As you will be aware, there are many difficulties with the practise of paranormal investigation, and even investigators and groups who claim to work with scientific methods need to regularly take a step back and question what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Due to the way that paranormal investigation has become popularized this century, through television* and many websites and publications, a number of rather unscientific assumptions have taken root and are frequently held up as truths. Here are just a few of them:

• Hauntings mainly occur in old buildings
• Ghosts are more active at night
• Investigations should be conducted in blackout conditions
• Ghosts draw on available energy sources, so they can drain batteries
• Ghosts drain heat and cause an area to go cold
• Ghost activity affects electromagnetic fields and can be detected by EMF meters
• Silver bullets are necessary to kill werewolves

Now, any or all of the above statements may be true, (except the last, maybe, but it has as much substance as some of the others:-). The point is, what evidence is there to back up these assumptions? Let's look at them individually.

Hauntings occur mainly in older buildings? Perhaps yes, in the old world. But here in New Zealand the oldest buildings are a century and a half or so - spring chickens by European standards. If you read the two books by Grant Shanks and Tahu Potiki, and other NZ books listed on this page, you will find that a significant proportion of reported paranormal events in NZ have occurred outdoors; by the sea, rivers and lakes, and in the mountains and the bush. Also, in my experience, very strange things have occurred in buildings dating from the 1960s and 70s. We all enjoy investigating creepy old buildings at night, but that's not the only kind of place you might encounter a ghost.

Makara Beach area at night, long exposure on tripod. Photos taken during a training investigation with NZ Paranormal, April 2009.

Are ghosts more active at night? Well, some statistical analyses of accounts of reported experiences suggest that more ghost sightings occur during daylight. I don't have accurate figures on this, but think of the ghost encounters you've read about-they're not all in the dead of night.

So then, why do we do our ghost hunting at night? For one, it's quieter and there are fewer distractions, and the location may be unused at night. Also, it's more fun because it's scarier. But if we're being scientific about it, is that a consideration? When you're scared, or mentally primed for something to happen, you can be in a hyper-alert state in which any small thing can trigger a strong reaction. A slight draught can be felt as a chill, a moth flying into you can be a ghostly hand, a fellow investigator saying they maybe sense something will send chills down your spine. This is the fun of ghost hunting; we all enjoy being scared but is it conducive to genuine investigation?

Going 'lights out' is another investigation practise that has to be questioned, both because it tends to exacerbate the feelings mentioned above, and (in some locations) for safety reasons. It does have the advantage of allowing Infra Red security cameras to work at their best, but there is another assumption. Who says IR is any better than visible-wavelength light for seeing ghosts? I would suggest the idea came from television, helped by the easy availability of IR surveillance camera systems, not from any theory based on actual research. I'm not suggesting it's pointless to take IR cameras on investigations; they are very useful for several reasons, but there is this assumption around their ability to capture paranormal activity that is largely unsubstantiated.

One advantage of going 'lights out' - and this would include turning off all electricity in the building, not just the lights (So then how do we run our surveillance camera system?) - is to eliminate man-made electromagnetic fields. Thereafter any readings obtained on EMF meters must be paranormal in origin, right?

Well, perhaps, but not necessarily. The assumption is that if a spirit is present, it will affect the electromagnetic spectrum in some way and thereby register on an EMF meter. Where is the hard evidence to support this? In my investigative experience, I have noted EMF readings that I cannot attribute to a man-made or natural cause, but it would be a big leap to conclude that the cause of those EM field fluctuations was paranormal.

The problem here is one of scientific method verses assumption. In order to say truly that ghosts can be detected by EMF meters, we have to develop a theory and be able to test it in controlled and repeatable ways. It follows that others should be able to recreate the experiment and reproduce the same results: that is scientific method, by which a robust theory is developed and can be used to generate verifiable data and make predictions about behaviour.

But how can the required experimentation be done when we can't reliably produce a ghost to experiment on? The best we can do is have a hypothesis, for example: I think that if a ghost were to appear, it would cause a deflection of the needle in this EMF meter. Now I just have to test the hypothesis, somehow.

Many investigators have at some time made the claim, 'These were fresh batteries and now they're dead. A spirit must have drained them.' And it may be true, sometimes; but more likely the batteries died for one of the many normal, mundane reasons, for instance getting old and new batteries confused, or rechargeable NiCads failing to hold their charge, as they do.

The point here is that paranormal investigators have a strong tendency to attribute paranormal causes to occurrences that are in all probability perfectly natural. Really, if it's suspected that an entity is actually sucking power from batteries, then it's not hard to set up an experiment to test that hypothesis.

A possible experiment would be to get more batteries (of different brands and from various sources) and a reliable, calibrated battery tester. Record the charge level of each individual battery, then place some of them in the location of the suspected entity, both loose and in various devices. The remaining batteries should be similarly set up and located off site as a control. Afterwards, retest each battery. If you record your method and results in detail, another team of investigators can come along and try the same experiment, or maybe improve on it. Then, by using this more scientific approach, you may end up with real evidence that something in a place is draining batteries. This approach is getting towards a scientific investigation method; but just making the assumption that a ghost drained the batteries, without looking deeper into it, is both unscientific and counterproductive to good investigating.

What I am trying to illustrate here is that if some supposed authority on television or in a book said that this or that thing happens when a ghost is present, don't just believe them without question and then go around spreading that unsubstantiated opinion. Find out for yourself if it is true or false. Because basing paranormal investigation methods on assumptions that simply do not hold water is a superfast way to lose credibility in the eyes of your clients and the wider community.

This quote from Stuart Chase was given on Criminal Minds the other night: "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

By regularly questioning and reassessing, and by adopting a more scientific, less assumption-driven approach to paranormal investigation, you probably still won't manage to convince the hardline cynics, but you may win over a skeptic or two. (Skeptics are people who require good evidence before considering something to be true. They are not necessarily cynics.) More importantly, you will come closer to satisfying your own and your team's desire to find out what is really going on out there!

J.Gilberd, April 2009 - page content updated 12/4/09

* I am not knocking the various paranormal investigation programmes on TV. They all do a great job, but we must recognise that the shows are primarily for entertainment and are not strictly objective documentaries on paranormal investigation techniques and methodology. They don't have the screentime to go into any real depth, so we are not necessarily given the full picture.

P.S. Please don't think that this piece of writing is aimed at denigrating any investigation teams or individuals: it is not. It has come out of our experience of trying to improve how Strange Occurrences operates. We are as guilty as anyone of working under assumptions, and we are constantly in the process of research and re-evaluation. We hope that other paranormal investigators may share, and perhaps benefit in some way from this experience.

Scientific method is outlined very clearly on the site www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz

Comment received from Brad Scott of NZ Paranormal, 11/4/09:

"Well done mate, brilliant, and you can even put me down as agreeing with what you are saying. I will back you 110%."

"To run an investigation without reasoning is like cutting the brakes in your car, you may have steering, but where you end up is anyone's guess."

Although this site isn't equipped with a blog format, I am happy to add useful comments. If you have an opinion on this topic, please email us: j.d.gilberd@gmail.com. We are interested in hearing from you.

Makara Beach area, Wellington, details as above.