|
Viewing 1 - 7 out of 7 Blogs.
The Truth About Salem, MA
About a month ago, I wrote a Forum post regarding Salem, Massachusetts and its somewhat twisted ability to have taken the Salem Witch Trial frenzy of 1692 and capilized on this tragedy by presenting these garish houses of education (like the Witch Museum, the Dungeon, etc.). I was bringing up this comment because a co-worker of mine (who supposedly follows a "wiccan" belief system) was telling me about her upcoming pilgrimage to the "mother land" of witchcraft . . . Salem, Massachusetts. She was very excited about all the events she had planned and, being a person who is profoundly interested in history and research, I commented, "You know a really cool place to see about the witch trials is Danvers."
She peered in my direction, but didn't appear to recognize the name. I elaborated, "You know, the place where the whole witch hysteria started? The place where Abigail accused all the townspeople of being witches?"
"You mean, Salem," she insisted.
"No, Danvers," I reiterated. "The place that used to be called Salem Village. Back in the sixteen hundreds."
When she insisted that I didn't know what I was talking about, I implored her to do the research. I have not heard back from her as of yet.
In my original Forum post, I received many responses about the subject and was quite surprised that so many people who are involved in the paranormal world were not aware of this disparity.
I had talked about my first visit to Danvers after I had discovered this shocking information and went into detail about how Salem Village had changed its name to Danvers in order to distance itself from the humiliation of the witch trials.
Salem Towne (or what is modern-day Salem) was the place, according to some literature, that got involved in the whole shameful Danvers episode after then-Governor Phips demanded special trials be set up for the accused. At that time (a full seven months after the initial frenzy had taken place in Danvers) some of the jailed "witches" had been brought to Salem Towne to be re-examined for witch signs by other experts.
As it turned out, all the stuff you read and hear about in regards to the whole Tituba controversy and the girls hysterically accusing others in the village, as well as the special prosecutors arriving, all occurred in Danvers. If you read, "The Crucible" or "The Witch Trials of Salem", you will have read about the events that all occurred in Salem Village (modern-day Danvers).
In essence, Salem has been projecting itself as the authority on the Witch Trials as it maintains the false facade of having been the very place where all this activity occurred. In reality, the only thing that happened in modern-day Salem was the tail-end of some of the court proceedings and the hangings on Gallows Hill (which, by the way, is currently in dispute as well because as it also turns out, the only photo of Gallows Hill [or what was claimed to possibly have been Gallows Hill] was revealed to be a fake due to the fact that its GPS coordinates point to an industrial building on a modern road). The fact is that no one really knows for sure where Gallows Hill was located.
While I was in Danvers, however, one of the tight-lipped residents pointed us in the direction of what she claimed was actually Gallows Hill. Let me back up a moment to tell you about the fire chief of Danvers; a direct descendent of Rebecca Nurse (one of the originally accused and hanged for witchcraft). Her home can still be found in Danvers. The fire chief insisted we visit Salem for "all the touristy stuff" but we begged and he finally relented. This silent town and its terrible history has been quiet about the past because, quite frankly, they are still, to this day, ashamed of the hysteria. Many of the current residents are direct descendents of either the accused or the accusers and they meet every year in a ceremony where they attempt to find some middle ground on forgiveness . . . in both directions.
Amazingly, the fire chief (a very interesting fellow) finally relented and pointed us in the direction of the only monument dedicated to this chapter in Danvers' history. "Just follow this road up about a half mile and when you come to a 'T', look to your left."
So, that's what we did and, lo and behold, we saw the large monument. Here's a link to a website showing the monument:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/Commemoration.html
As I said in the Forum, I didn't even remember to take pictures of it myself because I really did feel quite a sadness come over me, especially when the monument directs your attention behind you and across the small road where a huge old structure stands. There, the monument explains, is the very place in early 1692 where twelve-year-old Abigail Williams and her cousin, nine-year-old Elizabeth Parris, first fell into fits and accused Sarah Osburn, Sarah Good and Tituba of being witches.
To say that I was moved is an understatement. Later, another woman in town pointed us up another road close by, instructing us to park by a barricade near an empty field. Walk into the woods beyond and follow the trail. About a quarter-mile in, she assured us, we would find the mound where the gallows were constructed. We did and located just such a mound in the middle of nowhere, barren and quiet in the coming winter. We don't know to this day if we were, indeed, standing upon the actual site of the hangings, but I must say the experience was moving. And coming from a people who really don't make much of a commotion about these historical events, I'm much more apt to believe them than the highly commercialized and tacky displays and shops that you find in modern-day Salem.
I apologize for this posting. I felt I had to help clear up some of the misinformation out there. Especially in light of the fact that many here on IAH are interested in history and research, rather than misinformation, I thought it important to post the truth about Salem. If any of you are thinking of making this trip to Danvers, trust me when I say that it will completely change the way you viewed the witch hysteria of 1692. If anyone has any questions about this, please let me know. I'm more than happy to help.
"Am Dead, Will Travel"
And so, another day goes by and another thought ambles its way through my tiny brain. I have been perusing thoughts of why people believe that spirit energy, by and large, remains in one spot throughout the "lifetime" of its haunting.
I began thinking about this in earnest a few months ago when I received an email for my group's website which questioned why so many paranormalists investigated cemeteries. His contention was, "Wouldn't it make more sense that spirits would be haunting the sites of their deaths, not the sites of their burial?"
It was an intriguing question and I pondered it for awhile. Of course, most of us would be quick to point out that the spirit inhabits cemeteries due to the fact that its mortal remains are located there. In just about every piece of folklore and fiction, the people attempting to put a spirit to rest do so by destroying or finding a proper place to lay such remains (be they skeletal, partially decomposed, etc.).
I began thinking about how many homes are haunted with departed souls and discovered that there appears to be quite an abundance of hauntings in this setting, but equally, there appears to be a multitude within graveyards and burying grounds. So, the question then becomes, "Are these spirits traveling from one place to another?"
We never really stop and wonder why ghosts appear to be in a particular location at intervals, but are absent for long periods of time as well. During these absence periods, are they somewhere else . . . perhaps visiting old "haunts" from their lifetime . . . or even the place where their mortal remains have been laid?
I read about Irish and Scottish traditions of family members lifting up a recently deceased corpse and literally dancing with it in the graveyard in order to "fool" the spirit into believing that the family is happy and content following the passing of this soul. According to the belief, if a spirit witnesses weeping and mourning, it will follow the family back to the home because it is now under the impression that it is missed. The celebratory charade is there to ensure that the spirit stays put and does not travel back to the home. Similarly, in Italy and many other European countries, the mere act of gazing back at the gravesite once a family member or loved one has departed is more than enough reason for the spirit to follow the living back to the home.
So, it's obvious that people did (and presumably do) believe that spirits can travel. The question is, "Do they all travel and is it on a regular basis?" Can I be visited by a ghost passing through my home on its way to the cemetery behind my house? Can random hauntings or one-time sightings be explained by this travel theory?
Hauntings and Water
I have been a paranormal investigator for a relatively short period of time (five years) when one considers how many of you out there have been doing this for much longer. During these five years, I have investigated many of the most haunted sites in the great Constitution State and I have slowly built the foundation of a philosophy surrounding hauntings and their catalysts.
I am also a writer by trade (novels, scripts, etc.) and recently, I happened upon a curious bit of information from my second novel which was written in 1994. The information coincided with an epiphany that I experienced a year ago while investigating a reputedly haunted site in Cheshire.
During that investigation, as I drove along a winding road, I noticed a sign that announced a local "Watershed Area". A deja vu struck me suddenly and I realized in a moment of clarity that nearly every single investigation with which I had been involved over the past five years had been in close proximity to a "Watershed Area" or a reservoir, or some other man-made or natural body of water!
This revelation was exhilerating at that moment simply because I had remembered during the researching of my second novel that spirits and water had a strange Old World connection, both theologically and folklorically.
I went back and reread what I had uncovered then and was surprised to find that the connection between spirits and water was tied closely with vampire folklore from around the world. In Greece, there was a custom to bury those suspected of being vrykolakas (vampires) on a remote, uninhabited island because the belief was that spirits could not (and would not) cross water. This connection with vampire folklore was evident throughout many of the tales collected from all over the globe during my research.
Interestingly, my studies also uncovered a close affinity with theological beliefs, including the pouring of water on the ground while following the coffin procession to the graveyard to signify the water barrier between the spirit and the home. Some corpses were carried from the house feet-first following a wake (where a basin of water was placed beneath the table where the body lay) as water was poured upon the floor near the doorway in similar representation.
I noticed over the past month or so, some here at IAH had posed questions regarding water and hauntings and it began to become clear to me that, perhaps (if this antiquated folkloric belief had some substance to it) these two things in close proximity to each other was not coincidence. Perhaps, spirit activity is so abundant near bodies of water simply because many of them dare not cross the barrier!
It is an interesting premise and I wonder as to the actual abundance of evidence that lies unnoticed elsewhere as to this supposition. As I page over my past investigations and actually begin to plot out their positions in regards to major sources of water, I am amazed at the multitudes of occurrences where these two appear to cross paths. I wonder as to how many others have noticed this confluence.
Truth be told, I've noticed it even in the most rural of places: a signpost stating "Watershed Area" or "Reservoir Area". Even water treatment plants appear at regular intervals in accordance with supposedly haunted sites.
My group has actually investigated a pond where a boat sank and the man perished in the water. One of our members was SCUBA certified and dove on the wreck. We were lucky enough to be able to borrow underwater film equipment for the investigation. If the haunting is occurring there, does that mean that this spirit is forever trapped in that place (provided that this belief "holds water") simply because it cannot cross the rippling surface? Hmmm.
Skeptics Vs. Non-Believers
I have been registered at this excellent site for only a couple of weeks and, in that time, I have been quite impressed with the level of debate and the multitude of opinions and theories that have been offered. While some are very passionate about their subjects of choice, all are here to further the study of the paranormal.
The shortest and surest way of arriving at real knowledge is to unlearn the lessons we have been taught, to remount first principles, and to take nobodys word about them. Bolingbroke I have noted, as well, an underlying resentment regarding skeptics and skepticism and this worries me slightly. With all the interest in the supernatural, and all the opinions as to how we might more readily gain evidence of these supernatural events, it is somewhat counter-productive, in my eyes, for paranormalists, by and large, to view skepticism in a negative way. The connotation is that skeptics are non-believers and, therefore, need to be rebuked, silenced and ultimately ostracized from the paranormal community.
Here's the problem with that premise, though: skeptics are not necessarily non-believers. Neither should they be separate from the paranormal community. It is my contention that they are an integral part of the paranormal community.
If one looks up the words "skeptic" and "unbeliever" in the dictionary, simliarities are evident.
skeptic: a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted; not easily persuaded or convinced; the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge must always be in question and that inquiry must be a process of doubting; a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.
unbeliever: one who does not believe; a doubter.
Taking both of these words in a generalized context, it is true that when someone is skeptical, it means that they do not believe the evidence or supportive fact being presented to them at that time and in that situation. However, it does not indicate that a skeptic is a complete non-believer in the overall subject matter. As you can see, the skeptic definition is much more open and diverse, while the unbeliever definition is finite and conclusive.
If we look at a thesaurus listing of these two words, you'll see what I'm referring to:
skeptic: doubter, agnostic, dubitante, doubting Thomas, scoffer, Pyrrhonist, Humist
unbeliever: disbeliever, infidel, faithless, atheist, nullifidian, minimifidian, secularist
Upon close observation of the two terms, you will almost immediately notice that while the skeptic listing is almost completely absent of religious connotation (barring the Huxley agnosticism addition and the doubting Thomas [as in Saint Thomas, the disciple] the unbeliever listing is, in contrast, nearly inundated with religious overtone.
I bring up this contrast simply to show the vast differences between those who doubt and those who do not believe. I have been waging this war of words and definitions for a few years now and others are finally beginning to see the difference in comparison.
I am not a Humist. David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher whose skepticism theory restricted knowledge merely to the experience of ideas and impressions, denying the possibility of ultimately verifying their truth. This brand of skepticism should be ascribed to those who deny "proof" even when the mounting evidence is viewed as undeniable by the general community.
Neither am I a Pyrrhonist. Pyrrho (365-275 B.C.) was the Greek Skeptic, who wrote the doctrine that all knowledge, including the testimony of the senses, is uncertain. While I do agree that the testimony of the senses is uncertain, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that all knowledge is uncertain as well.
According to Wikipedia, skepticism falls into two separate categories: philosophical and scientific (or empirical) skepticism. In addition to these, there are two sub-categories: activist and religious skepticism.
Philosophical skepticism can be traced to Pyrrhonism. Its doctrine, that all knowledge is ultimately unsure, drives some to Humism as well.
By contrast, one who ascribes to scientific (or empirical) skepticism is:
"one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true, based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking. An empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge."
As for the sub-categories, religious skepticism merely points to a person who doubts all claims made by those of faith in a higher being, as well as any stories upheld by such faiths.
Activist skepticism is a relatively new term for a very old point of view in regards to the field of skepticism; these skeptics are generally labeled "debunkers". Activist skepticism has become popular in recent times through the teachings of people like James Randi, although one of the most famous of all debunkers was none other than Harry Houdini who exposed many dozens of fraud mediums and paranormalists in his later life.
There is nothing as cheap and weak in debate as assertion that is not backed by fact.
I believe in the necessity of skepticism as much as I believe in the supernatural. I think it is absolutely imperative that we question what is experienced by others, because to accept everything at face value invites deception and fraud.
He who has not a good memory, should never take upon him the trade of lying. Montaigne
I am not insinuating that all paranormalists are lying about their findings, but let's be realistic; many paranormalists out there in the wide world are only in this emerging field for fame, money or both. Yet even when the most altruistic of intentions are displayed and we accept what others are saying as purely fact, we venture closer to the point-of-no-return where we must accept virtually all claims, no matter how outlandish, lest we be labeled "selective" skeptics.
One fact is better than one hundred analogies.
Sure, the whole point of theory is to spur debate, which leads us to the pursuit of real answers, and ultimately leads us to the truth. I'm sure everyone would agree on that. So, here's my question: Why do so many paranormalists feel that skepticism is dangerous or unhelpful?
The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown. H.P. Lovecraft
Skeptics bring up points in a debate that may otherwise be "breezed over" by true believers. These questions drive us to find out the "whys" and the "hows" of supernatural activity. Should this be halted because some feel that skeptics are attacking them? After all, if you believe, and that belief is unshakable, it really shouldn't matter that questions arise on any given subject. If you truly believe, and you feel you have ample evidence, where is the harm of allowing others to pick apart your evidence and see for themselves if it stands the test of doubt. Even if the skeptic is the type that is unconvinced no matter how much compelling evidence is submitted for exmaination, the facts are the facts. If you possess the truth, then the facts are on your side.
Facts are to the mind the same thing as food to the body. On the due digestion of facts depends the strength and wisdom of the one, just as vigor and health depend on the other. The wisest in council, the ablest in debate, and the most agreeable in the commerce of life, is that man who has assimilated to his understanding the greatest number of facts. Burke
Let's talk a bit about faith, too. There is nothing I despise more than people who claim that skeptics don't have faith. Just because a skeptic questions evidence of a supposed phenomenon does not mean that he is completely devoid of the ability to have faith that that particular phenomenon exists. I have never experienced a typhoon, up close and personal, yet I have the faith in scientific and personal claims that typhoons indeed exist. But if my neighbor tells me that they went to the Jersey shore for the weekend and experienced a typhoon, I will doubt that claim. Perhaps this is a very simplified analogy, but I believe you know where I'm going with that.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews xi, I
To conclude this philosophical rambling, I'd like to toss out the hope that everyone who reads this understands a bit more about who skeptics are and why they behave the way they do. The pursuit of knowledge is only effective with two very important, main ingredients: conjecture and critical thinking. Paranormalists provide the conjecture in order for our pursuits to be noble. Without theory and supposition, there is no ultimate goal. Skeptics provide the critical thinking in order to drive all of us toward our ultimate goal: knowledge and the truth behind that knowledge.
There are three parts in truth: first, the inquiry, which is the wooing of it; secondly, the knowledge of it, which is the presence of it; and thirdly, the belief, which is the enjoyment of it. Bacon
So, the next time you read a skeptic's naysaying, don't automatically assume that this person is being negatively disruptive and dismissive. For you to dismiss his argument invites the influx of close-mindedness that paranormalists are oft times so quick to brand the skeptic.
Thanks for your time. Comments are welcome.
As a serious paranormal investigator looking for the absolute core truth, it is sometimes difficult for me to accept the common terminology associated with hauntings. While most paranormal groups will go into gruesome detail when describing how an inhuman entity actually behaves during a demonic haunt, they inevitably fail to explain that all their assertions are based on unprovable theory. There has never been, to date, the positive identification of any haunting on film, audio, or otherwise. For this very reason, there are those skeptics who continue to snicker each time a paranormal investigator opens his mouth to explain his theories.
I am not a true skeptic. While skeptics disbelieve until they see the proof, I am a believer who is waiting for the truth to be uncovered. I don't merely stand around and wait for the truth to arrive, however; I seek out the proof. And while most paranormalists will point to grainy, hazy video images and still photographs of "orbs and mist", the undeniable truth is that these do not constitute proof, simply because they could have been faked. Hearing a grunting or wailing voice on tape does not constitute proof, either; again, it could have been a hoax. If all the spirit activity that paranormalists attest to is actually taking place, then why is it so impossible to capture anything on film in broad daylight with a huge audience?
I am harkened back to certain paranormalists' methods of reporting occurrences. Each and every proof of haunting is eyewitnessed only by either the afflicted or the investigators, and is invariably just missed by real authorities. As soon as the police arrive, the haunting activity ceases . . . or it just begins again once the police depart the premises. This is a looming reason why people mistrust anyone in the paranormal field. Simply put: they lie, embellish the truth, or they concoct evidence.
For me, these are worse than the people who put together a staged show like Most Haunted. At least the producers admit that the show is intended as entertainment only and should not be taken seriously. Paranormalists, by and large, blur the lines of what is real and what is concocted. By creating a new language of terminology, they emanate an air of truth and wisdom.
The sins of omission: When someone knows something to be a point up for debate, but opts to omit the knowledge for fear that they may be questioned.
Let's talk about terminology for a moment. Just because a paranormalist comes up with a kitschy new term to describe something doesn't automatically mean that the word bears any weight . . . or truth, for that matter.
Take the classifications of different hauntings as an example; paranormal groups agree, for the most part, that there are four major categories of hauntings: residual, intelligent, poltergeist, and demonic (or inhuman entity).
According to the theory, a residual haunting is the most commonly experienced haunting. It is postulated that the individual's spirit who left behind the energy (resulting in the haunt) is no longer present. For example, a woman is murdered. She screams as she is being killed. The violent nature of the death causes a ripple of powerful energy to be etched in that vicinity, a residue that proceeds to re-play over and over, usually at a time that matches the point of the incident, say 4:37 p.m., for instance. While the spirit moves on to a better place, the residual energy of the violent struggle left behind continues to occur every day at 4:37 p.m. The murder has made an indelible mark in time. So, now, every day at precisely 4:37 p.m., a person may hear the murdered woman's screams of terror. This residual haunting cannot be altered, nor can it be exorcised. It remains forever.
Intelligent haunts are supposedly the second most-common hauntings. According to this theory, an individual who passes on may "hang about", moving freely from one place to another, sometimes attached to a particular location (swamp, house, road, etc.) a person, or an object. They will oft times attempt to make contact with the living, particularly if a child is present who has expressed recognition of the spirit. While they are limited in what they can do, they have been known to move objects of up to ten pounds.
They are usually glimpsed between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. According to an article at the TAPS (The Atlantic Paranormal Society) website, this is due to the fact that:
"[T]his time period being the darkest hours of the
night. Most of the time are not strong enough to
show themselves during the daylight because it takes
too much energy to make themselves visible. Think
of it like this, if you were to turn on a flashlight during
the daytime you would hardly notice the light, but if
you were to turn it on in the dead of night, the light
would be clearly visible. This is how spirits work as
well. If they use too much energy during the day
they will be too weak to show themselves at night."
The poltergeist haunting is the next type of haunting, according to the vast belief in the paranormal world. Poltergeist (a German word, meaning "noisy ghost") is supposedly a rare occurrence. Typically, this type of haunting occurs in an area where high stress levels are exhibited. A strong belief is that poltergeist activity tends to favor households where teenaged girls are dwelling. It is sometimes deduced that the girls themselves, or rather, their minds, are invoking the poltergeists because of volatile thought patterns. They seem to start off with simplistic mischievous behavior, like knocking, moving furniture or knick-knacks when no one is around, or hiding things. The behavior tends to intensify, manifesting itself in voices, full body apparitions, objects being thrown about the room, or furniture tremors. It often revolves around one person in the household, although documented poltergeist hauntings have been known to be experienced by more than one person in a household at any one time. It is suggested that when a person who is stressed seeks medical care (i.e., psycho-therapy) the activity will subside.
Demonic, or inhuman entity, haunts are the rarest, according to popular belief among paranormalists. These nearly always involve all the worst aspects of hauntings, including foul stenches, revolting sounds and voices, violent physical attacks, drastic temperature changes, shapeshifting (people into animal forms and vice versa) and, ultimately, possession. Apparitions in the forms of dark masses (often referred to as "shadow people" or "shadow devils") are a common modus operandi of the inhuman entity. As is the case in most every demonic haunting, an exorcism by a properly ordained or knowledgeable individual is what is required to rid the person, structure, or object of the inhabiting demon. However, according to this theory, the entity is never actually destroyed. It merely moves on to its next haunt following religious provocation in order to stir up trouble in another location.
As far as hauntings are concerned, I am in disagreement with much of what is theorized here. If we are to understand hauntings, we must begin by first admitting something to ourselves and to each other: These many ideas of spirit manifestation and how spirits operate is completely based on conjecture, or theory.
As good as some of these theories sound, and as logical as we believe them to be, we have absolutely zero proof that hauntings are what they are portrayed to be. Keep in mind that the belief that spirits require energy to manifest themselves is ultimately just one person's theory. We have the word of psychics only in order to "prove" that these theories are actually inherent in the alleged hauntings. We know, for instance, that electricity produces light in a magnesium-based filament. How? We have reproduced the effects tens of trillions of times using hard evidence and results. We do not, however, possess hard evidence that a spike on a Gauss meter translates to the presence of spirit energy.
While that belief makes sense (because we have no contra-indications otherwise) a spike of electromagnetic frequency nonetheless constitutes zero proof. Before you begin dismissing my argument, please remember that I am not a true skeptic. I believe that the realm of the paranormal exists. I just do not believe in all the theories that are being spoon-fed to (and eagerly accepted by) the mass public these days. These theories are good . . . but they are not sound.
Every time I hear some paranormalist speak of hauntings as if the evidence is irrefutable, I take pause. If the evidence was truly irrefutable, take a moment to imagine the repercussions of this possibility: If we actually caught a ghost, a full body apparition, on video, does any logically-minded person believe for a moment that this film would not be broadcast on every news station around the globe?
Let's take our residual hauntings for a moment and put it under the microscope. In my eyes, this would be the simplest haunting to prove, if it truly occurred as frequently as paranormalists claim. If a residual haunting occurs with rhythmic cycle (in other words, at a given time every hour, day, week, month, or year, or triggered by a specific series of events) why hasn't anyone recorded one? This, to me, is an elementary question. If a haunting in the form of a scream occurs every evening at 4:37 p.m., one should be able to set up recording equipment in order to capture that scream on tape. And if you weren't successful the first time, just wait twenty-four hours. Additionally, residual hauntings involve not only sounds, but images (or apparitions) as well. Are we to believe that in the one-hundred-plus-years-history of filmmaking, not a single person has been able to videotape a single occurrence of this admittedly prolific haunting? This is a rather large problem I have with the so-called residual haunting. If they exist with such frequency, where is the proof?
Intelligent haunts are interesting in the fact that they are completely random. I tend to believe more in this theory than in all the others only due to the fact that an intelligent haunt could encompass the specified behaviors of all the other categorized haunts combined. You could throw out all the other haunts and roll them up conveniently and neatly into this one classification.
However, I tend to clench my jaw in frustration when I think about the whole light/spirit-manifestation factor put forth within this theory. My main argument lies in the whole energy postulation in the first place. Who first put forward the belief that spirits require energy at all? If they do, indeed, require this vast amount of energy to take a corporeal (or material-visible) state, why is it so difficult for spirits to do so in the day? For that matter, why do we believe that energy in the spirit world follows any sort of accepted logic or physics of this world? That's a pretty pretentious belief . . . and foolish as well. The whole notion that spirits are better viewed in the dead of night smacks of fraud to me. What better way to present film evidence of a ghost than to show a wispy hand pushing a door open in a hard-to-see, dark enclosure?
By insisting that ghosts are better viewed in complete darkness, paranormalists ensure that any hope of debunking shoddy film evidence is destroyed. How can we possibly assert that a ghostly hand didn't push the door open? But by the same assertion, we can state with confidence that this evidence is completely unreliable based on its poor state of illumination. No court in the world would admit this sort of evidence as compelling enough to pronounce a sound judgment. Why, then, should we?
In so far as poltergeists are concerned, I find the statement that these hauntings happen with infrequent occurrence to be somewhat at odds with the documented history. By far, the single most reported occurrence of hauntings on any website, or in any annals of the paranormal, is the poltergeist-style haunting. Why paranormalists contradict the written evidence and regard this type of haunting as rare is a subject to make one wonder. Reports of items being thrown, knocking, banging and beds shaking is commonplace among haunting documentation.
My suspicion is that paranormalists regard it as rare simply because this type of activity is never caught on film. Sure, they'll point to still photos of items mysteriously levitating in the air or a person being thrown or pushed, but let's be real. A rotund investigator squeezing into a cramped attic full of furniture and hearing a piece of wood falling off a shelf is not evidence of poltergeist activity. It may very well be evidence that the investigator needs to lose weight. True evidence of poltergeist activity is non-existent and this tends to throw a monkey wrench in the works of paranormalists. Difficult to film? Perhaps. Rare occurrence? Hardly.
Demonic haunts, or as many paranormalists prefer, inhuman entities, are the hardest for me to swallow. To begin with, I'm at odds in the belief that mere paranormalist mortals can actually tell the difference between a regular spirit and a demon! Secondly, if they're operating under the assumption that "the-religious-community-says-it's-so-therefore-it-must-be-true", then they must dismiss all other types of hauntings. Theological (mostly Christian) teachings condemn the belief in ghosts. If we're taking the Christian word on demon existence and possession, then we must believe that they are authorities on the paranormal, or else why would we attempt exorcism using a Bible? If we believe they are authorities and they say that ghosts (other than the Holy Spirit) don't exist, then we must dismiss the pagan belief in hauntings. If a paranormalist believes in demons and in ghosts, then there is a fundamental contradiction here.
In order to exorcise a demon, one must use religious provocation. Without it, demons remain embedded in their location. So, in my eyes, we either believe in demons, or we believe in ghosts. Using logic and religion, we cannot possibly believe in both. And if we choose to believe in both, then we cannot ever rid ourselves of demons, simply because this dual-belief negates religious provocation. This is a tesseract I'm not willing to explore.
As far as the new terminologies are concerned, I believe that using the phrase "inhuman entity" is merely another ploy for paranormalists to condescendingly portray themselves as smarter than everyone else. By creating a new language of terms and phrases, they falsely project an image of supernatural genius, that which cannot possibly be comprehended by the unwashed masses.
It comes down to this: the intelligent haunt conveniently encompasses all behavioral patterns of the other classifications of hauntings. Instead of wasting time categorizing them by applying catchy names, why don't we start concentrating on catching an actual ghost on tape? That is, after all, what paranormal groups are supposed to be doing. Enough with the pretentious airs and the "I-use-more-expensive-equipment-than-you-do" attitudes. Get back to basics, throw out all the useless terminology, and perform the job of a real paranormal investigator. Present the truth and stop the paranormal sham!
Something has been bothering me for quite some time now and I've finally decided on voicing that opinion. There are many paranormal societies that have sprouted up in the last few years who have been lucky enough to nab their own television series and have presented themselves in many different forms. The most famous of these is, of course, "Ghost Hunters" on the Sci-Fi network.
In case you've not had the opportunity to tune in, The Atlantic Paranormal Society (or TAPS) is composed of many members around the United States. Their base of operations is located in Warwick, Rhode Island, founded by a pair of Roto-Rooter plumbers, Jason and Grant. They are currently in their third season and are self-described skeptics. While I agree with many of their ideals and sentiments, I am still skeptical of these skeptics for a few reasons. The largest reason, however, is the simple practice of "lights out".
While I am, by no means, an expert in the paranormal field, I am perplexed by the "lights out" method of investigation. In fact, I am quite skeptical of this night-time investigations practice, as a whole. First, let me explain the "lights out" method.
The paranormal team sets up equipment throughout the location (cameras, motion detectors, microphones, infrared, thermal, etc.) and tests all of it for a clear path of vision and proper operating levels. Once all the equipment is set and tested, the team breaks off into squads, armed with handheld cameras and digital voice recorders. But before they set out, the team kills all the lights at the location and investigates the site for the next several hours in the dark.
While this sounds like a great idea at first, it quickly becomes apparent just how fallible the human eyes and ears are when thrust into these circumstances. Every squeaky door or moaning breeze is eagerly transformed into a hideous demon or ghastly ghost waiting around the next corner, hoping to spring upon unwary prey. Every flitting shadow or errant reflection is quickly metamorphasized into a floating apparition or headless corpse.
"Lights out" methodology makes as much sense to ghosthunting as shooting photographs with the lense cap still attached. There is a rabid argument out there that ghostly hauntings are more likely to be active between midnight and three a.m. than at any other time. Even if one adheres to this "theory", why must the lights be off in order to witness a chair being moved or door being closed. It seems to me that time is the important factor here (12:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.) and not the light factor. If you're attempting to capture the image of a door being closed of its own volition or a chair wobbling precariously across the wooden floorboards, wouldn't these incidents take place in the dark or in the light? I have been trying to piece this together for a few years now and the only thing that I can come up with is that paranormal investigators use the "lights out" method for one reason: If anything is captured on film, it cannot definitively be debunked.
Think about it . . . if the video is dark, shadowy, grainy or staticky, the chances of seeing a prank or hoax being perpetrated are nearly impossible. That's not to say that all paranormal groups are staging haunting occurrences, but I'm sure there are quite a few out there who are and no one is able to call them on it because the video is just too damned unclear. Take away the light, and suddenly that same cheery room has become a cold vault of death. The mind can play terrible tricks on a person if the surroundings are appropriate breeding grounds for delusion or hallucination.
I have a beef with the whole twelve-to-three-a.m. theory as it is, but this "lights out" method is just irking me. There are hundreds and, perhaps, even thousands of reported daytime hauntings in this world, but we are, as a society, obsessed with night-time investigating. The whole black and white imagery of a white-eyed ghost hunter looking eerily from side to side as the camera watches the investigator's face turn to utter shock has become the ultimate thrill for the viewing audience. This sort of investigating for entertainment sake is lucrative for the filmmaker, but is it really necessary? For me, I would be more thrilled to see a camera's eye roaming hallways in an abandoned building, lights blazing, and be able to witness first hand and without haze, static or fuzz, a full body apparition as it floats across the hall. That is, after all, what we're trying to prove, isn't it? And how will we ever prove to critics and skeptics the existence of these spirits if we continue to present shoddy evidence.
"Lights out" is ludicrous. Let's get serious and start filming with the lights on instead. Perhaps then, we'll finally capture something of value and significance.
|
Favorites
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo MyWeb
