What's in it for you?

I've been musing for quite a while how so few people seem to understand the concept of doing something for someone just because you want to, with no thought of recompense, no expectation of pay back. Sometimes when people inquire on having a paranormal investigation at their home or business the "What's this cost?" question comes up, and of course there's no charge. We do because we love the field, and our compensation is getting to go into cool new places and (hopefully) capturing good, compelling evidence. Or when I send a referral to someone for a choice gig and they either view it as their birthright, or that I want something in return, neither of which is true. I do only because I choose to do, period. There is no expectation of anything in return. A thank you, or a wave from a distance would be nice, but I made the choice to do, thus it is isn't required. Then it occurred to me that perhaps these folks think that I'm angling for something in return do so because that's what they would do, that maybe they are the type to operate in that manner. Or maybe it's that cynicism has become so deeply engrained into society, that pervasive cynical thought that everybody must be out for a buck. That just may be the sad truth, that altruism is dead.

When did Claranormal Begin?

I spoke with a reporter the other day who seemed to have a problem wrapping his head around reconciling the creation date of Claranormal.com with our hunt/investigation tally. Pretty sure he's going to try and make that an issue, lol. The name Claranormal was registered as a "dot com" in 2008, but the group itself, the name Claranormal, came into existence in 2007, and it's members had been investigating under experimental names up until then. Ghost Emergency, lol, Ghosts R Us, and a few others we tried out but felt the names either didn't "gel" with our mission, or really didn't identify us. Then one day it hit, Claremont Paranormal, Claranormal. Considering that many of us had been experiencing paranormal activity in Claremont, myself included since moving there in 1997, it was sort of a duh moment, the name not coming sooner. On our tally. When you first start "ghost hunting," like anything new to you, you're at it at every opportunity, 2, 3 times a week if you can find enough places and participants. That's where our tally really expanded, but over time I learned that twice weekly, weekly, or even bi-weekly investigations really are difficult to pull off unless we were going only for the "wow" factor, the thrill of it, and were unconcerned with the evidence itself, or had no lives or jobs outside of the paranormal field itself. I learned that too many hunts at a time meant that we would get sloppy. I learned that proper preparation, researching a location or a person/people, takes time. Gathering not only people, but the right people, takes time. The investigation takes time too, but that's what you're there for. Most importantly, evidence review takes time. A lot of time! I have learned first hand that for us weekly, even bi-weekly investigation are really not conducive to quality evidence gathering, and it really does the clients and the field more harm than good to rush from one place to another with a backlog of under-reviewed or un-reviewed evidence, so now we may do one investigation every two week, or one a month, one every couple months. Bottom line is that I have learned that there is more to life than looking for dead people, that life really does belong to the living, so we take it as needed. On our group: We also have been investigating as individuals for, well, literally decades. I myself have been going to supposedly haunted locations as early as the mid 1970's, but never actually "hunted a ghost" until about 1990. All excursions prior to that circa 1990 event were for much the same reason that one rides a roller coaster: For the thrill of it. Go to the rumored to be haunted cemetery, or the house on the hill for the thrill of being frightened, the chance of seeing something unworldly, getting a taste of something "supernatural," for much the same reasons that many of today's novice ghost hunters get into the field. I just happen to predate them by decades. However, the first time I actually went someplace to "hunt a ghost" rather than going to a place for the "fright factor" of it, that is, to try and find, see, experience, capture evidence of a spirit or a ghost (there is a difference), as opposed to going someplace for "jollies" was after watching Chuck Henry do an "Eye on L.A." piece on the Queen Mary being haunted. I had never heard of it being haunted, never gave it any thought, so this surprised me. I had always been drawn to that beautiful ship, so I had to see this "haunted" business for myself. I have been a huge fan of the Queen Mary ever since going to visit her on a school field trip in about 1972 or 1973, and as an adult I used to visit her every couple months or so from about 1980 on, and never saw or heard anything out of the ordinary, although I could always sense the history and importance of this treasure. I and a few other like minded people I knew couldn't wait to go aboard and find more information about this, and go to the actual places where all these eyewitness accounts occurred. Within a couple days we were organized and on our way, hoping to either disprove or disprove these stories. We called out for the "ghosts", in the supposedly haunted areas, spoke as if talking to an actual person who just happened to be invisible. We took with us film cameras and that's all, and we caught absolutely nothing in pictures, saw nothing, heard nothing, so as far as I was concerned the QM was not haunted. Ah, how much we learn over time. Like a lot of novices, we made the arrogant assumption that just because we didn't experience anything this first time out at a "haunted" location, it must not be haunted. In 1996 the Queen Mary being "haunted" came to be a reality that I can not discount, as I saw my very first full bodied apparition down in the engine room, and he looked as solid as you or I. That is until he vanished. Up until then I was a full on skeptic, and always said I'd believe ghosts, spirits existed when I saw one for myself. I saw. I do.

Ghost hunts versus Paranormal Investigations

Ghost Hunt vs. Paranormal Investigation. Each should be undertaken with the utmost respect for the law (no trespassing signs obeyed) for people and their property, and for any spirit which may have stayed behind. The term ghost hunt and paranormal investigation are used interchangeably because saying "I'm going on a ghost hunt" is easily understood and less of a mouthful than "I'm going on a paranormal investigation", but they are actually different from each other. Ghost hunt conveys a particular clique in the paranormal field dealing with ghosts and spirits versus UFOs, Bigfoot, Zombies (lol!) etc. Ghosts and spirits also carry different distinctions. Going on the ghost hunt basically means you're going out into the field to a location which may, or may not, have activity, to see if you can catch an anomaly. You can do this by yourself or with like minded people (never hunt solo!) who, for various reasons hunt ghosts too, reasons like the thrill of the unknown, something to do, wanting to help people - alive or post-life, curiosity, etc. Generally you gather your equipment and go. Paranormal investigations are more involved and generally require much more work. Historical record searches, perhaps museum visits, site checks, planned camera angles, gathering eyewitness accounts, corroborating these accounts, comparing them to the historical record, writing reports, meticulous review of evidence. The bottom line on each is respect for property, laws, people (living and post-life), and integrity. 1st step in any investigation is research, checking claims and stories of activity against facts, history of the location (what has occurred at this location and when?), who was involved, who owns/owned the location? These answers can many times fill in a lot of blanks, prove or disprove stories, and generally help you focus the scope of the investigation. If you don't love history, paranormal investigations may not be for you. 2nd step (preferred) A walk through. We usually do this in daylight, and you can do it several days in advance, or arrive early enough to document your findings for later. What's the layout? What are the conditions in normal light? Are there energy surges from appliances or nearby power lines? Are there any hazards you need to be aware of in advance that could cause injury to you or a team member? What's the ambient noise level and light level while the world is abuzz? Are there nearby loud sounds that could be mistaken for anomalies, like like barking dogs? Use this data to compare against the ambient noise and light at the time of your investigation. 3rd step The investigation. Here is where so many teams vary, and I'm not here to say any way is right versus wrong, but more to say how we generally, but not always, approach a case. The prior walk through gives you a good opportunity to decide where you would like to set everything up based on the layout, eyewitness accounts and historical data. This includes your camera positions, ops area, sound capture devices and other equipment. Even though you have already decided these things in your prep work, you could very well find that the areas you targeted are vastly different in a night environment than they were in a daylight setting, and that you'll have to adjust. That's ok. No plan survives intact the application of reality. From here I'm not going to give out much, because each case is different, but there are some general rules that I find helpful. Document everything on video. This has solved so may false positives over the years for us. Examples (which are very close to examples I have personally witnessed, and do still posses) "I caught a goblin in a photo!" Um, no, it's your own hand, as seen on video. "The ghost says it wants to stick things in my butt on the EVP!" Well, no, it's your own team mate saying this is a lot of fun, as seen on video. EVP sessions. I have done marathon recordings, 30, 40, 90 minutes, and have seen others do it too, and in my opinion there is nothing more likely to burn you out than really long sound recordings. I did it, even knowing better, a couple months ago, and it literally took me weeks to get through the recordings. The sheer amount of time it takes to properly review sound recordings is mind boggling. I was talking to someone some time ago who said "....well, if we have 1 hour of recording, it takes us an hour to review it. Funny, we never catch anything (Loud buzzing sound!) Oh, I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for is 1.5 to 5 times the total time of the recording. That is, to - properly - review sound recordings. Finding and clarifying a sound recoding takes time, and lots of it. You can expect to spend 7.5 to 25 minutes (and sometimes longer) on a 5 minutes recording from a genuinely haunted location. Take an hour long recording and you're burning 90 to 300 minutes reviewing it properly. And that also means you'll have to stay completely, 100% focused that whole time. Speaking only for myself, I can not stay that focused for that long. Meters. Personally I prefer to use them as verification tools when there is activity. If we hear a voice or a noise and the meter signals an unnatural increase in the localized energy, this could be considered verification, but only if other items are ruled out. For example, a refrigerator kicks on in the next room causing an electrical flow through the area you are stationed at the same time as the noise, then the meter reading is probably not verification. In fact the noise might have also been the fridge kicking on. Paranormal evidence. Always, always, always default to a terrestrial explanation first for a paranormal event. Look for it, assume it is first and foremost a terrestrial event. Only after you have absolutely exhausted all possible terrestrial explanations should you consider that you may have a paranormal event on your hands.