Common Mistakes in Identifying Paranormal Phenomena

In their years in the field, there is hardly a single paranormal investigator that will not eventually come across a piece of evidence that will cause him or her to take a pause in the validation process and question.  For the overanxious, biased or egotistically arrogant individual, herein lies the pitfall of seeing what one wishes to see, not necessarily what is really being depicted in a photograph or video.  For the experienced serious investigator, their dedication to this science will cause them to open their notebooks from previous evidence reviews to see if they can find any previous evidence that can be used to corroborate their present target.   They will call upon other investigators for their input based on their knowledge and experience and share theories.  They will even send the evidence to a third impartial party, an expert in the particular field in which the evidence falls before eventually come to a decision based on that entire research process as to if their evidence being reviewed is real or not with regard to the paranormal.   

The purpose of this page is to help the paranormal community as a whole to advance, not to embarrass and belittle others as some other websites and groups have done in the past.  We understand from decades of experience about the human condition and how prone it can be to mistakes, especially when they get caught up in the high expectation, emotionally charged post investigation process.

The following  is based on the hope that all proper investigation protocol has been observed while the photographic and videotape  evidence was being collected.  They by no means cover all the questions that will arise, but they do cover the most common problems encountered.

Click to enlarge any photos.

The most common culprits that fools even the best sometimes are dust, air-bound moisture, insects and night creatures, especially  bats.  

The common rule-of-thumb is if the object in the picture is reflecting light it is what is called an organic, naturally caused phenomena such as what was just described.  If light passes through the object or it appears the object is absorbing light, it becomes suspect as being paranormal and the process moves forward.

 In this example  there is a possible orb, but here is so much organic contamination that it must be discounted.  In the picture, we can see good examples of what dust, animal hair and dander (human as well as pet), parasites (fleas, mites) and other organic contamination will appear as on film or digital photographs.

Here a nighttime shot taken during an investigation of a cemetery reveals some common orbs.  It also shows that there was insect activity that night, giving the illusion of an "orb shower."  Notice the differences in appearance and density of the two objects.

A great shot of ghost light or even a spirit?  Unfortunately not, its the nemesis of night photographers everywhere, the bat.  Note the telltale "eye streaks" and the purple blurred shape of its flapping wings.  The blur below it is a rare photograph of an insect's demise after impact with the bat.  As people travel through grassy areas they kick up a lot of insects, keeping a group of these mostly undetected night flyers well fed and busy.  The purple shading is caused from the flash reflecting of the millions of fine hairs lining the underneath of their wings.  This is what allows them to fly so silently.  

Moisture on our lenses can account for  a lot of the "phenomena" we think we've captured on film, video and digital.  It can be caused from going to  area to another where the temperature and is so different that it caused moisture to form on surfaces and glass is a big attractant.  The rule of always letting your equipment acclimate when going  form one area to another applies here.

Your own breath can sometimes be your own worse enemy while cryptkicking on a cold night or investigating somewhere where heat is not an option.  The best way to avoid seeing this "cloud" in your photos is to hold your breath before snapping your picture or rolling the video camera.  If not, at least make a note in your investigator's log for that night that you could see your breath.  A small note that will save you a lot of frustration later on when you see this cloud appear on your photographs.

Along with the advances of technology in our field instruments comes  the inherent  problems these new technologies bring with them.  Here we have two good examples of the infra-red from night-shot cameras and our CCTV cameras never ceasing to amaze and then disappoint us when reviewing case photographs.   The infra-red from  many alarm systems will also cause this effect as well, only on a much smaller scale.

This is why smoking is not allowed in the vicinity of any investigations!  Even smoke ejected from the lungs after-the-fact can cause havoc in creating false positives.

The "Nylon Vortex" (camera strap), fingers near the camera's aperture and loose flying long hair has caused more hearts to stir and more arguments than most any other culprit in this gallery.   Again, only close attention to proper protocol can prevent this.

Its a hazard every, even the best of investigators face...seeing what they want to see, not what is really there.  This photograph was taken as part of our investigation of The Governor Sprague Mansion in Cranston, RI during 2004.  At first glance, it would seem to show a figure looking over the former investigator-in-training's shoulder (his face blurred purposely to protect his identity).  In fact, we too believed it to be just that until further scrutiny revealed the anomaly to be the reflection of a light sconce on a nearby wall enhanced by a camera's flash.  A re-creation of the event caused the same exact effect.

EVIDENCE MEETINGS

This is an essential part of the evidence verification process.  It  is where friendships, personal relationships and alliances must be put aside.  At a typical evidence review meeting, members of The Rhode Island Paranormal Research Group do exactly this as all evidence is pulled apart, dissected, reviewed and then pulled apart again through sometimes intense debate, not argument,  regardless of whomever might have collected or submitted that evidence.   The decision of this review can only be one of the following:

CONFIRMED:  The criteria or opinions used to determine paranormal activity has been met.

NON-PARANORMAL:  Alternative explanations can be used to explain the depicted phenomena.

INCONCLUSIVE: The criteria or opinions used to determine paranormal activity has been met, however, enough reasonable doubt exists among the group to require further debate and or examination.