Should equipment for paranormal research be standardized?

I was reviewing and re-listening to the Jan 6th episode of The Paracast with John Zaffis when about halfway through the episode, David Biedny brings up a point concerning the quality of the EVP's on some captures he has listened to. The over all point he was making was that he noticed that there didn't seem to be any real set standard for equipment used to capture voices such as HD sound equipment with a broader range of receivable frequencies.

Now, as an EVP guy myself, I first learned about any kind of a standard for equipment, albeit not strict, on the AA-EVP site. I had an old cheap mini-cassette recorder from Radio Shack that produced a nice whine for white noise as they recommended something like this. I currently use an RCA RP5030A Digital Recorder. This is simply my preference and admittedly the standard wasn't that high. It simply had to be digital, hold several hours of recorded material, have a USB port, and be able to take an external mic.

What I would like to do is expand this concept to fit all of the typical equipment currently in use for this avenue of study (ghost/paranormal) today. For instance, what is the standard and please tell us why for:

Sound Recorders

EMF Meters

Cameras (for stills and motion capture)

Infrared Meters

Motion Detectors

Software


And of course anything else I might have missed. Again, I remind you that I am an EVP guy so I'm not always up on what the other folks are using. What I would really like to see is a detailed analysis of each piece of equipment i.e., who manufactures it, why it's preferred, it's primary function, in what conditions (light, climate, temperature) it works best, cost effectiveness and is it portable in a practical sense.

This is a chance to really get into the nitty gritty on these matters, because this is after all a science, right? Well if you want this to be accepted as a science (and I would love it to be) then there has to be some set standard across the board as to the quality and effectiveness of the equipment in use. If we all keep using whatever we want, I don't think this avenue of study will ever be taken seriously.

My hope is to come to some kind of consensus somewhere on this thread so as to eventually be able to say to someone who is new to this field of study,

"Well you simply need this, this, that and such and such and about a kagillion dollars."

Who knows? Maybe someday you will very simply be able to go online and just order the one and only Ghost Hunting kit. As of yet, it doesn't exist really. Too many variations. Too many margins for error. The ghosts themselves are more real in concept than this is.

Let's fix this and bring a "control" factor to our already weird science.

Cheers,

Erik

[edit on 22/MarpmFri, 28 Mar 2008 23:08:45 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

I think that someday it will need to be standardized, but before that we need to narrow down what we're looking for. There are too many variables, known and unknown, that prevent standardization from occurring. I'd say we're at a state where people need to try different approaches in order to learn more about the paranormal. Only once we discover a repeatable, reliable measure for activity will we be able to standardize.

I've always assumed we're going to stumble upon a new portion of reality, akin to discovering the electromagnetic spectrum. Like the radio waves flying unseen around us perhaps there is an entire wealth of information waiting to be tapped into.

Originally posted by Parabol
I think that someday it will need to be standardized, but before that we need to narrow down what we're looking for. There are too many variables, known and unknown, that prevent standardization from occurring. I'd say we're at a state where people need to try different approaches in order to learn more about the paranormal. Only once we discover a repeatable, reliable measure for activity will we be able to standardize.

I've always assumed we're going to stumble upon a new portion of reality, akin to discovering the electromagnetic spectrum. Like the radio waves flying unseen around us perhaps there is an entire wealth of information waiting to be tapped into.

There's a lot of truth to your statement. But with all due respect, UFOology, inherently the younger science seems to have developed more of a scrutinous set standard. (I'm gonna get tarred and feathered for that) Maybe not so much in the data collection but certainly in the serious verification process. For example, if you have a questionable anomalous craft photo, you take it to David Biedny, Jeff Ritzmann or without a doubt Dr. Bruce Maccabee.

I guess what I'm saying/asking is, if we don't know what we are really looking for in terms of data then who is our goto analysis person of high cred to help us determine what we are looking for through the process of healthy skepticism and best applied science? If we have that, then I think then we can come to some kind of consensus of equipment application. True?

Erik

[edit on 22/MarpmFri, 28 Mar 2008 23:10:05 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

This is just a "bump" to see if there is any new and fresh thinking on this topic since the advent of this thread's start.

I think things like research equipment are starting to streamline a bit but at the same time, I feel that there are things that are also muddying or hurting the serious research such as the rediculously harmful supposed reality tv programs like The Ghost Hunters and The UFO Hunters. Just for curiousity I have watched several episodes of both and found a lot of the equipment used to be contrived and unsubstantiated, i.e. the carpenter's K2 device and the Thermal Resonance Imaging (don't ghosts create cold spots?).

There is still a lot of variables as suggested above, but.., in the last couple of years our technology has increased substantially and without a doubt become much more sensitive in the areas that apply.

So I reitterate the line of questioning.

What are today's Go-To methodologies in these fields (paranormal/ufo) of research?

What is the prefered and reliable equipment of choice?

Should it be standardized so as to have some sort of control in line with the scientific quest for repeatable evidence and outcomes?

Who are today's consistent Go-To people that are qualifying and quantifying these fields of study today?

With everyone regurgitating what they know in this line of inquery, it will be interesting to see if things can get narrowed down a bit so as to attack research with more of a reasonable approach knowing there are a few reliable failsafes to back it up.

Cheers,

Erik

OK, let's change the angle and focus of this thread a bit by taking a more suggestive approach to the responses.

I am talking primarily to all of you in-the-field researchers. My brother and I are about to join your ranks by stepping away from the desk and libraries for a bit and heading out into the field ourselves. We are looking to make a trip to Hudson Valley, New York by mid Spring next year, which as you know is starting another flap (or perhaps has never really completely subsided).

So what I need is an equipment wishlist from you sharper researchers that apply to the following:

1) What is the best bang for your buck concerning photographic equipment, digital cameras, et al?

2) What is the best portable audio recording devices for EVP gathering and interviewing purposes?

3) What is the best digital footage gathering camera you like to use and why?

4) What is the best photo analysis software today that you use and why? Also can you give tips on giving a great and authoritative presentation on said analyzed photos so that the analysis comes across complete and scholarly?

5) What laptops are most condusive for consistency and quality when doing field research?

We'll start with this list and if any of you think of something else, please feel free to add to the list as well as the reasons why you use the equipment. We truly appreciate any earnest and honest help in this regard.

Thanks in advance and cheers,

Erik

[edit on 22/OctamThu, 08 Oct 2009 11:53:02 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]