Concerning Evidence and Evidential Responsibility

by Christopher Orapello

In the field of paranormal research, one of the most important things we have is the evidence we obtain. Though, regardless of the claims of many researchers, the evidence obtained from an investigation does not prove all that much. In fact, like in most scientific research, our findings only manage to create more questions than they seem to answer. As investigators, the value and the quality of evidence is our utmost concern and the most important aspect of the investigation process occurs after the initial investigation when our focus turns from the collection of data to analyzing and verifying the authenticity of any evidence found within that data.

One way to verify evidence is by cross-referencing the findings from one piece of equipment to the findings of another. Through insight achieved by cross-referencing, one can determine what is actual documented paranormal phenomenon and what can be explained or debunked. Sounds logical right? Well, believe it or not, a lot of researchers don't even do this much and as a result actually display a large amount of false evidence on their websites. What a lot of people do not realize is that paranormal research can actually be very boring and un-eventful and if a group appears to get mass amounts of 'evidence' from every investigation, this is a tell tale sign that someone is not doing their homework. Hypothetically speaking, for example: if cross referencing material was a common practice by a group of researchers, video footage showing a mysterious light flashing down from above the foyer area of a home wouldn't be regarded as evidence, because their cross referencing may have revealed the actual cause of this occurence. For example, this mysterious light may simply be another investigator who was on the second floor peering down into the foyer while wearing a headlamp. In this scenario, if cross-referencing was an actual post-investigative practice by this group, such footage would have been left on the cutting room floor and not shown as evidence of something paranormal.

The showing of false evidence could easily be avoided if cross referencing were in fact a common practice by most groups. Even in cases where the cross referencing of an incident is unable to be done because there isn't any crossover material to refer to, the responsible researcher would admit that they are unable to determine the paranormal authenticity of certain footage and so it would be dismissed due to its questionable nature and the inability to determine it as being otherwise. In regards to evidence, responsibility is essential, but unfortunately most groups don't approach evidence in an entirely responsible manner, providing false leads and poor examples of alleged paranormal phenomena.

Evidential responsibility goes even further than simply cross-referencing data. If a group honestly pursues science, once they are able to determine what is actual documented evidence of paranormal activity, they are then forced to acknowledge the two scientific dilemas inherent in what they do. The first dilema faced by scientific investigators, in regards to evidence, is not what the evidence is conveying to the viewer, but the simple fact that, as researchers, they are unable to make any certain claims as to the origin from which the evidence emerged from. The second dilema felt by scientific investigators are the distinct limitations in the inability to completely conduct scientific research onsite and in their inability to make any certain claims about the research or the evidence it produces. This dilema being due to the fact that there is still much about what researchers do and may need to do that isn't entirely understood at this time. However, unfortunately not all people who attempt to document and research the paranormal recognize these dilemas inherent in what they do and these individuals should be taken note of prior to seeking help from them.

Though many groups and individuals become focused on what is in an image, shown on a video, or heard on a recording, interpreting things above and beyond what is actually documented, and present their evidence as being 'fact or proof,' the inaccuracy surrounding such claims and approaches to research is unfortunate and needs to be recognized as being faulty, inaccurate, and counter productive.

In regards to EVP, the scientist can only take it for what it is (i.e. an anomalous voice) and not as anything else (i.e. the voice of a deceased person). Even if a name is given by an anomalous voice, the scientist is still unable to make any certain claims because even though a name was given this does not mean that the person who is named by the voice is in fact also the origin of the voice. Getting an EVP of a name only furthers the investigative connections between documented material, history, and any current paranormal activity. If the named voice can be recognized by someone who knew the indicated person in life this may provide a further connection upon which to base a conclusion, but they still can't claim that who is named was in fact the person who made the EVP. However, despite the apparent investigative barriers, upon determining an EVP is an actual anomalous voice the individual can atleast conclude that what they have is documentation of some form of paranormal phenomenon. And because of this, EVP offers us a means by which to communicate with whatever may be leaving the vocal responses; providing us with a means to possibly achieve a better understanding of a particular situation in an actual sense. Regardless of what can't be determined, the investigator still has a recording of a voice which was not heard at the time the recording was made. How did it get there? Who or what put it there? These are the questions that can not be answered, but perhaps one day will be.

Another form of misused evidence is digital photography, which in many regards is actually empty evidence. The reason for this is because digital photography is faulty since it is known to create errors in the captured image due to lighting or simple camera flukes. The big reason for the lack of substance in still photography is that it does not posess the ability to document time and can only document one moment within fractions of a second. And regardless of the blatant problems with still photography, the people who present evidence obtained by it are interpreting what they are seeing in the image as something else. For example, if there is a white spot in the image, this is often said to be an orb and 'obviously' a ghost, but the people who make this assumption neglect to realize that it's just a white spot in the image and because it is a picture they have no other means by which to cross-reference the image due to it's momentary nature and any image dealing with a reflection is another matter. As far as we are concerned, any images dealing with reflections are just reflections since one can not make any certain claim that what's depicted in the image is anything more than the obvious. All of the well known digital 'ghost' imagery (orbs, vortexs, ectoplasm, etc.) that have swept the mainstream research community are explainable photographic occurences that have developed out of technological ignorance on the part of the researcher. For the most part the use and claims of such forms of alleged evidence are dissipating, some groups still profess that their pictures of dust, moisture, pollen, or other air born matter are in-fact 'ghosts' regardless of the ability to actually prove this or make direct connections to other bits of evidence. The assumptive nature of such researchers is staggering. In regards to such practices and claims, stretching the apparent reality of any evidence being presented is simply reckless and irresponsible and a tell tale sign of charlatanry which is what the field of paranormal research no longer needs. The early years of photography consisted of such practices, but they at least were far more creative in their endeavors! Though the only value photography yields us is the documentation of the investigation itself. Along with video, still photography offers us another perspective during the investigation and can be used to help better understand the situation at the time of the investigation which can sometimes be used to cross-reference other material.

With electromagnetic field meters, some investigators think if they are unable to locate the source of the field that this field is 'obviously an entity' which is research at its worst. Talk about jumping to conclusions! Individuals who make such claims seem to ignore the fact that what an EMF meter detects are Electromagnetic Fields and that's it. There is no way to base a claim or make a distinction between an EMF field and an entity, which means any claim which goes beyond the purpose and specific functions of the equipment are faulty. The only claims that can be made in such a situation is that an EMF of an unknown source or origin has been detected, and that's it. At which time the field should be monitored and checked for fluctuations over frequent intervals of time. If it happens to change locations then that should be charted and documented as such. Any such fluctuation should be obviously noted, but can never be really attributed to being a 'ghost' or of a paranormal nature.

Psychics and personal experience are the more subjective foms of research since they are based in personal perspective and interpretation. It is because of this that they are often viewed as more secondary sources, a means by which to draw connections to scientific findings as revealed by any equipment used. The gifts entrusted and instilled in those who are able to receive and perceive areas of human awareness, typically unaware to most other individuals, is a wonderful thing. However, it is also a questionable thing since, unlike a meter or recorder that is able to convey effects and interactions without bias to a third-party, the psychic is forced to expect others to take thier word for it. Ofcourse certain historical claims can be researched, heard voices unknown to others may manifest on audio recordings, and if such a person was hooked up to monitoring equipment we may have a better indication of their own bodily reactions to such psychic perceptions providing them with some insight that their feelings and reactions are as physical as they know them to be. My point being is not that psychics should be doubted or questioned, but that since we are not them, we can't witness what they are witnessing or experience what they are feeling. As I have heard it said before, the psychic is only as good as one's ability to back them up with fact. Investigators need the material they use as evidence to be measureable and able to be documented in a subjective manner and context so that it can be shown to others for their own consideration and analysis.

Thankfully there are investigators who realize the hurdles and limitations within the field of paranormal research and in the science of parapsychology to make up for the shortcomings and the assumptions of others. However, the general public are the ones more often hurt by these shortcommings and are examples of the results caused by the television industry and the recent onslaught of most paranormal based shows which do no more than provide entertainment and inaccurate information to the watching populas.

If there is such speculation and inability to make any certain claims in regards to the evidence obtained then what do investigators get from it? As complex as this issue is and as mysterious as the results are, investigators get a sense of the unknown from the evidence they capture. Individuals get some indication that their loved ones may still be with them despite having passed on. Homeowners learn to not be afraid of what they are experiencing. Historians find more history in the world around them than they would by simply opening a book or by watching a documentary. Through investigating the paranormal the past speaks to those who listen and reveals itself to those who choose to see.

We may not have all the answers that there are to know, but that in itself is the joy of what we do. As put by Lord Byron, the truth is stranger than fiction and through paranormal research, we have an inkling of just how strange the truth can actually be. In this world, there is apparently more to life than meets the eye since what was still is and what is will be forevermore. The past is always in the present and the future will echo the sites and sounds of today. As researchers we recognize this and that is what we get from the evidence we obtain and from what we do as investigators.

 

Related Articles

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) by Christopher Orapello

Photographic Anomalies by Christopher Orapello