There are of course researchers who have adopted a lack of methodology and techniques, but experience and knowledge do not guarantee that a researcher results that are better than those that may be obtained by an untrained member of the general public experiences something paranormal.
Researchers often remind us that genuine paranormal events do not often happen in investigations. Many ghost yachts can not consist of anything else than waiting in the dark until something happens. More often than not, nothing does that. Conversely, someone with a passing interest in the paranormal ghost hunt could ever go and witness a full appearance.
If something like that happens, there is little more that you can do than observing, perhaps try to capture it on the camera and then document it – and for this reason it is that paranormal teams with tens of years of experience do not get better evidence than someone who has seen something on their first ghost hunt ever.
We do not say that every bit of proof that a professional ghost hunter records, definitive evidence, but the problem is the best possible evidence that an amateur is not better than the best possible evidence that a professional team obtains.
There are countless examples of homeowners, families and even children who have seen and documented paranormal activities in their homes, many have even taken photos of alleged appearances or on CCTV. The quality of these accounts and the photos obtained are generally the same as those collected by established researchers.
It is true that a team of time to time could make an impression with us all with groundbreaking proof that they have caught, but again the same applies to the untrained and not -inged. Most spooky houses and properties get their spooky reputation because a normal member of the public has recorded something groundbreaking that seems to be paranormal in nature.
The fact that an experienced researcher has the same chance to see a spirit in a spooky location as an ordinary member of the audience, proves that everyone can hunt ghosts, regardless of their experience. You may experience something just as likely when ironing if you hold a K-II meter.
You may think that it is controversial or even offensive for those who have devoted years to paranormal research to say this, but the most important thing to remember here is that we are only talking about the potential to collect evidence. We do not say that all researchers are the same, but if you look at the standard of evidence collected by both different groups, they both have the same potential to record similar evidence.
So every method that has resulted in a spirit that communicates a piece of information as their name is a valid – untrained witnesses of chases report this with a similar frequency for research teams.
Similarly, every method with which you can record some kind of photographic or visual evidence is valid, re -conquering people appear in all kinds of institutions, not even by accident in the background of regular photos. This proves that no specialist training or equipment is required.
You can witness something that moving or being thrown, an event that is often reported by paranormal teams, but also by members of the public in completely ordinary and everyday situations at home or at work. Poltergeist activity does not only come for teams with a certain amount of experience.
Having said this, there are some examples in which training and experience are important in the paranormal world, especially with witnesses, especially vulnerable.
Simply because an untrained person can Get the same quality of evidence as someone with training, does not mean that they are dealing with a case in which a victim of spooky care must be treated with care, compassion and sensitivity. These are skills that you can not only do and are an important part of the larger image of paranormal research where experience is important.
Where skill and experience also conduct paranormal research, it is not concerned with recording proof of a spooky, but analyzing. It is during the evaluation after the investigation of potential evidence where analytical and critical thinking skills play a crucial role in disproving or validating findings.
