The Infrasound Issue

Many researchers aren’t considering infrasound in their current paranormal research.

They should.

In my own studies, I’ve seen a high correlation between infrasound and certain types of paranormal reports.

It may be more than an explanation for some ghostly anomalies.

It may also be something we can use in our research.

Yes, as of 2017, I’m aware of equipment that generates infrasound. Some researchers (and at least one TV show) use it in their investigations.

The problem is the effect of infrasound on the investigators. I’m not convinced they can discern how they may feel anxiety or even hallucinate when exposed to infrasound.

Sure, it’s great TV, but it’s not serious research.

If you’re using infrasound and have more insights, I hope you’ll share them in comments, below.

If you’re new to infrasound and want to know more, here a starting point: check this PDF.

(And thank heavens for the Wayback Machine, so we have access to these kinds of “vanished” reports.)

EIFs and Paranormal Research

ElectricityEIFs are Experience Inducing Fields. Hardly anyone talks about them. They’re difficult to measure. Their effects are tricky to estimate.

So, many paranormal researchers pretend they don’t exist.

However, it’s vital to consider them as we evaluate paranormal sites.

EIFs include sites with high levels of EMF. We can measure those. We know they can create emotional, mental and physical distress.

Infrasound is an issue. It may be a big issue. I’ve talked often about the relationship between hauntings — particularly poltergeist activity — and underground streams, and water in general.

At present (2010), geomagnetic fields (GMFs) are practically ignored during most paranormal discussions.

That’s a problem. But, I’m about to take this in another “what if…?” direction.

What if those fields don’t just affect some researchers.

What if those fields also act as beacons for… well, whatever’s reported at the location?

At the moment, that’s a question that no one can answer.

We need to talk about these things.

Yes, I know: When I go out on a limb like this, skeptical critics chuckle. Others may use EIFs to dismiss all paranormal reports.

We can’t let critics — and potential ridicule — stand in the way of important research. Every theory should be considered and explored.

I believe that EIFs may explain many — but not all — paranormal experiences.

Let’s identifying things that merely seem paranormal. Then, we can narrow our investigations to sites with genuinely baffling anomalies.


I’m interested in your thoughts on this. I hope you’ll leave feedback below.