posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:25 AM
Yet — and this is my biggest problem with "ghost hunting" shows — there is no effort made to return to the most
active locations and SIT ON THEM indefinitely, which is what a (well-funded) scientific research team would do.
I mean, if a crew of scientists walked into a "haunted house" and recorded an instance of poltergeist activity — as distinguished
from a mere ghostly haunting — and they witnessed a flying brick with their own eyes, they would SIT ON THAT LOCATION for months,
trying to record a repeat performance.
Because, baby, if you can't get a repeat performance, if you can't repeat the experiment and get the same results, then it aint
You don't see serious science being done on paranormal activity precisely because you cannot reliably obtain the same results time
after time. And let's be honest, scientific research aint cheap... You need a government grant to take on new projects, and there
simply is not a lot of grant money out there for ghost hunting.
So, when the money runs out, lights out, the research is over.
Seriously, when we were doing the psychology study at Texas A&M (regarding "paranormal activity"), we were basically paying for everything out of
our own pockets, and you know that doesn't last very long. By the end of the year we were broke.
But, with these ghost hunting TV programs, they have a lot more cash on hand than a group of university researchers. So, WHY DON'T
THE TV GHOST HUNTERS JUST SIT ON SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS and capture REAL evidence of a repeating
Instead, these TV ghost hunters hit a location, get their "sensational" footage in one night, and then move on to some other location a
thousand miles away. Which makes no sense. If you're getting sensational evidence, you don't just walk away from it. I'm
serious, why aren't these ghost hunting shows devoting a whole season to one location?
Because that's the only way to gather irrefutable evidence.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 5/2/2010 by Doc Velocity]