Mixing mediumship and paranormal science.

Nevyn

Thaedydal wrote:

What I dislike most about it is the fact it mixes mediumship and the paranormal investitgations.
They should stick to one or the other.

stevenmu wrote:

Personally I'd think that aspects of mediumship are vital in paranormal investigations, seeing as people are currently the only reliable means of actually detecting a presence. Well, they're not really reliable, but there isn't really anything else to use in their place.

Split from the DA thread.

I personaly think that when you introduce a medium/witch/practioner/what ever into the mix of a paranormal investigation it skews that data.

I woud think it would be better fact finding and data gathering to do a investigation first and gather all the evidence possible and maybe on a few occassions and then intoduce an active element.

The active element being the 'gifted' person.
A gifted person can often be the catalyst which wakes up a site,
either with thier engery or in awakening the engeries of those there both people and spirit.

I would believe that if a place is in fact 'haunted' that these haunting will continue with out an active element triggering it.

What do you lot think ?

SkepticOne

Thaedydal wrote:

What do you lot think ?

The scientist can expose trickery or self-delusion on the part of the 'gifted' person as happened with David Acorah on Most Haunted.

stevenmu

Thaedydal wrote:

Split from the DA thread.

I personaly think that when you introduce a medium/witch/practioner/what ever into the mix of a paranormal investigation it skews that data.

I woud think it would be better fact finding and data gathering to do a investigation first and gather all the evidence possible and maybe on a few occassions and then intoduce an active element.

The active element being the 'gifted' person.
A gifted person can often be the catalyst which wakes up a site,
either with thier engery or in awakening the engeries of those there both people and spirit.

I would believe that if a place is in fact 'haunted' that these haunting will continue with out an active element triggering it.

What do you lot think ?

You're not exactly wrong, but you are over looking something important. There is no known way of accurately collecting emperical facts and data, or at least there is no known way of interpreting any facts and data in a meaningfull and unambigous way. Ideally there would be some box you could place in a room which would definitivly state whether or not there is some paranormal activity, unfortunatly such a box does not currently exist. Sure we can walk around with laser thermometers (designed mainly for engineering purposes) and EMF meters (designed for locating strong fields), and they may even occasionally beep and flash some impressive looking LEDs but on their own they mean pretty much nothing.

My idea of a 'proper procedure' would be to have 'sensitives' investigate an area first and report their conclusions, and then to investigate the area with equiptment to see if any objective data backs up the sensitive's findings, if any. The sensitives have to go first in case they somehow become aware of the findings of the equiptment and then just back that up, there are other problems with this, but overall I think it's better. As things currently stand, this may not mean a whole though, for example a sensitive may correctly identify a spirit which does not then show on any equiptment, or equiptment may register something which is entirely natural in cause which happens to be in the same location, or any of a number of other situations.

For me, the best evidence we have ever gotten from charleville, was when several people would experience a presence and report similar impressions of it. This was not, and could not have been, recorded in any objective way, but it was pretty damn convincing if you were there, a lot more so than any beeping or flashing LEDs (which we've never gotten anyway ).

It's not much good for convincing other people of course, but hopefully things like that can lead to a better understanding of what exactly is being investigated so we can come up with better means of gathering objective data.

Oryx

Do you mean skewed as in they add their energy to the place, which is then picked up by whatever detection equipment is used, or being there creates an expectation in the others present or plants ideas in their minds (mass hysteria kind of thing?)

If a place is haunted, yes you would expect that whatever happens, happens, regardless of who is there. A medium can pick up echoes of things and people from the past without causing anything physical to happen. This information can be useful but only if it can be checked for accuracy, and it shouldnt be relied on scientifically.

SkepticOne wrote:

The scientist can expose trickery or self-delusion on the part of the 'gifted' person as happened with David Acorah on Most Haunted.

If thats whats going on. As a skeptic you must leave a small bit of room for the possibility that its real.

SkepticOne

KatieK wrote:

SkepticOne wrote:

The scientist can expose trickery or self-delusion on the part of the 'gifted' person as happened with David Acorah on Most Haunted.

If thats whats going on. As a skeptic you must leave a small bit of room for the possibility that its real.

Yes indeed. One of the first things you want to determine is whether or not something real is going on. Otherwise, what is the point in searching for correlations with various meters and suchlike?

Nevyn

stevenmu wrote:

My idea of a 'proper procedure' would be to have 'sensitives' investigate an area first and report their conclusions, and then to investigate the area with equiptment to see if any objective data backs up the sensitive's findings, if any.

I would have the site checked out scientifically first before the 'sensitives' got there, then have the sensative to a sweep of the place and then get the scienic buffs in with again to look for changes with out either of the groups communitcting.

The have them compare notes and have them look at the places the other found to be of 'intrest'

stevenmu wrote:

For me, the best evidence we have ever gotten from charleville, was when several people would experience a presence and report similar impressions of it. This was not, and could not have been, recorded in any objective way, but it was pretty damn convincing if you were there, a lot more so than any beeping or flashing LEDs (which we've never gotten anyway ).

But how objective was that ?
was it suggestion running from one person to another ?
or completely indepenant impressions ?

Kaitek wrote:

Do you mean skewed as in they add their energy to the place, which is then picked up by whatever detection equipment is used, or being there creates an expectation in the others present or plants ideas in their minds (mass hysteria kind of thing?)

both and I would also add to that list thier engery fueling both changes to the area and fueling spirits or enviromental recording playbacks,
and thier engerys or gifts awaking spirits to come make use of them.

In the case of certain mediums they get spirits and spirit messages regaurdless of where they are in a 'huanted' site or in the bath and can it be differicated where the spirit is coming from and if it is a free floating one or one relatated to the site or attched to the area making it's self known.

katieK wrote:

If a place is haunted, yes you would expect that whatever happens, happens, regardless of who is there. A medium can pick up echoes of things and people from the past without causing anything physical to happen.

Some mediums are passive some are not, some are merely readers others interact a hell of a lot more.

stevenmu

Thaedydal wrote:

I would have the site checked out scientifically first before the 'sensitives' got there, then have the sensative to a sweep of the place and then get the scienic buffs in with again to look for changes with out either of the groups communitcting.

The have them compare notes and have them look at the places the other found to be of 'intrest'

That would work quite well, as long as the two groups were properly seperated, it's something worth considering for the next trip, usually we'd try for each group to have a mix of sensitives/believers and scientific/sceptics.

Ultimately what I'd love to try, if I can manage to figure out how to create the USB interface for it, is to have a mesh of sensors that could be left monitoring an area/room. The sensors would provide discreet measurements of things like air temperature and EMF fluctuations at a number of points around the room, which could be monitored while the 'sensitives' are present, or else could be checked later from time stamps. If the sensor mesh could detect a moving cold spot and/or EMF fluctuation while a sensitive also reported a presence moving in the same way, that would be hugely impressive. Altough I'd have to admit that there's nothing to say that there could be a naturally occuring cold spot/emf fluctuation which could be picked up by a sensitive as a presence.

But how objective was that ?
was it suggestion running from one person to another ?
or completely indepenant impressions ?

Not very objective at all. It didn't appear to me that it was suggestion running from one person to another, there were several occasions where I would be feeling something and would be just about to say it, when someone else would say the exact same thing. Of course non-verbal suggestions can be passed (maybe even telepathically ) so it's impossible to rule out, but it really didn't 'feel' like it.