Lone Investigator v a Team of Investigators

General postings that don't fit into any other forum.

Moderators: wolfman, leecol

Lone Investigtor v a Team of Investigators

Vote for Lone Investigator?
2
25%
Vote for Team of Investigators?
4
50%
Vote undecided?
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
Cherill
Group founder member ASSAP approved
Posts: 4211
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Derbyshire
Contact:

Lone Investigator v a Team of Investigators

Post by Cherill » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:04 pm

Hi everyone,

Recently, one of our team wrote an article about this very subject and I thought it would make for an interesting debate. I didn't really want to start the topic off with my own views as it would be good to hear yours, but what we are looking for are your thoughts and reasons on both sides of the coin.

Do you think that investigating a location on your own, or in a team of say 'two people' is better than using a larger team of say 6 or more investigators? If so - why? :)

Or, do you think that having more people on a location is more benficial to the research? :?

Come on folks, let's hear your views.

Bye-the-way, this is not meant to be 'thrill seekers' versus 'serious researchers', simply one or two versus a group! :wink: :D
Blessed be!

Cherill.


"sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare." J. Ceaser.

User avatar
brett
Core member
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by brett » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:37 pm

ok well i will leave out the bit you don't want :lol: to me ,and this is merely a personal view - teams should be as small as is safe to operate with for the following reasons :

less people to worry about /keep safe

less people to cause noise pollution - important when evp is present - and you don't have to account for the where abouts of other team members who could be causing extraneous noise

less disturbance for the client

less differences of opinion at the analysis

a two person team can generally work better than ( if say husband /wife ) than with friends /strangers

confidential jobs can be kept more confidential if above is the case - at least you know who let the cat out of the bag :lol:

single person investigation is some time risky - and another team member is always sensible - but not always possible

no group politics to worry about :shock:

the disadvantages can include ;

more gear to hump

more ground to cover per person

er - that's about it ...........

my self - having worked with various groups - i would rather work alone or with a reliable partner . 8)

i could say a lot more about why i don't like working with groups - but i will not do so here .

regards

Brett .
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" --Albert Einstein


"the quality of one's ideas can be measured in large part to the degree of resistance that they attract. "

User avatar
Navigator
Group founder member ASSAP approved
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Central (United Kingdom)
Contact:

Post by Navigator » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 pm

Hi everyone,

This is the major problem for paranormal investigator operating alone: The main investigation requires the verification of evidence collected, whether this is objective or subjective by more than one person. Evidence will always be seen as far less convincing coming from a single person, to that of a properly organised team.

This doesn’t prevent an investigator from thoroughly researching historical records of people, building or locations, taking witness statements and base reading at a location. The problem will always be the limitations of a single person, carrying out research on the main investigation, without the support of a team.

All lone investigators will have this problem by way of choosing or having no choice but to operate alone.

There are of cause many other problems, such as the coverage of any large allegedly active areas (without numerous revisits), health and safety whilst working alone, carrying and setting up equipment, the onsite validation and verification of evidence etc.

Remember we are not talking of people playing at pretend paranormal investigators, hoaxers or money making enterprises. The investigator may not be a lone investigator by choice and this doesn’t make this person any less serious or proficient in his/her intentions. It just makes them less able to provide onsite research that would hold weight, in comparison to that of any serious and proficient team effort.

Regards,

Stefan :)
Believe the impossible it's probably true!

"nonnullus qu lema firtivus neus porcus"

© nostalgia: "Emotion is the sum of all beings say’s © and to help remember this adds, think of it as energy in motion (Emotion)"

User avatar
brett
Core member
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by brett » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:56 pm

i think the question here nav, is in who's eyes ?? - remember evidence can and HAS been faked /or corrupted by teams as well as individuals in the past :shock:

whilst it is generally accepted that there is more corroboration of events etc in the team situation - we must also remember that teams can be swayed by the opinion of individual members - for instance if 5 of a 6 person team agree that so and so happened - but no 6 says "well i witnessed nothing and they are mistaken "- who is going to be taken more notice of - the 5 that say yes - not the possibly correct one that says nay .

like wise it is not unknown for quite large teams to agree by involvement -which is in effect mutual consent, to the shall we say the bending of the truth so as to gain publicity for the group's activities - or the ego requirements of it's leader - so groups have to either have high moral and ethical standards or their "evidence " is worthless - in fact more worthless than a lone investigator with higher moral and ethical standards - but with no one to back up what he/she is saying :wink:

where technology based evidence is concerned - this does make it somewhat easy'er - as my recent submission of the plasma ball photo has proven - this can be checked and an assessment made of if the evidence stands up in court so to speak - but i was alone when i took that in effect so in some cases it does not matter if the original media is correctly preserved

the difficulty arises however for the lone investigator as you observe when he/she is giving observational based evidence which is of course the more frequent case - but here i feel that providing the investigator is again of a high moral and ethical standard - and known to be so - that his/her evidence is just as valid as a group scenario

the problem we face is of course those who are the pretend to be / playing at it types who seem to get the publicity and thus should be rightly discredited in the eyes of the genuine investigator and should be like wise despised for bringing the whole field of paranormal research into disrepute

unfortunately the genuine get tarred with the same brush as the less scrupulous - and tar is sticky stuff :wink:

BUT as i have observed else where - the lone gunmen of the paranormal world are generally of a high caliber - after all who are we fooling ?? only ourselves at the end of the day

(- and any way who beleives in ghosts ?? - the "experts " are always telling us we are mistaken or misguided in even the most rigorous of observations ............... :roll: )


as to having no choice but to work alone ?? when the individual investigator cannot trust the integrity of others - then what choice does he /she have ??- especially if he or she values his /her credibility at all :shock:

regards

Brett :D :D
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" --Albert Einstein


"the quality of one's ideas can be measured in large part to the degree of resistance that they attract. "

User avatar
Navigator
Group founder member ASSAP approved
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Central (United Kingdom)
Contact:

Post by Navigator » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:38 am

Hi everyone,

Brett wrote
i think the question here nav, is in who's eyes ?? - remember evidence can and HAS been faked /or corrupted by teams as well as individuals in the past :shock:
I think I have been misunderstood if your comment quoted above is based on my comment quoted again for reference below:

Stefan wrote
The main investigation requires the verification of evidence collected, whether this is objective or subjective by more than one person. Evidence will always be seen as far less convincing coming from a single person, to that of a properly organised team.
I thought this topic was about “Lone Investigator v a Team of Investigators”, who research honestly, with no ulterior motive other than to seek out the truth? It is clear that if a number of people together honestly witness or experience something, that the evidence merely carries more weight (in the absence of any physical evidence), than that of an honest individual investigator on his/her own (in the absence of physical evidence).

Brett wrote
whilst it is generally accepted that there is more corroboration of events etc in the team situation - we must also remember that teams can be swayed by the opinion of individual members - for instance if 5 of a 6 person team agree that so and so happened - but no 6 says "well i witnessed nothing and they are mistaken "- who is going to be taken more notice of - the 5 that say yes - not the possibly correct one that says nay
In brief this is how PASSA conducts its main investigation:
On arrival we all meet up in the predefined area designated as base, which will serve as break interval room, between investigative sessions. Then we have our equipment placement and setup followed by the Paper work, which consists of confidentiality agreements if any, disclaimers and handing out of report sheets and building plans to our designated Team leaders. This is followed by an investigation brief, which includes health and safety aspects. Finally members are assigned to their Team leaders who know their assigned session areas, watches are synchronised and we are now ready to start.

PASSA always operates with a number of teams, which interchange between predefined investigation areas. Every team gets to investigate every area throughout the course of an investigation. Normal practise is a 45 minute investigation session followed by a 15 minute break interval, before starting the next session. Team leaders ensure that environmental reading and all individual experiences are noted down. Team leaders also carry radios for communication, personal voice recorders, camera and camcorder alongside other specialist metering equipment. Individual and shared experiences are always noted, because other teams and their members might report a similar experience, in that same area/location during the course of an investigation. Team leaders also ensure that no team members discuss evidence, objectively of subjectively acquired with other teams at anytime. At the end of an investigation report sheets are handed in, with media evidence submitted at a later date, after subsequent analysis from our teams. Depending on time we may hold an open debrief and also allow free time for members to return to a favoured investigation area, whilst we dismantle and pack away our equipment.

Ultimately I am responsible for analysing all PASSA media, results from experiments and the verification of other team submissions.

The reporting compilation analysis is undertaken by our expert Cherill and her final analysis drawn statistically from reported incidents categorised as the same, across teams. Cherill's report on behalf of PASSA will also include, witness statements, historical research, Team leader reports and any analysed media evidence acquired.

So I hope you can understand that your analogy example simply doesn’t fit the way PASSA operates, or indeed other groups that adopt a serious scientific approach. PASSA has strict codes of practise and always uses methodology that is scientifically proven to be acceptable.

My advice to any lone investigator is to seek out others whom they can rely upon to aid locally in investigative research. PA started out once up on a time as a very small concern, but through shear hard work and sweat we now have something to be proud of! We have members (our friends) both internet and non-internet, who share an avid interest in finding the truth behind the paranormal. PASSA has never charged membership fees; we have a relatively open forum access policy for non-members (viewable in multiple languages). All our investigations are free, with funding for PASSA website and running costs met out of Cherill's and my own pocket. PA for Cherill and I has always been a quest for the truth, we certainly don't make any money out of this and any fame is also unlikely! Our main purpose is to satisfy our own individual needs for truth, to document scientifically the truth and to freely aid others in their quest for truth.

Regards,

Stefan :)

PS In my opinion “It is much better to navigate the path to truth together, with friends than to travel it alone, as there are many pitfalls along the way!”
Believe the impossible it's probably true!

"nonnullus qu lema firtivus neus porcus"

© nostalgia: "Emotion is the sum of all beings say’s © and to help remember this adds, think of it as energy in motion (Emotion)"

User avatar
brett
Core member
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by brett » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:13 am

no no nav - not at all - just making a few alternative observations for you all to consider as usual :D :D - to take them to an extreme -i could pose the question -who has the right to question any ones reporting of their experiences ?? - but as you say this is not what the thread is all about :D

the point i was trying to make or answer - is that there ARE a lot of reasons that people choose or decide to work alone - some of them may be NOT so obvious to the less experienced - who may think that all is rosy in the garden of the paranormal world - nothing more

yes it is better to work with a team you CAN trust - it makes life easier and safer - unfortunately - what you would like and what you can get in life or paranormal investigation are not one and the same most of the time :wink:

regards

Brett .
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" --Albert Einstein


"the quality of one's ideas can be measured in large part to the degree of resistance that they attract. "

User avatar
Cherill
Group founder member ASSAP approved
Posts: 4211
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Derbyshire
Contact:

Post by Cherill » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:28 pm

Hi everyone.

I thought this thread may cause a few bubbles in the water! :D The whole idea of it being to get people from both sides to look OBJECTIVELY at the other side of the coin.

What Stefan said about our methods is quite correct. Which brings me to this point that Brett made:-
who has the right to question any ones reporting of their experiences ??
In answer to this question Brett, no individual has the right to question anyone about anything they experience or gather evidence on. (Unless it's the police because you have broken the law :) ), but as investigators we subject our findings to the scrutiny of the general public (well, what evidence we can outside the confidentiality agreements) in an attempt to show that we can get correctly verified evidence.

The whole part of carrying out an investigation in a scientific way is to try to improve on the gathering of results each time, to find out the causes and effects of the phenomena, and to satisfy our own curiosity. :)

There are many pros and cons for single investigators as well as teams. No method is wholly correct. No method is incorrect either! It all depends on what you want to achieve at any given time. 8)

Personally, for health and safety reasons and the lack of another witness, I would not attempt to investigate properly alone. I wouldn't mind spending the night alone in a haunted place - which I have already done and had no witnesses to the extra-ordinary phenomena that took place. :( People whom I told about the incidents simply didn't believe me! That's the problem with being alone. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny!

Teams are a pain as well. People walking around, chatting, flashes going off all over the place, to name but a few annoying things. :) Then you have to trust the team members on many levels, not just as witnesses.

I was hoping something constructive would be built from this thread............. obviously not! :(
Blessed be!

Cherill.


"sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare." J. Ceaser.

User avatar
brett
Core member
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by brett » Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:48 am

oh i don't know Ches - it has given three differing view points - from people who work in differing ways through choice or circumstance :D - what we need now is for other members to put their points of view - don't give up on this one just yet :D :D

so come on the rest of you - what do YOU think ???

regards

brett
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" --Albert Einstein


"the quality of one's ideas can be measured in large part to the degree of resistance that they attract. "

User avatar
GAZ
Moderator
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Walsall
Contact:

Post by GAZ » Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:53 am

Hello everyone, I'm going to add my opinion and it is not meant to offend anyone, it is merely my opinion.

less people to worry about /keep safe
True, but what if the lone investigator injures themselves and there's no one around to deal with it?
less people to cause noise pollution - important when evp is present - and you don't have to account for the where abouts of other team members who could be causing extraneous noise

less disturbance for the client
Very true, but on all the investigations I've been on we have always respected that we are in someone elses establishment, and it would be bad practice to cause any extranious noise knowing that people were taking EVP, however you cannot stop all extranious noise so I can see the logic in your argument here Brett.
less differences of opinion at the analysis
But more chances of misinterpretation with no one else to check any findings against :?
confidential jobs can be kept more confidential if above is the case - at least you know who let the cat out of the bag
Yes, I agree with that :D
my self - having worked with various groups - i would rather work alone or with a reliable partner
I can understand this, especially if the groups you were in were poorly organised.

The advice I would give to any would be investigator is this:-
Don't start investigations by yourself, find a well organised association, follow their policies and procedures, gain your experience, if you then want to 'go it alone' cover every aspect of health, safety and security.

There is no reason why a single investigator shouldn't work well with the necessary experience.

The lone investigator also stands a good chance of being the only to be grabbed by the goulies :lol:


Gareth 8)
______________________________________
They say the definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Try It Again, The Hives

User avatar
brett
Core member
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by brett » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:59 pm

ohhhh nasty gaz - i have not been grabbed by the goulies - or any other entity for a long time .lol

see - another point of view :D :D :D

regards

brett
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" --Albert Einstein


"the quality of one's ideas can be measured in large part to the degree of resistance that they attract. "

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest