Best evidence of paranormal activity...?

Andrew Flexing

Hi all,

With the leaps in technology and the sheer number of teams around the globe carrying out investigations there has been a lot of "activity" captured on film, audio, photo etc (obviously some intentionally faked though)...but what has been the most compelling piece(s) of evidence recorded so far that would support the existence of paranormal activity in your opinion?

maccored

what would you class as acceptable proof? Video, audio or photos could be faked ....

Andrew Flexing

True that! Hard to know what can be accepted when there is so much hoax stuff out there. Maybe I can only ever accept it as true via a personal experience.

Another factor to take into account with the sheer number of teams and their competition for "activity" and locations which has lead to so much fabricated "evidence"

ghosthunter73

Andrew Flexing wrote: »

Hi all,

With the leaps in technology and the sheer number of teams around the globe carrying out investigations there has been a lot of "activity" captured on film, audio, photo etc (obviously some intentionally faked though)...but what has been the most compelling piece(s) of evidence recorded so far that would support the existence of paranormal activity in your opinion?

This is opening a whole can of worms as in the other thread. What could you consider evidence? This is the million euro question. What would stand up to the critics as proof of the paranormal. I don't think this can actually be answered at this point as Maccored has stated previously

"what is 'proof' though? THose asking for proof of the paranormal are on the wrong side of the fence.
At this point in time, the best chance anyone has of 'proving' the paranormal to themselves, is to go out there and be part of those trying to see if they can find proof in the first place. Theres no point asking people for it, as personal experiences wont do, and video or audio etc can easily be faked. )

I look for indications of possible hauntings although most of the time I find loose pipes or high CO2 readings.. I don't do investigations to prove anything to other groups other than my own. That's just me...

lisatiffany

It's too easy to fake video evidence of everything from apparitions to UFO's. in the past it would have required more skill and equipment but i worked as an editor on films for quite a while and even the recent mass produced software like final cut pro is so accessible that anyone after an hour or two could generate something that could fool a lot of people. i generally don't trust youtube because by putting it up there you already want an audience so a lot of people will go out of their way to trick people. there is a percentage of genuine footage i'm sure but you would have to sieve through so much rubbish. it used to take a lot of time and money to pull off anything of the sort but its all become very cheap and easy to use so naturally people are going to take advantage.

There is also the roller coaster mentality where people love to be scared, the whole "look at this video" ..you stare at it for a couple of minutes and at the end the face of regan or pazuzu from the exorcist flashes up with a guttural scream. you can see it coming a mile away but its not a giant leap from putting something like that together to having a transparent shape run across a room. one of the biggest contributors to those kind of clips is the movie paranormal activity, ever since then spooky (fake?) videos have sprung up in their thousands. i'm not saying all video evidence is fake because i am after all a believer but at the same time i can tell when someone is trying to get one over on people.

I'm a bit less skeptical of EVP because it generally doesn't end up on youtube as much as video footage, yes its easier to fake than video but most people wouldn't bother. when it comes to photographic evidence its even easier still to fake, i'd say 7 out of 10 of the last photohoots i worked on required touching up the finished image, usually its tones sharpness and sometimes a few blemishes but if i had to change the entire background or even foreground in post i could easily do it. unfortunately that means that anyone with fairly basic skills could paint a figure or shape onto an image and by using layers make it transparent and very believable in a very short amount of time. i honestly don't know how i'd go about finding genuine images or videos, i guess i'd look through archives of established paranormal investigative teams and societies but if it was an outside source i'd be more than a little skeptical. that means i'd pretty much not believe 99% of what i see on sites like youtube but i believe in my own experiences so really when it comes to belief that's enough. i've seen and heard plenty of spirits with my own eyes and ears, its really down to personal beliefs and experiences, i've never seen a UFO but i don't write them off as fakes ..just because i didn't see it doesn't make it any less real.

maccored

What really does my head in are Franks boxes. Hard enough to capture an evp, nevermind pretending a stray radio snippet is a ghost.

ghosthunter73

maccored wrote: »

What really does my head in are Franks boxes. Hard enough to capture an evp, nevermind pretending a stray radio snippet is a ghost.

100% spot on here how could frequency hopping produce good evp? Isn't it all up to interference as well? anything could be picked up within that specific frequency band or am i way off here?

maccored

i think its an invention created for those who dont like the boring aspect of paranormal research. Instead of looking and researching, they just create their own 'definitely non paranormal but who cares' versions. Well, the devices create that and fr too many people (in 'paranormal research' groups no less) somehow manage to believe its a ghost, whilst never giving two seconds thought what had happened. Ghosts on demand. Its what the public want, apparently.

lisatiffany

ghosthunter73 wrote: »

100% spot on here how could frequency hopping produce good evp? Isn't it all up to interference as well? anything could be picked up within that specific frequency band or am i way off here?

I always have serious doubts about those ghost boxes because its too easy to scan out a radio station and confuse the chatter for genuine EVP. granted i have never used one but i think its too convenient for what it does, wont it always get a hit?. i love the leaps and bounds photography has made in investigations but i'd never bring one of those boxes with me to a site. regular EVP with a tape recorder or dictaphone is all i trust when it comes to catching audio, you either get a recording or you don't. i know the box generates white noise but again its all too convenient and i don't think the age of the tape recorder has passed to really justify such a device. if it was only picking up the radius of a room or even a building i'd think it could be of use but there are so many radio waves out there that i'd doubt what was coming through, i'm not saying it doesn't work i just think it would be hard to distinguish genuine results from random chatter. i could be wrong and like i said i never used a ghost box before, i'd just find it very hard to get passed the convenience of it all and treat it as a scientific instrument.

Indecently i know the movie White Noise really didn't do the subject of EVP justice but the dvd has its saving graces, namely the following documentaries.

• 'Recording the After Life at Home' - Learn how to make your own recording
• 'Hearing is Believing' - Paranormal experts visit haunted locations and record messages
• 'Making Contact: EVP Experts' - Experts discuss the history of EVP communications