There has been a lot of discussion on IAH as of late regarding the fundamentals of investigating. I have to admit that while I have always thought about researching the paranormal it took a show like Ghost Hunters to nudge me into taking any action. Prior to the show, I had always assumed that paranormal research was best left to the physics majors and scientists and that I had no business matching my inferior intellilect up against the main-stream scientific community. But when I saw a couple of plummers on television making claims of paranormal activity, I thought "I can do that".

In nearly a year's time since then I have been startled at how volatile this community of common interest can be. I have never been exposed to such a plethora of drama and controversy as I have since I decided to join the ranks of folks seeking answers to paranormal phenomena. It's not just controversial subjects such as investigation methods or old school versus new school, but it's religious debates, ego trips, philisophical and ethical debates...the list goes on and on.

When I first joined IAH, I have to admit to taken some offense to those who scoffed at the new generation "ghost hunter" (yes, I know there is even a debate regarding the naming convention - but I digress), but trying to keep in mind that I am after all, only a kindergartener playing in the sandbox with the big boys - I thought it would be wise for me to listen.

I will admit to having changing my mind about several different issues - not once, but several times. What I find fascinating about this kind of forum is that there many differing opinions, and almost everyone has something of value to say. I have learned - and continue to learn a great deal.

But what seems to come back to me over and over again, and stay with me, are the arguments brought forth from the "old dogs" (I say old referring to time in the field, not necessarily related to age). After all, these guys have been doing it for a while and they have seen people come and go. I admire guys like Alan who seems to be tougher to convince than any harvard Physics professor. What that tells me is that he has kept is objectivity in check. It's researchers such as him who will portray this field in a positive light among the mainstream scientific community. While I may not agree with everything the "old dogs" say, I have to respect the experience and the persistence to have stuck with it all these years.

You know the old saying,  "you can't teach an old dog new tricks?"
Well I think it is tougher teaching a new dog old tricks. My kids are already telling me that they are going to make better grades and get higher paying jobs than there old man. I think it's in our nature to always want to outshine those who spent most of our adolesence in the limelight. But if it weren't for them, where would our motivation spring from?

Hats off to Alan! Your award is well earned and I would agree 100% that you have done your part to preserve the integrity of a field that has historically raised much undo criticism. I think we, as a community, ought to go old school, at least for one investigation, in his honor!

3 comments View Entry

I wrote this last week and posted it on a different paranormal website and thought I'd add it here. Let me prface this blog by stating that I do not consider myself an expert in the paranormal as I have only been investigating the paranormal since earlier this year. I offer this only from a perspective of one who investigates the "normal" as my full time job and I believe that some of those skills or methods can be easily inserted into this type of research as well.

I'm a rookie when it comes to investigating the paranormal. Yes, I'll admit it - I'm a "post-Ghost Hunters" paranormal geek. Although I have held an interest in the paranormal since I was young, I'm afraid that I fit that category by proximity. I am not, however, new to the investigation process, reviewing evidence, and making judgements based on testimony and such evidence review.

I currently work for the Public utility Commission of Texas as an investigator. I investigate allegations of violations of state utility rules and statutes. I gather evidence by a variety of methods, primarily through the issuance of requests for information (RFIs) or what is known in civil law as interrogatories. In the event it is found that a particular utility is found in violation of state rules or law, I prepare the Notice of Violation and prosecute. Also in my tenure with the PUC, I arbitrated contract disputes between telephone carriers such as AT&T and Verizon. Arbitrations are conducted in the form of a formal hearing in which the arbitrator listens to the arguments and evidence presented by both parties and then bases his or her decision based on the terms of the contract and prevailing law.

No, I'm not fishing for a job. I'm simply laying a backdrop to illustrate how I investigate the paranormal and how I draw conclusions based on the evidence I aquire and if in the process you pick up anything that you find useful apply it as required. However, just like anything else in life, take what you find useful and disregard the rest.

In my studies of the paranormal thus far, I have found that it is commonly presumed that there are two classes or people that you will encounter in this field - the believer and the skeptic. However, I would offer a third classification - the objective observer. This idea conflicts with many lines of thought in the paranormal field because it is often implied that a skeptic is objective. This is not necessarily true.

American Heritage Dictionary defines a skeptic as:

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

By definition, the skeptic has a motive when reviewing evidence. The skeptic's objective, in general, is to disprove that which the believer holds as true. By interjecting motive into the evidence review process, conclusions tend to shape the evidence as opposed to the evidence forming the conclusions. In essence, the skeptic is either the prosecutor or the defendant.

The same holds true for the believer. The motive for the believer is obvious. The believer often, not always, will come to some conclusion in total absence of evidence, thus rendering any evidence offered irrelevant, in their view.

I'm not placing any judgements on either types. There are varying reasons one would consider themselves either a skeptic or a believer. The believer usually enters an experience which has given rise to a particular conclusion. The skeptic may hold other assumptions or beliefs as true and would demand proof showing that these assumptions are false before deviating from such assumptions. While it is understandable that certain environmental factors help to shape one's beliefs or disbeliefs, it is my opinion that when reviewing evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence, one must strive to gradually depart from either extreme and move toward the middle, which would ideally lead to objectivity.

I am a Ghost Hunters fan. I find it very entertaining and, at times, educational, but I sometimes question the investigative techniques deployed by TAPS. Now before you click the close button or leave me a nasty comment, allow me to justify my statement. TAPS claims to investigate with the purpose of disproving alleged paranormal activity. If you take that at its face, TAPS has undertaken an impossible task. By setting that standard, what TAPS has in effect done, is placed the burden of proof on TAPS. While people have been studying the paranormal for decades, it is still a relatively new science. As such there are no agreed upon laws. In absence of such laws, there is nothing by which you can measure evidence and make a determination whether something is paranormal or not. Physics can prove that a particular activity can be explained by natural law, but one can not prove that the activity can not also be explained by paranormal law - because there is no such law.

Now is TAPS making a legal claim? No - probably not. While they claim that they are trying to disprove the paranormal, what they really mean is that they make every attempt to find alternative explanation for experiences that are allegedly paranormal. But many paranormal groups take this statement and run with it, not fully understanding what it is that TAPS is truely trying to achieve. Both Jason and Grant claim to have had paranormal experiences, so I believe it is unlikely that they are true skeptics. However, I have found many investigators pride themselves as being expert debunkers without going through the discplined process of gathering substantive support for their claims.

Since there are no laws in the paranormal, you must work on reasonable assumptions when gathering evidence. For instance, when conducting evp sessions, it is of utmost importance to avoid whispering, speaking clearly and loud enough to be easily identified. If an investigator whipsers, it should be immediately noted. If this is done on a consistent basis, then it will be a reasonable assumption that any whispers captured during an investigation would be from some other source other than an investigator. Without such assumptions, any evidence containing a whisper, logically must be thrown out. Prior to acquiring and reviewing evidence determine what your base assumptions should be and then do everything within your ability to ensure the integrity of those assumptions. You may need to modify or dismiss assumptions as appropriate.

Try to go into an investigation without motives. As humans, we are inclined to view or even alter evidence to support a predetermned conclusion. This is neither objective or scientific, and while making a determination that paranormal activity has occured without legitimate evidence may provide you a sense of euphoria, it will likely not be viewed as credible when offering that conclusion to a third party.

As an investigator for the PUC, when reviewing evidence, I keep in mind that my testimony must withstand the scrutiny of both the defending attorney and the judge. The defendant (the skeptic) will do everything possible to punch holes in your testimony. He will find deficiencies you may not have known were there. Aggressive defendants may even attempt to question your expertise and character as support for his defense. The judge (objective observer) should seperate himself from the emotion attached to the testimony of the petitioner and the defendant and draw conclusions based soley on the evidence and constraints of the law. While it is the petitioner's goal to present to most credible evidence and testimony to the judge by which a sound conclusion can be drawn, he has to keep in mind that the evidence must be defendable against the scrutiny of both the judge and the defendant. The judge, on the other hand, also must ensure that his judgement is sound enough to endure the scrutiny of an appellate judge.

So with all of this in mind, it is important to first scrutinize your evidence carefully and attempt to uncover the deficiencies before presenting it to your audience (client or lead investigator). Try to understand what the skeptic's first line of attack will be and decide whether it is defensible. This is where the integrity of your assumptions and investigation techniques become extremely important. For example: you and another investigator pick up an evp. It is in the form of a whisper which sounds female in nature. First of all, rely on the assumption that as investigators, it is protocol not to whisper during evp sessions. With this assumption in mind, assuming it is valid and reasonable, logically the whisper should not be attributable to either investigator. The skeptic will then question the integrity of that assumption and may even question your motives. So don't stop at that assumption. Were both investigators male? If so, this further bolsters your argument as the voice clearly sounds female. If one of the investigators is female, was she speaking at the same time as the evp? Do you have a video of the investigators taking the evp session to synchronize voices with faces? If you have gone through this exercise and feel strong enough to submit your evidence for that level of scrutiny, then you may have defensible evidence. While the true skeptic still may not be conviced, hopefully someone who is legitimately objective will.

In this field, you will often be confronted with those subscribing to the theory of Occam's Razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Many skeptics use this idea to "disprove" paranormal activity. However, in my brief experience in this field and in reading articles and journals, I have noted one fatal error. All things are not equal. In otherwords, conclusions were derived in absence of any reasonable assumptions which would set the particular circumstance as an anomoly. Going back to our example of the evp: Occam's razor would suggest that if you heard a whisper on a recording that you have no memory of hearing at the time of the recording, when deciding whether that whisper was caused by natural forces (an investigator whispering) or paranormal (evp) one would logically conclude that it must have been an investigator whispering. However, an experienced team would put in place certain protocols to maintain the integrity of certain reasonable assumptions so that it can be said that not all things are equal and that this certain set of circumstances are unique and warrant consideration. Another error in using Occam's Razor when trying to determine whether something is paranormal is that, again, there are no laws for the supernatural so there can not be two competing theories of law by which to measure practicality. I use the example of the evp only because it is the most common situation found in the field, but this can apply to any alleged paranormal phenomena.

Just as in the judicial system, the skeptic and the believer both have their purpose and this is not meant in any way to disparage either type. In fact, I would submit that both are necessary to further our understanding of the paranormal. There are many people out there who claim to be a skeptic, but by the true definition of the word - they are not. They are simply objective. I think it's important to know the difference. While the skeptic and the believer play an important role in learning about the paranormal, it is my opinion that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle and only discoverable through objectivity.

3 comments View Entry

I find it ironic that in an age of comedic abundance, we find so little humor in life. Comedy is readily accessible to all of us. There are cable channels dedicated to comedy, comedy clubs, movies, sitcoms, etc. However, as a society, I believe, we have forgotten how to laugh. Over 60% of americans are either diagnosed with clinical depression or are on some kind of anti-depressant. Alcoholism and drug use are on the rise, despite the countless programs designed to counter it. There are over 6 billion people on this planet, yet over half of us claim to be lonely. I am not saying that anti-depressants are not useful and I'm certainly not trying to belittle those who suffer from clinical depression. However, laughter is considered to be the cheapest and healthiest form of anti-depressant and I find it discouraging that we have lost sight of that. Laughter releases thousands of endorphins into the body. A natural pain-killer. So why are we so serious?

Personally, I find life hillarious. It's all around us. I mean, just look at the duck-billed platypus. Is it a duck - is it a beaver? I don't know but it's damn funny-looking. What about life's cruelist joke - age? At a time when we desire companionship the most we become the most repulsive. Our bellies swell, our hair and teeth fall out, and we become uncontrollably flatulent - or is that just me? It's inevitable. What else can you do but laugh? But rather than exert a hefty gufaw at it all, many of us grow bitter, angry and defensive. This couldn't be any more apparent than in the paranormal community.

Case and point #1: On a local forum for a particular paranormal group a discussion took place regarding an evp captured by one of the investigators. The investigator began to provoke the spirit and in a clear indisputable audio clip, you can hear a voice say "you suck!" I laughed heartily. I found that very amusing. I replied "wait a minute - that sounded like Fred" (names have been changed to protect the innocent) implying that what was being heard was not a spirit, but "Fred" talking to the other investigator. I added a little smiley face hoping to make it obvious that I was joking. However, this sparked a whole discussion about how the voice tone and inflections did not match that of "Fred" and an onslaught of defensive gestures rose to a climax while I just sat there and shook my head. They didn't get it.

Case and point #2: I wrote a brief satire on how Scooby Doo influenced my early interest in the paranormal. I'm not the world's brightest writer or satirist, but I had fun writing that piece. I posted it on a paranormal website and started to receive positive responses. Ah - they got it. However, within the discussion I commented to another investigator "aw - come on, you know you've always wanted Daphne!", Daphne being the animated diva on Scooby Doo. My comment was immediately deleted out of fear of offending the female population of the community. Or perhaps he was attempting to conceal his secret fetish for cartoon women.

Spirits - on the other hand - have a sense of humor. My first experience with, what I believe, to be the paranormal consisted of something or someone tapping on my bed. The tapping began when I was about ten. I would spring from my bed and find my parents or babysitter only to come back to a completely silent room. As soon as they walked out, of course, the chorus of tapping resumed. I am reminded of the Looney Tunes cartoon in which a man finds a singing frog. Excitedly, in his greed for fortune and fame, he rushes out to proudly display his new-found sensation only to hear a half-hearted croak when he opened the box in front of a crowd. Maybe this particular ghost was a Looney Tunes fan.

Other spirits will make sounds in one room and as the investigators run from room to room chasing a knock or a shuffle, the spirit, seemingly stays just out of reach. This must be quite the display for the spirit who I can only imagine is sitting unseen somehwere laughing his spectral ass off!

As of late, in my current house, I have witnessed the oven being turned on, seemingly by itself, the air condition falls way below 60 degrees or is turned off in over 100 degree weather, and little items like keys and cell phones go missing only to turn back up in the exact spot we left them in. I was discussing with my wife how annoying these events were when my car horn started honking by itself. My wife thought I was crazy as I just started bellowing with laughter.

Somehow, I don't believe spirits are floating around arguing over who has rights to haunt which house. I doubt that ghosts are thumping their chests claiming to be the most knowledgeable in the science of the living. It seems to me that allot of them understand how to have a good time, perhaps at the expense of the living - but who are we to judge?

So, if you start to feel the pressure of a hard night's hunt and start to get frustrated with competing egos and paranormal debates - why not take a while to sit down and watch the newest episode of The Colbert Report, or Larry the Cable Guy, or South Park - depending on your obnoxiouscidity (is that a word? It is now) tolerance level. So, what's my point? I have no idea, but personally, I'm not going to wait until I'm dead to develop a sense of humor. [SMILEY FACE]

5 comments View Entry

One of the most popular Saturday Night Live skits from the eighties featured Dana Carvey as the Church Lady. I mean, who can forget the ever inquisitive church lady interrogating Sean Penn or Danny Devito, with that smug judgemental smirk, as we all anticipated the prolific question "Could it be ....hmmm..I don't know...SATAN?!!!"

I believe one of the reasons the church lady resonated so well with most of America is because at one time in our lives we have all encountered that "bible thumping", fire and brimstone believer who convinced us that we would burn in the depths of an eternal inferno because of some minor indulgence. Sin.

Just what is "Sin" anyway? American Heritage Dictionary defines sin as:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
   
2. Theology
   
   
   
   1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
      
   2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
   
   
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Some Christians believe that Sin is anything that would lead one on a path that is in direct contravention to God's will or God's law. Others see sin as anything immoral. However, morality is somewhat subjective and varies depending on one's religious beliefs.

What I find startling though, is the increasing number of people who believe that sin and/or morals are so subjective, that they really shouldn't even be considered. Reknown occultist, Aleister Crowley, is quoted as saying, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Similarly, Anton Lavey, in his penning of the Satanic Bible, is quoted as saying, "Satanism encourages its followers to indulge in their natural desires. Only by doing so can you be a completely satisfied person with no frustrations which can be harmful to yourself and others around you. Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic belief is: indulgence instead of abstinence."

As a father of two boys, I find myself obligated to discipline my children from time to time. Actually, it's a daily routine. Many people, when hearing the word discipline immediately conjure thoughts of spanking, verbal admonishments, and/or the abstinence of indulgences. However, American Heritage Dictionary defines the term discipline as " training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement." So in disciplining my children, it is not my intent to create misery by denying them pleasure or inflicting pain, but rather it is specifically designed to teach them how to develop morals and behavior which are condusive to the well-being of both their own physical and mental health and for the adjustment of societal decorum. In essence "it's for their own good."

In my journey through parenthood I have found that the most effective form of discipline incorporates free choice and consequences. My children know that with certain behavior comes certain consequences and that with free will comes responsibity. My youngest son loves to play with Legos but also struggles with the responsibility to put the Legos away when he is finished. However, he fully understands that should he choose to leave his Legos out on the floor for others to step and trip on after he is done playing with them, then they will be picked up and put away for two weeks, thus denying him the privilege to play with them again for a short time. Is this cruel? Is he bad or evil for failing to fulfill his responsibilities? Absolutely not. I love my son as much as I did before he left the Legos out on the floor and my love for him is in no way connected to his behavior, but his behavior is tied to specific consequences which only he can control.

This seems fundamental to anyone who has been a parent, or has been a child at least once in their life, but for some reason, it becomes difficult to apply when speaking of a "heavenly" or "spiritual" father. Some think of God, as he or she may know him, as some ominous celestial giant, who at the slightest mortal mistake, cast lightning bolts down to earth, striking the believer for his or her sinful indulgence. But if God, calling himself our heavenly father, truly loves His children, this seems inconsistent with what we know of parenthood.

I believe that God, the father, just as my father, and my son's father, lays out a path of discipline designed to mold and shape our character and who's goal is to develop a loving, caring, responsible adult. Not a wimpering, cowering, slave. Does this mean that we can not sin, or take a path that is in direct contravention to the path he designed for us? On the contrary. The greatest gift God gave us is the ability to think for ourselves and to make our own decisions. By default, we are sinful because we do not always take the path that is best for us. That can be seen everyday.

I, personally, don't see God up in a cloud somewhere making laws and rules designed to deny humankind pleasure and happiness. Instead, I see God as a loving and kind father who knows what is best for us and desires very much for his children to follow the path that he knows leads to happiness and health. But it's our choice.

So, in my most humble opinion, when taking your journey on personal and spiritual enlightenment, be wary of those religions and philosophies which direct you to do "what thou wilt" and who deny the existence of consequences to our own choices, and consider whether these philosophies take into consideration what is best for your spiritual well-being.

3 comments View Entry

Our first color television set was a gigantic, wooden console, ensemble with two shiny knobs - one for VHF and one for UHF. I never could figure out why there were so many channels on the knobs when the only stations we received were NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS. The only control (remote or otherwise) that worked on this television consisted of my father shouting "Bryan, get up and turn the channel". But hey, it was color television so I didn't mind the occasional walk across the floor.

As with many of you, my earliest influences in the paranormal appeared every Saturday morning on that color television set. That's right! That zany group of characters, collectively known as Mystery, Inc.  Every Saturday morning I would jump up out of bed eagerly anticipating that eerie fanfare which trumpeted in the song that became an anthem to budding paranormal investigators everywhere.

"Scooby-Dooby-Doo, Where Are You? We got some work to do now!
Scooby-Dooby-Doo, Where Are You? We need some help from you now.
Come on Scooby-Doo, I see you... pretending you got a sliver
But you're not fooling me, cause I can see, the way you shake and shiver.

You know we got a mystery to solve, so Scooby Doo be ready for your act.
Don't hold back!
And Scooby Doo if you come through you're gonna
have yourself a scooby snack!
That's a fact!

Scooby-Dooby-Doo, here are you. You're ready and you're willin'.
If we can count on you Scooby Doo, I know we'll catch that villian."

I just couldn't wait to see what kind of evil apparition or ghastly creature Mystery, Inc. was going to hunt next. I must admit to finding myself slightly disappointed everytime Fred pulled off the rubber mask. Just once, could Mystery, Inc. capture an actual ghost? Come on Hanna Barbara!

Just the other day, as my nine year old son was watching a rerun of Scooby-Doo, ( or should I say the cheesey Scooby-Doo spinoff with that annoying little canine dwarf, Scrappy-Doo) I began wondering, how emerging technology and current knowledge gathered from paranormal research, would affect the methods Mystery, Inc. deployed out in the field.

Rather than stumbling around creepy buildings with nothing more than a flashlight and a box of scooby snacks, Shaggy would be carrying around his ghost-hunting tool kit complete with a Trifield EMF meter, olympus digital recorder, and a 12.0 megapixel digital camera. If Shaggy only knew that he could point that EMF meter at the green phantom to see if it produced any anomolies, perhaps he wouldn't run so quickly from a guy dressed in a tie dyed sheet.

And then there's Velma. It's obvious that Velma has failed to tap into her full psychic potential. If she only realized her gift for communicating with spirits and her uncanny precognition ability, she would never again be scouring the floor for her glasses.

The team could also really benefit from a four camera DVR rig..."Scooby, I'll give you a scooby snack if you will run down the hall and help me set up this camera." Fred and Daphne could sit in the Mystery van and watch the excitement from their laptop rather than pretending to go off somewhere to "investigate". Hell, maybe we could find out what Fred and Daphne are REALLY up to!

Why engage in a exhaustive search for obscure clues and exert the effort to decode cryptic evidence when, in the end, it isn't a demon after all - it's only Mr. Jenkins the groundskeeper. They could have nailed that in one sweep of the thermal imaging cameras had they only invested in the equipment.

And what about Scooby-Doo? Yeah - right. Like I'm going to hand over a thousand dollars worth of high-tech equipment to a six-foot upright talking greyhound? I don't think so.

So in keeping with the spirit of the times I wrote Hanna Barbara with a couple of suggestions in mind. Have Fred take off that horrird red ascot (and maybe even shave his head and grow a goatee) and throw on a black t-shirt with a skull and the initials M.I.  (after all acronyms are in - names are out), get rid of that dayglow hippie van and put M.I. in a black Suburban, and maybe make Scooby a Rotweiler or a pitbull. Of course they responded that although they appreciated my feedback that H.B. didn't believe that the suggested changes would be in the best interest of their younger viewing audience. Oh well - back to the drawing board. I would have gotten away with it - if it weren't for those meddling kids!

4 comments View Entry

Closet light on - crack the bedroom door - check under the bed - and say my prayers... this was my nightly routine before I fell asleep as a child. One might ask what creates such instinctive fear in a child that he feels he must engage in such a ritual to feel safe at night. "He must have lived in an abusive family." "He was traumatized by some terrible event as an infant." "It indicates a certain level of neglect and lack of affection." No - I wasn't abused, neglected, or traumatized. It was the monster under the bed. I can laugh at that checklist now and convince myself that I was simply a nervous child with an overactive imagination. Or was I?

Evil - as children we know it's there but we lack the discernment to identify and define it. Otherwise we wouldn't hear so many devastating stories of children who unwittingly embraced the very person who perpetrates their abduction, abuse, and/or brutal murder.

On the other end of the spectrum, as adults, we struggle to define evil as our survival instinct diminishes and reason takes over. We begin to rationalize away that which we intuitively knew to be a very real element in the natural world. Good and evil begin to bleed into each other and black and white intertwine into obscure shades of grey.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
   
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.

Unfortunately, with such a diversity of cultures, morality becomes extremely subjective thus rendering the first definition irrelevant. Most of us might agree with the second definition, however it fails to address intent. A tornado crashing through a neighborhood leaving hundreds of families homeless certainly causes harm, misfortune, and destruction - but is a tornado - a force of nature - inherrently evil?

Christians believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority on good and evil. According to Matthew 7:11, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?", mankind, relative to God, is considered evil. Certain Hermetic occultist believe that good and evil are two-sides of the same coin each side differing only by degrees - polar opposites. Some modern humanist philosophies posit that the term evil is so subjective and used only to judge or degrade another person that the term itself is irrelevant.

There are few people alive today that would hesitate to label mass murders such as Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, and Geoffery Dalmer, as evil. So is it really so subjective? These of course are extreme poles of the spectrum and thus much easier to identify. What about George W. Bush. He has been labeled everything from an American hero to the anti-christ.

So at what point can we find the balance between that instinctive childish fear that brought us to our mother's bed everytime a tree branch brushed up against our bedroom window and the enlightened adult who has the power to discern the subjectivity and complexity of life? At this point I can't say - but just to be safe, I'm checking underneath my bed tonight before I set my alarm clock.

"Shriek the lips
Across ragged tongue,
Convulsing together.Sing
violently, Move the jaw
Cry aloud. Bound up the Dead
Triumphantly

The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
You pray so hard on bloody knees.
The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
Down in the cool air I can see.

Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast
Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast

Stir the limbs across the wrist,
Full possession of memory.
Bury me as a dog,
Icy hands surrounding me.

The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
You pray so hard on bloody knees.
The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
Down in the cool air I can see.

Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast
Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast

Shriek the lips
Across ragged tongue,
Convulsing together.Sing
violently, Move the jaw
Cry aloud. Bound up the Dead
Triumphantly

The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
You pray so hard on bloody knees.
The ragged they come and
The ragged they kill!
Down in the cool air I can see.

Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast
Hey, Yeah - I'm the one that you wanted
Hey, Yeah - I'm your Superbeast"

Superbeast - Rob Zombie 

2 comments View Entry

It was a brisk Monday morning. I remember it feeling unseasonably cool as I sank into my desk, awaiting the morning anouncements. The combination of the musty classroom and the fresh pine scent of the desk reminded me that the weekend had passed and another week of the third grade was about to commence. The students were scurrying about, hustling to get their desk in order before the bell rang and that's when I noticed James had not made it in yet.

James was my best friend - my only friend, actually. He was a lively young 8 year old boy - plump, with freckles and red hair. He sat next to me in class, but that day James wasn't there. I always felt more comfortable when my compadre was next to me, so naturally I felt uneasy as the bell rang and the rest of the students settled in.

Mrs. Adtkinson walked somberly into the room which led the students to believe that she was not in a particularly good mood, indicating that a long day was in store for us. As she walked slowly to the front of the class room she began to explain that she had an announcement for the class before the school announcements were broadcast on the intercom. Her face seemed to contort as she choked out the news.

Over the weekend James had been involved in a terrible accident. He was on his bicycle and apparently crossed oncoming traffic. A truck had struck James in the side killing him instantly.

The room fell dead silent and I felt a shadow cross my heart. The classroom became a blur and I don't recall hearing anything else after that dreadful announcement. Suddenly I felt as if I were in some kind of story or dream. This couldn't be real. Eight year old boys don't die - especially best friends. He couldn't do this to me - God can't do this to me. The rest of the school day is a simple blank spot in my memory. My mother picked me up from school and I sat quietly in the Mustang as she drove me home. It was an awkward silence and I know my mother could sense it. As the car pulled into the drive way, trying to break the silence my mother asked me how my day was. I turned to her and said flatly "James is dead" and I walked into the house.

As adults we learn to come to terms with our own mortality. We eventually realize, all too well, that our time here in this life is very limited and that as the billions of souls before us, we will cross that final threshhold. Most of us, prior to facing that final exit, are forced to say our farewells to loved ones who beat us there. Perhaps, aside from our instinctive fear of our own mortality, this is why, as a society, we cling to the hope of an afterlife.

The thoughts of seeing the apparition of a dearly departed are romaticized in poems, songs, stories, and movies, such as the 1990 blockbuster "Ghost". And its for this reason we seem to constantly search for answers as to where we go when we reach that final destination and whether we will, once again be reunited with our beloved, friends, and family once more.

The following lyrics are dedicated to everyone out there who has lost a loved one, hoping that you will once again be reunited.

Dont' Fear The Reaper - Blue Oyster Cult

On a winter's night, stars are cold and bright in the sky,
The slumber of the earth is pure and deep
From a distant wood, drifts the echo of a beast
The old man stirs and wakens in the night
He stands before his window gazing at the grave
Forgotten dreams are flashing through his weary mind
And though his life is empty, he pretends that she's still there

With hunger in his soul, he yearns for life and love gone by,
With memories his one and only joy
All he has to give, he would give to bring back the life,
And raise the one who lies beneath the snow
He lights a lamp and looks at pictures of the past
The faces of their youth still glow with new-found love,
But the picture's faded, and time has stolen youth away

With a spoken word that he thought he heard from her lips,
He felt another presence in the room,
He was filled with fear but filled with joy he arose
And turned to face the image that he knew
She stood before him and her hand reached out for his
A peaceful light shone in her eyes
She said she'd come to soothe him, and someday they'd be as one

She began to fade and her image disappeared,
So he was left alone to face the night,
Never in his life, had he been so held in awe,
As he faced the apparition of his wife
He stood before the window gazing at the grave,
And with a lightened heart he saw the first of dawn,
He knew that she was waiting, that someday they'd be as one

Lamplight Symphony - Kansas

6 comments View Entry

I have often wondered why, if ghosts really existed, why don't they just come out of the closet and make themselves  known. We give them every opportunity to make an appearance in front of a camera. They can even be on national television now - they can be celebrities if they would only take the time to give us a glimpse of who they really are at the right time. But instead we get the occasional knock (could be a tree branch or a loose pipe) or garbled EVPs (why can't they just speak clearly into the microphone) and if we're lucky we might catch their shadowy figure peeking around the corner (what the frig?) But why can't they just come right out and say "Here I am! Now take a friggin' picture and leave me the hell alone!"

It was then that I started to look at this from the ghost's perspective. Here I am sitting comfortably in my (or I should say my host's) Lazy Boy after a long hard day of haunting, watching the newest episode of People Hunters, and then the door opens and in trods a group of people carrying cameras, digital recorders, video equipment, and other assorted gadgets. I mean what would you do?

The lights go out and all the appliances including the television are turned off ("Hey! I was watching that!") Now all of these intruders are running about the house asking questions, poking and prodding with these new-fangled electronic gadgets, and taking pictures. They are obviously wanting me to manifest myself, but I just had a hard day's work and was just wanting to sit back and relax - I try not to bring my work home with me. Annoyed, I draw every bit of energy I can muster (I used most of it throwing those books off the shelf during work) just to tap on the walls a couple of times so these guys can get what they want and leave, but no - this only creates more excitement and the "people" activity increases. Once again, I use the last amount of energy i can find to say "leave me alone" but unfortunately all that comes out is (mmmm mmm mmmm) - damnit!

Now, these folks are demanding that I go into some ethereal light and leave the comfy confines of my two-story brick home. "Are you crazy?" If you had your choice of cable television, air condition, and a Tempur-Pedic microsuede cover double layer Dual Air Flow System king-sized mattress or some ambiguous etheral plane - what would you choose? I mean - they don't even have microwaves up there - what are these people thinking?

At one time this might have been a prime opportunity to manifest and scare the living crap out of some teenager who walked in out of a dare and then post the video on BooTube, but now they don't even startle easily. Where's the payoff?

So I figure the best thing to do is just ignore them - maybe they will just go away. Oh no - I hear one of them say this place is definately haunted - before I know it the word will spread and every amateur ghost hunter will be bothering me every weekend. Jeez! I may have to consider moving - this place is becoming infested with people.

And then there's the demons. It seems that they can't torment some poor soul nowadays without some darn exorcist trying to cast him out. What's a fallen angel to do?

So, next time you enter some poor spirit's domain uninvited, please take off your shoes, try to be quiet, and maybe even leave the televison on for them. After all, haunting is a tough business and ghosts are - or were - people too.

4 comments View Entry

"What the frig?" exclaims Grant as a thundering crash echoes from the back room of the house he and Jason are investigating. I turn skeptically to my wife and express my disappointment in the disillusion my favorite television show has created for me. So far I have been on three investigations and nothing has reached out and touched me. I haven't experienced any cold spots or picked up any cool EVPs. Out of three investigations all I have to show for it are some fireflies, reflective pins in a pile of bricks, and a scare with a digital recorder.

A bit disappointed, I reluctantly accepted an invitation to go back to Water Park Road. This time the chief investigator, Carlos, was organizing the investigation. Approximately twelve to thirteen investigators showed up with Carlos. This place was kind of a routine exercise for them. They claimed to be able to capture mists and orbs on a regular basis, so they used this area as sort of a training ground for new investigators.

We all arrived just before dusk and began our introductions. I was not the only new investigator on the team, so I felt a little more at ease. As the sun began to sink on the horizon, we briefly toured the area. Apparently there was quite a bit more of the path that led through the woods than John, Patrick, and I had realized. For some reason the forest didn't feel as creepy with the sun still large on the horizon.

As night fell, the team began to take out their equipment. Carlos carried an EMF meter, a digital recorder, and a flashlight. His wife held a digital camcorder with nightshot, logging the night's events. Several other investigators carried digital cameras and digital recorders - I had my camcorder and digital recorder.

We began with an "orb experiment". Patrick sat under a tree by himself while the rest of the team faced him with an army of digital cameras. Before the experiment took place everybody took one shot of Patrick. That was followed by Patrick raising his hands and asking the "spirits" to manifest themselves by drawing on his energy.

At this point I was feeling a little uneasy. I came to hunt for ghosts not to take part of some kind of new age ritual, but I tried to keep an open mind, sat quietly, and observed.

Patrick began asking yes and no questions explaining to the spirits that they should respond by appearing as an orb over his left hand for yes and his right hand for no. Flashes lit up the dark night as the team searched for a sign of some kind of communication. At first it was quiet except for Patrick's voice, but soon investigators started to see orbs on their viewfinders and would verbalize the "spirit's" answer.

This went on for about ten minutes then we began to break off into separate groups to explore. Carlos and I broke off from the rest of the group. I walked off for a bit to record some EVPs when I heard Carlos whisper my name. I walked briskly over to where I heard Carlos' voice and he explained that he had heard some twigs break not far from him. Not long after Carlos' said that his walkie talkies started goin off as if someone had tried to call him. Before he could pick up his talkie and ask if some one had tried to call him the LEDs on his EMF meters began to dance. While Carlos was expressing his excitement about the equipment malfunction I looked down at my camcorder and the picture started to distort. I found this series of events quite interesting. I wasn't sure what had caused all of the electronics in the area to act up like that, but it had to be something other than sheer coincidence.

The investigation lasted close to three hours, then we said our goodbyes and headed home. After reviewing the video tape, I was excited to find that I had picked up the intereference with the vidoe tape. Even more surprising was that during the recording of my EVPs at that same spot and time, my audio recording was completely garbled. Did this prove without a doubt that something paranormal took place - no. It could have been some stray microwave frequency, it could have been the interaction of all the elctronics concentrated in one place, etc. but it was interesting never the less.

Four investigations so far and nothing convincing and I started to postulate some theories. 1) Perhaps spirits can be shy. After all how would you feel about introducing yourself to someone who can't see you or hear you except on video tape or an audio recording. I mean what if the one time you catch them on tape they're picking their nose or something. Or worse, what if the only EVP you happen to capture is a moment of specteral flatulence - how embarrassing! 2) Maybe the ghosts are fed up with amateur ghost hunters. Look at it from the ghost's point of view. At one time the thought of seeing or hearing a ghost would have been enough to move the bowels of even the bravest of paranormal investigators. Now you reserve your energy all day, exert enormous amount of energy to be able to manifest yourself for maybe only a couple of seconds - and what do you get? "Dude, did you see that? COOL!" After performing a cost-benefit analysis, it just isn't worth the spirit's time and effort. 3) Is it possible - just maybe - that not all reported paranormal phenomenom is indeed paranormal? Do I believe the paranormal exists? I think it's entirely possible, but I don't believe that it is as common as some people would have you believe. I began to think that if I was really interested in acquiring evidence that the paranormal existed it was going to require a good deal of persistence and patience.

For those of you who have been doing this long before the days of Jason and Grant - I say bravo! Had I began this journey the same time you did, I may not have lasted more than a month, but knowing that there are folks like me that have been doing this for a long time - I think I'll stick around.

3 comments View Entry