Strange Encounters

In 2007 T.A.P.S. leaders published a book detailing their most intruiging "true" ghost hunting adventures. "Ghost Hunting: True Stories of Unexplained Phenomena from The Atlantic Paranormal Society."

But isn't it about time we faced the facts, and just admitted once and for all what this stuff is all about? It's entertainment. But it can't be called true because when you take a look at the facts, they only add up to fantasy.

I didn't read the book. I didn't need to. After reading an excerpt from the book at Amazon.com I felt it was sufficient to set the tone for what the reader might expect: belief in a supernatural world for which no sufficient evidence has ever been produced. Plus I found a slew of baseless assertions in this excerpt.

Understand that I have no vendeta against people who want to go running around being "ghost hunters" and writing books about their "true" experiences. People are free to drift on whatever floats their boat, but someone needs to point out the logical flaws in their arguments or tales which tend to go overlooked by others who are generally entertained by this stuff, some of whom can be easily misled.

Some of us are entertained by spooky stories. We love getting scared and feeling the tingle up our spine. I'm no exception. I love ghost stories, and have books full of them that I peruse from time to time for fun. It's fun. It's entertainment! Maybe someday we'll get some real evidence of a world beyond our own, but right now we have nothing but stories, pictures of blobs of blurry light, orbs, drifting clouds of smoke and vapor, and effects of pareidolia.

Nothing presented by "ghost hunters" can be accepted as proof of the existence of ghosts because everything presented by "ghosts hunters" may be the result of natural, explainable phenomena. Just because something can't be readily explained doesn't mean the only explanation is supernatural. There is sufficient room for doubt, so to jump to a supernatural conclusion makes no sense.

As I said, I have nothing personal against the members of T.A.P.S., but I do have a thing or two to say about their interpretations, not to mention proliferation, in general, of magical thinking.

The writer mentions being a close friend of Grant Wilson and one of the founders of T.A.P.S. so I'm making the assumption that the excerpt was penned by Jason Hawes, though no author's name was given.

Regarding his early experiences with assumed paranormal phenomena apparently brought on by a prolonged exposure to the manipulation of his life force (never proven to exist in anyone), Hawes states, "It was scary as all get-out. I didn't know where to turn. Then a friend introduced me to a guy named John Zaffis, who was known as a paranormal researcher in Connecticut. Zaffis ran some tests and determined that I was becoming sensitive to paranormal phenomena."

How the hell does someone determine that? Sensitivity to the paranormal, that's comical. How can one be sensitive to the paranormal? All of it? All of the stuff that makes no real sense at all so it never gets a critical examination by serious science; that paranormal? What part of it... UFOs, aliens, ghosts, ESP, telekinesis? He's been found sensitive to all of it?

Here's another good one, "An orb is a round, translucent, mobile packet of energy thought to signal supernatural activity in some way. However, people often mistake naturally occurring phenomena like dust, bugs, light reflections, and condensation for orbs."

Thought to signal supernatural activity in some way. Who comes up with this stuff? How on earth can someone make the claim that they know the difference between an orb produced by a particle of dust, and one that signals supernatural activity? Orbs have never been proven to be anything other than dust, water droplets or similar items blurred by close proximity to the camera lens, causing a reflection of the flash, or ambient light in a room, to create the anomaly captured digitally or on film. It's not supernatural. These things are explainable!

But the illogical observations don't stop there. He continues, "If you set out to prove a haunting, anything will seem like evidence. If you set out to disprove it, you'll end up with only those things you can't explain away."

Okay. You can't explain them. Does that mean that no one can explain them, given enough time to examine the "evidence?" As I mentioned earlier, just because something can't be readily explained doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation. The explanation is not necessarily supernatural.

Logical inconsistencies, lack of rational thought. That's what we have here folks. As I said, I love ghost stories, they're excellent, but isn't it time we accepted these things for what they are?

Don't just take my word for it. An acquaintance in the field of paranormal research commented to me once, "It's all bunk. Fun bunk, but it's bunk!"