46 replies to this topic

[CaveRat2]

I too read the reports and found them to be inconclusive. They do seem to validate tthe abilities as far as they go, but don't really address the mechanics at work at the time of the test. My earlier post regards doing scientific monitoring of the subject while the reading was occurring, not simply to validate the accuraccy or inaccurracy, but to also measure known values to determine what, if any, effect these have on a medium's work. It would involve taking these tests to the next level.

[stevenedel]

As these last few posts make clear, whether or not one uses electronic equipment, and if so, what kind, is of secondary importance. The most important thing, always, is sound methodology. You need to set up your test in such a way that you can be as sure as possible what your findings (or the lack of them) actually mean. You may hear your instrument go beep or see it record a drop in temperature, or your dowsing rod may swivel, but how can you know this is caused by a ghostly presence?

Your setup needs to be of a kind that rules out as many as possible plausible alternative explanations. As Canis points out, by taking inadequate precautions to rule out such an alternative explanation, subjective validation, Schwartz's experiments are rendered meaningless (subjective validation, to summarize very grossly, is the often proven fact that people will rate any random string of statements about themselves as largely true. It is why horoscopes often seem so spot-on. In his 'Afterlife Experiments' Schwartz used an inappropriate control condition, and also refrained from doing something that would have been quite simple, i.e., check the factual statements made by the mediums. Instead, he relied completely on the subjective evaluation by his (believer) subjects of the mediums' performance. Schwartz's research is, by the way, flawed in many other respects too).

[greg_dragonlvr]

My Bad, tried watching Ghost Lab and fell asleep during the part where they were flapping about some door in the balcony being opened. They do have a lot of toys tho. I never base a judgement on any series' first show as they are trying to hook an audience and pull all the showbiz stops.

The few problems I have with what I saw may just be age oriented. I have no idea of the target demographics or age group of this show. But to an old guy like me, it helps to look a bit serious about what you are doing. Running around in bermuda shorts with your ball cap on backwards which automatically lowers your IQ by 50 points is not the way to impress me.

So, if anybody managed to stay awake during the whole show, let me know how it turned out, and if all the toys managed to produce anything more than the rest of their ilk. I will try to watch this weeks episodes without dozing off.

Greg

[leslie_dragonlvr]

I have to agree with the attire aspects of the show too.
Tho I didn't get to see the show, I do know what your talking about. To get audiences attention from all ages, don't lower your IQ....sheesh!

Les

[Axman]

I missed this one. I do agree that you should hold yourself in an intelligent manner on an investigation. It's not about fun and games, you're supposed to be there to help even when you are learning the ropes.

[Laurie Ann]

Axman, on Oct 9 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

I missed this one. I do agree that you should hold yourself in an intelligent manner on an investigation. It's not about fun and games, you're supposed to be there to help even when you are learning the ropes.

Just couldn't agree more. Well said, Axman.

[Axman]

I did an investigation of a haunted hotel once that I requested my teammates to refrain from alcohol for the night. One of the guys showed up and did some drinking which completely hindered the investigation. Nobody noticed until later in the night and we wouldn't allow him back in the group on future gigs. it was very unprofessional of him. I never really had a dress code but did require everyone to dress as if they were going to a regular job.

[greg_dragonlvr]

Good point, Axman, a dress code should be at a minimum but presentable level. I always assume that at some point I will be crawling under a house, down in the basement or up in the attic as well as cracking my shins on some piece of furnature. But I do try to look as if I just didn't come from a frat party or wander in off the boardwalk.

Greg

[greg_dragonlvr]

Just another comment about gear not yet mentioned. This is not a comment about the merits of night vs day investigations, there are threads already working on that.

This series routinely does it in the dark, their choice. But between the floods on the camera man, the head lights, wrist lights and hand held flashlights, they had more candle power per square foot than Wrigley Stadium. What was the point of turning off the lights, eh?

Greg

[Axman]

greg_dragonlvr, on Oct 11 2009, 05:23 AM, said:

Just another comment about gear not yet mentioned. This is not a comment about the merits of night vs day investigations, there are threads already working on that.

This series routinely does it in the dark, their choice. But between the floods on the camera man, the head lights, wrist lights and hand held flashlights, they had more candle power per square foot than Wrigley Stadium. What was the point of turning off the lights, eh?

Greg

Killing the power at a main breaker will keep EMF levels at a minimum. I also see no reason to flood the area with more flashlights than necessary. I prefer a mini-Maglite or a pen light. Some day if I ever get back into investigating more regularly I would think more along the lines of night vision goggles.

[Laurie Ann]

~May I also recommend another piece of important equipment that can easily be overly looked...a mask. For those times when you and/or your crew crawl around in those dusty attics and basements. Because of my husbands health due to the fact that he didn't wear a mask (so simple to use, but he hated having a mask on mis mouth), and now he can't walk to the bathroom without his oxygen on because he didn't want to wear a mask. His lungs are totally wrecked all because he didn't want to wear a mask.
I'd hate to see anyone on here go through what I see my husband go through....all because of a little mask to keep the bacteria out of the lungs.

greg_dragonlvr, on Oct 11 2009, 07:12 AM, said:

Good point, Axman, a dress code should be at a minimum but presentable level. I always assume that at some point I will be crawling under a house, down in the basement or up in the attic as well as cracking my shins on some piece of furnature. But I do try to look as if I just didn't come from a frat party or wander in off the boardwalk.

Greg

[greg_dragonlvr]

I always keep a box of those disposable dust masks out in the back of my truck. As much as I enjoy the smell of old insulation, I try to keep it out where it belongs. I also keep goggles and gloves in that kit. Good catch tho, with all the hi tech gismos being discussed its easy to forget that simple is best sometimes.

Greg

Edited by greg_dragonlvr, 11 October 2009 - 03:34 PM.

[Axman]

Especially in older homes and buildings where asbestos has bee used. Mesothelioma lung cancer will make you join the ghosts.

[OMPRDave]

What killed it for me is when they got their guitars, drums, amplifiers all out and said that by playing music they are attempting to "merge the dimensions"....for a show basing itself on using science, it seemed pretty science-fictional to me.

This show goes into the bin with GH, Paranormal State, and Ghost Adventures here...along with Al Capone's Vaults and the bigfoot in the freezer

[greg_dragonlvr]

Hey Dave,

I wonder if Geraldo still has those beer bottles on his shelf??? Didn't think anyone would have remembered that fiasco!

You also get the gold star for being the only one I know so far for having the the moxie of having watched an entire episode. I tried, really, but couldn't pull it off.

Greg