Ghosts and Hauntings 101: A Procedural Manual for the Investigation of the Paranormal

PICTURE PERFECT
Photography and Paranormal Investigation

Now, let’s have a look at exactly what a “spirit entity” actually is. I have investigated three separate incidents in which the entity encountered was so solidly manifested it was impossible to tell it from a living person. One of these incidents happened to me, and it was the purest accident that I discovered it was not a living person. An account of this experience, titled “The Little Girl in the Ga Garden,” is included in my collection of true paranormal accounts titled Footprints in the Snow: Tales of Haunted Russia, published by Zumaya Publications.
I have also had—and still have—personal encounters with spirit entities who can and do manifest regularly in differing states of, for lack of a better word, solidity depending on their mood and the situation at the time. Bo Both of these are guardian spirits who travel back and forth among a very closely interconnected group of people on a regular basis. While they are essentially the guardian of a particular person, they take that responsibility to include anyone this person considers to be close family.
One of these has been familiar to me since I was around three or four years old (and earlier, but I have no real memories of that time). I mention this because, at first, I did not know this was, in fact, a spirit but thought it was simply another adult who looked in on me from time to time. Over a period of forty-five years, his appearance, when he chooses to fully manifest, has not changed.
It was in this way that, over time, I learned that spirit entities can, if they choose, manifest solidly enough to be capable of doing anything that can be done by a living person—and considerably more. On their own plane, and in the transitory astral plane, they are a living person, and are no more constrained than we are, having basically the same senses and abilities, although enhanced a great deal. What I am about to say might sound odd, or simply unbelievable, but it is true. It is unnerving, to say the least, when one is cooking and gets the distinct impression of “too much salt,” “too much pepper” or “Are you trying to garlic me to death?” It is also less than flattering when you are informed by a spirit entity that the whiskey you are drinking “tastes like kerosene.” It is even more unnerving when the spirit entity in question is fully materialized or nearly so, and you can see the grimace on their face.
One thing I continually tell new people in this field is that there is no need to be afraid of a spirit entity. They cannot physically affect you, let alone harm you, unless they are completely physically materialized. The exception is if it is a guardian spirit specifically responsible for a given person or location. It is important to note, however, that the full or even partial physical manifestation of a spirit entity, particularly in a field investigation setting, is extremely rare. The actual presence of a spirit in any state of manifestation makes up less than three percent of all cases investigated anywhere by anyone. Full, or even partial, manifestations in a field investigation setting make up
slightly less than one percent of even that small figure. The plain fact of the matter is that the investigator in the field has a far better chance of being struck by lightning than of seeing or capturing on film the presence of a fully or partially materialized spirit entity. Out of some two thousand cases investigated and a vastly larger number of photographs analyzed, I have personally recorded half a dozen cases of full or partial
materialization that could be considered authentic.
I’ve analyzed photos professionally for years, and even so it is often impossible to tell if a photo is genuine. The best that can be done is to eliminate obvious and detectable flaws, errors and the possibility of manipulation of a negative, print or bitmap (in the case of a digital image). An experienced investigator should be able to at least give a rudimentary analysis of both the print and the negative of standard film photos and should be able to pinpoint errors of photographic process, photographer error or known defects in the camera and film.
To analyze a photo of an anomaly, the main process is to eliminate all other known potential causes of such an anomaly. That which remains is the authentic photo. If the anomaly is still present, and has no known cause, then what is there may or may not be paranormal in nature but it is certainly real. Personally, my philosophy is not to analyze photos for the specific purpose of finding hoaxes, although I’ve found quite a few. My goal is to establish evidence that the paranormal, as such, exists. I have found that most photos that I analyze—about 90% of them—are honest mistakes, or problems with the camera or film. About five percent of the photos I have analyzed are actual
anomalies of some type—and I emphasize “of some type;” about that same amount are deliberate hoaxes.
No Now that might sound like a low figure for authentic anomalies, but it isn’t,
given the volume analyzed. Keep in mind that out of about 2,000 cases our group has investigated over the past fifteen years or so only about three percent represent actual spirit entity activity. The rest have perfectly normal explanations, although some are a bit odd in that the incident is produced by a combination of random factors that are, to say the least, unusual, and singular in nature.
A good example of this is a case where a previously unknown, and unsuspected, underground hot spring found a way to occasionally vent itself right in front of a little shrine erected to a Saint, producing a beautiful mist at random times. There are also cases of unusual acoustics and atmospheric conditions producing what appear to be the activities of spirit entities and/or anomalies on film or tape. It would amaze you what a buried powerline or telephone cable will do to an EMF meter, and how often the signs marking their location have disappeared.
This is all what I mean about doing your homework. When a report comes
in, there are a lot of things that should be done before going out and conducting a field investigation. It all depends on the nature of the report.
What amazes me, and upsets me most, are cases in which someone, for
whatever the reason, produces a deliberate hoax—and some of them are quite good. Most of the time, it’s their idea of a joke that gets out of hand and out of control, or caused by a craving for attention. I’ve seen instances where an entire community, or at least an entire business community, will propagate a tale in order to generate tourism and business. It’s not common, but it happens.
I also know of one case where people working in a photo laboratory cooked up a very elaborate and very convincing hoax just to pull a particular investigator’s chain for a while. It took the poor guy months to figure out that the best ghost photo he had ever taken was a fraud—not his, and not his fault, but a fraud, nevertheless. He wouldn’t have figured it out even then had one of the perpetrators not come down with a case of guilty conscience and admitted it.
What is more disturbing is the number of deliberate hoaxes that are perpetrated for the absolute best of reasons, and in a “good cause.” Many people—fortunately, very few are professional investigators—will produce a hoax, or fake a photo, EVP or video in order to “prove” or “demonstrate” that the paranormal is real. Their motives may be good, and their heart might well be in the right place, but this kind of thing hurts us. Once something like that comes out for what it is, it casts doubt on countless examples that are not hoaxes, and brings the reputations of countless investigators into question.
The thing is, it’s just as important to our field, and for the advancement of our field, to expose hoaxes and frauds, where they exist, as it is to prove the authentic cases. This is true of any branch of science, and that is what our discipline is, or should be—a branch of science, nothing more, nothing less. All theories are just that—theories—and must be proved or disproved. The only way to do this is through the development of a working set of field techniques and methods based on scientific procedures, practices, and the collection of an empirical trail of indisputable evidence.
This is perhaps the best time to “grasp the nettle” and approach a rather touchy subject among paranormal investigators: orbs and orb photography.First, let’s look at the subject in detail. Exactly what is an orb?
The fact is, no one really seems to know. They have as many names as they
do descriptions. These include “globes,” “globules,” “balls of light” and “hovering round balls.” In photographs—they are rarely ever seen by the unaided eye—they appear in all ranges of brightness from sharp and glowing to faded and barely-visible. They usually, but by no means always, travel quite fast and follow an erratic pattern of flight.
Some believe positive orbs to be the spirits of the dead. I am not, generally speaking, one of those individuals. Other theories suggest that they might be separate life forms or even nature spirits. I am not one of those individuals, either. The problem is that most orb photos are simply false positives, or developing/processing flaws.
There has always been a controversy concerning orb photography with regard to authenticity. Although some—a very few—orb photos are believed to be authentic, there are still many that are the result of airborne particles set aglow by the flash, airborne droplets of water, small insects or simply flaws in the processing of the film. This happens with both indoor and outdoor shots. Be Because of this, it is extremely difficult to disassociate the false positive orbs from the real ones or to take orb photos in general seriously. Think of what happens when you open a heavy curtain inside a dark room to let in the sunlight. Have you ever done that and seen all the dust in the beam of the light? Dust can and does show up in a photograph, particularly a digital photograph, as orbs. This is especially true when the dust particle is very small and very close to the camera’s lens. The reason that it is more certainly true when a digital camera is involved is simple: digital cameras are more sensitive to small objects than standard film. A very small moving object that is either just outside the focal range of the
camera or moving slightly faster than the pre-set shutter speeds used in digitals will be distorted in the bitmap image into an “orb.” Moisture (humidity), mold and pollen are also major contributors of false positive orb photos.
It is important to mention that in the case of standard film, it is not
unheard of for the processor to improperly dry negatives or prints, leaving a
flaw in either or both that will resemble an orb. Be Because of this alone there is
no real way to confirm an orb’s authenticity with our present knowledge.
Therefore, it’s likely that most orb photos are false positives—more than
ninety percent are the result of nothing more than the conditions at the time of
the flash.
To demonstrate this, take your digital camera outside and throw some dust
in front of the lens. Multiple orbs will appear in the picture. Any of that dust that is within four inches of the lens or at the extreme focal length of the lens will appear as orbs in the photo. You can also take a spray bottle to simulate humidity and spray directly in front of the lens; the result will once again be multiple orbs. Additionally, no digital photo of an orb can be considered to be completely free of flaw since there is no negative with which to compare the finished print.
Although digital cameras are a useful tool in paranormal photography, at the current state of the art, they simply cannot be entirely trusted when it comes to any false positive photo. A good, dependable 35-mm single lens reflex (SLR) camera is far less likely to create dust mote orbs on film or any other flaw. This makes them the camera of choice.
Some “experts” in paranormal photography advise that the investigator should use the lowest dpi digital camera available, as they are more likely to record orbs. This is true. They are more likely to record a number of common flaws that tend to make the investigator look quite foolish. Quality is quality, and you get what you pay for.
As for other reasons why I consider a 35-mm camera superior to the digital variety for most applications in paranormal-related photography, the principal ones are:

— The relative cost of a digital camera compared to that of a 35-mm,
makes the digital, for everyday use, cost-prohibitive. A very good 35-mm SLR
camera may be purchased for a fraction of the cost of a digital camera of the
same relative quality. While the digital is somewhat less expensive to operate,
owing to the absence of film and processing, the average person can buy a
virtual lifetime supply of film for the difference in price between the two types
of camera.
— The very best quality “pocket” 35-mm camera is currently selling at
retail for less than half the price of the low-end digital of the same size. One
can also buy a used high-end 35mm SLR for less than half the price of the
lower-end digital of the same approximate size.
— The 35mm camera has a far greater variety of function than the digital
because of the availability of specialized films such as infrared and ultra-high
or ultra-low speed.
— A higher level of quality in enlargement. To put it plainly, with the
proper film, a 35-mm negative may be enlarged to, literally, wall size without
significant distortion. This is impossible with a digital image, as they will
rapidly be reduced to a bitmap.
— A wider range of shutter speeds and aperture openings. A 35-mm SLR
camera is operator variable. This means the photographer can alter the lens
opening and shutter speed of the camera at will to compensate for lighting
conditions. This is impossible with a digital camera.
— The resulting print is less vulnerable to tampering or doctoring. It is
extremely difficult and time consuming to doctor a 35-mm print effectively.
Most common attempts at tampering are easily detectable and quite obvious.
Anyone with an over-the-counter copy of Kodak Imaging or Photoshop Pro
software can alter a digital image, almost at will.
— Positive prints may be compared to the negative for purposes of
analysis. This is impossible with a digital image.
— Digital images are far more susceptible to dust, water vapor, small
insects and particles showing up as orbs, mists or vortexes. This is because
the image is recorded as a bitmap, and the area of light dispersion resulting
from a reflected flash is exaggerated, while the actual outline of the object
reflecting the flash is lost completely in the bit map pattern.
— Digital cameras have a more limited depth of field than a 35-mm
camera, and therefore have a far more limited target area.
— Digital imaging is more susceptible to distortion by movement at very
high speed.
— It is impossible to use a digital camera for nighttime or low-light
photography without the use of a flash.
I am not saying that you should not buy or use a digital camera. If you have
the money to spend and want to purchase a digital for other purposes as well as use in paranormal investigating, please do so. However, we maintain that the purchase of a digital camera solely for the purpose of use in paranormal investigative work is not only a waste of money but is, for the most part, a waste of time.
As the state of the art in this technology increases, this will possibly change, but for the moment we strongly advise against the use of digitals in paranormal work. They are simply too expensive and lack the reliability and versatility of a 35-mm.