Dark World: Into the Shadows with the Lead Investigator of the Ghost Adventures Crew (26 page)

You would think with all these things happening in my house that I would call someone to get rid of them, but I’m the paranormal expert here. I’m the one who helps others deal with their own paranormal activity, so it’s just up to me to deal with it. However, I’ve had to cleanse the house with a priest three times due to oppression and thoughts of extreme violence. That doesn’t exactly raise the resale value of the property.

It’s not easy to stand your ground and face something you fear, especially when your body is frantically trying to decide between its instinctual fight-or-flight modes. When others run away from ghosts and scary places, I run toward them. Sometimes I don’t know why, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

s paranormal investigation really a science?
Yes. Yes it is. I don’t consider myself a scientist, but I would not be doing my job if I did not educate myself and stay on top of the latest theories surrounding our field of research. And what we do is just that—scientific research. I feel that it’s important for anyone who wants to be a paranormal investigator to know what the prevailing theories in our field are, so together we can strive to either prove or disprove them. Comparing findings is a big part of advancing science and our field will not progress until we do so. How else will we be taken seriously if we do not have a common goal to work toward? Without boring you into a coma I will describe the difference between traditional and paranormal science, outline the major theories on life after death, and introduce you to the man who revolutionized science, Thomas Kuhn.

The Difference between Traditional Science and Paranormal Investigation

Paranormal investigation has been labeled a pseudoscience and discredited as fantasy by traditional scientists for decades. Most traditional scientists believe that paranormal researchers read crystal balls, hold hands in a circle, or conjure up false spirits through cheap parlor tricks with smoke and mirrors at carnivals for profit. Can you feel the love between the two fields?

Traditional science is anything but flawless. At some point in history, science tried to convince us that the world was flat, the world was the center of the universe, and that tobacco was not harmful. It’s not that traditional science is full of idiots, but that their conclusions were based on incomplete information. I feel that both traditional scientists and paranormal investigators seek to find answers to the same questions and can compliment each other through comparative research. There are phenomena in this world that we cannot explain and it doesn’t matter which side of the aisle you’re on—believer or skeptic—we all want the same thing: the truth. I really hope we all can work together to find these answers in the future.

Unfortunately the disdain of the traditional scientists toward our field and the attitude that it’s not a credible, natural science always blocks that cooperation. Too often paranormal research is viewed as a profiteering venture executed by the Miss Cleo’s of the world who prey on the vulnerabilities of the weak. The core of traditional science’s derision of the paranormal field is that it’s filled with amateurs armed only with off-the-shelf equipment who do not adhere to the “scientific method” of research, which has been shaped and reshaped over the course of human history.

The scientific method is their bible. It’s based on gathering observable, empirical, and measurable data subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Experimental studies are then established and executed to test the hypotheses, which must be repeatable to dependably predict future results.

The scientific method generally consists of characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry), hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject), predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory), and experiments that test everything.

Confused? Think about this—in 1738 Dutchman Daniel Bernoulli observed that water traveling through air caused a change in air pressure (ever see a shower curtain get drawn inward when you turn the water on?). He replicated this phenomenon in a laboratory environment and came up with the Bernoulli principle, which simply states that an increase in the speed of water traveling over a surface causes a decrease in pressure. Since water and air have roughly the same physical properties, the Bernoulli principle can be applied to the air flowing over an airfoil (a wing) and used to calculate the amount of lift applied to the foil. Bernoulli proved that air moving across the top of an airfoil travels faster than the air moving across the bottom. Therefore there is less pressure on top of the wing than there is underneath it and the wing lifts, causing flight.

There’s more to it than that, but you get the point. Bernoulli observed a phenomenon, formulated a hypothesis to explain it, and set up experiments to gather observable, measurable data to verify or deny his reasoning, and then made the data available to the world for discussion. He followed a linear pattern that generally consisted of the following:

Define the question Gather information and resources (observe)Form a hypothesis Perform an experiment and collect data Analyze the data Interpret the data and draw conclusions Publish the results Retest

Unfortunately, not everyone in the paranormal research field follows this process, and in fact it’s filled with amateurs who simply crawl into a dark place with a digital recorder and ask questions, hoping for a response. Some of us do our best to follow the scientific method and seek answers the same way a traditional scientist would seek to explain natural phenomena, but there are major differences between the natural sciences and paranormal research that make our field unique.

1. The scientific method relies on repeatable experimentation to verify or deny data. Spirits of the departed are intelligent beings that don’t always display a predictable pattern of behavior. They come and go at their leisure and have always proven to be elusive and inconsistent, maybe because they are frequently unaware of their state (deceased) and environment (the location and year).

There are several theories that can explain residual hauntings, but intelligent hauntings are different. They consist of the spirit of a deceased person who retained its identity and intelligence. Many times these intelligent hauntings will respond to questions of a personal nature when provoked, but they are rarely consistent and never predictable, so it’s very difficult to show a repeatable pattern of behavior.

Paranormal activity cannot be replicated in a laboratory environment and therefore cannot be studied as closely as a natural science, like chemistry or biology. So the inability to replicate the phenomena makes verification and categorization of paranormal events very difficult and erodes the credibility of the science. After all, if we could summon spirits of the departed consistently and reliably in order to study them, there would be a whole new market in trans-dimensional communications.

2. Emotions frequently contaminate the data. Physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg said, “What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Scientific inquiry must be unbiased to generate objective and reliable data. Since paranormal researchers generally believe in the afterlife already (especially when investigating the spirit of a departed loved one), they are frequently not as objective as they should be. Too many researchers have already reached a conclusion before they start an investigation and do their best to skew their findings in the direction of that conclusion.

It’s not in keeping with the scientific model to investigate a purportedly haunted location with the intent to prove that ghosts exist. The paranormal researcher should remain neutral and unbiased throughout the investigation and let the data prove a definitive conclusion, whether that’s the one they wanted or not. They should walk into an investigation thinking, “I will document what happens and then examine the data for conclusions.”

I always debunk anything that shows the slightest hint of doubt and toss away evidence that can be explained through natural forces. I try to maintain a skeptical approach to the paranormal, despite having multiple personal encounters with apparitions. I’m very wary of stating a location is truly haunted and try to re-create situations to determine if natural, explainable forces could be at work. It’s one of the greatest challenges of this field because we deal with emotions, both within ourselves and the subjects that we study.

3. Paranormal phenomena do not always adhere to the known laws of physics, which may be the crux of the matter— we need to reengineer our understanding of physics and the ways of the universe. It’s very possible that we’re trying to understand forces that aren’t bound by gravity, space, or time, and may in fact exist in a different plane or dimension. That hypothesis requires a paradigm shift in our understanding of physics and presents a fundamental problem—how do we measure and test the paranormal when the building blocks of the universe are in question?

4. When experimentation is complete, researchers are expected to document and share their data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. This allows other researchers the chance to verify results by attempting to reproduce them and allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. This is called “full disclosure” and is an area that the paranormal field is lacking in. Currently there is no repository of paranormal data or body of evidence that researchers can turn to for comparing data. Television shows and websites that document paranormal activity are really our only outlet. The drawback to not having a database is that researchers cannot identify patterns of activity and therefore can’t derive theories or explanations of the paranormal.

For example, it’s widely accepted that paranormal activity increases around areas of high EMF. But why? If we had a database to compare EMF readings of every paranormal investigation, we could identify patterns and when cross-referenced against temperature readings, solar activity, moon phases, proximity to water, and other data, paranormal activity might even be predicted. Now lets add another layer—the surrounding materials of the haunting. It’s widely believed that water and limestone heighten paranormal activity, hence the large number of haunted lighthouses and military forts. Now if we compare our previous data with the number of places built of limestone or in close proximity to water, we can start to form hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. A lack of a central database is hurting the research. We can’t identify patterns and correlations. There’s no consortium on the findings. There’s no great library of paranormal evidence.

I see parallels in the places I go. The Ancient Ram Inn and Bobby Mackey’s Music Hall are very similar. Kells Irish Pub and Moon River Brewing Company are similar. There are patterns in these places that have to be connected and explored. If we could do that, we might be able to predict when and where hauntings will take place.