Standing In The Middle Of The Debates

I often talk to our team about the importance of removing all personal opinions and bias from a study, review, and presentation of results. Most paranormal teams fall into one of two categories. They either have their minds set on proving the existence of ghosts and paranormal activity or set on explaining away paranormal experiences. Both inject bias to serve their agenda from the start in my opinion. The ghost hunter wants to prove the existence of ghosts while trying to explain some things to a certain degree, and a haunting investigator will primarily attempt to explain everything away and what is left has to be paranormal. At the end of the day both groups need an explanation for their way of thinking even if the end result is an empty conclusion based on opinion. This does nothing more than invite some to argue there is an explanation for everything even if they cannot offer proof to back up their opinion from a skeptics point of view.

In my mind no one can prove anything on either side of the debate and can only offer an opinion based on belief. The ghost hunter or investigator cannot prove the existence of ghosts etc. and the skeptic cannot prove they don’t exist. One can certainly argue that everything we have become familiar with being presented as “evidence” of ghosts and paranormal activity is entirely subjective. For example, even though we all have heard clips of EVP Maker and Echovox output, a skeptic will say we are simply hearing random snippets to make them fit the investigation or session conclusions. The same could be said of ghost boxes with the added “it’s radio broadcast and nothing more” or “it’s just a broken radio.” A similar debate could be had about EVP because no one knows for sure what EVP really is or where the voices come from. This same old argument exists for ITC Video and faces seen in windows etc. Those are either ghosts or pareidolia depending on what one believes. I have yet to see proof for any of the explanations presented from either side, only proclaimed “rational” explanations. If we know for sure that what we have recorded or experienced is one hundred percent without a doubt something we can explain then we should most definitely discard it, but what about that which remains? If we consider placing ourselves in the middle while doing our research and presentation of results, I believe we stand a better chance of achieving objectivity in our quest to achieve credible results with our research.

Yes I have very strong personal opinions about EVP and ITC based on both my beliefs and my training in audio and video production, along with my experience while working in broadcasting, but I cannot allow those opinions to interfere with researching the unknown because I don’t know for sure what I am really hearing or seeing. All I know is there are many possible explanations, but I can offer no proof for any of them. All I know is what I hear and what I see, and it is what it is until repeatable results are or are not established. The endless debates are just wasted time in my opinion, so I will choose to remain in the middle with this research until someone can offer valid proof from either side of the debate.

Leave a Reply