Psycic's helpfull or a burden to Paranormal Research ?

This is somthing that has been getting to me for a while. I have been interested in Paranormal research for about 20 years . My grandmother was psycic and i have been thought all about it.

I am a believer in psycic's unfortunately there are alot of people out there that have had a few hits and now they call themselves psycic. Not only that, but there are alot of people around that think they are psycic and they are not.
The way i see it is, i play football but i dont call myself a footballer. The unfortunate thing is there is no way to measure it. There is also no way to prove if psycics are correct in what they are saying.

Also when it comes down to doing research and putting a team together, there are always people going around with crystals and so on, and people trying to connect with past souls of the property. Im not saying i dont believe you but its not proving anything.

I am not having a go at anybody with this thread but at the end of the day am i the only one that finds psycics useless when it come to hard evidence ?

Your thoughts ?

karynp

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not having a go at anybody with this thread but at the end of the day am i the only one that finds psycics useless when it come to hard evidence ?

Your thoughts ?

As you say,youv been taught about psychics as you grew up,yes?
If so,then you would understand how a psychic works,they read the energy of the person they are with.

So i think that is why MEDIUMS are used for "hard evidence" as you say.Mediums are the ones who provide the crucial evidence of life going on,and for years they have also helped various universities with their studies of the paranormal and afterlife.
So,not having a go at you,at least look a little deeper into your statements before you make them,as psychics are not here to provide any Hard evidence!!!

iamhunted

I see where Dre as in Dray is going and to a degree, I agree. information gained from the atmosphere rather than through some physical medium like audio or video recordings is usually better to back up some harder evidence rather than stand as hard evidence itself.

karynp

karynp wrote: »

As you say,youv been taught about psychics as you grew up,yes?
If so,then you would understand how a psychic works,they read the energy of the person they are with.

So i think that is why MEDIUMS are used for "hard evidence" as you say.Mediums are the ones who provide the crucial evidence of life going on,and for years they have also helped various universities with their studies of the paranormal and afterlife.
So,not having a go at you,at least look a little deeper into your statements before you make them,as psychics are not here to provide any Hard evidence!!!

Yes i do know how psychics work, and i do know that psychics have been used in universaties also in crimes. But have you ever seen a psychic give evidence in court ? No , and the reason for that is because its one persons word against an other. Not only that how do you tell how strong the psychic's ability is ? There is nothing to govern who is good or bad, we just have to go by peoples word.

You mention crucial evidence ? That is not true, psychics "can" provide crucial information about a case, like help look for a location of a missing person or somthing to that effect.

So when you say Psychic's are not there to provide any hard evidence, what are they there for ?

Again i dont mean to be disrespectfull to anybody in bringing this.

Stoner

OP you've been at this for years, I have not, but i have been on investigations with and without sensitive people, and i think that if the right one is on board then there can be a great balance and i think it adds to investigations.

I know sometimes sensitive people can take over the whole night, but lots of people can try that, it can be just as annoying when someone only wants to try a scientific method as someone only working with their "gifts"

I guess to go against the grain here. with respect to what people find etc regardless if people video, take a picture, record, or pick up on things, it's all the one, you either think it happened or not, someone pretending to be sensitive and someone making up an EVP or photo shopping a pic are all in the one bag IMO.

I've said this plenty of times, it is a personal thing IMO , you see what you see, hear what you hear, be as sure that you have controlled an environment as possible , but i always doubt others, be it their impression or their "evidence"
I follow my gut, if i think a sensitive person is genuine then I'm happy to go and investigate where they point, if i think a person is genuine then I take their footage more seriously.

I always try to look into both sides of things, and I always like to spend some alone time in places too.

At the end of the day anyone can make anything up. i don't see the point in going down one road or the other

Really what i am hearing much in favour of them in for paranormal events. I do know what you mean , by having the right one. Buth when it comes down to it and you were putting together a paranormal team Were on the wish list would they be ? Would you pick a camera man or a sound engineer befoer them, were in the pecking order would they be.

Another way to look at it is.......

If you were asked to go out to prove that a house is haunted and you are to present this proof to a panel. Were would the psychic come in ? What tool are they in your box of tools to present this evidence ?

6th

I'm pretty much in the middle on this one.

A Psychic, a photographer, a sound engineer etc are all equally useful/useless.

In this field there is no proof to be had as we dont know what it is we are looking for proof of, evidence is eveidence of what?

We use our own interpretations of objective and subjective information put in front of us. We dont understand the mechanics of how things (paranormal) work. We can say digital cameras are better than film for taking ghosts pictures, but why? We say cassette is better then digital for EVP, but why?

Groups and individuals can only say what they find gets the best results based on their experiences and the experiences of others.

As I said there is no proof or evidence to be had because we dont understand what we are looking for. Thats why I have organised trips on here in the past that were open to anyone. I could not show people a photo, video, audio recording that would convince them of the paranormal but I could put them in a position to maybe experience it themselves.

A *sensitive person can be great in a group if you get the right people but its only through trust in each others subjective experiences that we can begin to question what we believe.

*Edit: Even if there isn't a psychic/medium in a group I think the people should be open to putting forward their subjective experiences such as how an area made them feel.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were asked to go out to prove that a house is haunted and you are to present this proof to a panel. Were would the psychic come in ? What tool are they in your box of tools to present this evidence ?

What evidence could you show someone that could be taken as proof of anything paranormal? Personally I'd take the panel to the haunted house and let them make of it what they will in the presence of a group who know a bit about an area where we can by definition know very little.

stevenmu

I don't think there's any one right or wrong way to put together or balance a team in terms of psychics vs scientific types (camera men, sound engineers etc). I think different teams can and will have different focuses. And I think in answer to your original question a lot depends on what your focus is going to be, and also who you want your findings to convince. Some people will want to focus on just experiencing something purely for their own benefit, others will want to gather scientific evidence which can be peer reviewed and either validated or rejected, and for many there is different blends of both.

Personally I think the only real way forward is for both types to work together, there's no proven means of gathering empirical data (for many areas of paranormal research at least) so simply relying on physical means like cameras and audio recorders isn't sufficient. Similarly, purely using pyschic means can never develop reliable evidence. IMO both types need to work together to first better understand the underlying physical properties and processes to first develop reliable data gathering techniques. Currently relying on either psychics or cameras etc simply doesn't generate reliable verifiable data.

6th

stevenmu wrote: »

Currently relying on either psychics or cameras etc simply doesn't generate reliable verifiable data.

100% agree which is why my approach is to either tackel it one person at a time by giving them the opportunity to experience it (very slow way ) or by putting forward my own experiences and those of a the group I am in as honestly and opening as I can for people to judge for themselves.

iamhunted

it shouldnt be a competition on trying to prove anything to anyone really - investigations should be for developing understanding about the paranormal. no evidence will convince everyone (or anyone to a degree) which is why teams have to cover all the angles to make sure they themselves are sure whatever they capture is genuine. thats the one and only important thing - it doesnt matter if no-one else believes them, as long as the team themselves are certina they have captured something.

its much easier for someone to walk into a building and say 'oh, i feel that theres an old woman here' than to actually capture video or EVP information of the same old woman - but the video or audio 'evidence', once you can be sure it wasnt faked, is harder to dismiss than someone 'feeling' the presence of a ghost.

at the end of the day though, its not about convincing people of anything. Its about trying to learn and understand.

6th

iamhunted wrote: »

it shouldnt be a competition on trying to prove anything to anyone really - investigations should be for developing understanding about the paranormal. no evidence will convince everyone (or anyone to a degree) which is why teams have to cover all the angles to make sure they themselves are sure whatever they capture is genuine. thats the one and only important thing - it doesnt matter if no-one else believes them, as long as the team themselves are certin they have captured something.

I agree, a group is for the group. Its about shared experiences ... and having a bit of craic doing it. Its as much social as it is about anything else.

iamhunted wrote: »

its much easier for someone to walk into a building and say 'oh, i feel that theres an old woman here' than to actually capture video or EVP information of the same old woman - but the video or audio 'evidence', once you can be sure it wasnt faked, is harder to dismiss than someone 'feeling' the presence of a ghost.

Dont agree with this, capturing information (be it video, still or audio) is more luck than anything else. Choosing a location a record is usually based on someones subjective experience i.e. a resident of the location.

Learning you use natural "gifts" takes alot of time and effort as does learning to use a camera etc so I wouldn't dismiss one over the other.

Also dismissing a photo can be very easy for some people where as for someone to dismiss something they experienced it can be near impossible. It really depends on the people involved and the experience/evidence at hand.

Stoner

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were asked to go out to prove that a house is haunted and you are to present this proof to a panel. Were would the psychic come in ? What tool are they in your box of tools to present this evidence ?

seriously, I wouldn't care if they fit , they fit, not shoving their opinions down someones neck would be the main no no for me anyway.

Very interesting responces guys, i just wanted to get other peoples take on te situation. This thread is by no means an attack on psychic's in any way.

So in saying that what do you feel is best for presenting evidence ? Audio (EVP's) or Video ?

Also does anybody have suggestions on the best equipment to buy for audio and video.

Stoner

once again Dre, IMO its all down to what you know about the people gathering the media.

For example creating an dodgy EVP, Vidoe or planning to spoof people up by reading up about a place and playing think when you get there are all easy to do IMO.

So I guess it would be a mixed bag for me really, but mainly something good on video like something being moved along with a huge temp change or change in an electro magnetic field, as many things happening at once i guess.

stevenmu

I agree with Stoner, the best way to provide convincing evidence is to have correlating information from multiple sources. At least untill someone figures out how to build a ghost-detect-omatic

kshiel

Do you need a medium/psychic on an investigation? No.... Can it be an advantage to have one there Yes and No..

Its been said already in other posts, that it comes down to the group investigating the site and how well they work together and how geniune they are at trying to understand or at least gather information on what the possibilities are. Its been said that any evidence that has been gathered todate will not convince everyone and there always seems to be a way that that evidence could have been faked. All this stands to reason.

I have asked the question about using mediums etc on investigations here before and this comes from someone who is working on developing psychic and mediumistic abilities. I have been on investigations where it was based only on psychic side and it pissed me off to no end. I have been on investigations where I would have used my own abilities at certain points of the night and wouldn't say what I felt was there, to ensure or test if you like that what I was preceiving would not affect what someone else there was getting.

Most investigations will come down to a stack of personal experiences regardless of video/audio footage but in saying that a piece of footage which would show some form of activity is of great value to getting closer to understanding what might be there as is information given by a psychic or medium of what they are getting. Also with a sensitive on board with an investigation and who is geniune in that they are not raming it down your troat or claiming to have all the answers but there to experiement with this ability can help in other ways such as if they are or think they are in communication with an actual spirit she/he can use this to explain maybe in a more clearer sense to the spirit what ye are actually trying to achieve from this investiagation and maybe just maybe get some form of co-operation to help with getting the audio an video.

So in my opinion you can use both and why not use all the tools available.

So what about EVP backed up by Video ?

stevenmu

Easier said than done

Unfortunatly there's no reliable way of caputuring either. As an example, imagine trying to prove air exists using a video camera and an audio recorder*, neither is designed to really capture that, it's kind of the same using them to try and capture a ghost. Whatever stuff ghosts are made of isn't something that seems to be inherently captured by audio/video equiptment.

The only way that seems to reliably detect ghosts is psychics, but that method has it's own obvious problems too.

I hope I'm not soudning too negative and putting you off trying, I'm just trying to outline some of the problems.








*well, audio recorders do obviously record sound waves travelling through air, and wind completely gives the game away but you see the point I'm sure.

iamhunted

kshiel wrote: »

Do you need a medium/psychic on an investigation? No.... Can it be an advantage to have one there Yes and No..

Its been said already in other posts, that it comes down to the group investigating the site and how well they work together and how geniune they are at trying to understand or at least gather information on what the possibilities are. Its been said that any evidence that has been gathered todate will not convince everyone and there always seems to be a way that that evidence could have been faked. All this stands to reason.

I have asked the question about using mediums etc on investigations here before and this comes from someone who is working on developing psychic and mediumistic abilities. I have been on investigations where it was based only on psychic side and it pissed me off to no end. I have been on investigations where I would have used my own abilities at certain points of the night and wouldn't say what I felt was there, to ensure or test if you like that what I was preceiving would not affect what someone else there was getting.

Most investigations will come down to a stack of personal experiences regardless of video/audio footage but in saying that a piece of footage which would show some form of activity is of great value to getting closer to understanding what might be there as is information given by a psychic or medium of what they are getting. Also with a sensitive on board with an investigation and who is geniune in that they are not raming it down your troat or claiming to have all the answers but there to experiement with this ability can help in other ways such as if they are or think they are in communication with an actual spirit she/he can use this to explain maybe in a more clearer sense to the spirit what ye are actually trying to achieve from this investiagation and maybe just maybe get some form of co-operation to help with getting the audio an video.

So in my opinion you can use both and why not use all the tools available.

well said.

iamhunted

6th wrote: »

Dont agree with this, capturing information (be it video, still or audio) is more luck than anything else. Choosing a location a record is usually based on someones subjective experience i.e. a resident of the location.

Learning you use natural "gifts" takes alot of time and effort as does learning to use a camera etc so I wouldn't dismiss one over the other.

Obviously capturing audio or video is luck, but if its captured and isnt faked then you have something thats hard to explain. no matter what way you look at it, a mediums word is their word - thats all you can go by (I will state I have met mediums who I do believe in) - but its still only words. There has to be something else to back up what they say otherwise its impossible to seperate those who are true mediums and those who arent.

Also dismissing a photo can be very easy for some people where as for someone to dismiss something they experienced it can be near impossible. It really depends on the people involved and the experience/evidence at hand.

what someone experienced may not necessarily have anything to do with the paranormal. Its all about perception. One person might see a face in a mirror, another might see a smudge. the first would call it paranormal, the second wouldn't. as i said before, the focus shouldnt be on proving anything as really, nothing can be fully proved bar through a genuinely personal paranormal experience (which is why that whole randi reward was a waste of time).

kshiel

I agree with what steven has said about the audio and video. All such equipment were not designed to capture ghost or other forms of paranomral activity as really we dont know what really is paranormal as such, science has continued to discover and uncover new and fantastic facts that may have been seen as paranomral before hand and it always says that well "that was tested only with 20th century tecnology" and I assume they mean new technology is been sources/invented and further experiementation is been carried out with more up to date knowledge to see if that can explain it. Its a never ending cycle really.

Even take an EVP recording. Your standing in a room and you ask out questions but you hear nothing back. You go home and on examing the recording you find a whisper or a broken sencetence on the tape. Can you be 100% sure you or someone else in the room didn't say it? YOu may be but try and convince someone who was not there.

Again you do some evp but this time you leave it in a locked room just running. On listening back you hear a whisper or a broken senstence of sorts, again how did it get there, to you it may be something as you know that you have made every possible effort to ensure no one tampered with it. Try convicnce someone else. You were not in the room so you cannot know what happen inside that room while you were out, how do you know that it was not someones voice in the group just carried up and caught in this manner.

It simply never ends. Now you put video and evp and all the rest into a room and get something on it, you will still no douth have a whole other set of questions to prove it along side the video an evp.

This is just my opinion but you need a combination of factures of every angle source and size before we can really consider the possability of what the edivence is.......

With the psychic or mediums giving you details at the time or what ever the case in how you use mediums etc during an investigation... yes it is words but sometimes those words get backed up with audio or video footage and the combination makes it more interesting than one or the other standing alone.

iamhunted

but sometimes those words get backed up with audio or video footage and the combination makes it more interesting than one or the other standing alone.

precisely. i think that hits the nail on the head.