Y'all know the reason I got started with GHT was to knock around theories in the field, step outside the box, question authorities and generally stir things up to see where the dust settles. I want to see us make gains in the field of paranormal research.
It gripes me that so few investigators think ahead and how to start correlating findings and making theories and then finding ways to exclude explanations from the list of possibilities. No one questions EMF. No one questions unscrewing a freaking flashlight and leaving it on a bench for the ghost to "turn it on."
I am in the process of getting a team together that will be purely a theories testing team. No clients. No counseling. Only studies and statistics. I will soon have a name and logo to share. We will be tackling the paranormal world by approaching it with science. Even if we're dealing with something of a spiritual nature, it is launched into our physical world to be seen and heard by us, so let's figure out how it works in our world and then come to some conclusions.
That being said, it made me ponder some of our "examples" in the field of paranormal research and where they might take us if we continue to follow their paths unquestioningly.
J&G: These TAPS founders have, to their credit, made debunking a household word and also taken ghost hunting from some kind of creepy Ouija board, Seance wielding bad mojo spiritualist experience to something of a "pseudoscience." If we continue to follow their lead; however, the field will become stagnant. We will still carry around the old hearsay explanations of "ghosts are trapped here and don't want to leave," "suck the energy out of batteries," and "create cold spots when trying to form." I'm not sure what book of magic they found out all these assumptions. Explanatory style, something I talk a lot about in my book "Was That a Ghost?" is the greatest enemy of a paranormal investigator, just like ego and interpretation can kill a good psychic's reads.
Our team is adaptable. Depending on the situation, we go on to test different things in different manners. We let the place and its activity dictate how we approach it and with what tools and experiments. Adaptability is key to our future! We can make no assumptions about what it is we're dealing with.
Ryan Buell: We would definitely fall back into turn-of-the-century spiritualist methods and the Fear of the Church should we follow Ryan's path. People will become afraid of anything they cannot explain like folks from the Middle Ages. This isn't progress but it is the worst kind of sensationalism and fear-mongering and reminds me a helluva lot of the "Wrath of God" mentality of mega churches.
GA: What can I say about Zak and the boyz? Pure entertainment. The concept of taunting a ghost versus baiting a ghost is an important differentiation. When Zak got down in the chair and begged the incubus to do the dirty deed with him, he was baiting. When he talks smack about the departed and dares them to hurt him, he's taunting. Taunting usually creates anger, baiting creates curiosity. In the Birdcage, I decided to adapt myself to the situation and during introductions, I presented myself as the good-time redhead waiting for her gambling boys to get her a drink. That creates curiosity. Had I gone in there threatening to shoot them and whoop their asses, I suspect there would be a mass exodus of disinterested parties.
Expect in the future for me to discuss some theories and possibilities for explanations of the paranormal world. I want full involvement from readers because, after all, this is my tribe's think tank. You spark many great ideas.
**Don't forget, tonight is Lonely on a Friday Night. I'll be hanging out. Chat!**
