Is it or Isn't It?

Is it or isn't it?

When working in the field of paranormal investigation, this is a question that must be both asked and answered time and time again. The ability to have a sense of reality and skepticism is paramount. Many groups and individuals across the world's surface will say that life after death has been “proven” as real and a matter of fact. The members of MCPI have had experiences and collected evidence that leads many of us to believe that same thing. There are countless recordings, pictures and tales on our evidence page, and these represent years of work and countless hours of reflection. 

MCPI does not take the posting of evidence on our site lightly. Many of our membership often argue and disagree when it comes to what is or isn't evidence. Many people will consider a personal experience as evidence. While we provide our clients all of our findings - including the things that we as investigators have happen to us - there are times when these experiences are backed up by photo, audio, or video evidence. Equally, or even more often than not, there are times when the experiences are not. This is where the question comes into play.

Scientific theory says that if you cannot prove that an event took place with corroborating evidence, then it is simply an experience not proof. Now that is a light translation of the true definition, but it is in essence “The Law” of proof.

We we present a client with what we found at the end of an investigation, we include the things we can and also the the things we cannot prove. Our clients deserve to see and hear all that we uncovered. It is very important though that we temper what we tell them. There are times when we use information that is provided by a medium. When this happens, that information is never introduced as evidence. It is given to the client, along with any facts that can be gathered that both help and further the medium's offerings. We believe in giving the full story to our client. If the medium picks up on something that is at the time unknown or right on we present it. The follow up research can aid in the verification of a medium's “findings”. We hide nothing. Or credibility lies within the fact that we will present all of our findings. 

So what is and what isn't evidence? That as they say is in the eye of the beholder. As a rule I feel that for something to be pure evidence, it does not have to be manipulated in any way. If you cannot see it or hear it in the original form, it's not evidence. That is not to say that you can't have two views. There are times when you may see something in a picture, and enlarge it to see it better. There is a sticking point however, if you enlarge it to the point of pixelation, then that becomes a forced view of what you want to see, not a real view of what is there. With video, it should be able to be seen, without striping layers to “clean” it up. Again that is not to say that you cannot do that later, but the original footage should show some semblance of what it is you are cleaning up to see better. With audio the same thing holds true, you should be able to hear it in its virgin form. If you then “clean” it up to be able hear it better, you are not contriving evidence. 

So where do personal experiences fit in to all of this? By all means they are evidence. They are just of a type that, at times, cannot be backed up. There are times that these experiences can be supported by other forms of capture. In those cases they move into an entirely different classification. The experiences of which I am speaking now are those that cannot be supported. The times that we as investigators use the best tool we have to use. Our own senses. When we present these types to a client, we always preface it by saying, "we had this happen, and unfortunately there is no backing evidence.” Followed by, “This does not mean it did not happen, or that we imagined it, it just means we cannot back it up like we would like to do.” These types will appear in our case files, but not always on our evidence page. The reason is, we need to be vigilant in what we post. If we post fringe conclusions, we cannot expect to be taken seriously. 

The theory of Occam's razor, suggests at its core that we do not force facts. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. Simply forcing is not trading. This being said, is why we are so harsh on our own findings. The goal of this group now and forever will be to help people in need. To do so we need to provide the best possible information and allow our clients to see what we have found. These findings need to be clear, concise, and for the most part irrefutable, to be considered fact.