Phase3Paranormal.com

Note: This is a re-post from an article I wrote in the Team Journals. I am reproducing it here in some effort to get a little activity on the forums:


Most anyone who knows me knows that I am a skeptical person. I wasn't always this way. Actually, in my younger years, watching the ghosts and UFOs segments on Unsolved Mysteries or reading the tales of psychic mediums and Bigfoot encounters in Time Life Books was, for me, akin to getting my news from the New York Times. This stuff was the facts, Jack.

Well, then I grew up and came to the realization that, while open minded to the possibility of hauntings, visiting extraterrestrials, psi phenomena and monster sightings, I simply needed a little more proof; or at least enough evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to form a rational and reasoned opinion. It is this requirement of mine which has sometimes gotten me into a bit of trouble.

My part in Phase 3 Paranormal is complex, yet ultimately simple. I help direct the team, book and lead investigations. And during evidence review, it is my job to be, as I am often called, the "skeptical a**hole." And ya know what? I take a measure of pride in that. I know that the vast majority of perceived paranormal occurrences are actually quite banal and ordinary in reality. The creaky floorboards, old plumbing, and drafty house are typically the culprit for your case of the late night spooks instead of the resident ghost. But being alone, having an overactive imagination, and perhaps even superstition contribute to the "blame it on the ghost" type mentality. That is where I come in.

Yes, I'll be the skeptical a**hole. I'll demand hard evidence each and every time. My name is Jason Korbus, but my good friend Bobby will often refer to me as Jason Randi, in reference to the world renowned skeptic and investigator James Randi. I must admit, it makes me feel good.

So what, then, is the burden of the skeptic?

Being in Phase 3 Paranormal, I am often the recipient of many claims of paranormal activity. I also frequently hear about, or am told of, advances in the field of paranormal research and investigation. And, knowing that I am skeptical in nature, I am sometimes asked to disprove a claim. In other words, "You're the skeptic, right? Well, look at this here. Go ahead - just TRY and debunk that!!"

Well, sometimes I can, and sometimes I can't. I may be a skeptic, but I am not blessed with the ability to be able to recreate any and all forgeries or misconceptions. While I consider myself to have a good deal of common sense which I sprinkle liberally with reason and logic, I do not have the education to replicate or "debunk" everything that comes my way. But I have often made the argument that just because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. The difference between those two is enormous, and infinitely important to understand. And, on a related note, I also am a proponent of letting the burden of proof lay at the feet of the theorist.

Let me explain.

I have recently begun familiarizing myself with the work of Klaus Schreiber, the forefather of ITC. ITC stands for instrumental transcommunication, and while this can include EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) recordings, Schreiber focused on, and is most famous for, his work with a video looping technique (now called the Schreiber method) that is believed to produce images from the spirit world on a tv set or video camera.

Well, I will be the first to admit that I am rather suspicious. Do I believe in ghosts? Yes. Do I believer that spirits and humans have had communication? I do. But this stuff, to me, seemed slightly far-fetched. This in no way is meant to imply that I would not be open to experimenting with ITC. I would very much like to do that. But is it my duty then, as a skeptic, to disprove the legitimacy of the alleged results of the experimentation? I think not.

No, it is my opinion that the evidence of legitimacy is the burden of the proponent. It should never be the burden of the skeptic to disprove a claim but, instead, to say "show me your proof." Show me what was done, show me your results, then recreate it for me. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but you've proven nothing. Nothing, that is, except to show me that you expect way too much in the absence of inquiry.

Thanks for reading.

ill just repost my comment to your article then!

well at least your skepticism gets me thinking. Usually if i think i found something, and i cant really debunk it, depending on what it is i usually think, well...jason will probly throw this one out, so i just throw it out myself haha!

_________________
Doin stuff thats hard to do makes the easy stuff thats hard harder than easy can ever let hard stuff be.

hahaha, i loved it then and I love it now.

Just thinking... but in the sense that you describe... isn't it possible to say that it doesn't exist unless you see it or experience it first hand, in the same way some people don't believe that God exists simply because they do not see him in front of their face?

I understand in your field about orbs because I've even mentioned sometimes couldn't this or that just be dust when I've been shown pictures, although sometimes when a camera focuses on one and not what you're aiming at, its sometimes a little harder to discount it completely in my thoughts. But at the same time, if there's something in an EVP that's heard but isn't clearly understandable by everyone who hears it (I've said before when being "shown" EVP's that I can hear something but can't make out what it is), does that mean it shouldn't be considered evidence? Where exactly does that line need to be drawn? I think in your field its a little harder to define the line because there are so many different view points and isn't an exact science such as chemistry, but what's to say something might be considered evidence in one investigation but something similar in another is discounted?

Just some random thoughts that kinda popped into my head... heh.

Hello there! I appreciate the comment.

Yes, it is certainly possible to just say something didn't happen or is impossible or whatever simply because one didn't see it with their own eyes. As you said, this situation could exist with paranormal field work reports or the belief in God, for instance.

In my personal opinion, simply discounting something just because you didn't see it with your own eyes is simply close-mindedness. I often try to make the argument that myself, as a skeptic, does not mean whatsoever that I disbelieve or that I will not believe. Quite the opposite, as an investigative team, we hear reports and investigate reports that we very much believe in. We find the witnesses credible, their stories well detailed, etc. But it is then our job to find evidence of the activity before we can really make any kind of attempt to appropriately diagnose the issue at hand. We can offer some forms of education, and offer advice to the clients, but as far as answering the question, "What is it?" It is tougher without evidence. And that is justs one reason why it is important to always go in with a mindset of skepticism yes, but also that of open mindedness. I do not feel the two are mutually exclusive.

And as far as what you said about evidence in some investigations being tossed as inconsequential as others, this is also true. Phase 3 Paranormal is pretty stringent, in that we not only have to be thoroughly convinced of a piece of evidence's legitimacy, but we also do our due diligence to explain it. For instance, we have a saying that you may have heard before. And that is that, just because something is unexplained, does not mean it is unexplainable.

My own personal opinion? I believe that spirit activity is a normal phenomenon. It has reported for thousands of years by a wide array of people. It has been witnessed by far too many people to consider anything other than normal. However, it is still currently unexplained. One day, a day I hope I can be around to see, it will be explained and the world "paranormal" will just be called "normal."

Thanks for writing. I hope this helped you out with your questions. However, if I can clear anything else up for you, please do let us know. Thanks again!