This whole subject came about during a discussion on orbs and shadow people, and purported photo evidence. The trouble with most "ghost hunters" is that they use either a flash or IR light, both of which can illuminate particles of dust and bugs etc. They also create shadows which in the right instance can be misconstrued. So how do we remove this? As we like to say "to get the real picture as they do with the Hubble, take away background noise that you know is there", in this case the direct light source that may be creating false positives. If you catch something under those conditions it will be a stronger indication that something was there. I had the good fortune to go on an investigation at the Ferrar School in Iowa with Shane Feek, who introduced to me the notion of taking long exposure pictures using manual settings on a camera. By doing this you are letting the camera soak up the low ambient light without a direct light source causing interference. I am not a photographer, but there are a few variables on a manual camera that Shane showed me, and by playing around you can get some really great shots in near darkness. Yes, near darkness, absolute darkness will not work, there has to be some sort of ambient light. So how do we do this? The first step is getting your hands on a camera that can take photos with manual settings. I went on Ebay and found a used Nikon D70 with lens etc for around $100. Your camera might have manual settings, give it a check. So now we have a camera we can set manually, what are we setting? Basically we want it to absorb as much light as possible in a shortest amount of time (which by the way is a lot longer than you are used to. The settings we will be looking at are: ISO - The amount of light your camera captures. ISO 200 captures 2x more than ISO 100. Beware, increase in ISO also increases the graininess of the picture. Aperture - The size of the lens opening. The aperture is given in f numbers, the smaller the number the bigger the opening, which is good for low light allowing more light in. for example f/2.2 is a bigger opening than f/2.8 Shutter Speed - How long the shutter stays open to allow light in. The higher the number the longer the shutter will stay open, meaning again, more light getting in. Format - Setting your camera to RAW format means that it will collect much more detail over for example jpeg. Because the details will be hard to see in low light that's the format for this application. Now you have these settings its a trade off and I can only recommend that you take an evening and juggle these variables to get a feel for what works for your camera. Also each place will have different light levels, so there is no hard and fast formula that will get it right all the time. Here is a more in depth article discussing the pros and cons of each setting. Good luck, and I must add that its kind of fun narrowing down the best setting for each environment.

Last night I was recording the podcast "Seeking the Paranormal" with my co-hosts Adam and Sarah and the subject was reincarnation. Sarah had done a lot of research before the show as she always does, including the work of Professor Ian Stevenson, and I think she was a little overwhelmed by the amount of work that has been done on the subject, as well as the depth of the studies. Sarah opened the show with the basic question, do we believe in reincarnation. Sarah knows I have done a lot of reading over the years including the work of Stevenson, Peter Fenwick, and others, and I could feel her incredulity when I stated that while it was a possibility I wasn't sold on the idea. Then came the question "what does it take to convince you?" And there's the rub. What does it take to convince people that something is true? We live in the age of information, with all kinds of theories both objective and subjective, we have fake information pushing an agenda, and we have wishful thinking being forced through with just dogged determination and sometimes open hostility. How do we determine where to hang our hat? Personally, I like peer-reviewed studies carried out objectively, i.e. a study that will try to trip itself up using control groups and double-blind methods. Also to add weight I like to see studies that have been replicated with the same results. If a majority of educated people, after these studies, decide that this thing is probably true, then I'm in. To add to this, the idea must be further challenged as time goes on as new observations and theories look to be true, and if it still holds up that's even more weight added. There is a thing in science called the half-life of truths. That is to say that much of what we have decided to be a true fact about the universe may at some time be either proven to be wrong or will need to be revised with caveats. That is fine and good because Science is not a religion and is bound only by objectivity (which I will get to later), which means as we learn more it will change the nature of what we think we know. We went from Newtonian Physics to general relativity and relativistic statistical mechanics. This does not invalidate Newton's work but adds to it, and removes some of the absolute statements. On the shoulders of giants... Science doesn't know everything. My personal single most hated statement in the paranormal community. [INSERT FOLKLORE HERE} must be true because science doesn't know everything. That just means people are either too lazy or self-obsessed to actually put in the work that science requires to get good foundations under an idea. Fuzzy photos misunderstood equipment or pareidolia ridden recordings are not proof, they are at best observations, and maybe a starting point. They are not the alpha and omega. In my experience, they are also not open to question unless you want some form of abuse, which leads to my second most hated statement thrown out there by the paranormal community "Scientists are close-minded". Science is carried out by human beings, and as such have emotional and objectivity failings the same as everyone else. This can lead to bias in studying an idea, but there are methods in place to minimize these and at the end of everything there is peer review where these things are (hopefully) rooted out. The problem with this may be that there are not enough hours in the day to study fringe work until it becomes necessary or relevant, so a paper is published and put on hold until it becomes relevant to another study that can either confirm or refute its results. Papers with glaring flaws are just refuted and forgotten about or not published. So scientists are not closed-minded they study and put the work into many new ideas every day but do not get the time or funding to look at every wispy idea that comes down the tube. Paranormal studies are under-researched and understudied by their nature. There are many papers on the subject, but few that have been tested and reviewed to the detail that is needed for me to hang my hat on. Many mainstream theories can be used as a model for what we think may be going on in the paranormal field (Brane Theory, for example), but not many in this field take the time to learn, because "Hey, science doesn't know everything" right? That kind of attitude might be called close-minded. So if we take the example of Dr. Stevenson and his research. He spent 20 years or so collecting and collating past life stories from regression therapies and from children, and some very convincing testimonies are truly remarkable. To the cursory reader, they might be considered proof. However in science, this is allegorical evidence, that is stories describing something, and even though background checks into the purported past life turn up things that corroborate the story, the story is just a story. It convinces me that reincarnation is a possibility and that is what I may be getting told about. However, it needs to be taken further. The subjects were all put forward as candidates because they already had the story. I would like to see a study of random people to see how prevalent this really is. It is the right direction but not taken far enough for me to hang my hat on. Dr. Peter Fenwick in his studies on near-death experiences uses much of what DR Stevenson has done to corroborate what people see during their experience, so we see again one researcher building on another. But he freely admits it is just anecdotal. He has gone further in that he has done research into how consciousness must be flat-lined and do these experiences happen while it's flat-lined or while they are coming out of it. All this is valid research. However, Dr. Fenwick also acknowledges that there is much more to do to scientifically PROVE that brain and consciousness are separate and can exist apart. He explains that doing research on people dying would not get past the ethics board, or be funded. He has worked around this by collecting anecdotal evidence from hospice nurses, but again that is just statistics of 3rd party observers. And so the paranormal remains the paranormal, the hint is in the name. Nothing paranormal is proven or it would be normal. In my podcasts, I am often perceived as a skeptic or a dick or both, but the truth is I an open to the possibilities of many phenomena because science does not know everything. However, I will not throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose my sense of reality because it is the popular opinion in the majority of the audience. I like to investigate the paranormal claims to get the first-hand experience to form a foundation under my opinion. I will not get proof doing what I do because I am neither funded nor qualified to put out a paper of proof. To those investigators that think it is proven and normal phenomena I have the question, why are you investigating a proven thing? I don't investigate cars I know they are true. You may answer that you are investigating types of hauntings, which would be a fair point if you had unequivocally proven that hauntings happen beyond anecdotal evidence. To those that have read this far, thank you. I think that this is a great hobby (because that is what it is), and even amateur astronomers discover things, so I keep going trying to sort out what might be possible and get some foundation under it for the scrutiny of others. I hope you do too, and the first step in investigating anything is research, education, and the understanding of objectivity.

In these times of Corid-19, many of us are on lockdown and many of the sites we planned to visit are closed. What to do? Well there is much to do that we don 't usually find the time, or take the time to do. Here are some ideas on how to use the downtime. 1) Reflect on where you are going as an investigator In the general day to day, its easy to go to an investigation site and repeat what you did at the last one. While that's all fine and good for collecting data, are you actually evolving methods or digging deeper into any data you have found so far? Take the time to reflect what it is you are trying to achieve as an investigator, and make some notes. Are you looking to prove the existence of ghosts? Are you trying to get more I.T.C? if so what methods haven't you tried vs what you have tried? Apart from it being a fun hobby, what can you do to be more effective, and what data would you like to get to achieve that end. Furthermore, how do you get it in a way that you haven't done before? None of us are the perfect investigator, and having downtime gives us time to reflect on our weaknesses and our strengths. Most of us have an idea in our mind of how what we are looking for works, and now is a good time to apply the data we have to that idea and see how it stacks up. We can then get an idea of if we are heading in the right direction either with our ideas or with our investigation methods. 2) Design e xperiments to test theories Once we have a list of our ideas, we can create experiments to test those ideas. Not just ideas on the nature of what we are looking for, but our ideas of what equipment we are using and how it's interacting. Even IF it's interacting. For example if you are using a spiritbox, draw up some flashcards so you can see if it will repeat the words during an investigation. Test your equipment and ideas against something you can measure, if you establish baselines then you can spot anomalies much better. In fact its a good idea to test this in an environment that is not considered haunted. For example I'm pretty sure that my workshop isn't haunted, and is used as a baseline for all our experiments. Remember that when you are designing experiments that you also have to include negative results. In the above example of flashcards, we will not just wonder at the box when it gets one right we will also mark down when it doesn't. That way we get a clear picture of its effectiveness and a ratio number that can be measured across investigation sites. This applies to all equipment, the flashlight blink test, compass variables, EMF ranges etc. 3) Plan your next trips So planning where you are going to investigate is a fun part of the hobby, but how often do you stop after you have planned the location and route, hotels etc. Another aspect is to plan what it is you are actually looking to achieve at the location. If you have experiments planned, what they will be. What makes the site allegedly haunted, and how do you test for that? Another thing that may be overlooked is return visits. These are a great opportunity to concentrate on previous results and try to get corroborating data. If you plan a structure to the investigation your chances of getting usable data increase, and make the data more meaningful across investigations. If you have a structured group you can assign tasks before you even get there making the whole investigation run smoothly and increase your productivity while on site. Plan it like its a military operation. 4) Educate yourself To get any measurable data you are going to have to use instruments and tools. To be able to gain any insight you are going to have to understand what they are saying and what the numbers mean. Probably for many this is the least enjoyable part of the hobby, but you will be better equipped with a deeper understanding of physics. An understanding of what an EMF actually is and how it is created, in what measures from which source, will give you a much better insight as to what is really going on. A blip on a meter is not proof of a ghost, even if it does coincide with a question or two (remember the baseline exercise?). Physics will cover the basic theory of radio, electronics, light etc. All mediums we use to try to spot the interaction of the paranormal we are looking for. As you dig deeper you will recognize the weaknesses of each piece of equipment and be able to try to counter it giving you better data by taking away the background noise. 5) Revisit old data As you are doing all of the above, revisit old data. With new insights you will discover two things. The first is that there may be anomalies you may have missed. The second is that some of what you thought were anomalies are not. Sometimes when I look at our old published stuff I cringe, because I now know that its cause was probably not paranormal. This is normal, especially if you are going through the data fresh back from an investigation where you are sure what you experienced was paranormal in nature and your blood is up. However, after a cooling down period, and a little more knowledge, you will look at the data a little more dispassionately. Again, you may see something that you overlooked earlier eager to get to the good parts, or the good parts were enhanced by your imagination of what you thought was happening at the time. 6) Group meeting via social network You may think you are all on the same page, but it doesn't hurt to make sure. Use this time to reach out and see if any of the group members have something they either want to do or wish they did less of. Interest in certain aspects of the paranormal wax and wane, and as time goes on some group members may internalize or suppress feelings of dissatisfaction, or have ideas they haven't voiced. Now is a good time to get those ideas into the open and help form the group into an effective unit for the investigations coming up when this virus threat dissipates. Communication is always at the bedrock of a good group. 7) Check what other groups are doing Other groups will hopefully be doing different things. Its a good idea to take a look at what and how. Many groups have great ideas on how to tackle a specific problem, now is a good time to see what methods apply to what you are trying to achieve. Its also a good way to look at equipment outside of a sales blurb, and think of how it could be used to further your own data gathering. So hopefully this has given you some ideas, stay safe.

The above picture is of Tony Cornell, not the daughter of the musician but an excellent parapsychologist. That said, if you Google his name, you will get the musician's daughter. "Ghost Hunting" has become much more mainstream than it was in Tony's day. Multiple T.V. programs are competing concurrently, a library of books coming out monthly, and a host of amateur groups named either after their location or as a cool social media branding exercise. Not all are this way, but there are many and it's growing. Many of these names have the tag paranormal investigation stuck on the end, but what are they investigating and how? Many claim a love of history and yet how many have even heard of Tony? Tony Cornell investigated 800+ cases over 50 years, which if he did it today would be at least 30 seasons of T.V. Or would it? Tony stated that out of his 800 cases 80% were either fraud, pranks or misidentified paranormal occurrences. Twenty percent were hard to explain, and out of the twenty percent only a handful were in his opinion truly paranormal. So poor Tony would have less than a season of drama. The good news is that it wasn't his goal. His goal was to investigate claims of paranormal occurrences. I am guessing that he went into these investigations aware that the odds were against it being paranormal, but the investigation and search for the truth is the hook. Tony wasn't another debunk-er but understood and often remarked that ghosts and paranormal activity had been recorded throughout human history and so there was clearly something else going on that we did not understand and which known science could not explain, thus requiring careful level-headed and dispassionate investigation. That is the wisdom of the founders, the original investigators that went investigating. Level-headed and dispassionate is a good investigation and something we are seeing less and less of in today's "Ghost Hunting" community, which is a sad thing with so many active groups out there that could be gathering data. As an example, Mr. Cornell was on the cutting edge of using AV equipment and computers in investigations. Not to share orbs and tricks of the light, but to document the investigation and get any evidence of things moving. There are no reports of shadow people, but they were used effectively in cases of reported poltergeist activity, for example, recording if things moved or not. That was their levelheaded purpose. The computers were used to correlate data dispassionately, finding trends or cyclic manifestations. What they were not used for was for generating phonetic sounds easily misconstrued or subconsciously manipulated to make relevant words or names. Technology is a great asset in running an investigation, modern tech lets us photograph light wavelengths we cannot naturally see, digital recordings pick up the subtlest of sounds. All of these things used with a purpose are of great value to an investigation. However, if we use these devices to try and prove a forgone conclusion, that's not an investigation rather a kangaroo court. While I believe EVPs are possible, not every noise or whispery sound is a communication from a spirit. EMF spikes are likely to be just that, and weird shadows or light anomalies in photos are probably just evidence of bad photography skills. To be able to say that the sounds of the spirit box or apps such as spiritus are really intelligent communications from spirits, we have to check our facts, not our feelings. Levelheadedness and dispassionate. We did a blind test with both devices, where one investigator had a bunch or random words on a piece of paper, the other investigator could not see what they were. We asked the spirits to say some of the words on the paper using each device. The results were that the investigator that could see the words heard a number of them, the investigator that could not see the words could not make head nor tail of what he was hearing. While that's a pretty good indication of subconscious association, there is also the analogy of trying to listen to someone mumbling when you cannot see their mouth moving. The point of the above experiment is to show how these devices are relevant to an investigation. It seems 80%/20%/handful may fit. However how useful is that to an investigation? If I cannot tell a positive result from a false positive? The usefulness of these devices, of course, is that they increase the occurrences of what could be passed off as paranormal to a hungry audience, whether on T.V. or social media. How do I know this? because I have lived it. Our last group WTF Investigations started out emulating the shows and the many other groups out there. We had a growing number of followers and all was fine. However after a time, for me, something changed. The gimmicks became just that. I knew I was going to get a certain amount of words from the spirit boxes and apps, I knew something weird was going to happen because that's what we were looking for. Yet the weirdness wasn't really connected to what we were investigating, it was just random weirdness. The sounds could be wrangled to fit any bit of background information we had. We would get pats on the back and cries of "good catch". But what had we caught really? None of this was evidence in the real sense of the word. What it was was feeding the already strong beliefs of an audience that would not want to let go of the toys they had been given by their exposure to the reality shows. And we all know reality shows are real. I started to feel like a ringmaster moving juggling acts and clowns along for the entertainment of the masses. Not investigating something that, like Mr. Cornell, I felt was indeed worth investigating. So I did a reset and went digging through case files and papers buried in the dust of obscurity because they didn't have the modern-day bling. I became a member of the SPR to get access to their online library, and the first journal that hit my door suddenly opened my eyes. You could investigate properly, people have been doing it for many years before the reality shows. I was always aware of the older investigators such as Harry Price and Tony Cornell etc. I just never dug so deep into them, interesting when doing cases such as Borley Rectory, but out of sight out of mind most of the time, and then they receded into history as the new brash "Ghost Hunters" took center stage. However as I rediscovered what they were about, their methods, controls, interaction and peer review, a light went on. We had been doing it all so wrong. We had been actors playing a part for an audience. Nothing new or original, no real science or blind studies, no calls for others to try to replicate our experiments because there were no experiments to replicate. So here we are, and I understand why the great parapsychology investigators are receding into the past, being replaced by the modern "Ghost Hunters". Our experiments rarely get viewed for more than two minutes, never replicated, and strangely enough never rebutted. I've come to a few conclusions as to why, based on the perspective of my WTF Investigation days. We might just take away the toys and burst bubbles. If the actors' props are not believable the immersion in the show suffers. Not that I am saying its all a sham and there is nothing in it, but there is little solid ground for any of the claims. If we go looking for solid ground and find nothing what then? The thrill of the chase should be enough. The mental exercise of investigating claims should be enough even if it leads to nothing, as all but a handful out of 800 will. A good crossword solved doesn't lead to anything, neither does a negative result on an investigation, but the feeling of getting it right is worth the effort. The true founders were investigators, level-headed, passionate in their pursuit, yet dispassionate in their investigations. We have lost that I fear, and become actors. We stick to the script, use props and passionately tell stories. We have our brands, our outfits, our ghost poses, and PR. We don't criticize method or conclusions. Science does not have Sci-unity, yet we have Para-unity, don't divert from the script. The founders fought and argued which drove them on to better experiments to produce better data. If we want to be investigators we should investigate, and stay close to serious investigations and scientific developments. Take the time to read real research, not bogus claims. We should keep a very close eye on the debunkers like James Randi, they will show us better techniques than the reality shows. Then one day you will run into something that truly cannot be explained. Then the real work begins and it is an experience much better than using props. You will run controlled experiments and get results that cannot be knocked down by the casual skeptic. Maybe we can produce some new founders instead of being followers. Further Information: Tony Cornell Wiki Tony Cornell on investigating James Randi Example