Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

Note: If you don't read the following with the knowledge that it's somewhat of a parody and tinged with more than a little bit of truth combined with snark and humour, you will be missing the point. (The mere fact that I need to include this prelude is rather telling about some of the people discussed below... but experience has taught me that this is a necessary evil.)

In the field of discussions of paranormal topics it's can be important if not vital to know the fauna that may be encountered while navigating the internet and other areas where these creatures can be viewed "in the wild", as it were.

Although there could be volumes about the differing species one might encounter, this entry is specific to the genus Hominis Scepticus or the American variation of the species, the Hominis Skepticus or common sceptic.

The sceptic comes in many variations and cross-genera, but the basic categories remain visible and easy to detect.

This guide will allow the user to identify the common varieties of sceptic they may encounter within the discussion of the paranormal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pseudo-Sceptic
Fraudulous Representatious

This sceptic is one of the most common varieties found in almost all corners of human habitat. Claiming to practice "scepticism", this variety is actually almost another species, the Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous or common non-believer that does not understand that scepticism means to doubt rather than knee-jerk deny things. They are easily spotted by their cry which is always similar and sounds like, "I don't believe any of that bunk. I'm a sceptic."

This variety uses the cloaking ability of the word "scepticism" to make themselves feel better about their absolute faith in the non-existence of things they don't wish to acknowledge a possibility of. Like many sceptics listed in this guide, they really are not a sceptic as such, but popular vernacular has forced them into the genus category.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance. Also, this variation usually can't cite any scientific studies or papers to substantiate it's point.

This variety occasionally displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how it is viewed by others. More often than not, they are so snug within their viewpoints that really, it doesn't matter all that much what anyone thinks or discusses with them... They'd rather be somewhere else discussing other things anyway.

Evangelical Sceptic
Compulsionious Preachus

Often found in groups or as rogue (and often unwanted) individuals, this variation is closely related to the Fraudulous Representatious above, but takes more pro-active measures and works to feather it's nest by trying to rid the planet of what it considers the work of Hominis Woowooiticus.

Sadly, it often mistakes literally most (if not every) piece of writing, study, literature, and experience that does not fit it's self-built paradigm (regardless if it is truly the work of the Hominis Woowooiticus or not,) and feels compelled to shred said work or loudly disavow it usually in a public forum.

This species is often incapable of looking at any data or even entertaining an alternative hypothesis that may allow for differing ideas to what it feels is 'acceptable' or even allowing the concept of hypothesis or speculation within any field that might distress it's own safe view of it's habitat. (Closely related to Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous, but more likely to attack without legitimate provocation and usually without full argument as to why the attack is taking place.)

When confronted by uncomfortable things, the Compulsionious Preachus will most often secrete it's foul cry of "WOO!" accompanied by a finger point, and then it will change the subject to allow for easier mockery of any subject it feels is "questionable", regardless of relation to the original points it took offence to.

Active within the general community it inhabits, Compulsionious Preachus feels it's life's work is to "assist" all other hominid life away from what it considers dangerous matter.

This vitriolic variation of sceptic is often considered, even within some of scepticism's general group habitats, to be problematic at best, annoying and pointless at worst.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance (including a negative one) and because of this, true science allows for speculation and hypothesis where this version of sceptic will not and really, can not.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour and actions. (Realistically, people don't like them because of their zealotry in general, but this truism is dismissed by the Preachus as they are so so certain of their own paths or action. "Exitus acta probat" is effectively their mantra.)

Fake Sceptics
Scepticus Falsus Woowoous

This variation is often located within the field of the paranormal studies (of a sort) and often displays the word "sceptic" to describe itself, but then does something to ensure that the keen observer understands that it is not actually a pure bred sceptic.

For example, there are things that are self-named "Sceptical Demonologists", which in itself proves that the "sceptic" part in this group is probably not apt as they have already pre-determined the cause for what they're looking into... again, removing doubt or questioning which, again, doesn't truly make them appropriate for the genus "sceptic", but they are still self-labeled thusly.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" because they occasionally utilise "scientific" equipment... again, "science" is not on their side as using scientific equipment without proper controls or even a truly complete understanding of the measurements taken (and why they are being taken) makes one a "scientist" much the same way as using a cranial saw to slice cheese for a sandwich makes one a neurosurgeon.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others.

Angry Sceptics
Furious Scepticus

This variety of sceptic is often related to the Compulsionious Preachus above, but unlike Preachus, it's usual form of attack is not tangible articles, but debates and usually devolves to online "internet trolling" (see the Urban Dictionary for definition of "Internet Troll" for more information,) of anyone it feels is "opposed" or even humouing an opposing view of things than it holds to be true.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" and they are "fighting the good fight" without actual action or even data to prop up their case... they are, of course, wrong as science requires empirical data, not simply being the "loudest voice" to be accepted as fact.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour.

Fan Sceptics
Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus

Like many other species that is of the Lustivus variation, (such as the Apple Fanboius, the Beiber Feverous, and the ever present Astra Trekkieus,) this variation of sceptic latches on to a favourite aspect of their adoration and flogs it almost completely to death much to the irritation of others.

In Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus, this often is a quote from a scientist or noted intellectual and is little more than a sound byte which completely defines their stance.

Usually, the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus doesn't understand the quote completely or is unaware of the origins.

The two most common that are bandied about as the call of the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus are "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" which is cited as coming from the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Sagan did not coin the term, the late Dr. Marcello Truzzi did, and when Truzzi noted that scepticism had been taken over by non-believers rather than doubters, he left the sceptical organisation he helped found... and also, on noting that evidence is evidence and/or truth is truth and things either can be or "not be", he changed his stance and wished he'd simply said, "Claim Require Evidence"... and that meant all claims including claims of non-existence in the face or overwhelming reported experiences.

The other oft used phrase is "The Simplest Answer is Usually the Correct One" or "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" to be correct. This is Occam's Razor... which was "coined" by William of Ockham, a 14th century monk who did utilise this logic more than a few times to say that simply "God Made It So" (the simplest answer) to "answer" things that seemed (at the time) to defy simplistic observational (scientific) answers.

With these examples known, this variation of sceptic often worships these words and their (often incorrectly attributed) original creators and all "arguments" end up with these words being parroted back to the opposing number... usually to the point of extreme redundancy.

This variety assumes "science" is on their side because they cite "scientists" so it must be right.

This variety does not usually display a sincere sense of persecution... only misplaced smugness in support of their own 'intelligence'.

(See also: Fallback Position to Randi's Million-Dollar "Challenge" as Proof of Non-Existence.)

Actual Sceptics
Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus

The rarest of all sceptics and within the realm of the garden variety "popular" sceptic, these are often mocked or called a "soft-sceptic", because they actually use scientific logic and thought and don't make sweeping generalisations but work from a case-by-case scenario when presented with things.

They "doubt" and do not "deny out of hand" which also makes them targets of the "harder" variations of the sceptic species. They understand that there are no true limits to our knowledge and understanding of the universe regardless of any stand one takes and that some "laws" may not apply as more information comes into play.

They demand empirical evidence before supporting any position on things, but do not dismiss ideas until evidence if brought to the fore to show an idea may or may not be correct.

Science (as a method) is on their side as indeed, they only work from the empirical and will accept possible hypothesis and even speculation provided it's presented as such.

Unlike all of the above, this variety will not resort to ad hominem attacks when presented with questionable things, but instead question the data itself.

This variety is persecuted by the above variations of sceptic and also by Hominis Woowooiticus (true believers who don't wish to have their faith questioned,) as they refuse to take any stand without, again, empirical evidence and as such, are not viewed as being "one of the faithful" by any of these camps.

They are also soundly loathed by the not-common, but oft seen Fraudulous Conmanicus Woowooator or predatory hominid that prey on Hominis Woowooiticus for money and whatnot as the findings and presentation of facts and data by Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus are far more difficult to "contradict" which the Conmanicus must do in order to entice prey continue to feed.

Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus is truly the more successful and discreet variant of Compulsionious Preachus... making the Preachus usually very jealous.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All of the above mentioned, with the exception of Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, when presented with empirical evidence that forces them to re-think their stance on any subject they originally held near-and-dear, (say the original "sceptical" view on panspermia,) will show that they are indeed of the same genus as they resort to one of the two common wild calls of 'correction'... "Well, that was self-evident and I knew it all along. You just didn't understand me!" or "That wasn't my point..." which is a pseudo-intellectual variation of "Exitus acta probat" in a way.

Again, save the Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, the common sceptic is never wrong and as such, must be truly "God like" in their infallibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I do hope this guide has been helpful... and yes, I do understand that one could do many differing guides to all sorts of types of species found in the realm of these studies, and this article is a little one-sided... but when one reads things such as...
TheSkeptoidZone - Uber-skeptoid with way too much time on his hands gets libx warning
...one might understand why I believe that it's important for all to know or be able to figure out what type of sceptic they are dealing with in the wild.

Thank you for reading...

Although I respect their bravery, I fear that doing so is going to prove bad for business for them.
- Quoted from a posting on Ghost Village's Message Board about my publishing the "Final Orb" article.

~~~~

The quote above was brought back to my attention yesterday evening... and it spurred many thoughts...

It's not been a mystery that life (fiscally) for Sue and myself has been hard... and we are most certainly not alone.

Often, we think of two examples... both Ufologists... we have been privileged to know. Both men have an unbelievable body of work and excellent standing and respect within their field... and yet, one died rather recently having basically gone bankrupt and losing everything... to the point of trying to sell his library and notes just a couple of years before his passing. The other fellow is still trying to eek out any funds he can as he can... even selling off many of his personal possessions to make ends meet.

The people we know legitimately working with ghosts and hauntings also tend to be in a bad spot. Many of the "big name" ghost folks of the past came into the study as people of leisure... money wasn't an issue for them... but thousands of not-as-wealthy people who are legitimately serious about the study literally go hand-to-mouth in order to do what is their passion.

The same is true for Cryptozoologists and psychical researchers and investigators... If you didn't come to the table with funds or were hired by a wealthy patron or group, you must be prepared to starve for your passion... because, although there are ways to "make your living" in the paranormal, the majority of those vocations mean having to usually be very flexible in your ethics and morals.

"...bad for business..." the quote above said. Writing an article and truly making my point in a valid and testable way was bad for business.

What this says, and she was right, was telling the truth and being honest would mean less people would send me photos that I knew were 99.9999% natural in origin to post on my website as "Jenn-You-Whine" ghostly images... and in today's world, no pics means no flash and no sizzle... and lower hit rates... less traffic... less chance to make "business" happen with "customers" seeing our "wares".

One COULD say that this lack of "business" also means less reports and visitors who might talk to us about their experience and we could lose valuable data for our work... but honestly, other than a few bumps when I initially published that paper, we've grown... and reports have increased year over year...

...but it's that word... "business"... Are we a business? We aren't making a dime on this... and to be truthful, we know we probably never will... but obviously, it would be grand to do what we have a genuine thirst and passion for as a "living".

How could someone like us make business?

Well, we could write books... Not as profitable as one might think and we'd be in an over-glutted market... plus Sue and I have discussed it and if we did write something, we'd want it to offer you, a reader, something really new... and honestly, so far, the best stuff we have is right here... free... and we're cool with that.

Okay, no book... yet... and none on the immediate horizon.

There are "ghost tours" and the like... and we actually see a LOT of value in these. They're fun, entertaining, and often educational. Really, a good "ghost tour" is often great value for the money... but there are many really excellent tours in our neck of the woods... and we never set out to be a tour operator and very happily promote the ones that are out there. Also, we would never set up a long-term operation that might run competitively against those that have been around a long while...

So, no tours.

There are classes, lectures, and the like... but these have a limited appeal and shelf-life with the masses. Doing this might leak in a coin or two to the coffers... we did even try this once or twice... but overall, sadly, in order to look after our daughters and ourselves, the "day jobs" must be first and foremost in the financial gathering department... that, and we really don't have the space or facilities to use either... Top that off with the fact that we would not and could not "fib" about what these would entail... and not having "extreme videos", "amazing pictures", or other "proof" of the existence of the paranormal is not a crowd-grabber... even when you do report to have these, people get bored unless they're new ones available every time they come out... and although we work this way anyway, many people (especially "down South",) are not terribly interested in having their evidence scrutinized by any recognised authorities like a university, professional photographers, or audio engineers.

So, no regular full-time gigs doing lectures or classes.

The three ideas above would really be the only ways we could "Self-Start" a business of sorts using our field of study... and we'd be okay with them... but have had to discount them for ourselves.

Of course, there would be "Find a Wealthy Patron" who'd pay us to continue our work... or be hired by a school to become full-time paranormal researchers and investigators... but those are pipe-dreams.

Then, there's the more common routes people DO try to make coins from this... and they are most certainly not for us...

#1: Charge for work or investigations. Why? How would you justify this fee? Also, the information gathered helps us find answers and leads to a greater understanding of the paranormal in general... the thought of putting one's hand out and saying, "Money or no work!" for this study is just horrible to us. Also, in terms of charging for "house clearing" or the like... again, our own honesty would be our undoing. First, most house clearings don't work. Second, how can anyone give any sort of guarantee that they've successfully removed something that no one has absolutely proven to exist AND even if you have a belief or faith in the existence of these things (and honestly, we do believe these things are experienced ourselves,) how do you quantify their existence so you can measure that they are gone when absolute no one before you has?

...so that ain't happening with us.

#2: Hope for a media gig. Fantastic... except... I have daughters... and need every penny I have... Would I be guaranteed a paycheque for "X" amount of years to ensure their needs are met? What if this lasted only one year or less? Would I be out on my bum and jobless? We've worked with media before... and one large multinational company told us Do things our way or we don't work together... we didn't work together... and my fabled story about being asked to dance to the "Ghostbusters Theme" for a camera? It happened... it was a major news organisation in the city I live in. Basically, our overwhelming experience with media has been they're more than willing to not guarantee any pay, ask you to tank your ethics and principals for their "version" of how things should be, and after all is said and done, you usually lose the respect of authorities and people who can help the study... but you MIGHT gain a "TeeVee" fan base... which in the long run, is counter to what we would like to achieve. We need the universities, museums, and historic sites... and we've seen how the quest for fame by some ruin those contacts and people not only for themselves, but others. Most importantly, Sue and I have never claimed to be entertainers and are not actors or the like in either an amateur or professional sense.

...so that ain't happening in the near future either.

#3: Try to sell "stuff". Again, in a glutted "ghost hunter store" market, this isn't a winner in many respects... and the competition from what we've seen is brutal. Worse yet, many of the gadgets at these stores are available, often much cheaper, in legitimate science shops... they just don't have a "ghost sticker" on them or claim to capture UFO's in flight 80% of the time. Some things have a proven negative track record in terms of finding evidence of the paranormal, and yet are still peddled as "real" investigative equipment... Some people have even taken items that are free or could be built cheaply and marketed them as their own creation with a huge price mark-up. Again, we just can't do that... This is counter to what we want to accomplish and in some cases, even criminal.

...no go on that.

I could continue... there are other ways to make coin... many of them in the "unscrupulous" category.

Perhaps I should add something... to be clearer... for those new to Sue and I and our groups, and that is lay out what *is* driving us in our efforts...

Sue and I have had our own experiences. We have also heard far too many other people with similar and different experiences. We are both people who want to understand those experiences. We believe the understanding of these things benefits everyone. We think of ourselves as investigators, researchers, thinkers, and educators. We are pleased that we are not alone in these thoughts.

So, seeing that above, you can see how we really will never be able to properly set aside our ethics or morals... and that, indeed, this is a passion... an obsession... and we know it will be a money-losing proposition.

I recently updated the "PSICAN Help Us" page which lays out what we do with any gifts people toss our way... and what we'd do with larger gifts... and the ultimate dream of a PSICAN learning centre...

...but will some of the larger goals be a reality?

Perhaps.

...are we willing to do what best for "business"?

Y'know what?

No.

We won't.

What you see is what you get... and we won't sell out our vision, our ideals, or our ethics for anything.

We're like you.

...and as such, we cannot and will not bend our ways or possibly corrupt our vision just for money's sake.

If the funds come, they come.

If they don't, oh well... it's been a great experience and learning adventure...

...and maybe we will never own our dream home or make our other wishes come true... but we'll build a decent life for our family, we will continue as we can, and we really - in the long run - will have few regrets.

"Business" may be bad... but our self worth is quite amazing... and that's the important thing in the long run.

Of course, if that wealthy patron is out there, we WOULD love that learning centre and think other's would love it too!

There's a dreadful little website that takes things way too far by the same name as this blog entry...

It has topics like "What's the harm in believing in psychics?" and then goes on to list major news stories about victims of fraudulent psychics and the like... Now, I say the site in question is "dreadful" because in making it's point, it often makes some leaps and tries to connect dots... for example, "Belief in Ghosts" is apparently tantamount to wishing for an exorcism and so the site lists a lot of rather horrible bad exorcism stories...

Now, this is valid information and I agree there should be caveats to folks who wish to dive into any belief (especially if they wish to act on it,) to do some homework... but that's not why I'm writing this post.

My point is the other "What's the harm?" things... things I've either heard people ask about or must assume people ask about... because indeed these things happen, and one has to assume the people that acted on them felt there'd be no harm... and yet...

For example...

~~~~

What's the harm in fibbing a little to make a ghost story more interesting?

I mean, after all, it might even put a few coins in the "fibber's" wallet and entertain the kids, right?

Well, I did cover some aspects off in this blog post a few days back... about how lying once taints everything the "fibbers" then produce no matter how valid it might be... and how their "fibs" then cast everyone in a bad light because, indeed, we all do get painted with the same brush by the masses (one "ghost hunter" is another "ghost investigator" is another "paranormal researcher" with no big differences between them all to most people...) and that ends up hurting us all...

...but what about the ethics of that "fib"?

Historical inaccuracies is one thing (and usually the most common event when "ghost hunters" fib,) but what happens when their new tales of haunts (and usually the darker aspects of a history that lead to the "haunting",) contain problems for those who are a little more attached to things then the story tellers is? What if it stigmatizes a home, a parcel of land, or worse yet, a family's good name? We've even had complaints (I know, like we're a complaints department!!! ...but such is life...) when ghost stories told by guides take a decidedly nastier and historically inaccurate tone in terms of the people (post mortem,) supposedly involved... with everything from racism, sexism, implied murders, backroom abortions, and various other treacherous acts all desperately chucked into a "good ghost story" to thrill and chill... with zero proof, zero evidence, and zero substance. Such acts of modern folklore have closed off more than twenty sites to us (even though we were not involved with the "new" stories,) and other ghost enthusiasts... just so a handful could have a sexy story to light up their cold lives.

...and what was the harm?

Ask us... who are now shut out of possibly valuable investigative research.

Ask the families involved... who now live with the stigma of lies about their ancestors.

Ask anyone with a sense of decency... who has to hear someone mock their ancestry... or lifestyle...

...just because someone needed a "good story".

Not just "ghost hunters" can be blamed for this, however... look how deftly things of this nature are handled by the mainstream media by reading this old post.

~~~~

What's the harm in watching a lot of reality paranormal television programs?

Nothing... provided you understand that a good 75% (or more) of what you're seeing is not all that real.

No, I don't mean they're "faking stuff" that's ghostly or demonic and offering it to you, the viewing audience, as absolute evidence of weird stuff...

...not only that...

They're faking most conversations, story lines, and a lot more in most cases.

The minute you see a creative person in the credits... or a "story editor"... or anything involving a script, it stopped being "real".

There is no "best time" to see or experience things, as an example. Paranormal events happen night or day... it's just hard to freak out teenagers on a couch with a bowl of popcorn in front of their big screen with a show shot at noon.

More and more, the truth seems to be there's not much truth in any of these programs... They are entertainment... and the people in them are entertainers... and provided you understand that... and you know that the majority of what they're doing and saying is really for your viewing benefit to make the popcorn extra-tasty, there's no harm at all.

...but you should be aware of how some of them truly see you... like this interview points out from a writer hired by The Warren's to work on a book for them...

I found that the accounts of the individual Snedekers didn’t quite mesh. They just couldn’t keep their stories straight. I went to Ed with this problem. "Oh, they’re crazy," he said. "Everybody who comes to us is crazy. Otherwise why would they come to us? You’ve got some of the story – just use what works and make the rest up. And make it scary. You write scary books, right? That’s why we hired you. So just make it up and make it scary."

Lorraine Warren is a staple on one of the "reality" TV shows... and there's more about these folks... a LOT more...

...and, off the record, one person involved with the show Mrs. Warren is on admitted to us that, indeed, they don't buy into the "demon" thing... and they want to return to working on strictly ghosts sans "demons". (Good luck with that... I'm sure it'll happen when it's time to renew contracts.)

Again, if you realise that these programs are borderline absolute fiction and ONLY for your "scary pleasure", enjoy!

...but it ain't really what happens when those of us who are in the field do our work.

What is the harm then?

Try working (key word that... "working"...) with anyone who has seen these shows and expects the same "results" and happenings. It's often not pretty.

Also, the antics of the teevee paracelebrities are often so embarrassing, it also closes doors for us to places that don't want that sort of thing in, on, or near their site. This sounds like hyperbole... but sadly, experience has taught us it isn't.

The only good thing here is that in Canada, the ratings for "paranormal television programs" have slipped rather hard in the last few months... and continue to lose ground. Hopefully, most of the shows will be off the air soon... and the misconceptions will eventually leave with them.

~~~~

What's the harm in hanging out and goofin' around in the haunted places?

Lessee... does the person in question have permission to be there? Might they be arrested for trespassing or break-and-enter?

...and if they are, what's the harm there, right? It's ONLY them!

...nope...

Again, in this case, one person's thrill seeking criminal is all about ghosts... and therefore is one person's "ghost hunter" is one person's "ghost investigator" is one person's...

...are you starting to see a trend?

It really is like this... and can take weeks, months, sometimes years... sometimes never... to regain the trust of an owner, tenant, site manager, or the like to allow someone to do some actual investigation and observation on a site when these things happen.

For some recent examples, see ParaResearcher's report on #1 Spadina Cres. in Toronto and more recently, the sad events relayed on The Haunted Hamilton website about the legend of Mary Rutherford.

There are many, many, sadly many more similar news items... all sad... and all stupid...

I could also list the people that mistake "abandoned" for "haunted" and end up doing poorly planned urban exploration and getting hurt and worse... but hopefully, you get the idea...

~~~~

I could go one with one's like "What's the harm of paying for psychical help?" and talking about the SEVERAL cases where we know people that lost literally thousands to would-be psychics and the like in fees and such... or "What's the harm in knowing (without any other examination,) what's happening and acting on it?" and discuss the deaths of hundreds of people in relatively modern times who were mentally ill, but "cured" (to death) by botched "exorcisms" or worse...

...but I'll stop here.

Suffice to say, when doing anything... LITERALLY anything... ask the question...

"What IS the worst that can happen?"

...and be honest with your answers.

It may save everyone, including yourself, a lot of heart ache and pain.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
- Aldous Huxley

A couple of days ago, I wrote my usual long-winded rant/comment here about mission statements and trying to figure out what people are up to in terms of the paranormal. Buried in that same post was some information regarding "proof" versus "empirical fact"... (If you need reminding, the link to said post is here.)

Upon reading this, someone asked about taking stands on things like orb photos and the like... and how, in the absence of "negative" empirical evidence to show that ALL orb photos are NOT ghosts, our group has taken a negative stance towards these as possible evidence of the paranormal. (See this link.)

Actually, we don't take on an absolute negative view on these things... but we have adopted a two-step approach to them.

#1: We do have a list of "requirements" to prove to us that orbs are truly anomalous and not particles near the camera lens which is laid out here and here.

#2: We recognise that the greater probability is that these things (orb photos) are natural (or man-made) in nature and not supernatural or paranormal in origin. (Again, see this page for details.)

I'm sure, by now, you know when I italicise a word or phrase, there's more to it and I'll explain it... and lo and behold...

How does one determine the greater probability of something?

Well, in empirical evidence, you're looking for repeating or repeated events which can be measured... from there, you can work out an observational conclusion... but in order to be absolutely empirical, it must be able to be recorded and repeated by as many neutral observers as possible and corroborated as a correct finding.

Sometimes, that last bit can be tricky...

Let's take "The Amityville Horror" as an example.

A family and some demonologists said the house was haunted. This, in itself, would be enough to at least entertain the notion that this was, at least, a "reportable" case... Not empirical by a long shot, but no reason to suspect that there's anything to be wary of within the situation... no reason (on the prima facia) to suspect any jiggery-pokery is happening...

...but then we look at the other evidence.

A: A paranormal investigator who's credentials are reasonably air-tight examined the case before the demonologists and voiced concerns of a hoax at play. (See this link about that...)

Okay, there's room for a little doubt...

B: The lawyer for the man who committed the murders in the house admitted he concocted the stories with the people that were depicted in the book and movie over many bottles of wine.

A confession? Okay, now there's a lot of room for doubt...

C: There are over one-hundred documented factual errors within the book and movie, "The Amityville Horror", as noted by one researcher.

Okay, the weight of evidence is swinging madly to one side... but perhaps something else was going on and it was misconstrued or misunderstood...

D: No one who has subsequently lived in the house has complained about any "hauntings" or ghosts. (...although they have complained about thrill seekers and the curious coming around to visit...)

Okay, but that could mean that whatever's happening there is dormant... or perhaps it was centred around a living medium... or...

E: The demonologists involved have had more than their share of questionable situations with their versions of things and have, in one case, been cited as asking a writer to make things up because people that believe them are "crazy" and wouldn't know the difference. (See this link for details...)

Okay, this is getting worse and worse... The link above combined with the points found here and you have to start scratching your head hard...

F: At one point, the couple who are featured in the book and movie recanted large parts "their" story... only the husband sort-of back-peddled on his recantations towards the end of his life (claiming the movie and book were mostly true,) and that was just prior to trying to go on a tour to promote his experiences... His former wife (and partner at the time of "the horror",) did not recant her parts (although she did say "some" things happened to her at the home, just not what made it to the movie and book,) and his stepson (who was also part of "the horror",) has also not backed down from what he considers to be effective lies about the events.

So, we have...

Seven fairly substantial pieces of evidence to suggest that the "horror" was nothing like we were led to believe... and that those that defend the events seem to have more than a bit of a shady history...

Vs.

Really, one family and some demonologists "reports"... that were made into a sketchy book and a sketchy movie.

...and, as I've publicly stated before, if one is caught hoaxing or lying once, it's unlikely that anyone of substance would believe them without empirical evidence in the favour of what they're trying to show as "fact".

So, when examining the details, we can say that the greater probability is that The Amityville Horror seems to be fictitious... in the extreme.

Still, can I say for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN it's all nonsense? No... but that's the difference between "proof" (as there's enough about to cast serious doubt in this case,) versus empirical evidence.

Now, if the remaining demonologist claims (later on) it was all lies, and a diary is found from the husband involved saying it was all lies, then the physical burden of proof would be met... to make it pretty much empirical.

(For more info on Amityville, have a boo at Troy Taylor's article...)

Are ALL orb photos airborne particles illuminated near the lens? Most likely... Is it an absolute certainty? No, not really... but it's the higher probability.

Was The Amityville Horror a hoax? Probably... the evidence does seem to point that way... Do we have absolute proof? Only that SOME of it is... but the rest of the evidence and the stuff that has been refuted casts enough doubt to say indeed, the higher probability is it was a hoax.

Before anyone out there says, "But AHA! You're basing a conclusion on a probability, not on a hard fact!", first of all, we're not making a "conclusion", only a likely scenario... and even then, on a case-by-case basis (everything deserves looking into!)... and also, allow me to offer this observation... as a trained and award-winning marksman...

If I gave you a "Saturday Night Special" handgun... say a .22 or .25 calibre pistol... and a box of 1,000 rounds of ammunition. There will be some duds in that box, most likely. In fact, there's a high probability that there is at least one dud...

...but the higher probability is that any bullet you put into the chamber of the weapon will work fine.

If I asked you to load the weapon, place the barrel to your temple and squeeze the trigger, would you do it?

Realistically, the bullet in the gun will work fine.

...it's only a probability though...

Willing to chance it?

Now, this example is hyperbole in the extreme... and as stated above, all claims require not only evidence, but also examination... but let's work it this way...

If you read all the evidence above about The Amityville hauntings... and the people involved who promoted it as "real"... would you trust them 100%?

75%?

40%?

...less...?

If your reputation was carried on being truthful and honest, and you worked diligently to ensure that you were as accurate as possible and as honest as possible, what would you say then?

Cutting to the chase, if you're left with no empirical evidence and an inability to acquire any, then realistically, you need to fall back on the greater probability and acknowledge that anything else is only a possibility... but if the evidence (on a case by case basis) swerves strongly to that "great probability", chances are it's correct and worth holding as the preferred answer... and should someone wish to push an alternate possibility to the fore because they feel or need to ensure their answer is right, then let them know...

...if they wish to combat the greater probability with a lesser possibility, then there is one way to ensure that it's completely accepted...

...and that's to bring empirical evidence to show that they're correct!

...and if they are so right, that should be easy!

"When you are through with it, What do you do with it?
All you have left is the stick."
When You Come To The End Of Your Lollipop - Max Bygraves

This one's more for the "ghost hunters" out there than anyone else, but it could transcend various studies into the paranormal...

I've talked before about people figuring out why and what they are looking for when they say they are investigating ghosts and hauntings... and many people wrote to me to tell me that they are looking for "proof" of the phenomena.

That's a relatively simple goal... and quite possibly not necessary. Why? Well, does anyone out there doubt that the vast majority of people who report to have witnessed, heard, or felt these things didn't have the experience? Does anyone think that every witness is a liar or utterly delusional save those of you who are hard-core non-believers? Even then, can hard-core non-believers state, without hesitation, that the people who feel they've run into these things didn't have a genuine experience of some sort?

The truth of the matter is, these things *are* experienced. This is something that is a statement of fact.

The question is, how physical are these events?

So, let's modify what many "ghost hunters" might be after... "Physical Evidence of Physical Activity that explains or might explain Ghostly Experiences".

They want "proof".

Okay, quick sideline here...

The question, "What constitutes proof?" comes up quite often... and that question is completely subjective.

"Proof" is what's acceptable evidence to an individual or group. Not too long ago in our history, a person remembering when a bad drought happened and who was an acting wet-nurse looking after babies while a person should have been being born was often enough in legal terms to decide a person's age. As another example, the Sun seems to come up in the East and down in the West "proving" (without question) that it obviously was circling the Earth. One last example would be to consider legal matters again... Back "in the day", how many people went to their deaths because neighbours believed they were guilty of this or that crime? Even within ancient academia, "proof" seemed volatile... just look into the ongoing history of the discovery and examination of neutrino particles if you need something far more current...

"Proof" is one thing... "Empirical Evidence" is quite different.

"Proof" can be simply the say-so of an accepted authority... "Empirical Evidence" must be... well... empirical... meaning the following...

The data is observable by neutral parties, repeatable or repeated, predictable (as possible), and measurable when it occurs.

So, to continue with examples, the statement "Rocks are hard" is offered as proof...

...but it's pretty incorrect.

Talc is a rock, and it's not too hard... but compared to diamonds which are also rock?

Ergo: With repeated experiments, we can say, with some level of acceptance, that diamonds are a hard substance by most standards... and that's empirical... and can/has been borne out by repeated observation and indeed, experimentation, from many sources.

So, bringing us back to our topic at hand, being looking for "proof" of ghosts, perhaps we should say that good ghost hunters are...

Looking for Empirical Evidence of the Physical
Existence of things considered to be Ghosts.

That's a reasonable mission statement for many "ghost hunters"... and it would be nice if all "ghost hunters", investigators, and/or researchers really sat down and created a true mission statement for what they're trying to accomplish. (Hence the title of this blog post.)

Now, here's my real question...

*If* many of the "ghost hunters" who've written to me found something that appeared to stand up to empirical scrutiny in terms of evidence of ghostly phenomena, what would they do with that?

Think about it.

You've managed to (metaphorically, of course,) trap your ghost in a jar.

Now what?

Show it off?

Why? To what end? Who are they trying to "impress" if they are even trying to "impress" anyone?

Perhaps sell it to the highest bidder... make it a commodity...

I'd like to think that wasn't the case and that most people in this field are relatively altruistic, but common sense tells me that at least 35% to 45% of the people I've seen reporting to be "ghost hunters" (or investigators or researchers) are not in the field for purely altruistic reasons... call me cynical due to some rather bad experiences and indeed, observations.

Shortly before writing this piece, a news item hit that I'm shocked didn't send absolute waves of excitement through the paranormal investigative and research "community"... The Society for Psychical Research, one of the oldest and absolutely one of the most respected legitimate organisations looking into these things, sent out a news release about Dr. Barrie Colvin's work with recordings of "poltergeist rappings"... (you can read the article here. ) Dr. Colvin found a unique and not-quite understood sound-wave signature with the recordings or knockings and rappings which seem to suggest that these sounds can not be caused by "normal means". Effectively, if you compare the structure of the sound of "normal" rappings and "poltergeist rappings", there's distinct and measurable differences.

Empirical evidence of "poltergeist raps" not being made through natural (or man made) sources? Perhaps...

Empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts? Nope.

Still, to not see the major importance of this study would be a little silly... and remember, using the guidelines for what's empirical you are looking for patterns... and he may have found one that as of now, might defy explanation.

Did Dr. Colvin head to JREF (James Randi's "sceptical" group) to collect the million dollar prize? Of course not... First of all, it's not empirical evidence of the paranormal, only a clue and possible pattern to help maybe solve a bigger puzzle.

Did he race to The National Enquirer to claim it's prize for proof of "Life After Death"? No...

Is he now seeking a television show to "showcase" his talents? Nope.

He published his findings in a respected journal with an accredited group where it can be used to further exploration and hopefully education into these things.

He does/will receive some "fame" (more credit, to be honest,) for doing some ground-breaking work and publishing... but beyond that, he's an actual investigator... a scientist... and he's putting out his work for critical examination... and presented his data.

In terms of "ghosts", one could note that Dr. Colvin's work doesn't make any strides towards figuring out if any of the popular hypothesis of causation of the phenomena are "the answer" to these events... I mean, are poltergeist knocks part of the DPH (Dead Person Hypothesis? - Thanks to Eric Oullett for this acronym...) Are these manifestations RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis?) Are they Psi phenomena requiring a medium (anomalous energy transfers?)

...or something completely different?

Perhaps he hasn't "solved" any of the puzzles in terms of what is or isn't a ghost or poltergeists, but his work may be a key component for the next group or person coming along... I know we'll be pouring over his published (complete) notes the minute we can.

Granted, I could now go into a rant about some of the morons "in the field" that complain reading and studying other people's work and efforts, especially from long ago, is a wasted effort as "They didn't find anything, so why should we care?"... and then the said same morons start re-doing the work done years previously blissfully unaware that they are indeed simply re-tracing old steps that people have already done and often with nothing more than new mistakes and spewing out baseless conjecture... but I shan't bother you with that...

Er-hmm...

Anyway...

So, looking at the work above... and the mission statement... I really only have three questions for everyone who reports to be a "ghost hunter", ghost investigator, or ghost researcher...

First: What is your mission statement and why?

Second: What methods are you using? Would they result in empirical findings? Would your evidence stand up to full scrutiny?

Third: If you did accomplish your mission, what would you do with your work?

These questions aren't as simple as they'd seem.

...and to be fair, here's my answers...

First: PSICAN's mission is to look for and document cases of paranormal experiences from a historic, psychological, and scientific view with an eye to finding out possible causations to these events or presenting various hypothesis of causation for examination by all.

Second: Our methods are tailored on a case-by-case basis depending on the phenomena reported. We do work to find the best possible way to keep data empirical, but are always working to perfect our methods and do tap as many accredited specialists in various fields as possible towards that end.

Third: We are and always have been an educational resource that keeps all publishable information free for viewing on our websites (and perhaps in the future, in a facility with public access,) in the hopes they will further the understanding of those experiences that we currently dub "paranormal" in nature.

These three answers shouldn't be for everyone... and it's fine if they're not. This is "us"... Sue's and my vision... it may be your's too... it may not be.

...but still, if you're a "hunter", investigator, or researcher... ask yourself those three questions... and see what you come up with.

There's no harm if it is a little more "fame and fortune" based... or even more "thrilling stuff" based... but still, it's an interesting exercise for everyone... if nothing else, to define what you want from this study.

We love to hear your personal experiences with ghosts, and hauntings in the province of Ontario so please do keep sending them in. Your privacy will be protected, and witness comfort is our primary concern.

You may email us directly at submissions AT torontoghosts.org or submissions AT ontarioghosts.org


Bovaird House Brampton - New

The Gladstone Hotel - New

If You're Serious You Can Never Hoax - New Editorial

Fort George Niagara On The Lake - Updated

John Graves Simcoe and Raynham Hall - New

Enjoy!

In a recent article I wrote, I mentioned how talking to people about possibly considering an alternative hypothesis to their own belief in what causes the things we consider paranormal is much more difficult than discussing alternative views on their chosen leanings in politics. Lately, I've been under fire (again) for not toeing a line in one way or another with some folks who can be, for lack of a better term, vitriolic in their correspondence and very much warriors of what has to be termed their faith.

"Faith" is a multi-meaning word for me as it not only encompasses the obvious spiritual possibilities within philosophies or religious views, but also "faith" in what some people understand to be the absolute answers to what is normally considered the unknown... and also, "faith" within fandom of certain people and even philosophies.

Effectively, you can have "faith" in a deity, but you can also have "faith" in the quality of a brand name cola... or "faith" that you will not slip on the stairs leading to the sidewalk outside your home... or "faith" that what you've read, seen on TV, or heard on the radio is 100% accurate and absolute.

Religiously, I've never hidden that I'm agnostic. I do have personal and indeed speculative concepts of religion... and/or spirituality... and/or even possible life after death... but they're open to evidence and I'm quite content to assume I'm wrong and would not be heart broken if I was proven to be incorrect. That said, I do actually have tremendous respect for those that find strength in their religious beliefs that find their faith aids them through life... and am a bit saddened that my inability to subscribe to any version of dogmatic beliefs might actually be a hindrance to my psychology as I am not comfortable with pat answers or other people dictating to me what I should believe based on their own (or even a popular) faith. In essence, I lack that strength that absolute faith brings because my mind demands more... and although I can entertain ideas, without empirical evidence one way or another, I cannot adopt a belief based on any other people's "say so" alone.

It's freeing in one sense though... as it does allow me to hear other people's testimony and not write it off as nonsense as many people can... because, again, I do believe the experiences to that person are legitimate... it's just personally, I will always require that little extra... yeah, I'm one of those people that can see a "Wet Paint" sign and STILL have to touch the surface to "make sure".

This viewpoint in religion and spirituality also haunts me in terms of the paranormal... and that is where those vitriolic people don't like me.

Are ghosts the spirits of the dead? Do demons exist? Are UFOs from alien worlds? Can psychics tap into another realm?

My answer to all of these is "possibly"... and "maybe not".

This is not popular.

The thing is, why are many people genuinely angry when someone, like me, cannot commit... and when people like me toss out other ideas and speculations for them to think about... I have to ask why are some people so uncomfortable with facing their "faith" head on with other arguments? Why can't they question to find better answers?

...and possibly most importantly, why are they not willing to make a believer... or non-believer... out of me with facts and evidence based on the things at hand?

Sadly, I do know that some people get angry when confronted by inconvenient facts about beliefs... be that in the causation of certain phenomena or even the egos involved with these studies... and that is when evidence is brought to bear, it forces them to re-think and re-consider a possible entire philosophy... and that's not only hard work (which nobody likes to do,) but it can be demoralizing. (Think in terms of hard-core Republicans in the United States that supported President Nixon and refused to believe there were any shenanigans... until "Watergate" broke... then they were literally stunned... some still are denying those incidents...)

Some folks who've e-mailed me recently don't like being questioned or seeing alternative thoughts because, quite frankly, it affects their "thunder"... well, their popularity with the masses. (Think in terms of all the ghost sites that had photos of orbs as their only data in terms of paranormal evidence... and when that all started going South...)

In these cases, however, I do have to wonder when these e-mailed complaints do roll in from other investigators in the field... because when I see they have trouble with other hypothesis... be that from myself or others... and then vehemently buck the ideas and even dismiss evidence that supports these other ideas or worse yet, adds questions to their own beliefs... I wonder... what's more important to these folks... the truth and continued expansion of knowledge on these subjects... or their own faith and indeed, sense of popularity?

As an agnostic on all fronts, for me, I don't care... The truth is what's most important... and if I'm wrong about everything in any of my speculation, that's a good thing... because it teaches me more and helps me find the answers (or even just better questions.)

Since I've brushed on religious beliefs, the only thing I cannot tolerate in terms of those with strong religious belief is when they force it on me in any way... when they preach to me to try and convert me to their side and shout down any opposition. When people cross the line from discussion to (hellfire and brimstone-style) preaching, I get genuinely grumpy... and again wonder why they feel they NEED to force me to their point and not address any of my personal concerns or worries.

Same goes for the paranormal... Why do they need to tell me how wrong I am... or how bad I am... or how awful something I've said/written/whatever is without presenting any hard evidence to show me the "error of my ways"?

Why do they need to convert me to their faith?

I'm an agnostic... and indeed, a sceptic. I doubt. I always have. I always will.

...and saying (or shouting) that I'm wrong or bad because I won't ignore the inconvenient facts or making me feel somehow stupid because I dared to question something that does not seem to have an empirical answer does not change my mind... it only makes me question you more.

This goes in all directions... If you demand I believe because something MUST be, then I ask for proof. If you demand that I say that something CANNOT be, then I ask for a better answer to those things that have been reported that fits the models at hand, not simply the argument that it "cannot be therefore it isn't" because there is room for hypothesis and even speculation without firm evidence in hand.

If there's a counter-point to your point, bring empirical proof to the table to counter that counter-point... or even admit you're only working on your own faith... and again, DON'T ask me to change my entire outlook based only on that. Be patient. Be kind.

I would demand no less of myself... and I do expect you to demand the same of me as well.

Don't preach to me... PROVE to me.

Prove to us all...

...or, if that proof is too elusive and you're looking into things like us, examine all aspects and then help find an answer... and show us that indeed, you might be willing to at least entertain a differing viewpoint if the facts come to the fore.

Just my $0.02 worth on some of the arguments I've had lately... and if you disagree, that's fine... just remember, we're probably not really in the exact same work or study... and as such, we probably are just hold differing faiths and beliefs.

PSICAN's First Annual Micro-Conference for October 2011

Date: October 1st, 2011 (firm)

Location: TBD

Times: TBD

Topics: Ufology, Cryptozoology, Psychical Phenomena, Ghosts and Hauntings

Items: Psychic testing, speeches and lectures, more to come...

==============================================
==============================================

DETAILS:

As this comes together, we'll post more about the who/when/where...

Right now, we're hoping to make this an early-afternoon (noon-ish?) to evening (8pm? 9pm?) affair.

It will be in Toronto.

It will be open to the public.

We will try to keep tickets below $20.00 ($15.00 if possible is what we want...) and will be limited in number. These tickets WILL BE for the whole event... no "special" tickets needed.

Tickets CAN NOT be pre-ordered until we have more details... we'll let you know the details on how much and how many available when more of the details are firmed up.

This will be a NON-PROFIT event... ticket sales should only cover the expenses of the event... nothing more.

We will strive to make this as inclusive as possible...

This is in October as the oldest PSICAN group (Torontoghosts) was started in October 1997... granted, mid-October (so not Halloween and an anniversary celebration's a bit early) but we can still "celebrate" Torontoghosts' fourteenth!

MORE DETAILS WILL FOLLOW...

...but we do hope this makes the folks to always ask us about the big public events (and where they went) happy as yep, ONCE PER YEAR, we're hoping to do it again!