EOPIC.ca

Hey Everyone,

I'm working on an Investigation Protocol Manual of sorts. We a have a few investigations coming up and I think we should a little more structure to how we investigate these locations. The idea behind this thread is to get some ideas on how you think an investigation should be conducted. We all have our own feelings and theories on the best ways to communicate with a spirit or ghost, I'd like to hear some. How do you see an investigation being played out?

Here's an example of what I'm looking for:

-show up 2 hours before investigation starts
-everyone helps setting up equipment to go faster
-2 members do baseline reading (temperature and EMF)
-2 members try to debunk any claims
-no one is ever alone
-2 way radio (with ear piece) for larger locations
-walk through question EVP period (Teams of 2 (or 3 in smaller locations) w/ voice recorder and EMF)
-sit down and investigate hot spots (Teams of 2 (or 3 in smaller locations) w/ voice recorder and EMF and video camera)
-walk through question EVP period (Teams of 2 (or 3 in smaller locations) w/ voice recorder and EMF and video camera)
-equipment take down
-final walk through to ensure no equipment is left and the place is as it was when we showed up.

This example is geared towards EVP work, but maybe we can figure out a way to better our chances at get some video footage as well.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing some feedback.
Chris

This is good,

1) A definite good suggestion that we always travel in pairs.

Personal encounters / experiences can be more easily validated or debunked with supporting witness. Health and Safety wise, in case of injury, sudden illness, etc. It's best to have a partner. Since we are an even number, we have enough for pairs.

2) The Baseline team: One person taking the readings with EMF, IR or other type of thermometer and photos. One person recording the readings and no doubt assisting in photos or in general observation re: architectural and structural culprits.

3) Maybe an order in which things are done to maximize our efforts and coordinate and make full use of the manpower we have available

(i.e. 1) meet client-decide which areas get what equipment 2) set up equipment 3) Equipment check 4)baseline testing 5) pre-investigation meeting/dinner-snack 6) investigate

Just an idea, but if we have a set order, then we can forgo any time spent meeting about what should be done first.

Hopefully we might get this squared away and then the perfect field test for this would be the next investigation.

We're leaving out an important step here people.......Meet for coffee's to discuss the process and after action reports.

My Bad, I forgot all about that...

We must never forget that the Post-Investigation debriefing is very important...Sorry.

Any other observations or comments to help out Chris??

I agree with everything that has been said so far. I am also noting with interest that most of this stuff we are doing already.

To add:

I think there needs to be someone in team observation mode....someone who is responsible for observing the group's interaction, mood, ability to focus, etc. This can be a facillitating role that helps to maintain focus, but also a role that can mediate immediate problems (ie someone is sick, equipment failure is causing undue stress, etc)

I also think that people should "check in" every once in awhile. By indicating how one is feeling once an hour or so (I am very tired. I am feeling cold. I am uneasy) we can better read our own responses to the environment we are in. If everyone is cold...then it's cold. If only one is freezing then the group should determine why. It could be someone who is usually sensitive to cold or something else.

In a follow up investigation I think that I would like to see the sceptic take on a more passive/observation role. By staying out of the "active" aspects of the investigation the person responsible for maintaining a balanced approach has the opportunity to observe more objectively.

I believe that each member should have an active role in post-investigation activities. For every person who goes through the audio and video evidence there should be one person who casts a fresh eye on the evidence found. Then, once two sets of eyes have viewed and commented to each other on it, it should be presented to the group for a new perspective. If Dave Chris and Andrew do the evidence review, then Sonny Scott and Cheryl should review the findings and vice versa.

I believe strongly that eating together before the investigation is a bonding experience and coffee afterwards is an opportunity to immediately reflect on the experience after leaving the potentially charged atmosphere.

I also believe a report should be in the client's hand within four weeks if at all possible.

Just my two cents.