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!
Favorites
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo MyWeb
