What is a sceptic?

A sceptic (or skeptic, depending where you are) is someone who does not automatically believe everything presented to them.

A sceptic is not someone who automatically disbelieves everything told to them. That’s a fundamentalist.

It’s a subtle distinction in words, but a very big difference in practice.

There are those who automatically discount any evidence of the paranormal. They do this before they’ve even seen the evidence. They approach what they call an ‘investigation’ already determined that they will find nothing.

That is not being sceptical. It’s certainly not being scientific.

There are, of course, fundamentalists at the other end of the scale. These are people who investigate a medium, or a haunting, or claims of telekinetic or telepathic ability with the expectation that the event is genuine.

That’s not scientific either.

Scepticism is a necessary part of science. When I approach an investigation of a haunting, I do not start from the premise that there is definitely a ghost present. As I’ve said before, and often, ghosts are rare. I do not start from the premise that someone is faking it, either.

My starting point is this: Someone has reported an unusual event. Is it a ghost, or can it be explained by natural means?

Most of the time, there is a natural explanation. Once in a while, there is not. Where there is no natural explanation, there remains the possibility of a genuine haunting. Finding such an event is not too difficult. Discounting all possible natural explanations is not too difficult. Getting the ghost to come out and provide proof of its existence has so far proved extremely difficult.

Where do I stand on the paranormal?

I have seen enough to convince myself that there are real, active ghosts. I have not managed to obtain proof that would convince anyone else, because such proof is very hard to obtain. I have pointed cameras at manifestations, and they did not show on the film. I have recorded voices—as have many others—but these can be so easily faked, they will not turn the tide of anti-paranormal ‘sceptics’.

Ghost photos can be faked. With modern technology, convincing ghost photos can be very easily faked by anyone with a home computer. This makes it even more difficult to present photographic evidence of a manifestation, although this is not a new problem.

When I was a child, in the 1970’s, I had a simple camera that had no lock on the shutter release. It was easy to take a double-exposure photograph. I used this camera to make a ‘ghost’ photo of one of my friends. If I can find it, I’ll post it here.

With the production of fakes so easy to achieve, it becomes incredibly difficult to find genuine evidence. That’s why it’s necessary to be a sceptic. If you call yourself a paranormal investigator, then trumpet ‘evidence’ that can be easily replicated by a faker, your career is over. Whether your evidence was real or not becomes irrelevant. It could have been faked, and that’s enough.

Unfortunately it’s extremely easy to set yourself up as a fake medium. This results in a massive number of fakes, and makes it difficult to spot the real ones. Real mediums often don’t want to be investigated. So you’re not just looking for a needle in a haystack. You’re looking for a mobile needle that’s avoiding you.

I have heard the fundamentalist sceptic say ‘There are no real mediums. If there were, we’d have found them’.

Really? Why would a real medium submit to investigation by someone determined to call them a liar? Look at one of the tests they produce.

The medium is presented with someone they’ve never met before and asked to call up the spirit of one of this unknown person’s dead relatives.

That’s not a test of mediumship. It’s a test of necromancy.

Ghosts are rare. The chances of someone’s dead relative hanging around with them are small. Taking a random person and expecting the appropriate spirit to pop up is ridiculous. It doesn’t work like that.

The ghost comes first, not the sitter. The ghost contacts the medium, because they want to get a message to someone living. The medium then has to decide whether to go to that person and deliver the message. Most times, they don’t.

Would you?

Would you turn up at someone’s home with a message from dead Uncle Jack? What reception would you expect? Having been thrown into the street, would you do it again?

Most genuine mediums have experienced this. That’s why they keep quiet about their abilities. That’s why they’re very hard to find. They may pass on messages to friends and family, people they trust and who know of their ability. They are not going to walk up to strangers in the street and tell them about the ghostly grandmother who’s following them.

For the genuine medium, ghosts are just another group of people. As with live people, you can’t always decide who you’re going to meet and when. A medium can’t ‘phone up’ a ghost and say ‘Hey, your son is here and wants a word. Can you come over?’

A medium who always makes contact with a ghost, no matter who they speak to, is most likely a fake. A medium who, most times, says ‘Sorry, there’s nobody around’, is more likely to be genuine. That’s a starting point—if you can persuade a genuine medium to talk to you in the first place.

Many mediums have been locked up or shunned because they are seen ‘talking to themselves’. These days there’s an easy way to avoid that. Just get a mobile phone with an earpiece. Everyone assumes you’re on the phone and they leave you alone. Naturally, that makes the medium even more difficult to find.

It’s okay to be sceptical of ghosts, and of mediums. There are so many fakes to wade through, scepticism is a necessary part of any investigator’s character. You have to consider what will be used to shoot down your evidence before you present it.

Look from the other side for a moment, though. If you’re determined to believe that no medium is ever real, why would any real medium allow you to investigate them? You’re ‘sceptical’ of their abilities to speak to ghosts.

They’re equally sceptical of your ability to give them a fair hearing.