You Are The Ghost Hunter: How Would You Proceed?

[titch]

I have read a lot of criticism, some deserved some not, on , well just about every thread on the forum it seems, so come on you moaning minnies, you have an unlimited budget and can recruit anybody you want for your team, YOU are the ghost hunter,how do you proceed?

For my part i wouldn't change anything, i will sit quietly in a room, watching and listening, the only equipment being a torch, note pad and pen and a voice recorder, i do not aim to gather earth shattering evidence that will rock the scientific world, but to satisfy my own curiosity and add to my knowledge of human behaviour (ghost hunting is great for people watching)

 

[Bad Bungle]

You have a torch - do ghosts only come out when it's dark ? Would be a lot easier to investigate with the lights on (spotlights even).

 

[EnolaGaia]

The first thing I'd do is make a habit of setting a baseline for the scene. I'd set up sensors and cameras and monitor the place remotely to see what the ambient environmental states and fluctuations might be. By doing this I'd have a basis for comparing observations and data obtained when my team actually spent time there.

 

[Frideswide]

I'd ignore the ghost stories and look at building reports, geology, archaeology, history.... anything that would tell me about the site without putting ideas in my head.

 

[Ringo]

You have a torch - do ghosts only come out when it's dark ? Would be a lot easier to investigate with the lights on (spotlights even).

^This.

I have left two paranormal research groups because they refused to do anything with the lights on. The only reason paranormal research groups do their stuff in the dark is because that's what they first saw on TV. The argument that IR night vision will capture things we can't see is redundant. IR cameras work just as well with the lights on plus you have the benefit of seeing what you're doing. So you can see what the camera sees plus it can see a little bit more. Everyone wins but of course it's not as exciting and scary with the lights on.

So, I would do my investigations with the lights on for a start. Secondly, I would carry out investigations and monitoring over a much longer period.

 

[Bad Bungle]

I would need to know or at least have some agreement on what I was looking for, otherwise how would I know if I found it or not ? So a definition or explanation of a 'ghost' first.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

I have read a lot of criticism, some deserved some not, on , well just about every thread on the forum it seems, so come on you moaning minnies, you have an unlimited budget and can recruit anybody you want for your team, YOU are the ghost hunter,how do you proceed?

For my part i wouldn't change anything, i will sit quietly in a room, watching and listening, the only equipment being a torch, note pad and pen and a voice recorder, i do not aim to gather earth shattering evidence that will rock the scientific world, but to satisfy my own curiosity and add to my knowledge of human behaviour (ghost hunting is great for people watching)

This - observation, background checks on the place you are at, ambient background check on the site itself. Interviews with people that have had experiences. For me, you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Krepostnoi]

I would need to know or at least have some agreement on what I was looking for, otherwise how would I know if I found it or not ? So a definition or explanation of a 'ghost' first.

Interesting. By doing so, mightn't you be artificially restricting what you are looking for, and thus risk missing something else interesting? I admit I'm drawn to Titch's plan to just observe, to start with (which also doesn't preclude making Enola's baseline observations). If anything interesting comes up, you could then start making hypotheses as to what was causing it, and then experiment to (attempt to) control for your various factors. But going into the project with pre-conceived ideas seems, somehow, misguided, to me at least.

 

[Xanatic*]

I would make sure my instruments don't interfere with each other.

 

[Sharon Hill]

I would need to know or at least have some agreement on what I was looking for, otherwise how would I know if I found it or not ? So a definition or explanation of a 'ghost' first.

There isn't an operational definition of a ghost because we've never measured one yet for certain.

 

[Sharon Hill]

The first thing I'd do is make a habit of setting a baseline for the scene. I'd set up sensors and cameras and monitor the place remotely to see what the ambient environmental states and fluctuations might be. By doing this I'd have a basis for comparing observations and data obtained when my team actually spent time there.

That could take a year. Seasonal changes and all...

 

[Sharon Hill]

I would approach the project with the goal of determining what, if anything, happened there. To assume it's paranormal kills the objectivity immediately.

 

[Vardoger]

Daytime and nighttime investigations. Those nighttime only investigations we see on YT and TV irritates me.
Cameras everyfuckingwhere including on the outside of the building/property, IR, ordinary and kinect.
Interviewing people who has observed stuff on the property. Two days and nights are not enough. Spend a week if possible.

That's just the start.

 

[titch]

You have a torch - do ghosts only come out when it's dark ? Would be a lot easier to investigate with the lights on (spotlights even).

or it could be useful in case of a power cut in an unfamiliar house or if you have to investigate in the deep dark woods

I have left two paranormal research groups because they refused to do anything with the lights on. The only reason paranormal research groups do their stuff in the dark is because that's what they first saw on TV.

darkness can be useful if you are looking for low level light anomalies.

 

[Ringo]

or it could be useful in case of a power cut in an unfamiliar house or if you have to investigate in the deep dark woods

darkness can be useful if you are looking for low level light anomalies.

Not really. The camera will still pick it up as long as it is emitting light. All sitting in the dark does is mess up your own perception of space and depth. Hence seeing moving shapes and "shadows".

 

[Analogue Boy]

I would say thoroughly test every bit of your kit in a number of neutral spaces inside and out to get benchmark settings before even setting foot in a supposed haunted place.

 

[Ringo]

All of our suggestions are sound but they very rarely get done because it takes huge time and effort. As people do this for fun, it is basically asking people to (for free and in their own time):

Take courses to become fully trained in the equipment they use, learn how to calibarate it, test it and benchmark it.
Take courses in physics, electrical engineering, sound and accoustics, architecture and
Get a degree in psychology and learn interviewing techniques
Learn to obtain and read building schematics
Become profeccient in genealogy and research
Undestand geology, physiology, thermal and fluid dynamics

Stake out locations and study their internal/external environments for months (if not years) at a time
Sit and pour over all of the gathered material (One hour of investigation can generate 6 or 7 hours worth of material to examine).

And this is just off the top of my head. So if I had unlimited resources I would assemble a crack team on scientists, engineers and researchers to work full-time. And for fun, I'd still sit in the dark with a K2 meter and a self-professed "psychic" called Shiela who works in a chip shop.

 

[titch]

Not really. The camera will still pick it up as long as it is emitting light. All sitting in the dark does is mess up your own perception of space and depth. Hence seeing moving shapes and "shadows".

If you stare at one thing, in all my years I have yet to see any moving shapes or shadows, the only people who see them are the sensitives.

 

[michael59]

I understand the "fight or flight" instinct is a strong one. I do, I get it when someone new is seeing something for the first time and it is a terrifying sight to behold so, they run.

BUT...I'm so sick of these so called professionals who scream and jump and run. What the fuck are you doing there if you don't want to see a ghost. Why are you screaming and running away when you are the one that called them out in the first place????

 

[Patrick30]

I just let the ghosts hunt me.
Have no idea if they’ve ever found me or not, they ain’t tellin if they have.

 

[DrPaulLee]

Make sure those Christ awful attention hogging psychics are shuffled off well into the background.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I would rather take a plumber than a ‘sensitive’ as plumbers can detect the knocks and taps caused by heating or cooling in pipe work in old properties.

 

[Bad Bungle]

Liquid helium, lots of it (and cryogloves) - I ain't afraid of no ghost if the feckers haven't got the energy to move.

 

[kamalktk]

^This.

I have left two paranormal research groups because they refused to do anything with the lights on. The only reason paranormal research groups do their stuff in the dark is because that's what they first saw on TV. The argument that IR night vision will capture things we can't see is redundant. IR cameras work just as well with the lights on plus you have the benefit of seeing what you're doing. So you can see what the camera sees plus it can see a little bit more. Everyone wins but of course it's not as exciting and scary with the lights on.

So, I would do my investigations with the lights on for a start. Secondly, I would carry out investigations and monitoring over a much longer period.

Lights you can see by also emit heat which will be detected by the IR camera. If one presumes a ghost to emit energy of some sort (and people claim to see/photograph them, so they must emit something presuming they exist), you want to minimize your energy output to enable the detection equipment to do it's job as well as possible.

Lights out, the energy emissions are interfering with the detection equipment. Same reason lights are out at the Icecube cosmic ray detection experiment in antartica.

 

[Ringo]

Lights you can see by also emit heat which will be detected by the IR camera. If one presumes a ghost to emit energy of some sort (and people claim to see/photograph them, so they must emit something presuming they exist), you want to minimize your energy output to enable the detection equipment to do it's job as well as possible.

Lights out, the energy emissions are interfering with the detection equipment. Same reason lights are out at the Icecube cosmic ray detection experiment in antartica.

But IR cameras don't see heat. We also used a FLIR camera to check for heat/cold.

Also, it may be the very lights and energy you have switched off which allow the things to maifest, it may be their fuel. If "they" need energy to manifest then we are giving them nothing by turning everything off.

My main argument being that since IR/nightvision became popular, how many thousands and thousands of hours of footage from groups and TV shows has captured a real, unequivocal, not open to misidentification ghost? So is it not time to try and film them in the environments and sitations in which they are reported - i.e. lights on instead of how Yvette Fielding decided would make scary TV?

 

[Analogue Boy]

How about starting from a position where we’ve no history of ghosts at all? Go in all fresh.
The ghost hunting biz is full of preconceptions of what a ghost or entity is and also the means of creating a TV and web friendly means of depicting investigations as a means of entertainment. I guess I’m saying don’t copy a format. Be creative, be scientific, do it differently and if you don’t get results, for god’s sake stop running around in the dark with torches asking if ghosts are hard enough to take you on.

 

[Bad Bungle]

I think we're all coming to a consensus with regards to monitoring and recording a site 24 hours a day, with and without people being present and gathering all the raw data.
Then we can threaten to shoot anyone who disagrees with our data interpretation and conclusions.

 

[Ringo]

Using any psychic would be out for me. It is so easy to make stuff up and there is no accountability. To start with they know that the objective is to investigate paranormal activity. So they are off to a good start - they know the place is supposedly haunted and they are expected to feel something. It is easy to gather information about the location if you are informed before hand and it's easy to gather information onsite depending upon the building and its use.

Old buildings have their construction date written on the front, paintings have names under them, family shields give names, information leaflets can be taken to be read in the toilet or maybe a quick google search etc. Family homes have pictures, people have necklaces and tattoos, surveys and questionnaires can be handed out and secretly read. You can also just do it "cold" and get enough hits to convince them you are the real deal. After that, they offer information freely. Walking around you also get a sense of where it is dark in the house, is there a draft from the cellar, do the stairs creak, are there any mirrors hanging in the hallway to help create optical illusions of movement etc.

It's easy really. How do people experience hauntings? They see, hear or feel them when awake. Where do they see them? I would focus on places where they are in movement and catch glimpses of things - bedroom doorways, hallway mirrors, staircases and kitchens mostly.

If it was me, I would swan around "feeling" energies and giving examples which may or may not hit but it doesn't matter because I am feeling them and no-one can say otherwise. It depends on the wording. Standing in the hallway downstairs I would say "I'm feeling someone around here and the stairs. A man who sometimes even can be heard walking here and then up the stairs. He wants to be noticed and so maybe someone has even seen him or felt him staring as they pass. He sometimes stands or walks on the upstairs landing too."

So in one statement, I have covered something being seen, felt or heard on or near the stairs and in the upstairs hallways. That's half of the house.

 

[Sid]

All of our suggestions are sound but they very rarely get done because it takes huge time and effort. As people do this for fun, it is basically asking people to (for free and in their own time):

Take courses to become fully trained in the equipment they use, learn how to calibarate it, test it and benchmark it.
Take courses in physics, electrical engineering, sound and accoustics, architecture and
Get a degree in psychology and learn interviewing techniques
Learn to obtain and read building schematics
Become profeccient in genealogy and research
Undestand geology, physiology, thermal and fluid dynamics

Stake out locations and study their internal/external environments for months (if not years) at a time
Sit and pour over all of the gathered material (One hour of investigation can generate 6 or 7 hours worth of material to examine).

And this is just off the top of my head. So if I had unlimited resources I would assemble a crack team on scientists, engineers and researchers to work full-time. And for fun, I'd still sit in the dark with a K2 meter and a self-professed "psychic" called Shiela who works in a chip shop.

And remember... after gaining all the experience; qualification's, wisdom and integrity, you'll be to old to be concerned if ghosts exist or not!:ghunt:

 

[Analogue Boy]

Using any psychic would be out for me. It is so easy to make stuff up and there is no accountability. To start with they know that the objective is to investigate paranormal activity.

Quite. You have to not only believe in ghosts but also that only some sensitive people can see or interact with them so you’ve got a mountain of things to prove. As I said upthread, a plumber would be more useful in identifying knocks and other settling house noises.