Evidence
Some paranormal websites and TV programmes mention evidence of the activity quite a bit, but how good is this evidence? In many cases , their evidence of spitit is essentially a picture of an orb, a photograph of some smoke a report of temperature drop.
Some paranormal websites and TV programmes mention evidence of the activity quite a bit, but how good is this evidence? In many cases , their evidence of spitit is essentially a picture of an orb, a photograph of some smoke a report of temperature drop.
Most of this "evidence" is questionable at best, showing a lack of controls when it was gathered, lack of annalysis and poor presentation.
Evidence can take many forms, but what is the differance between good evidence and poor evidence? What are we looking for in terms of evidence of paranormal activity?
Could we compile a list of
Could we compile a list of what is considered evidence of a haunting from such sources? Starting with what Ian’s said:
a) orbs in photo
b) smoke in photo
c) apparent temperature drop (I say apparent because I’m guessing it was only felt not measured)
Any more?
d) EVP recording (usually
d) EVP recording (usually poor quality)
Would this include old
Would this include old reports that cannot be investigated and have sometimes changed from author to author?
I can only mention what I
I can only mention what I know from my experience concerning UFOlogy and cryptozoology.
Yes, there are a few cases usually related to UFOlogy that left very interesting physical traces (as opposed to pictures, films etc). Is this evidence of little green men buzzing around in flying saucers or obscure military experiments being kept from the public? Absolutely not. Is this evidence that an out of the ordinary event took place? Yes.
The Valensole soil and vegetation samples, the Cash-Landrum radiation poisoning symptoms, the unusual metal samples from Brazil… all of these cases left clear physical traces that were analyzed and found to be highly unusual by any standard.
With cryptozoology is all much more "down to earth", though not as easy as it seems. For example hair samples are pretty much useless as far as DNA analysis is concerned without a bulb and the art of recognizing different creatures using gel electrophoresis on cheratins alone is pretty much in its infancy. Also DNA samples are more often than not contaminated and hence pretty much useless (see for example the Andean Wolf pelt kept at Munchen University). And I could go on for hours. Also the case of the Homo floresiensis, a very solid case with plenty of hard evidence about other hominids being contemporary to modern humans, shows that not even hard evidence is enough in some cases.
Photographs of Cottingly
Photographs of Cottingly Fairies – Later proved fake but was held as evidence for a while.
The Nessie Photograph – Later proved fake but was held as evidence for a while.
Big Foot Film Footage
A crop circle, especially one in a shape that no human could possibly produce.
Investigator testimony that their EMF meter gave a high reading in the haunted room.
Video footage of Dover Castle Doors shaking.
Then there is ‘psychic
Then there is ‘psychic impressions’. Some people claim to get these. Personally, I would only be interested in reports of actual events rather than impressions.
What about transcripts from
What about transcripts from Oui Ja Boards and seances held during an investigation?
We’ve a good list now I
We’ve a good list now I suppose. Whats the next step? Identifying what is good and bad?
Has anyone seen what they
Has anyone seen what they consider to be very good evidence produced by a group and placed on their websites?
Some photographic evidence
Some photographic evidence can be good, if taken under controlled circumstances, preferably using traditional film cameras as opposed to digital so there is a negative.
Good quality audio is harder to come by as even legitimate recordings are taken under less then ideal conditions.
I have not heard of any claims of ‘legitimate’ physical evidence of ghosts, other then in the cases of poltergeist activity in which the person is physically assaulted by the spirit, which may leave visible injuries, however, these should be sustained under close scrutiny before accepting them as proof.
Testimony can be OK as a source, if taken shortly after the event, but it’s better as a supplement to other evidence.
Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima