The Science behind the Research

The idea behind any experiment is to gain some insight into what the entity is actually capable of, and by documenting the event as it happens can lead to our understanding of how and why these things occur. The experiment some of which are located in this blog is to try, and answer some of the basic questions we all have. Like how can they see, without eyes? If they can see, then what do they see, and to what level can they see? How can they talk without lungs, and vocal cores? How can they move objects without a physical presence? How can they touch without hands? How intelligent are they?

Scientific study requires systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The first part of any experiment is the question, and there is no shortage of questions. How do you decide on what experiment to do really depends on where you are planning to conduct them. Some locations are better suited for conducting certain types of experiments depending on the haunt. There are locations where the entity was very consistent with their responses. We did our dimensional state of being experiment at such a location. Other locations have aggressive and intelligent responses. We did our cognitive experiments at such a location. Remember your results shapes your hypothesis leading to more experimentation that can take your original idea in new directions. In science, being wrong is allowed if we already had all the answers, there would not be the question, and no need to look.

Scientific Method

What is the Scientific Method? You see many paranormal groups claiming their scientific based, or follow scientific methods, but what does it mean? In the scientific field, everything starts with a question. The reason why it starts with a question is that we do not have an answer to an observation. You will need to collect more data looking for a pattern to form a hypothesis. It's a little more than sitting around in the dark hunting Ghosts. The reason why we know little to nothing about Ghosts is that big money is not in it. I am surprised that we spend 12.9 million a year for the past fifty years looking for extraterrestrial intelligence, but they draw a line at actually seeing an Alien. Once you made your observations, and collected your data. It is time for the hypothesis. Your hypothesis has to form conclusions based on your data. Now you have to test the validity of your hypothesis by carrying out experiments that can prove the conclusions in your hypothesis. The experiment has to have one or more conditions with independent methods of validating your results. Because your results shapes your hypothesis that leads to more questions, and new experiments, and ultimately your theory based upon a hypothesis, and backed by evidence. Again, after all of that your theory can still be wrong. Science is self-correcting because of new experiments, or observations. Theories are changed, or thrown out in light of new data. Your data, evidence, and methods subjected to skeptical peer review. Peer Review is a method of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. You should question everything claims abound in this field look for case studies, how was it tested, what research was done, who made the claim, what established parameters used to define what a ghost is, and what evidence was collected.

It is when a politician can win a Nobel Prize for a presentation without doing any of the actual hands on research. That its only purpose is to promote the flawed science in a political agenda. Then there is the need to get government out of science. Government grants favor those scientists whose research reflects political guidelines, or scientists touting a political policy that serves more of a monetary agenda instead of benefiting all of humanity.

I have seen the video of an experiment to test battery drainage that took place at an alleged haunted location. It used a lantern style flashlight that had an ohmmeter attached to the battery there was a Mel -8704 next to it with two or more cameras recording it. Later anomalous activity started as the on flashlight started moving. Even though there was not any noticeable drop on the ohmmeter showing battery drainage. The Mel-8704 showed both temperature change of an increase of 10-degrees, and a spike in the EM field of six Milligauss. Now this evidence showed a correlation between anomalous EMF spikes and temperature change. It would then be reasonable to generate a hypothesis as to what is causing the anomalous reactions based on credible evidence. Even though this was exciting data, there was a problem with credibility. The evidence I just described was from one of those paranormal non-reality TV shows known for staging evidence. Even though the person that overseen the experiment, I would trust unfortunately once someone involved on the show is caught staging evidence it reflects badly on everyone else, and on the evidence I just described.

Skeptical Review

"If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major discoveries in the borderlines of science are rare, experience will tend to confirm your grumpiness. However, every now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you are going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere skepticism is not enough." 

~Carl Sagan THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD

While critical thinking presupposes a willingness to examine all sides of an argument. Peer review process is the evaluation of work from associates with equal or similar levels of competence, and constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members. Sighting only related articles, and studies that draw a conclusion within a relevant field of research.

When skepticism embraced as a blind belief, it becomes the greatest enemy of truth. It's when skeptical believers are confronted with real evidence that challenges their belief system they are struck deaf and blind unable to see or hear anything. Then post unrelated articles that based on mental illnesses for vindication, and when others can confirm what is being seen, and heard. They claim it is merely a hallucination, and pressure others into silence, so not to challenge their explanation, or just scream pseudoscience to avoid producing anything to refute the evidence altogether.

My team has done single blind studies of electronic voice phenomena for the past five years. Therefore, we knew from the results of over 500 participants. What could be heard too what was heard, but when submitting evidence to a group of skeptics expecting to be taken seriously by simply not turning up the volume was able to say they heard nothing at all. An important two-year study from the University of Vigo Spain was ignored leading them to the conclusion that no proof was possible. Realizing they had no technical experience in sound analysis when looking for peer review groups the criticisms meant to point out flaws in assessing the data, and not meant to dismiss the work out of hand.

Arguing for logic, not for truth

Sometimes in the attempt to educate, comments are misinterpreted as an argument when it was initially meant to point out a common error. It has been my experience that there are two initial outcomes. The first is acceptance; the individual realizes that indeed a mistake been made, with some replying in appreciation for the correction, or the response might be a correction in the initial analysis, or more information about some conditions as a way to validate the original statement. There can be constructive well-rounded arguments that is meant to come to a conclusion, not to place blame.

Then we have the second type of response, which is the most common unfortunately. The individual felt confronted with their own ignorance, and immediately became defensive lashing out with derogatory statements. Even if the comment were meant to be informative. There are the few that cannot help themselves but to use non-constructive arguments that only beliefs and fanciful conclusions are accepted. When coming across anyone that does not agree. What better than techniques that they learned in grade school, name-calling!

Really, these people believe so much in fantasies that I have to step back in wonder how they ever made it this far in their lives. It is beyond me how some people can so easily dismissed logic? Society must bend over backwards to cater to these people; I guess most might assume that they have a mental problem, or that they must have a disability where they need special care? In all actuality to say these fantasy prone individuals are stupid is an affront to stupid people everywhere.

Occasionally I come across an article that asks the question. After all these years with thousands of paranormal teams, collecting data. Why then is there no credible proof that ghost exist?

Well even if there was, enough data that can prove ghosts exist. The ghost-hunting enthusiasts are not the type of researchers you would want. Collecting data correctly requires rigorous disciplines something the ghost-hunting enthusiast is not willing to do. Simply put they are just not in it for the data, or the real work that is involved. I have had members in my own team mentioned that doing research “the correct way” took the fun out of the paranormal. When the primary focus is scaring one another in the dark, or bolstering evidence that in the real world means nothing at all. I have yet seen anyone in the paranormal community that has the slightest clue on how to preserve the integrity of the data. It is unrealistic to presume that no credible evidence is possible. The truth is that there would need to be an unbelievable amount of evidence from medical science to, documented correlations between a once living human being, and anomalous voice phenomenon. Verifying the data through personal information from AVP responses against historical documentation, additionally from other information like the work they did, and finally referring to family and loved ones by name.

Since 2006 we have been documenting AVP responses in one location linking them to historical records from an once living human being. There are medical studies underway that hopes to affirm that human consciousness can survive death.