Those who are unaware of how we fool ourselves by finding meaning in patterns when there is none are prone to being the first to be fooled (Dewan 2013). The most obvious way we make mistakes is by seeing a face or figure in noise, a common error in amateur paranormal research results. As noted in Chapter 9, “pareidolia” is the name for the human tendency to perceive “vague or obscure stimulus” as something “clear and distinct.”2 This illusion, which we can blame on our brain trying to make sense of things, accounts for ghosts and spirits in photos, Bigfoot among the trees, giant flying objects in the dark sky—all of which are presented as evidence that these strange things are real. It’s also referred to as “matrixing” (when we can see a human shape in a vague image or hear a recognizable phrase in garbled sounds such as with EVPs) and “apophenia” (making connections and meaning out of random events or objects). These experiences can be surprising and compelling. When a photo or video feeds a desire to believe in a certain explanation, some people have all the proof they need and no other explanation will ever be accepted. To look deeper and question this type of evidence feels uncomfortable for both parties—the skeptic and the experiencer. It feels insulting because we are questioning their ability to perceive reality. We all mess up—it’s human. But we can recognize this and correct for it. The first step is to admit it and understand why it happens to everyone.
Technology
Technology plays a strong role for most ARIGs. Several groups expressed the notion that new technology is the key to making breakthroughs in paranormal research. Most ARIG websites had specific information about and, typically, images of, the equipment used in an investigation. Equipment commonly utilized in ghost investigations are cameras (digital, film, video, night-vision, infrared), electromagnetic field detectors, audio recording equipment (magnetic and digital), temperature gauges, laptop computers and associated software. Additionally, some groups use more expensive specialized equipment retrofitted or designed for attracting or communicating with spirits such as ion generators and white noise devices.
Cryptozoological investigators include FLIR cameras (forward-looking infrared or “heat sensing” devices), parabolic microphones, and game cameras as part of their necessary gear. They may carry kits to collect biological samples or cast prints.
Ghost/ARIGs are reliant on equipment and technology as the key to gaining solid evidence. Harvey explains in Jenzen and Munt (2013: Chapter 2) that these kinds of records from technology are no better than testimonials since interpretation is still based on belief in a particular explanation. The sounds, images, and light blips can tell the truth or a lie or be completely misinterpreted. When the users are not aware of how the technology works, its limits and failures, they will conclude an explainable anomaly is, instead, a ghost.
Equipment is a seen as a necessary accouterment to appearing objective, “scientific,” and professional. Equipment that collects empirical data seemingly validates the subjective observations of the investigators. Unfortunately, artifacts of the instrument can be misinterpreted—many paranormal investigators do not understand the technological limitations of environmental meters, cameras, and recorders—and so anomalies that might be explained in terms of the technology (camera glitches, natural variation, ambient noise, etc.) is used as evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.
Visual Evidence
Still and video cameras (mostly digital) are a considered a necessity for field investigations of all types. Visuals are a must for illustrating results. ARIGs make attempts to capture anomalies on “film” and supply these often ambiguous, frequently misinterpreted moments in time as part of their collection of evidence. They will frequently guide you as to what to look for and suggest what you should see. The most vague and ambiguous examples are used to support paranormal claims.
Cameras Lie
Cameras can lie through countless unusual effects, glitches, that result from the mechanics of the device, lighting, settings, and the environment. Photos can lack scale so the viewer can’t judge size, distance, or details. Eyewitness photographs of aerial anomalies are particularly prone to scale misinterpretation since photos of the sky often contain no other objects for which to judge against the anomaly and that anomaly is almost always too far away to provide decent resolution. There is no way to determine if the object in the frame is far away and large or close and small. Aerial anomalies that might be counted as UFOs are seen and then are gone too quickly for the witness to get any visual evidence.
Bigfoot is the ideal example of the classic bad portrait. It is impossible to find a photograph of Bigfoot these days that isn’t blurry (or an obvious fake). Because of the jumbled, variable, wooded setting in which mysterious animals roam, any black blob in a visual recording could be interpreted as a Sasquatch. These amorphous blobs are perceived by some to form the shape of the iconic North American wood ape. Blobsquatches are the extreme example of how, when observing a photograph, recording, or some other evidence, the ARIGs will shoehorn it into their preferred explanation. Many have been revealed to be tree stumps or rocks that are simulacra of hiding creatures.
Some crypto groups have set up remotely triggered cameras left for stretches of time at a location thought to be an active game trail. Their goal is to capture the local animal population, and hopefully, find a cryptid or other surprising animal walking among them. Trail cameras have been successful in capturing evidence of the presence of unexpected and rare species, and a few pranksters, but never a Bigfoot—the ultimate prize. Trail camera images are frequently overexposed by flash, distorted by movement of the animal, or capture the animal partway in the frame. Since they take images at set times or when a subject is detected by movement in range, the best angles are missed. Vandalism or theft of the equipment frequently occurs. It’s also difficult for ARIGs to retrieve cameras installed in very remote locations that may experience severe weather. While game/trail cameras seem like an ideal way to capture evidence, they rarely succeed in doing so. Or, as some cryptid-hunters suspect, Bigfoot knowingly avoids them.
An example of a typical trail cam photograph taken at night with an automatic infrared flash that detects movement. The subject’s shape is distorted and details are blurred due to the slow shutter speed. Photograph by Kenny Biddle.
As with other photos, game camera images are not definitive but require an interpretation by the viewer. If the viewer is motivated to accept one interpretation over another, the photo (or video) anomaly will be interpreted to be whatever the viewer wishes it to be. The audience for this media is provided with annotations like circles, arrows, or drawn-in outlines to help lead you to see their interpretation.
ARIGs often work after dark maneuvering with flashlights. Ghost/ARIGs will deliberately turn off all the lights in a building under investigation.3 This can enhance the appearance and subsequent misinterpretation of several artifacts in the photos that the investigator did not perceive in person. Many photographs claimed to be of spirits or otherwise paranormal are mists, condensation, reflections, shutter effects, shadows, offset duplicate images or obscuring shapes in the frame (including thumbs). No camera anomaly is more associated with ghosts and hauntings than orbs. Orbs are semi-opaque ball-like artifacts that commonly appear in digital photos. They are not seen by the naked eye at the time of the photo but are created by digital photography, greatly enhanced by flash. ARIG websites frequently include photographs of “orbs” presented as evidence. The capture of orbs is so common that it remains irresistible to researchers to remark upon a strangely placed sphere that shows up in a photograph. Orbs are known to be caused by reflections of light (especially camera flash) from dust particles, insects, water vapor, or precipitation. However, a subset of pro-paranormal investigators claim that particular orbs are indicative of “spirit energy” present. They provide advice on discerning the difference between a paranormal orb and natural one. Orbs are connected to places where unusual activity is reported. They even appear on video where they move in
what is perceived to be intelligent ways. Several paranormal ARIGs now avidly disavow orbs as evidence because they have such a demonstrable, prosaic explanation. I came across several websites that posted a “badge”4 that stated “No Orbs.”
Orbs are artifacts of the camera’s flash reflecting off dust particles, precipitation, or insects. This array of orbs was created by walking back-and-forth in a grassy yard and randomly taking flash photographs. Photograph by Kenny Biddle.
Videos
Video clips made by Ghost/ARIGs are also taken in low-light or dark conditions by using night-vision cameras. These cameras give the spooky green cast to the playback that is now readily identified with reality-ghost TV shows. Video clips collected as “evidence” most often show group participants active in some portion of the investigation, and sometimes capturing unusual movement or behavior of equipment, or moving objects, lights or shadows. As with still photos, videos require interpretation.
Cryptozoological evidence may be captured in daylight to document the environmental conditions or anomalies found. Occasionally, a video will show some obviously mobile object or animal far in the distance, often obscured by trees or submerged in water. Crypto/ARIGs also use infrared or night-vision recording devices outdoors. FLIR (heat-sensing) cameras register warm objects and are handy at spotting a hidden animal (or person) at a distance. But in many cases, because of the distance or the surrounding natural environment, lack of clarity makes it impossible to discern what is in the frame.
While still cameras have their notorious orbs, digital videos have their “rods.” Rods appear to be animals “swimming” through the sky. A few fringe researchers have concluded that rods are actual cryptids themselves! However, these rainbow waves zipping through the frame are readily explained as normal winged animals, usually insects, whose wing-beats sequences are captured within the frame, distorting the image. In 2012, a local news station in Denver capitalized on a ridiculous story of UFOs caught on film around a field outside the city. Why did people only see this mysterious event through a video camera, only at certain hours, and not while standing there? Because they were small flying insects distorted by the camera.
Hoaxes
Photos and videos of paranormal activity have been hoaxed since the camera was invented. With the availability of low-cost devices and digital software, a visual hoax must be a primary consideration for any so-called evidence. Artifacts are even more probable. We see what we believe. Every photograph and video must be considered a potential hoax. There are thousands of hoaxed creature, ghost, and UFO photographs and videos. In some you can see the badly fitting costume, or you can tell it’s a model. For paranormal claims, ghostly mist is only exhaled smoke or manufactured with a spray bottle. Need to move some objects around or suspend them in the air? Clear thread is handy. UFO hoaxes range from DIY fishing line to mimic flight to professional computer graphics. You can create your own community panic with a balloon and some LED lights from a discount store, though I don’t recommend you try—it can get you in trouble.
The word “photoshopping” has become a verb to show how widespread it is to manipulate photographs. If learning how to use these complex programs is too much, smartphone apps are fast, cheap and easy ways to fool your neighbors and the local media into thinking you captured a ghost, UFO, or an image of Jesus or Mary. It’s simple to take a normal picture and insert any abnormality to your liking. There have been countless cases of television stations and news websites reporting photographic enhancements as “mysterious” or real because they do no investigation themselves and underestimate the human desire to pull a fast one.
Several individuals are known to be serial hoaxers claiming they have proof of UFOs, a perfect image of a ghost, or a Bigfoot body. People will hoax for a variety of reasons—to see how far they can get with it, to garner attention, or to secretly laugh at the gullible. Never underestimate the human capacity to be fooled and the ingenuity of hoaxers who do the fooling.
Audio Evidence
EVP
Audio evidence from ghost/ARIGs is prevalent in the form of EVPs (electronic voice phenomena). EVPs may be recorded via magnetic tape or digital recording devices, computer microphones, or on video recordings. The assumption in the acceptance of EVPs as evidence is that an intelligent, disembodied entity has been able to affect the recording device to communicate, that the sound is actually the voices of the dead. The entity—located in another dimension or world, wherever you go after life ends—it is surmised, may not have the capability to generate a sound within the range of human hearing but can emit “energy” to make word-sounds that are captured on the recording device. While some of the recorded sounds remain unexplained, EVPs have not been shown to be actual voices of the dead. Alternative explanations just as unreasonable include sounds from aliens, trans-dimensional communication from the future, and living persons’ psychic messages. Such hypotheses can’t be easily tested. EVPs, as envisioned by the originators—Jurgenson and Raudive—were simply mysterious voices. Those voices may be normal-sounding, distorted, whispers, shouts, robotic or alien-like. The history of EVP, or “Raudive voices” as they were first called, is complicated and fascinating and beyond the scope of this book. See Sconce (2000) and Leary and Butler (2015) for more on EVPs. There have been few controlled studies of EVPs to determine if they are anomalous at all.
Today’s ghost/ARIGs often are unaware of the origin of EVPs except that they’ve seen it used by TV ghost hunters. Capturing EVP is accomplished by letting the recording devices run and see what gets caught. Alternatively, it can involve direct questioning of an entity they presume to be there but has not manifested physically. Group members will ask deliberate questions of an alleged spirit in a sequence followed by a gap of silence. ARIGs consider EVP collection to be scientific and objective because it uses equipment. A concerted effort is made in most ARIG ghost investigations to capture these recordings as evidence. It’s been amply demonstrated by various EVP debunking efforts that ambient sounds the observer doesn’t notice are recorded and subsequently misinterpreted as spirit communication. Any little sound in a quiet place can be caught on audio recordings—zippers zipping, whispers, sniffles, fabric rustling, and digestive noises. Because of this, many ARIGs will have strict investigation protocols about how to collect EVPs including rules against whispering, rustling clothing, and instructions on announcing who is speaking each time to clarify what is anomalous versus human-generated noise. The ARIG analysis of audio evidence consists of listening to hours of recordings made during an investigation to spot an anomalous sound. The playback may be manipulated by changing speed or enhancing sound. The faint audio clips typically require headphones and are distorted, low-volume or obscure. Modern EVPs have become less a curiosity and more threatening or frightening. The sounds are often interpreted as children, people crying for help or laughing, or aggressive entities saying “get out” or using obscenities. The presentation of EVPs on the websites always includes interpretation of the EVP, often given to the audience prior to listening to the clip. This action provides a leading explanation and eliminates objectivity. The human brain has an innate ability to make sense out of noise, to hear patterns and interpret the sounds as human voices. And, the listener will often hear what they are told they should hear.
The groups rarely verify their findings independently by testing the unprimed interpretation of the sounds and by seeking confirmation of measurements. Logically, if the voice is that of an entity at the location, multiple investigations should come up with the same voice or the same words. If the idea of spirit communication is correct, results at the same location should be compared and similarities should be found. Other additional equipment should be used to verify the recording.
EVPs are widely regarded by non-paranormalists as random sounds produced (unnoticed) by the participants, human voices recorded by accident, environmental sounds, stray radio frequencies, or machinery noise. Hoaxes can’t be ruled out due to the uncontro
lled conditions. Even if conditions for sound recording could be controlled, there are several other possible non-paranormal explanations that would require consideration before concluding that the sounds are generated from spirits. In my survey of sites, no ARIGs did anything beyond presenting various EVP clips as evidence. No ARIG provided a reasonable basis for the sounds to be from a discarnate being. While EVPs are curious things and fun for investigators to find, there is no evidence to support that they are more than various-sourced anomalies which the human brain interprets as meaningful. Interpreting these random sounds (or unnoticed voices) is an exercise in anomaly hunting and apophenia (Leary & Butler 2015). In stark contrast to lay investigators, modern parapsychology researchers don’t focus on EVP and generally do not consider them as useful evidence.
Mystery Animal Sounds
Cryptozoological websites also provide audio as evidence of some living creature hidden out of sight. Recordings made by cryptid witnesses or investigators are claimed to be Bigfoots communicating through tree-knocking, booms, howls, screams, or speech-like chattering. The sounds, they say, are not identifiable as any known animal. Yet, this is not substantiated since it’s not possible to know which commonly known animals are out there and the range of noises they might produce. With the ubiquity of Bigfoot hunters assuming their generated calls will produce a response, the possibility is high that their knocking and howling are effecting a reply from another group on the adjacent ridge! Such sounds, as with EVPs, are presented at face value with subjective interpretations. In no case did I encounter an analysis by a sound engineer or linguistics analyst. The sounds are not identifiable by the investigator and, therefore, are assumed to be from the unknown entity, an unsupportable conclusion.
Scientifical Americans Page 22