Should you research before an investigation?

It can be quite a heated debate among researchers about whether you should survey a location before conducting an investigation. While some people think that the knowledge you gain from research can help with an investigation, other researchers believe that you may be looking too closely and reading too much into things and that the power of suggestion can lead you further. I personally believe that both are factors to consider, but I’m all for the research. I did as much research as I could in advance, and I also went into research blindly without knowing anything.

Personally, I prefer to go in with as much knowledge about the place and its people as possible. Let me tell you why. I am not a sensitive person and I am not a medium. I can’t walk into a location blind and tell you what was done there and who we might be communicating with. I’m sure why people who have these gifts would want to go blind and personally I agree that they should. If you use a medium and they haven’t been given any information, if what they pick up is real and if it is later linked to historical information, then they have done a great job and I’m sure it should be that way. a very satisfying feeling to see their feelings and findings validated. As someone who is unable to do this, I need to know this before I go in because I feel like it makes me a better researcher. Another point to consider is: if you go in blind, how do you know which areas to target? If you don’t know the history of the building and where certain things happened, how will you know which areas to research. For example, if you’re going to lock down cameras, how do you know where to put them if you don’t have any information about the location? While you should still investigate a location as a whole, as activity is not necessarily limited to a particular area, any claims should be investigated and possibly debunked. There is a difference between a paranormal investigation and a ghost hunt. A paranormal investigation normally involves people trying to gather data to validate claims. If there’s a particular space where activity is being reported, I’ll see if I can replicate that activity. I’ll see if I can document that activity. What is its source? Is there a possible reason for the activity taking place? Is there a history of this activity over the years? Where do the reports about this activity come from? This is information I wouldn’t know if I went in blind. I think a ghost hunt is more about just going in and seeing what you find. While this can be fun and is a style that many enjoy working with, it’s just not for me. We all work differently and if that’s what you like, do what works for you!

When I go into a study blind, I find it difficult to communicate. What questions should I ask if I don’t know what happened there? Sure, I can ask the usual questions: what’s your name, how did you die, what was this building used for, etc., but how likely are you to actually get an answer? Or if you’re recording an EVP and not listening live, you won’t hear the answer until it’s too late. Maybe I just need to be a better researcher and think outside the box more, but this is my style and how I like to do things. I will collect as much documented information as possible about what a building was used for and, more importantly, about the people who were there. What happened to these people? How did they die there? What reason could they possibly have for staying here? I feel that using this knowledge helps my research technique. If other team members don’t want to know this information, I keep it to myself and they use me as a reference point later in the investigation.

I use the example of Bill Wallace’s former inmate at the J Ward asylum for the criminally insane. His story is quite well known here in Victoria. He was locked up in Ward J for 64 years. He always wore a suit and expected to be treated like a gentleman. Only when he was not treated with respect did he take action. He loved chess. On his 100th birthday, he received a carved wooden chessboard as a birthday gift from the governor and prison guards. He later died at the Aradale Lunatic Asylum at the age of 108. With the intention of communicating with Bill Wallace, we had a custom chessboard built with a vibration sensor in it. The goal was to put it in Bill Wallace’s cell as a gesture. We know he wanted to be treated like a gentleman, so our investigative technique was polite and gentle (which is not the norm for us when investigating a hardcore prison). If we called him Mr. Wallace, the chessboard would light up. When we told his story and asked if it was true, the chessboard lit up. Was it because we were polite that he communicated with us? Is it because we called him by his preferred name? Is it because we brought in a chessboard, knowing he liked to play chess? We obviously cannot confirm that we communicated with Mr. Wallace. What we can show you is hours of footage of no reactions on the chessboard. We can show you images of us stomping around, shouting, slamming doors and trying everything we can to activate the chessboard to debunk it. We can’t say it’s paranormal, but after 2 visits we still can’t explain the reactions. For us, however, it was confirmation that our tireless research efforts had been rewarded.

What do you do with your evidence after you’ve collected it? For some researchers, just catching something is enough. For me that is not the case. I want to know who it is. When we come across a name on evp, I go straight to death certificates and newspaper articles to see if there is a match. For me it’s like a jigsaw puzzle that I’m trying to put together. I then use the information I’ve collected with each response and when I revisit a location, I try to contact the same person, armed with more knowledge about him or her. I use this knowledge when I try to communicate. For me it’s all about experimenting and trying new things. If I want to use trigger objects, I need to know what types of items can be responded to. When I play music or dress up, I need to know what era I’m referring to. Without the research I wouldn’t know this.

If you do not participate in the study in advance, there is a middle ground. One way around this is to inform only one member of your team of the historical information. This way you are not guided by any kind of suggestion if that is your concern. They can confirm or validate things as the night progresses and point you in the right direction if you stray too far off track. It all comes down to what you believe and what your team dynamics are.

Of course, in my years of research, there is a side of the upfront research that I hadn’t considered in previous years of research, but it still hasn’t changed my approach. When we enter a location armed with knowledge of the history and reported claims of activity, are we potentially ensuring that activity occurs? I talk a lot about us as ghosts, and this is a factor to take into account. While this doesn’t change my approach to the research, it does change the way I perceive my findings. Knowing that this is a possibility gives me the upper hand in many ways because it means I can take my experimentation to the next level. Like the Philip experiment, could I perhaps “create” a mind using fake history to see if this is really a factor? There are just so many things you can do.

Part of what I like about researching is the history and storytelling, so of course I’m going to do research beforehand. If no one else wants to know, I am the member of the team who has the information. It is the story of the people you communicate with. I love researching and I will now very rarely enter a location where I have not done tireless research. Anyone who does research with me will see that I am not the kind of researcher who only looks in general. I am looking for a person and his story. During investigations I often tell their story and I am always looking for more answers. I guess I feel like no matter who you are, your story deserves to be told. You don’t have to be a famous criminal or a millionaire ranch owner, EVERYONE deserves to have their story told. From the lowly servant or the caretakers, chefs and residents, everyone should have a voice. I feel like research helps them have that voice.

Don’t forget to LIKE the Facebook page for updates on new content www.facebook.com/livinglifeinfullspectrum