of “orbs” and gather so called Electronic Voice Phenomina. Apparently, this is a common practice since my city alone features three such “clubs” with over three hundred members. Without regard to whether or not this stuff has any objective reality (I am an agonostic on most things, it takes ALOT to convince me, I’m not even sold on gravity, relativity, and Newtons laws of motion!). However, since these guys will be doing their ghost hunts ANYWAY I suggested some “tests” that they could do which would tend to either confirm or deny the “objective” reality of these occurances (however they would do little to establish the NATURE of these events):
These people claim that locations like graveyards and battlefields give rise to more orbs than most other locations (which is where they go to hunt). My plan would be to take say ten thousand photos with identical equipment, under as similar conditions as possible at both traditional ghost hunting locations (battlefields and graveyards) and control locations (examples would be farms, golf courses ect). If there is an objective reality to these phenomina then on average more “orbs” should appear at the traditional locations. These experiments could be replicated almost infinitly until we obtained literally MILLIONS of trials. Over time we should be able to at least say that something is likely occuring (although we could say nothing of WHAT that phenominum actually is).
These people often talk about “hot” locations where they can realiably get photos and other phenomina to occur. I would ask them to identify their very BEST locations (say their top fifty). Then, I would preposition, electronically controlled cameras that would take simultanious photos, at multiple angles, of the same space. Thus, if an “orb” were captured by one camera AND it exists (in an objective sense) we should be able to see the orb from multiple perspectives. If we were able to capture ten thousand of these from multiple perspectives, under the conditions described we would have some indication as to their having a objective basis in reality.
Since, these people will be meeting, going places, and taking pictures (read spending money) why not at least do it in a manner that would advance the issue if only moderately? Now some would say that these groups wouldn’t consider such measure because they are so BELIEF orientated. However, my five friends who indulge in these groups include a PhD chemist, MD, and mircobiologist who works at Lilly’s. Thus, they are intimately familar with the scientific method and more than capable of implementing these very basic “experiments”.
and have a great deal of experience in photography. Thus, THEY believe that there is something objective going on. I am simply asking if these protocals couldn’t be used to validate (at least to some small degree) what these people believe to be objective reality. Scientists sometimes say that the paranormal is not conducive to scientific investigation since it is not subject to controlled analysis. The procedures which I outlined COULD rise to that standard. Again, there are thousands of people, collectively spending millions on these activities ANYWAY. I am simply suggesting a way that they could “focus” their efforts/hobby into something that could potentially offer some degree of validation (or tend to disprove their beliefs).
oh I see. Well you are quite right. Your protocols would be a good place to start. Unfortunately you have diddlysquat chance to convince anyone to take them up. Most unbelievers couldn’t care less, and most believers don’t want their belief systems challenged.
Let them have their little hobby. At least it keeps them off the streets
By this logic, large, old hospitals would be veritable hotbeds of paranormal activity, as hundreds of people die in each one every year. Why are there not scads of haunted hospitals?
Orbs are small flecks of dust, snow, dandruff, or tiny insects, very close to the camera lens. When a picture is taken, the camera auto-focuses on the distant objects, and the out-of-focus, flash-illuminated dust mote appears on the picture as a apparantly spherical fuzzy white blob. The excessively credulous point at this as claim it as evidence of a ghost or spirit.
they have a variety of responces including that this explanation is not sufficient given that they often get the same"orb" on more than one camera shot from different perspectives. They also argue that if “my” explanation were correct then “orb” phenomina would be more common in “dusty” environments, which they argue is not the case. In addtion, they point to video recorder evidence where “orbs” are observed in motion. Of course these explanations may or may not successfully disprove the dust hypothesis.
With regard to hospitals many believe that they ARE a hot bed of paranormal activity. Visit www.allnurses.com and do a search in the general discussion area using the terms "spooky’, “haunted”, and “paranormal”. As a nursing student (and having an interest in the subject) I have spoken to literally dozens of doctors and nurses who have related paranormal experiences from the almost mundane to the absolutely incredible. The beauty of my APPROACH is that we could provide some degree of statisitical INSIGHT into what is otherwise rank speculation. Your “keeping them off the streets” scenario would be sufficient if we were talkig about teenagers prone to crime. However, at least in the case of my friends we are referencing two PhD’s, and an MD. I say either take your “hobby” to the next level with some empirical confirmation or quit mucking up our poker games!
objective reality. That is why since they are going to do this ANYWAY, they should do it in such a fashion that it has SOME empirical, validation. Also, about fifty percent of the people who participate in these activities use digital cameras to save money. Also. many claim they get orbs with high speed film WITHOUT using a flash. Here’s another way they could attempt to “validate” their speculation to some degree:
Many of these people also utilize tape recorders in an attempt to capture EVP (electronic voice phenomina). Now if there is ANYTHING to their claims then there should be SOME correlation between the occurance of EVP and “orbs” (unless of course they are precipitated by different causal factors). Thus, if one took ten thousand pictures at a hunded different locations AND did careful EVP recordings (where time and place were carefully noted on both the recordings AND pictures) one would EXPECT to find more EVP at the times and places where “orbs” were noted (with the reverse also being the case). A lack of such statistical correlation would tend to argue against the phenominum being an OBJECTIVE reality. Keep in mind that any such “experiments” could be replicated to infinity by different groups in order to obtain confirmation or lack there of.
“the chemist” believes that each orb is indeed “unique”. He claims that if you carefully analyize “the nucleus” or center of each orb, unique and consistent “patterns” emerge. Furthermore, he claims that the “signature” of these orbs tends to be more alike at a given location, than orbs taken at seperate locations (I pointed out that any underlying, confabulating factors such as “dust” or lighting abnormalities would also probably show some consistency and uniqueness relative to a given location).
