Most groups also espouse attitudes and behaviors such as a sense of doing important work, helping people, and contributing to a higher good. Many group members dress alike to enhance group cohesion and unique identification. The stereotypical group uniform is a black polo or t-shirt with the team name and logo, a conformity that appears to be derived directly from the TAPS Ghost Hunters television show. I’ll have more on TAPS further on in this chapter.
Appeals of participating in an ARIG are the excitement of discovery and the desire for enlightenment. There is a thrill in seeking out these experiences, sharing an adventure with others, and the feedback between group members that reinforces a belief (Bader et al. 2010; Childs & Murray 2010). Many ARIGs openly announce that they will be the ones to provide proof to the world of what they know is out there (Sykes 2016). With minimal training, no advanced degrees, and subjective techniques learned quickly, anyone can become experienced at this activity (Bader et al. 2010). ARIG participants are involved in a real investigation that feels edgy, dangerous, and groundbreaking. It’s hands-on, down and dirty, paranormal immersion.
In addition, there are other more personal aspects appealing to ARIG participation such as being social with others of like-mind, being part of a group, and gaining a sense of identity and importance. Many ARIG participants will cite their own experiences with a haunting, Bigfoot, or a UFO as their impetus for involvement. They want to explore it deeper with others who shared a similar experience.
The Experience
Experience is at the core of human existence. As social creatures, we share our experiences with others. Effective stories are extremely convincing and emotional. The act of sharing with others not only spreads information, but strengthens the memory and meaning of the experience for ourselves. In turn, meaning and experiences from our lives color our interpretation and memories of events we have witnessed (Loftus 1996).
Bader et al. (2010) saw that there is great importance placed on firsthand experience and a shared interpretation of events. Personal experience and interpretation will trump contrary or critical commentary from outside experts every time. Those who have seen a UFO, had a strange animal encounter, or thought they had a ghostly experience were far more likely to take up their own research. Any such experience was a powerful indicator that further information on it would be sought, even to the point of joining a group to conduct specific investigations on the subject.
The structure of the experience will shape the reaction. An unnerving environment or participants primed with stories about previous strange events has an improved chance of producing more thrills and chills. Group dynamics, including the reactions of others, will influence and reinforce the experience (“Feel a chill?” “Yeah, I felt that too!”) (Hall 1972; A. Hill 2010; McRae 2012). Ghost and monster stories are ancient. The quest to seek out these unusual experiences is what Annette Hill calls the “culture of reenchantment.”1 A paranormal experience can evoke confusion and intense emotion. In my exploration of these topics, it’s common for an ARIG member to say that an experience they had was “life changing.” They seek participation in an ARIG as a way of working through that belief (A. Hill 2013). Folklorists use the word ostension to describe the behavior of living out a legend. The legends—haunted houses, Bigfoot, visiting alien craft—are woven into a narrative for ARIGs to seriously pursue with the aim of having a powerful experience.
Citizen Science
Amateur naturalists are passionate about observing and collecting specimens in their leisure time. These citizen scientists contribute to new knowledge by sharing their finds with professionals who aggregate and verify the data sets (Regal 2011). In areas where considerable and prolonged direct observation and collection is required (such as astronomy, meteorology, fossil discovery, and animal population studies like bird counts), amateurs still contribute valuable data and knowledge (Gordon 2015; Gregory & Miller 2000; Lankford 1981; Lyons 2009; Mims 1999). Scientists still rely on amateurs to contribute data by keeping records and identifying new discoveries for further investigation. Computers have expanded the capabilities of amateur contributors (Mims 1999) by allowing access to tools, resources, and expert advice. There is no doubt that amateurs can be important to advancing scientific knowledge. You don’t have to have a university degree or accreditations to participate in the scientific process, just follow a proper procedure and communicate the information reliably. “Citizen science” projects designed and managed by academic or professional scientists are gaining in popularity. ARIGs are different from citizen-science activities. While both ARIGs and citizen science projects are made up of volunteers usually without scientific training who participate in scientific observation, data collection, or processing, I came across no citizen science projects related to the paranormal. Under the auspices of scientific institutions and academic researchers or local professional groups, citizen science projects have clear, measurable goals and strict methodology. The results are subjected to expert review. Examples include bird and butterfly observation logs, animal mortality counts, Moon crater counting, and classifying galaxies based on shape. Citizen science is a form of public outreach to create interest and appreciation as well as tap into amateur enthusiasm. Gordon’s (2015) Sasquatch Seekers Field Manual was the first explicit mention I had seen of “citizen science” investigation of paranormal claims. He notes that those witnesses who simply claim they know Sasquatch exists because “I seen um!” provide nothing useful to securing information. Nonetheless, Gordon describes these eyewitness accounts as a preliminary stage of gathering data. However, Gordon misses key requirements for amateur science to be helpful—training in observation, collection, and recording, and an overseeing, credentialed scientist willing to examine the submissions. Field manuals for amateurs to collect anomalous observations are not equivalent to obtaining training from professional scientists. Dozens of various “guides” to spotting cryptids, ghosts, and UFOs promise to make you into a real investigator, just like the people you see on TV. The ease of self-publishing and the popularity of paranormal investigation have resulted in a plethora of instruction and guide books that span a quality spectrum. Individual ARIGs write their own manuals to train recruits in the group. Paranormal “How To” books, written by nonprofessionals, are discussed in the Appendix.
A few amateur-led groups have developed databases of sightings and reports of paranormal occurrences. Further on in the book, I discuss the use of these databases and the various explanations (ARIGs often refer to them as “theories”) that have developed over time and are used in pro-paranormal circles similar to how scientists would use scientific theories as models.
Organization
In the mid–2000s, amateur ghost, UFO, and cryptozoology researcher groups were recognized but no one had attempted to methodically count them. Only “guesstimates” were available. Word of mouth in the paranormal communities in early 2010 suggested the number of these groups in the U.S. alone had grown into the thousands. A few surveys examined their numbers: Andrews (2007) found 316 ghost investigation groups via a Google web search in January 2007; Brown (2008) found 27 in six New England states, roughly correlated with population. A reasonable estimation was that there were around 2,000 ghost-specific groups as well as many small groups focused on various anomalies. Annette Hill estimated 2,500 ghost hunting groups in 2010 in Britain compared to only 150 ten years prior. The same might be assumed in the U.S. as the explosion of growth was linked to the television popularity of Ghost Hunters and similar shows as well as the availability of the Internet, particularly YouTube, as a place to host clips and promotional material.
In the summer of 2010 I methodically examined more than 1,200 websites run by ARIGs across the U.S. Preceding that, I established a pool list of about 1,600 sites that existed on the web by using search terms in various combinations: “investigation,” “research,” and “group” paired with a descriptor such as “paranormal,” “anomalies,” “UFO,” “ghost,” “Bigfoot,” �
��cryptozoology,” “scientific,” and “skeptical.” With a raw set of web addresses (URLs), I eliminated the duplicates, making sure I did not include different branches of the same group, then numbered and randomized the list. Randomization of the starting list was necessary to ensure a representative sample of groups across the country and with various specialties. Typically, indexes of groups are arranged by state so a prospective client can contact one locally. I started down the randomized list, one by one, completing a premade data collection form for efficiency and consistency, until I cataloged 1,000 valid, accessible, qualifying sites. This core body of data was supplemented by additional observations, examples, and quotes to illustrate common themes I observed across ARIGs. The large number of sites examined allowed me to see subsets of the groups that had or lacked certain characteristics. I was interested in a collective result across the spectrum. Individual ARIGs will be different from one another. Generalization can be misleading. But there clearly were broad trends visible across the range of ARIGs.
I documented ARIGs in every U.S. state and the District of Columbia. Several groups had multiple chapters in different areas of the state or in other states. Many groups travelled to neighboring states for investigations. Therefore, there is likely no area that cannot be reached by some ARIG. The eastern half of the United States had a greater number of groups as expected in relation to higher population density. The state with the most groups, 81, was Ohio. Next, was Pennsylvania at 80. Both are certainly underestimates as groups splinter, reform, and go defunct with great regularity. Because of this ephemerality, many of the groups cited by name in this book no longer exist by that name. For that reason, it’s not important to focus on individual groups but on their collective behavior. With a moving target of groups in existence, it is impossible to keep track of all active groups at any time. Some groups may not have an Internet presence or consist of one or two individuals operating intermittently.
The Independent Investigations Group (IIG) of Colorado completed a survey of paranormal investigation and research groups (mostly focused on ghosts and hauntings) published in 2012 (Duffy 2012). I compared my results with this survey that located teams in 32 U.S. states, Canada, Italy, the U.K., and Germany. Essentially, not much had changed, but the more in-depth questions of the IIG survey provide additional resolution into the makeup of ghost/ARIGs in particular.
ARIGs are often independent efforts but can be offshoot chapters of a larger group that has expanded or one that identifies as an affiliate of another well-known group or society. Chapters have a direct connection to a headquarters group and operate as an arm of that group. Affiliation is a loose alignment often used just for name recognition. The most common affiliations at the time of my survey was with The Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS), the organization depicted on the Ghost Hunters TV show. But the other popular affiliate included the Ghost Adventures Crew (GAC), the organization of the Ghost Adventures TV show with Zak Bagans. Affiliates are asked to meet certain criteria to maintain connection with the overarching group, yet they operate independently. “Badges” (standard graphic files) were proudly displayed on ARIG websites to indicate affiliations, lending a sense of legitimacy to the group to suggest they are comparable to their more prestigious affiliate. ARIGs affiliated with TAPS report more public recognition since affiliating (Brown 2008). TAPS listed their affiliate ARIGs in the U.S. and abroad on their website.2 Affiliated TAPS groups were required to maintain certain standards and were expected to adhere to rules, protocols, and ethics3 so as to be allowed to use the “TAPS family” designation. The criteria for TAPS included maintaining an acceptable web presence.
Affiliation is a useful premise as it creates a common foundation in which to contact other associated groups to share information and cooperate on investigations. It can also serve to standardize methods and behavior; however, if the methods are flawed to begin with, the affiliate family will consist of dozens of copycats going about things the wrong way. Therefore, affiliation is a mixed bag, benefiting the ARIG by associating them with a popular name and a suggesting a sense of validity but creating an army of followers instead of independent innovators. The use of affiliates with a larger national or regional group was rare or nonexistent for ARIGS specializing in cryptozoology, UFOs, psychic claims, or Fortean phenomena though some groups do partner for events or investigations.
With thousands of groups and individuals participating in the research and investigation of claims, progress in their respective field is impossible without the establishment of a foundation of knowledge, guidelines, and standardization of practices. There is little evidence that any standardization exists. There is a modicum of cooperation and community sharing. ARIG results are not consolidated and compared with results from other groups that investigated the same site or incident. ARIGs often do not share their results publicly at all, do not have any method for peer review outside their own group, lack standards or protocols across the field, and have no efficient means to do so. For standardization and sharing to occur, an overarching agency or society acceptable to a large portion of the community would be needed. If researchers followed guidance and standard procedures on use of equipment, processes, and reporting of results, such results could more readily be quantified and analyzed with potentially useful conclusions made. Instead, piles of results sit unchecked and inaccessible, forgotten in filing cabinets, on websites, or on computer drives around the country.
Studies of Amateurs on the Fringe
At the same time as I was formulating my ARIG research, historian Brian Regal was writing the book Searching For Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads and Cryptozoology (2011). The book opens with the line “This story tells of dreams that do not come true” (p. 1). In Searching For Sasquatch, Regal recounts the colorful history of amateurs and professionals that spent most of their lives invested in establishing Bigfoot as a real creature. They all failed. But for decades, they butted heads and battled for legitimacy and status. Regal’s book confirmed many of my own findings regarding “serious leisure” and the attitudes and behaviors of the amateurs and professionals regarding the use of science. Some of the same themes appear in Tea Krulos’ Monster Hunters (2015). Krulos, a journalist, followed ARIGs and independent researchers into the deep end of ufology, cryptozoology, and ghost hunting. Some of the research in this volume is mentioned in Krulos. He contacted me after reading an earlier article about my explanation of these groups being “scientifical” (discussed in depth in Chapter 9). On his journey with these investigators he had his own share of strange experiences while interacting with those obsessed with lake monsters, Bigfoot, Mothman, demons, nosy aliens, dog-men, and an array of spirits. Krulos captured the personal ups and downs of this work/hobby. Seeking answers about the unexplained, he found, will cause family friction, cost you money and friends, and strain patience in attempts to keep an investigation team together and on track. The disagreements and drama are a side of amateur investigation efforts you won’t see unless you are directly involved. Some of the groups Krulos profiled were also in my study and I knew of (or had previously spoken to) several of those included in his book.
Sherrie Lyons’ Species, Serpents, Spirits, and Skulls (2009) details the transition between amateur and professional science that occurred in Victorian England using examples such as sea serpents, phrenology (study of the mental abilities of a person by examining his or her skull), and spiritualism. Her observations show that knowledge-making shifted from well-respected amateur naturalists to the more rigorous, difficult, and political process of the burgeoning scientific establishment. This was the time of erecting boundaries between professional science and everyone else.
This study is a cross-section of ARIGs in the first ten years of the 21st century. The ARIG website was the group’s representation to the public. There may have been one person acting as president or leader or web content designer but the website was assumed to represent the team philosophy, procedures, and attitudes. Without the
ability to question hundreds of groups individually, I assumed their stated information was what they embodied as part of their interaction with the public. Therefore, this view of ARIGs was very much a snapshot in time within a three-month span of 2010. Yet, in my observations, the conclusions still apply. I took quotes directly from webpages but the sites may no longer exist in the same form. I also provide the caveat that I can’t say with any certainty that whomever wrote these statements still subscribes to them. However, I leave current comparison up the reader, and feel certain that sentiments like these still are ubiquitous on ARIGs websites across the world.
Categories
In a broad sense, paranormal encompasses extraordinary phenomena perceived to defy current scientific understanding. Within this sphere are subjects of interest to ARIGs such as ghosts, cryptozoology, and UFOs, which have a “spooky” nature, a suggestion of re-enchantment of the world, that makes them popular sources of entertainment.
In this study, ARIGs logically fell into one of four subject categories—ghosts, cryptozoology, UFOs and the encompassing general paranormal—based on their stated focus. The most popular investigation subject category by far was “ghosts,” comprising 879 groups out of 1,000 (87.9%). Additionally, some groups identify themselves as open to investigating “ghosts,” “UFO’s,” or “cryptozoology” and were considered general paranormal. Eighty-one groups (8.1%) stated they were open to looking at cases of all sort of mysterious phenomena without limiting subject areas. However, this value is artificially low since many ARIGs advertising as ghost investigators are open to all paranormal claims and will likely be more flexible if approached with any type of claim. Thirty-five ARIGs (3.5%) identified as exclusively focused on “cryptozoology,” the search for mysterious animals, mostly Bigfoot/Sasquatch. But due to the increasing exposure of the field of cryptozoology on television, in monster movies, popular books, via news reports of cryptid sightings, and on the Internet, interest in cryptozoology is expanding. Only two groups were focused solely on UFO phenomena—unidentified flying/aerial objects or anomalous aerial phenomena. However, one of those groups was MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, a nationwide organization of volunteers that may include several thousand investigators across the country. MUFON is the largest UFO organization in the U.S. with a director in every state (except for the six New England states that are grouped together) and often an assistant director along with a network of investigators. Classification of MUFON as one large group is problematic because it was unique in the data set. Not only was this one ARIG enormous in size compared to others in terms of participating individuals, but the individual state branches had different directors and ways of managing situations in their own state. Attitudes and priorities were likely to be different from chapter to chapter. In total, MUFON had 32 individual chapter websites. Eyewitness reports from anywhere in the nation are sent to local MUFON members for investigation. Because of the overarching organization structure, centralized means of training, and collecting eyewitness reports into a central database, MUFON was counted as one ARIG. Not long after my study, MUFON membership was noted to be in decline and some branches were displeased at the main management of the organization.4 Some even broke away to be completely independent.5 But in 2010, MUFON was a large network of UFO investigators, connected and sharing processes and procedures.
Scientifical Americans Page 3
