Paranormal   Question 

                  of the Week

           November 24, 2008

    In my answer to last week’s Paranormal Question of the Week, I used the terms random EVP and specific EVP to distinguish between audio phenomena that may indicate the presence of a ghost in contrast to an environmental imprint or haunting. I’ve been thinking about this distinction for a long time and using the concepts in my investigations, but I’ve had few opportunities to publicize my thoughts on radio or at my books events.

   It seems to me that many ghost hunters who use EVP do so;

• without standard procedures
• without minimum equipment standards in terms of electronic characteristics
• without a consensus on what comprises paranormal EVP
• without an analysis of EVP that reflects its origins

    This is because, unlike most scientific fields, conventions of paranormal practitioners are not convened for the purpose of establishing standards of practice. Knowing the paranormal community as I do, I can understand why that is so. Across the nation, there are few classes or courses of study that are established on time-honored traditions of practice, a solid scientific foundation, taught by people who are “break through” practitioners of the material they teach. Also, for most people, ghost hunting is a hobby, not a business. But for many of us who are in the business – paid investigators – we must develop some standards for our investigative modalities. Until we do, there can be no such thing as scientific evidence of paranormal activity

    As a start in that direction, I’ve suggested that there are at least two main types of EVP which amateurs and professionals should distinguish when reports of their findings are generated, whether these are publicized in articles published on the Internet or broadcast in prime time TV shows.  These main types are Random-EVP and Specific-EVP

   Random-EVP is any audio phenomena is clearly not generated by normal processes and does not occur as a direct response to a question, invocation or provocation, or action of the investigator. For example;

   If you ask the question, “How old are you?” and the EVP response is “Get out.” The EVP  is random. It might be generated by a ghost, but the lack of a direct response means that the audio phenomenon fails to meet the proposed standard for ghostly activity.

   If you attempt to provoke an entity by saying “I think you are an awful person for killing yourself.” You may get a response that is a scream, growl, sound of a slamming door, or a vocalization “Jimmy.” These are not specific response, therefore they are random.

   If you try to invoke spirit communication by saying, “Let me hear you speak.” The response may be a musical note, sound of a slamming door, or breaking glass. These are not specific responses.

   If you pick up an object, such as a family Bible, and the EVP is “Going swimming.” You have a random EVP.

   Specific EVP is any audio phenomena that is clearly not generated by normal processes and occurs in direct response to a question, invocation or provocation, or action by the investigator. For example;

   You may ask, “How old were you when you died?” If the response is “Thirty-two,” and you have research material that documents at death of a person aged 32 years at the location, you have a specific EVP.

   If you sit in a chair and get an EVP that says “Get out! That’s my chair.  That’s a specific EVP.  

   Recently on the Ghost Hunters, an EVP was captured in which a voice said, “I like the one in the cap.” Jason Hawes was the only one in the room wearing a baseball cap. That’s a specific EVP.

   Let me know what you think of this proposed distinction between the two major categories of EVP. I realize that some EVP may not fit into either category very well. That gives us something to work on as we more forward, trying to standardize our methods and findings in a way that earns respect.

  Thanks for your questions and visiting this page for answers.

  Stay in touch!       

            Jeff Dwyer