TAPS team member Steve Gonsalves wrote an article for the TAPS site called Guarding Against Skepticism in which he suggests that evidence should be presented to skeptics in a certain manner in order to get them to take it more seriously. The title alone should be enough to give you pause. Guarding Against Skepticism? If your evidence is good enough it should stand on its own. You shouldn’t have to find a way to frame it in order to guard against skeptics.
Anyway, this article annoys me and as there is STILL NOTHING HAPPENING I’m going to take a closer look at it.
The second paragraph begins, ” Be your own skeptic, don’t believe it until you see it.” Already we have a problem. People are very good at misconstruing what they see. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony is well-attested. If science has shown us anything it is that even when we see something with our own eyes we can’t necessarily believe it. We need good, solid evidence to back up what we think we have seen before we can begin to piece together what is going on around us. On a practical, day-to-day level, yes, we must rely on what we see but we’re talking about evidence for extraordinary claims here. It is not enough to rely on your eyes. If you’re trying to “be your own skeptic” you must go much further than this.
[We interrupt this blog post to report that Jason and Grant have picked up a small blob of 'ambient light' on their infrared camera. Maybe it's the ghost skunk. We should definitely trust what these boys say about their FLIR evidence. After all they would never deliberately DOCTOR FLIR FOOTAGE and then try to cover it up, would they? Astonishing! Back to you in the studio, Consuela.]
Gonsalves goes on to talk about the precautions a paranormal investigator must take when looking for photographic evidence of spiritual activity: “When taking pictures, we all know to make sure it’s not raining, no dust in the air, no camera straps, no smoking on the premises and no breathing in cold weather.” Let’s look at these one by one, shall we?
1. Raining. I’ll give him this one. Easy enough to determine if it’s raining and avoid taking pictures of it.
2. No dust in the air. That’s realistic. As we all know, old houses and abandoned buildings tend to be free of dust. Please. Where are these people investigating? Cleanrooms? There’s dust everywhere. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the vast majority of ‘orb’ photos look just like pictures of DUST.
3. No camera straps and no smoking. Two more gimmes. I’m going to assume they are smart enough to keep the strap out of the lens and make sure there’s no smoking going on. I’ve never seen TAPS put forth a picture that is obviously smoke or a camera strap as evidence (but there are plenty of other groups who have - just Google “ghost picture’ and take a look at some of the crap people try to pass off as evidence.)
4. No breathing. Yeah. Good luck with that, Steve.
He goes on to talk about taking control picture during the investigation. “For example, say you are investigating a case where a woman knows where the activity is, and can tell it’s in the same room as her. You take a few pictures in the area she says it is, and also take a few pictures in the same area when she says it’s not there. This way, when you present these pictures as evidence you can say, “When she said the ‘entity’ was present we took these pictures with the fog like mist. When she said the ‘entity’ was gone, we took these control pictures we took came out clear of the fog like mist”. So we have control pictures validating our paranormal pictures.” Yes because no one could possibly fake this sort of evidence. Steve himself admits that even just a puff of breath on a cold night can cause such images to form. Easy to fake. And if he thinks that the presence of someone claiming to be able to detect ‘activity’ and entities makes his claims MORE substantial rather than less he’s really drunk the Kool Aid.
And finally there was this little bit that I thought was quite funny:
“One other thing I want to address is the lingo we use when talking about our research, and more importantly presenting our evidence. Try to stay away from words that may cast a negative shadow on our research. Words such as “ghostbuster”, “ectoplasm” and “psychic”. Not that these things don’t exist, it’s just that these words and words like them reflect negatively on our research…Try to use phrases like mysterious fog, strange mist, or even ectoplasm-like mist instead of ectoplasm.”
Yes, those are much better. I just rolled my eyes so hard I saw through time.
(Am I being mean? I feel like I’m being mean. I think that Steve is a decent guy. He seems quite friendly and thoughtful and well-meaning. That’s why the fact that he is passing off this claptrap as a way to present ‘evidence’ irritates me even more. I hate to see good people with blinders on. Also, I am getting fed up with this show and the way they keep trying to make a big deal out of NOTHING every two seconds.)