Thanks for the welocme, Nosfer!

I seriously think a phenomenon not currently understood is going on–I personally theorize it has something to do with what mathematics tells us about living in a multiverse. To me the most compelling pieces of evidence are the  EVPs we've collected.

I do agree that TAPS has regressed, but it's still the only show I watch consistently. And maybe the reason I defend them in some respects is that I resent their smug dismissal by mainstream scientists who haven't bothered in most cases to address the issue themselves. When the program first came on the air, I applauded the critical approach, with at least some attempt to be scientific and gather verfiable data. I suspect that the current degenerate state of their investigations is due less to J&G than it is with the producers wanting to hype their viewship. That's too bad.

Paul Anthony said:

Classicsman said:

 I seriously think a phenomenon not currently understood is going on–I personally theorize it has something to do with what mathematics tells us about living in a multiverse. To me the most compelling pieces of evidence are the  EVPs we've collected.

Couple of questions.

1. Can you explain your theory.2. Would it be possible to link or post your most convincing EVP evidence.

Welcome to the board.

Thanks for the Welcome, Paul Anthony…

When it comes to the hard sciences, I consider myself an intelligent layman. I read the popular magazines and journals devoted to the sciences–among them Scientific American, Science, Popular Science, Astronomy, Discover, and Sky and Telescope. I am especially fascinated by cosmology and articles about quantum physics, string theory, exobiology, etc. Outside the hard sciences I also read Archaeology and Biblical Archaeology Review. My favorite websites include Space.com, Archeaological News (Archaeologica.com) and LiveScience.com

I don't understand all that I read–especially about quantum physics, string theory, and so forth. But then neither does anyone else truly understand such things, including scientists who have made such matters their life's work, and they will admit as much.

My theory? Mathematics is the only tool we have for understanding the cosmos that doesn't lie. Mathematical proofs strongly suggest we live not in a universe, but in an infinity of universes, a multiverse. It's pure speculation, but it seems to me a possibility that as a result of purely natural forces we don't yet understand (for example we talk about dark matter and dark energy, but have nary a clue as to what they are and the implications of their existence on our universe) that the boundaries between those different realities may become thin, and at those times we may be able to detect them. Our "ghosts" may be nothing more than very prosaic entities inhabiting those other universes, and that if we can see them, they may likewise be able to see–and be puzzled by–us as well. There may well also be realities totally alien to us, almost Lovecraftian in their alieness–a book I once read about black holes had a chapter entitled "C'thulhu Exists."

Though this is not a "religious" viewpoint, I don't feel it necessarilly eliminates the religious. Someone as prestigeous as Roger Penrose hints that the energy in our mitochondria–which doesn't end when our consciousness does–might actually be the essence of what we call the "soul."

This is speculation, but I don't believe it is in essential conflict with good science. I've always been one to believe that there isn't any real conflict between science and religion. I laugh at the Creationists and believe in evolution. Who are we to dictate to God–if he exists, and I believe he does–how he is to order his cosmos?

As for our equipment, we use the standards we can afford. We can't afford an infrared cam. We use pretty good quality digital audio recorders with external mikes as good as we can afford, a pretty decent laptop with some video and audio programs suitable for analyzing our data, decent quality digital camcorders and cameras. I don't put a lot of stock in EMF detectors or digital thermometers. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the procedures the TAPS team follows, though I'm skeptical of the K2 meter producing any data of real value. We do, unlike the TAPS team, use those ear sound enhancers on occasion. We take great pride in debunking a phenomenon when we are able to, and 90% of the time we can.

In the three years we have been active, we have yet to get anything visual. We have gotten three or four EVPs that I'll see if I can share here. But there have been some other incidents not easy to debunk. I'll not go into that–this has been a long post already. If you want details, message me.

BTW–also I won't go into details here-but I have had one really inexplicable experience in my life that sparked my interest in this field, and my mother when she was a girl experienced what can only be described as a poltergeist experience.

I'd be absolutely thrilled to produce convincing data that genuine paranormal phenomena do indeed exist. but if that doesn't happen, I'll stick with the data.  

Revenant said:

alicat said:

I think you brought up an interesting point in the cherry picking TAPS did with your group.  As a matter of fact, thanks Hannah for the use of that word because that is exactly what TAPS pulled off.  One, a computer expert who would have obvious capabilities they need and the other, someone who could be molded into the TAPS family frame.  In other words, someone who has the interest, is inexperienced, would be excited to be "picked", thankful to TAPS and, I'm guessing, ready to accept TAPS at their word.

---

Hmmm…interesting…

More and more it seems that TAPS is being viewed as the "Evil Empire" amongst paranormal groups throughout the country with Darth Jason and Darth Grant leading the way.  Whether this perception is warranted or not, I cannot tell.

However, I do have a few questions for Classicsman.  You say that it irrates you "the way they recruited some and left out the rest of us."  So the question that begs to be asked is if this new TAPS group had offered only you a position and not the others, would you have taken it?  Or, along with the two other people, you too were offered a position, would you have taken it?

I am curious.  Given your "scientific bent"…would you really wish to be associated with a group that sits on the floor and talks to a flashlight?  (And for the record…only making a bit of fun of TAPS there, not Classicsman or paranormal investigating in general.)

Back to your original group, how did it form?  Was it a bunch of long-time friends coming together and deciding to investigate the paranormal?  If so, I can definitely see some hard feelings being produced by this situation.  Yet, if the group formed a bit more "formally"…want ad's, online, etc…and you guys didn't really know each other all that well, then, I would believe that their departure could probably have been anticipated or expected.

And, if possible, can you please give us a bit more details on the "recruitment" of these people?  I mean was it just a phone-call or was it more involved?

Absolutely not. I was the titular head of the group, and the one who took the initiative to start it. I and a local friend then put an ad in the local paper, and we were contacted by the guy who left and his (then) girlfriend, who later moved away. At that point we were contacted by another woman who claimed (like the former girlfriend) to be a sensitive.  If I had been contacted, it would have been all or none, and even then while flattering to be contacted by these guys who deserved or not represent the "big leagues" I would have had to give it careful thought.

"Joe" (not his real name) had formerly been a member of a larger group located in Columbus and was the most experienced member of the group, so I can see why TAPS would have been interested and vice versa. If he had come to me (he lives nearby) and told me what he was going to do, I would have respected that. But instead I get a brief email telling me he and the new female member are gone. I didn't know her that well, but I felt like I had come to know "Joe" pretty well since we had been associates for three years.

I've stated previously that in general I see nothing wrong with the TAPS investigational techniques, though your point about the flashlight is well taken.  I think the K2 thing is more than a bit hokey as well. The show has definitely gone downhill. I find I look forward to the reruns of early episodes the most, because I thought they were more genuine then. I'm of the opinion that decent quality basic equipment–camcorders, digital and film cameras, and digital audio recorders with quality external mikes, and computers wilth audio and video analysis software are perfectly legit tools for gathering and analyzing data, and as likely as more sophisticated instuments to return acceptable data in a field where so little is really known about the nature of the phenomena you are trying to study. If I can see it or hear it, then it's likely it exists, and the basic instruments greatly extend the opportunity to capture such things if they do exist.

The TAPS investigations I find most compelling–please let me know if and how any of these have been debunked–are the one at the Moon (Something) Brewery, where you see the little dark figure run over the pool table in the basement; the shattering glass at the Stanley Hotel; the figure on the numbered locker; and the fast-moving figure at the lighthouse; also the one with the EVP that says "they don't want us here.." and the "Hellos" in the tunnels under the Stanley. Some others, but those are off the top of my head. I'm skeptical, but find the Eastern State Penitentiary video interesting. I usually discount "personal experiences" that can't be backed up with audio or visual data. They may be interesting for J&G, but if they can't show it to me, it's not worth considering.

I forgot to mention one of our other members still with us is a Doctor of Psychology, and he too is a skeptic, not necesarilly about the phenomena, but about the people who contact us for investigations. He observes them during an interview before we commit to an investigation, and then afterwards tells us whether they seem emotionally stable and honest in their claims of paranormal activity. If he doesn't think so, we find a polite excuse to avoid investing too much time on them or avoid them altogether.