About Ghost 2 Ghosts:

What Are Ghost2Ghosts Researchers Actually Doing And Why Should You Trust G2G?

Ok, so what paranormal researchers are doing may seem obvious, we are hunting ghosts. But why? And for what purpose?
Let us take the situation where a sceptical ghost-hunter is invited by a subject to examine phenomenon which the subject is convinced are paranormal in origin. For the sake of argument we will assume that the ghost-hunter does not feel that this is likely to be the case.
Indeed, at the outset of an investigation it is wise for the ghost-hunter to maintain a healthy level of scepticism while at the same time keeping an open mind. Supposing that our sceptical ghost-hunter investigates the phenomenon and accepts that it does indeed have a paranormal origin and constitutes proof of the existence of ghosts (whatever we take that phrase to mean). This does not contribute very much towards the work of convincing the world of the authenticity of ghost phenomena. We might therefore go further and say that what we are searching for is evidence that can be convincingly presented to others.

Consider another scenario, then, where our subject invites G2G to a ghost-hunt and where, as a result, we come away with eighteen hours of continuous visual recordings of the ghost walking through walls and across the ceiling, or whatever, visually and audio-recorded conversation between the subject, the ghost-hunter and the ghost, information from the ghost which can be verified in archives and museums the world over, plus still photography of the discarnate soul. We can accompany this with magnetometer readings showing massive increases in magnetic-field disturbances at the times when the ghost appears, positive readings on portable radar, appropriate film of thermometer fluctuations and, just for the record, a few apports of coins materialised by the ghost at the Investigator's request directly sealed into jam jars. What then? It sounds like the sort of evidence that any Paranormal Researcher would give their third eye for and thanks to which he would be credited with finally solving one of the world's greatest, and oldest, mysteries.

But let's be honest here. Just what would actually happen when he presents this evidence to the world? Firstly, he will come up against the jealousy and in-fighting which goes on endlessly amongst most research groups in both the conventional sciences and the
para-sciences; his method will be questioned and his honesty brought into doubt. Even if he is part of a ten-man team, all of whom are in agreement about the evidence, this is how it will be. In fact in all likelihood, the first bickering will take place amongst those ten. The genuinely committed researchers will feel a grudging admiration but will probably still take every opportunity to pick apart the evidence if they can find the tiniest flaw in it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but maybe by being too picky, they are overlooking that what they've been waiting for has just happened. Anyhow, once the material is presented to the world at large the ghost-hunter can look forward to literally spending the rest of his life defending himself against allegations of fraud, mainly from the scientific community - whose institutions have a massive interest in not accepting challenges to science, and partly from the media, which seems to have a natural tendency to say 'black' the minute anybody says 'white'.

One thing we must certainly do as ghost-hunters is to attend to the needs of the subject. In the case of those afflicted by poltergeist activity, they are seeking respite from their anguish and the ghost-hunters job in these circumstances is to either ring them respite or facilitate it by bringing in other professionals as necessary. However real poltergeist activity is, whether its psycho-kinesis, an external entity or whatever, there is every evidence that it manifests in conditions of stress and stress is best dealt with by medically trained professionals. No serious researcher should ever loose sight of the importance of attending to the needs of the subject in such harrowing cases.

All ghost-hunters not only want to be sure in their own mind as to what exactly ghosts are but they want to share that belief with others unanimously. Total unanimity will never be possible; there are people even today convinced that the Earth is flat, the Pope aint Catholic, Derek Acorah is genuine and Most Haunted is factual!
But between these extremes there are those who are open to the right sort of evidence. The ghost-hunter is looking for this evidence. It seems that recorded data of an event is no longer the right sort of evidence. Understandable in a way, considering what computers and digital effects can do today.
To be convinced of the reality of a phenomenon, science demands that it can be predicted and then reproduced in experimental conditions. Because that is not the case with spontaneous paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and apparitions, science rejects them. This is a blinkered approach which fails to recognise that there are many aspects of the world around us which once could not be understood, predicted and reproduced, but which now can be - science has found the appropriate measuring instruments, and from that has gone on to predict and create the necessary conditions for proof. In rejecting the paranormal and refusing to even look for the necessary measuring instruments, science is closing itself off from the full richness of the world. What it should be doing is acknowledging that spontaneous phenomena may well be authentic because they are attested to by such enormous numbers of people; it should be assisting researchers into the paranormal to find the elusive measuring instruments that they presently do not have. Then we might be getting a little closer to the ghost-hunter's goal.
In the meantime ghost-hunters should be collecting the evidence not only of what happened but the conditions under which it occurred and should be correlating it with as much other evidence of similar events as possible.

Let us create a third scenario. Let us suppose that a recording-type ghost is reported by many people over a long period of time, all of whom know nothing of each other's reports. It always manifests at a particular location, and always does the same thing. For the sake of argument, let us suggest that the recording is being 'replayed' because the atmospheric humidity is 'z', the degree of copper and zinc in the surrounding rocks is 'y', the temperature is 'x', there are geological stresses underground creating a strain of 'w', each of the witnesses have just undergone the tragedy of bereavement with whatever effects that may have on brain chemistry and emotions, plus a host of other factors. In these circumstances it would be hardly surprising if the exact combination of factors only occurred on rare occasions. Nonetheless, there would be such occasions. The ghost-hunter should therefore be accumulating as much, even trivial, data about each ghost appearance as possible in order to be ale to recognise the clues to the 'play' button.

Assuming that a Researcher could correctly pinpoint all of the necessary factors then it would be possible either to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy when those factors could come together (and an appropriate watch maintained) or, perhaps, to recreate them experimentally. Then we would begin to see the acceptance of paranormal phenomena by conventional science.

Conventional science, however, may nonetheless have to make some compromises. One of the 'laws' of science is that any experiment, if it is truly dependent only on the experimental factors, should be capable of being replicated by anybody with the same equipment under the same conditions. Studies of the paranormal seem to indicate that the state of mind of the researcher and the subject are a genuine factor in manifesting certain spontaneous phenomena. This claim may be a red herring and science may be right to condemn it. On the other hand it may be correct and science has a duty to put it to the test. If the results of phenomena such as psycho-kinesis are improved when the percipient genuinely feels that he is working in a supportive partnership with the investigator, then science has a duty to accept that as part of the test conditions. Until we know what all the factors involved in creating certain phenomena are we must remain open-minded.