Paranormal Evidence: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Being a paranormal investigator isn’t all glitz and glamour. Sure, we get to come in, communicate with spirits, and help find answers — but the unspoken part of the job, and the part that takes up the majority of our time, is evidence review.

When it comes to evidence, we capture a wide range of things. Over time, I’ve come to categorize evidence into three groups: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Paranormal Evidence: The Good

Equipment commonly used during paranormal evidence review.

When we review evidence — whether it’s video, audio, photographs, or thermal imaging — the “holy grail,” or The Good, is evidence that provides a direct response to a question, is clearly connected to the history of a location, or is so definitive that it validates what a client has been experiencing.

As an example, in 2018 our team helped a family in Somers, Connecticut connect with their daughter, who had passed away from cancer at the age of seven. While investigating the property, we conducted a Spirit Box session with the parents inside a barn. During the session, the mother told her daughter that she loved her. In response, we received a clear reply in the child’s voice: “I love you too, Mommy.”

That moment was definitive. It brought closure to the parents.

Other examples of top-tier evidence include capturing a full-bodied apparition on camera, a clearly defined figure in a photograph, or a full-sentence response to a direct question on a voice recorder. This is the highest level of evidence you can present to a client.

Paranormal Evidence: The Bad

The next tier of evidence isn’t necessarily bad, but it is often unusable when presenting findings to a client. This category includes subjective experiences and evidence that can’t be verified.

Nearly every time we investigate a location, some or all investigators experience cold spots, the feeling of being watched, or hear disembodied voices. While these experiences are meaningful on a personal level, they are not evidence. Evidence must be objective and concrete.

Sometimes we capture something interesting, but it lacks context or timing. For example, when using a Spirit Box, words or phrases may come through when no question has been asked. While intriguing, if a response does not directly follow a question, it cannot be considered legitimate evidence.

In another investigation in Ridgefield, Connecticut, we captured a strange light anomaly moving in an unusual pattern near an investigator on video. Because the team could not agree on what it was — whether an anomaly or a loose thread — we ultimately discarded the evidence.

Paranormal Evidence: The Ugly

Finally, there’s The Ugly — evidence that has no business being considered legitimate.

One of the most common examples is being sent videos or photographs claiming to show “hundreds of orbs.” In 99.9% of cases, these turn out to be dust particles moving through the air. Even when people insist their home is spotless, it is nearly impossible to eliminate all airborne particles.

Another frequent issue involves audio recordings. Sometimes investigators believe they’ve captured a disembodied voice, only to discover — after peer review — that it was actually another team member whispering or speaking quietly. Without proper verification, what feels like premium evidence can quickly fall apart.

Conclusion

Evidence is a fickle beast. Without training and a critical eye, it can be difficult to distinguish real evidence from false positives. Evidence must be definitive, reviewed by peers, and debunked whenever possible.

Once you present evidence to a client — or release it publicly — it’s your reputation on the line.

As Clint Eastwood famously said in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:“You see, in this world, there's two kinds of people, my friend — those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.”

When it comes to paranormal evidence, always keep digging for the truth.