By now, hopefully, ghost hunters who utilize electronic equipment for spirit detection have been exposed to counter arguments of reason explaining why they couldn’t possibly detect the spirits of people who have passed on.
As I see it, there are two main problems inherent:
1) a lack of understanding of the functionality of the devices (I’ve addressed this previously)
2) how can you detect something that you cannot define?
These two main facts, however, do not deter the ghost hunters with tunnel vision and an unwavering belief they are detecting the paranormal and will dispute #2 reason above by saying that since it cannot be defined, how do you know we aren’t actually detecting spirits with these electronic devices? I would answer that question by stating the burden of proof is not on me to debunk your devices but rather on you to prove they actually work, based on their technological functionality, beyond the coincidental output encountered from time to time.
Now, before you are totally turned off by the above, allow me the leeway to explain my own position on the topic of the paranormal:
I have investigated & researched for years. I have used all of the popular devices and have been able to disregard and/or ‘throw out’ approximately 99% of data collected that at first, seemed worthy of consideration of being that which could be described as paranormal. That left me with that 1% that had me scratching my head for a logical explanation of which I could not come up with. That 1% not only consisted of data captured by myself, but also of eyewitness stories of those near and dear to me that I would without hesitation, believe that they believe what they witnessed/experienced. But I don’t jump right into the deep end and categorize this as paranormal, but rather unexplained.
I do this because there is the possibility, that there is a yet undiscovered reason for these occurrences, including the growing in popularity RSPK idea that covers multiple activity such as poltergeists, voices, apparitions and residual hauntings. I do not, however, dismiss the idea we may never know what I call “the unknowable.” Objectivity demands this possibility as well.
Speaking of residual hauntings, John Sabol, M.A. in Anthropology/Archaeology (University of Tennessee), and a B.A. in Sociology/Anthropology (Bloomsburg University) has presented in his latest paper, “Imaginery Mediation,” an interesting idea concerning hauntings, the shorthand of which states that by using electronic devices, we are creating a technological haunting that itself leaves remnants rather than involving our investigations in the cultural significance of the target time period related to the haunting itself. Subsequent electronic investigations, in a continuing process building upon & adding to this residue, pick up the previous residual technology energy and not that of the actual original occurrences being sought.
As far as Mr. Sabol’s self-described methodolgy is concerned, in a communication to me via email, he stated: “I am not a skeptic, just a trained archaeologist who also investigates haunted locations, and takes into account the mix of trace/residual presence as the co-existence of different temporal layers of media tech ‘artifacts’ from ‘ghost hunts’. In my ‘ghost excavations’, I do not use these devices, but rely on context-specific behaviors, speech, dress, and technology that would have been known (part of the experience and memory) of any ‘presences’ who may remain ’embedded’/’attached’ to particular situations, habit memories, or events, as part of the archaeological record of a site. See papers on the relation between archaeology and ghost research I have written on academia.edu.”
(EDITOR NOTE: another fascinating source Mr. Sabol referred me to is the website ghostexcavation.com)
He has proposed a new, refreshing and very interesting opinion. So, what do you think? Here is his paper that I am referring to in this article:
(Photo courtesy of Moon Joey)