Post edited 6:10 am – October 4, 2011 by Verklagekasper
Post edited 6:15 am – October 4, 2011 by Verklagekasper

Let's see what sort of science they took there…

"I decided that was a good time to go out and start experimenting, buying gear regarded as state of the art in this research field to see that whether or not we could make contact with the other side… While it's the specialised gear that makes recordings of paranormal activity possible…"

There is no gear in this research field that has been proven to detect ghosts or anything else paranormal, so there is no "state of the art". And preassuming the existence of the very thing whose existence you want to prove, ie. "the other side" or "paranormal activity", is not scientific.

"First the investigators have to work out who the ghost, if there is one, could be"

This does not help to prove a thing other than the researcher's bias to jump to the conclusion that, if there's something fishy going on, it must be a ghost, and it must be the ghost of somebody who lived/died there.

"For instance, while researching a pub in Childers, the group found that a man had died there in an accidental fall while fleeing a group he'd dobbed in for illicit gambling. Years later, on the anniversary of the death, a lightning strike took out the pub's poker machines"

And the point of this is…? That ghosts deal lightning strikes? Or that this coincidence was so unlikely that it must be paranormal? This would not only be be a non-sequitur; the coincidence isn't even all that unlikely:

Let m be the number of deaths that occured at a certain place over the course of years.

Let n be the number of unusual events (including rather mundane events like power failures) that happened later at this place.

Then the probability that at least one strange event happend on the same day a person died is:

1 minus the probability that none of the events happend on the same day as a person died

= 1 -[(365-m)/365]^n

So, let's say, you have 5 deaths and 20 unusual events related to a certain public place (over the course of centuries, this shouldn't be too unrealistic). Then the probability of any unusual event happening on the same day as a death is 0.24. That is, statistically, 2.4 out of 10 such places have these coincidences, without anything paranormal going on whatsoever.

Frankly, as you travel the country to investigate places, it is nearly inevitable to find places where unusual things happend on the same day a person died there.

"A digital audio recorder is regarded as one of the most important pieces of equipment in investigating," Darren says, "Because it can pick up voices we sometimes don't hear with our own ears."

There are ten thousands of audio engineers out there. None of them experienced such a thing that could not be explained by ordinary sources. And what about the multi-millions of people listening every day to radio or watching TV? There's a ton of electrical equipment involved on the way of a signal from the sending channel to the receiver. Yet, no ghostly voices. So, where is the proof for that claim?

"If we can prove that there was nobody else talking, that it wasn't me mumbling to myself for instance, then perhaps then we have caught something from the other side."

Or perhaps you caught a radio transmission or anythingl emitting electromagnetic signals. Or perhaps you caught an ambient sound crushed by software compression. Or perhaps you still just caught somebody of your crew mumbling, which is far harder to disprove than you may think.

"There is also full spectrum video, there is infrared video. You cannot use a normal video camera or digital camera, because you are not seeing the full light spectrum. Spirits can work outside the normal light range, where our eyes may not see."

Why not use a plate of cookies instead? There is no evidence that a full spectrum camera is more likely to help find a ghost than that.

"The investigators also use motion and vibration sensors, heat-detecting cameras and devices which seek out electromagnetic fields to build up a full picture of what's happening at the site."

And so on. Unfortunately, throwing in more and more equipment doesn't make research more and more scientific unless you have an idea what the equipment is actually measuring and how exactly that is related to the things you are investigating. They are just using more equipment to make it more likely that any of their tools will measure something "abnormal". Yeah, just throw in a ton of flashing and beeping boxes, and you most likely will get battery drain, whistling EMF-meters or whatever else you call "paranormal". You can make a TV-show out of that. Or at least an appearance in an article written by someone who is as clueless as you, for that matter. But not science.

If psychics and shamans were the only option to high tech gear, I'd stick with the high tech gear. Or with the plate of cookies…

What I'd really like to see was a ghost show where
investigations take place in broad daylight. No blurry cam pictures, no
EMF meters, no ghost boxes nor any other BS-tools that produce ambiguous
results by design. Plus, every crew member saying "Did you see/hear that?" while there is nothing to see or hear would instantly get fired.