After reading posts, wonder if it's a good idea to go into a investigation with interviewing the client, or knowing the history.

How do investigators block out of their mind's what clients have told them. Maybe it does not matter.

Not sure if I could do it, and may be influenced by what I was told during the investigation.

I, too just went through the posts and I agree with you. Not only because of the influence factor, but also you may miss something new just because you were too focused on what was said prior to the actual investigation.

Personal experiences are great for your own purposes, but evidence is key.

After reading posts, wonder if it's a good idea to go into a investigation with interviewing the client, or knowing the history.

How do investigators block out of their mind's what clients have told them. Maybe it does not matter.

Not sure if I could do it, and may be influenced by what I was told during the investigation.

I kind of feel the same. It's very hard to get preconceived notions out of your mind, imo. I think I would rather go in blind but I;m not an investigator.

After reading posts, wonder if it's a good idea to go into a investigation with interviewing the client, or knowing the history.

How do investigators block out of their mind's what clients have told them. Maybe it does not matter.

Not sure if I could do it, and may be influenced by what I was told during the investigation.

We try to keep everyone grounded before going on an investigation. If we talk about the case, keep it to the basics and focus on safety issues if necessary. Sometimes we'll discuss things like the "funhouse effect" and issues that could affect us.

This is our we operate.

Once we receive a request for an investigation, we setup a time and date for a preliminary investigation. During the prelim, some of the team with will interview the client(s), using a questionnaire (during which we go over everything from drug use to previous experience and/or knowledge of the paranormal and occult); meantime, the others will take pictures of the site, draw diagrams, take a few readings . . . . The prelim gives everyone a chance to meet one another. If we feel that there's a good reason for a investigation, we set one up.

As a rule, the sensitives go into the case cold, not knowing anything at all about the clients or the case. Sometimes, the other investigators go in cold as well.

Investigators who did the prelim and the debunkers know the the full background of the case.

It's simple, just limit the information to certain people in the group. I try to limit info to myself and the researcher. The others in the group usually don't have any information regarding activity until after evidence review.

Good plan. I agree. I think an investigator knowing a homeowner's experience may be looking for a similar experience or a relationship to it when checking, video, evp's and such.

That's what bothers me about paranormal tv shows. I think they should go in cold.

But, they are just tv shows.

How do investigators block out of their mind's what clients have told them. Maybe it does not matter.

Not sure if I could do it, and may be influenced by what I was told during the investigation.

People at times will confuse proving the paranormal with proving guilt or innocence in a court of law. These are two completely different comparisons. We must use the court of science to prove it.

Agreed. There is a lot of predetermined bias. I would submit that there is as much predetermined bias with "debunkers" and hard-nosed skeptics. Debunking assumes fraud. Going in saying "this is all crap" from the get-go sounds like that person is looking for a predetermined outcome as well. It goes both ways.

Personal experiences can be important. I've been able to view or experience paranormal activity in the presence of fellow investigators; when that happens, it validates (to us) what we're doing. Of course, having evidence such as a picture or video would help validate it. Then again, the CSICOP goon squad (The Cult of Randi) and their fellow travelers would then attack it and rip it apart.

A few years ago, while investigating the Woodland Opera House, fellow investigators Dave and Ann Bender and two employees thought something was moving in the audience area. Ann took pictures and you can find them here (http://www.ap-investigations.c.....index.html). Our site is been updated and some closeups aren't available -- sorry. But you can still see "something" in the pics.

Four people witnessing the same paranormal activity. Pictures as evidence. Should mean something, right?

Another thing that I thought of recently with experiences is that your group should not talk about experiences that they had until the investigation is over. The power of suggestion is great and you wouldn't want to influence a group going in behind you in a certain room saying that you felt someone tugging on your hair or something.

Definitely a good point, Ryan. People are highly suggestible, so it is best to eliminate as much potential contamination as possible. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

I have went to a client and told them about a temperature chance in a room and they kinda give you a blank stare. But to say we heard the same knocking you told us about in the same area and we can't find a reason for it seems to mean more to them.

It validates what they told us.

Of course people want EVPs and anything you can get on video but most of the other stuff they seem to care less about is what I've found.

For the most part. We are always looking for answers.

And of course I don't have any hard fast answers either, just more opinion. /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

But it's fun to share idea's.

In cases of most groups, or at least mine, we don't go by personal experience. Matter of fact from the investigations that I've done, no one has reported a personal experience to me. Everything we found was discovered during evidence review.

Another point to consider is this. If a group came to your home and said it was haunted, what education/degree/certification are they relying on to proclaim this?

I'm not certified and the only education I have is from life it self, personal experience, what reading/studying that I have done.

Well I think this is why it's a good idea to "interview" paranormal groups so that everyone is

in agreement on what kind of evidence would be needed to warrant calling a home haunted.

I think it needs to be a good religious fit as well since so many people have different religious

opinions on what a haunting is and how to deal with it. Since we really have no evidence of

the paranormal I think education/degree/certification is just a matter of agreeing with the

investigators opinion on the subject and their method of investigating.

Unfortunately I think most people have already decided their home is haunted based on their

personal experiences before a group has even had a chance to investigate.

Okay I kind of went all over the place there, did I answer your question Ryan? /huh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />