it’s hard to find good research endeavors. It seems as though the entire field of parapsychological studies has been thrown into a quagmire of quacks by the modern media age. There are reams of great and startling laboratory research, but they seem to taper off starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Prior to that, some amazing experiments had been performed as early as the mid 19th century – but who has heard of any of that?

The modern view of such matters is predicated upon the value of the ‘young, cool’ look and impressive gadgetry. Plato’s cave has been relegated to meaningless prattle and Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ has become a hum-drum ‘fact’ of everyday life. I guess even the ‘paranormal’ community has begun to subscribe to the old media adage : ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. When did we stop pursuing new and exciting knowledge for the sake of keeping up the status quo?

The modern ilk of paranormal ‘evidence’ (and I use the term loosely) is shoddy at best, and the methods likewise. Scientific methods and critical thinking have been abandoned for the sake of ratings – even science and discovery is ruled by the almighty dollar and fame.

So, why does it bother me so much? I have spoken on the subject many times, hoping that I can do my part to change the thinking of the masses because the current path is one of ruin. We are driving ourselves further from the answers we seek, and are led to believe that we are making progress! How do strange photos (on digital cameras, no less) and weird, unintelligible voices on a recording constitute evidence? And how can there be a legitimate ‘telephone to the dead’ when the greatest minds in science disavow the possibility of such a thing?

Those in the paranormal community complain about not being accepted by the scientific mainstream, but it is of their own doing. Rewind the clock 100 years, and there was much research being done by reputable people displaying the strange events we call paranormal. As the technological age advanced (and those who were left behind became hippies), there became two distinct camps – the logical and the weird.

Incidentally, the paranormal studies were moved to the weird section, because our technology made it appear as though we knew everything about the universe. No matter how much investigators claim to ‘scientific’, they aren’t. Acceptance will NOT happen until we get with the program and start critically thinking about the issues we face.

Spooky is not good… but thoughtful is.

-Cap’n

-Cap’n

We all have our ideas regarding the origins of paranormal phenomena. Most times, these involve the idea that someone has died and is now communicating or interacting with the world of the living in some fashion. We devise different methods for contacting these spirits in an attempt to ‘prove’ their existence, but could we be bounding down the wrong path?

Throughout the centuries, there have been a multitude of events and stories that would seem to validate the claim of non-physical entities interacting with the manifest physical world. Nearly every conceivable religion teaches what inhabitants of the ‘other side’ do, think, feel, experience, etc. However, when we attempt to place these ideas in a scientific context a conundrum appears.

In recent months, my research has shown how easily the human mind can be tricked and how often our intuitions about the inner-workings of the universe can be in error. Scientific thought has allowed us to make great strides in technology and the understanding of physical processes, both inside the body and otherwise, but it has shed little light on the strange events we call ‘paranormal’ (these events go by many names: supernatural, miracles, occult, etc.). Why is this?

Anyone who has attempted to bring traditional intuitive thought regarding the paranormal into the scientific arena has most likely met with fierce opposition. These matters are considered pseudo-science at best, and most respected scientific minds are reluctant to accept a disincarnate-spirit hypothesis. This should not be confused with pure skepticism, though. The problem arises when the claim is made that something non-physical and non-quantifiable is claimed to be the cause of events and effects in the manifest world. By adopting the spirit hypothesis, we voluntarily stop the causal chain, claiming that the true source is ultimately un-knowable.

What if we were aiming for the bullseye of the wrong target? Could it be that the answers lie within the marvel of the human mind itself? Some will be reluctant to consider this possibility, as it puts each one of us in a position of responsibility. By looking within ourselves for a causal link, we are no longer separated from these phenomena.

Many people  would probably balk at accepting such an idea. It would as first seem that this hypothesis takes the ‘magic’ out of these events, but perhaps it is just a different magic than we have previously thought. We would be remiss, I think, not to accept the possibility that the paranormal is more a part of us than we had ever imagined.

-More to come

“out there comes from in here”

Capn’s Q & A is a place you can post questions and I will give my best answers on Dark Matters Radio. I know you have questions, so why not just ask?

Check out the Q & A here: Capn’s Q & A

And don’t forget to listen to Dark Matters Radio every Wednesday at 6pm CST!

Thanks for stopping by!!

-Cap’n

Don’t forget to check out Dark Matters Radio, every Wednesday at 6pm CST:

Dark Matters Radio

Check him out here::

I challenge everyone interested to his book, Physics of the Soul !

Happy reading!!

-Cap’n

When hypothesizing about dis-incarnate spirits and entities, we must carefully examine all available evidence (anecdotal and otherwise) to properly discern the direction of our queries. If one wishes to simply ascertain data supporting the existence (or lack thereof) of transcendence of the physical plane, the search is most assuredly over. Pouring over the numerous accounts from both spiritual and scientific disciplines, one will quickly discover that something exists beyond our experience of physical reality.

This leaves us with two straight-forward but inexorably profound questions:

1. What is the nature of non-physical existence?
2. By what means do we interact with those things (beings, etc.) inhabiting non-physical environments?

While many are stuck in the rut of obtaining objective ‘proof’ of non-physicality, I believe that we are sufficiently evolved in our thinking to go beyond the questions of ‘proof’ and begin exploring what we innately ‘know’ to be true. There are many factors that preclude our honest quest, though. Societal conditioning, religious dogma, and beliefs based upon experience (among other factors) all tend to hinder our search for a universal higher knowledge.

Our first step then, is to let go of what we ‘think’ we know and give in to what must be true. How can I say these things truly exist? Once again, the answer is simple, yet profound. Even though our subjective experiences are rarely quantifiable, their inherent truth is not diminished. Many people are quick to criticize the experiences of others simply because those experiences do not fit with a particular view of the world. A Latin proverb states:

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Or, ‘in matters of taste (or inner experience in our case) there is no dispute’. While it is true that experiences may be skewed by conditioning and belief, they are nonetheless valid for the subject of the experience.

So then, how shall we approach matters of such subjectivity???

-Cap’n

Bridging the Gap

So, you’re researching the paranormal, but how narrow is your focus? In order to form a picture of what could be going on outside the human senses, we must endeavor to use pertinent thinking from both science and spirituality… together. This can be quite a daunting task, especially for those who tend to skim the surface of both and do not spend enough time in thoughtful contemplation of the tough subjects.

Even for those that read voraciously and ask the hard questions, linking science and spirituality in meaningful ways can still be exceedingly difficult. The path to understanding is fraught with obstacles and critics alike. So then, how can we become authoritative enough to effectively bring the objective disciplines of science in harmony with the subjective nature of spirituality and the human experience?

First and foremost, forget what you think you know. Do not take the answers from others as rote, but instead use the information you read as a guide. Decide on the questions to which you seek answers and ask yourself. Come to the resolution honestly and then evaluate your own theories based on the research, data, and experiences of others. Can you take your ideas to a logical conclusion within the framework of modern scientific and mystical understanding? If not, why?

Be clear on your positions, and hold to them (unless you find a good reason to develop different ideas). If you are a skeptic, remember that rigid materialism will not serve you. If it is your firm belief that there is nothing after the physical term, then hold to that and leave the paranormal alone. There is no need for you to attempt to ‘disprove’ or ‘discredit’ anything from the standpoint of a reductionist. You will not achieve anything of merit, and it will not be to your benefit to treat others in such a manner.

Dialogue is paramount to the discovery of the hidden universe. Instead of proclaiming events and ideas as fact, strive to refine and discuss them. If an idea or theory doesn’t work, discard it and start again. History shows us that the greats in science and spirituality had an unwavering desire for truth, and those things that were not constructive to that end were discarded for the sake of progress and evolution.

In addition to the earnest desire for knowledge, Ego has no place in honest discovery. You will not benefit by placing yourself above another or asserting that your ideas are ‘better’ than others. ALL ideas are inspired by something. Our responsibility as explorers is to ask questions and seek after the answers, whatever they may be.

Above all else, remain open and observant. We as humans are ignorant to much of the goings on in our universe. We must remain humble in our observations and open in our mindset. The universe will conduct itself as it is meant to, regardless of whether you believe the events therein are possible.

So, read, read, read, then read some more. Question yourself, remain humble, and stay in a state of hunger for the knowledge that awaits sincere query.

Thanks for stopping by.

-Cap’n

   –Cap’n Casper

- 

So, you’ve investigated a site. . . now what can you learn?

That is the ultimate question, but it all depends on what you’re trying to find. Some approach the investigation with the purpose of ‘making contact’ with someone who has passed into the ‘beyond’, others hope to find for themselves proof of the existence of such things, and still others are unsure of that which they seek. There are as many motives as people seeking answers, so the answer to this question tends to be a personal matter.

Have you ever asked yourself ‘why am I doing this?’ or ‘what do I seek?’ ? If not, now is as good a time as any. Without knowing our motivations, how can we direct our studies? It is vitally important that everyone answer to their goals, preferably in written form. While it may seem silly, this will add weight to your intentions and serve as a concrete reminder lest you be swayed by public opinion.

For me, learning something from every investigation is a must. This education can come in many forms, and is not always immediately apparent. We recently attended an investigation here in the Kansas City area, and upon review of the voluminous amounts of data collected, I ask myself: ‘what is all of this telling me?’ The answer to my question, of course, is tempered by my goals and intentions. In some cases, my realizations stem from my personal subjective experiences. Other times they are a result of the data that I collect. Regardless of the source, these are all important impressions and each time we ponder such things, a new piece of the puzzle begins to form in our minds.

Open-mindedness is another crucial aspect of paranormal research. Even the most ardent skeptic can (and should) be open-minded. This is not a state of gullibility, but of allowing possibilities. To shut out a potential answer is to have preconceived notions and intentions, which is to be rigid. Rigidity inhibits progress, and to be without progress is to stagnate. Remember that while we have a grasp of our own personal reality, we do not possess intimate knowledge of the whole of reality itself (which really does not exist, anyway) nor are we wholly aware of the elements of another’s reality. To some, the concept of multiple ‘realities’ may at first seem to be a sharp deviation from scientific thought. This is a prime example of the point at which we must be open in our thinking and operate from a flexible and allowing perspective.  

In all our endeavors, the key is to learn always. Even if it seems some trivial part of the big picture, we will find out that no piece is truly insignificant. Start with what you think you know, and forget it. Then, allow yourself to experience and observe the reality that presents itself to you. Promise yourself never to be rigid, but always open and honestly curious. As you begin to piece together the experience, be sincere and the answers you seek will follow.

-Cap’n Casper

 As I mentioned in the last show, I had occasion to send a friendly letter to the magazine Haunted Times a few months back. I had picked up the Summer 2008 edition during a trip to the bookstore. My first thought was ‘wow, this is something I could contribute to…’. My opinion soon changed after perusing a couple of articles within, and in an effort to increase the accuracy of the information they had presented I decided to write the following:

**note: This letter was sent to the staff and the only reply that I received stated that my letter was being forwarded to the author of the article. I did not receive another reply. **

to: hauntedtimesmagazine@yahoo.com

-an honest review of your publication

To Whom It May Concern:

            I am a researcher and certified paranormal investigator in Kansas city and was recently exposed to your publication during a business trip. In a world of over-commercialized ‘para-mania’ I have been eager to find a magazine contributed to and operated by serious researchers, and would like to be part of such a periodical. After reviewing the Summer 2008 edition of Haunted Times, I am admittedly disappointed. While the stories of haunted history are for the most part well written, the articles involving any modicum of scientific content leave much to be desired. My intention is not to incense the staff or writers of Haunted Times, nor am I a disgruntled reader seeking retribution. I do feel however, that it is my duty as a researcher to inform you of the erroneous content presented in your magazine. To properly illustrate my perspective as a concerned investigator, I shall tackle one article from this issue point by point. Further analysis can be given throughout the publication if needed.

Page 56:

                         Can a ghost follow me home?

                                    By: Brian Schill

Page 57, paragraph 2:

            ‘A ghost, being composed of a bioelectric field that was once part of a living,           physically manifested human is still subject to the laws of physics.’

·         This statement is at best conjecture, with no evidence offered to support the author’s supposition.

‘We know that the First Law of Thermodynamics, paraphrased, states that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” ‘

·         The author is paraphrasing the Law of Conservation of Energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics is a more specific implementation of this law that states (paraphrased, of course): ‘for a thermodynamic system, the sum of net heat supplied to the system and the net work done by the system is equal to zero’. The author is using this statement to refer to the aforementioned ‘bioelectric field’ energy, not a thermodynamic process.

            ‘When the physical body dies and the biochemical breakdown of the physical           structure has been initiated the energy from the human body – the 60Hz   bioelectric pulse created by the heart and distributed throughout the body by the central and peripheral nervous system- is not destroyed at the time of death. Rather, the second law of thermodynamics takes over and the energy is released and redistributed into the local environment through covalent bonding.’

•    It’s hard to know where to start with this one. The author begins by referring to a ‘biochemical breakdown’ after death (presumably something like decomposition based on the terminology), then changes to the release of energy. No supporting reference could be found regarding the ‘60-Hz bioelectric’ pulse cited, and the author offers none.

•    The Second Law of Thermodynamics does apply to the tendency of a system to increase entropy over time, but the author has already gone from a chemical process to the release of a phantom energy so this law cannot be properly applied to the author’s statements due to the lack of specificity and supporting statements.

•    Covalent bonding is the process by which two atoms are bound together by the sharing of one or pairs of atoms and does not apply to what the author is saying: is this a release of energy or matter?

‘It is, however, a primary point of interest to paranormal investigators when the Second Law of Thermodynamics is circumvented. When the bioelectric field cannot disperse, it coagulates in the local atmosphere until it then becomes self-aware again.’

•    Come on, here. First of all, how does the Second Law of Thermodynamics become circumvented? Second, how does a ‘bioelectric field’ coagulate? Third, how does the Second Law of Thermodynamics even apply to this situation?

•    By what processes does a coagulated ‘bioelectric field’ become self-aware?

•    The author is not making any sense here.

Page 57, paragraph 3

‘The bioelectric field – a ghost – is now subject to a different set of laws than the living. Rather than having to adhere to the laws that govern physically manifested beings and objects the ghost must now conform to the laws of physics as they apply to energy.’

•    While I do not dispute that many things paranormal operate at a different level and are governed by laws outside of Newtonian physics, the author is making blanket statements without regard for proof. All living organisms do posses some kind of ‘bioelectric field’ , but how can you have such a field without the ‘bio’? There must be some sort of state change, but the author does not seem too concerned with this inconsistency.

‘The first and most obvious physical limitation that is placed on a being that is comprised of a bioelectric energy field is the Law of Conservation of Energy.’

•    I thought that the ‘ghost’ was now subject to the laws of energy: how then would it experience a ‘physical limitation’?

            ‘The basic premise of this  law [of Conservation of Energy] is that energy behaves in a manner that will allow it to conserve its charge, a self preservation instinct for the inanimate field, if you will.’

•    Wrong. Totally and completely wrong. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change forms. The chemical energy stored in my laptop batteries will gladly and freely give up their energy to allow me to sit here and write.

•    Up to this point, the author has based most of his statements on false definitions and erroneous applications of the laws of Newtonian physics. He has offered little if any supporting evidence and/or statements to back up his claims.

            While I have only covered the bulk of the first section, I do not believe it necessary to go through the rest of this particular article. In his opening statement, the author claims to teach parapsychology classes. It disturbs me that students are being taught the fallacies presented in this essay. The author also claims to provide an explanation to the question at hand, but this article seems to raise more questions than it answers.

            In the ‘epitaph’ of this issue of Haunted Times, Mark Mihalko speaks of the ‘uphill battle with acceptance from the established scientific community’. With content such as that critiqued here, the battle is sure to become more fierce. How can we as investigators expect to gain respect from the scientific community when articles such as this, articles in which the author butchers the laws of physics so terribly, and even calls the foundation of Quantum Physics ‘wildly misguided sci-fi fantasy concepts’ later in the article? I’m sure Einstien, Bohr, and others would not appreciate his candor. Additonally, the author makes no appempt to offer supporting evidence for his ill-advised claims.

            Please do not take this letter in the wrong way. I am truly a concerned investigator, and desire honest results from thoughtful research. As such, I feel that it is my duty to inform you of the errors presented in your publication. Although the list I have presented is by no means complete, I do believe that it is enough to make the point.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

James Presnell

Kansas City Paranormal Research

http://kcparanormal.net

I really hate to write this post, but I’ve seen too much erroneous information presented both on the web and in print to let it go any longer. There seems to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the actual method of operation of IR thermometers, so let’s clear the air!

Sometimes referred to as non-contact thermometers or pyrometers, these devices measure the surface temperature of an object based on the emitted far-IR as guided by the principle of black-body radiation. All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit some amount of energy in the far-IR spectrum. This lies beyond the infrared visible with night-vision goggles and below low frequency radio waves. We are all familiar with this sort of IR radiation, although we don’t think of it as such. What is called far-IR raditation, we know as heat. This IR radiation can be of three types: reflected, transmitted, and emitted.

The emitted IR energy of an object will determine its surface temperature and is affected by the emissivity of the object being measured. Truly accurate measurements require the device to be calibrated for the emissivity of the material being measured, but most units have a fixed emissivity value of 0.95 that corresponds to most organic matter and painted surfaces. Reflected energy can potentially come from an exterior light source, and is generally only a problem with shiny metals. In this case, the measurement area can be covered with masking tape to eliminate the reflected energy. Transmitted energy is related to the object’s internal temperature, and any object to which the heat is transferred to.

Now that be have a basic understanding of the device’s operation, let us now dispell a couple of myths.

 #1:IR thermometers DO NOT EMIT ANY IR!!!

Read that again…

You may be saying ‘but what about the laser?’. The laser on a non-contact thermometer is for AIMING PURPOSES ONLY. It provides the same function as a laser on a gun, but without the abrupt finale. The IR thermometer might just as well have an optical scope attached. Readings are made by the use of a simple optics system much like that of a camera that focuses IR heat onto a pyroelectric detector element. The meter takes a ‘picture’ of the IR being radiated from an object, but does not contribute any of its own.

 Because of this, the measurement area grows larger in proportion to the measurement distance much like a spotlight beam. Therefore, the field of view (FOV) must be considered when making measurements. If a measurement is being made from a considerable distance, the reading will actually be something of an average of temperatures within the optical field of view of the device.

 #2: IR themometers CANNOT measure ‘cold spots’!!

Non-contact thermometers rely upon heat emitted from an OBJECT (or matter of some sort) to make temperature readings. They are no more capable of measureing cold spots in a room than a thermal imager. There must be some sort of material providing radiated IR, and unless the local atmosphere contains a dense concentration of particulate matter (which would not be accurately measured, but only affect a measurement), IR thermometers cannot be used to ‘scan’ an area for ‘cold spots’. Remember, even if it appears that a reading is above or below the ambient temperature, if an IR thermometer is being pointed into a large area the reading can be affected by the three types of IR radiation: reflected, transmitted, and emitted. These devices simply are not desinged to measure the tempature of empty space. That’s what probe thermometers, thermistors, and thermocouples are for.

These devices were designed to read the surface temperature of objects in hazardous locations, objects that are dangerously hot or cold, and for other applications in which a contact temperature reading is simply not feasible. They perform well and are convenient, but not suited to every application.

Thanks for taking the time.