received by an antenna. Occasionally, you get a random signal because of atmospheric disturbance- and particularly now that solar activity is high in the sunspot cycle. FM radio transmits radio waves in grids, which is why they come in much more clearly and why sometimes an FM station will scatter depending where you are in the room- because in much the same way a ghost box works, an FM radio signal can be disturbed by being "broken" momentarily. If one was able to hear real-time a voice, it should be picked up on the recorder. If it was not, we can use the doppler effect to debunk that premise. Karen had said that the other person was sitting next to her and they both heard the same thing, yet it was not on the recording. Take a firetruck. When you hear the siren coming towards you, it sounds loud because the sound waves are coming directly at you. When it passes and as it goes further away, it isn't as loud. Not because the frequency or tone of the siren changed, but because the sound waves are not pointed toward you anymore. If you have a digital recorder on the floor, and if we have two investigators next to each other, their ears are in roughly the same spot. The microphone is not. So it is plausible that the microphone simply didn't pick up the sound or maybe was not strong enough to effectively amplify the sound that was heard. In any case, EM fields interact with other EM fields. Thus a digital recorder with an EVP cannot be considered irrefutable evidence because the recorder itself is powered by batteries and contains its own EM field. In defense, though, EVP's are much more difficult to explain let alone debunk, which is why I favor these more than anything.
I have to reiterate, I don't know everything about science and my understanding is basic to moderate, so I could absolutely be wrong in everything I said above and I will admit defeat if anybody can pose any plausible explanations that contradict my own understanding. But to that end, THAT is the process of debunking. THAT is being skeptical. THAT is why paranormal research is a joke among the academic community- because they know better. I'm not saying ghosts don't exist. I have had plenty of experiences that convinced me otherwise, especially referring back to last year. But I am taking issue with the techniques used in the field that are seemingly nothing more than continuations and reflections of what everybody else does. And that is why I am skeptical. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it can't be explained. Its just nobody really does, because nobody really has a high understanding (or patience level for that matter) to open up science books and compare their results from the field to what the text says. Again, not the fault of CRPT. What is the fault of CRPT, Ghost Adventures, Paranormal State, Ghost Hunters, Ghost Detectives, and every other paranormal research group in the world, to my knowledge, the techniques are not all that dissimilar. And if you want to invoke the name of scientific research, then you are also admitting that it is not paranormal.
But I do admit, I was distracted during some points and may not have heard everything, so my apologies for missing things and then having you need to say it again here. But I think we all can agree though, that is was really Megan's fault. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D